response 39 of 154:

Apr 14 16:46 UTC 2003

I hope all his colleagues follow suit, until there is not a domestic producer
of quality products left, if that's what it takes to drive home the utter
idiocy of this kind of legislation.

response 41 of 154:

Apr 15 17:56 UTC 2003

It may be in part -- he's one of Peter Honeyman's grad students, and they're
all very aware of the political issues -- but he's got a genuine point behind
it.  The Michigan "Super DMCA" is way, way too broad.  It needs to be
drastically limited, or knocked down.

response 43 of 154:

Apr 18 04:08 UTC 2003

I agree the law is horrid.  I wouldn't think there's much chance it'll 
survive a court challenge.  Pass on the chance to make political 
comments... is there really any chance this law is going to be used in 
any way at all?

response 45 of 154:

Apr 18 05:37 UTC 2003

  I agree that the law is a bad one, but I'm not particularly convinced
  that it will be struck down.

  But then I'm generally dismayed by the "sure it sucks, but it'll never
  make it past the courts" attitude that many have when deciding what to
  do about these laws.  Putting the responsibility on the courts, rather
  than the legislature, give grandstanding legislators a free pass even
  when the pass profoundly consumer-unfriendly laws.  Do I hope the courts
  will overturn stuff like this?  Of course I do, but it should *never*
  have been passed in the first place and it's important to remember that
  when you vote..

response 47 of 154:

Apr 18 11:00 UTC 2003

You're preaching to the choir.

response 49 of 154:

Apr 20 02:57 UTC 2003

Re#40:  It doesn't seem like posturing to me, quite; it just seems like a very
easy and mostly meaningless gesture.  Judging from the article, he's just
moved some files from one server to another.  

response 51 of 154:

Apr 21 15:36 UTC 2003

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30337.html

The U.S. Department of Justice has come in on the RIAA's side in their
case against Verizon. 

"RIAA lawyers are arguing that a simple subpoena obtained from a court
clerk, which any fool can file against anyone suspected of copyright
violation, should afford adequate protection of due process, as the
dreaded Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provides.

"A district court ruled in favor of the RIAA in January; Verizon
appealed the decision, and asks that the suspect's name not be revealed
until the matter is decided. The RIAA, on the other hand, would like to
get on with the business of persecuting the alleged malefactor as soon
as possible.

"Raising the Constitutional issues gave the civil-rights fanatics in
Ashcroft's DoJ an opportunity to weigh in. They argue that due process
is indeed safe, for they can find nothing in the Constitution expressly
forbidding searches and seizures on the basis of quick-and-dirty,
self-service subpoenas."

response 53 of 154:

May 1 18:56 UTC 2003

The RIAA's latest Napster lawsuit is against the venture capitalistss
who funded Napster.
 
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-04-30-lawsuit-venture-capitalists_x.
htm
 
"The music industry's latest legal assault would push the boundaries of 
 blame by holding investors liable for the actions of a company and its
 management....  If the music labels prevail, 'it could destroy the 
 whole venture capital industry,' said J. William Gurley, a general 
 partner at Benchmark Capital in Menlo Park."
 
The idea that an investor's losses are limited to the amount of the
investment is pretty fundamental to the working of western-style 
capitalism.   The record industry's attack on this bedrock principle
should produce some interesting reactions.   In this case, the 
record industry is asking for the statutory $150,000 per song, so 
the damages would likely exceed the $95 billion sought in the 
Michigan Tech case -- possibly by orders of magnitude.

response 55 of 154:

May 2 02:42 UTC 2003

        Wait.  Even if they do, that means Bush can be sued for his Enron
investments ... awesome.  Okay, well, I know that wouldn't really work out,
but it's a great thought.

response 57 of 154:

May 2 16:57 UTC 2003

This morning's NY Times made it sound like the students had accepted the
settlement.  

response 59 of 154:

May 4 17:48 UTC 2003

The New York Times carries an incindiary article in Sunday's editions:
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/business/04MUSI.html

"Software Bullet Is Sought to Kill Musical Piracy"

Or, as Slashdot titled it:  "RIAA Plans Cyberwar Effort"
 
    "Some of the world's biggest record companies, facing rampant
     online piracy, are quietly financing the development and testing 
     of software programs that would sabotage the computer and 
     Internet connections of people who download pirated music, according
     to industry executives."
     ...

    "The covert campaign, parts of which may never be carried out because
     they could be illegal under state and federal wiretap laws, is being
     developed and tested by a cadre of small technology companies, the 
     executives said." 

((Isn't the planning itself a criminal conspiracy?))

Techniques discussed include forcing PCs to lock themselves, deleting
user files, and denial-of-service network attacks.

The story is probably a leak from a record industry source who thinks
this program is a really, really bad idea.

response 61 of 154:

May 6 00:10 UTC 2003

I think it was an article about KaZaa, a month ago, which got me to try 
it.  Pretty interesting WWW site, there.  I think I can find just about 
anything I'd want.  Any software package (including operating systems), 
any song (except they didn't have any "Katie Geddes and the Usual 
Suspects" when I looked); I haven't looked for movies but I imagine 
they're out there, too.  I really hadn't realized how easy it is to 
pirate stuff.

KaZaa gives you points for letting other people download stuff from 
your computer.  Is that how the kids at those colleges got into 
trouble, or were they actively going out and selling pirated stuff?  
The articles I've seen have been very vague about what they did.