Microsoft Asks Slashdot To Remove Readers' Posts

Our friends at Microsoft are upset about some of the readers' comments attached to the story, Kerberos, PACs And Microsoft's Dirty Tricks (posted on May 2), and would like us to remove those comments from Slashdot. We are not happy about this, to say the least. But instead of reflexively going into rant mode, we are calmly posting the full text of the e-mail we got from Microsoft, along with our initial response to it, so that you can see what news and community Web sites like Slashdot are up against now that the DMCA has become law. We are talking to our lawyers, of course, but we would also like your suggestions on how we should handle this situation.

From: "J.K. Weston"
To: "'[e-mail]'"
"'[e-mail]'"
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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]; [e-mail]

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 ([e-mail]) 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:
[phone]
By email: [e-mail]

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

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,
Andover.net

Double standard

Why is it ok to break the DMCA but not okay for me to go break the GPL? Seems like a pretty huge double standard to me.

Why can't the reader remove them?

If the posts are copyrighted by their authors and the author may well be in violation of copyright, why does the Slashdot have to remove the article (if the article is to be removed)? Oh yeah, that's right, there's no self-management. That's the difference between an ISP and Slashdot. If some user puts up some illegal web page, the company contacts the ISP and the ISP contacts the user and tells the user that they will remove it or have it removed for them and then directs the company to bug the user. Of course, you can't do that at Slashdot because I can't remove my own comments (and believe me, there are times when I've wanted to, but not now).

I realize that such a system causes problems with regards to AC posting (hmm .. no AC posting, that's an idea .. and a flamewar) as well as with nested comments. AC postings generally can't belong to the author since the author is unknown and Slashdot should rightfully take possession of those and manage them, but as for the rest of us users, why not give us the say? Then we can turn to Microsoft and give them either an "okie dokie" or a nice mooning.

*This* is what Microsoft wants censored:

Re:Loophole? (Score:2, Informative)
by myconid (my S conid@ P toge A the M r.net) on Tuesday May 02, @08:27PM EST (#362)

Heres a good loophole. Install Winrar, right click on the icon and select OPEN WITH WINRAR, extract the file.
Whats a license? I never saw one..

----

I suggest we all stand outside the Redmond Campus with bullhorns and shout that, repeatedly.

--

Entrapment

Here's a fun new legal technique, similar to the unequivocably moral Unisys patent plan:

• Take an open standard.
• Add one small incompatibility.
• Hide that incompatibility for a few months.
• Write a paper describing the incompatibility in sufficient detail, so that implementing the necessary changes is trivial.
• Post a warning on the paper that implementing the specification without advance written permission is illegal.
• Wrap the paper in some sort of mechanism which presents the warning and a license agreement nominally waiving fair use, reverse engineering, and free speech rights.
• Make sure the mechanism only works on platforms where your implementation is already present, and, thus, no clean-room version is necessary.
• Distribute liberally, knowing that standard means of unwrapping the document -- on any platform but your own -- will not present the invalid license agreement anyway.
• Wait for the information to spread to all interested parties.
• Use the threat of legal force to intimidate anyone who might be considering writing a competing implementation -- not necessarily even based on information from the paper -- into cancelling the effort.
• Bask in the glow that you have not used dumping, product tying, or buyouts to maintain your monopoly position. Just good old American justice.

As I am not aware of any patent or copyright our friends at Microsoft have on this business process, please be aware that it is copyright chromatic [wgz.org], 2000.

It's also unethical. I'm not surprised.

--

Suggestion: Mark Up Microsoft's E-mail with Links

It's really hard to review what Microsoft is questioning, because the references to comments posted to Slashdot are not themselves hyperlinks. Perhaps the story could be edited so that the references to comments could be clicked through?
--

Dave Aiello

The worst of all possible results

My real suggestion? Do what Yahoo recently when they were sued for liable because someone posted untrue statements on one of their stock ticker chat boards: Claim that Slashdot has no control over content, and the person they really need to go after is the poster, and if you (M$) provides the right kind of paper, then maybe we can give you some type of information on the poster of the content.

In other words, Slashdot would be required to keep records of all anonymous postings so the poster can be identified later at the whim of some government agency or corporation able to convince a Judge that it needs to strip away the poster's anonymity. This is the worst of all possible results. It would start a chain of results that would eventually tear away every shred of privacy on the internet.

I sincerely hope that Slash is doing, and has been doing, the right thing and simply not keeping any records of anonymous posters. The one case I can think of that would justify record-keeping is in the event that some sort of flood attack had to be defended against, and even in that case the record-keeping should stop as soon as the attack stops.

Do I have a better suggestion to offer? No. Not at this point. I think we've got a hard problem here. Personally, I would tend toward the opinion that Slashdot should remove the copyrighted material, after it's found by a court to be a genuine copyright violation. But for me, there's a big, big problem with that, and it's this: I believe that Microsoft has acted illegally in restricting this material, and indeed, in attempting to subvert the Kerberos standard in the first place; a court should find that Microsoft restricted the material illegally in the first place, and should in fact be stripped of it's right to impose any restriction on the use of this material at all. To put it in fewer words: antitrust law trumps copyright law.

If you look at the whole issue in that light, this turns into an act of civil disobediance, and that can actually excuse you from breaking certain laws. Let me say it again, in different words: I believe that Microsoft have broken the law by attempting to subvert the Kerberos standard and that the poster is justified in retaliated by making Micrsoft's restricted information public in the way he did. Yes, it's possible the poster broke copyright law in this case, but the principle of civil disobedience should excuse that.

I think the specs for Microsoft's perverted mods to Kerberos should stay right here on Slashdot until Microsoft has answered in a court of law for its latest trust-making strategem.
--

Freedom of speech: who needs it?

I think we should all take a step back from this issue and realize that there is something more important here than this so called "Freedom of Speech". Microsoft has spent countless billions building a monopoly in the industry, and it is their God given right to defend this monopoly. What is an individual's rights compared to the rights of the countless employees as represented by the corporate entity that is Microsoft.

The government has seen fit to protect the rights of Microsoft, the RIAA, the MPAA, and others. Should we, as mere citizens sit here and question the legitimacy of this position. How can we sit here and argue that we might somehow have a better grasp on the situation than our elected leaders.
Our leaders are being paid good money by the tax system and political action commitees. Do you think they are being paid because they don't know anything about their job? Imagine if you showed up to work tomorrow, totally oblivious as to how to do your job properly. Wouldn't you be fired? They wouldn't stay there if they didn't know what they were doing!

What these posters did is wrong because our politicians said so. And really, what more justification do we need? I call on the editors of Slashdot to condemn these people as government heretics, and remove these posts immediately!

---

Re:Perhaps just remove the actual text copies

Well, your argument is well if its targeteted to the person you answer.

But, to answer you, with my opinions;
1. Forced disclosure is ok. What other way to track down spammers? ;)

2. They cannot ask them to remove it. When posting it to slashdot, well, it would be the same as leaving flyers all over the city. It would be impossible to remove them. It would be the same as dropping flyers down by airplanes. Impossible to remove.

3. It is impossible, because "the system works that way". If you dropped 1 million copies of some of your work, over a city -- it would be impossible for you to remove.


--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - [e-mail] - arcade@efnet

Rational mature approach

Let's try to keep the postings here to a certain standard of maturity. We must appear (because we ARE) to be Microsoft's peers, not Microsoft's unruly next door neighbours' children. If this ever reaches court (who knows, let's hope not), and Microsoft can show 400 postings which say "fuCk yOU mICRo$oft", it won't help too much. Keep calm, keep thinking.

--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me

Re:Double standard

Why is it ok for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus, but not ok for me to come to your house and kill you?

As an added incentive

Now I know that, deep down, the Slashdot editors (and owners) are anti-censorship and, specifically, anti-removing-the-comments.

BUT, while the spirit is willing, the flesh may be weak. That is, if Microsoft actual sues (or threatens to), Slashdot may cave for financial reasons.

So I propose the following: If Slashdot removes the comments without having been forced to by an actual court ruling, we boycott Slashdot. Hopefully that will provide the needed reverse financial pressure.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?

Re:I don't see what's wrong with this.

They're not asking you to censor anyone's particular ideas on a subject, they're asking you to stop copyright infringement from taking place on your server.

The problem is that it's not /.'s job to stop copyright infringement. It is M$'s job to stop infringement of their copyrighted materials. The way they would do this is to go to a judge, explain the situation and have the judge issue a court order. DMCA is a bad law because it attempts to bypass the judicial system. Instead of a duly appointed judge issuing edicts, it allows anyone to make them by claiming copyright infringement.

/. should not remove any post without a court order. By doing so, they would endanger their status as a common carrier. If M$ wants stuff removed, let them get a court order.

Put concisely, in the US, the judicial branch of the US goverment should judge what constitutes copyright infringement, not M$.

If The License Does Not Fit, They Must Acquit!

Actually, another very good point. If you believe that the original MIT license means that any added licensure restrictions by MSFT are null and void, you should inform MIT of this demand (by physical letter, since we do not have legal digital signatures to verify at this moment). And you should consider contacting the ACLU and EFF.

Attempts to enforce licenses which are in violation of the original license are unenforceable in a court of law - they can threaten you, they can twist the truth, but a judge will laugh in their face.

Re:Sweet! Full text of Katz books free on the web!

If you had *read* the article, the books will be in HTML on the web!

I think that using those posts is the kiss of deat

I agree. By /. using the columbine posts without the posters permission, I think they set themselves up. They seem to be saying in one case, "it's our content, we'll do with it what we want" and then saying "whoa, mr. lawyer, we're just a carrier, all comments are owned by the poster!"
---

Re:Shouldn't we all...

How about we all just mirror the content?
I have. [wildwoman.org]
By the way, that's one hefty assed page. It's a big ass file. I'm going to probably go through and cut much of the chaff from it.

Put the posts where they can't get at them

Post all the messages, links included, to USENET. They can't sweep it under the carpet from there.

Re:Look to Picard

Yea, then he changed his mind and decided the thing to do would be to turn tail and run, while blowing up his own ship.

Somehow setting SlashDot's self distruct sequence then moving everyone over to hotgrits.org isn't the greatest solution they could come up with.

Re:I think that using those posts is the kiss of d

Don't be dense. The comments are owned by the poster, meaning Slashdot has no control over what gets posted, and no responsibility. But this is also a public forum, available to anyone, so anyone can reproduce those comments. I don't get why so many people bitch about comments being reprinted without permission--there are too many people, and too many AC's to make that possible; and this is a public forum. It's not like you're publishing a book.

Here's my [radiks.net] DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?

Fair Use

If my knowledge of copyright law is correct (Not necessarily so), the user posts may fall under fair use -- provided that not too much was used. Fair use is not just limited to educational use; critique and public commentary are included.

This is even more true because the posts are noncommercial. Otherwise AC has some serious royalties due him/her.

-Walker

Re:But where?

Taiwan or Malta would be good - they don't have copyright laws there at all, so MS couldn't really do anything about it.

Wash. Post article on 5/12 (Fri) by John Schwartz

For any interested, there will be an article in Friday's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com) regarding Microsoft's letter, /.'s reply, and so forth. The article will be by John Schwartz, who, along with Rob Pegoraro, tend to cover /.ish issues. I think that anyone who reads /. on a regular basis will enjoy the direction that the article takes. Schwartz can be contacted (nicely, don't abuse this guy, he's one of the few decent tech writers in a major media organization) at [e-mail] This heads-up comes from someone else with a @washpost.com address, explaining the ability to give advance notice. stil

Re:Perhaps just remove the actual text copies

Comments are owned by the poster.

But are they really? It may say that on the comments pages, but as we've seen the administrators seem to have no compunctions about taking the posts and publishing them elsewhere to make a profit (that fact that it is a profit that will be donated to charity is of no relevance).

No, but they (gov't) should put yo' ass in jail. If they could find you... You do know that the FBI reads /., right?

Do you really believe that slashdot wouldn't censor a list of credit card numbers? I think you're being a bit too idealistic here.

Re:I agree... do NOT give them an INCH!!!

Oh please. So now anyone who doesn't agree with you is one of Gates' minions? I can't believe slashdot has come to this. It's really become the case that any and all dissenting voices are either moderated into oblivion or dismissed as "crazy." I for one do not work for Microsoft, and never have. I have a dissenting opinion not because I was told to, but for other reasons. Gross generalizations can only serve to make the one making them look foolish.

Public API that is illegal to use: Not new.

Microsoft is attempting to create a new legal classification ... an API that is published, yet illegal to use.

This is not new. How long have Unisys and Fraunhofer been doing this? The interface to GIF is restricted by the LZW compression patent; MPEG audio layer 3 is also patented.

It's not the Copyright stuff that frightens me

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").

Agreed, if they don't want it up, pull it. They wrote it and they own it. They get to say where it shows up and where it doesn't

In addition, some comments include links to unauthorized reproductions of the Specification,

Now you can shut up. You're essentially shooting the messenger. If slashdot isn't hosting it then it isn't slashdot's problem. Indicating that such information exists is merely informing slasdot readers, not infringing your copyright. You don't like those sites, go after them, then the links will be dead and useless. You're just being lazy.

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.

Now this is what puts a hair across my ass. Now you're not even attacking the messenger, but the message. If people break your EULA, go after them. This is really telling people, flat out, that they cannot even talk about certain aspects of your software and policy.

You lucky chaps

This is great. As a news site, publicity and name recognition are your life blood. They've really put you in a win win situation. If they decide to take you to court and you eventually lose the extra publicity will be worth far more than the fine. On the other hand, if you win then you get the "David slays Goliath" kudos.

The worst thing that can happen if you tell them to fuck off is better than than the best thing that can happen if you give in.

Give them hell!

Who would have thought slashdot would be one of the first potential court cases to test the DMCA :-)

Whoa there...

Someone should start a fund to help Slashdot in case Slashdot does get sued by Microsoft, even though it's very unlikely Slashdot will win.

Slashdot is not exactly a poor business that's barely trying to stand on two feet. I don't think they need a legal defense fund from the general public, besides which, although I read slashdot, I am completely unwilling to contribute money to the legal defense fund of a for-profit company. If they're making money off of their readership, (and rest assured that they are) they don't need to have us further help them financially by paying for their lawyers should they get sued.

I'm not anti-business, and I'm not anti-slashdot, but I would no more pay for slashdot's legal defense then I would for, say, Amoco or Bell Atlantic's legal defense.

The DMCA definately sucks, but in the end, companies will do what is best for their profitability. If they're publically owned, (like Andover is) then they pretty much have to. Your dollars in their defense fund won't change their strategy, and in the end, if the "stand up for the right thing" it will be because management has decided that that's the best thing to do in terms of long term profitability (for whatever reason) not out of some strong moral conviction.

Here's a hypothetical...

I agree it's out of line to remove the links. But if, under DMCA, links to illegally-copied material are ruled illegal, then are links to links to illegally-copied material illegal?

In other words, suppose someone places a copy on a server in Lilliput, out of the reach of DMCA (and perhaps a rogue nation that doesn't acknowledge intellectual property rights at all). In this hypothetical, a webpage in the US with a link to that copy in Lilliput would be illegal. But now suppose there's a webpage in Shangrila, also out of reach of DMCA, that has a link to the page in Lilliput. Would it be illegal for a webpage in the US to have a link to the page in Shangrila?

Does the "illegal link" propagate?

Christopher A. Bohn

The Right Place

This is the right place at the right time to start working to dismantle this dreadful law, passed nearly two years ago while much of cyberspace wasn't paying attention.
Some rock bands and music companies (for completely different reasons) are invoking this same law, as will any large corporation with lawyers that doesn't want to see something published. Under the worst provisions of the DMCA, you don't even have to prove copyright infringement, just allege it..and the ISP can only avoid liability by booting the offenders or deleting the allegedly offensive material. To restore access or content, you have to file an affidavit under the jurisdiction of the federal judge in your region.
This is one of the reasons it's outrageous for a corporation like Microsoft to use the DMCA to remove public comments. Almost nobody online was paying attention with the entertainment industry rushed to get this law passed, maybe because nobody imagined companies like Microsoft would jump in to use it to try and control what they call "proprietary" information, but which, in fact, will have the affect of censoring, chilling free speech. Slashdot is lucky, in this case, to be owned by a corporation..it has access to lawyers. To really grasp the horror here, imagine if you're a smaller website or weblog.Step one: The DMCA has to be repealed or re-written.It's much more offensive and damaging than the Communications Decency Act would have been, and much more enforceable.

Applause.

Granted I don't care too much most of the opinions of slashdot editors (or posters for that matter). But it is good to see than when something real and serious comes up the editors here at Slashdot can put down the bias and the "revelery" for a moment and do the right thing.

Your response was brief, to the point, and most importantly not inflammatory. Microsoft is a corporation, so of course its going to act like one. This fact seems to get lost on many slashdot posters. The DMCA is something they fought for... and now something they are going to use to fight with. This is as it should be. Its the lay of the land now... the way it works. Currently.

Unfortunately for Microsoft (and any large coroporation) they move slow and reacte even more slowly. The power of the net comes from its ability to inform many people of all of the facts on any issue almost instantly. Long gone are the days when it took months or even years to start a proper counter-movement. Now it takes days... Microsoft has felt this before and they will feel it again. What was acceptable for big business in the 80s became less so in the 90s and now in the zeros those who can't change and adapt to a smart, all knowing consumer are doomed to failure at that consumer's hands. This is the "internet economy"... not some company with potential billion dollar profits 5 or 6 years after starting up, no its consumers finally having real choice and power.

It is about time :)

---
Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Solaris/FreeBSD/Linux/ultrix/OSF /...

Re:Perhaps just remove the actual text copies

Microsoft didn't ask Slashdot to remove comments which were critical of the company. They asked Slashdot to remove articles which violated Microsoft's legitimate copyright.

Some of the comments which Microsoft wants /. to remove are not part of Microsoft's copyrighted material. They simply give advice on how one can circumvent an EULA.

Unfortunately, the DMCA makes the dissemination of such advice legal.

I'd like everyone reading this to stop for a few seconds and ponder this. If you write a howto which helps people obtain documentation you could be prosecuted under the DMCA.

A bit scary? I think so....

Re:Double standard

Original post:

Why is it ok to break the DMCA but not okay for me to go break the GPL? Seems like a pretty huge double standard to me.

Reply:

Because the GPL represents Free Speech, DMCA represents Corporate Censorship. big difference.

Oh, so if I was some big company, and you were some developer of GPLd software, then I would be expected to respect your rights, while you should be allowed to tramp all over mine? That hardly seems fair. We can not claim protection from the law if we don't respect the law ourselves.

On the other hand, if, as some people claim, the DMCA does in fact contradict the First Amendment, that would be a good reason to throw out the DMCA. Once that happens, obviously, we would no longer have to respect it.