[PLUG] [alerts at action.eff.org: EFFector 16.10: OR Action Alert: Stop the Oregon "Super-DMCA;" EFF Supports Unlicensed Spectrum]

Stafford A. Rau srau at rauhaus.org
Mon Apr 21 09:13:02 UTC 2003


>From the Electronic Freedom Foundation, a bit of point & click activism.

----- Forwarded message from Effector List <alerts at action.eff.org> -----

Message-ID: <5089524.1050904768312.JavaMail.IWAM_EUG-APP01 at eug-app01>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 22:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Effector List <alerts at action.eff.org>
To: srau at rauhaus.org
Subject: EFFector 16.10: OR Action Alert: Stop the Oregon "Super-DMCA;" EFF Supports Unlicensed Spectrum 

EFFector       Vol. 16, No. 10        April 20, 2003       ren at eff.org

A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation     ISSN 1062-9424
In the 249th Issue of EFFector:

    * Stop the Oregon "Super-DMCA!"
    * EFF Opposes State Level "Super-DMCAs"
    * EFF Supports Unlicensed Spectrum
    * Editorial: Finding a Better Way with P2P
    * Deep Links (6): Security Panel Cancelled on DMCA Threat
    * Staff Calendar: EFF at O'Reilly Emerging Tech Conference
    * Administrivia

For more information on EFF activities & alerts:
  http://www.eff.org/

To join EFF or make an additional donation:
  http://www.eff.org/support/

EFF is a member-supported nonprofit. Please sign up as a member today!

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* Stop the Oregon "Super-DMCA!"

Many states are being pressured by the Motion Picture Association of
America (MPAA) to adopt legislation that would have serious
consequences for freedom of speech, encryption, and the public's
rights. It's not too late to make a difference! Tell your state
legislators to stop this "Super DMCA" (S-DMCA) legislation.

Send a letter using EFF's Action Center:
http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=2630

Join EFF:
https://secure.eff.org

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* EFF Opposes State Level "Super-DMCAs"

Some States Pass, Others Consider Copyright Legislation

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) last week
released a detailed analysis of the dangers posed by digital copyright
bills in individual states.

The product of stealth lobbying efforts by the Motion Picture
Association of America (MPAA), these new measures are aimed at
criminalizing the possession of what the MPAA calls "unlawful
communication and access devices," but are so broad that they
could ban critical security and privacy tools online as well as
restrict what machines you can connect to the cable, satellite, and
Internet lines in your home.

Because the bills are more extreme versions of the nationwide Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), pundits refer to them as "super-DMCA"
legislation.

Even before these activities crossed activists' radar, seven states
(Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania and
Wyoming) had already enacted them into law. Similar bills have been
introduced and are currently pending in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Massachusetts, Tennessee and Texas.

"The 'super-DMCA' measures represent special interest legislation that
dramatically expands the reach of the federal DMCA, which has already
put fair use, innovation, free speech and competition in peril," said
EFF Senior Intellectual Property Attorney Fred von Lohmann.
"Communication service providers -- meaning ISPs, cable companies, and
providers of digital entertainment services -- can use this
legislation to restrict what you can connect to your Internet
connection and cable or satellite television lines and can ban a
variety of tools critical to protecting the anonymity and security of
Internet users."

EFF strongly opposes these state super-DMCA bills as unnecessary and
overbroad. The proposed bills represent the worst kind of special
interest legislation, sacrificing the public interest in favor of the
self-serving interests of one industry.

Links
For this release:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/states/20030414_eff_sdmca_pr.php

EFF analysis of state "super-DMCA" bills:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/states/200304_sdmca_eff_analysis.php

EFF state-level "Super DMCA" initiatives archive, with Action Alerts
for people in affected states:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/states/

EFF white paper on unintended consequences of the DMCA:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20030102_dmca_unintended_consequences.html

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* Electronic Frontier Foundation Supports Unlicensed Spectrum

Asks FCC to Broaden Wireless Broadcast Realm

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) recently
supported a spectrum policy proposal from the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) and asked the FCC to acknowledge its First Amendment
obligation to allocate additional spectrum for unlicensed use.
Unlicensed use of spectrum would permit the expansion of wireless
communication, including Wi-Fi-style technology.

EFF asked the FCC to adopt the policy proposed in Notice of Inquiry
02-328, "Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and
in the 3 GHz Band." In this notice, the FCC seeks comment on the
allocation of additional spectrum for unlicensed use, similar to the
allocation that makes Wi-Fi devices possible. The Commission proposes
to carve spectrum for unlicensed use out of unused TV station
frequencies, which would dramatically increase the "open" spectrum
available for technological innovation.

"Spectrum regulation is a form of speech regulation," said EFF
Outreach Coordinator Cory Doctorow. "We support the Commission's
proposal to make more spectrum available for unlicensed applications
like Wi-Fi, moving us closer to a world where we all may speak over
the airwaves."

The FCC traditionally justifies regulating spectrum use on grounds of
scarcity, arguing that if anyone were allowed to broadcast, the
resulting chaos would create so much interference that no one would be
heard. The success of Wi-Fi and other uses of the unlicensed 2.4GHz
band demonstrates that unlicensed use models allow far more speakers
than the FCC's old "command-and-control" model of spectrum allocation.

Links
For this release:
http://www.eff.org/Infra/Wireless_cellular_radio/20030417_eff_spectrum_pr.php

EFF comment on proposed FCC unlicensed spectrum regulation:
http://www.eff.org/Infra/Wireless_cellular_radio/20030417_eff_fcc_spectrum_letter.php

FCC notice of inquiry on unlicensed spectrum:
http://www.fcc.gov/Document_Indexes/Engineering_Technology/2002_index_OET_Notice.html

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* Editorial: Finding a Better Way with P2P

An edited version of the following editorial, written by EFF
senior staff attorney Fred von Lohmann, appeared in the Daily
Princetonian on Monday, April 14. The editorial appeared a few days
after Princeton undergraduate Daniel Peng was sued by 16 major record
labels for running a LAN indexing tool on the Princeton campus
network. Similar lawsuits were filed against three other
undergraduates at Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) and Michigan
Technological University (MTU).

These lawsuits are only the most recent examples of the lengths to
which the entertainment industries are willing to go in their campaign
against what they call "Internet piracy." Increasingly, we are facing
a stark choice -- either continuing on our present course, with the
entertainment industries demanding and obtaining the power to
re-architect the Internet, or choosing a path that gets copyright
owners (and artists) paid without compromising our freedoms. The
following editorial explores a possible alternative.

~ ~ ~ ~

Finding a Better Way with P2P
Fred von Lohmann

Suing college students. Forcing ISPs to rat out customers. Petitioning
Congress for unprecedented vigilante powers. Deploying armies of
lawyers to sue technology companies. Threatening universities and
corporations. Demanding that ISPs disconnect tens of thousands of
Internet users. Hiring electronic enforcers to monitor computer users.

None of these efforts by the recording industry has put a single
nickel into the pockets of a musician. And none of these efforts has
slowed the spread of peer-to-peer ("P2P") file sharing. More Americans
have used file-sharing software than voted for the President. 

But we are paying a price. Responding to pressure from the
entertainment industry, the University of Wyoming is now monitoring
and recording all university Internet traffic. One hundred Naval
Academy cadets have been disciplined for file-sharing. Investment in
innovative P2P companies has dried up. Some members of Congress,
addled by a steady diet of propaganda and campaign contributions from
the entertainment industries, have suggested that the answer might be
to expel, or even jail, college students. Music fans are frustrated
and alienated from the musicians they love.

The hysteria over P2P has gotten out of hand. While protecting
copyright is a worthwhile endeavor, suing college students will not
get artists a penny more in royalties. Conscripting cash-strapped
universities to act as muscle for the entertainment industries is
absurd. Putting entire universities under constant surveillance is
simply unacceptable. 

There is a better way.

The problem is not P2P file sharing. In fact, file sharing is a
remarkable innovation that has enabled a world-wide community of music
fans to build the greatest library of recorded music in the history of
the world. 

The problem is that artists are not getting paid. It is time to
address the problem. 

The right answer is obvious: we need to collect a pool of money from
Internet users and agree on a fair way to divide it among the artists
and copyright owners.  There are many ways to do this.  One
interesting way is with something copyright lawyers call a "compulsory
license."  It might work something like this: Internet service
providers (including universities) might add a flat monthly surcharge
to the fees they charge for Internet access. Part of these fees would
be remitted to the record labels, while some would be paid directly to
the artists (who today frequently are victims of unfair contracts and
crooked royalty accounting). The fees would be divided up fairly,
based on popularity on the file-sharing networks, measured with
sampling methods like the Neilsen ratings that respect our privacy
while tabulating the P2P "charts." Having paid the fee, fans could
engage in private, non-commercial file-sharing without worrying about
being hunted down like criminals.

That's only one possible way to get artists paid; there are many
others to choose from. Systems like this are already in place in a
variety of other areas. Anyone can record a cover of a song, without
having to ask permission from the song-writer, so long as they pay a
standard fee per copy they sell. In the cable television arena, cable
networks do not have to ask for copyright permissions in order to
retransmit over-the-air programming. Instead, they simply pay a fee to
those who own the copyrights in the programs. Webcasters, similarly,
are allowed to play whatever they like, so long as they pay a fee set
by the Library of Congress. 

The university environment could be a testing ground for alternative
compulsory licensing models. In exchange for standing up strongly for
their users' privacy rights, universities could begin negotiating for
experimental campus-wide blanket licenses for file-sharing. 

After all, the reality is that file-sharing is almost certainly going
to remain a fact of campus life. The debate should be about getting
artists and copyright owners fairly compensated, not about how many
students should be expelled or how to install surveillance equipment
on campus networks. 

Fred von Lohmann is a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (www.eff.org), a membership-supported nonprofit
organization that defends civil liberties and free expression in the
digital world.

Links
Editorial in the Daily Princetonian:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2003/04/14/opinion/7930.shtml

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* Deep Links
Deep Links features noteworthy news items, victories, and threats from
around the Internet.

~ Security Panel Cancelled on DMCA Threat
Atlanta's Interz0ne conference gets chilly.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-996836.html

~ Big Databases + Little Oversight = False Positives
Bruce Schneier explains how enormous law-enforcement databases like
the National Crime Information Center should give innocent people
reason to worry.
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0304.html#7

~ Anti-Spam Bill Introduced
Montana Republican Sen. Conrad Burns and Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron
Wyden push valid return address requirements (and more) to fight spam.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=2546775

~ Good News for Trademarks and the Internet
Sixth Circuit finds no trademark violation in post-domain paths.
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0111p-06.pdf

~ Student Attitudes on Downloading Music
USA Today reports that most don't feel bad about it.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/2003-04-09-download_x.htm

~ The Truth is Hard to Face
Tests indicate that face-recognition technology isn't very accurate.
http://www.frvt.org/FRVT2002/documents.htm

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* Staff Calendar
For a complete listing of EFF speaking engagements (with locations and
times), please visit:
http://www.eff.org/calendar/

~ Tuesday, April 22 - Fred von Lohmann at O'Reilly Emerging Technology
Conference; "Law and Emerging Technologies"

~ Wednesday, April 23 - Cory Doctorow and Wendy Seltzer at O'Reilly
Emerging Technology Conference; "DRM in Practice: Rights,
Restrictions, and Reality"

~ Saturday, April 26 - Fred von Lohmann at Beverly Hills Bar
Association's Entertainment Law Seminar

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* Administrivia

EFFector is published by:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA
+1 415 436 9333 (voice)
+1 415 436 9993 (fax)
  http://www.eff.org/

Editor:
Ren Bucholz, Activist
  ren at eff.org

To Join EFF online, or make an additional donation, go to:
  http://www.eff.org/support/

Membership & donation queries:
  membership at eff.org

General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries:
  ask at eff.org

Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged.
Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of EFF. To
reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors for
their express permission. Press releases and EFF announcements &
articles may be reproduced individually at will.

To change your address or other information, please visit:
  http://action.eff.org/subscribe/

If you have already subscribed to the EFF Action Center, please visit:
  http://action.eff.org/action/login.asp.

To unsubscribe from the EFFector mailing list, send an email to
alerts at action.eff.org with the word "Remove" in the subject.

(Please ask ren at eff.org to manually remove you from the list if this
does not work for you for some reason.)

Back issues are available at:
  http://www.eff.org/effector

You can also get the latest issue of EFFector via the Web at:
  http://www.eff.org/effector/current.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++
You received this message because srau at rauhaus.org is a member of
the mailing list originating from alerts at action.eff.org. To unsubscribe 
from all mailing lists originating from alerts at action.eff.org, send an 
email from srau at rauhaus.org to alerts at action.eff.org with 'Remove' as the
only text in the subject line.

----- End forwarded message -----




More information about the PLUG mailing list