FC: Clarification to Virginia porn case; more on MS, Jackson, DoJ

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

[Thanks to David for pointing this out. The correct name is UROFSKY, MELVIN 
I., ET AL. V. GILMORE, GOV. OF VA, and is one of approximately 500 cases 
announced today that the Supreme Court declined to accept. --Declan]

*********

> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:32:08 -0500
> To: declan () well com
> From: David Sobel <sobel () epic org>
> Subject: Re: FC: Judge Jackson rips Gates; Sup. Court nixes Virginia porn
>  appeal
> Cc: politech () politechbot com
>
>
> Declan -
>
> This item was somewhat misleading.  The case was Urofsky v.
> Gilmore (not Virginia v. Reno), and the motion for certiorari
> was denied (not judgment affirmed, as was the disposition in
> Virginia v. Reno).  Denial of cert is a lot different than
> summary affirmance.
>
> - David
>
> At 12:33 PM -0500 1/8/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> >*********
> >
> >Background on Virginia case:
> >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,17876,00.html
> >http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/censor/censor.html#virginia
> >
> >http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/010801.ZOR.html
> >
> >MONDAY, JANUARY 8, 2001
> >APPEAL -- SUMMARY DISPOSITION
> >00-862 VIRGINIA V. RENO, ATTY. GEN., ET AL.
> >The judgment is affirmed.
> >
> >**********
>
> .......................................................................
> David L. Sobel, General Counsel              *   +1 202 483 1140 (tel)
> Electronic Privacy Information Center        *   +1 202 483 1248 (fax)
> 1718 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 200        *   sobel () epic org
> Washington, DC 20009   USA                   *   http://www.epic.org
> .

**********


> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 10:13:52 -0800
> From: lizard <lizard () mrlizard com>
> To: declan () well com
> CC: politech () politechbot com
> Subject: Re: FC: Judge Jackson rips Gates; Sup. Court nixes Virginia porn 
> appeal
>
> So, a person who has near-absolute power by direct appointment, with no
> accountability and a lifetime tenure, sees fit to critique someone who
> has had to build a business from the ground up. I wonder if, starting
> with Gates' admittedly sizeable wad of money from his father, Mr.
> Jackson could construct such an enterprise?

**********

> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 14:35:17 -0400
> From: "Hitchens, Ralph" <Ralph.Hitchens () hq doe gov>
> Subject: RE: Judge Jackson rips Gates
> To: "'declan () well com%internet'" <declan () well com>
> X-Mailer: Worldtalk (NetJunction 4.7-p2)/MIME
> X-WSS-ID: 1644D7EE3520-01-02
>
> Declan, this is ridiculous.  How anyone familiar with the Microsoft saga 
> could believe that Bill Gates (any more than Napoleon himself!) 
> experienced "unalloyed success, with no leavening hard experience, no 
> reverses" is beyond me.  This is not to say that billg isn't more than a 
> bit arrogant, but we should acknowledge that he got where he is by virtue 
> of ability and perseverence against long odds.  Or am I missing something?
>
> Ralph Hitchens

**********

> From: "Thomas Leavitt" <thomasleavitt () hotmail com>
> To: declan () well com
> Subject: Re: FC: Judge Jackson rips Gates; Sup. Court nixes Virginia porn 
> appeal
> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 17:21:42 -0800
>
> An absurd decision, reflective of our nation's puritanical heritage.
>
> All these professors should look for work elsewhere... Virginia will 
> revise it's laws when and if its universities become intellectually decimated.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Leavitt

**********

> Reply-To: <thomas.greene () theregister co uk>
> From: "Thomas C. Greene" <tcgreene () bellatlantic net>
> To: <declan () well com>
> Subject: RE: Judge Jackson rips Gates; Sup. Court nixes Virginia porn appeal
> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:37:07 -0500
>
>
> Hi Declan,
> I thought this one would interest your Politech readers.
> cheers,
> tom
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/15900.html
>
> Hollywood, software groups push DoJ copyright busts
> By: Thomas C Greene in Washington
>
> Music bootleggers and software crackers tired of wading through the entire
> United States Code to see if they're about to break the law, or incur
> daunting criminal liabilities in excess of the potential value of their
> planned activities, may now consult a handy reference guide on line.
>
> The US Department of Justice (DoJ) has published a manual for prosecuting
> intellectual property violation and copyright infringement, including the
> maximum penalties for each sort of infraction and related sentencing
> guidelines. http://www.cybercrime.gov/ipmanual.htm
>
> It also lists common-sense strategies for the Feds to score a win in court,
> including a breakdown of fair-use exceptions which can be profitably
> exploited, and value estimates of the allegedly infringed works engineered
> for success.
>
> For example, when seeking a felony rap, "prosecutors should be careful
> simply to charge a value greater than $2,500," the Department advises.
>
> We deeply appreciate the banana-republic prosecutorial ring of that wording.
> 'Go on, pick a number out of a hat; just ensure it's greater than 2,500.'
> *wink*
>
> The DoJ reaffirms its deeply held conviction that the Internet was conceived
> principally as some diabolical mechanism to shield terrorists, paedophiles
> and copyright violators from law enforcement agents and prosecutors.
>
> "Internet cases raise unusual evidentiary and proof issues," the Department
> observes. "One substantial challenge for Internet cases is to accurately
> determine the identity and quantity of the infringing items (pirated
> copyrighted works) that were distributed."
>
> However, baffled Feds are encouraged to seek assistance in developing their
> cases. "Law enforcement agencies should utilize all available resources in
> identifying victims and determining loss," the DoJ says.
>
> By which they mean: 'when in doubt, contact your friendly neighbourhood
> software or entertainment industry front group.'
>
> "In certain circumstances, assistance might be sought from the private
> sector. Certain private industry business associations, such as the Business
> Software Alliance, the Interactive Digital Software Association, the Motion
> Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of
> America, and the Software Information Industry Association, have provided
> significant assistance in previous investigations," the DoJ recommends.
>
> If that sounds like an unholy alliance, we mustn't blame the Department.
> It's not their fault, they insist. "In recent years, Congress has taken an
> especially strong interest in intellectual property crimes as well as
> intellectual property law generally," the report emphasizes on about eight
> different occasions.
>
> The culprit here is the US Congress, whose members take in vast campaign
> donations from these industry groups and are then, obviously, required to
> deliver legislation favourable to their benefactors if they wish to see the
> money spigot remain open.
>
> House Members are particularly susceptible to this sort of manipulation,
> being compelled by law to mount a campaign every two years. Indeed, one
> barely has time to take the oath before the next fund-raising cycle
> commences.
>
> US legislators have grown so dependent on entertainment and software
> industry succour that "Congress took the unprecedented step of singling out
> intellectual property crimes for detailed accounting in the Attorney
> General's Annual Accountability Report," the DoJ laments.
>
> We've long observed the ways in which these industries influence the US
> legislative agenda; here we see that they're influencing national
> law-enforcement and prosecutorial priorities as well.
>
> Ain't Democracy wonderful? ®

***********





-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------