Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 353
Netizens-Digest Sunday, January 30 2000 Volume 01 : Number 353
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Governments trying to turn everyone into netcriminals not netizens
Re: [netz] Governments trying to turn everyone into netcriminals not netizens
Re: [netz] Governments trying to turn everyone into netcriminals not netizens
Re: [netz] Governments trying to turn everyone into netcriminals not netizens
Re: [netz] Governments trying to turn everyone into netcriminals not netizens
Re: [netz] Governments trying to turn everyone into netcriminals not netizens
Re: [netz] Governments trying to turn everyone into netcriminals not netizens
[netz] Netizens list server outage only this past Sat and Sun
Re: [netz] Governments trying to turn everyone into netcriminals not netizens
[netz] About the nature of netizens and the Net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:08:58 -0500 (EST)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Governments trying to turn everyone into netcriminals not netizens
Greg Skinner <gds@best.com> wrote:
>> Have those on the Netizens list seen the news about police
>> invading the home of the Norwegian teenager and arresting him?
>> Why don't the companies create their own private networks for
>> their exclusive proprietary products, rather than trying
>> to have the government/s take the Internet which was built with
>> so much public and contributory efforts for the companies.
>The kid broke the law. What he did would have been illegal even
>on a private commercial network.
What law?
The law in the US?
Nice trick the bullys go and get laws that we have no say in.
When I was at Congress last, I heard from a staffer that the
companies come with all sorts of laws that those in Congress
have no understanding of nor any understanding of what will
happen if the laws are enforced.
The Internet is a meta level system of resource sharing networks.
If some corporations don't want to be part of that, if they want
to declare that they are due all the rights and privileges
of having a turnkey operation, then let them create their own
networks.
Instead they are claiming that the Internet is for their private
enrichment, the rights of the users be damned.
We contribute to this network and have contributed in many ways
over a long period of time.
Unless those who come on respect the rights of users and behave
as citizens they will only create an open warfare.
Instead these companies having the teenager arrested are out
to make their big bucks using the shared resources system
known as the Internet. If they want their big bucks, let them
build their own networks.
They want the advantage of a shared resources networking system
but they refuse to recognize that the users have rights on
this system.
If this goes their way, then tomorrow they won't like that
on my web site I have my Congressional testimony opposing
the formation of ICANN. They'll get someone in Congress to
rule it illegal to oppose ICANN and then they invade my
house.
What do you have on your web site that they may not approve of
or feel is helpful for them to make their killings using the
shared resources of the Internet?
We all are suddenly made into criminals if these corporate
outlaws decide that they are unhappy with what we do online.
Suddenly these corporate entities are not opposed to government
regulation of the Internet. Suddenly they welcome government
involvement as long as it is to prtect their corporate bottom
line. And the effect on the Internet of their actions?
They have no concern or interest in that.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 14:52:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Governments trying to turn everyone into netcriminals not netizens
> What law [did the kid break]?
You're joking, right? You really don't think the kid is guilty of a
crime? If so, then there's little point in us discussing the issue
any further.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:30:54 -0500 (EST)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Governments trying to turn everyone into netcriminals not netizens
>> What law [did the kid break]?
Was it a law in the US? A law in Norway? Both?
Laws passed in the US need to take account of the Nature of the Internet
and all its users if they are going to expect to be respected. Otherwise
it becomes tyranny. The American revolution was made on the principle
of if you aren't being represented then you shouldn't have to obey
the law.
The laws that are being made about what is criminal regarding
the Internet are being done with no input allowed from the more
than a few and thus are only going to be regarded as a form of
tyranny.
Instead of a process where the online community is welcomed to
be involved in and contribute to the process of whatever laws
are being made, the corporate entities in the US go to Congress
and get laws passed, all the while hollering the press about
how they don't want any laws regarding the Internet.
Then people's houses are raided and they are hauled off to police
stations around the world because of some law that exists in
what country?
The Internet and what is happening with it is new.
It isn't that there are established ways that society has agreed
to with regard to its governance and the role government will play
in its development. For now there is the unbridled power of
certain corporate entities with government/s helping them to
have their way with no say for other sectors of society in what
laws are appropriate.
gregbo wrote:
>You're joking, right? You really don't think the kid is guilty of a
>crime? If so, then there's little point in us discussing the issue
>any further.
>
>From another mailing list:
>Slashdot ran this article yesterday:
>http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/01/24/118240&mode=thread
>
>Apparently the lawyers for the DVD CCA included the source code to deCSS as
>part of the official court documents. Hence, the source is now public
>record and anyone can go look at it for themselves. It seems to me that
>this blunder renders moot any injunction the DVD CCA wishes the court to
>make against the defendants, since the key to their trade secret is now part
>of the public domain.
>
>Here is a link to a copy of the legal docs:
>
>http://cryptome.org/dvd-hoy-reply.htm
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 09:47:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Governments trying to turn everyone into netcriminals not netizens
In article <200001260430.XAA12456@panix7.panix.com> Ronda wrote:
>Was it a law in the US? A law in Norway? Both?
As far as I know, there are no countries in which it is legal to break
into a computer and publish material you got from there that is not
for publication without permission. This is regardless of whether the
computer is or is not on the Internet; is or is not part of a
commercial network; is or is not publicly accessible.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:22:58 -0500 (EST)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Governments trying to turn everyone into netcriminals not netizens
Greg Skinner <gds@best.com> wrote:
In article <200001260430.XAA12456@panix7.panix.com> Ronda wrote:
>>Was it a law in the US? A law in Norway? Both?
>As far as I know, there are no countries in which it is legal to break
>into a computer and publish material you got from there that is not
>for publication without permission. This is regardless of whether the
>computer is or is not on the Internet; is or is not part of a
>commercial network; is or is not publicly accessible.
>--gregbo
It is far from a settled issue an the Norwegian police according
to this report acted in a way that was more extreme than
they have acted in comparable or nearly comparable situations.
Remember the laws on all this are *not* settled at this point.
And there are importatn issues at stake that need to be
considered before they are settled. And the police activity
in Norway was extreme according to what I have heard from
folks in Norway.
These are issues that need discussion and the broad kind of
consideration that can come from discussion involving those
with many viewpionts. It isn't that the viewpoint of some
industry entities can be allowed to dominate as they
only look from their narrow viewpoint not from the longer
range perspective of why the Internet is a dffierent entity
than they can understand from their narrow bottom line
perpsective. And the Internet needs the open code and
resource sharing community for it to grow and thrive. The
industry view in this case wants the advantages of the
sharing of networks and resources for their own advantage
and they want to kill the golden goose in the process.
Below is an excerpt from the legal opinion I saw posted that says this
is a power play of the companies, and far from a just enforcement
of a known and accepted law:
ronda
>Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 22:12:30 -0800
>From: Martin Minow <minow@pobox.com>
>Subject: A Legal Perspective on the Norwegian DeCSS Case
>To: farber@cis.upenn.edu
>
>EFF's web site <http://www.eff.org> has an interesting legal
>analysis of Jon Lech Johansen's problem, written by Prof. Jon Bing
><http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DeCSS_prosecutions/Johansen_DeCSS_case/20
>000125_bing_johansen_case_summary.html>
>
>To summarize, Johansen is charged with a "'classic' hacker" violation
>making it illegal to break a security mechanism to access data. This
>"is integrated into a clause containing the traditional prohibition
>of opening or breaking the seal of another's letter." In a previous
>prosecution, the Norwegian Supreme Court did not apply this law
>to a person accused of breaking pay tv encryption.
>
>"In the case of Mr. Johansen, the security of a compact disc owned
>by him was broken. It is not settled in Norwegian law whether the
>Criminal Code sect 145(2) applies in such a case. Certainly it falls
>outside the typical situation for which the provision was originally
>drafted. Also, as indicated, the Supreme Court has shown some caution
>in the interpretation of the provision. Under the general doctrine of
>Norwegian criminal law, criminal provisions are not interpreted to
>include analogous cases falling outside the natural meaning of the
>provision in question."
>
>Mr. Johansen is also being investigated as to whether his decoder
>program may facilitate illegal DVD copying. I.e., "it is not the
>breaking of the codes or the development (possibly copying) of the
>program in question on which the prosecutor at this stage is focusing,
>but contributory infringement of the copyright."
>
>"This issue has not been before Norwegian courts before, but could,
>perhaps, be related to linking to illegal MP3 files. Cases with
>respect to the latter has been tested before Swedish courts (with
>acquittal as result), and are also under investigation in Norway."
>
>Transcribed by Martin Minow
>minow@pobox.com
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 15:22:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Governments trying to turn everyone into netcriminals not netizens
In article <200001262222.RAA28911@panix7.panix.com> Ronda wrote:
>And the Internet needs the open code and resource sharing community
>for it to grow and thrive.
Plenty of people seem to be able share code and resources without
breaking laws.
>The industry view in this case wants the advantages of the
>sharing of networks and resources for their own advantage
>and they want to kill the golden goose in the process.
They are protecting copyright. As an author you should know this
better than anyone. If someone were to take copies of your book and
distribute them without your permission, what would you do? I note
that you seem to have some stipulations for the distribution of your
intellectual property, namely:
Commercial use of this book is not permitted. This version is only a
draft. We welcome comments and suggestions. A final draft will be
available on-line when it is finished.
So it seems to me that everyone is entitled to protection of their
intellectual property, if you are.
- --gregbo
gds at best.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 22:21:15 -0500 (EST)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Governments trying to turn everyone into netcriminals not netizens
Greg Skinner <gds@best.com> writes:
In article <200001262222.RAA28911@panix7.panix.com> Ronda wrote:
>>And the Internet needs the open code and resource sharing community
>>for it to grow and thrive.
>Plenty of people seem to be able share code and resources without
>breaking laws.
>>The industry view in this case wants the advantages of the
>>sharing of networks and resources for their own advantage
>>and they want to kill the golden goose in the process.
>They are protecting copyright. As an author you should know this
>better than anyone. If someone were to take copies of your book and
>distribute them without your permission, what would you do? I note
>that you seem to have some stipulations for the distribution of your
>intellectual property, namely:
We have it online and it is distributed with our permission and has
been since 1994.
What's your point here? We were happy to have it in a book edition
as well as it is in that way available in a book form as well as
online.
But our condition for it being published in a book form was that
we have the right to maintain an online edition for all those
who wanted access to it for "noncommercial use".
I didn't think the Norwegian teenager was selling any code.
And it seems that the issue of whether he should be treated
as a criminal is a serious and unsettled question.
His side of the situation is an important one to understand and
the linux community's view of this all is important.
And instead of the companies or government's in question trying
to explore why this has happened and how this situation is
different from their idea of what should happen, they have
acted to deny that the Norwegian teenager has any rights or
that there may be something to learn from what has happened
that is different than what they think.
>> Commercial use of this book is not permitted. This version is only a
>> draft. We welcome comments and suggestions. A final draft will be
>> available on-line when it is finished.
>So it seems to me that everyone is entitled to protection of their
>intellectual property, if you are.
>--gregbo
Turns out that publisher's actually get to own intellectual
property not authors.
That intellectual property laws in general benefit publishers,
not authors.
Our principle in putting the statement saying we did not permit
commercial use of the online book, was a protection for the
education use and for the noncommercial use. We wanted it to
be available and so tried to protect it to be available.
If you think that our statement that commercial use was not
permitted of Netizens was a problem, say why you think that
It isn't helpful for you to take a situation that isn't comparable
and then say since in this other situation something was done
then that proves that you can't complain in the topic under
discussion.
Yes I can complain and will, and if you argue your point
then I have a chance to explore your view.
As a separate issue if you want to argue why we shouldn't have
that statement on Netizens, fine - let me hear your argument.
But it seems you aren't making an argument about either, just
saying that because I do one, then I can't complain about the
other that is not comparable.
Our statement is there to encourage educational and noncommercial
copying and use of the online version of Netizens.
If the companies involved in this case with the Norwegian teenager
made a version available online for educational purposes they
would be doing what has been done in other situations with
respect to the Internet.
>gds at best.com
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:09:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Netizens list server outage only this past Sat and Sun
Hi,
>From midday Saturday Jan 22 to 5:30pm Sunday Jan 23, 2000 the netizens
mailing list server was not receiving incoming mail.
Since Sunday the server has been back to normal operation.
Jay
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:18:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Governments trying to turn everyone into netcriminals not netizens
In article <200001270321.WAA11191@panix7.panix.com> Ronda wrote:
>We have it online and it is distributed with our permission and has
>been since 1994.
>What's your point here? We were happy to have it in a book edition
>as well as it is in that way available in a book form as well as
>online.
Intellectual property laws protect your rights to distribute your book
as you see fit. That privilege should be extended to people who make
DVDs, etc.
>But our condition for it being published in a book form was that
>we have the right to maintain an online edition for all those
>who wanted access to it for "noncommercial use".
And if someone tried to use it commercially, you would have the right
to sue them.
>And it seems that the issue of whether he should be treated
>as a criminal is a serious and unsettled question.
I think he is a criminal. You do not. He will be tried. A jury will
decide what his fate is. If you feel he is innocent, you should
testify at his trial.
>Turns out that publisher's actually get to own intellectual
>property not authors.
The publishers work on behalf of the authors.
>That intellectual property laws in general benefit publishers,
>not authors.
Ronda, is anyone allowed to earn a living in your world? All
publishers are not inherently evil. Some actually do have ethics. To
lump them all into some evil commercial conspiracy is lunacy, in my
opinion.
- --gregbo
gds at best.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:56:59 -0500 (EST)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] About the nature of netizens and the Net
Thomas Oesterlie <toaster@pvv.ntnu.noa> in his commentary at:
>Where did the Internet revolution go?
>I feel cheated!
>I was promised an Internet revolution, but where did it go?
It's hard to know what you are complaining about. Is it that
the hyped corporate media version of transforming the Internet
into the online shopping malls hasn't materialized? If that
is your complaint, you hopefully won't find much sympathy online
though you can probably find many media outlets willing to
handsomely reward you for your lament.
Or is it that some nirvana hasn't materialized? If that is
the case then you can probably find many in the religious
world that will be glad to welcome you into their enclaves.
However, if your complaint is, as you mention briefly, that
more democracy hasn't materialized, then I'm afraid you
and I disagree about what is democracy.
To me democracy is when the citizens or netizens are able to
participate in the deliberations that will affect their lives.
And even more, it is when they can have some impact on
those deliberations.
And that kind of democracy is not given on some silver platter.
It is the result of the hard efforts of many people to find how
to challenge those who are grabbing the power for some narrow
interest so that the broader social interests are instead served.
And that kind of democracy is indeed what the Internet makes
possible, just as it makes it possible to be a netizen, or
one who is taking on the challenge to participate in these
situations so that the Internet will be something that will
be available for all as a means of global communication and
so that it will make it possible for citizens to have more
say in the decisions that will influence their lives.
Last month there was a conference in Finland taking on this
issue. It as a conference sponsored by the European Union.
I was invited to participate in a seminar on how the
Internet makes it possible for citizens and netizens to
find ways to make such greater means of participation
possible.
The conference program is online at http://www.citizen2000.net/
My talk on "Is the Internet a Laboratory for Democracy? The
Vision of the Netizens vrs the E-commerce Agenda" was part
of the E2 seminar.
- Why it is important for Netizens to participate in the contest being
waged (as for instance: ICANN) over which strata of society will gain
the benefit of the Internet and how the Internet provides the means
for such participation.
Yes the Internet is a laboratory for democracy, but that means
that there is a means to take on the challenges presented by
our times, *not* that someone gives anyone a silver spoon and
says the world belongs to you.
In general the talks spoke to the promise and raised the
question of the obstacles. That is what "a laboratory for democracy"
represents, not the solutions ready-made but the ability both to be
working for something new and important and to have a way to explore
how it will be brought about.
That there could be such a seminar and that there would be one
is indeed a sign of the promise of our times, but also of the
challenge that is posed for netizens, which is very different from
those who ask why they don't find some ideal world, but instead
welcome the challenge they are confronted with, of exploring
how the Internet can make it possible to create a world better
than what we have now. This isn't for the faint-hearted nor for
those who ask why the hype hasn't produced the false world it
is promising.
And it is for those willing to take on the challenge of Netizenship
to explore how the Internet and other aspects of these new
scientific developments make it possible to collaborate with
and support and encourage all those who are working
to create the better world that so so many know is needed.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Thomas's commentary is at:
>www.pvv.ntnu.no/~toaster/hacking/commentaries/revolution.php3 wrote:
some of the early efforts of people to take on the challenges of
being netizens are described at
http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers
or in:
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
also in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #353
******************************
