Re: CDR: Re: Sci Journals, authors, internet

[Tom]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 06:55:48PM +0100, Ken Brown wrote:
> > - publication
> >   the creator can control if and how his work gets published. only he may
> >   cite from or describe his work in public as long as neither the work
> >   nor a description of it are published with his permission.
> >   (e.g. even the publisher can't leak stuff without the author's consent)
> 
> This is basically copy right as already existed in England, & not one of
> the moral rights. 

IANAL, but this is not the same as the "regular" publication clause,
because that one is still a seperate (the german copyright law has
three parts - moral rights, economic rights and other rights.


> > - defense against disfiguration (?)
> >   creator can fight against attacks on the integrity of his work,
> >   within limits.
> >   this is the complicated part. as I parse it, the intention was that
> >   if you, say, write a poem against communism and by some freak
> >   accident the communist party adopts it as their hymn, you can stop
> >   them from doing so (unless you enjoy the irony of it).
> 
> I don't know about the German laws but this is not, I think, the case in
> most other countries. Just borrowing a poem &  using it somewhere else
> would (at worst) count as parody, which is legally protected speech in
> the US (& usually in England as well).
> 
> I think the law is more intended for the Alan Smithee situation, where a
> publisher (or record company, film studio, broadcaster, whatever)  takes
> a work and changes it so that the author thinks it makes them look bad,
> and they don't want to be associated with it. 

yes, that is what I meant. except that the law as I read it does not
require a change. I don't think parody would violate it.


> PS in English these are "moral" rights - "morale" is borrowed from
> French and means the mental state of an army :-)

whoops. I mixed those up before. 
/me is not a native english speaker. :)


-- 
New GPG Key issued (old key expired):
http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html
pub  1024D/2D7A04F5 2002-05-16 Tom Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Key fingerprint = C731 64D1 4BCF 4C20 48A4  29B2 BF01 9FA1 2D7A 04F5

what a scream - answers.google.com - anon ps

[R. A. Hettinga]

--- begin forwarded text


Status:  U
Sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:16:16 -0400
From: Ian Grigg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Digital Bearer Settlement List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: what a scream - answers.google.com - anon ps

One of the things that was interesting about writing
my '97 paper on task markets was that this was an
obviously fertile field for real new markets for
information.  In the event, I didn't pursue that
idea beyond writing the code, due to the absence of
a real digital money that was suitably stable.

It was always possible using credit cards, but they
tended to pour sand in the machine, so it required
a real effort to get such an info-market up and going.
Many tried and failed.

Now there is a market, run by our fave search engine,
at http://answers.google.com/ where you can post a
question for some cash.  This has been tried before,
but not to my knowledge by such a large and sustained
player as google.

A little searching around reveals a lack of sections,
but the following prominent question:

   https://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=5025

"Anonymous Electronic Cash Payment System Sought" for
the princely sum of $10 :-)

-- 
iang

--- end forwarded text


-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

HAL FINNEY

[Shalendra Chhabra]

Can anyone give me the email address of Hal Finney?
I need to contact him Urgently
Please reply to me...
I am an Indian Student
Thanks
Shalendra

-
You can be the BEST one, provided you wanna that

Shalendra Chhabra
Laboratoire Specification et Verification,
Ecole Normale Superieure De Cachan,
Pavillon Des Jardins,
Chambre n 215,
61 Avenue Du President Wilson,
Cachan Cedex
France
ph office
33.01.47.40.28.46
www.angelfire.com/linux/shalu

[jdrury@witsusa.com: Part-time Weekend opportunities at Ft. Meade, Maryland for CLEARED professional]

[Adam Shostack]

For all our lurkers, agents provocateur, prosecutors and fellow
travellers looking to take in a few extra bucks.

Those outside said category should perhaps worry that the government
agency charged with infosec has to contract out like this...

Adam


- Forwarded message from Jennifer Drury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -

Date: 13 Jun 2002 17:32:17 -
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.411 (Entity 5.404)
From: Jennifer Drury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Part-time Weekend opportunities at Ft. Meade, Maryland for
CLEARED professional
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests= version=2.20



Windermere Information Technology Systems, a one-stop provider of IT 
solutions, is currently seeking a Network Specialist to help support their 
World-Class Information Assurance and Technology Group.  Windermere's IA 
service offerings focus on improving the security of our customers IT 
infrastructure.  Our core competency for IA is built upon a team of world-
class security professionals who are delivering our cutting edge 
technology solutions.  We offer a full-spectrum of information security 
services and products.  

These include:
Consulting Services
Evaluation and Auditing Services
Security Design and Integration Services.

Network Security Analysts

Job Description: Opportunity to support customer information assurance 
operations including vulnerability and risk assessment, intrusion 
detection, and security requirements analysis.  Utilize state-of-the art 
tools to assess network security-related events.  Conduct analysis and 
evaluation of operational activities including review of system audits and 
logs, correlation of event statistics. 

Desired skills: Knowledge of operating systems such as  Solaris, 
WindowsNT/2000, etc.  Administration of networks including TCP/IP and UDP.

Windermere offers competitive salaries and comprehensive benefits, 
including medical, dental, vision, 401K, STD, LTD, flexible spending, 
profit-sharing, tuition reimbursement, vacations, holidays, life 
insurance, and access to Tower Federal Credit Union.

Positions do have a clearance requirement.  Please contact me directly for 
the details.

If you're interested, please send a Word format of your resume with salary 
requirements.



Jennifer Drury
Recruiter
The Windermere Group, LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
410-266-1756
410-266-1751 Fax


- End forwarded message -

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
   -Hume

Re: Sci Journals, authors, internet

[Ken Brown]

Tom wrote:

[...]
 
> - publication
>   the creator can control if and how his work gets published. only he may
>   cite from or describe his work in public as long as neither the work
>   nor a description of it are published with his permission.
>   (e.g. even the publisher can't leak stuff without the author's consent)

This is basically copy right as already existed in England, & not one of
the moral rights. 
 
> - credit
>   the creator must be given proper credit, and he can choose if and
>   what kind of credit (e.g. if he wants to use his real name or a
>   pseudonym)

Yep, this got added to English law (but not US, I think, except for the
weird VARA Peter mentioned which only applies to unique original
objects)

> - defense against disfiguration (?)
>   creator can fight against attacks on the integrity of his work,
>   within limits.
>   this is the complicated part. as I parse it, the intention was that
>   if you, say, write a poem against communism and by some freak
>   accident the communist party adopts it as their hymn, you can stop
>   them from doing so (unless you enjoy the irony of it).

I don't know about the German laws but this is not, I think, the case in
most other countries. Just borrowing a poem &  using it somewhere else
would (at worst) count as parody, which is legally protected speech in
the US (& usually in England as well).

I think the law is more intended for the Alan Smithee situation, where a
publisher (or record company, film studio, broadcaster, whatever)  takes
a work and changes it so that the author thinks it makes them look bad,
and they don't want to be associated with it. I am no expert, but I
think up till 1989 in common law jurisdictions this would have to have
been pursued as defamation - which in the USA means the aggrieved party
has effectively no chance at all, and in England that the side with the
most expensive lawyers wins.
 
> to me, the german copyright appears to take much more consideration of
> the author, while the US copyright system is entirely economical in
> nature. 

That is my general impression.  As an example of the sort of nonsense
that some countries recognise moral rights to avoid,  while Googling
around for these things I found this heap of prdroid shit:

"... any submission of materials by you will be considered a
contribution to Boeing for further use in its sole discretion,
regardless of any proprietary claims or reservation of rights noted in
the submission. Accordingly, you agree that any materials, including but
not limited to questions, comments, suggestions, ideas, plans, notes,
drawings, original or creative materials or other information, provided
by you in the form of e-mail or submissions to Boeing, or postings on
this Site, are non-confidential (subject to Boeing's Privacy Policy) and
shall become the sole property of Boeing. Boeing shall own exclusive
rights, including all intellectual property rights, and shall be
entitled to the unrestricted use of these materials for any purpose,
commercial or otherwise, without acknowledgement or compensation to you.
The submission of any materials to Boeing, including the posting of
materials to any forum or interactive area, irrevocably waives any and
all "moral rights" in such materials, including the rights of paternity
and integrity."

(http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/aboutus/site_terms.html)


Ken

PS in English these are "moral" rights - "morale" is borrowed from
French and means the mental state of an army :-)

RE: Artist's rights? [was: RE: Sci Journals, authors, internet]

[Trei, Peter]

> Ken Brown[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> "Trei, Peter" wrote:
> 
> > As an example, consider the Richard Serra's 'Tilted Arc', a 12 foot
> > high, 120 foot long, 70 ton slab of rusty (and usually grafitti covered)
> > steel which blocked the entrance to the main Federal building in
> > lower Manhatten for several years. After about a zillion complaints,
> > it was moved, and Serra sued the GSA for $30million, on the grounds
> > that the piece was "site specific", and that by moving it the GSA had
> > destroyed it.
> > 
> > http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/martin/art_law/tilted_arc.htm
> 
> But the important point about that is that the artist lost!  According
> to the website the tried "breach of contract, trademark violations,
> copyright infringement and the violation of First and Fifth Amendment
> rights" and lost all of them. So the new law has no real effect other
> than to give a few days work to some lawyers.
> 
> [...]
>  
> > http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/WkngPprs_101-25/123.WL.VARA.pdf
> > discusses the  'Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990, which is highly
> > relevant to this topic.
> 
Serra's work was moved in 1989, about a year before VARA went into
effect. I suspect that 'Tilted Arc' affair was one of VARA's motivations
(though
any legislator who voted for it should have been condemned to have a 
Serra sculpture placed in front of his house for a year).

Peter

Re: CDR: RE: Sci Journals, authors, internet

[Tom]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 07:45:18AM -0700, Mike Rosing wrote:
> > if used differently, the "morale rights" part could well be used to put
> > a limit on the corporate abuse of copyright. for example, I could
> > envision an argument that an artist sues the RIAA for abusing his
> > copyrighted works for bogus lawsuits against P2P systems.
> 
> I guess the argument would boil down to who has copyright and who or what
> has "moral right".  For sculpture and painting the duplication rights are
> kind of obvious, but the destruction/use/"first sale" is complicated.
> For digital art/music duplication rights are complicated, and use in
> other works ("fair use") gets really messy.

I guess you misinterpret the "morale rights" doctrine. not that I'm a
lawyer, but to my reading of the german copyright law, the morale
rights are thus:

- publication
  the creator can control if and how his work gets published. only he may
  cite from or describe his work in public as long as neither the work
  nor a description of it are published with his permission.
  (e.g. even the publisher can't leak stuff without the author's consent)
  
- credit
  the creator must be given proper credit, and he can choose if and
  what kind of credit (e.g. if he wants to use his real name or a
  pseudonym)
  
- defense against disfiguration (?)
  creator can fight against attacks on the integrity of his work,
  within limits.
  this is the complicated part. as I parse it, the intention was that
  if you, say, write a poem against communism and by some freak
  accident the communist party adopts it as their hymn, you can stop
  them from doing so (unless you enjoy the irony of it).



to me, the german copyright appears to take much more consideration of
the author, while the US copyright system is entirely economical in
nature. no surprise that the idea of "intellectual property" comes from
your side of the atlantic, it doesn't fit very well with most european
copyright doctrines.
that said, your original terms of copyright were more sensible - europe
has always had durations such as 70 years or "death + 50 years" and
other bullshit.

too bad the "new world order copyright" takes the bad from each,
instead of the good.


-- 
New GPG Key issued (old key expired):
http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html
pub  1024D/2D7A04F5 2002-05-16 Tom Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Key fingerprint = C731 64D1 4BCF 4C20 48A4  29B2 BF01 9FA1 2D7A 04F5

Re: Artist's rights? [was: RE: Sci Journals, authors, internet]

[Ken Brown]

These laws don't really get into cyberpunks territory, because they are
about rights that are reserved to the original artist, and cannot be
transferred to publishers or distributors or record companies, and can
only be possessed by natural persons, not corporations. So (in France,
not the USA) a musician or a film directory might be able to sue Time
Warner or Sony if they insist on adding watermarks or copy protection to
a work, but neither could sue a cypherpunk for taking the watermarks
off.  In the USA the moral rights, AFAICT, wouldn't apply to the copy or
reproduction anyway, only the original. 

"Trei, Peter" wrote:

> As an example, consider the Richard Serra's 'Tilted Arc', a 12 foot
> high, 120 foot long, 70 ton slab of rusty (and usually grafitti covered)
> steel which blocked the entrance to the main Federal building in
> lower Manhatten for several years. After about a zillion complaints,
> it was moved, and Serra sued the GSA for $30million, on the grounds
> that the piece was "site specific", and that by moving it the GSA had
> destroyed it.
> 
> http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/martin/art_law/tilted_arc.htm

But the important point about that is that the artist lost!  According
to the website the tried "breach of contract, trademark violations,
copyright infringement and the violation of First and Fifth Amendment
rights" and lost all of them. So the new law has no real effect other
than to give a few days work to some lawyers.

[...]
 
> http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/WkngPprs_101-25/123.WL.VARA.pdf
> discusses the  'Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990, which is highly
> relevant to this topic.

Thanks for that - I hadn't heard of VARA before. No real reason I should
have I suppose, it being in the USA and me not.  It seems much more
limited than the French moral rights, in that it only applies to unique
objects, not to texts or to broadcast or recorded work.

According to the commentary in that paper the US experience with VARA
seems to agree with  what I have read about the French laws (in books
and papers trying to explain them to us English, who never had such
rules before), in that few actions are taken under it and that they are
almost always relatively unknown sculptors objecting to treatment of a
work of public art. With the implication that they are doing it more for
the publicity than for the damages, which are either never awarded (in
the USA) or are tiny (in France).

Ken

Artist's rights?

[Michael Motyka]

> On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Lucky Green wrote:
> 
> > The other half of the shears cutting away at the public's right to
> > entertain themselves with the artwork they purchased in any way they
> > please is represented by parts of the art culture of significant
> > political clout, in particular in Europe. Bills are pending or have
> > already passed, that make it illegal for a buyer of a work of art to
> > simply dispose of the work, or use it as kindling in his fireplace, once
> > he no longer desires to own it. No, you can't just burn that painting
> > you bought from some street corner painter five years ago. Though you
> > are permitted to give the painting back to the artist. Without
> > compensation, of course.
> 
> the american artists are also trying to get this kind of "right"
> in place for themselves.  The perspective isn't so much copyright
> as it is "leave it alone forever".  But it amounts to the same thing.
> 
Beyond absurd. A piece of art is like any other piece of property.

Mike

Re: CDR: RE: Sci Journals, authors, internet

[Tom]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 06:27:04AM -0700, Mike Rosing wrote:
> > simply dispose of the work, or use it as kindling in his fireplace, once
> > he no longer desires to own it. No, you can't just burn that painting
> > you bought from some street corner painter five years ago. Though you
> > are permitted to give the painting back to the artist. Without
> > compensation, of course.
> 
> the american artists are also trying to get this kind of "right"
> in place for themselves.  The perspective isn't so much copyright
> as it is "leave it alone forever".  But it amounts to the same thing.

actually, as with most laws, the basic idea behind the "moral rights"
isn't that bad, it just got perverted.

if used differently, the "morale rights" part could well be used to put
a limit on the corporate abuse of copyright. for example, I could
envision an argument that an artist sues the RIAA for abusing his
copyrighted works for bogus lawsuits against P2P systems.


-- 
New GPG Key issued (old key expired):
http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html
pub  1024D/2D7A04F5 2002-05-16 Tom Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Key fingerprint = C731 64D1 4BCF 4C20 48A4  29B2 BF01 9FA1 2D7A 04F5

Re: Sci Journals, authors, internet

[Ken Brown]

Steve Furlong wrote:
 
> My experience with scientific journals is more than a few years old. Do
> any of youse have personal experience with publishing both several
> years ago and recently?


In practice these days many scientists put copies of their stuff on
personal or institutional websites, perhaps regardless of journal's
objections.  If you Google for the authors of recent papers you often
find something, quite often something closely resembling their next
paper. 

There is a difference between refusing a paper that has already
appeared  elsewhere and trying to enforce copyright after paper
publication. Most journals try the first, many no longer try the second.
It really depends how much clout they have.  /Nature/ might be able to
enforce their embargo by the mere threat of not publishing your next
paper.  /The Proceedings of the  Yorkshire Geological Society/ might be
less fearsome.  I doubt if anyone makes a fuss about papers presented at
scientific conferences or privately distributed to colleagues (how
"private" is "private" is up to the editors I suppose) Abstracts,
posters, and  so on don't usually count as prior publication - science
could hardly function if they did.

Some publishers - such as the American Society for Microbiology - say
they won't accept papers published on a non-personal website, but don't
mind those that have appeared on a private website.  Also data can be
published as long as it doesn't "constitute the substance of the
submission". Biomolecular journals often /require/ that data (especially
sequence data) be freely available online. 

/Nature/ also allows personal republication: "we are happy to extend to
all authors the rights laid out in our new licence agreements in respect
of the material assigned to us: to re- use the papers in any printed
volume of which they are an author; to post a PDF copy on their own
(not-for-profit) website; to copy (and for their institutions to copy)
their papers for use in coursework teaching; and to re-use figures and
tables."
(http://npg.nature.com/npg/servlet/Content?data=xml/05_faq.xml&style=xml/05_faq.xsl)

/Science/ still demands exclusive copyright as far as I know.
(http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/contribinfo/faq/copyright_faq.shtml)
but explicitly allows not-for-profit online "reprints" /after/
publication.

These days, if your paper is /not/ online, it is less likely to be read.
So it is in the interest of the scientist to get it as widely available
as possible. Publishers walk a fine line between over-exposure, reducing
potential paper sales, and annoying their contributors.

On-line access to material has now become a 100% necessity in almost all
fields. Most people looking up papers start with abstracting services
and citation indexes such as SCI, which is available to research
institutions through various deals (ours come through
http://tame.mimas.ac.uk), or Medline
(http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/medline.html), Current Contents,
EMBASE & so on, all of which are now online. If a journal isn't
abstracted (both the ones mentioned above are) it is unlikely to be read
except by a small group.

Many journals and publishers make some or all of their full texts
available on line to subscribers, and a large minority make them
available to non-subscribers. Some put recent papers on their websites
and withdraw them later, others are print-only for the first year or two
and upload older stuff.  There are also a number of commercial web
archives to which you can subscribe - but of course a great many
research institutions do, so many scientists are used to seeing things
online. I can see a lot of things from Science Direct
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/) or Elsevier.  others like PubMed
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed). There are old
papers archived in places like JSTOR.

In the fields I have looked at most - microbial ecology, evolutionary
biology - I reckon I can read rather more than half of the relevant
papers  online, about half of those freely the rest because we subscribe
to various services.  In straight microbiology the proportion is
probably higher, largely because of the American Microbiology Society
which puts a lot of its publications on the website. (Such as
http://intl-aem.asm.org/ - they also say they throttle the site allowing
no more than 1 download per minute per remote site) A lot of learned
societies are in effect either charities or government-funded, and so
are less concerned with profit. For example the US National Academy of
Sciences now puts new papers up daily, often some time before they
appear in print - the latest version has Quint, Smith, et al (2002)
"Bone patterning is altered in the regenerating zebrafish caudal fin
after ectopic expression of sonic hedgehog and bmp2b or exposure to
cyclopamine" which is as good a title as any
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/122571799v1

Loads of review & "current" journals are online as well. The "Annual
Reviews" are all online (thou

Re: Sci Journals, authors, internet

[Ken Brown]

Lucky Green wrote:
> 
> Peter wrote:
> > (Hmm, I wonder if it can be argued that making stuff intended
> > for public  distribution inaccessible violates the creator's
> > moral rights?  I know that  doesn't apply in the US, but in
> > other countries it might work.  Moral rights  can't be
> > assigned, so no publisher can take that away from you.
> 
> Peter has an interesting point, since in addition to common law applies
> to a trend in copyright that is prevalent in Europe (and presumably some
> other countries), but rather alien to the US, taking that trend further.

[...snip...] 

> Bills are pending or have
> already passed, that make it illegal for a buyer of a work of art to
> simply dispose of the work, or use it as kindling in his fireplace, once
> he no longer desires to own it. No, you can't just burn that painting
> you bought from some street corner painter five years ago. Though you
> are permitted to give the painting back to the artist. Without
> compensation, of course.

[...snip...] 

True, but it is an old process. In French law there has been a concept
of "moral rights" in a work for a very long time. 
These are inalienable, you can't sell them. The two most important are
(IIR the jargon correctly) "integrity" and "paternity".

The right of integrity means that if someone buys the copyright to a
work, then alters the work in a way that could affect the reputation of
the originator, they can be sued. So, for example, if a painter paints
a  picture, sells it to a publisher, then the publisher prints a defaced
version as a book cover, the painter can perhaps sue the publisher.

The right of paternity is the right to be known as the originator. It
was  imported into English law in, IIRC, 1989, but has to be asserted -
which  is why nearly all books published in Britain these days have a
note asserting the rights of the author to be known as the author.

These rights did not exist in the USA (& still don't, quite),  but the
US didn't really have copyright law in the European sense until the
1980s anyway - what they /called/ copyright was something you had to
apply for and register - very different from our English tradition which
is based on an idea of the natural property rights of an artist or
author in their own work, and so has never had to be registered or
applied for, any more than you have to get government permission to own
the clothes you stand up in. The moral rights limit the freedom of
action of publishers to the benefit of artists and authors, not, as far
as I know  the ultimate purchasers, but then IANAL and
IA-certainly-NA-French-L.

Some people who know a lot more about it than I do have said that
English law traditionally treated copyright as a matter of property,
French as a matter of personality, and the US as a sort of government
licenced monopoly or patent. But they are all much closer to each other
these days, with international copyright law being a compromise between
the old systems.

Ken Brown

Artist's rights? [was: RE: Sci Journals, authors, internet]

[Trei, Peter]

> From: Mike Rosing[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> 
> 
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Lucky Green wrote:
> 
> > The other half of the shears cutting away at the public's right to
> > entertain themselves with the artwork they purchased in any way they
> > please is represented by parts of the art culture of significant
> > political clout, in particular in Europe. Bills are pending or have
> > already passed, that make it illegal for a buyer of a work of art to
> > simply dispose of the work, or use it as kindling in his fireplace, once
> > he no longer desires to own it. No, you can't just burn that painting
> > you bought from some street corner painter five years ago. Though you
> > are permitted to give the painting back to the artist. Without
> > compensation, of course.
> 
> the american artists are also trying to get this kind of "right"
> in place for themselves.  The perspective isn't so much copyright
> as it is "leave it alone forever".  But it amounts to the same thing.
> 
As an example, consider the Richard Serra's 'Tilted Arc', a 12 foot
high, 120 foot long, 70 ton slab of rusty (and usually grafitti covered)
steel which blocked the entrance to the main Federal building in 
lower Manhatten for several years. After about a zillion complaints,
it was moved, and Serra sued the GSA for $30million, on the grounds
that the piece was "site specific", and that by moving it the GSA had
destroyed it.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/martin/art_law/tilted_arc.htm

I frequently walked by the Arc, and it was a powerful presence, but
once it ceased to be a suprise, it was mainly an irritating obstacle. 
One of Serra's arguments was that the Arc echoed the staircase 
of a courthouse across the street. I wonder if he'd have sued them 
for altering that building?

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/WkngPprs_101-25/123.WL.VARA.pdf
discusses the  'Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990, which is highly
relevant to this topic.

Peter Trei

Re: CDR: RE: Sci Journals, authors, internet

[Mike Rosing]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Tom wrote:

> actually, as with most laws, the basic idea behind the "moral rights"
> isn't that bad, it just got perverted.
>
> if used differently, the "morale rights" part could well be used to put
> a limit on the corporate abuse of copyright. for example, I could
> envision an argument that an artist sues the RIAA for abusing his
> copyrighted works for bogus lawsuits against P2P systems.

I guess the argument would boil down to who has copyright and who or what
has "moral right".  For sculpture and painting the duplication rights are
kind of obvious, but the destruction/use/"first sale" is complicated.
For digital art/music duplication rights are complicated, and use in
other works ("fair use") gets really messy.

And if I take a digital photo (well many pictures) of a sculpture and
reconstruct it in a 3D virtual world, is that "fair use" or copyright
violation?  Blech, this is gonna get worse before it gets better!

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Re: [Reformatted] Eugene Leitl want to ban thoughtcrime,

[Jim Choate]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2002, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> This is the last mattd post I'll see for a while, I expect, since I've
> updated my kill.rc file. But the prospect of a cypherpunks subscriber
> threatening to send 2 MB attachments to the list is not a pleasant one.

Why? They make 80G drives now for very cheap. Got a little pipe, get a
bigger one. The only persons who should shudder at 2M attachments are the
node operators. They have to deal with n*2M of traffic as compared to your
measly 2M.

Quite your whinning.

> (I suspect that majordomo will refuse to send anything above its default
> setting, which I'm not going to name since it'll encourage the mattd troll
> to hit that size and nothing above. But Still.)

40 bytes maximum. The current maximum that has been agreed too
informally (it's in the archives if you want to look) is 1M. SSZ is
currently set to bounce any emails over 1M (and it's detailed on the
homepage).


 --


  When I die, I would like to be born again as me.

Hugh Hefner
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  www.open-forge.org

Re: Pentagon OSI.

[Jim Choate]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Aimee Farr wrote:

> Great bloodshedding that "never happened" -- due to diplomacy and deception.
> War is the means, not the ends.

No, it's diplomacy by other means. War is only one means, not 'the' means
as this would indicate.

> Americans seem to confuse the two -- a Code Duello Culture.

Well their political leaders do anyway. Not sure if it's consistent to
equate the American people with their leaders.

> The objective is to get the enemy to do our will.

There is usually no single objective. Further, if your goal is anything
other than peaceful co-existance any distinction between you and the enemy
is specious.

> "The enemy" is just an antagonistic interest, not "a country," as we have
>  been conditioned to think.

Specious distinction. The agent pursuing the 'antagonistic interest' is a
country in most cases (at least at the scale you are speaking of).

> That embodies a range of choices, but perception
> management, even if it involves deception, should be preferred to battle.

Yeah, it's called politics.

Stating the obvious again.


 --


  When I die, I would like to be born again as me.

Hugh Hefner
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  www.open-forge.org

Re: WSJ Encrypted Laptop

[Jim Choate]

This sort of stuff will only go on for a few more years until the
distributed process and universal namespace sorts of approaches replace
the current paradigms. When that happens losing a laptop will mean nothing
because it won't have the data 'on it' in the conventional sense.


On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, John Young wrote:

> We've noted here the rise in "lost" and "stolen" laptops
> containing sensitive and classified information. First,
> one or two disappeared while a spook was drunk or
> was left behind in a taxi or taken from an unidentified 
> location.
> 
> Then amazing reports of more losses, the number rising 
> quickly, finally with surveys revealing hundreds of laptops 
> have been lost by spooks, cops, senior officals, nuclear 
> labs, state departments, and so on. Now and then encryption
> is mentioned.
> 
> We can see that the lost laptop, and its recent corollary,
> the discovered laptop, has become as useful for disinformation
> as what is being found in newly revealed secret archives
> like those reported today in the Wash Post, "Spies, Lies and
> the Distortion of History:"
> 
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55522-2002Feb23.html
> 
> To be sure, the flood of lost laptops both diminishes the
> credibility of what is on the laptops and increases it. One way
> to increase credibility is to claim files are encrypted.
> 
> What we also know is that encrypted files are now a leading
> indicator of credibility, along with the shadowy and enticing
> methods used to decrypt by unidentified parties, and to then
> carefully distribute the decrypted, authenticated thereby,
> if demonized, material.
> 
> Whether there is actually sensitive material in the demonized
> files is hard to determine so long as access to the original
> files, and a credible account of how they were comeby is
> not made available. As with the long history of astonishing
> revelations of secrets, lies and videotapes.
> 
> Moving to a related topic, is the use of the Internet for
> 
> leaking and/or psyopping disinformation, in particular
> the use of honeypots.
> 
> Cryptome is occasionally charged with being a honeypot,
> and it could be, wittingly so if we are succesful in putting
> up lurid material to bring in more luridities. A question 
> though is what information is being gathered by Cryptome 
> honeypot? The access logs, the pattern and content of 
> publication, the receipt of hot material, the distribution 
> of lies and deceptions? And if these are the profits of the 
> honeypot how is the data collection about them being 
> done?
> 
> We dream of being able to watch the honeypot harvestors
> at work, which accounts for admitting to running a honeypot,
> our lost laptop if you will. This hoary rabbit-running practice,
> you being the rabbit, as we see here with several practitioners,
> carries a Daniel Pearl-like risk. You may well lose your head
> to somebody who believes you are a wolf not merely a
> headgames-player.
> 

RE: Sci Journals, authors, internet

[Mike Rosing]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Lucky Green wrote:

> The other half of the shears cutting away at the public's right to
> entertain themselves with the artwork they purchased in any way they
> please is represented by parts of the art culture of significant
> political clout, in particular in Europe. Bills are pending or have
> already passed, that make it illegal for a buyer of a work of art to
> simply dispose of the work, or use it as kindling in his fireplace, once
> he no longer desires to own it. No, you can't just burn that painting
> you bought from some street corner painter five years ago. Though you
> are permitted to give the painting back to the artist. Without
> compensation, of course.

the american artists are also trying to get this kind of "right"
in place for themselves.  The perspective isn't so much copyright
as it is "leave it alone forever".  But it amounts to the same thing.

> While the European art circles clamoring for such moral right protection
> acts would undoubtedly denounce the assertion that they are working hand
> in glove with the MPAA's objective of dismantling the doctrine of first
> sale to the detriment of society, the two groups in fact are natural
> allies or pawns, depending on their level of awareness of the situation.
> Undoubtedly this has not been overlooked by the MPAA, though I suspect
> the European artists are blissfully unaware of how they have helped and
> continue to help to grease the MPAA's skids.

The american artists are certainly unaware of the connection.  If
the law forces the end to "art", is that such a bad thing?
:-)

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Re: Snitch jamesd outs himself.

[Jim Choate]

As an operator of one of the nodes, versus somebody who is just a
subscriber, I'll be happy to state that while clearly a waste of anybody
with a clues time the submissions are not distruptive to the list. Nor or
they spam. They are within the charter of cryptography (and related
technologies), civil liberties, and economics. This includes technical
pieces, speculative pieces, opinion pieces, etc.

I've yet to see a threat. A lot of personal opinion and taunts, but no
threat. Got an example? Something like "Kill the President" is not a
threat.

'The' list is unfiltered, individual nodes may be. Your claim we can't
filter him out is specious; we don't want to filter anyone (do you
understand this point yet? Geesh) that's your(!!!) job (I know you don't
get this one).

To attack somebody through their ISP via false claims of abuse for no
reason other than they piss you off is the epitome of chicken shit
behaviour. It's also another excellent example of what hypocrites the
majority of CACL mouthpieces are.


 --


  When I die, I would like to be born again as me.

Hugh Hefner
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  www.open-forge.org




On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, matt taylor wrote:

> Do they WANT me to keep changing my address?Do I have to write to every 
> fuckwit I've beaten in debate when I change ISP's.Fucking stalkers,fuck off 
> and die.This just in...
> 
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Youth in Asia CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Someone who appears to be posting from a nex.net.au address
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> keeps posting large volumes of spam,
> obcenity, death threats to random people, mail bombs, and so forth
> to our mailing list. He keeps changing his apparent address, so
> we have difficulty filtering him out.
> His postings were originally merely excessive and of doubtful
> relevance, but have become more and more hostile and harassing.
> 
> On 24 Feb 2002, at 5:29, matt taylor wrote:
>  > Youth In Asia Society: At our last monthly meeting, we discussed all of the
>  > reasons there are not to KILL THE PRESIDENT. We think it is our duty to
>  > inform people of our objection to those who believe it is necessary to KILL
>  > THE PRESIDENT. We also object to people who are constantly running around,
>  > shouting, incessantly, "KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE
>  > PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL
>  > THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT!
>  > KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT!" We think that
>  > this is rude. So we would ask you please not to KILL THE PRESIDENT! We
>  > don't want you to KILL THE PRESIDENT! We think it is inadvisable for you to
>  > KILL THE PRESIDENT! We certainly hope that you won't KILL THE PRESIDENT! We
>  > hope that no one you know decides to KILL THE PRESIDENT! We are dedicated
>  > in our efforts to convince people not to KILL THE PRESIDENT! We think that
>  > we will be successful in our efforts to convince people not to KILL THE
>  > PRESIDENT! We don't ask to be thanked for advising people not to KILL THE
>  > PRESIDENT! Nor do we expect to be thanked for advising people not to run
>  > around incessantly screaming "KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL
>  > THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT!
>  > KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE
>  > PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL
>  > THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT!
>  > KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE
>  > PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT!" That's why we post
>  > anonymously. We're humble.
>  >
> I responded...
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Youth in Asia Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> This particular message is a copy from the archives of this list,not only 
> was it relevant to a recent thread RE list censorship being taken on by 
> self elected list cops but it belongs to a collection I'm gathering for an 
> article I'm planning.
> I'm an entertainment journalist.jamesd is a notorious liar having an entire 
> website devoted to that topic.http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/jamesd.html
> He admits to spending 6 years in Maoist and Trotskyist lying,violent 
> subversive parties,that, I can believe.
> (He is entertaining though) Please 
> don't contribute to the closure of a once vigorous debating forum.Thanks.
> 
> 
> 

Of interest to many of you.

[measl]

>From an LEO friend:


-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:08:51 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sgt. Kevin Miller of the Detroit Police department has a plan for preventing
violence. He wants school officials to ask kids what kinds of guns their
parents keep at home and how they are stored, and he thinks that some parents
should be reported to Child Protective Services based on these interrogations
of minors without their parents' knowledge. Read about it at The Detroit Free
Press site, http://www.freep.com/news/metro/nriley2_20020602.htm


-- 
Yours, 
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
first place...



-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:08:51 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FC: How to patent a Harvard scientist (his parents' idea) (fwd)

Sgt. Kevin Miller of the Detroit Police department has a plan for preventing
violence. He wants school officials to ask kids what kinds of guns their
parents keep at home and how they are stored, and he thinks that some parents
should be reported to Child Protective Services based on these interrogations
of minors without their parents' knowledge. Read about it at The Detroit Free
Press site, http://www.freep.com/news/metro/nriley2_20020602.htm

From the recent past of Homeland defense

[Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2033000/2033324.stm


A new book reveals the 22-year effort by FBI director J Edgar Hoover to get Albert 
Einstein arrested as a political subversive or even a Soviet spy.

Uncovered FBI files are revealed in a book by Fred Jerome who says it was a clash of 
cultures - Einstein's challenge and change with Hoover's order and obedience.

>From the time Einstein arrived in the US in 1933 to the time of his death, in 1955, 
>the FBI files reveal that his phone was tapped, his mail was opened and even his 
>trash searched. 


(if only they had Osama)

RE: Sci Journals, authors, internet

[Lucky Green]

Peter wrote:
> (Hmm, I wonder if it can be argued that making stuff intended 
> for public  distribution inaccessible violates the creator's 
> moral rights?  I know that  doesn't apply in the US, but in 
> other countries it might work.  Moral rights  can't be 
> assigned, so no publisher can take that away from you.

Peter has an interesting point, since in addition to common law applies
to a trend in copyright that is prevalent in Europe (and presumably some
other countries), but rather alien to the US, taking that trend further.

For those readers not familiar with this trend, there is the gist of it:

Everybody on this list knows that what buyers of bit strings may or not
do with such bit strings, under pain of incarceration and, should you
resist that effectively, death, is under global attack by the MPAA and
its cohorts.

 What US observers are frequently less aware of is that the same right
is as much under attack, albeit for very different reasons, by the
European cultural elite which has been as effective as the MPAA in
working on their shared goal of dismantling what in the US would be
called the doctrine of first sale. In brief, this doctrine states that
if you buy a book, painting, or DVD, you may read or watch it for as
many times as you please (including not at all), loan it to your
friends, donate it to a library, sell it to somebody else, or chuck it
out with the trash.

The MPAA desires to dismantle the doctrine of first sale for the easily
understandable reason that the MPAA's members would like to approximate
as closely as possible to a state in which each person watching a movie
has to pay the studios each time the DVD is watched. If the technology
existed at a cost acceptable for a consumer device to count the number
of people present in a room watching a particular DVD, the MPAA likely
would lobby Congress to mandate that technology's inclusion to permit
for the collection of per-watcher/watching licensing fees.

The other half of the shears cutting away at the public's right to
entertain themselves with the artwork they purchased in any way they
please is represented by parts of the art culture of significant
political clout, in particular in Europe. Bills are pending or have
already passed, that make it illegal for a buyer of a work of art to
simply dispose of the work, or use it as kindling in his fireplace, once
he no longer desires to own it. No, you can't just burn that painting
you bought from some street corner painter five years ago. Though you
are permitted to give the painting back to the artist. Without
compensation, of course.

Between the corporate objective of charging the readers of a book each
time they read it and the elitist objective of forcing the buyer to read
a book they bought at least on occasion, with both groups united in
their zeal to impose their respective view points onto the public by
force of law and the men with sub-machine guns the law employs, the
future of copyright proves to be interesting. But you already knew that
part.

While the European art circles clamoring for such moral right protection
acts would undoubtedly denounce the assertion that they are working hand
in glove with the MPAA's objective of dismantling the doctrine of first
sale to the detriment of society, the two groups in fact are natural
allies or pawns, depending on their level of awareness of the situation.
Undoubtedly this has not been overlooked by the MPAA, though I suspect
the European artists are blissfully unaware of how they have helped and
continue to help to grease the MPAA's skids.

--Lucky

Re: [Reformatted] EuroNazis want to ban thoughtcrime

[Jim Choate]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2002, Eugene Leitl wrote:

> Let's recapitulate. We have a downunder nutcase who's using this public
> resource for private dumping ground, while posting *a lot* (including
> profanity and casual death threats, iirc) and constantly changing his
> email address, thus avoiding filtering.
> 
> I don't propose the list policy to be changed, this particular forum
> should be unmoderated. However, complaining to Matt's ISP (whose terms
> he's clearly in violation with) and some grassroot pressure (if there are
> 100 people on his list willing to send back each of his messages 10x, he's
> dealing with a 1000x amplification factor on each and single of his
> messages) seems to be in order.
> 
> Does anyone see anything wrong with this plan?

Yes, a major problem.

Why are you to decide what is or is not relevant to the other list
members? Why is it that instead of managing your own mailbox, and in the
process promoting general peace (which you seem to be promoting by
homogenizing the discussion in this forum), instead you feel it is better
than your belief of what is or isn't relevant should be applied to all of
us? It is clear you are not willing to allow us to reciprocate and decide
what goes in your mailbox?

So much for CACL individualism...

The CACL Cypherpunk Contengent (CACL-CC ?) are a funny bunch. They promote
freedom of speech and action based around individual choice. Yet when put
in a position of conflict they use the same old 'force it all into one
mold' strategies that they (supposedly) rail against. Why is it this
contengent is the first to call for banning and filtering en masse?

How odd.


 --


  When I die, I would like to be born again as me.

Hugh Hefner
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  www.open-forge.org

Re: WSJ Encrypted Laptop

[Jim Choate]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Aimee Farr wrote:

> I question how well we correlate strike, protest, subversive
> activity/agitation/propaganda, and sabotage/IW inferences these days --
> especially at home, due to domestic constraints. I would think that would
> keep a "war room" quite busy with inference scanning. With today's
> coordination, it's possible to see shadows of influence, instead of "just
> our imagination."

Considering the level of inside agents and provocateurs, not only for
this sort of stuff but tax evasion and monopolies; pretty damn good
I'd guess.

Or are you proposing that the FBI agent who provokes an illegal act is
also working for somebody besides the FBI? Not likely at the scale you
would suggest.

Or perhaps you mean that the people in the unions are being infiltraited
without the FBI knowing? I suspect that when they run the various
background checks they get a clue (assuming they did them and reviewed
them).


 --


  When I die, I would like to be born again as me.

Hugh Hefner
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  www.open-forge.org

Re: Sci Journals, authors, internet

[Peter Gutmann]

Greg Newby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>Some electronic journals, some conferences and some print journals now let
>authors retain copyright or, if they keep copyright, allow authors to do what
>they please with their work.

Usenix is really good with this.  You agree not to re-publish anything for a
period of one year (to cover their print distribution), although you're allowed
to put a copy on your home page.  After that, you're free to do what you like.
They also make all their stuff available online at no charge after a year. This
is why I preferentially submit papers to Usenix rather than ACM or IEEE, I want
to get the information out there where it does some good, not have it locked up
in a copyright prison for all eternity.  I can't imagine that the ACM is going
to make much (if anything) from the reprint rights of a ten-year-old article on
distributed search algorithms, but by locking it up, very few people ever have
access to it.

(Hmm, I wonder if it can be argued that making stuff intended for public
 distribution inaccessible violates the creator's moral rights?  I know that
 doesn't apply in the US, but in other countries it might work.  Moral rights
 can't be assigned, so no publisher can take that away from you.  Any lawyers
 out there?).

>It's far more typical, though, for the journal to get all rights, except
>perhaps classroom use (aka "fair use") by the author.

That's more traditional for publishers like IEEE and ACM.  OTOH they seem to
turn a blind eye to people making papers available on their home pages, even if
the publishing agreement says you shouldn't do that.  I suspect the backlash
would be too strong if they tried to clamp down on this, although I wish it'd
be formalised in some way rather than leaving it as a grey area.

Peter.