gildot

Topo
Sobre
FAQ
Tópicos
Autores
Preferências
Artigos
Sondagens
Propor artigo


8/3
gildicas
9/30
jobs
10/9
perguntas
10/25
press

 
Microsoft vs Slashdot
Contribuído por Xmal em 11-05-00 15:24
do departamento see-it-tonight,-the-fight-of-the-year
Slashdot O nosso editor JOP veio avisar que o Slashdot foi Slashdoted (por outras palavras, está quase inacessível). O motivo é um artigo onde se mostra a carta que a Microsoft mandou à Andover (aka Slashdot), pedindo a remoção de comentários que infringiam copyright ou que possuiam links para páginas com infracções.
Para conveniência dos nossos leitores, incluo o texto da carta e a resposta do Robin "roblimo" Miller.

From: "J.K. Weston"
To: "'dns_admin@andover.net'"
"'dns_tech@andover.net'"
Subject: Notice of Copyright Infringement under the Digitial Millennium Copyright Act
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 07:08:49 -0700
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.58)

Andover Advanced Technologies
Andover.Net
50 Nagog Park
Acton, MA 01720
Phone: (978) 635-5300
Fax: (978) 635-5326
Email: dns_admin@andover.net; dns_tech@andover.net

Dear Internet Service Provider:

We understand that your website, http://www.slashdot.org, is a popular site for developers to discuss topical issues of interest. In that vein, it has come to our attention that there have been numerous posts of concern related to Microsoft's copyrighted work entitled "Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems" and we would appreciate your posting this email to the site to help relay our position to your users.

This notice is being sent under the provisions, and following the guidelines, of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA).

Included on http://www.slashdot.org are comments that now appear in your Archives, which include unauthorized reproductions of Microsoft's copyrighted work entitled "Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v.1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems" (hereafter "Specification"). In addition, some comments include links to unauthorized reproductions of the Specification, and some comments contain instructions on how to circumvent the End User License Agreement that is presented as part of the download for accessing the Specification.

Although not intended to be an exhaustive representation, the specific comments below, categorized by corresponding activities, are examples of the misuse of Microsoft's proprietary information:

Comments Containing A Copy of the Specification:
"by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday, May 02, @03:37PM EST (#197)"
"by BlueUnderwear on Tuesday, May 02, @04:09PM EST (#239)"
"by BlueUnderwear on Tuesday, May 02, @04:15PM EST (#248)"
"by smartin on Tuesday, May 02, @02:20PM EST (#86)"

Comments Containing Links to Internet Sites with Unauthorized Copies of the Specification:
"by ka9dgx on Tuesday May 02, @2:52PM EST (#133)"

Comments Containing Instructions on How to Bypass the End User License Agreement and Extract the Specification:
"by myconid (my S conid@ P toge A the M r.net) on Tuesday May 02, @07:27PM EST (#362)"
"by markb on Tuesday May 02, @05:47PM EST (#321)"
"by Sami (respect.my@authorita-dot-net) on Tuesday May 02, @01:47PM EST (#19)"
"by iCEBalM (icebalm@[NOSPAM]bigfoot.com) on Tuesday May 02, @01:52PM EST (#33)"
"by Jonny Royale (moc.mocten.xi@notners) on Tuesday, May 02, @01:59PM EST (#51)"
"by rcw-work (rcw@d.e.b.i.a.n.org.without.dots) on Tuesday, May 02, @07:12PM EST (#353)"

Under the provisions of the DMCA, we expect that having been duly notified of this case of blatant copyright violation, Andover will remove the above referenced comments from its servers and forward our complaint to the owner of the referenced comments.

This email notification is a statement made under penalty of perjury that we are the copyright owner of the referenced Specification, that we are acting in good faith, and that the above-referenced comments, as part of http://www.slashdot.org, is posting proprietary material without express written permission.

We request immediate action to remove the cited violations from Andover's servers, in accordance with the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.

This email is not intended to waive any of our other rights and remedies.

Please confirm your receipt of this request by responding to this email. Also, confirm the status of this request either via email or via the following contact mechanisms:

By mail:
J.K. Weston, Designated Agent
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way, 114/2314
Redmond, WA 98052
By phone:
(425) 703-5529
By email: jkweston@microsoft.com


---------------------------

To: J.K. Weston"

From: Robin Miller

Subject: Notice of Copyright Infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Dear J. K. Weston:

Per your request, we are posting your e-mail on this subject on Slashdot.org to help you relay your position to our users.

The balance of your e-mail's content is somewhat puzzling to us. I'm sure you agree that freedom of speech is at least as important a principle under American law as the freedom to innovate, so I'm sure that you personally, and Microsoft corporately, will understand our hesitation to engage in censorship.

Indeed, after reflecting on the nature of freedom for a little while, you may wish to withdraw your request that we remove readers' comments from Slashdot. Please realize that if we censor our readers's posts because they contain ideas Microsoft does not wish to have made public, we may set an unhealthy precedent for other online news outlets and online service providers, including those owned in whole or in part by Microsoft itself.

Meanwhile, in case Microsoft does not decide to have a happy change of heart and support a free and open Internet (which would certainly be in everyone's best interest), we have sought advice both from our attorneys and from our readers about what, if anything, we should do next.

Please expect a formal reply to your request that we censor our readers' comments, which we allow them to post on Slashdot as freely as Microsoft allows user-generated content to be sent through Hotmail and through chat facilities and discussion groups hosted on MSN.com servers, as soon as we receive wise counsel not only from our attorneys, but also from concerned members of the Slashdot community and other interested parties

Sincerely,

- Robin "roblimo" Miller

Editor-in-Chief,

HotMail JavaScript-in-attachment attack | Cegonha apaga luz em metade do país  >

 

gildot Login
Login:

Password:

Referências
  • gildot
  • Mais acerca Slashdot
  • Também por Xmal
  • Esta discussão foi arquivada. Não se pode acrescentar nenhum comentário.
    É este o 3º segredo! (Pontos:3, Engraçado)
    por Anonimo Cobarde em 11-05-00 15:41 GMT (#1)
    Arrependei-vos, o fim do mundo está próximo!
    the big buy (Pontos:1)
    por Goblin em 11-05-00 17:05 GMT (#2)
    (Utilizador Info) http://dev/null
    talvez seja o começo da compra do slashdot por parte da microsoft.

    (alguem imagina um slashdot dot com noticias imaginarias do sucesso do NT) & (aquilo a correr em NT + ASP)

    sem duvida o futuro parece negro :)
    ...
    Auto-censura ? (Pontos:3, Interessante)
    por Xmal em 11-05-00 18:03 GMT (#3)
    (Utilizador Info) http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/cbm
    Tal como no SlashDot, existe aqui o aviso "ATENÇÃO: Os comentários são da exclusiva responsabilidade dos seus autores.".

    Na discussão que decorre no slashdot surge, sobre isto, uma questão curiosa:

    Se os comentários são da responsabilidade dos seus autores, então porque é que os autores não os podem retirar ?

    De facto, não são actualmente dados meios para que isto seja possível. Não penso que isso invalide, a responsabilidade de quem faz o comentário, uma vez que se eu insultar alguêm em frente a uma camara da televisão, e não me quiserem dar o registo, não fico menos responsável pelo que disse.

    Não deixa, contudo, de ser uma funcionalidade a equacionar. E, mesmo, no caso dos anónimos, seria possível devolver uma password gerada para permitir a posterior remoção do comentário.

    A Microsoft tem razão... (Pontos:1)
    por AshNazg em 11-05-00 21:15 GMT (#4)
    (Utilizador Info)
    Nunca pensei dizer isto, mas neste caso a M$ tem razão: basta ver o comentário da discórdia.

    Na própria thread que se seguiu a maior parte dos comentadores colocou em causa a legalidade do mesmo. Até houve alguém que disse que devia haver mais uma classificação para a moderação: "illegal"

     

     

    [ Topo | Sugerir artigo | Artigos anteriores | Sondagens passadas | FAQ | Editores | Preferências | Contacto ]