Two Heads Up Administrative6/8/2001; 1:48:42 PM Alright, two heads up:1. The previous re-design was not intended to last as long as it has. I will be taking another go at it, and hopefully it will improve the site significantly.Update: I'm not quite done and I need to go do some other stuff, but this ought to be an improvement. Still not happy...2. The winds of change are blowing. I'm not ready yet, and it may not be for a month or two, but this site is slowly packing up and preparing to move to my own webspace. So get ready for an improved experience.If you run a freely-hosted Userland site, I think you should check out the Manila Site Converter tool for RU, even if you don't intend to immediately use it.

Washington Spam Law Upheld
Spam & E-Mail
6/7/2001; 7:23:44 PM 'An anonymous submitter sent in news that the Washington state Supreme Court upheld Washington's anti-spam law today. The law requires truthful information on all commercial emails sent from Washington state or to a Washington resident - commercial emailers may not disguise the origin of their messages (but aren't prohibited from sending UCE if they don't try to disguise themselves).... The decision is interesting, because several state internet censorship laws have been struck down due to their effects on residents of other states - it's worth reading for anyone interested in internet legal issues.'

Where's Dangerousmeta?
Personal Notes
6/7/2001; 1:29:08 PM I've been trying to get through to Dangerousmeta now for a week or so, but can't. Is the site down, the DNS down, or is the problem on my end?

New Windows XP Feature Can Re-Edit Others' Sites Website Annotation6/7/2001; 9:35:46 AM 'I've already encountered one proposed feature, in a "beta," or test, version, that shows Microsoft may well flunk both these tests. The feature, which hasn't yet been made public, allows Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web browser -- included in Windows XP -- to turn any word on any Web site into a link to Microsoft's own Web sites and services, or to any other sites Microsoft favors.''In effect, Microsoft will be able, through the browser, to re-edit anybody's site, without the owner's knowledge or permission, in a way that tempts users to leave and go to a Microsoft-chosen site -- whether or not that site offers better information.'No bad idea ever dies in the computer industry, it just gets picked up by Microsoft. Perhaps now that it's Microsoft modifying other's sites, we'll get some better debate on the issue. Normally I dislike the "Microsoft is automatically wrong!" people, but perhaps for once this will actually improve the debate: If this is released, the (IMHO extremely shortshighted anyway) argument that very few people do this will disappear. This does finally provide a functional and real demonstration of the real harm that Website Annotation can do, including real financial harm: Non-Microsoft "approved" vendors may have links to Microsoft-approved vendors, but Microsoft approved vendors will not have that disadvantage. This can cost customers and $$$.To Wes and the other supporters of annotation, this is the real and again present danger. There is no real difference between this and CritLink or Third Voice or Flyswat. Once changing the contents of other sites in this systematic fashion is OK, whether its "perceived" contents or "real" contents doesn't much matter right now, then you've lost all reasonable guarentees that your message is getting through to your site-readers.Even this simple change can have very real consequences to a site's message. Consider how the NoAmazon.com site might look through this feature... it's a good guess Amazon will be one of the featured services (they need the help), so now NoAmazon.com is plastered with links to Amazon whereever they mention Amazon (frequently), or products Amazon sells (look in the sidebar). Joy! Yes, that's maintaining the integrity of the site.Moreover, by putting this power in the hands of anybody who has the technical ability to pull this off, we are putting immense amounts of power in the hands of Microsoft. Once you open the page-modification door, all manner of things become possible. For instance, this is equivalent to giving Microsoft the power to censor, a power I don't want anyone to have. If they don't like something, they can change it, even if only by the subtle means of creating links that lead to Microsoft-approved propoganda pages.There's more to smart-tag technology then this, most of it inoffensive and perhaps even "innovative" (for Microsoft definitions of the term "innovative"), and this particular debatable part of it may be removed due to public outcry. But it's still important to have the debate.Update: Image of smart tags at work, DaveNet on SmartTags.

Code-Breakers Go to Court
DMCA
6/6/2001; 5:59:58 PM 'On Wednesday, Ed Felten of Princeton University and seven other researchers took their fight to a New Jersey federal court in a lawsuit asking that they be permitted to disclose their work at a security conference this summer....'

"When scientists are intimidated from publishing their work, there is a clear First Amendment problem," says EFF legal director Cindy Cohn. "We have long argued that unless properly limited, the anti-distribution provisions of the DMCA would interfere with science. Now they plainly have."'

FTC member says privacy concerns becoming 'hysteria'
Privacy from Companies
6/5/2001; 8:14:24 PM 'Leary acknowledged that companies can and do collect a sea of data on individual consumers, but "this hysteria [over privacy] is misplaced." Citing the example of grocery stores that collect purchasing data from customers who use discount cards, Leary said there will be so much data out there that companies won't be able to use it all in ways that hurt the individual consumer.'

Wouldn't have mentioned this if it weren't an FTC member. I'd like to invite FTC Commissioner Thomas Leary to a grad-level datamining course at any reputable university with a decent computer science course. Check your common sense about what is and isn't possible at the door.

Goodbye Tomalak's Realm
Personal Notes
6/5/2001; 12:06:16 AM Goodbye to Tomalak's Realm, one of the best link-logs in existance. Good luck with your schooling and business plans!

Response to the Briefs DVD & DeCSS6/2/2001; 7:30:47 PM OK, I've read the two briefs now and I'd like to offer these comments:Based on these briefs, EFF is arguing a fundamentally stronger case. The MPAA has the always-difficult task of proving the absolute: DeCSS contains no speech elements whatsoever. While the EFF goes to the opposite extreme to state that DeCSS contains no non-speech elements (which I personally agree with), any compromise position will leave DeCSS as being at least partially speech, which would hurt the MPAA's position.Remember this is a trial about whether the injunction against 2600 was legal, not directly about DeCSS. The MPAA's position is that a link to DeCSS was more-or-less tantamount to the infringement that would occur, and if DeCSS is speech in any way, the First Amendment will begin to kick in and protect 2600. It is still possible for the court to rule that while DeCSS has some speech elements, it is not subject to full protection, but the MPAA would be much better off if it can get the court to buy in on the idea that DeCSS is totally non-speech.I would not call the EFF's position bullet-proof, but I think the flaws are relatively minor. In section B.1, after the lettered paragraphs, the EFF makes reference to the possibility of a system that could limit the number of copies of a DVD made. I think that in the context of a court case that is implicitly discussing a method of circumventing a copy control, that's a bold statement They do have a couple of statements that I would expect even extremely cynical judges to take note of, notably the last section about fair use ("fair use extends to works in whatever form they are offered").However, this is not a trial about DeCSS, it's a trial about whether 2600 violated a court order to not post links to DeCSS on its website, which I previous opined that 2600 is essentially destined to lose. So while the EFF is arguing a very strong case, I can't escape the fact that they seem to be arguing the wrong case. The MPAA lawyers have not violated a court order to not post links to DeCSS on its website, which I previous opined that 2600 is essentially destined to lose. So while the EFF is arguing a very strong case, I can't escape the fact that they seem to be arguing the wrong case. The MPAA lawyers have not missed that point, of course, and their brief comes on quite strong on that point in the beginning, and while I find it distasteful to say, I think they're mostly correct. I find myself agreeing with section III in its entirity, where the MPAA lawyers go over the reasons why the initial injunction is hardly a threat to journalism as a whole.I'm much more interested it the direct answers to the questions, though, and I find the MPAA answers sorely lacking:'Does DeCSS have speech and non-speech elements? No... DeCSS is a device (configured as a program, although it could as easily have been configured as a physical machine, i.e., a "black box") that accomplishes a mechanical task, namely descrambling and decrypting an encrypted, scrambled DVD and copying its content to a hard drive.'There are three major problems with this line of reasoning. First, as I saw someone on Slashdot pointed out, if DeCSS (and by extension, all programs) are merely "devices", then on what grounds do we allow programs to be copyrighted? Either they are "expressions" that can be copyrighted, and thus can carry some sort of First Amendment-protectable information, or they are purely devices which can never be copyrighted, ever, and thus can only be patented. (Of course the MPAA can afford to argue this line of reasoning, as they have no need to worry if a judge were to agree with this. Microsoft, on the other hand, might have something to say about that.Second, while it is true that DeCSS could be accomplished by a physical machine, this is true of all software. All software can be done in hardware; the difference between software and hardware is smaller then a lawyer might guess. For instance, if you have an older Palm Pilot, the OS and the programs that come with the OS are all done entirely in "hardware". Therefore, this argument has no meaning, since it has no distinguishing power between software that can be done in hardware and software that cannot.Third, the point about "copying to a hard drive" is dangerous to take at face value. If DeCSS is used to make a copy, which is then viewed by the owner and promptly erased, is this a crime? It's dangerous to say yes, because such copying happens routinely on the Internet with caching and other such mechanisms. Indeed, my computer has a fully legal DVD player and I can guarentee with reasonable confidence that at some point, contents of the DVD have ended up on my hard drive due to that memory being swapped to the hard drive. In fact, as I sit here, I'm watching Star Trek VI on my computer, and my hard drive light is flashing in perfect sync with the DVD drive's light. It's a pretty good guess that the DVD is essentially being copied directly to the hard drive.

One can profitably make the distinction between deliberately copying to the hard drive and having the system do it, but that's just asking for a clever hacker to straddle the line, just as systems like FreeNet straddle the free-speech line.The rest of the MPAA brief is mostly spent dismissing the questions the court posed about how the First Amendment applies, since the MPAA contends that there is no speech involved at all, so there's little else of value to me there.I think the EFF has put some good material together, and I'm sure we'll see it again when the trial about DeCSS resumes. In the meantime, the only reason I see to think that this particular court process will end in 2600's favor is that the judges were asking these questions at all. If I had to lay money down, I'd say the court will find in favor of the MPAA, that Corley did violate the provisions of the court order, but that their brief will validate (or at least consider) some of the points the EFF is making, and recommend that other courts pay more attention to them as the whole mess wends its way through the court system.

If You Can't Track 'em, Join 'em Music & MP36/1/2001; 9:29:37 PM 'An alliance between three media file-tracking companies makes it possible to monitor, track, contact and shut down the systems of users who engage in illegal activity on the Internet.'BayTSP, Media Enforcer and Copyright.net -- companies that have applications to search for copyrighted materials -- agreed to share their tracking technologies with each other as part of an equity deal that creates a loose federation of companies involved in rights management.'That's pretty clever! Another shot fired in the trackers vs. crackers war.

The music revolution will not be digitized Music & MP36/1/2001; 8:48:49 PM 'The power, then, is consolidated squarely back in the hands of the same record industry executives that held the reins before. Everyone with a good idea that doesn't fit into what the music moguls have already deemed appropriate is out of luck. That personalized radio station will be shut down, that peer-to-peer network will be decimated before it even has a chance to offer a subscription plan, prices for music downloads will be set sky-high, and new music-exchange services will contain only limited catalogs.'Is the system where "If we [RIAA members] do not approve it, it will not happen." is a true statement a system that promotes innovation?This reminds me of my previous comments. Part of their strategy was to make sure that there was no way to comply with the legal requirements. Isn't that sick?