Cryptography-Digest Digest #254, Volume #14 Fri, 27 Apr 01 13:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: Decrypting msg from a Rotor machine ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: DES source-code from Applied Cryptography ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: "I do not feel secure using your program any more." ("anon")
Re: key (Mark Wooding)
Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: Reusing A One Time Pad ("Mark G Wolf")
Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: Note on combining PRNGs with the method of Wichmann and Hill (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop (Darren New)
Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop (Darren New)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:09:14 GMT
John Myre wrote:
> David Wagner wrote:
> <snip>
[snip]
> I will stipulate (:)) that it can be misleading to use the
> word "theft" in some cases. I will even agree, for the sake
> of argument, that it is more common to misuse the term when
> dealing with IP than in other cases.
I must have missed something. What is it about IP that leds to the misuse
of the term theft?
[snip]
> > The problem comes when new laws are being justified on the basis
> > that some types of conduct that aren't currently illegal should
> > nonetheless be viewed as "stealing" and thus should be made illegal.
> > In other words, if this is how you choose to use the word "stealing",
> > it's not necessarily a justification for why some actions should
> > be made illegal in the first place. It is a good idea to watch
> > out for circularity.
>
> Ah. I agree violently. If someone misuses copyrighted material
> in a way which is already defined by law to be criminal, then
> *and only then* is it correct to call it theft. It isn't theft
> just because the producer of some data wants money for it. And
> emotional arguments are a terrible basis for new law.
There are two issues here. First is the reduction of theft to the purely
legal domain, which I believe to be the basis for many errors. Second is
the emotional basis for new laws, which, while I find it depressing,
appears to be the natural state of legislatures due to the lack of
qualification criteria for exercising the franchise by the population
governed.
The more important issue is restricting the use of the term theft to the
purely legal domain. It leaves out a serious issue, which is that of
expectation on the part of the author of an intellectual work. One of the
foundations of privacy law is the "expectation of privacy". I submit that
the author of a new intellectual work is entitled to an analogous
"expectation of ownership". if the law has not been codified to protect
the new kind of work, then that expectation is in some kind of linguistic
limbo.
If theft is only a legal concept we have to drag in the various criteria
for provability. Ick.
If theft is an economic concept derived from property rights then the legal
system does not codify those rights, but only codifies the degree to which
those rights are protected by said system. In this situation it makes
sense to judge whether a new kind of work (new kind of property) and the
ownership right (copyright) is worthy of legal protection without denying
that the author owns those property (copy) rights.
> I think my disagreement with you is that I believe it to be
> just as incorrect to state generically that "theft" is a bad
> word to use in copyright cases, because intellectual property
> is different in character from physical property. I think it
> is more productive to examine what ought to be regarded as
> property, under what conditions.
>
> For example, when you take physical property away from someone,
> is it always stealing? Not if they have no right to it. Perhaps
> it belongs to someone else. Perhaps they didn't pay their taxes.
>
> Reasonable people can disagree about what intellectual property
> rights ought to exist, under what conditions. It's only wrong
> to try to obfuscate the issue through debating tricks. I will
> agree with you that people will call something "theft" when it
> is incorrect, as just such a debating trick. I will disagree
> with you that "theft" is always the wrong word when dealing with
> intellectual property; I think that sometimes it is apropos.
Is there an alternate term for "misappropriation of property whose legal
ownership is not protected"? If so we should can use theft to indicate a
crime and the alternate term to indicate possession of another's property.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Decrypting msg from a Rotor machine
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:50:45 GMT
"Edward A. Feustel" wrote:
> Take a look at:
> CRYPTANALYSIS OF THE HAGELIN CRYPTOGRAPH, Wayne G. Barker
While that's a start, it doesn't go nearly far enough.
> Ed F. Daniel wrote:
> > I would like to find information on attacks on rotor machines like
> > Manex, Printex ,Suprex (Embase) (all Hagelin-like used around 1960).
> > How does one go about attacking messages encrypted with these rotor
> > machines?
Hagelins are not rotor machines!
Rotor machines involve electrical paths being passed through
rotating adjacent "rotors" that act as permuters.
There is very little open literature on cryptanalysis of
true rotor systems; what little there is seems stuck at
the Bletchley Park stage. At some point I plan to put
Kullback's monograph on Friedman squares on the net so
as to provide information on a further step that was taken.
That's about as far as I can go until more is declassified.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DES source-code from Applied Cryptography
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:44:47 GMT
Brendan Lynskey wrote:
> The above code includes a function called 'cookey'. Anyone know the purpose
> of this? I can't see anything similar in the algorithm. Is this an
> alternative way to do the Expansion Permutation?
It's pretty obvious from the code -- it "cooks" the key
by repeated "kneading" then loads it into the internal
key register, which is later used as the DES internal key.
It appears to be an invention by the implementor(s) to
provide a nonstandard DES variant.
------------------------------
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:14:07 GMT
An Metet wrote:
> The basic issue here is that "property" is purely synthetic,
> fictious term. There is nothing natural about property per se,
How many 2-year-olds have you met? In families with multiple small
children the word that follows "Ma" and "!*NO*!" is "miyun".
Possessiveness is an aspect of human behavior that implies the exitence
of things to be possessed: possessions, AKA property. This appears to
be both widespread and quite natural.
------------------------------
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:18:38 GMT
Darren New wrote:
> > > There is nothing natural about property per se,
> > There most certainly is. Products require producers.
>
> But the question becomes "who is the producer of the CD I have in my hand?"
> You may have produced the music, but I produced the CD itself.
The CD is a derived work. It can only be produced by permission of the original
author(s).
This applies to even the IP in fora such as this. Compuserve made quite an
issue over the copyright works of the contributors to their online conversations
versus the copyright upon the _collection_ of contributions.
So you might have produced the CD and thus own a copyright on the collection
that the full group of musicians could not derive from their own rights. But
you can only create that collection by agreement with the individual musicians.
>
>
> Anyway, I think the other half of the problem is that we're not talking
> about copyright infringement. We're talking about what's now contractual
> agreements turning into a different kind of law. Copyright law does not
> give the owner of the copyright permission to prevent me from (for example)
> reselling my copy, giving my copy away, talking *about* my copy, or playing
> my copy in a country different from where I bought it. However, attempts are
> being made to make all of these things illegal.
Yes. Both the actions and the motivations of the property owners are murky.
------------------------------
From: "anon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto,alt.hacker
Subject: Re: "I do not feel secure using your program any more."
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:40:29 +0100
Anthony Stephen Szopa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "I do not feel secure using your program any more."
>
> You sure jumped to a hasty conclusion.
>
> Again, using the methods of OAP-L3 to generate your random digit
> sequences is just the first step of creating your OTPs. And since I
> believe you would agree that even if you started with a known file
> containing the sequences of 0123456789 of length 18,144,000 bytes
> and this becoming very quickly practicably impossible to guess
> using the methods from OAP-L3, then by actually generating the random
> digit files using OAP-L3 makes this impossibility that much more
> impossible.
What will you use to reorder those data?
Surely the process can easily be recreated, thus your data is ont safe?
- Dan
"clearly you are an inDUHvidual, just like everyone else" -
unattributed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Wooding)
Subject: Re: key
Date: 27 Apr 2001 16:20:12 GMT
f <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3081 8902 8181 00C6 6F55 3283 E3D8 EF1D 77E6 01A3 6316 506A DB81 4885 FA2C
> A299 AF9C E1CA D65D 05A1 B861 8AD1 A778 901B 445E AA99 FC1D 2683 1E99 8906
> D684 4DCE B859 E7F5 3281 AB9C 3169 8413 BD3A A1A8 D26D CDE3 AB9C BCF5 808A
> 5EF1 40CC 81D0 B491 59C9 ED22 519A D12F 1361 BF52 0D37 EC42 2FB4 59DF 06F5
> 43EC 0A1E E3AD 4F6E 1FA4 7E88 4437 B902 0301 0001
I give up. Yes, it's a properly-formed DER encoding of an RSA public
key. But what's it doing here? I can see reasons for anonymously
posting *private* keys to Usenet, but not public ones.
-- [mdw]
------------------------------
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:22:40 GMT
Paul Rubin wrote:
> John Myre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But in that case, we might as well disallow generic words like
> > "theft" altogether, because not every case is exactly alike.
> > Wouldn't the tradeoffs be quite different in important cases
> > such as taking money versus taking a child's toys? Surely
> > we don't all want to end up talking like lawyers?
>
> One traditional difference between infringement and theft is that if
> someone steals your money or toys (theft), your recourse is to call
> the police and ask government to prosecute. If someone copies your
> mystery novel (infringement), the government normally will not
> prosecute--you have to sue the infringer. Hollywood these days is
> trying to blur this distinction, getting the government to finance
> what used to be private litigation. But that's a different topic too.
This distinction might be based on the historical modus operandii of
thieves versus infringers. The former has an explicit connotation of
inappropriate force (technically robbery), that infringement lacks. That
connotation could explain the difference in standards of criminal versus
civil legal action.
------------------------------
From: "Mark G Wolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Reusing A One Time Pad
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:22:53 -0500
> The breaking of re-used OTPs (which therefore aren't really OTPs anymore)
is
> based on analysing the index of coincidence. Is one bit of re-use enough
to
> break the rest of the ciphertexts? Sure security has been comprised a
> little, but for all intents and purposes, no. But is two bits? What
about
> three? Mark wants to establish the point where the re-use of the random
> pool drops the security of his scheme below his *acceptable level*. I
don't
> like his idea simply because, as someone else points out, the key quickly
> becomes the instructions for re-use, at which point, it is no longer even
> remotely close to the security of a real OTP. But I think I understand
his
> question.
Um, yes? Mark is... Mark has, progressed beyond the "OTP", sort of. The
truth is anyone can have "perfect" security right now, with their very own
computer. I guess you have to realize that whenever there is an almost
zealous attitude towards a particular subject, like the "reuse" of an OTP,
there has been a willful effort in the body politic to make that way.
------------------------------
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:28:49 GMT
AY wrote:
> > When that audience receives that same work in other ways
> >-- even if others just give it away -- the market for the original
> >work is reduced. If that is not "stealing" worth from the
> >intellectual property owner, what is it?
>
> So you say reducing the market for the original work is an "instance of
> theft".
>
> > Libraries *buy* the books they have. Buying is not theft.
> >
> >Indeed, one might well argue that having a book in libraries
> >*increases* the market for the book.
> >
>
> But wouldn't it be an equally valid point that :-
>
> The library buys a book
> => I can access my library and borrow the book for free
> => I don't need to buy the book
> => The market for the book is reduced
> => This results in an "instance of theft" on the library's behalf
Hardly. By the purchase the library obtains the right to use _that_copy_ of
the book for any purpose it chooses. We can observe that publishers typically
like this process (depending upon the type of book) because they often donate
or or offer reduced prices to libraries.
>
>
> Let's say, I, as an individual, buy a copy of a book, and lend it to
> everyone I know who needs it, and all of whom would otherwise have bought
> the book. Would I be committing the act of theft by reducing the market for
> the work?
Of course not. _That_copy_ of the book is yours. As long as only one person
is reading it at a time there can be no question of theft. If 13 people are
reading it at the same time, there's still no theft. But if you put it on an
overhead projector and show it to an audience I'd find that to be an
infringement (the projector is making a copy).
------------------------------
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:35:35 GMT
Mike Rosing wrote:
> Gerhard Wesp wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Terry Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >From classic times, writers have sold their work to an audience of
> > >individuals.
> >
> > Can you supply evidence/references supporting this claim?
> >
> > I'm not sure either, but I think some time before Gutenberg it was
> > not uncommon for monks to spend most of their time copying books.
> >
> > I should think that the idea of Intellectual Property is a relatively
> > new one.
The guild system goes back millennia, and one of the aspects of guilds is their
ownership of what we now call trade secrets.
>
> >
> > Perhaps a historian could comment on this?
>
> It's ancient for sure. Artists claim rights over their paintings, and they
> expect no one will touch them long after they are dead. When a sculpture
> or violin is sold, the IP is in the artists' knowledge. The whole point of
> this argument started from DVD protection - artists create what goes on them.
>
> Sculptures and paintings are harder to duplicate than electronic bits. But
> it's done all the time and people have unwittingly bought bogus artifacts
> for huge sums of money.
There are two distinct kinds of transaction here. Someone who collects art might
purchase a copy of a painting, which would violate a copyright. Someone who
collects art autographs (works by Name painters) might purchase a painting
supposedly signed by a famous painter. That would not be a violation of copyright,
but would be some kind of fraudulent use of a name. I suppose this is a kind of
trademark/brandname violation.
>
>
> The ability to sell multiple copies of a thing is what makes it valuable to
> the seller - they can make lots of money by giving people what they want
> and the cost to the individual is small. the artists have been squeezed
> out of the equation over the past 50 years, and some of them see the net
> as a way back to the front of the line. But they still want to be sure
> they reap the benifits of their efforts, not somebody else who can simply
> copy the bits.
>
> It was called art long before it was called IP. But it's the same thing.
>
> Patience, persistence, truth,
> Dr. mike
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.crypt.random-numbers
Subject: Re: Note on combining PRNGs with the method of Wichmann and Hill
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:33:09 +0200
Bob Harris wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> > ... The PRNGs used are indicated by M (mwcg of Marsaglia), C (cong of
> > Marsaglia), P (of Park and Miller) and E (of L'Ecuyer).
>
> Howdy. Can you give references for those PRNGs?
My implementation of P and E are based on their articles in
Comm. ACM 31 (1988). L'Ecuyer is an expert on PRN generation.
A number of his papers on the topic are available on his site
www.iro.umontreal.ca/~lecuyer/papers.html I don't have
references to M and C. I have taken these PRNGs from the code
of Brian Gladman, see his follow-up in this thread of
Tue, 17 Apr 2001 12:04:11 +0100.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:41:41 GMT
Tom St Denis wrote:
> "Mark Wooding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Trevor L. Jackson, III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Of course one can take Stallman's position and deny the possibility of
> > > intellectual property. It appears TStD routinely makes this mistake.
> >
> > I think you're maligning both Richard Stallman and Tom St Denis.
> >
> > Stallman doesn't deny the possibility of intellectual property
Sure he does. There was a discussion of this topic with Stallman in which I
participated. In response to my question "Do you believe in any form of
intellectual property" he responded "No". Now that was a while ago and I
can't speak for what might have changed since then.
> , just its
> > utility. And I think labelling this position a `mistake' is somewhat
> > presumptious.
OK, it is presumptuous. But I still consider most of his statements on the
topic to be errors.
> I missed the OP but it's not that I don't believe in IP, I just think some
> patents are stupid and should be withheld.
Yup. The grapefruit shield is my favorite.
> I also disagree on for-profit
> patents on not-for-profit projects. I think if you are in the field for
> money you should pay some to make some.
You've made comments to the effect that working for money is a position low on
the ethical scale. Care to clarify?
------------------------------
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:44:16 GMT
AY wrote:
> >Stallman doesn't deny the possibility of intellectual property, just its
> >utility. And I think labelling this position a `mistake' is somewhat
> >presumptious.
>
> I'm not sure whether RMS denies the possibility of IP, but I am quite sure
> he doesn't like the term (from personal experience).
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty
Classic Stallman:
"But this analogy overlooks the crucial difference between material objects
and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly,
while material objects can't be."
The flaw is not the distinction regarding copying but the lack of distinction
regarding the creation of the object or information.
------------------------------
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:48:05 GMT
Terry Ritter wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 20:04:06 -0700, in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in sci.crypt Bryan Olson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Terry Ritter wrote:
> >> Bryan Olson
> >> >"Donald L. Nash" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Bill Unruh wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >It is not theft. Theft is depriving someone of some good.
> >>
> >> No, theft is commonly understood as simply taking without right or
> >> permission.
> >>
> >> >[...]
> >> >Can anyone cite where what is called "intellectual property
> >> >law" actually defines covered works as property, or
> >> >violations as theft?
> >>
> >> The dictionary first definitions:
> >
> >So I guess that's a "no". I couldn't find such a definition
> >in law either.
>
> Since when has sci.crypt become a courtroom?
>
> Is sci.crypt more like a courtroom, or more like a classroom? And
> when was the last time any of us saw an instructor retreat into
> legalities to win a classroom point?
>
> >> Theft -- the act or an instance of stealing
> >> Steal -- to take without right or permission
> >
> >My dictionary's first definition:
> >
> > Take -- to get by conquering; capture; seize
> >
> >It's not the getting that's the crime; it's the subsequent
> >copying, or violation of some other exclusive right. That's
> >completely different from theft where the use is irrelevant.
> >
> >So with both the dictionary and the law indicating that such
> >acts are "infringement" and not "theft", can we switch to the
> >proper word?
>
> The correct word is "theft."
>
> "Theft" is a wholly appropriate common language term for the taking
> without permission which constitutes copyright infringement under law.
The phrase analogous to "copyright infringement" would be "possessory
right infringement". They are both theft in English. In legalese it
depends on the court, the judge, the lawyers, and whether you hold your
mouth right.
------------------------------
From: Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:52:32 GMT
Trevor L. Jackson, III wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > > > There is nothing natural about property per se,
> > > There most certainly is. Products require producers.
> >
> > But the question becomes "who is the producer of the CD I have in my hand?"
> > You may have produced the music, but I produced the CD itself.
>
> The CD is a derived work. It can only be produced by permission of the original
> author(s).
I understand the legal situation. I'm simply pointing out that talking about
'the producer of the CD' versus 'the producer of the music on the CD' is two
different things, and indeed is what's under debate here. Of course the
reason you're making the CD is because you value the music and not the
pretty diffraction patterns.
On the other hand, there's the Pheonix BIOS case, whereby the functionality
of the IBM BIOS was duplicated in "clean room" conditions and was found to
be legal. So it's not obvious that everything IBM creates and copyrights is
"owned" by IBM either.
Of course, you then get into things like genetically-engineered seeds.
Farmers have an expectation that they can grow a crop, save some percentage
of it for planting, and grow more crop next year. Contracts have to be set
up before selling the farmer genetically-engineered seeds before that
expectation is changed. But I think what some people are arguing is that
reimbursing the gene engineering labs for their effort might or might not be
as important as preventing country-wide famines. I'm not saying it is or
isn't, and I'm not saying anyone's going to die of N'Sync withdrawl, but
again it's not as black-and-white as some folks here seem to imply in their
postings.
Take another example. If I copyright this post, are you inviolation of
copyright infringement because your NNTP server sends it to another NNTP
server without my permission? Of course not. Why? Because you'd be unlikely
to convince a judge I didn't give you permission to do that, even if I
explicitly put into the post that you didn't have such permission.
--
Darren New / Senior MTS & Free Radical / Invisible Worlds Inc.
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
schedule.c:7: warning: assignment makes calendar_week
from programmer_week without a cast.
------------------------------
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:54:18 GMT
Darren New wrote:
> And the other thing to remember is that the basic problem is economic.
> Namely, that creating a copy of "intellectual property" is trivially
> inexpensive compared to creating the original. Few would pay the full cost
> of creating intellectual property. Those who do buy custom software.
>
> The question of "theft of service" is interesting. You're not stealing the
> TV shows from the cable company, because the cable company doesn't own them.
> Certainly if you tap into the advertising-supported commercial channels that
> you'd normally be able to get over the air except for the invention of cable
> TV you'd not reasonably be "stealing" the signal. What you're stealing,
> again, is the tremendously high cost of building the infrastructure that's
> normally charged to users a month at a time. Getting the cable strung thru
> the neighborhood is expensive. Putting one more TV on the cable is cheap.
I think that is an incomplete model. The cable company does not own the TV
shows in toto, but it does own the right to distribute those shows, said right
described in the license the owners of the shows grant to the cable company
(which may have an arbitrarily large number of indirections). So stealing the
signal could be considered both a theft of the distribution right owned by the
cable company and also a copyright infringement if you redistribute the stolen
signal. In the typical case someone steals the signal just to watch it, so
there's no copyright issue.
However, the early cable companies used to "steal the signal" from broadcast
companies and redistribute the shows to their viewers. This appears to violate
the rights of both the TV show owners and the broadcast companies derived
distribution rights.
------------------------------
From: Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:56:07 GMT
Trevor L. Jackson, III wrote:
> Hardly. By the purchase the library obtains the right to use _that_copy_ of
> the book for any purpose it chooses.
And that is exactly, 100% the right that started this thread. SMDI is trying
to make it illegal to loan your copy of the music to someone else, yes?
--
Darren New / Senior MTS & Free Radical / Invisible Worlds Inc.
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
schedule.c:7: warning: assignment makes calendar_week
from programmer_week without a cast.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to sci.crypt.
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
