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 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 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 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 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 >Subject: A Legal Perspective on the Norwegian DeCSS Case >To: farber@cis.upenn.edu > >EFF's web site has an interesting legal >analysis of Jon Lech Johansen's problem, written by Prof. Jon Bing >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 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 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 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 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 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 ******************************