| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Donald Ramsbottom | Sep 20, 2000 11:55 pm | |
| Richard Clayton | Sep 21, 2000 6:40 am | |
| Richard Watts | Sep 21, 2000 8:16 am | |
| Neil Dunbar | Sep 21, 2000 9:28 am | |
| Owen Blacker | Sep 21, 2000 10:46 am | |
| Donald Ramsbottom | Sep 21, 2000 11:10 am | |
| John Young | Sep 21, 2000 11:29 am | |
| John Young | Sep 21, 2000 11:41 am | |
| Richard Clayton | Sep 21, 2000 1:25 pm | |
| Richard Clayton | Sep 21, 2000 1:30 pm | |
| Dave Bird | Sep 21, 2000 2:12 pm | |
| Donald Ramsbottom | Sep 22, 2000 12:52 am | |
| Paul Leyland | Sep 22, 2000 1:30 am | |
| Owen Blacker | Sep 22, 2000 2:09 am | |
| Roland Perry | Sep 22, 2000 2:20 am | |
| Roland Perry | Sep 22, 2000 2:25 am | |
| Jon Ribbens | Sep 22, 2000 3:45 am | |
| David Howe | Sep 22, 2000 3:56 am | |
| Charles Lindsey | Sep 22, 2000 4:05 am | |
| David Howe | Sep 22, 2000 4:20 am | |
| Owen Blacker | Sep 22, 2000 4:55 am | |
| David Swarbrick | Sep 22, 2000 5:12 am | |
| Donald Ramsbottom | Sep 22, 2000 5:24 am | |
| Donald Ramsbottom | Sep 22, 2000 8:32 am | |
| Dave Bird | Sep 22, 2000 11:22 am | |
| Donald Ramsbottom | Sep 23, 2000 7:35 am | |
| Owen Blacker | Sep 23, 2000 8:24 am | |
| Dave Howe | Sep 23, 2000 3:25 pm | |
| Dave Bird | Sep 23, 2000 4:26 pm | |
| Dave Howe | Sep 23, 2000 4:38 pm | |
| David Swarbrick | Sep 24, 2000 6:00 am | |
| David Swarbrick | Sep 24, 2000 6:00 am | |
| Paul Crowley | Sep 24, 2000 11:07 am | |
| Richard Watts | Sep 25, 2000 3:53 am | |
| Charles Lindsey | Sep 25, 2000 7:09 am | |
| David Swarbrick | Sep 25, 2000 10:40 am | |
| David Swarbrick | Sep 25, 2000 1:13 pm | |
| Philip Rowlands | Sep 25, 2000 2:04 pm | |
| Dave Bird | Sep 25, 2000 7:35 pm | |
| David Swarbrick | Sep 25, 2000 11:04 pm | |
| Charles Lindsey | Sep 26, 2000 1:59 am | |
| Pete Chown | Sep 26, 2000 2:38 am | |
| Richard Watts | Sep 26, 2000 9:40 am | |
| Richard Watts | Sep 26, 2000 9:45 am | |
| Dave Bird | Sep 26, 2000 11:42 am | |
| Dave Bird | Sep 26, 2000 12:26 pm | |
| David Swarbrick | Sep 27, 2000 3:01 am | |
| David Swarbrick | Sep 27, 2000 3:01 am | |
| Jon Ribbens | Sep 27, 2000 3:46 am | |
| Dave Bird | Sep 27, 2000 7:52 am | |
| Dave Bird | Sep 27, 2000 11:53 am | |
| Benjamin Geer | Sep 27, 2000 6:41 pm |
| Subject: | Re: Demon & DeCSS | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Richard Clayton (rich...@turnpike.com) | |
| Date: | Sep 21, 2000 6:40:58 am | |
| List: | uk.org.greenend.chiark.ukcrypto | |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
In article <1.5.4.32.20000921065613.00fb1220@192.168.0.65>, Donald Ramsbottom <don...@ramsbottom.co.uk> writes
It was interesting to see Mark's email posted in public (sans his usual PGP signatures that allow one to check if it has been changed ... but it didn't look tampered with).
It was especially interesting to see "with permission" on the top of the page ! This must have been Mr Simmon's permission.
Basically, it would seem that Demon have receieved a "Cease & desist" letter from MPAA,
The MPAA did indeed write to Demon. They quoted a great deal of US law and a US judgment.
They were asked to explain how relevant this to the UK (they may not have been aware of Demon's physical location) but they have yet to respond to the email that was sent back to them :(
and have buckled by treatening to pull someones site (although they have indicated they will take no further action at present).
"buckled" ?? this is tabloid-speak :-(
The MPAA letter suggested that the customer was not authorised to publish the DeCSS material. The standard procedure for such matters was then put into effect and the customer was invited to explain what permission they had.
The response was that the DeCSS material is said to be "public domain" [[a complex concept, but exploring its depths is probably not relevant]] so there was no question at present of an infringement of Demon's AUP for web space. Hence no further action at present.
The "threat" (more tabloid-speak) was present in the email because it is necessary to set some sort of reasonable time limit for a response (otherwise people would never respond lest they lose out in some way, which can be problematic from Demon's point of view).
In the event the response was prompt and so the "threat" disappeared - as indeed it usually does.
It maybe a botty covering exercise, but demon really should have taken some advice before knee jerking.
The procedures that Demon operate in cases of complaint are applied whether it is the MPAA complaining or the web site owner's girlfriend...
If the right to publish material is questioned (whether it is DeCSS or a photo of a pet cat) then these procedures involve putting the matter to the web site owner ... which is exactly what happened here.
By all means discuss the MPAA's operations in the UK... but bringing Demon into the middle of this is of strictly limited relevance.
- -- richard writing to inform and not as company policy fewer than 10 MPs still need adopting: http://www.stand.org.uk/ "Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind" quoted in ZAMM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1
iQA/AwUBOcoQAOtbVxwhgXFWEQIh5wCg/WRasrqONzJswxv3NOiAnRlgvOIAoOsk oEpO0EXfj/n4G6rguOkvNFgW =f32J -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





