MESSAGE
| DATE | 2002-09-25 |
| FROM | Jay Sulzberger
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [wwwac] Re: [hangout] Re: berman bill (fwd)
|
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 19:11:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Sulzberger
To: wwwac-at-lists.wwwac.org
Cc: hangout-at-wwww2.mrbrklyn.com, fairuse-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com,
Lamar.Robertson-at-mail.house.gov, Jay Sulzberger
Subject: [wwwac] Re: [hangout] Re: berman bill (fwd)
I recommend that some WWWhackoes go down to Washington DC tomorrow and
help preserve our right to own our own computers free and clear. The
Berman Bill would allow invasion by Infotainment Central of our computers
and the destruction of our files, and the Berman Bill would deprive us of
any remedy at law. The issue here is not "Fair Use", but our right to be
secure in our own computers, in the privacy of our own homes.
The battle has been joined. The issue is not the issue of twenty-five
years ago. The issue is not whether the Englobulators can make it hard to
copy TV programs onto our own tapes, but whether private ownership of
printing presses will be outlawed. Home computers are cost effective
printing presses, and movie studios, and musical instruments, and the Net
is the world's Great Commons. The Englobulators are out to deny us our
presses, our studios, our instruments, and they intend to occupy the
Commons and have monstrous machines shout at us all the time and they
intend to have the Police force us to listen to this dull noise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/25/technology/25DIGI.html
oo--JS.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 18:17:12 -0400
From: Joe Grastara
To: Lamar.Robertson-at-mail.house.gov, Ruben I Safir
Cc: hangout-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com, fairuse-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com
Subject: Re: [hangout] Re: berman bill
Lamar,
Hi my name is Joe Grastara. I am a member of NYLXS. We actually met on
one of NYLXS's trips to Washington. I just wanted to add to and
reiterate some of Ruben's points in his earlier email.
The comparison of artistic and other creative works to physical
property is deceptive, not instructive. The term "Intellectual
Property" is, in and of itself a misnomer. Information can not be
owned. Rather, a person can posses a limited monopoly over the right to
copy information. This monopoly is limited by constitutionally
guaranteed fair use rights, including the right to freely share and
exchange information, in a non-comercial context. The right to freely
share and exchange information is a necessary condition for, and the
basis of, a free society. The Berman Bill in its current language is
not only an assault on fair use rights but fourth amendment property
rights as well. It gives state like powers to media conglomerates, in
granting them access to the personal property of private citizens.
Even if the sharing of music files were illegal, the power to enforce
laws is the exclusive right of the state and must not be granted even
in a limited sense to private corporations. In short, the Berman Bill,
as currently written, serves the interests of media conglomerates and
not the interests of the citizens of this country. It must not be
allowed to pass.
On Wednesday, September 25, 2002, at 02:29 PM, Ruben I Safir wrote:
>
> That would be stakeholders:
>
>
> These bullie and abusers of artists and writers think that own the
> rights
> of Western Civilization. And they DON'T. The stakeholder of
> Copyright has
> that exclussive claim. Those stakeholders are the public.
>
>
>
> On 2002.09.25 14:26 Ruben I Safir wrote:
>> That's a decent sumary
>>
>>
>> It's like lending a book, or sharing a news item, as we have.
>>
>> If they are in violation, so it your office.
>>
>>
>> If the file sharing is a commercial exploit of the work, then it's
>> another matter all together,
>>
>> But then they can just take the vendors to court.
>> like normal people
>>
>> This has huge implications way beyong this itsy bitsy publishing
>> industry.
>>
>> These bullie and abusers of artists and writers think that own the
>> rights
>> of Western Civilization. And the DON'T. The kaeholder of Copyright
>> has
>> that exclussive claim. Those stakeholders is the public.
>>
>> Ruben
>>
>>
>> On 2002.09.25 13:10 "Robertson, Lamar" wrote:
>>> I spoke to aw, and i'm afraid i misspoke. He has expressed to me
>>> that he
>>> thinks that the P2P sharing of copyrighted works is a problem that
>>> unfairly
>>> hurts the artists and he is open to remedies.
>>>
>>> Having said that, and having talked to him about the Berman bill and
>>> your
>>> concerns, he expressed serious reservations about the bill and the
>>> hacking
>>> implications.
>>>
>>> Just to be clear, your position is that the sharing of a copyrighted
>>> file is
>>> a fair use of that file. Hence there is no need to curtail file
>>> sharing,
>>> and there is clearly no need for Congress to pass a bill like
>>> Berman's with
>>> its implications regarding privacy and personal property.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ruben I Safir [mailto:ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 10:50 AM
>>> To: Robertson, Lamar; fairuse-at-nylxs.com; hangout-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com
>>> Cc: Ruben I Safir
>>> Subject: Re: berman bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I need to talk to him
>>> and I need to be invited to speak tomorrow.
>>>
>>> I'll hop on the train now.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2002.09.25 10:48 "Robertson, Lamar" wrote:
>>>> The House IP subcommittee is holding a hearing tomorrow on the
>>>> Berman P2P
>>>> bill. In all candor, I think my boss is inclined to support it. I
>>>> know
>>> you
>>>> sent an earlier e-mail on this, but i was double-checking to ask
>>>> what are
>>>> the key points i should stress to my boss. One thing that might be
>>> helpful
>>>> is for you to critique this FAQ that Berman's office has put out.
>>>>
>>>> Lamar
>>>>
>>>> Frequently Asked Questions about the P2P Piracy Prevention Act
>>>> (H.R. 5211)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What does H.R. 5211 do?
>>>>
>>>> H.R. 5211 allows copyright owners to protect their property. The
>>>> bill
>>> gives
>>>> copyright owners, such as songwriters and photographers, a limited
>>>> safe
>>>> harbor from liability when they prevent piracy of their works
>>>> through
>>>> publicly accessible, peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, like KaZaA,
>>>> Morpheus,
>>> and
>>>> Gnutella.
>>>>
>>>> Does H.R. 5211 allow copyright owners to hack into my computer?
>>>>
>>>> No. Despite wildly inaccurate press reports, H.R. 5211 in no way
>>>> allows a
>>>> copyright owner to "hack" into anyone's computer. Copyright owners
>>>> are
>>> only
>>>> allowed to enter or look into a P2P user's computer to the same
>>>> extent
>>> that
>>>> any other P2P user is able to do so. In other words, if a KaZaA
>>>> user has
>>>> advertized to all 100 million other KaZaA users that he wants to
>>>> download
>>> or
>>>> distribute a copyrighted song, the songwriter is not "hacking" if
>>>> she
>>> reads
>>>> the advertisement like everyone else. H.R. 5211 then allows the
>>> songwriter
>>>> to take certain, limited actions to stop the distribution of her
>>> copyrighted
>>>> song between KaZaA users, but in no way allows her to enter or look
>>>> into a
>>>> private area of those KaZaA users' computers.
>>>>
>>>> Why is a safe harbor from liability for copyright owners necessary?
>>>>
>>>> Certain laws, while intended to prohibit malicious computer
>>>> hacking, are
>>> so
>>>> broadly drafted that they may inadvertently create liability for
>>>> copyright
>>>> owners who are merely trying to prevent piracy of their creations
>>>> on P2P
>>>> networks. Because it is virtually certain that some P2P pirates
>>>> will
>>>> attempt to use those laws to prevent copyright owners from stopping
>>> piracy,
>>>> it is necessary to clarify those laws.
>>>>
>>>> Does the P2P Piracy Prevention Act authorize copyright owners to do
>>> illegal
>>>> things that no one else can do?
>>>>
>>>> No. H.R. 5211 just ensures that copyright owners are treated like
>>>> other
>>>> property owners. Current law allows property owners in many
>>>> contexts to
>>> use
>>>> "self-help" to protect their property. Satellite companies face no
>>>> liability when they use electronic countermeasures to stop the
>>>> pirating of
>>>> their signals and programming. Banks face no liability when they
>>> repossess
>>>> automobiles for delinquent loan payments. A bicycle owner faces no
>>>> liability for grabbing his bike from a thief's yard. A victim of a
>>>> pickpocket faces no liability for tackling and taking back his
>>>> wallet from
>>>> the pickpocket. However, due to the overbreadth of many
>>>> anti-hacking
>>> laws,
>>>> copyright owners do not have a corresponding ability to prevent the
>>>> theft
>>> of
>>>> their property through P2P systems. H.R. 5211 would correct this
>>>> unintentional inequity.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't current law provide copyright owners with sufficient tools
>>>> to stop
>>>> piracy?
>>>>
>>>> The massive copyright piracy occurring on decentralized, P2P
>>>> networks
>>> cannot
>>>> be adequately addressed through current law. Decentralized P2P
>>>> networks
>>>> were designed specifically (and ingeniously) to thwart suits for
>>>> copyright
>>>> infringement by ensuring there is no central service to sue.
>>>> Digital
>>> rights
>>>> management technologies provide no protection to copyrighted works
>>>> once
>>> they
>>>> are distributed "in the clear" on P2P networks. Lastly, suits
>>>> against
>>>> individual infringers on P2P networks are viable, but are unlikely
>>>> to make
>>> a
>>>> dent in the billions of files traded monthly among over 150 million
>>>> P2P
>>>> network users.
>>>>
>>>> Who does H.R. 5211 benefit?
>>>>
>>>> H.R. 5211 will help all copyright owners, including songwriters,
>>>> photographers, musicians, software programmers, needlepoint
>>>> designers,
>>> film
>>>> producers, journalists, graphic artists, and recording artists.
>>>> H.R. 5211
>>>> restores to these copyright owners the right to decide whether their
>>>> creations are distributed through P2P networks, and takes that
>>>> decision
>>> out
>>>> of the hands of pirates. A photographer - not a pirate - should
>>>> decide
>>>> whether her photographs are distributed through Gnutella.
>>>>
>>>> In addition, H.R. 5211 will help consumers by fostering the
>>>> development of
>>>> reliable and legal online services for downloading copyrighted
>>>> works. P2P
>>>> networks are notoriously unreliable, have bugs that expose personal
>>>> information to public disclosure, can be used as "tunneling
>>>> protocols" to
>>>> breach computer security, and are rife with malicious viruses.
>>>> However,
>>>> some copyright owners have been stymied - at least partially - in
>>>> their
>>>> efforts to roll out legitimate online services because they cannot
>>>> compete
>>>> with the free availability of their works on P2P networks.
>>>>
>>>> Is P2P file-sharing illegal?
>>>>
>>>> It depends. P2P file sharing is perfectly legal if the work being
>>>> shared
>>> is
>>>> not copyrighted or is shared with the authorization of the copyright
>>> owner.
>>>> However, unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works through a
>>>> publicly
>>>> accessible, P2P network is copyright infringement pure and simple.
>>>> There
>>> is
>>>> no concept of fair use that encompasses making a copyrighted
>>>> needlepoint
>>>> design available for downloading by 100 million KaZaA users.
>>>>
>>>> Does the safe harbor created by H.R. 5211 extend to any copyright
>>>> owner
>>> who
>>>> interferes with file-trading upon a reasonable basis to believe
>>>> piracy is
>>>> taking place?
>>>>
>>>> No. It is an utter fabrication to say that H.R. 5211 provides a
>>>> safe
>>> harbor
>>>> for copyright owners who have a "reasonable basis" to believe
>>>> piracy is
>>>> taking place. There simply is no "reasonable basis" language in
>>>> the safe
>>>> harbor created by H.R. 5211. The actual language of H.R. 5211 is
>>>> clear:
>>> it
>>>> only provides a safe harbor to copyright owners who actually impair
>>>> the
>>>> piracy of their copyrighted works through P2P networks - without
>>>> regard to
>>>> whether they have a reasonable basis to believe piracy is taking
>>>> place.
>>> To
>>>> put it another way: under H.R. 5211, a copyright owner who impairs
>>>> lawful
>>>> file-trading would not get the benefit of the safe harbor even if
>>>> that
>>>> copyright owner had a reasonable basis to believe piracy is taking
>>>> place.
>>>>
>>>> Does this bill protect computer users against overzealous or
>>>> unscrupulous
>>>> copyright owners that might abuse the safe harbor the bill provides?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. H.R. 5211 provides strong protections against abuses by
>>>> overzealous
>>> or
>>>> unscrupulous copyright owners. In fact, H.R. 5211 provides
>>>> computer users
>>>> with more protection than current law. If a copyright owner
>>>> engages in
>>>> abusive actions, the affected computer user can sue the copyright
>>>> owner
>>> for
>>>> all remedies available under prior law, and in addition, can bring
>>>> a new
>>>> cause of action created by H.R. 5211. Furthermore, H.R. 5211 gives
>>>> the
>>> U.S.
>>>> Attorney General new power to stop an abusive copyright owner from
>>>> ever
>>>> again using self-help measures.
>>>>
>>>> Does H.R. 5211 limit the ability of P2P users to sue a copyright
>>>> owner for
>>>> hacking, wrongfully stopping file-trading, or otherwise damaging
>>>> their
>>>> computers?
>>>>
>>>> No. To the contrary, H.R. 5211 provides P2P users with More
>>>> remedies
>>>> against copyright owners who "hack", stop lawful file-trading,
>>>> damage
>>>> computers, or otherwise wrongfully interfere with file-trading.
>>> Subsection
>>>> 514(f)(2) of H.R. 5211 specifically preserves all remedies that a
>>>> P2P user
>>>> or any other person, including network operators, may have under
>>>> current
>>> law
>>>> to sue copyright owners for such activities. In fact, H.R. 5211
>>>> provides
>>>> affected P2P users with a new, additional cause of action against
>>> copyright
>>>> owners who wrongfully impair lawful file-trading. Further, H.R.
>>>> 5211
>>>> creates a new ability for federal prosecutors to act on behalf of
>>>> affected
>>>> file traders and stop copyright owners from wrongfully interfering
>>>> with
>>>> file-trading.
>>>>
>>>> Does H.R. 5211 require P2P users to suffer more than $250 in damages
>>> before
>>>> they can sue a copyright owner for hacking, wrongfully stopping
>>>> file-trading, or otherwise damaging their computers?
>>>>
>>>> No. An affected P2P user can sue a copyright owner in such
>>>> circumstances
>>>> under a wide variety of statutes and legal theories which have
>>>> different
>>>> monetary thresholds. H.R. 5211 does not alter these remedies or
>>>> create a
>>>> $250 threshold for using them. H.R. 5211 does create a brand-new
>>>> cause of
>>>> action, in addition to all previous causes of action, that contains
>>>> a $250
>>>> threshold, but the creation of this new cause of action does not
>>>> affect a
>>>> P2P user's ability to also access other, pre-existing remedies.
>>>>
>>>> Will H.R. 5211 allow copyright owners to "bring down" P2P networks?
>>>>
>>>> No. H.R. 5211 is quite clear that it only immunizes the blocking of
>>>> copyright infringement on P2P networks. A copyright owner would
>>>> remain
>>>> fully liable for any action that "brings down" or otherwise
>>>> disrupts P2P
>>>> networks, even though such disruptions were the unintended
>>>> consequence of
>>>> stopping infringements. It is critical to remember that H.R. 5211
>>>> does
>>> not
>>>> create some new, affirmative right for copyright owners, but only
>>>> provides
>>>> them with a limited safe harbor from potential liability under
>>>> other laws.
>>>> As such, H.R. 5211 only limits a copyright owner's liability for the
>>>> activities specified in the legislation, and cannot be read to limit
>>>> liability for activities not specified therein. Attempts by piracy
>>>> profiteers to read the bill more broadly are akin to saying that
>>>> H.R. 5211
>>>> would allow a copyright owner to burn down a P2P user's house if
>>>> such
>>> arson
>>>> had the effect of disrupting file trading.
>>>>
>>>> Will H.R. 5211 allow copyright owners to violate the privacy of P2P
>>>> users?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. Nothing in the bill implicates the privacy of P2P users, and
>>>> in fact,
>>>> the bill may enhance privacy. A P2P user has no expectation of
>>>> privacy in
>>>> computer files that he has chosen to publicly download from, or
>>>> distribute
>>>> to, 100 million other P2P users. H.R. 5211 only allows copyright
>>>> owners
>>> to
>>>> view these files to the same extent as all other 150 million P2P
>>>> users
>>> have
>>>> such an ability, thus, the bill does not violate a P2P user's
>>>> privacy.
>>>> Furthermore, H.R. 5211 does not give copyright owners any ability to
>>>> determine "who" a P2P infringer is. Rather, a copyright owner,
>>>> like every
>>>> other P2P user, simply knows "where" - at which IP address - their
>>>> copyrighted work is located.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, the types of technological self-help measures encouraged
>>>> by H.R.
>>>> 5211 will prove less invasive of privacy than the other option -
>>>> lawsuits
>>>> against individual infringers. The use of technological self-help
>>> measures
>>>> only reveals the IP address of a file on a P2P network, but does not
>>> reveal
>>>> the identity of the distributor or downloader of that file.
>>>> Lawsuits, on
>>>> the other hand, necessitate the public identification of a P2P
>>>> infringer,
>>>> and will usually involve the entry into public court documents of
>>>> many
>>>> private files, data, photographs, and other correspondence found on
>>>> the
>>>> infringer's computer.
>>>>
>>>> Does the bill outlaw or otherwise "kill" P2P networks?
>>>>
>>>> No. H.R. 5211 only affects illegal activity on P2P networks, but
>>>> in no
>>> way
>>>> affects the networks themselves or the sharing of legal content
>>>> through
>>>> them. Further, the bill recognizes that P2P networks are tremendous
>>>> technological innovations that could be used for many beneficial
>>>> purposes,
>>>> but that they will not reach their potential until their use for
>>>> illegal
>>>> purposes is curtailed. H.R. 5211 aims to clean up P2P networks,
>>>> not clear
>>>> them out. Those who claim that the bill will kill P2P networks are
>>>> short-sighted piracy profiteers who believe P2P networks are only
>>>> useful
>>> for
>>>> illegal purposes.
>>>>
>>>> Will the bill allow copyright owners to knock P2P file sharers
>>>> offline?
>>>>
>>>> No. As noted above, H.R. 5211 only immunizes the blocking of
>>>> copyright
>>>> infringement on P2P networks. A copyright owner would remain fully
>>>> liable
>>>> for any action that knocks a P2P user offline, even if such
>>>> disruptions
>>> were
>>>> the unintended consequence of stopping infringements. It is
>>>> critical to
>>>> remember that H.R. 5211 does not create some new, affirmative right
>>>> for
>>>> copyright owners, but only provides them with a limited safe harbor
>>>> from
>>>> potential liability under other laws. As such, H.R. 5211 only
>>>> limits a
>>>> copyright owner's liability for the activities specified in the
>>> legislation,
>>>> and cannot be read to limit liability for activities not specified
>>> therein.
>>>>
>>>> Does H.R. 5211 allow copyright owners to destroy files on my
>>>> computer?
>>>>
>>>> No. H.R. 5211 explicitly states that it does not allow copyright
>>>> owners
>>> to
>>>> destroy, corrupt, or otherwise alter files or data on a P2P user's
>>> computer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ruben I Safir [mailto:ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com]
>>>> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 8:56 PM
>>>> To: fairuse-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com; Robertson, Lamar
>>>> Subject: Amy Harmon on Recond Labels Attack
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Testing out a tactic to combat online piracy, a group of record
>>>> companies asked a judge yesterday to order four major Internet
>>>> service
>>>> providers to block Americans from viewing a China-based Web site
>>>> that
>>>> offers thousands of copyrighted songs free of charge.
>>>>
>>>> The 13 record labels that filed the suit in Federal District Court
>>>> for
>>>> the Southern District of New York in Manhattan say the site,
>>>> Listen4ever
>>>> .com, is "even more egregious" than the music-sharing service
>>>> Napster,
>>>> which was shut by a court order. Advertisement
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But in the Napster case, the recording industry sued Napster
>>>> itself. The
>>>> new action is the first time record companies have sought to compel
>>>> the
>>>> companies that control the Internet backbone to intervene. The four
>>>> companies named in the suit are AT&T Broadband, Cable and Wireless,
>>>> the
>>>> Sprint Corporation and UUNet Technologies. The record labels in the
>>>> lawsuit include Sony Music Entertainment, the Universal Music Group
>>>> and
>>>> RCA Records.
>>>>
>>>> The lawsuit invokes an untested provision of a 1998 federal law, the
>>>> Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that allows a court to order
>>>> Internet
>>>> providers to take limited steps to block offshore sites that violate
>>>> United States copyright laws. Sarah Edler, a spokeswoman for AT&T
>>>> Broadband, said the company had never before been asked to block
>>>> access
>>>> to a foreign site.
>>>>
>>>> David Farber, a University of Pennsylvania computer scientist and an
>>>> early architect of the Internet, filed an affidavit in the case,
>>>> saying
>>>> it would be relatively easy for the Internet companies to block the
>>>> Internet address of the Web site without disrupting other traffic.
>>>>
>>>> "It's not a big hassle," Mr. Farber said. "There's no way to stop
>>>> everybody, but a substantial number of people will not be able to
>>>> get
>>>> access."
>>>>
>>>> The companies named in the suit declined to comment. But a person
>>>> who
>>>> works closely with Internet providers said that they were concerned
>>>> about how easy it was for a Web site to change Internet addresses.
>>>> If
>>>> copyright holders began asking them to block sites in large
>>>> numbers, and
>>>> to keep track of every new address, it could divert resources from
>>>> running regular Web traffic.
>>>>
>>>> Pirate sites that set up in countries that do not enforce United
>>>> States
>>>> copyright laws are a growing problem for the music and movie
>>>> industries
>>>> as they try to control the free exchange of their material online.
>>>>
>>>> The Listen4ever site is written in English and appears aimed at an
>>>> American audience. Yesterday, it was possible to download songs by
>>>> Bruce
>>>> Springsteen and music from the soundtrack of "Blue Crush."
>>>>
>>>> The site thanks a list of "top uploaders" under a note that reads:
>>>>
>>>> "Attention: all music files here are uploaded by lots of music fans
>>>> for
>>>> sharing free. These music files are only for trial listening, please
>>>> don't use these for business purpose and delete these files after
>>>> you
>>>> listen, thanks! (support your favorite singers, please buy their
>>>> CDs)."
>>>>
>>>> An e-mail message sent to a Yahoo e-mail account, the only contact
>>>> information on the site, was bounced back. The recording companies
>>>> said
>>>> the only information they were able to find was that the domain name
>>>> appeared to have been registered to a person in Tianjin, China.
>>>>
>>>> Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
>>>> a
>>>> civil liberties group that monitors digital copyright issues, said
>>>> that
>>>> the law allowed a court to refuse the copyright holder's request if
>>>> it
>>>> decided there was a less burdensome way to prevent the copyright
>>>> infringement.
>>>>
>>>> "Wouldn't it be better to get an injunction from a Chinese court to
>>>> punish the people behind this?" Mr. Von Lohmann said. "Are we going
>>>> to
>>>> have a situation where rather than going after the actual
>>>> wrongdoers we
>>>> just go block all these sites?" -- __________________________
>>>>
>>>> Brooklyn Linux Solutions __________________________
>>>> http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.nylxs.com/radio -
>>>> Free
>>>> Software Radio Show and Archives http://www.brooklynonline.com -
>>>> For the
>>>> love of Brooklyn http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in
>>>> Free
>>>> Software http://www.nyfairuse.org - The foundation of Democracy
>>>> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories
>>>> and
>>>> articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/mp3/dr.mp3 -
>>>> Imagine my surprise when I saw you...
>>>> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown
>>>> Brooklyn....
>>>>
>>>> 1-718-382-5752
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> __________________________
>>>
>>> Brooklyn Linux Solutions
>>> __________________________
>>> DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://www.nyfairuse.org
>>>
>>> http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
>>> http://www.nylxs.com/radio - Free Software Radio Show and Archives
>>> http://www.brooklynonline.com - For the love of Brooklyn
>>> http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
>>> http://www.nyfairuse.org - The foundation of Democracy
>>> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories
>>> and
>>> articles from around the net
>>> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/mp3/dr.mp3 - Imagine my surprise when I saw
>>> you...
>>> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown
>>> Brooklyn....
>>>
>>> 1-718-382-5752
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> __________________________
>>
>> Brooklyn Linux Solutions
>> __________________________
>> DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://www.nyfairuse.org
>>
>> http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
>> http://www.nylxs.com/radio - Free Software Radio Show and Archives
>> http://www.brooklynonline.com - For the love of Brooklyn
>> http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
>> http://www.nyfairuse.org - The foundation of Democracy
>> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories
>> and articles from around the net
>> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/mp3/dr.mp3 - Imagine my surprise when I saw
>> you...
>> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown
>> Brooklyn....
>>
>> 1-718-382-5752
>>
>>
>>
> --
> __________________________
>
> Brooklyn Linux Solutions
> __________________________
> DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://www.nyfairuse.org
>
> http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
> http://www.nylxs.com/radio - Free Software Radio Show and Archives
> http://www.brooklynonline.com - For the love of Brooklyn
> http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
> http://www.nyfairuse.org - The foundation of Democracy
> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories
> and articles from around the net
> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/mp3/dr.mp3 - Imagine my surprise when I saw
> you...
> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown
> Brooklyn....
>
> 1-718-382-5752
>
>
>
> ____________________________
> New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
> Fair Use -
> because it's either fair use or useless....
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
## WWWAC Networking SIG: Network Nation Gathering and Party - Wed, 9/25 ##
## The World Wide Web Artists' Consortium --- http://www.wwwac.org/ ##
## To Unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: wwwac-unsubscribe-at-lists.wwwac.org ##
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
