Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 09 Issue 90
Computer underground Digest Sun Dec 14, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 90
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #9.90 (Sun, Dec 14, 1997)
File 1--Online Copyright Cases Can Simply Be Difficult.
File 2--The Digital Citizen: More Nonsense from *Wired*
File 3--XS4ALL files complaint with Chief Public Prosecu
File 4--"Hackers" hit Yahoo.com - leave "ransom" note
File 5--Mitnick Supporters Deny Yahoo Hack
File 6--Child Protection and Parental Empowerment / Interactive Media
File 7--Technological Breakthrough (humor)
File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Dec, 1997)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 14:29:27 -0500
From: "David J. Loundy" <David@LOUNDY.COM>
Subject: File 1--Online Copyright Cases Can Simply Be Difficult.
Published in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, December 11, 1997 at page 6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online Copyright Cases Can Simply Be Difficult.
Copyright 1997 by David Loundy
Archived at http://www.Loundy.com/CDLB/
To subscribe, send the message
"subscribe" to Loundy-request@netural.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When discussing copyright issues on-line, there are a lot of esoteric
questions that can be asked about unusual situations. Some of these
situations are merely fodder for law school exams, and some revolve around
threatened or actual litigation. A recent federal case, however, has a
refreshingly simple set of facts-- unfortunately it shows that some
difficult questions about the finer interpretation of copyright law are not
easy to avoid in a digital setting.
The relevant facts of Marobie-FL v. National Association of Fire Equipment
Distributors, No. 96 C 2966 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 1997) are as follows:
The National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors, or NAFED, has a
web page. The operator of the web page received an offer for some
"clip-art." He sent off a few blank disks, and received them back full of
computer images of firefighter-related art. He placed the images on NAFED's
web page for anyone to download as a courtesy provided by NAFED, and
advertised their presence.
The images, however, were copyrighted property of plaintiff Marobie-FL,
doing Business as Galactic Software. When sales of the clip art plummeted,
and Marobie learned it was because the images were available for free on
NAFED's web page, Marobie, sued NAFED, and, for good measure, Northwest
Nexus, NAFED's Internet service provider which hosted NAFED's web page.
Was there a copyright infringement? Sure. Finding infringement in such a
case is something of a no-brainer. The plaintiff had a valid copyright, and
unlicensed copies were made.
Unfortunately, Judge Robert W. Gettleman went further than necessary in
finding a copyright infringement of the plaintiff's work. The judge held
that NAFED's acts constituted a reproduction of the plaintiff's work in
violation of its exclusive right to make reproductions, as provided in 17
U.S.C. Section 106(1). The court cited the Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v.
Frena case (839 F.Supp. 1552 (M.D. Fla. 1993) as precedent. Unfortunately,
the Judge continued with an argument that was made in the Playboy case and
found a violation of the exclusive right to distribute copyrighted works, a
right protected by 17 U.S.C. Section 106(3).
In neither case, however, was the distribution right violated.
Section 106(3) of the Copyright Act protects the right "to distribute
copies . . . of the copyrighted work to the public by sale, or other
transfer of ownership, or by rental lease or lending." Section 101 of the
Copyright Act defines a copy as "material objects . . . in which a work is
fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work
can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or
with the aid of a machine or device."
Where are the copies in this case?
The original floppy disks are copies. The webmaster's hard drive
constitutes a copy. Northwest's computers' hard disks are also copies. Were
any of these copies distributed by NAFED? No. All of these copies remain
with their initial owners. NAFED did not give its hard disks to web surfers
who called up its web page and downloaded the copyrighted clip art. Rather,
NAFED reproduced a portion of the contents of the hard disk for the web
surfers. There is clearly a reproduction at issue, but there is no
distribution.
The first defense NAFED offered is that it was an innocent infringer, and
thus, any damages should be sharply reduced. NAFED argued that the images
did not have a copyright notice, nor did the disk containing the images.
The Copyright Act, however, does not require a notice. Furthermore, the
court pointed out that the legal copies of Marobie's disks did have a
copyright notice-- the disks NAFED claims are lacking copyright notices are
those of NAFED's webmaster, who sent the disks to an unknown source in
order to acquire the infringing clip art.
Of course, no copyright case would be complete without a claim that the
infringer's use is a fair one, and thus protected by 17 U.S.C. Section 107.
And, of course, the argument is often a losing one.
Gettleman found that even though NAFED is a non-profit company, and did not
sell the clip art, the use could still be considered a commercial one. The
judge held that NAFED would benefit from making Marobie's work available on
its web page by promoting NAFED's association and raising advertising
revenue, all without paying the customary price for the use of the works.
Furthermore, the works were not used for traditional fair uses such as
criticism, teaching, news reporting and the like. The type of material
copied-- creative pictures-- also constituted a strike against the
defendant's fair use claim, as did the fact that three of the plaintiff's
five disks were copied in their entirety, and each of the three copied
disks was subject to a separate copyright. The final fair use factor,
potential damage to the market for the copyrighted work, was presumed from
NAFED's use of the work.
The analysis of the Internet service provider's liability is where this
case demonstrates some of the complexities of on-line copyright law. There
have been a number of cases, such as MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer,
Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993) that have held that loading software
into a computer's Read-Only Memory (RAM) constitutes the creation of a
copy. Based on the aforementioned definition of a copy, this seems like an
appropriate finding. Northwest, however, argued that based on how the
technology works in the case of its web server, although the copyrighted
work passed through its computer's RAM, there was no "fixation" of the work
in that RAM. In the words of the statute, the argument is that the work is
not "sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived,
reproduced, or otherwise communicated for more than a transitory duration."
It is the transitory duration portion of the definition that was
Northwest's hook.
Northwest asserted that its system made the reproductions so quickly that a
complete copy was never even present in its system's RAM. Northwest also
argued that its situation was not analogous to that of MAI, or, more
specifically to that in Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line
Communications Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995 (available
on the Internet at http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/RTC_v_Netcom.html), because,
in both MAI and Netcom, the work was present in the computers' RAM for a
much longer period of time.
The judge rejected this argument, focusing on the "perception" aspect,
rather than the "transitory duration" aspect. The court seized on the
language from the definition of "copies" and argues that the "copies"
generated by Northwest could still be perceived "with the aid of a machine
or device" and thus, Northwest was making reproductions of the protected
works. The court missed that Northwest appeared to be challenging whether
there is a "fixation"-- which requires that a copy exist for "more than a
transitory duration." To find against Northwest on this issue, as the issue
was framed by Northwest, would be to find that other similar means of
digital transmission-- such as the transmission of telephone calls via
fiber-optics or satellites, or digital broadcasting of radio, television,
or some portable phones-- all constitute the creation of potentially
infringing copies by the service provider. The court did acknowledge that
it may be the web surfer who was "fixing" the copies, but nonetheless the
court rejected Northwest's argument that its computers were not copying the
plaintiff's works.
Gettleman did, however, accept Northwest's argument that, based on the
Netcom case, Northwest should not be held liable for any such copies that
were made. The Netcom court refused to hold a service provider strictly
liable for its machine's passive operation. Here also, the court found that
there was no active involvement on the part of the service provider-- all
Northwest did was provide "the means to copy, distribute or display
plaintiff's works, much like the owner of a public copying machine used by
a third party to copy protected material."
While this may be the just result based on the lack of participation or
knowledge of the service provider, it is not a necessary result under the
Copyright Act. This fact was illustrated in the recent Playboy Enterprises,
Inc. v. Webbworld case (No. 3-96-CV-3222-DES, (N.D. Tex., June 27, 1997).
In the Webbworld case, the judge made a distinction (based on a perhaps
inaccurate interpretation of the facts) between the Netcom case and the
facts in front of it, and held that a service provider could be held liable
for 'automated' copyright infringements. The Webbworld case was not
addressed in Gettleman's opinion.
Cases such as this show that where there is a clear infringement of a
copyright on-line, remedies are available against the truly responsible
party. Although there may be arguments put forth to justify or excuse
infringements, the law is really more clear than many people make it out to
be. However, the law as it applies to service providers is often not nearly
so clear. In some cases, such as Webbworld, the service provider is a bad
actor, and copyright holders should clearly have a remedy. In cases such as
Marobie, the service provider really should have some insulation from
liability. However, cases such as this illustrate that these are complex
issues, the subtleties and implications of which are often missed in court
decisions.
______________________________________________________________________
David J. Loundy | E-Mail: David@Loundy.com
| WWW: http://www.Loundy.com/
Davis, Mannix & McGrath | Listserv (for my Technology
125 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 1700 | Law column): Send a message
Chicago, IL 60606-4402 | reading "subscribe" to
Phone: (312) 332-0954 | Loundy-request@netural.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 14:32:06 -0500
From: Stephen Talbott <stevet@MERLIN.ALBANY.NET>
Subject: File 2--The Digital Citizen: More Nonsense from *Wired*
NETFUTURE
Technology and Human Responsibility
--------------------------------------------------------
Issue #61 Copyright 1997 Bridge Communications December 1 1997
-----------------------------------------------------------
Editor: Stephen L. Talbott (stevet@oreilly.com)
On the Web: http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/stevet/netfuture/
You may redistribute this newsletter for noncommercial purposes.
The Digital Citizen: More Nonsense from *Wired*
-----------------------------------
Always specializing in missing the point, *Wired* magazine succeeds more
spectacularly than usual in its December issue. The cover article by Jon
Katz (a *Wired* contributing editor) celebrates the "first in-depth poll"
of the digitally Connected, and reports that they are "optimistic,
tolerant, civic-minded, and radically committed to change."
Almost all conventional wisdom about digital culture -- especially as
conveyed in recent years by journalists, politicians, intellectuals,
and other fearful guardians of the existing order -- is dead wrong.
The Internet, it turns out, is not a breeding ground for disconnection,
fragmentation, paranoia, and apathy .... The online world encompasses
many of the most informed and participatory citizens we have ever had
or are likely to have.
The poll, sponsored by *Wired* and Merrill Lynch Forum, assures us that
the Connected are more likely than the Unconnected to know who the chief
justice of the United States is; to believe in change, racial diversity,
and a better future; to have confidence in the two-party political system;
and to read books.
All of which, we're told, puts the lie to the "countless tales of
perversion, porn, hatemongering, violence, addiction, and other perils"
that mainstream journalism is forever disseminating.
The common stereotype of the Internet as a haven for isolated geeks who
are unaware of important events occurring outside their cavelike
bedrooms can now be exploded as an inaccurate myth. The same goes for
the caricature of technology as a civic virus that breeds disaffection
from politics.
(Despite repeated allusions to them, Katz never tells us exactly which
publications constitute this Net-bashing mainstream. He seems to have in
mind those often silly articles that some publications occasionally run,
dramatizing the "dark side of the Net." The tabloid-urge, unfortunately,
*is* a part of mainstream journalism. But this fact is wholly compatible
with the dominant reality Katz ignores. Where is the mainstream
publication whose education pages are trying to brake the lemming-rush to
wire our schools, or whose business pages do not urge the centrality of
everything high-tech for our economic future, or whose feature pages do
not lionize the latest, hot, high-tech start-ups along with their CEOs, or
whose editorial pages fail to treat the "information superhighway" as a
sacred cow that should be encouraged to wander unimpeded into every corner
of our culture, or whose Christmas buyers' guides are not doing everything
possible to stimulate consumer interest in the coolest high-tech gadgets?)
Katz' primary mission is to let us know beyond any doubt that
clearly, there is now evidence that technology promotes democracy,
citizenship, knowledge, literacy, and community.
I have three comments:
First, until very recently the critiques of digital culture were
necessarily directed at the culture's earlier, "purer" manifestations --
what we might call the John Perry Barlow phase of the Net, when a heady
mixture of libertarianism, warmed-over counterculture, and technological
optimism ruled the day. It was a time when the networked computer could
be embraced wholesale as the redemptive substitute for rotten social
institutions. This electronic culture was rooted in the research
departments, computer engineering organizations, underground publications,
university computer science programs, and bulletin board networks that
incubated the modern Net and brought it to birth.
It's hardly surprising that the various utopian disaffections, cultural
distortions, and imbalances of that earlier phase have been diluted by the
more recent arrival of the masses.
Second, the poll results reflect the education, political power, economic
strength, and faith in the existing order characteristic of a relatively
privileged class -- namely, those who are *able* to get connected and are
equipped to capitalize on their connections. And, again, it is hardly
surprising to find that the more educated, better-off folks are also
better-read, more politically engaged, and so on.
I have little doubt that a poll taken during the first decade or two of
the television era would likewise have shown a relatively well off,
better-educated, better-read, and politically engaged audience. There
were, at the same time, widespread, positive expectations about the future
of television-influenced education, culture, and politics. So what?
Third, Katz' answer to the "so what?" is missing. He doesn't supply a
single sentence to support his contention that "technology promotes
democracy, citizenship, knowledge, literacy, and community." A poll
purporting to show what sort of user has connected during the build-up of
the Net tells us nothing at all about the effects the Net will "promote"
in these users. For that you would need to track these users over time.
Meanwhile, he might have remembered television. Regardless of the well-
intentioned involvements and expectations of those who took up television,
it would not be easy today to argue that television strengthened community
or encouraged democratic participation or redeemed education. But, in any
case, my point is that the argument needs to be *made*, not just assumed.
Until Katz offers at least a shred of evidence that the Net will indeed
prove salutary, his claim remains suspended in mid-air, lacking all
support.
It is hard to believe that the editors of a major publication would offer
such a massive non sequitur as a dramatic cover feature. The giddy sense
of exultation and triumph with which Katz and *Wired* herald this poll of
1444 Americans is, for me, the most telling aspect of the article.
Whatever may be the case with Net users as a whole, *these* folks
apparently remain in the Barlow, wish-fulfillment phase of cyberspatial
development.
It's an especially unhealthy phase. Katz welcomes a poll result showing
extraordinary confidence among the Connected in their ability to master
and direct the forces of technological change. We who are connected
certainly do have good reason to believe we can ride these forces for
personal advantage -- I am certainly making the attempt -- and that may be
enough to sustain considerable enthusiasm for a time. But for any of us,
at this point in history, to fancy ourselves masters of the self-driven,
global, technological juggernaut is the sheerest fantasy.
The sober effort to *achieve* such mastery is, of course, exactly what's
needed. Unfortunately, there still aren't many signs of sobriety at
*Wired*.
==============
Current and past issues of NETFUTURE are available on the Web:
http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/stevet/netfuture/
To subscribe to NETFUTURE, send an email message like this:
To: listserv@infoserv.nlc-bnc.ca
subscribe netfuture yourfirstname yourlastname
No Subject line is needed.
------------------------------
From: "Maurice Wessling" <maurice@XS4ALL.NL>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:47:12 +0000
Subject: File 3--XS4ALL files complaint with Chief Public Prosecu
Press release
15 december 1997
XS4ALL files complaint with Chief Public Prosecutor
XS4ALL Internet Friday filed a complaint with Chief Public
Prosecutor Vrakking in Amsterdam against the Examining
Magistrate and Public Prosecutor who ordered XS4ALL on
October 31st to tap the Internet traffic of one of its
users.
The Ministry of Justice had based its instruction on Article
125i of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On November 13th
XS4ALL refused to comply, as in its view this lacked all
legal basis. Failure to comply with legal instructions is a
penal offence.
Given all the reactions that XS4ALL has meanwhile received,
it is reinforced in its view that the Ministry has exceeded
its remit. On the basis of Article 125i of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, tapping is not something that can be or
should be requested. XS4ALL believes that the attempt by the
Ministry to compel it to cooperate in applying illegal
methods of investigation should not be allowed to pass off
without sanction. XS4ALL is urging that an early trial case
be brought so that a penal court can pronounce on the
finding and the action of the civil servants involved.
XS4ALL has therefore filed a complaint on the basis of
Articles 365 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article
140 of the Penal Code. Article 365 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure implies 'coercion' by a civil servant, whereby a
civil servant abuses his authority and compels someone to do
something. In this case, the civil servants involved knew
that the instruction was not founded in law and abused their
authority by still demanding that their instruction be
followed. Furthermore, publications also reveal that the
same instruction has been given to various other Internet
Providers and that there were lengthy discussions with them.
There are therefore adequate grounds for suspecting the
civil servants involved of participation in an organisation
engaged in committing crimes; Article 140 of the Penal Code
applies.
XS4ALL feels obliged in principle to protect its users'
privacy. Furthermore, XS4ALL has a commercial interest, as
it must not run the risk of users bringing proceedings under
civil law on account of unlawful acts. This could happen
with such an intervention by the provider not based on law.
Finally, from the social point of view it is important that
means of detection have an adequate legal basis. Complying
with the injunction could serve as an undesired precedent
which could have a major impact on the privacy of all
Internet providers in the Netherlands.
XS4ALL does not have any view of the nature of the police
investigation or the suspected crimes. Nor will XS4ALL make
any statement regarding the content of the investigation,
the region where it is occurring or the identity of the
civil servants involved, as it is not its intention that the
investigation should founder.
For further details of this case (incl. previous press
releases and articles):
http://www.xs4all.nl/
or contact
XS4ALL
Maurice Wessling
Telephone: +31 20 3987681 / 3987654
email: maurice@xs4all.nl
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 23:35:10 -0600
From: jthomas@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas)
Subject: File 4--"Hackers" hit Yahoo.com - leave "ransom" note
In an article titled HACKERS IN YAHOO! LEAVE RANSOM NOTE the
December 10, '97, Chicago Tribune reported that "hackers" broke
into Yahoo.com, the popular launching place for linking to
topical sites, and "demanded the release of an imprisoned comrade
and threatened to unleash a crippling computer virus if he is not
freed." According to the article:
Computer-security experts were skeptical of the hackers'
claim that they had implanted such a virus.
The hackers, calling themselves PANTS/HAGIS, got into
Yahoo!'s World Wide Web site Monday night, leaving a digital
ransom note.
"For the past month, anyone who has viewed Yahoo's page &
used their search engine, now has a logic bomb/worm
implanted deep within their computer," it read. "On
Christmas Day 1998, the logic bomb part of this `virus' will
become active, wreaking havoc upon the entire planet's
networks."
The article reported that an antidote will be made available "if
hacker Kevin Mitnick is released. Mitnick was indicted last year
on charges involving a multimillion-dollar crime wave in
cyberspace."
The article indicates that the message was up for only 10 to 15
minutes. A Yahoo.com spokesperson indicated that there was no
virus.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 12:01:17 -0500
From: "Evian S. Sim" <evian@escape.com>
Subject: File 5--Mitnick Supporters Deny Yahoo Hack
COMPUTERGRAM INTERNATIONAL
New York, Published: December 15 1997
Issue Number 3311
MITNICK SUPPORTERS DENY YAHOO HACK
The group running The Official Kevin Mitnick web site
(http://www.kevinmitnick.com) has denied it is linked to, or knows who is
behind, the curiously named PANTS/HAGIS Alliance which was allegedly
responsible for the hacking stunt pulled on Yahoo on Tuesday (CI No 3,303).
A spokesperson for the site told Computergram International that although
it appreciates the hackers' interest and enthusiasm in helping Kevin
Mitnick, it would like to distance itself from their activities. The site
creators released this statement: "The charges against Kevin have been
grossly exaggerated and the fact that he's been held three years without
bail makes you wonder what kind of government we have. However, vandalizing
web pages, sending out computer viruses (or threatening to do so) and
writing ransom notes are not methods we condone, suggest or encourage."
However, as a result of the Yahoo stunt and subsequent reporting of it, the
Mitnick site, which explains the charges against Kevin Mitnick and the
conditions in which he is kept, has received more than 37,000 visits.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 12:50:43 -0600
From: jthomas3@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas)
Subject: File 6--Child Protection and Parental Empowerment / Interactive Media
((MODERATORS' NOTE: From the Center for Democracy and
Technology homepage comes this letter signed by CDT and
many other organizations that somehow slipped through the
publication cue's cracks last month)).
----
Child Protection and Parental Empowerment in Interactive Media
The Honorable Larry Pressler
Chairman
Senate Commerce Committee
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
Chairman
House Committee on Commerce
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC, 20515
The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings
Ranking Democrat
Senate Committee on Commerce
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable John D. Dingell
Ranking Democrat
House Committee on Commerce
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC, 20515
The Honorable Henry Hyde
Chairman
House Judiciary Committee
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC, 20515
November 9, 1995
Dear Senator Pressler, Senator Hollings, Representative Bliley, and
Representative Dignell:
For the past year, Congress has struggled with the question of how
best to protect children from inappropriate material online. As the
telecommunications conferees work to reconcile competing approaches to
this issue we urge a consensus policy that empowers families, places
liability on creators of illegal content instead of passive service
providers, and avoids constitutionally suspect new laws that will only
delay enforcement. We write as a broad coalition of representatives
from the online service, computer hardware and software, and
telecommunications and electronic industries, the advertising
industry, newspaper and library associations, and public interest
organizations, who believe that the interests of children, free
expression, and the continued viability of the Internet and
interactive media can best be served by combining a deregulatory
approach to encourage the development of parental empowerment
technology along with vigorous enforcement of criminal laws that are
crafted according to settled constitutional principles.
A comprehensive and effective policy approach to this issue should be
based on the following principles:
* Parental Empowerment: Maximum reliance on, and encouragement of,
private sector innovation to produce technologies that enable
parents, not government regulators, to choose what is best for
their own children.
* No vicarious liability: Due to the tremendous flow of information
through both public and private networks, holding service
providers, systems, access software providers, or any other third
parties liable for the content of illegal messages created by
persons not under their authority or control will be ineffective
at protecting children as well as a threat to the privacy of
users. Groups such as the United States Chamber of Commerce have
expressedconcern on this issue, as well.
* Enforceable, narrowly tailored, and constitutionally sound
criminal laws: Any new criminal laws should be focused on bad
actors and based on constitutionally sound standards. Existing
proposals, which rely on the vague and untested indecency
standard, do not fall into such a category.
* Uniform national policy: Given the national, and even global,
nature of online services, uniform national rules governing
liability are essential. Permitting state regulation of content in
interactive media would force service providers and systems to
conform to inconsistent and contradictory regulations and
undermine the national interest.
Recognizing the power of interactive technology to help solve the
problem of protecting children, the House passed the Cox-Wyden-White
bill on a 420-4 vote in order to encourage the market to provide
parents screening and filtering options to protect minors. Even since
the Congress began considering this issue this year, great advances
have been made in parental empowerment technologies. Thus, the
Interactive Working Group, with the support of its members, would
welcome the opportunity to demonstrate these technologies as well as
to brief the conferees on additional cooperative efforts now underway
in the private sector. Relying on parents, not the government, to make
choices about the content that they and their families receive assures
maximum respect for First Amendment rights of adults to receive and
transmit constitutionally-protected material, and allows families, not
bureaucrats, to determine what information is most consistent with
their own moral values.
Recent FBI child pornography arrests demonstrate that vigorous law
enforcement efforts are already working to punish illegal behavior
online. We would welcome the opportunity to brief you on ongoing
efforts to assist law enforcement in cases where criminal activity has
occurred. To the extent new criminal laws are needed, they must be
drafted in a constitutionally sound manner, both to avoid enforcement
delays and to assure respect for the free speech and privacy rights of
Internet users. We believe it is possible to craft a criminal statute
that punishes those who provide truly harmful material to children in
a manner that both targets the serious offenses about which some
conservative family groups are most concerned, and that also will
withstand constitutional scrutiny. In particular, rather than relying
on the vague and constitutionally suspect "indecency" standard,
Congress should instead consider the "harmful to minors" standard
within the framework of Title 18 of the United Sates Code. This
standard is used in numerous state statutes and has been found
constitutional by the United States Supreme Court.
We look forward to working with all of you in an effort to identify a
solution to this problem that assures maximum protection for children,
while relying on the innovative energy of the high technology market
to meet evolving needs of parents online.
Sincerely,
America Online Inc.
American Advertising Federation
American Association of Advertising Agencies
American Association of Law Libraries
American Library Association
American Society of Newspaper Editors
Association of National Advertisers
AT&T<br> Bell Atlantic
Business Software Alliance
Center for Democracy and Technology
Coalition for Networked Information
Commercial Internet eXchange
Compuserve Inc.
Computer & Communications Industry Association
Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association
Cox Enterprises
Discovery Channel
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Messaging Association
Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers - United States
Activities
Information Technology Association of America
MCI
Microsoft Corporation
Microsystems Software
National Cable Television Association
National Newspaper Association
Netscape Communications Corp.
Newspaper Association of America
Pacific Telesis
Recreational Software Advisory Council
Software Industry Coalition
Software Publishers Association
SurfWatch Software
TCI
The Media Institute
Time Warner Inc.
cc: Members of the Conference Committee on telecommunications reform
legislation
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 23:30:11 -0600
From: Avi Bass <te0azb1@corn.cso.niu.edu>
Subject: File 7--Technological Breakthrough (humor)
((MODERATORS' NOTE: This report on a Technological Breakthrough
was passed along to CuD by Avi Bass of "NewsPlace"
<http://www.niu.edu/newsplace/>)).
Technological Report: Announcing the new Built-in Orderly Organized
Knowledge device called B.O.O.K.
The "BOOK" is a revolutionary breakthrough in technology: No wires, no
electric circuits, no batteries, nothing to be connected or switched on.
It's so easy to use even a child can operate it. Just lift its cover!
Compact and portable, it can be used anywhere-even sitting in an armchair
by the fire-yet it is powerful enough to hold as much information as a
CD-ROM disc.
Here's how it works...
Each BOOK is constructed of sequentially numbered sheets of paper
(recyclable), each capable of holding thousands of bits of information.
These pages are locked together with a custom-fit device called a binder
which keeps the sheets in their correct sequence. Opaque PaperTechnology
(OPT) allows manufacturers to use both sides of the sheet, doubling the
information density and cutting costs in half.
Experts are divided on the prospects for further increases in information
density; for now BOOKs with more information simply use more pages. This
makes them thicker and harder to carry, and has drawn some criticism from
the mobile computing crowd. Each sheet is scanned optically, registering
information directly into your brain. A flick of the finger takes you to
the next sheet. The BOOK may be taken up at any time and used by merely
opening it. The BOOK never crashes and never needs rebooting, though like
other display devices it can become unusable if dropped overboard. The
"browse" feature allows you to move instantly to any sheet, and move
forward or backward as you wish. Many come with an "index" feature, which
pinpoints the exact location of any selected information for instant
retrieval.
An optional "BOOKmark" accessory allows you to open the BOOK to the exact
place you left it in a previous session-even if the BOOK has been closed.
BOOKmarks fit universal design standards; thus, a single BOOKmark can be
used in BOOKs by various manufacturers. Conversely, numerous bookmarkers
can be used in a single BOOK if the user wants to store numerous views at
once. The number is limited only by the number of pages in the BOOK.
The media is ideal for long term archive use, several field trials have
proven that the media will still be readable in several centuries, and
because of its simple user interface it will be compatible with future
reading devices.
You can also make personal notes next to BOOK text entries with an
optional programming tool, the Portable Erasable Nib Cryptic
Intercommunication Language Stylus (Pencils). Portable, durable, and
affordable, the BOOK is being hailed as the entertainment wave of the
future. The BOOK's appeal seems so certain that thousands of content
creators have committed to the platform.
Look for a flood of new titles soon.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD
Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #9.90
************************************
