<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
  xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">

<channel>
<title>Copyfight</title>
<link>/home/corante/public_html/copyfight/</link>
<description>the politics of IP</description>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:creator>wex@hovir.com</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-01-19T12:57:45-05:00</dc:date>
<admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34" />
<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
<sy:updateBase>2000-01-01T12:00+00:00</sy:updateBase>

<item>
<title>Stallman on E-Book Evils &amp; Privacy</title>
<link>http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2012/01/19/stallman_on_ebook_evils_privacy.php</link>
<description>As noted, I was on a copyright panel with Richard Stallman this past weekend. The man certainly has mellowed with age (though I&apos;m glad I wasn&apos;t on the &quot;Steve Jobs&apos; Legacy&quot; panel with him). Prior to the panel he handed out a sheet titled &quot;The Danger of E-books&quot;, which you can find online at his site. The points he raises are mostly ones we&apos;ve discussed over the past few months - ownership questions, proprietary formatting, restrictive DRM and licensing, and so on. But I thought it was worth blogging about his first point,which is just forehead-slappingly obvious and yet somehow...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">75389@/home/corante/public_html/copyfight/</guid>
<dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2012-01-19T12:57:45-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Google and the DOJ: I&apos;m Feeling Watched</title>
<link>http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2006/03/15/google_and_the_doj_im_feeling_watched.php</link>
<description> Newswires and other media were buzzing yesterday over the Justice Department&apos;s subpoena to Google for search terms and URLs. The buzz got louder when Judge Ware indicated in court that he was likely to order Google to respond, at least in part. (Londoners might have seen me interviewed on the BBC news.) The story converged the public&apos;s interest in everything Google with concern about government spying and the erosion of privacy online -- even if little of that privacy was ever directly at issue here. The government asked for search terms and a selection of URLs, not the IP...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">53213@/home/corante/public_html/copyfight/</guid>
<dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-03-15T11:26:50-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Little. Yellow. Cracked.</title>
<link>http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2005/10/17/little_yellow_cracked.php</link>
<description>I&apos;ve been complaining about Blizzard using its Terms of Service (TOS) to justify spying on gamers (I Spy With My Little EULA), but sometimes companies don&apos;t offer even the illusion of choice. Your printer could be ratting you out right now, and you wouldn&apos;t have the faintest clue. Yes, I said printer. You see, a couple months ago we learned that at the request of the Secret Service, some printer manufacturers are secretly encoding information in color print-outs that can be used to identify where the document came from. The information appears as little yellow dots that you can see...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">37110@/home/corante/public_html/copyfight/</guid>
<dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2005-10-17T14:10:31-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>I Spy With My Little EULA</title>
<link>http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2005/10/14/i_spy_with_my_little_eula.php</link>
<description>You may recall that Blizzard is the videogame company that sued three software programmers for creating BnetD, a free, open source program that allowed gamers to play games they purchased with others on the platform of their choice. Blizzard claimed that the programmers violated several parts of the company&apos;s End User Licensing Agreement (EULA), including a provision on reverse-engineering. But it turns out that&apos;s not all that Blizzard&apos;s lawyers have inserted in the fine print. As Bruce Schneier reports, the company is also using its Terms of Use agreements to justify spying on gamers&apos; computers. Writes Greg Hoglund, co-author of...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">37060@/home/corante/public_html/copyfight/</guid>
<dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2005-10-14T10:28:30-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>More on the Mother of Acrimonious Acronyms</title>
<link>http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2005/08/18/more_on_the_mother_of_acrimonious_acronyms.php</link>
<description>Marcia Coyle has the best piece yet on why applying CALEA to the Internet is a terrible idea: Wiretap the Net? Not So Fast (previous Copyfight coverage: The Mother of Acrimonious Acronyms). Here&apos;s a bit that will be sure to interest librarians who&apos;ve been fighting PATRIOT Section 215 and the Broadcast Flag: There are a number of collateral consequences to the FCC&apos;s order, said Perkins Coie&apos;s Gidari, counsel to education, library and other associations that opposed the FCC&apos;s decision. &quot;I don&apos;t think the commission had a clue that what they were saying affected other facilities-based providers,&quot; he said. &quot;A lot...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10495@/home/corante/public_html/copyfight/</guid>
<dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2005-08-18T11:07:57-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Because a Nationwide Outcry Wasn&apos;t Enough the Second Time Either</title>
<link>http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2005/04/29/because_a_nationwide_outcry_wasnt_enough_the_second_time_either.php</link>
<description>WIRED warns that Florida has put out an RFP for sequels to MATRIX, the massive tracking database that was abandoned by states and defunded by the feds on the heels of massive popular outcry. To make it even less amusing, the intention is to put even more data into the system, not that this will make it any more secure, less intrusive or more effective. But hey, who&apos;s nitpicking?...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10174@/home/corante/public_html/copyfight/</guid>
<dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2005-04-29T16:28:40-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>IM as performance art</title>
<link>http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2005/03/14/im_as_performance_art.php</link>
<description>AOL raised a few eyebrows recently with some quiet changes to its Terms of Service. Although it has attempted to &apos;clarify&apos; its position that the ToS don&apos;t apply to AIM, the fundamental problem still remains - the content belongs to AOL, not to you. You have no copyrights to your fiction, no trademarks in your online business ideas, no patentable notions in your invention drawings, if you put any of it onto AOL&apos;s net. AOL owns it all and can &quot;reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote&quot; it at will. My intuition is that the other big online services have...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">9916@/home/corante/public_html/copyfight/</guid>
<dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2005-03-14T11:13:43-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Verizon lawyer chats about online privacy and RIAA case</title>
<link>http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2004/10/14/verizon_lawyer_chats_about_online_privacy_and_riaa_case.php</link>
<description>Washingtonpost.com has the transcript of an interesting online chat with Sarah Deutsch, a lawyer for Verizon, about online privacy, including the Supreme Court&apos;s recent denial of cert. in the RIAA v. Verizon case about DMCA subpoenas and file-sharers: U Boulder, CO: I have heard that the RIAA has technologies that can find illegal downloaders online and track them. Is this stuff legal? Isn&apos;t that hacking? Do ISPs allow this kind of software on their networks? Sarah Deutsch: The RIAA, MPAA and even the pornography industry (acting as a &quot;copyright owners&quot;) are increasingly hiring Internet &quot;bounty hunters&quot; who use search tools,...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">9560@/home/corante/public_html/copyfight/</guid>
<dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2004-10-14T19:08:47-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Part of PATRIOT Struck Down</title>
<link>http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2004/09/29/part_of_patriot_struck_down.php</link>
<description>Off-topic, but absolutely fantastic news: the ACLU just won a case ruling that part of the USA PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional: U.S. District Judge Victor Marreo ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the power the FBI has to demand confidential financial records from companies that it can obtain without court approval as part of terrorism investigations. The legislation bars companies and other recipients of these subpoenas from ever revealing that they received the FBI demand for records. Marreo held that this permanent ban was a violation of free speech rights. In his ruling, Marreo prohibited...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">9528@/home/corante/public_html/copyfight/</guid>
<dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2004-09-29T16:26:28-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Post-ILAW Post</title>
<link>http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2004/05/17/postilaw_post.php</link>
<description>Two quick reflections post-ILAW, to add to the ever-growing pool: Jerry is the New Larry UCLA law professor/Harvard law visiting professor Jerry Kang is the Larry Lessig of privacy, in that he was able very quickly and powerfully to communicate that there are extremes in the debate that result largely from the culture-born clash between &quot;property talk&quot; (U.S.-take on privacy) and &quot;dignity talk&quot; (Euro approach). He lifted the discussion out of the dreaded &quot;tin foil hat&quot; arena -- that is, beyond &quot;paranoid freaks v. reasonable people&quot; nonsense that stops people from truly engaging with the problem/issues at hand. He&apos;s one...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">9267@/home/corante/public_html/copyfight/</guid>
<dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2004-05-17T16:14:12-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The New &quot;Piracy Surveillance&quot; - Whither Due Process?</title>
<link>http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2004/05/03/the_new_piracy_surveillance_whither_due_process.php</link>
<description>Fordham law professor Sonia Katyal has an article up @ the SSRN Electronic Library that brings to mind a question I asked some months ago: Why do we tolerate in the name of copyright protection what we only unwillingly tolerate in the name of combating terrorism -- e.g., law that strips us of our right to privacy and due process? The paper, entitled &quot;The New Surveillance,&quot; describes in detail how the courts aid and abet new, extra-judicial regimes of private/corporate surveillance on the Internet -- and proposes, among other things, &quot;greater judicial supervision of the DMCA&quot; as an appropriate fix....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">9233@/home/corante/public_html/copyfight/</guid>
<dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2004-05-03T20:47:34-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>CFP: Gmail v. Corporate Mail</title>
<link>http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2004/04/23/cfp_gmail_v_corporate_mail.php</link>
<description>An interesting issue has come up in the Gmail and privacy session @ CFP. If you send an email to someone at a corporation, e.g. jason@microsoft.com, there is an implicit understanding amongst most people that Microsoft could scan the email and read its contents. After all, Microsoft has a number of trade secrets to protect (as well as other interests) and since you are sending the email to one of its employees, it presumptively has the right to check it to make sure it isn&apos;t causing the corporation any harm. At the very least, it could argue that since the...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">9214@/home/corante/public_html/copyfight/</guid>
<dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2004-04-23T13:03:55-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Your Permanent Record</title>
<link>http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2004/03/30/your_permanent_record.php</link>
<description>A trendy topic of late seems to be that with the improvements in search technology and the increasing prevalence of message boards, blogs and other ways to express yourself on the Net, people will increasingly be able to find out what you&apos;ve written and done in the past. Even law firms have apparently begun to take an interest in their employees&apos; or candidates&apos; online acts. My first reaction is one I have over and over in Internet law... firms--did you really think your employees never talk about the firm and its goings-on? Did you really think your candidates had no...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">9160@/home/corante/public_html/copyfight/</guid>
<dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2004-03-30T15:13:43-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Judge Posner: &quot;Skillful Googlers&quot; Reason to Preserve Privacy in Abortion-related Medical Records</title>
<link>http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2004/03/29/judge_posner_skillful_googlers_reason_to_preserve_privacy_in_abortionrelated_medical_records.php</link>
<description>As many readers might know, there are three ongoing concurrent challenges to the recently passed Partial Birth Abortion Ban in court these days. In fact, trial in the San Francisco Case was scheduled to begin today. Part of the issues before the courts is whether or not so-called &quot;partial birth&quot; abortions are ever medically necessary to preserve the health of the pregnant woman. (The Ban does not include any exception for such circumstances). Congress found that such procedures were never medically necessary. Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers disagree. As part of its preparation for trial on this issue, the...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">9156@/home/corante/public_html/copyfight/</guid>
<dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2004-03-29T19:55:29-05:00</dc:date>
</item>


</channel>
</rss>