Computer underground Digest Sun Dec 14, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 90 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu) News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest CONTENTS, #9.90 (Sun, Dec 14, 1997) File 1--Online Copyright Cases Can Simply Be Difficult. File 2--The Digital Citizen: More Nonsense from *Wired* File 3--XS4ALL files complaint with Chief Public Prosecu File 4--"Hackers" hit Yahoo.com - leave "ransom" note File 5--Mitnick Supporters Deny Yahoo Hack File 6--Child Protection and Parental Empowerment / Interactive Media File 7--Technological Breakthrough (humor) File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Dec, 1997) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 14:29:27 -0500 From: "David J. Loundy" Subject: File 1--Online Copyright Cases Can Simply Be Difficult. Published in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, December 11, 1997 at page 6. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Online Copyright Cases Can Simply Be Difficult. Copyright 1997 by David Loundy Archived at http://www.Loundy.com/CDLB/ To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to Loundy-request@netural.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ When discussing copyright issues on-line, there are a lot of esoteric questions that can be asked about unusual situations. Some of these situations are merely fodder for law school exams, and some revolve around threatened or actual litigation. A recent federal case, however, has a refreshingly simple set of facts-- unfortunately it shows that some difficult questions about the finer interpretation of copyright law are not easy to avoid in a digital setting. The relevant facts of Marobie-FL v. National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors, No. 96 C 2966 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 1997) are as follows: The National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors, or NAFED, has a web page. The operator of the web page received an offer for some "clip-art." He sent off a few blank disks, and received them back full of computer images of firefighter-related art. He placed the images on NAFED's web page for anyone to download as a courtesy provided by NAFED, and advertised their presence. The images, however, were copyrighted property of plaintiff Marobie-FL, doing Business as Galactic Software. When sales of the clip art plummeted, and Marobie learned it was because the images were available for free on NAFED's web page, Marobie, sued NAFED, and, for good measure, Northwest Nexus, NAFED's Internet service provider which hosted NAFED's web page. Was there a copyright infringement? Sure. Finding infringement in such a case is something of a no-brainer. The plaintiff had a valid copyright, and unlicensed copies were made. Unfortunately, Judge Robert W. Gettleman went further than necessary in finding a copyright infringement of the plaintiff's work. The judge held that NAFED's acts constituted a reproduction of the plaintiff's work in violation of its exclusive right to make reproductions, as provided in 17 U.S.C. Section 106(1). The court cited the Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena case (839 F.Supp. 1552 (M.D. Fla. 1993) as precedent. Unfortunately, the Judge continued with an argument that was made in the Playboy case and found a violation of the exclusive right to distribute copyrighted works, a right protected by 17 U.S.C. Section 106(3). In neither case, however, was the distribution right violated. Section 106(3) of the Copyright Act protects the right "to distribute copies . . . of the copyrighted work to the public by sale, or other transfer of ownership, or by rental lease or lending." Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines a copy as "material objects . . . in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." Where are the copies in this case? The original floppy disks are copies. The webmaster's hard drive constitutes a copy. Northwest's computers' hard disks are also copies. Were any of these copies distributed by NAFED? No. All of these copies remain with their initial owners. NAFED did not give its hard disks to web surfers who called up its web page and downloaded the copyrighted clip art. Rather, NAFED reproduced a portion of the contents of the hard disk for the web surfers. There is clearly a reproduction at issue, but there is no distribution. The first defense NAFED offered is that it was an innocent infringer, and thus, any damages should be sharply reduced. NAFED argued that the images did not have a copyright notice, nor did the disk containing the images. The Copyright Act, however, does not require a notice. Furthermore, the court pointed out that the legal copies of Marobie's disks did have a copyright notice-- the disks NAFED claims are lacking copyright notices are those of NAFED's webmaster, who sent the disks to an unknown source in order to acquire the infringing clip art. Of course, no copyright case would be complete without a claim that the infringer's use is a fair one, and thus protected by 17 U.S.C. Section 107. And, of course, the argument is often a losing one. Gettleman found that even though NAFED is a non-profit company, and did not sell the clip art, the use could still be considered a commercial one. The judge held that NAFED would benefit from making Marobie's work available on its web page by promoting NAFED's association and raising advertising revenue, all without paying the customary price for the use of the works. Furthermore, the works were not used for traditional fair uses such as criticism, teaching, news reporting and the like. The type of material copied-- creative pictures-- also constituted a strike against the defendant's fair use claim, as did the fact that three of the plaintiff's five disks were copied in their entirety, and each of the three copied disks was subject to a separate copyright. The final fair use factor, potential damage to the market for the copyrighted work, was presumed from NAFED's use of the work. The analysis of the Internet service provider's liability is where this case demonstrates some of the complexities of on-line copyright law. There have been a number of cases, such as MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993) that have held that loading software into a computer's Read-Only Memory (RAM) constitutes the creation of a copy. Based on the aforementioned definition of a copy, this seems like an appropriate finding. Northwest, however, argued that based on how the technology works in the case of its web server, although the copyrighted work passed through its computer's RAM, there was no "fixation" of the work in that RAM. In the words of the statute, the argument is that the work is not "sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for more than a transitory duration." It is the transitory duration portion of the definition that was Northwest's hook. Northwest asserted that its system made the reproductions so quickly that a complete copy was never even present in its system's RAM. Northwest also argued that its situation was not analogous to that of MAI, or, more specifically to that in Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communications Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995 (available on the Internet at http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/RTC_v_Netcom.html), because, in both MAI and Netcom, the work was present in the computers' RAM for a much longer period of time. The judge rejected this argument, focusing on the "perception" aspect, rather than the "transitory duration" aspect. The court seized on the language from the definition of "copies" and argues that the "copies" generated by Northwest could still be perceived "with the aid of a machine or device" and thus, Northwest was making reproductions of the protected works. The court missed that Northwest appeared to be challenging whether there is a "fixation"-- which requires that a copy exist for "more than a transitory duration." To find against Northwest on this issue, as the issue was framed by Northwest, would be to find that other similar means of digital transmission-- such as the transmission of telephone calls via fiber-optics or satellites, or digital broadcasting of radio, television, or some portable phones-- all constitute the creation of potentially infringing copies by the service provider. The court did acknowledge that it may be the web surfer who was "fixing" the copies, but nonetheless the court rejected Northwest's argument that its computers were not copying the plaintiff's works. Gettleman did, however, accept Northwest's argument that, based on the Netcom case, Northwest should not be held liable for any such copies that were made. The Netcom court refused to hold a service provider strictly liable for its machine's passive operation. Here also, the court found that there was no active involvement on the part of the service provider-- all Northwest did was provide "the means to copy, distribute or display plaintiff's works, much like the owner of a public copying machine used by a third party to copy protected material." While this may be the just result based on the lack of participation or knowledge of the service provider, it is not a necessary result under the Copyright Act. This fact was illustrated in the recent Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Webbworld case (No. 3-96-CV-3222-DES, (N.D. Tex., June 27, 1997). In the Webbworld case, the judge made a distinction (based on a perhaps inaccurate interpretation of the facts) between the Netcom case and the facts in front of it, and held that a service provider could be held liable for 'automated' copyright infringements. The Webbworld case was not addressed in Gettleman's opinion. Cases such as this show that where there is a clear infringement of a copyright on-line, remedies are available against the truly responsible party. Although there may be arguments put forth to justify or excuse infringements, the law is really more clear than many people make it out to be. However, the law as it applies to service providers is often not nearly so clear. In some cases, such as Webbworld, the service provider is a bad actor, and copyright holders should clearly have a remedy. In cases such as Marobie, the service provider really should have some insulation from liability. However, cases such as this illustrate that these are complex issues, the subtleties and implications of which are often missed in court decisions. ______________________________________________________________________ David J. Loundy | E-Mail: David@Loundy.com | WWW: http://www.Loundy.com/ Davis, Mannix & McGrath | Listserv (for my Technology 125 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 1700 | Law column): Send a message Chicago, IL 60606-4402 | reading "subscribe" to Phone: (312) 332-0954 | Loundy-request@netural.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 14:32:06 -0500 From: Stephen Talbott Subject: File 2--The Digital Citizen: More Nonsense from *Wired* NETFUTURE Technology and Human Responsibility -------------------------------------------------------- Issue #61 Copyright 1997 Bridge Communications December 1 1997 ----------------------------------------------------------- Editor: Stephen L. Talbott (stevet@oreilly.com) On the Web: http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/stevet/netfuture/ You may redistribute this newsletter for noncommercial purposes. The Digital Citizen: More Nonsense from *Wired* ----------------------------------- Always specializing in missing the point, *Wired* magazine succeeds more spectacularly than usual in its December issue. The cover article by Jon Katz (a *Wired* contributing editor) celebrates the "first in-depth poll" of the digitally Connected, and reports that they are "optimistic, tolerant, civic-minded, and radically committed to change." Almost all conventional wisdom about digital culture -- especially as conveyed in recent years by journalists, politicians, intellectuals, and other fearful guardians of the existing order -- is dead wrong. The Internet, it turns out, is not a breeding ground for disconnection, fragmentation, paranoia, and apathy .... The online world encompasses many of the most informed and participatory citizens we have ever had or are likely to have. The poll, sponsored by *Wired* and Merrill Lynch Forum, assures us that the Connected are more likely than the Unconnected to know who the chief justice of the United States is; to believe in change, racial diversity, and a better future; to have confidence in the two-party political system; and to read books. All of which, we're told, puts the lie to the "countless tales of perversion, porn, hatemongering, violence, addiction, and other perils" that mainstream journalism is forever disseminating. The common stereotype of the Internet as a haven for isolated geeks who are unaware of important events occurring outside their cavelike bedrooms can now be exploded as an inaccurate myth. The same goes for the caricature of technology as a civic virus that breeds disaffection from politics. (Despite repeated allusions to them, Katz never tells us exactly which publications constitute this Net-bashing mainstream. He seems to have in mind those often silly articles that some publications occasionally run, dramatizing the "dark side of the Net." The tabloid-urge, unfortunately, *is* a part of mainstream journalism. But this fact is wholly compatible with the dominant reality Katz ignores. Where is the mainstream publication whose education pages are trying to brake the lemming-rush to wire our schools, or whose business pages do not urge the centrality of everything high-tech for our economic future, or whose feature pages do not lionize the latest, hot, high-tech start-ups along with their CEOs, or whose editorial pages fail to treat the "information superhighway" as a sacred cow that should be encouraged to wander unimpeded into every corner of our culture, or whose Christmas buyers' guides are not doing everything possible to stimulate consumer interest in the coolest high-tech gadgets?) Katz' primary mission is to let us know beyond any doubt that clearly, there is now evidence that technology promotes democracy, citizenship, knowledge, literacy, and community. I have three comments: First, until very recently the critiques of digital culture were necessarily directed at the culture's earlier, "purer" manifestations -- what we might call the John Perry Barlow phase of the Net, when a heady mixture of libertarianism, warmed-over counterculture, and technological optimism ruled the day. It was a time when the networked computer could be embraced wholesale as the redemptive substitute for rotten social institutions. This electronic culture was rooted in the research departments, computer engineering organizations, underground publications, university computer science programs, and bulletin board networks that incubated the modern Net and brought it to birth. It's hardly surprising that the various utopian disaffections, cultural distortions, and imbalances of that earlier phase have been diluted by the more recent arrival of the masses. Second, the poll results reflect the education, political power, economic strength, and faith in the existing order characteristic of a relatively privileged class -- namely, those who are *able* to get connected and are equipped to capitalize on their connections. And, again, it is hardly surprising to find that the more educated, better-off folks are also better-read, more politically engaged, and so on. I have little doubt that a poll taken during the first decade or two of the television era would likewise have shown a relatively well off, better-educated, better-read, and politically engaged audience. There were, at the same time, widespread, positive expectations about the future of television-influenced education, culture, and politics. So what? Third, Katz' answer to the "so what?" is missing. He doesn't supply a single sentence to support his contention that "technology promotes democracy, citizenship, knowledge, literacy, and community." A poll purporting to show what sort of user has connected during the build-up of the Net tells us nothing at all about the effects the Net will "promote" in these users. For that you would need to track these users over time. Meanwhile, he might have remembered television. Regardless of the well- intentioned involvements and expectations of those who took up television, it would not be easy today to argue that television strengthened community or encouraged democratic participation or redeemed education. But, in any case, my point is that the argument needs to be *made*, not just assumed. Until Katz offers at least a shred of evidence that the Net will indeed prove salutary, his claim remains suspended in mid-air, lacking all support. It is hard to believe that the editors of a major publication would offer such a massive non sequitur as a dramatic cover feature. The giddy sense of exultation and triumph with which Katz and *Wired* herald this poll of 1444 Americans is, for me, the most telling aspect of the article. Whatever may be the case with Net users as a whole, *these* folks apparently remain in the Barlow, wish-fulfillment phase of cyberspatial development. It's an especially unhealthy phase. Katz welcomes a poll result showing extraordinary confidence among the Connected in their ability to master and direct the forces of technological change. We who are connected certainly do have good reason to believe we can ride these forces for personal advantage -- I am certainly making the attempt -- and that may be enough to sustain considerable enthusiasm for a time. But for any of us, at this point in history, to fancy ourselves masters of the self-driven, global, technological juggernaut is the sheerest fantasy. The sober effort to *achieve* such mastery is, of course, exactly what's needed. Unfortunately, there still aren't many signs of sobriety at *Wired*. ============== Current and past issues of NETFUTURE are available on the Web: http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/stevet/netfuture/ To subscribe to NETFUTURE, send an email message like this: To: listserv@infoserv.nlc-bnc.ca subscribe netfuture yourfirstname yourlastname No Subject line is needed. ------------------------------ From: "Maurice Wessling" Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:47:12 +0000 Subject: File 3--XS4ALL files complaint with Chief Public Prosecu Press release 15 december 1997 XS4ALL files complaint with Chief Public Prosecutor XS4ALL Internet Friday filed a complaint with Chief Public Prosecutor Vrakking in Amsterdam against the Examining Magistrate and Public Prosecutor who ordered XS4ALL on October 31st to tap the Internet traffic of one of its users. The Ministry of Justice had based its instruction on Article 125i of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On November 13th XS4ALL refused to comply, as in its view this lacked all legal basis. Failure to comply with legal instructions is a penal offence. Given all the reactions that XS4ALL has meanwhile received, it is reinforced in its view that the Ministry has exceeded its remit. On the basis of Article 125i of the Code of Criminal Procedure, tapping is not something that can be or should be requested. XS4ALL believes that the attempt by the Ministry to compel it to cooperate in applying illegal methods of investigation should not be allowed to pass off without sanction. XS4ALL is urging that an early trial case be brought so that a penal court can pronounce on the finding and the action of the civil servants involved. XS4ALL has therefore filed a complaint on the basis of Articles 365 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 140 of the Penal Code. Article 365 of the Code of Criminal Procedure implies 'coercion' by a civil servant, whereby a civil servant abuses his authority and compels someone to do something. In this case, the civil servants involved knew that the instruction was not founded in law and abused their authority by still demanding that their instruction be followed. Furthermore, publications also reveal that the same instruction has been given to various other Internet Providers and that there were lengthy discussions with them. There are therefore adequate grounds for suspecting the civil servants involved of participation in an organisation engaged in committing crimes; Article 140 of the Penal Code applies. XS4ALL feels obliged in principle to protect its users' privacy. Furthermore, XS4ALL has a commercial interest, as it must not run the risk of users bringing proceedings under civil law on account of unlawful acts. This could happen with such an intervention by the provider not based on law. Finally, from the social point of view it is important that means of detection have an adequate legal basis. Complying with the injunction could serve as an undesired precedent which could have a major impact on the privacy of all Internet providers in the Netherlands. XS4ALL does not have any view of the nature of the police investigation or the suspected crimes. Nor will XS4ALL make any statement regarding the content of the investigation, the region where it is occurring or the identity of the civil servants involved, as it is not its intention that the investigation should founder. For further details of this case (incl. previous press releases and articles): http://www.xs4all.nl/ or contact XS4ALL Maurice Wessling Telephone: +31 20 3987681 / 3987654 email: maurice@xs4all.nl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 23:35:10 -0600 From: jthomas@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas) Subject: File 4--"Hackers" hit Yahoo.com - leave "ransom" note In an article titled HACKERS IN YAHOO! LEAVE RANSOM NOTE the December 10, '97, Chicago Tribune reported that "hackers" broke into Yahoo.com, the popular launching place for linking to topical sites, and "demanded the release of an imprisoned comrade and threatened to unleash a crippling computer virus if he is not freed." According to the article: Computer-security experts were skeptical of the hackers' claim that they had implanted such a virus. The hackers, calling themselves PANTS/HAGIS, got into Yahoo!'s World Wide Web site Monday night, leaving a digital ransom note. "For the past month, anyone who has viewed Yahoo's page & used their search engine, now has a logic bomb/worm implanted deep within their computer," it read. "On Christmas Day 1998, the logic bomb part of this `virus' will become active, wreaking havoc upon the entire planet's networks." The article reported that an antidote will be made available "if hacker Kevin Mitnick is released. Mitnick was indicted last year on charges involving a multimillion-dollar crime wave in cyberspace." The article indicates that the message was up for only 10 to 15 minutes. A Yahoo.com spokesperson indicated that there was no virus. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 12:01:17 -0500 From: "Evian S. Sim" Subject: File 5--Mitnick Supporters Deny Yahoo Hack COMPUTERGRAM INTERNATIONAL New York, Published: December 15 1997 Issue Number 3311 MITNICK SUPPORTERS DENY YAHOO HACK The group running The Official Kevin Mitnick web site (http://www.kevinmitnick.com) has denied it is linked to, or knows who is behind, the curiously named PANTS/HAGIS Alliance which was allegedly responsible for the hacking stunt pulled on Yahoo on Tuesday (CI No 3,303). A spokesperson for the site told Computergram International that although it appreciates the hackers' interest and enthusiasm in helping Kevin Mitnick, it would like to distance itself from their activities. The site creators released this statement: "The charges against Kevin have been grossly exaggerated and the fact that he's been held three years without bail makes you wonder what kind of government we have. However, vandalizing web pages, sending out computer viruses (or threatening to do so) and writing ransom notes are not methods we condone, suggest or encourage." However, as a result of the Yahoo stunt and subsequent reporting of it, the Mitnick site, which explains the charges against Kevin Mitnick and the conditions in which he is kept, has received more than 37,000 visits. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 12:50:43 -0600 From: jthomas3@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas) Subject: File 6--Child Protection and Parental Empowerment / Interactive Media ((MODERATORS' NOTE: From the Center for Democracy and Technology homepage comes this letter signed by CDT and many other organizations that somehow slipped through the publication cue's cracks last month)). ---- Child Protection and Parental Empowerment in Interactive Media The Honorable Larry Pressler Chairman Senate Commerce Committee United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. Chairman House Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC, 20515 The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings Ranking Democrat Senate Committee on Commerce United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable John D. Dingell Ranking Democrat House Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC, 20515 The Honorable Henry Hyde Chairman House Judiciary Committee United States House of Representatives Washington, DC, 20515 November 9, 1995 Dear Senator Pressler, Senator Hollings, Representative Bliley, and Representative Dignell: For the past year, Congress has struggled with the question of how best to protect children from inappropriate material online. As the telecommunications conferees work to reconcile competing approaches to this issue we urge a consensus policy that empowers families, places liability on creators of illegal content instead of passive service providers, and avoids constitutionally suspect new laws that will only delay enforcement. We write as a broad coalition of representatives from the online service, computer hardware and software, and telecommunications and electronic industries, the advertising industry, newspaper and library associations, and public interest organizations, who believe that the interests of children, free expression, and the continued viability of the Internet and interactive media can best be served by combining a deregulatory approach to encourage the development of parental empowerment technology along with vigorous enforcement of criminal laws that are crafted according to settled constitutional principles. A comprehensive and effective policy approach to this issue should be based on the following principles: * Parental Empowerment: Maximum reliance on, and encouragement of, private sector innovation to produce technologies that enable parents, not government regulators, to choose what is best for their own children. * No vicarious liability: Due to the tremendous flow of information through both public and private networks, holding service providers, systems, access software providers, or any other third parties liable for the content of illegal messages created by persons not under their authority or control will be ineffective at protecting children as well as a threat to the privacy of users. Groups such as the United States Chamber of Commerce have expressedconcern on this issue, as well. * Enforceable, narrowly tailored, and constitutionally sound criminal laws: Any new criminal laws should be focused on bad actors and based on constitutionally sound standards. Existing proposals, which rely on the vague and untested indecency standard, do not fall into such a category. * Uniform national policy: Given the national, and even global, nature of online services, uniform national rules governing liability are essential. Permitting state regulation of content in interactive media would force service providers and systems to conform to inconsistent and contradictory regulations and undermine the national interest. Recognizing the power of interactive technology to help solve the problem of protecting children, the House passed the Cox-Wyden-White bill on a 420-4 vote in order to encourage the market to provide parents screening and filtering options to protect minors. Even since the Congress began considering this issue this year, great advances have been made in parental empowerment technologies. Thus, the Interactive Working Group, with the support of its members, would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate these technologies as well as to brief the conferees on additional cooperative efforts now underway in the private sector. Relying on parents, not the government, to make choices about the content that they and their families receive assures maximum respect for First Amendment rights of adults to receive and transmit constitutionally-protected material, and allows families, not bureaucrats, to determine what information is most consistent with their own moral values. Recent FBI child pornography arrests demonstrate that vigorous law enforcement efforts are already working to punish illegal behavior online. We would welcome the opportunity to brief you on ongoing efforts to assist law enforcement in cases where criminal activity has occurred. To the extent new criminal laws are needed, they must be drafted in a constitutionally sound manner, both to avoid enforcement delays and to assure respect for the free speech and privacy rights of Internet users. We believe it is possible to craft a criminal statute that punishes those who provide truly harmful material to children in a manner that both targets the serious offenses about which some conservative family groups are most concerned, and that also will withstand constitutional scrutiny. In particular, rather than relying on the vague and constitutionally suspect "indecency" standard, Congress should instead consider the "harmful to minors" standard within the framework of Title 18 of the United Sates Code. This standard is used in numerous state statutes and has been found constitutional by the United States Supreme Court. We look forward to working with all of you in an effort to identify a solution to this problem that assures maximum protection for children, while relying on the innovative energy of the high technology market to meet evolving needs of parents online. Sincerely, America Online Inc. American Advertising Federation American Association of Advertising Agencies American Association of Law Libraries American Library Association American Society of Newspaper Editors Association of National Advertisers AT&T
Bell Atlantic Business Software Alliance Center for Democracy and Technology Coalition for Networked Information Commercial Internet eXchange Compuserve Inc. Computer & Communications Industry Association Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association Cox Enterprises Discovery Channel Electronic Frontier Foundation Electronic Messaging Association Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers - United States Activities Information Technology Association of America MCI Microsoft Corporation Microsystems Software National Cable Television Association National Newspaper Association Netscape Communications Corp. Newspaper Association of America Pacific Telesis Recreational Software Advisory Council Software Industry Coalition Software Publishers Association SurfWatch Software TCI The Media Institute Time Warner Inc. cc: Members of the Conference Committee on telecommunications reform legislation ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 23:30:11 -0600 From: Avi Bass Subject: File 7--Technological Breakthrough (humor) ((MODERATORS' NOTE: This report on a Technological Breakthrough was passed along to CuD by Avi Bass of "NewsPlace" )). Technological Report: Announcing the new Built-in Orderly Organized Knowledge device called B.O.O.K. The "BOOK" is a revolutionary breakthrough in technology: No wires, no electric circuits, no batteries, nothing to be connected or switched on. It's so easy to use even a child can operate it. Just lift its cover! Compact and portable, it can be used anywhere-even sitting in an armchair by the fire-yet it is powerful enough to hold as much information as a CD-ROM disc. Here's how it works... Each BOOK is constructed of sequentially numbered sheets of paper (recyclable), each capable of holding thousands of bits of information. These pages are locked together with a custom-fit device called a binder which keeps the sheets in their correct sequence. Opaque PaperTechnology (OPT) allows manufacturers to use both sides of the sheet, doubling the information density and cutting costs in half. Experts are divided on the prospects for further increases in information density; for now BOOKs with more information simply use more pages. This makes them thicker and harder to carry, and has drawn some criticism from the mobile computing crowd. Each sheet is scanned optically, registering information directly into your brain. A flick of the finger takes you to the next sheet. The BOOK may be taken up at any time and used by merely opening it. The BOOK never crashes and never needs rebooting, though like other display devices it can become unusable if dropped overboard. The "browse" feature allows you to move instantly to any sheet, and move forward or backward as you wish. Many come with an "index" feature, which pinpoints the exact location of any selected information for instant retrieval. An optional "BOOKmark" accessory allows you to open the BOOK to the exact place you left it in a previous session-even if the BOOK has been closed. BOOKmarks fit universal design standards; thus, a single BOOKmark can be used in BOOKs by various manufacturers. Conversely, numerous bookmarkers can be used in a single BOOK if the user wants to store numerous views at once. The number is limited only by the number of pages in the BOOK. The media is ideal for long term archive use, several field trials have proven that the media will still be readable in several centuries, and because of its simple user interface it will be compatible with future reading devices. You can also make personal notes next to BOOK text entries with an optional programming tool, the Portable Erasable Nib Cryptic Intercommunication Language Stylus (Pencils). Portable, durable, and affordable, the BOOK is being hailed as the entertainment wave of the future. The BOOK's appeal seems so certain that thousands of content creators have committed to the platform. Look for a flood of new titles soon. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997) Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically. CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line: SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS. The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU (NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line) Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG; on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet); CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540 UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/ ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/ aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/ world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland) ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/ COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary. DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #9.90 ************************************