Skip to main content

EFFector - Volume 14, Issue 1 - EFF & Liberty Project Defend Anonymous Poster Against Third-Party Identity Supoenas to ISPs

   
    EFFector       Vol. 14, No. 1       Feb. 7, 2001     editor@eff.org
                                      
   A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation     ISSN 1062-9424
                                      
  IN THE 161st ISSUE OF EFFECTOR (now with over 26,300 subscribers!):
  
     * EFF & Liberty Project defend anonymous poster against third-party
       identity supoenas to ISPs
     * EFF & 2600 file appeal of DMCA injunction in NY DVD/DeCSS lawsuit 
     * Diverse groups ask appellate court to overturn NY DVD/DeCSS
       injunction
     * Administrivia
       
   For more information on EFF activities & alerts: http://www.eff.org
     _________________________________________________________________
   
EFF & Liberty Project defend anonymous poster against third-party identity
supoenas to ISPs

      Electronic Frontier Foundation Press Release -- Feb. 7, 2001
      
  Free Speech Advocates Join Forces to Protect Anonymous Speech in Cyberspace
  
    The Electronic Frontier Foundation and The Liberty Project Request Court
    Protection of Internet Authors' Identities
    
      For Immediate Release
      
      Contact:
      
     Katina Bishop - Public Policy Dir.
     Electronic Frontier Foundation
     +1 202 487 0420
     gelman@eff.org
     
     Nicole Berner or Julie Carpenter
     Jenner & Block in Washington D.C.
     for the Liberty Project
     +1 202 639 2000
     
   San Francisco -- In a case involving both free speech and privacy
   rights online, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and The
   Liberty Project asked a California court today to quash a subpoena
   issued by Rural/Metro Corp. seeking to reveal the identities of two
   people who posted comments allegedly critical of Rural/Metro on a
   Yahoo! message board. The groups argue in their brief that
   Rural/Metro's attempt to reveal the identities of the individuals,
   known collectively as the Does, will intimidate critics and
   inappropriately silence constitutionally protected anonymous speech.
   
   Rural/Metro, a provider of contract fire and ambulance services
   headquartered in Arizona, served the subpoena on Yahoo! Inc. seeking
   the identity of four speakers who posted anonymous messages on the
   Yahoo!'s message board devoted to discussion of Rural/Metro. Without
   offering a single message as evidence -- or, indeed, a single fact to
   support its allegations -- Rural/Metro alleged in its complaint that
   Does posted "false, misleading and/or deceptive information" about
   Rural/Metro, that Does may possibly sometime in the future reveal
   unspecified trade secrets belonging to Rural/Metro, and that Does may
   be current or former employees.
   
   EFF and the Liberty Project have agreed to represent two of the Does
   who contacted them about the subpoena pro bono. In the brief filed
   today, the groups argue that the Court should adopt the same test
   currently used to determine whether to compel identification of
   anonymous sources in libel litigation. Under that test, the Court
   would first have to determine that the plaintiff, in this case
   Rural/Metro, has a valid claim, and then balance the harm to the
   anonymous speakers against the plaintiff's need to discover the
   identity of the speaker.
   
   "Anonymous speech has been protected in this country since the writing
   of the Federalist Papers. If the courts do not step in to protect this
   cherished right in cyberspace, we will lose it," said Lauren Gelman,
   EFF's director of public policy. EFF legal director Cindy Cohn added,
   "Powerful entities are learning that they can use the courts to
   silence their critics. When individuals choose to participate in a
   public debate anonymously, they should not have to worry that their
   identities will be divulged to anyone who doesn't like what they have
   to say."
   
   According to Nicole Berner, counsel for the Liberty Project, "many
   people converse on the Internet anonymously unaware that they have
   become the subject of a subpoena seeking their identity before it is
   too late to quash the subpoena. Our hope is that the Court in this
   case will set a standard according to which Internet service providers
   and others will be able to determine when it is and isn't appropriate
   to disclose information that may lead to the identity of an anonymous
   speaker."
   
   The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading civil liberties
   organization working to protect rights in the digital world. Founded
   in 1990, EFF actively encourages and challenges industry and
   government to support free expression, privacy, and openness in the
   information society. EFF is a member-supported organization and
   maintains one of the most linked-to Web sites in the world:
     http://www.eff.org
   EFF sees its action in this case as part of its larger mission to
   protect speech online and recently filed two other briefs on behalf of
   anonymous speakers.
   
   The Liberty Project is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the
   preservation of civil liberties. Heeding Thomas Jefferson's warning
   that "the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and
   government to gain ground," the Liberty Project was founded to promote
   individual liberty against encroachment by all levels of government.
   The organization espouses vigilance over regulation of all kinds, as
   well as restriction of individual liberties, especially the guarantee
   of free speech upon which all other liberties depend. In addition to
   its educational work, the Liberty Project offers legal assistance to
   those whose civil liberties are jeopardized.
   
   Plaintiff Rural/Metro Corp. is represented by Hartford Brown of the
   law firm Seyfarth Shaw, located in San Francisco, CA, (415) 397 2823.
   
   Full text of Defendants' Motion to Quash Third-Party Subpoena:
     http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/RMC_v_Does/
   20010202_does_quash_motion.html
   
   For more information about online anonymity see:
     http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Anonymity
   
   For more information about online free expression:
     http://www.eff.org/Censorship
   
     _________________________________________________________________
   

EFF & 2600 file appeal of DMCA injunction in NY DVD/DeCSS lawsuit

      EFF Press Relase -- Jan. 19, 2001
      
  Publisher Appeals Injunction Against News Story
  
    EFF & 2600 File Strong Appeal in DeCSS/DVD Case
    
      For Immediate Release
      
      Contact:
      
     Robin Gross, EFF Staff Attorney for Intellectual Property
     robin@eff.org
     
   NEW YORK: On behalf of a magazine and its editor, Internet civil
   liberties group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today asked a
   federal appeals court to overturn a lower court's interpretation of
   the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) as creating an
   unconstitutional restraint on free expression.
   
   EFF appealed a lower court's injunction against 2600 Magazine
   preventing it from publishing and linking to information about how
   DVDs work as part of its news coverage of the debate surrounding the
   encryption applied to DVDs. The banned information is a computer
   program called DeCSS that decrypts the data contained on DVDs.
   
   In January 2000 eight major motion picture studios sued the magazine
   and its publisher under the "anti-circumvention" rules of the DMCA.
   The District Court in the Southern District of New York decided that
   those rules prevent 2600 Magazine from publishing or even linking to
   DeCSS because it can be used to circumvent the encryption placed on
   DVDs. CSS is designed to prevent copyright infringement, but the Court
   held that publishing DeCSS was illegal even when no infringement had
   occurred and despite the fact that it was being used for legitimate,
   even constitutionally protected purposes.
   
   Emmanuel Goldstein, Editor-in-Chief of 2600 Magazine said, "The
   anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA threaten the media's ability
   to point the public to truthful information. The First Amendment has
   always protected such publication."
   
   EFF argues that the District Court did "great violence" to both the
   First Amendment and the Copyright Clause to the U.S. Constitution when
   it censored the magazine's speech. EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn said,
   "the District Court decision puts the anti-circumvention rules of the
   DMCA on a collision course with the Constitution. We are asking the
   2nd Circuit to prevent this by interpreting the statute consistent
   with the First Amendment and settled Copyright law."
   
   The appeal argues, first, that the District Court erred in failing to
   apply the strict First Amendment scrutiny that is traditionally
   required before forcing news magazines to take down news stories.
   Second, it argues that because DeCSS is required in order for people
   to make fair use of movies, the injunction preventing its publication
   by 2600 Magazine is unconstitutional because it prevents people from
   exercising their constitutional rights with regard to DVDs. Examples
   of such fair uses include movie critics and academics who wish to use
   snippets of movies for criticism and parody, video researchers who
   seek to catalogue images in movies for digital searching,
   cryptographers who wish to make scientific study of the encryption on
   DVDs and reverse engineers who wish to make competing DVD players.
   
   The appeal further argues that the justification that the District
   Court used to deny full constitutional protection to the magazine, --
   that the computer code may be "functional" when used by others -- is
   not a legitimate basis on which to lessen First Amendment protection
   for those who publish it. "Courts cannot silence the messenger," Cohn
   noted, "simply because others might misuse the message."
   
   DeCSS was authored by a Norwegian teenager, Jon Johanson, as part of
   an effort to develop an open source DVD player for the Linux operating
   system that would compete with the studios' monopoly on DVD players.
   
   Next Friday, numerous amici briefs supporting 2600 Magazine's right to
   publish and link to this information will be filed with the 2nd
   Circuit, including briefs from the ACLU, the Digital Future Coalition,
   librarians, journalists, computer scientists, law professors,
   educators, and crytographers. The studios' reply brief is due on
   February 19 and oral argument before the 2nd Circuit is expected in
   April.
   
   EFF is defending individual rights in the DVD cases as part of its
   Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression (CAFE). CAFE was launched in
   June 1999 to address complex social and legal issues raised by new
   technological measures for protecting intellectual property.
   
   For the 2600/EFF appeal brief to the Second Circuit, see:
     http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010119_ny_eff_appeal_br
   ief.html
   
   For complete information on EFF's DVD cases, see:
     http://www.eff.org/IP/Video
   
   For more information concerning EFF's Campaign for Audiovisual Free
   Expression, see:
     http://www.eff.org/cafe
   
   The Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org) is the leading
   civil liberties organization working to protect rights in the digital
   world. Founded in 1990, EFF actively encourages and challenges
   industry and government to support free expression, privacy, and
   openness in the information society. EFF is a member-supported
   organization and maintains one of the most linked-to Web sites in the
   world.
   
    Background
    
   Motion Picture Associatio of America (MPAA) members, beginning at the
   tail end of 1999, have filed suit under that controverial Digital
   Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to prevent the online availability of
   a free program called DeCSS which cracks the extremely weak encryption
   (CSS) "protecting" commercial DVDs from being played on computer DVD
   drives that run under operating systems that are not "approved" by the
   movie industry, including Linux. The MPAA has alleged that DeCSS is a
   piracy tool, even though DVDs can be easily pirated without DeCSS, and
   DeCSS is required for Linux users to be able to play their legally
   purchased and owned DVDs on their own computers. The case at hand,
   officially Universal v. Remeirdes named several defendants, including
   2600, for posting or even linking to DeCSS, alleging violation of DMCA
   provisions against distribution of copyright infringement tools. A
   similar case in Connecticut was also filed, and a very different case
   (based on state trade secret law) was filed by MPAA members (some the
   same as in the NY and CT cases, others different) against hundreds of
   plaintiffs. MPAA members even went to far as to have Norwegian law
   enforcement authorities (probably wrongfully) arrest the 16-year-old
   co-author of DeCSS, on more far-fetched copyright infringement-related
   accusations.
   
   EFF believes that the DMCA harms - nearly eliminates - all of the
   public's fair use rights, and makes criminals of people doing
   perfectly legitimate things. Our Campaign for Audiovisual Free
   Expression (CAFE) advances the following principles in response to the
   DMCA and related intellectual property holder "land grabs" against
   your rights:
    1. Piracy of an artist's work is illegal. Fair use is not.
    2. We have the right to hear, speak, learn, sing, think, watch, and
       be heard.
    3. No one should assume by default that we're criminals, and the
       technology we use shouldn't do so either.
    4. We have a right to use technology to shift time & space (including
       using a media player of choice, when we want, and where we want,
       with content we legally have access to.)
       
   These facts and the rights the uphold are already a long-standing
   feature of American intellectual property law. The new DMCA law turns
   most of it on its head, and allows monied industries to attack
   underfunded individuals, publishers and organizations with near
   impunity, for doing what they have a right to do in the first place.
   
   
   Founded in 1990, The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) actively
   encourages and challenges industry and government to support free
   expression, privacy, and openness in the information society. EFF is a
   member-supported organization and maintains one of the most-linked-to
   Websites in the world.
   
   For the 2600/EFF appeal brief to the Second Circuit, see:
     http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010119_ny_eff_appeal_br
   ief.html
   
   For complete information on EFF's DVD cases, see:
     http://www.eff.org/IP/Video
   
   For more information on EFF's Campaign for Audiovisual Free
   Expression, see:
     http://www.eff.org/cafe
   
     _________________________________________________________________
   

Diverse groups ask appellate court to overturn NY DVD/DeCSS injunction

      EFF Press Release -- Jan. 26, 2001
      
  Diverse Groups Unite to Defend Freedom of Expression Against DMCA
  
    EFF/2600 Magazine Receive Wide Public Support in DeCSS Appeal
    
      For Immediate Release
      
      Contact:
      
     Robin Gross, EFF Staff Attorney for Intellectual Property
     +1 415 863 5459
     robin@eff.org
     
   NEW YORK:  Eight Amici or "friend of the court" briefs were filed
   today in support of the Electronic Frontier Foundation's appeal of an
   injunction against 2600 Magazine, which banned the media site from
   publishing and linking to information under the Digital Millennium
   Copyright Act (DMCA) last August.
   
   Warning the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals of the danger to free
   expression posed by the DMCA, diverse groups including the American
   Civil Liberties Union, Association for Computing Machinery Law
   Committee, American Library Association and others asked the appellate
   court to overturn a lower court's ruling. Last year, a district court
   in New York barred 2600 Magazine from publishing or linking to DeCSS,
   the computer code that was at the heart of a controversy the magazine
   was covering.  Other groups filing briefs with the appellate court
   include journalists, law professors, educators, cryptographers,
   computer programmers and academics -- all warning the appellate court
   of the impingement upon First Amendment freedoms that result from the
   lower court's dangerous interpretation of the DMCA's
   anti-circumvention provisions and broad elimination of fair use
   rights.
   
   Stanford Law professor Lawrence Lessig, who co-sponsored an amicus
   brief with NYU's Yochai Benkler, explained the harm to freedom of
   expression posed by the lower court's broad granting of rights to the
   movie studios under the DMCA.   "The First Amendment limits the scope
   of copyright.  It should also limit the scope of code that protects
   copyright. That is the core issue in this case," Lessig said.
   
   A sponsor of the computer programmers' brief, noted Princeton
   University computer science professor Edward Felten, stated, "the
   lower court's interpretation of the DMCA would effectively shut down
   research in some areas of computer security, by banning the
   publication of research results in those areas.  Ironically, it  has
   already prevented me from publishing research results that could be
   used to strengthen the protection of copyrighted works," explained the
   scientist who recently cracked RIAA's encryption scheme for music, the
   Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI).
   
   Speaking on behalf of the nation's librarians, Miriam Nisbet of the
   American Library Association stated, "the lower court's decision
   seriously harms the public's ability to make legitimate, fair use of
   digital works.  As the founders of our country and Constitution
   recognized, free speech and fair use are critical components of a
   democracy."
   
   According to EFF's Legal Director Cindy Cohn, "the combination of a
   broad alliance of amici briefs, each targeting a specific issue and
   pointing out the dangers and flaws in the lower court's ruling,
   presents a powerful argument that the public's rights have been
   trampled in a variety of ways by the lower court's careless handling
   of civil liberties under the DMCA."
   
   On January 19, 2001 EFF and 2600 Magazine filed their appeal brief
   with the 2nd Circuit, requesting the lower court's ban be lifted and
   the DMCAs anti-circumvention provisions be overturned on First
   Amendment grounds.  The movie studios must file their reply brief by
   February 19th, and oral arguments are expected before the 2nd Circuit
   in April.
   
   EFF is defending individual rights in the DVD cases as part of our
   Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression (CAFE).  CAFE was launched in
   June 1999 to address complex social and legal issues raised by new
   technological measures for protecting intellectual property.
   
    Read the Amici Briefs Supporting EFF's Appeal of the Injunction Against
    2600 Magazine:
    
   Amicus Brief Sponsors: Libraries & public interest groups -- American
   Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),
   Digital Future Coalition (DFC), American Library Association (ALA),
   American Research Libraries (ARL), Music Library Association (MLA)
   
   Issues Raised:  Dangerous First Amendment implications in district
   court's ban on linking and publishing information on information about
   DVD copy restrictions.  The lower court's interpretation of the DMCA
   broadly eliminates the public's fair use rights through its banning of
   fair use tools.
   
   Brief Author: Ann Beeson of ACLU
   
   Available from
   http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010126_ny_aclu_pressrel.h
   tml (ACLU press release; includes link to PDF file of brief).
   
   Amicus Brief Sponsors: Journalists and publishers -- Online News
   Association, Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press, Newspaper
   Association of America, Student Press Law Center, Wired, Pew Center on
   the States, Silha Center for Media Ethics and Law, College of
   Communications - CSU, Fullerton
   
   Issues Raised: The chilling effect the district court's ban on linking
   to DeCSS has had on the press' ability to report truthful information
   of important public concern.  Holding media liable for readers'
   possible future illegal acts, as the lower has done, does great damage
   to freedom of press and expression.
   
   Brief Authors: David Greene of First Amendment Project and Jane
   Kirtley
   
   Available from
   http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010126_ny_journpub_amicus
   .html
   
   Amicus Brief Sponsor: ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) Law
   Committee
   
   Issues Raised: The lower court's elimination of traditional reverse
   engineering rights under the DMCA imperils science, innovation, and
   free expression.
   
   Brief Authors: ACM Law Committee Chair Andrew Grosso with Eddan Katz
   
   Available from
   http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010126_ny_acmlc_amicus.ht
   ml
   
   Amicus Brief Sponsors and Authors: Noted law professors Lawrence
   Lessig of Stanford and Yochai Benkler of NYU
   
   Issues Raised: The lower court's narrow interpretation of the DMCA
   cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny under the First Amendment.
   Congress effort to control DeCSS is actually an unconstitutional
   effort to control speech.
   
   Available from
   http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010126_ny_2profs_amicus.h
   tml
   
   Amicus Brief Sponsors: Numerous expert law professors -- Keith Aoki,
   Ann Bartow, Paul Schiff Berman, Stuart Biegel, Thomas F. Blackwell,
   James Boyle, Dan L. Burk, Julie E. Cohen, Thomas F. Cotter, Rod Dixon,
   Eric B. Easton, Michael M. Epstein, Christine Haight Farley, Susanna
   Frederick Fischer, William W. Fisher III, A. Michael Froomkin, Laura
   N. Gasaway, Llewellyn Joseph Gibbons, Laurence R. Helfer, Peter Jaszi,
   Dennis S. Karjala, Raymond Shih Ray Ku, Mary LaFrance, Michael Landau,
   David Lange, Mark A. Lemley, Joseph P. Liu, Lydia Pallas Loren,
   Michael J. Madison, Charles R. McManis, Michael J. Meurer, Eben
   Moglen, Craig Allen Nard, Ruth Gana Okediji, L. Ray Patterson, Mark R.
   Patterson, Malla Pollack, David G. Post, Margaret Jane Radin, J.H.
   Reichman, David A. Rice, Michael L. Rustad, David E. Sorkin, John R.
   Thomas, Sarah K. Wiant, Jonathan L. Zittrain
   
   Issues Raised:  DMCA is unconstitutional because Congress went beyond
   its power in enacting the DMCA, which has also placed restrictions
   upon the First Amendment that are too great to withstand
   constitutional scrutiny.
   
   Brief Author: Copyright Law Professor Julie Cohen of Georgetown
   University
   
   Available at
   http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010126_ny_lawprofs_amicus
   .html
   
   Amicus Brief Sponsors: Various leading computer programmers &
   academics -- Dr. Harold (Hal) Abelson, Dr. Andrew W. Appel, Dr. Dan
   Boneh, Dr. Edward W. Felten, Dr. Robert Harper, Andy Hertzfeld, Dr.
   Brian Kernighan, Dr. Marvin Minsky, Dr. James Morris, Dr. P.J.
   Plauger, Dr. John C. Reynolds, Dr. Ronald Rivest, Dr. Avi Rubin, Dr.
   Barbara Simons, Dr. Eugene H. Spafford, Richard Stallman, and Dr.
   David S. Touretzky
   
   Issues Raised: Computer source code is creative expression worthy of
   full First Amendment protection and the lower court erred greatly by
   creating a new category of illegal speech.
   
   Brief Author: James Tyre, Esq.
   
   Available at
   http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010126_ny_progacad_amicus
   .html
   
   Amicus Brief Sponsors: Numerous noted cryptographers -- Dr. Bruce
   Schneier, Dr. Steven M. Bellovin, Dr. Matt Blaze, Dr. David Wagner,
   Dr. Dan Boneh, Dr. Ian Goldberg, Dave Del Torto, Frank Andrew Steven.
   
   Issues Raised: The lower court's ruling threatens the important
   science of cryptography, which relies upon an open exchange of
   information.
   
   Brief Author: Jennifer Granick of Stanford Law School's Center for
   Internet and Society
   
   Available at
   http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010126_ny_crypto_amicus.h
   tml
   
   Brief Sponsors: Educators who rely on fair use rights --
   Dr. Siva Vaidhyanathan, Mary Wallace Davidson, Ernest Miller,
   Christina Olson Spiesel
   
   Issues Raised: Impingement upon the educational uses of intellectual
   property that results from the lower court's elimination of fair use
   rights under its ruling.
   
   Brief Authors: Edward Cavazos and Gavino Morin from Cavazos, Morin,
   Langenkamp & Ferraro LLP
   
   Available at
   http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010126_ny_edu_amicus.html
   
   For the EFF/2600 Magazine appeal brief to the Second Circuit, see:
    http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010119_ny_eff_appeal_bri
   ef.html
   
   For complete information on EFF's DVD cases, see:
     http://www.eff.org/IP/Video
   
   For more information on EFF's Campaign for Audiovisual Free
   Expression, see:
     http://www.eff.org/cafe
   
    Background
    
   Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) members, beginning at the
   tail end of 1999, filed suit under the controversial Digital
   Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to prevent the online availability of
   a free program called DeCSS which cracks the extremely weak encryption
   (CSS) "protecting" commercial DVDs from being played on computer DVD
   drives that run under operating systems that are not "approved" by the
   movie industry, including Linux. The MPAA has alleged that DeCSS is a
   piracy tool, even though DVDs can be easily pirated without DeCSS, and
   DeCSS is required for Linux users to be able to play their legally
   purchased and owned DVDs on their own computers. The case at hand,
   officially Universal v. Reimerdes named several defendants, including
   2600 Magazine, for posting or even linking to DeCSS, alleging
   violation of DMCA provisions against distribution of copyright
   infringement tools. A similar case in Connecticut was also filed, and
   a very different case (based on state trade secret law) was filed by
   MPAA members (some the same as in the NY and CT cases, others
   different) against hundreds of plaintiffs, in California. MPAA members
   even went so far as to have Norwegian law enforcement authorities
   (probably wrongfully) arrest the 16-year-old co-author of DeCSS, on
   more far-fetched copyright infringement-related accusations.
   
   EFF believes that the DMCA harms - nearly eliminates - all of the
   public's fair use rights, and makes criminals of people doing
   perfectly legitimate things. Our Campaign for Audiovisual Free
   Expression (CAFE) advances the following principles in response to the
   DMCA and related intellectual property holder "land grabs" against
   your rights:
    1. Piracy of an artist's work is illegal. Fair use is not.
    2. We have the right to hear, speak, learn, sing, think, watch, and
       be heard.
    3. No one should assume by default that we're criminals, and the
       technology we use shouldn't do so either.
    4. We have a right to use technology to shift time & space (including
       using a media player of choice, when we want, and where we want,
       with content we legally have access to.)
       
   These facts and the rights they uphold are already a long-standing
   feature of American intellectual property law. The new DMCA law turns
   most of it on its head, and allows moneyed industries to attack
   underfunded individuals, publishers and organizations with near
   impunity, for doing what they have a right to do in the first place.
   
   The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading civil liberties
   organization working to protect rights in the digital world. Founded
   in 1990, EFF actively encourages and challenges industry and
   government to support free expression, privacy, and openness in the
   information society. EFF is a member-supported organization and
   maintains one of the most linked-to Web sites in the world.
   
     _________________________________________________________________
   

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: Stanton McCandlish, EFF Advocacy Director/Webmaster
   (editor@eff.org)
   
   Membership & donations: membership@eff.org
   General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries: ask@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 subscribe to EFFector via e-mail, send message BODY (not subject)
   of:
   
     subscribe effector
     
   to majordomo@eff.org, which will send you a confirmation code and then
   add you to a subscription list for EFFector (after you return the
   confirmation code; instructions will be in the e-mail).
   
   To unsubscribe, send a similar message body to the same address, like
   so:
   
     unsubscribe effector
     
   Please ask listmaster@eff.org">listmaster@eff.org to manually add you
   to or 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
   
   To get the latest issue, send any message to
   effector-reflector@eff.org (or er@eff.org), and it will be mailed to
   you automagically. You can also get, via the web:
   
     http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/current.html
     
     _________________________________________________________________
   
JavaScript license information