Centre pour l'image contemporaine
St Gervais - Geneva- CH
december 03 - 12. 04
installation interactive
download pdf
«pourquoi nous nous opposons à la propriété intellectuelle»
«Why we oppose Intellectual Property»
mails statements «on copyright»

1. Our general views on trusted computing are described in Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk, which refers to LT features in general terms along with other trusted computing technologies.

2. If computer owners had a way to prove the identity of code they were running, they could be punished for running disapproved code or for concealing their choice of operating environments. Only features that are at least potentially visible can be a basis for discrimination. There is reason to believe that current attestation schemes are detrimental to consumer welfare and that an environment in which they were ubiquitous and ubiquitously used would tend to disadvantage consumers, by forcing consumers to give up choice and control they enjoy today.

3. The approach Petitioners draw from Judge Posner’s dicta would substitute a complicated, indeterminate economic balancing test for the simple and direct Sony standard – that the provider of a should not be held secondarily liable for infringing uses if the technology is capable of substantial noninfringing uses. This Court should not reach out to undo a precedent that has given so much good service, and is so deeply rooted in copyright tradition.

4. Many vendors continue to express the view that they may, for business reasons, prevent interoperability through legal or technical measures. Regardless of their aspirations, they ultimately seem to lack the technical means to enforce their vision of limited interoperability cost-eectively on the PC platform.

5. Despite the prospect of an arms race between spyware and anti-spyware programmers akin to the familiar arms race between virus and anti-virus programmers, the current PC computing environment at least permits anti-spyware developers to produce eective detection measures and countermeasures. Spyware cannot readily conceal its presence or its transmissions of PII from a knowledgeable researcher.

6. The presence of the channel is not itself secret, but the channel achieves both condentiality and authentication against attacks from the computer owner and other software such as anti-virus or anti-spyware software. If the channel is disrupted, the program can deliberately shut down or malfunction to punish the computer owner for blocking the channel.

7. At the same time, we recognize that many aspects of successful policy implementation depend on software and hardware development from third party providers whose implementations are outside Intel's direct control.

8. We have previously suggested the inclusion of an Owner Override feature in trusted computing systems, to make sure that platforms are not used against their owners' interests.

9. John Paul Hall and more than 60 domain name owners have been sued by Ford Motor Co. for attempting to profit from domain names that include the words Ford, Jaguar, Volvo or Aston Martin

10. When Ken Hamidi was fired by Intel, Mr. Hamidi responded by e-mailing his side of the dispute to the Internal e-mail list. Intel sued to block him, and won an injunction and judgment for trespass to chattels.

11. The case, called Intel v Hamidi, arises from six firmwide email messages sent by Ken Hamidi during a two-year period to thousands of Intel employees worldwide. The messages admittedly did no harm to Intel's computer systems and caused no delays in its computer services. Intel's only claim of harm was that the employees who read Hamidi's email were distracted or upset or lost productivity.

12  As any lawyer will tell you, once you have received a valid federal subpoena, your options are limited. The subpoenas obtained by the RIAA are issued by a federal court automatically, without any lawsuit being filed or even review by a judge.

13. This, thanks to an obscure provision included in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which allows copyright owners to obtain federal subpoenas by merely making allegations of infringement.

14. More stories on Xbox hacking
A Microsoft representative would not specify which additional security measures, if any, have been added to Xbox Live around the Halo 2 launch. Microsoft listens carefully to the Xbox Live community and reserves the right to take steps necessary to preserve the integrity of the user experience, the representative said in a statement.

15. Our goal is to provide our users with secure, consistent and fair online game play. Users are not permitted to manipulate the system to the detriment of others.
Los Angeles, California - EFF today announced that it will defend Ross Plank of Playa Del Rey, California, against a wrongly filed complaint, among the 261 copyright infringement lawsuits the recording industry has filed against individuals.
The federal lawsuit filed against Plank in Los Angeles accuses him of making hundreds of Latin songs available using KaZaA filesharing software earlier this summer.

16. October 8, 2004
This is a case in which record companies and movie studios sued distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing computer networking software, alleging that the companies should be held liable for copyright infringement resulting from use of their software.

17. The Internet Archive is a public nonprofit Internet library, created to offer public access to historical collections over the Internet. Peer-to-peer file technologies are valuable tools for the Internet Archive, allowing efficient and economical distribution to the public of its collections, including growing quantities of large audio and video files.

18. Digital Rights Management or Digital Restrictions Management DRM is an umbrella term for any of several arrangements which allows a vendor of content in electronic form to control the material and restrict its usage in various ways that can be specified by the vendor.

19. Typically the content is a copyrighted digital work to which vendor holds rights. The actual arrangements are called technical protection measures although the distinction between the two terms is not particularly clear.

20. The flag’s proponents portray it as a narrow mandate that will only prohibit illegal distribution of digital television content, but in fact it will do much more:

21. 1. the flag will impose significant strictures and constraints on the design of consumer-electronics and computer products — limitations that will diminish interoperability between new products and old ones, and that even pose interoperability problems among new devices;

22.2.  the flag will limit what users can do with broadcast television content to a significantly greater degree than they are limited now.

23. This is a civil action seeking injunctive relief for intentional interference with contract; for copyright misuse; for damages for misrepresentation of copyright claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act; and for declaratory relief.

24. The inexpensive, ubiquitous publishing power of the Internet has lowered the entry bar to the marketplace of ideas and transformed millions of individuals and organizations into online publishers, joining the traditional press in the preservation and realization of the democratic aspirations of the First Amendment protection.

25. Among the new brand of publishers is defendant ProBush.com, whose publication could potentially reach millions around the globe notwithstanding its lack of substantial capital. The new medium enables ProBush.com to freely express opinions on topics as central to a democratic society as a citizen’s loyalty to the president, without having to resort to the limited and expensive forums controlled by traditional media.

26. Amici believe that the ability of average citizens to put forth their opinions without censorship or limitation based upon their financial or other abilities is one of the greatest gifts of the digital age.

27. free speech is a fundamental human right, and that freedom of the press is vital to an open, democratic society. The vast web of electronic media that now connects us is heralding a new age of communications, a new way to convey speech. New digital networks offer tremendous potential to empower individuals in an ever overpowering world.

28. While some Internet publications are expressly offshoots of more traditional media where expectations of more journalistic standards remain, the vast majority are labors of love by individuals or groups of individuals with no qualifications other than a strong passion for a particular topic.

29. The ProBush.com website is a perfect illustration of the adoption by ordinary citizens of the Internet as a medium for speech. Using simple and inexpensive technology, ProBush.com has created a soapbox from which to trumpet its views to all who care to listen. Regardless of whether those opinions are shared by this court, amici or anyone one else on the planet, our Constitutional traditions require that they be protected from overreaching claims that would not only silence ProBush.com, but chill the millions of others who have embraced this new medium as a place where they can have a voice of their own.

30. Individuals with a personal computer and access to the internet began to offer digital copies of recordings for download by other users, an activity known as file sharing, in the late 1990’s using a program called Napster.

31. Although recording companies and music publishers successfully obtained an injunction against Napster’s facilitating the sharing of files containing copyrighted recordings, millions of people in the United States and around the world continue to share digital .mp3 files of copyrighted recordings using P2P computer programs such as KaZaA, Morpheus, Grokster, and eDonkey.

32. Unlike Napster, which relied upon a centralized communication architecture to identify the .mp3 files available for download, the current generation of P2P file sharing programs allow an internet user to search directly the .mp3 file libraries of other users; no web site is involved.

33. To date, owners of copyrights have not been able to stop the use of these decentralized programs. The RIAA now has begun to direct its anti-infringement efforts against individual users of P2P file sharing programs.

34. In order to pursue apparent infringers the RIAA needs to be able to identify the individuals who are sharing and trading files using P2P programs. The RIAA can readily obtain the screen name of an individual user, and using the Internet Protocol IP address associated with that screen name, can trace the user to his ISP.

35. The RIAA has used the subpoena provisions of € 512h of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act DMCA to compel ISPs to disclose the names of subscribers whom the RIAA has reason to believe are infringing its members’ copyrights. Some ISPs have complied with the RIAA’s € 512h subpoenas and identified the names of the subscribers sought by the RIAA.

36. The RIAA has sent letters to and filed lawsuits against several hundred such individuals, each of whom allegedly made available for download by other users hundreds or in some cases even thousands of .mp3 files of copyrighted recordings. Verizon refused to comply with and instead has challenged the validity of the two subpoenas it has received.

37. On July 24, 2002 the RIAA served Verizon with a subpoena issued pursuant to, seeking the identity of a subscriber whom the RIAA believed to be engaged in infringing activity. The subpoena was for ‘‘information sufficient to identify the alleged infringer of the sound recordings described in the attached notification.''

38. The ''notification of claimed infringement'' identified the IP address of the subscriber and about 800 sound files he offered for trading; expressed the RIAA’s ''good faith belief '' the file sharing activity of Verizon’s subscriber constituted infringement of its members’ copyrights; and asked for Verizon’s ''immediate assistance in stopping this unauthorized activity.''’ ''Specifically, we request that you remove or disable access to the infringing sound files via your system.''

39. Quite apart from the important privacy and personal security issues at stake, the right to engage in anonymous speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment. That the speech at issue here is alleged to constitute copyright infringement does not matter. The subpoenas were issued before any determination had been made that the speech actually constituted copyright infringement or that it is even reasonably likely to be held to be infringing.

40. Independent artists have profited from open distribution, developing audiences in the face of competition and a tightly-controlled market. G-Man, a hitherto unknown musician, received glowing reviews, club exposure, a record deal and awards, after authorizing open distribution of his recordings.

41. The purpose and character of the use is to inform public discussion and political debate on a matter core to American democracy, the functioning of our electoral system;
b. The nature of the work is factual;
c. The archive does not embody any substantial expressive work and is necessary in the aggregate for purposes of commentary and criticism;
d. The publication of the e-mail archive does not compete with Diebold in any current or potential market.

web references:

http://www.freep.com/money/tech/domain24_20010124.htm
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/?f=20040130_eff_pr.html
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/?f=ford_v_lane_decision.html
http://www.vnunet.fr/actu/article.htm?numero=11952
http://www.eff.org/legal/active_legal.php
http://forum.zebulon.fr/lofiversion/index.php/t37857.html
http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/copyrightb/copyrightcases/copyrightcourt.htm#pacb
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/news/aug_20_2004.html#f4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MPAA_v_ThePeople/
http://www.computerlaw.com.au/nlfeb97.html#Polygram
http://www.computerlaw.com.au/nlfeb97.html#Schott
http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/why/stories/smith
http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/why/stories/turow
http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/why/stories/fauth
http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/bfcase
http://www.publicknowledge.org/pressroom/releases/pr100504

pdf references

1. Pixie: A Jukebox Architecture to Support Efficient Peer Content Exchange
Sami Rollins Department of Computer Science University of California
Kevin C. Almeroth Department of Computer Science University of California

2. Peer-to-Peer Computing
Dejan S. Milojicic, Vana Kalogeraki, Rajan Lukose, Kiran Nagaraja1, Jim Pruyne, Bruno Richard, Sami Rollins, Zhichen Xu, HP Laboratories Palo Alto

3. An Overview on Peer-to-Peer Information Systems
Karl Aberer, Manfred Hauswirth Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), Switzerland

4. Managing Complexity in a Networked Learning Environment
Jonathan Humfrey, Sami Rollins, Kevin Almeroth Bruce Bimber, Dept of Computer Science Dept of Political Science University of California University of California

5. A MANIFESTO ON WIPO AND THE FUTURE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
James Boyle

6. EFF Comments on LT Policy on Owner/User Choice and Control 0.8
Seth Schoen Electronic Frontier Foundation

7. BitTorrent and the Legitimate Use of P2P
Joe Stewart, GCIH <jstewart@lurhq.com>

Others:

1. Why We Oppose Intellectual Property[1]
Pablo Ortellado

2. PLAIDOYER POUR L’ABOLITION DES DROITS D’AUTEUR
La propriété intellectuelle, c’est le vol !
Joost Smiers Directeur du centre de recherches et maître de conférences de l’université des
arts, à Utrecht (Pays-Bas).

3. Under Cover of Anti-Piracy Public Information Will Be Privatized
James Love