[WikiEN-l] That random number

[Todd Allen]

On 5/6/07, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Todd Allen wrote:
> > On 5/6/07, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >> Delirium wrote:
> >>> Excessive avoidance of activities that are not likely to result in legal
> >>> troubles, but which some people irrationally fear might, is pretty much
> >>> the definition of "chilling effects" style paranoia.
> >>>
> >>> Seriously, do you think *mailing list archives*, and
> >>> non-search-engine-indexed ones at that, are actually illegal?  It's not
> >>> even clear that such archives legally constitute publication, and
> >>> certainly they are far less high profile than many other sources that
> >>> have *not* been held legally accountable in any way, such as Google's
> >>> own archives, or Wired's explicit publication.
> >>>
> >> The DMCA does not prohibit publication, it prohibits "trafficking". The
> >> MPAA vs Corely case held that publication on a website constitutes
> >> trafficking, and this was upheld at appeal. The Act specifies damages of
> >> $200-$2500 per "act of circumvention, device, product, component, offer,
> >> or performance of service". Presumably every time someone downloads the
> >> number from the mailing list archive, and every time we send it to someone
> >> by email, this constitues trafficking of such a device.
> >>
> >> WikiEN-L has 878 members, so sending the key to the list would create a
> >> liability of between $175,600 and $2.2M, plus archive downloads and what not.
> >
> > If "trafficking" were as simple as "making the number show up on
> > someone's computer screen", they'd get a lot more mileage out of suing
> > Google than us. And there -are- exceptions built into the law for
> > academic use of the number. This isn't the same as the 2600 case, nor
> > MPAA vs. Corel. Neither of those institutions are primarily academic
> > and educational in nature, nor are they nonprofit. They've actually
> > been pretty hesitant to sue academic users, because they -know- that's
> > not one they'll probably win.
>
> Delirium didn't ask "will they sue us?", he asked "is it illegal?" The
> answer is to the latter question is almost certainly yes. Which academic
> exception do you think is relevant exactly?
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Exception 1, actually. It's short enough that I can post the full text here.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

-- 
Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.