RE: [dvd-discuss] Diebold uses DMCA to suppress embarrassing memos

["Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

I know that snail-mail correspondance is different than
a spoken conversation, and I would imagine that an e-mail
correspondance is more comparable to a snail-mail exchange
than a conversation (now, IM on the other hand might be
more "conversation-like").

I believe there are restrictions on publishing private
correspondance.  There are certainly restrictions on
_recording_ private conversations without the other
person's knowledge.  What exactly those restrictions
might be I will leave for the legal-ish members of
this list to fill in.


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ballowe, Charles [mailto:CBallowe@usg.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 3:23 PM
> To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Diebold uses DMCA to suppress embarrassing
> memos
> 
> 
> They're using the takedown provisions, not the anti-circumvention
> provisions.
> 
> The information in question is an archive of internal mailing 
> lists going
> back to 1999. These mailing lists have some pretty damning 
> information about
> the actions of Diebold in certain districts and the 
> reliability of their
> voting machines.
> 
> Here's one to think about -- If I have a conversation with 
> somebody, are
> their
> utterances copyright to them? Can I repeat everything they 
> say to someone
> else?
> If I do so, am I in violation of anything (assuming no 
> agreement exists
> limiting that)? If that conversation is in the form of e-mail 
> rather than
> face
> to face, does that character change? What if I overhear 
> people talking on a
> bus - can I repeat what they say? What if they're having a 
> conversation on a
> public website (or website only secured by obscurity)?
> 
> If an e-mail conversation is legally different than a spoken 
> conversation,
> why?
> 
> -Charlie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 4:09 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Diebold uses DMCA to suppress 
> embarrassing memos
> 
> 
> 
> You are not breaking a circumvention device for security 
> research you are
> infringing upon copyright to do security research! 
> 
> Actually think about this one.... 
> 
> Diebold makes machines to "serve" the democratic process. 
> People want to make certain it does. 
> Diebold claims copyright infringement to prevent access. 
> Copyright serves to promote progress in the science and the arts by
> preventing scruitiny of how the democratic process is working. 
> 
> The Digital Millenimu CrappyRight Act in Action.... 
> 
> NOw does anyone want to consider the effects of the 
> SonnyBoneHead Act? 
> 
> Diebold copyrights are valid for 95yrs! The democratic 
> process can't be
> assessed until nearly to the next century (Exercise for the alert
> reader...what of the Mary Bono-Jack Valenti Memorial 
> Copyrigth extension act
> of 2010?) 
> 
> 
> "Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com> 
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 
> 10/31/2003 08:51 AM 
> Please respond to dvd-discuss 
>         
>         To:        <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu> 
>         cc:         
>         Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Diebold uses DMCA 
> to suppress
> embarrassing memos
> 
> 
> 
> Security by obscurity again rears it's ugly head.
> 
> Isn't there already a DMCA exemption for security research?
> 
> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Arnold G. Reinhold [mailto:reinhold@world.std.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 4:12 PM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Diebold uses DMCA to suppress 
> > embarrassing memos
> > 
> > 
> > Here is a link to a Wired article on Diebold Election Systems's 
> > attempt to use the DMCA to suppress a large file of Diebold memos 
> > that call in to question the security of Diebold's voting machines 
> > and suggest possibly illegal conduct:
> > 
> > http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,61002,00.html
> > 
> > A group of students at Swarthmore College are mounting what 
> they call 
> > an electronic civil disobedience campaign to get large numbers of 
> > sites to mirror the files. The campaign is headquartered at the 
> > why-war.com web site: 
> http://why-war.com/features/2003/10/diebold.html
> > 
> > While the President of Swarthmore says he is proud of the students, 
> > he is complying fully with Diebold's demands. "... students were 
> > angered by the school's decision to take down sites that linked to 
> > sites posting the memos, in addition to actual sites that 
> posted the 
> > memos. "
> > 
> > Another site that refused to remove links:
> > 
> > http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/09/1649419_comment.php
> > 
> > is being defended by the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
> > 
> > http://www.eff.org/Legal/ISP_liability/20031016_eff_pr.php
> > 
> > 
> > Arnold Reinhold
> > 
>