Subscribe to this blog in Radio:
Didn't find what you were looking for?
E-mail this blog's author, Bruce Umbaugh:  |
|
 |
Wednesday, July 27, 2005 |
Con. Tent.
Thursday, July 27, 2000
And, you probably heard, Judge Patel ordered Napster shut down. Well,
technically, she didn't order Napster to cease operating, but only not to
facilitate trading copyrighted works. 'Overwhelming' evidence that the
'reason for Napster's existence' was the duplication of copyrighted works.
Shut down to come midnight, Friday, unless the 9th Circuit will stay the
order. The Napster press conference is available.
Rebecca Eisenberg channels Judge Marilyn Patel and also free associates:
Napster? Chutzpah. ALong with loads of Benton Headlines, and
Big Brothel.
3:45:26 PM 
|
|
On t'other blog in 2001: Circus day (X-Ray Net used to get a daily title).
- Homenet Publications and Press Releases
- AOL Might Join 'Identity Service' Battle,
- Saylor university on sabbatical, by Taylor Lincoln, Potomac Tech Journal.
It has been more than 16 months since Michael Saylor captured national
headlines with his pledge to donate $100 million to create a free online
university that would offer an Ivy League-caliber education.
Today, there is no tangible sign that any work has been done on the
university, Saylor representatives can’t point to a single employee and
advisers to the project say they have not been called upon.
- M.I.T. Physicist Says Pentagon Is Trying to Silence Him, by James Dao
(NYT).
- Nokia RoofTop
12:44:56 PM
|
|
Wired News: Privacy Guru Locks Down VOIP. First there was PGP e-mail. Then there was PGPfone for modems. Now Phil Zimmermann, creator of the wildly popular Pretty Good Privacy e-mail encryption program, is debuting his new project, which he hopes will do for internet phone calls what PGP did for e-mail. [Tomalak's Realm]
6:19:33 AM
|
|
Quantify that Obscenity, If You Please (Alan Wexelblat).
In what I read as a bizarre decision (can you say "Dodge!" boys and girls) a three-judge panel has issued a decision denying plaintiffs satisfaction in Nitke v Ashcroft. Lots of folk we know are involved in this case and have links:
Wendy Seltzer has the (PDF) decision online. Seth Finkelstein (serving as an expert witness in the case) has a page of resources. The best summary from the plaintiff side is John Wirenius' LiveJournal entry. (Wirenius is one of the lawyers on the case.) There's also an AP story (here on Newsday.com)
As best I can parse it, the judges agreed that the CDA (the law being challenged in the case) was in fact chilling speech that ought to be protected. However, since Nitke et al couldn't prove how much speech was being chilled, the judges ruled that she hadn't "met the burden of proof." As Wirenius notes, the judges set an impossibly high bar and then offered no guidance on how plaintiffs might meet it. Nitke has said she plans to appeal.
I can't fathom the kind of metric I would use to measure a "total amount" of chilled speech. How many people are intimidated into silence? Number of images not photographed? Size of Web sites never built? Megabytes of p0rn downloaded in secret? Someone help me out here. [Copyfight]
6:19:27 AM
|
|
|
