An essential aspect of hacking is sharing. From the days of leaving your
punch cards in a drawer, where anyone could find it and fix it for you. To
Git Hub and Gitorious.
What if hackers have always been the warrior priests of
Kopimism. Practicing out of pure faith while fighting for the rights of
others to copy and remix.
Makes sense, if coping is essential to life everything else in the
universe, we move forward by hacking, changing things, and sharing those
modification with everyone.
There is no other way than Kopimism!
--
-------
Andrew Lowe
Cell: 831-332-2507
http://roshambomedia.com
By Annalee Newitz
...
I first encountered Kopimism atNoisebridge, a hackerspace in San Francisco, CA, where hackers, makers and artists collaborate on projects that range from free software to electronic music and weird new Arduino-enabled devices. A group of people from Noisebridge's sister hackerspace in Oakland, Sudo Room, were showing us pictures of their new digs. The Kopimist symbol was emblazoned on its doors. What the hell is that? I wondered. A few quick searches online answered my question.
...
> http://io9.com/one-of-the-first-religions-inspired-by-the-internet-476516354
For those concerned that Sudo Room is the corrupting the minds of the youth ...
Going to try to make it to Kopimism worship today. If there's time, I'd like to read it aloud.
Also, a reminder that we have to have Ludlow over to check out what we've been up to.
sent from eddan.com
APRIL 13, 2013, 1:36 PM
Hacktivists as Gadflies
By PETER LUDLOW
Around 400 B.C., Socrates was brought to trial on charges of corrupting the youth of Athens and “impiety.” Presumably, however, people believed then as we do now, that Socrates’ real crime was being too clever and, not insignificantly, a royal pain to those in power or, as Plato put it, a gadfly. Just as a gadfly is an insect that could sting a horse and prod it into action, so too could Socrates sting the state. He challenged the moral values of his contemporaries and refused to go along with unjust demands of tyrants, often obstructing their plans when he could. Socrates thought his service to Athens should have earned him free dinners for life. He was given a cup of hemlock instead.
We have had gadflies among us ever since, but one contemporary breed in particular has come in for a rough time of late: the “hacktivist.” While none have yet been forced to drink hemlock, the state has come down on them with remarkable force. This is in large measure evidence of how poignant, and troubling, their message has been.
Hacktivists, roughly speaking, are individuals who redeploy and repurpose technology for social causes. In this sense they are different from garden-variety hackers out to enrich only themselves. People like Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Bill Gates began their careers as hackers — they repurposed technology, but without any particular political agenda. In the case of Mr. Jobs and Mr. Wozniak, they built and sold “blue boxes,” devices that allowed users to defraud the phone company. Today, of course, these people are establishment heroes, and the contrast between their almost exalted state and the scorn being heaped upon hacktivists is instructive.
For some reason, it seems that the government considers hackers who are out to line their pockets less of a threat than those who are trying to make a political point. Consider the case of Andrew Auernheimer, better known as “Weev.” When Weev discovered in 2010 that AT&T had left private information about its customers vulnerable on the Internet, he and a colleague wrote a script to access it. Technically, he did not “hack” anything; he merely executed a simple version of what Google Web crawlers do every second of every day — sequentially walk through public URLs and extract the content. When he got the information (the e-mail addresses of 114,000 iPad users, including Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Rahm Emanuel, then the White House chief of staff), Weev did not try to profit from it; he notified the blog Gawker of the security hole.
For this service Weev might have asked for free dinners for life, but instead he was recently sentenced to 41 months in prison and ordered to pay a fine of more than $73,000 in damages to AT&T to cover the cost of notifying its customers of its own security failure.
When the federal judge Susan Wigenton sentenced Weev on March 18, she described him with prose that could have been lifted from the prosecutor Meletus in Plato’s “Apology.” “You consider yourself a hero of sorts,” she said, and noted that Weev’s “special skills” in computer coding called for a more draconian sentence. I was reminded of a line from an essay written in 1986 by a hacker called the Mentor: “My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for.”
When offered the chance to speak, Weev, like Socrates, did not back down: “I don’t come here today to ask for forgiveness. I’m here to tell this court, if it has any foresight at all, that it should be thinking about what it can do to make amends to me for the harm and the violence that has been inflicted upon my life.”
He then went on to heap scorn upon the law being used to put him away — the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the same law that prosecutors used to go after the 26-year-old Internet activist Aaron Swartz, who committed suicide in January.
The law, as interpreted by the prosecutors, makes it a felony to use a computer system for “unintended” applications, or even violate a terms-of-service agreement. That would theoretically make a felon out of anyone who lied about their age or weight on Match.com.
The case of Weev is not an isolated one. Barrett Brown, a journalist who had achieved some level of notoriety as the “the former unofficial not-spokesman for Anonymous,” the hacktivist group, now sits in federal custody in Texas. Mr. Brown came under the scrutiny of the authorities when he began poring over documents that had been released in the hack of two private security companies, HBGary Federal and Stratfor. Mr. Brown did not take part in the hacks, but he did become obsessed with the contents that emerged from them — in particular the extracted documents showed that private security contractors were being hired by the United States government to develop strategies for undermining protesters and journalists, including Glenn Greenwald, a columnist for Salon. Since the cache was enormous, Mr. Brown thought he might crowdsource the effort and copied and pasted the URL from an Anonymous chat server to a Web site called Project PM, which was under his control.
Just to be clear, what Mr. Brown did was repost the URL from a Web site that was publicly available on the Internet. Because Stratfor had not encrypted the credit card information of its clients, the information in the cache included credit card numbers and validation numbers. Mr. Brown didn’t extract the numbers or highlight them; he merely offered a link to the database. For this he was charged on 12 counts, all of which pertained to credit card fraud. The charges against him add up to about 100 years in federal prison. It was “virtually impossible,” Mr. Greenwald, wrote recently in The Guardian, his new employer, “to conclude that the obscenely excessive prosecution he now faces is unrelated to that journalism and his related activism.”
Other hacktivists have felt the force of the United States government in recent months, and all reflect an alarming contrast between the severity of the punishment and the flimsiness of the actual charges. The case of Aaron Swartz has been well documented. Jeremy Hammond, who reportedly played a direct role in the Stratfor and HBGary hacks, has been in jail for more than a year awaiting trial. Mercedes Haefer, a journalism student at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, faces charges for hosting an Internet Relay Chat channel where an Anonymous denial of service attack was planned. Most recently, Matthew Keys, a 26-year-old social-media editor at Reuters, who allegedly assisted hackers associated with Anonymous (who reportedly then made a prank change to a Los Angeles Times headline), was indicted on federal charges that could result in more than $750,000 in fines and prison time, inciting a new outcry against the law and its overly harsh enforcement. The list goes on.
In a world in which nearly everyone is technically a felon, we rely on the good judgment of prosecutors to decide who should be targets and how hard the law should come down on them. We have thus entered a legal reality not so different from that faced by Socrates when the Thirty Tyrants ruled Athens, and it is a dangerous one. When everyone is guilty of something, those most harshly prosecuted tend to be the ones that are challenging the established order, poking fun at the authorities, speaking truth to power — in other words, the gadflies of our society.
Peter Ludlow is professor of philosophy at Northwestern University. His most recent book is “The Philosophy of Generative Linguistics.”
Copyright 2013 The New York Times CompanyPrivacy PolicyNYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018
sent from eddan.com
In connection with the Chants and Prayers practice group, I've been suggesting that we come up with a hymnal-type compendium of something that can be contributed to and edited on our wiki. This also makes it easier for someone who has not yet participated in the emergent chants and prayers this initial group may come up with and be able to catch up in not too long or at least reasonably pretend to do so with a device that can access the Internet.
Relatedly, one of the most impactful things that I've imagined the Sudo-Kopimism branched effort can have is on the liturgical publishers markets. These are often very lucrative publishing houses because you need to have a whole bunch of these books at every congregation that's the latest edition and accredited by the belief system association that approve such things.
It would be neat to provide a wiki platform for canonical religious prayer books and texts. It could serve as the repository for the public domain and creative-commons licensed alternatives of prayers books or ritual compilation volumes in the wide variety of different denominations, ritual communities, belief systems, etc. - whatever the community standards in Oakland would consider spirituality.
By slicing off the layer of excess licensing profits - maximized by frequent edition updates and a lack of competition - churches and temples and prayer centers in Oakland could spend a lot less money on these publications. In fact, the extensibility created by having the core texts for a wide range of organized services could make for more meaningful experiences by being more easily customized to the relevant congregation.
On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Romy Ilano <romy(a)snowyla.com> wrote:
> Hello the Kopimism sect is now defunct.
>
> https://sudoroom.org/wiki/page/Kopimism
>
> Even though I'm not a full religious convert yet (personal reasons) I think this is really important and the SudoRoom family will benefit from the creation of
>
> RITUAL CHANTS AND PRAYERS
>
> -===anyone interested in contributions? These will most likely be published in small handbooks jack chiclet style and recited aloud at meetings with members holding hands and looking upwards with solemn facial expressions
>
> I will speak to the public school poetry class about potential ideas for the creation of SudoRoom Kopimistic ritual chants and prayers.
>
> All chants will most likely be recited
>
> Potential phraseology
>
> 510 is nottabout just tha dough
> sudo is a do-ology
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
thought this selection from a thread on Cyber-Profs might be of curious interest to kopimists. I'm with my friend Laura just below that this totally misses the point of the problem. From a Kopimist perspective, this further demonstrates the gross misapplication of strong regulatory rules on copying as a means of solving all social problems through technical proxy rather than dealing with what's so messed up about it - like intrusion of privacy and obscene defamation.
>> From: Laura Quilter <lquilter(a)lquilter.net>
>> Subject: Re: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>> Date: April 9, 2013 8:01:06 AM PDT
>> To: "cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu" <cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu>
>>
>> The problem with using copyright on these issues is not that sometimes some victim will get redress. It is that copyright is not a good fit for the problem. It is overbroad, so it will allow takedowns of all kinds of materials that are not the ones that are obviously injurious; it doesn't have the right kinds of corrective actions, to cover the times when the action isn't the obvious bad action; and it is too narrow to cover a lot of the folks who need redress cannot get it (those who are nonconsensually photographed or those who consented to the photography but not the distribution, and joint authors who want to stop the distribution rather than seek accounting for any profits).
>>
>> As a matter of development of law, the ability of copyright to be so very broadly used hinders or at the least does not help us come to a solution that would actually fit the problem more closely. The more folks use copyright to meet privacy (and other) needs, the more copyright's purposes & function are distorted. But also, if we are meeting half the victim's needs with copyright, then half the need for privacy law is diminished. It's good for those individual claimants, to the extent that their actual needs are met by a klugey solution, but what about all the others who don't have recourse to copyright law?
>>
>> I really like the idea of a narrowly-tailored statute that gets at the harms, at least for the majority of states that have poorly-developed privacy or IIED torts. I'm not worried about the First Amendment getting in the way of doing it. There's nothing in the current law that would prevent the relatively minor extension of First Amendment exceptions for tort claims by private individuals beyond defamation/false light to IIED/public disclosure of private facts. And I see no reason why a reasonably well-drafted and narrowly tailored statute wouldn't survive. At least, I applaud the legislators for trying; if they get it wrong and we get a well-reasoned decision saying how & why it's wrong and overbroad, then we can try again.
>>
>> Trying to cram all the world's ills into copyright law -- although it almost works, since copyright is so broad! -- is not going to serve either the purposes of copyright law or the needs of individuals for privacy and autonomy and control over certain kinds of information about themselves.
>>
>> To be honest, this seems like the sort of thing that I would like someone to craft some model legislation on. Why can't those of us concerned about intellectual freedom *and* privacy rights draft some model legislation? It seems these days that any two-bit organization with an ideological bent can draft model legislation and get it successfully passed with the right backing. Maybe some of our fine legal clinics and law professors could work on this. I'd help.
>>
>> Laura
>>
>> ----------------------------------
>> Laura Markstein Quilter / lquilter(a)lquilter.net
>> Librarian, Geek, Attorney, Teacher
>>
>>
>> Copyright and Information Policy Librarian
>> University of Massachusetts, Amherst
>> lquilter(a)library.umass.edu
>>
>> Lecturer, Simmons College, GSLIS
>> laura.quilter(a)simmons.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Bartow, Ann M. <abartow(a)law.pace.edu> wrote:
>> Joint authors cannot sue each other for copyright infringement, so if one joint author is victimizing the other by distributing a work, copyright law might not have anything to offer the victim. But at least in the Seventh Circuit one joint author has standing to sue third parties for copyright infringement, see http://www.loeb.com/files/Publication/3c77768b-359e-4ec8-8082-69fb241e39f7/…
>> But see: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1393420.html
>>
>>
>> Ann Bartow
>> Professor of Law
>> Pace Law School
>> 78 North Broadway
>> White Plains, New York 10603
>> (914) 422-4097
>> *****************
>> Fulbright Scholar '11 - '12
>> Tongji University
>> Shanghai, People's Republic of China
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:VOLOKH@law.ucla.edu]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 9:28 AM
>> To: Bartow, Ann M.; cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> Subject: RE: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>>
>> I was just responding to the "Has anybody suggested otherwise, Fred?" question.
>>
>> Also, if the subjects of the revenge porn are joint authors (with the photographers who then post the material), I would think that this means the subjects may *not* use copyright law to block distribution of the photographs: As I understand it, each joint author is allowed to distribute the work on his own say-so, without the coauthors' permission.
>>
>> Eugene
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cyberprof-bounces(a)lists.stanford.edu [mailto:cyberprof-bounces@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Bartow, Ann M.
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 6:03 AM
>> To: cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> Subject: Re: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>>
>> Eugene, I am not sure if you are suggesting Rob is wrong about copyright authorship/ownership, or that Fred thinks Rob is wrong about copyright authorship/ownership. In any event, a sizeable portion of "revenge porn" is comprised of videos and photographs taken by victims and shared with their romantic partners. After the relationships end, the former partners distribute works with the names and contact information of their copyright holding exes, to humiliate and punish them. I don't understand why using the notice and take down provisions of the DMCA would be any less legitimate for these copyright holders than it is for anybody else.
>>
>> There is also a possibility that subjects of revenge porn could in some circumstances be considered joint authors, as Derek Bambauer explains here: https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2013/01/25/beating-revenge-porn-with-…
>>
>>
>> Ann Bartow
>> Professor of Law
>> Pace Law School
>> 78 North Broadway
>> White Plains, New York 10603
>> (914) 422-4097
>> *****************
>> Fulbright Scholar '11 - '12
>> Tongji University
>> Shanghai, People's Republic of China
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:VOLOKH@law.ucla.edu]
>> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 10:33 PM
>> To: Bartow, Ann M.
>> Subject: RE: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>>
>> I take it that Fred's copyright point was in response to Rob Heverly's suggestion that, "A useful strategy might be to pursue suits against these sites under copyright law (where the victim made the photograph/video)and bring suit for infringement."
>>
>> Eugene
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cyberprof-bounces(a)lists.stanford.edu [mailto:cyberprof-bounces@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Bartow, Ann M.
>> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 5:22 PM
>> To: Fred von Lohmann
>> Cc: cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> Subject: Re: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>>
>> Has anybody suggested otherwise, Fred?
>>
>> This case highlights the potential impact of copyright law pretty effectively: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/11-3445/11-3445-20…
>> The photos are not "dumped lover" revenge porn but they are "put an uppity woman in her place" porn, which perhaps fits within a broad definition of revenge porn.
>>
>> And fwiw here is a short article that discusses gaps in the law in the general legal neighborhood of revenge porn: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223226/Lindsey-Boyd-sues-Girls-Gon…
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ann Bartow
>> Professor of Law
>> Pace Law School
>> 78 North Broadway
>> White Plains, New York 10603
>> (914) 422-4097
>> *****************
>> Fulbright Scholar '11 - '12
>> Tongji University
>> Shanghai, People's Republic of China
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Fred von Lohmann [fred(a)vonlohmann.com]
>> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 7:57 PM
>> To: Bartow, Ann M.
>> Cc: cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> Subject: Re: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>>
>> While I have strong feelings about the First Amendment issues here, I will leave that commentary to those who are much more expert than I am. Just a quick reminder, however, on the copyright front, that many "revenge porn" situations will be complicated by questions of authorship. Generally speaking, it is the person taking the photo who holds the copyright, not the subject of the photo. In those cases, using copyright tools may be inappropriate (and in some cases under 17 USC 512f, actually actionable).
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 1:46 PM, "Bartow, Ann M." <abartow(a)law.pace.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > This is just one (compelling to some of us) example of law
>> > interfacing with the complicated feelings people have about bodily
>> > autonomy; see also
>> > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2234476
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Ann Bartow
>> > Professor of Law
>> > Pace Law School
>> > 78 North Broadway
>> > White Plains, New York 10603
>> > (914) 422-4097
>> > *****************
>> > Fulbright Scholar '11 - '12
>> > Tongji University
>> > Shanghai, People's Republic of China
>> >
>> >
>> > From: cyberprof-bounces(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> > [mailto:cyberprof-bounces@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Andrew
>> > Gilden
>> > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 4:20 PM
>> > To: Neil Richards
>> > Cc: cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu; Laura Quilter
>> > Subject: Re: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>> >
>> > Just to add another data point to this discussion, the NJ statute was used successfully in the prosecution of Dharun Ravi, the Rutgers student who used a webcam to spy on his roommate Tyler Clementi. Ravi was convicted under the statute based on a rather broad reading of "sexual contact": Clementi and his friend were seen shirtless and kissing, for only a few seconds.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Neil Richards <nmrichards(a)wulaw.wustl.edu> wrote:
>> > I'm pretty sure that true revenge porn could be (and should be) punished consistent with the First Amendment, and the Pamela Anderson/Lee case suggests that this might be true even for celebrities. By "true," I mean the intentional disclosure of a sex tape or pictures, usually by an ex, for no purpose other than inflicting harm.
>> >
>> > I made a similar argument here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1862264, which I am revising for my forthcoming book on these and related issues (Intellectual Privacy, OUP 2014).
>> >
>> > I think the law would be on stronger ground if it carved out public figures, and if it added an element of intentionally intending injury (ie limiting itself to true revenge porn, which seems analogous to true threats). But I agree with what's been called the "realist" trend in the thread describing the law in practice. Especially post-Stevens, the Court has been very unwilling to create new exceptions to the First Amendment, for many of the reasons Eugene points out. But I think if a true revenge porn against an ordinary person case came up, even such a "realist" court would find liability. Even Phelps reserved the question of internet publication of non-newsworthy facts.
>> >
>> > Neil
>> >
>> > Neil M. Richards
>> > Professor of Law
>> > Washington University in St. Louis
>> > One Brookings Drive
>> > St. Louis MO 63130
>> > (314) 935-4794
>> > Fax (314) 935-5356
>> >
>> > website: http://law.wustl.edu/faculty/index.asp?id=314
>> > ssrn page:
>> > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=400644
>> > twitter: @neilmrichards
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: cyberprof-bounces(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> > [mailto:cyberprof-bounces@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Laura
>> > Quilter
>> > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 9:43 AM
>> > To: cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> >
>> > Subject: Re: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>> >
>> > I'm not sure why revenge porn per se would be unprotected under the Miller test for obscenity.
>> >
>> > Prurient is probably easy; and maybe lacks SLAPS value is not too hard (especially for the non-Anthony Wiener variety), although I would want to think more about it.
>> >
>> > But the middle prong, "depicting or describing ... sexual conduct" seems like it would not be a good match for a lot of the nude photos that end up on revenge porn shots, many of which would be still photos and not "sexual conduct".
>> >
>> > Just from a common sense approach, the problem is not that these photos are per se "obscene"; it is that they are non-consensual either in distribution or in production. That's more like the harms from child porn, which are to the subject primarily.
>> >
>> > ----------------------------------
>> > Laura Markstein Quilter / lquilter(a)lquilter.net Librarian, Geek,
>> > Attorney, Teacher
>> >
>> >
>> > Copyright and Information Policy Librarian University of
>> > Massachusetts, Amherst lquilter(a)library.umass.edu
>> >
>> > Lecturer, Simmons College, GSLIS
>> > laura.quilter(a)simmons.edu
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:59 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I don't know that language of "exception" or "slippage" is appropriate. Revenge porn is not protected under Miller. That which involves minors, as much of it does, is unprotected under Ferber.
>> >
>> >
>> > David W. Opderbeck
>> > Seton Hall University Law School
>> > Professor of Law
>> > Director, Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>> > 973.642.8496
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Apr 7, 2013, at 10:09 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH(a)law.ucla.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > Well, that may be what you think. But many people might be happy to carve out a Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment exception for crimes that they see as particularly heinous, just as you're happy to carve out a First Amendment exception (perhaps correctly) in this instance, if they thought that the exception would be kept sufficiently narrow. What has kept many Justices from carving out such exceptions, I think, is precisely the worry of slippage to much broader restrictions.
>> >
>> > Eugene
>> >
>> > From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 6:45 PM
>> > To: Volokh, Eugene
>> > Cc: cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> > Subject: Re: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>> >
>> > All those examples are already over the hill. Those aren't slippery slope examples at all.
>> >
>> > David W. Opderbeck
>> > Seton Hall University Law School
>> > Professor of Law
>> > Director, Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>> > 973.642.8496
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Apr 7, 2013, at 7:55 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH(a)law.ucla.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > Say that someone suggests allowing warrantless searches of people's homes for child pornography - would we also say "slippery slope arguments don't persuade [us] at all when we are talking about something so morally heinous as child porn"? Or allowing compelled self-incrimination in such cases? How about allowing convictions of the alleged child porn possessor without confrontation of the witnesses against him? Or perhaps allowing convictions without jury trials in some hate crime cases, on the theory that bigoted juries might refuse to convict, and the behavior is so "morally heinous"? Or allowing restrictions on songs that advocate murder of police officers, on the theory that such songs are also morally heinous, and certainly counsel extremely heinous behavior?
>> >
>> > Indeed, slippery slope risks from relaxation of constitutional rights are especially strong when the case involves "morally heinous" behavior, precisely because the perceived need to act seems so urgent. And then some years or decades down the pike, one sees the relaxation of the right expanding to a broader and broader range of behavior.
>> >
>> > Again, as I mentioned, I think that limits on the publication of sexually explicit photos of others might be constitutional. But I think that this should be considered with serious attention to the risk of slippery slopes, rather than ignoring this risk because the behavior is so "morally heinous."
>> >
>> > Eugene
>> >
>> > From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:48 PM
>> > To: Volokh, Eugene
>> > Cc: cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> > Subject: Re: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>> >
>> > Slippery slope arguments don't persuade me at all when we are talking about something so morally heinous as revenge porn.
>> >
>> > David W. Opderbeck
>> > Seton Hall University Law School
>> > Professor of Law
>> > Director, Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>> > 973.642.8496
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Apr 7, 2013, at 7:38 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH(a)law.ucla.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm on the record as arguing that limits on the publication of social security numbers are indeed constitutional, see http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/facilitating.pdf, and that limits on the publication of sexually explicit photos of others might be constitutional, too, seehttp://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/privacy.pdf . But the worry about such limits is precisely how - in a system built on precedent and analogy - such restrictions will become the foundations for restrictions on other kinds of speech as well, often with little attempt to cabin those analogies. Arguments that, because limits on the publication of social security numbers are permissible, limits on the publication of sexually themed images of others are permissible, too, make me wonder what the next step in the chain of analogy will be (especially given that this step in the chain seems so large).
>> >
>> > Eugene
>> >
>> > From: cyberprof-bounces(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> > [mailto:cyberprof-bounces@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf OfDavid
>> > Opderbeck
>> > Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:34 PM
>> > To: Peter Swire
>> > Cc: cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> > Subject: Re: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>> >
>> > From a "realist" perspective you might be right, but from a normative perspective that values both free speech and privacy, this would not be a good thing.
>> >
>> > David W. Opderbeck
>> > Seton Hall University Law School
>> > Professor of Law
>> > Director, Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>> > 973.642.8496
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Andrew Gilden
>> > Stanford Law Fellow
>> >
>> > Crown Quadrangle
>> > 559 Nathan Abbott Way
>> > Stanford, CA 94305-8610
>> > (650) 721-2101
>> > agilden(a)law.stanford.edu
>> > --++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==
>> > cyberprof mailing list
>> > cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cyberprof
>>
>>
Running late - Filo speciality may not be part of today's session. Hopefully the Athenian Deli will be open (an uncertain assertion).
I propose we discuss Crowdfunding, as part of the effort to stimulate our exploration of these sorts of sources of revenue. The discussion will be continued on the Sudo-Crowd mailing list (sudo-crowd(a)lists.sudoroom.org)
The following blurb is also for the TechLiminal Lunch Box next Wed., Apr. 17. Please contact Evan Savage through Tech Liminal for more about that.
Crowdfunding. What does it mean and how does it work? Why is it the biggest buzz word since social media? Will it really circumvent the flow of investment capital to bypass Wall Street? Can it stimulate new jobs in the small business enterprise and contractors markets?
Is there anything more to this than passing around a hat for donations amongst your friends and family in order to do a project you and they know will never be completed? What is the Securities Exchange Commission worries about that is delaying their implementation of the Crowdfunding provisions of the JOBS Act, which was supposed to go into effect in January?
We will address these questions, more or less. We will at the very least read all of them out loud at the beginning.
Please also note the text below about the wiki, mailing list, and background resources I had sent around a few weeks ago.
>> We will be collecting background resources and commentary on crowdfunding to fill out the JOBS Act page on the Sudo wiki -http://sudoroom.org/wiki/JOBS_Act.
>>
>> To sign up for the list, please go to:
>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-crowd.
>>
>> In addition to discussion, we will use the mailing list to collaborate on crowdfunding related projects. The first one being the drafting of public comments on behalf of Sudo Room (http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/jobsactcomments.shtml). You can see the comments currently submitted to the SEC athttp://www.sec.gov/comments/jobs-title-iii/jobs-title-iii.shtml.
>>
>> There are a bunch of them, so I think the most substantive comments to perhaps start with are the two Rockethub white papers on Regulation (http://www.sec.gov/comments/jobs-title-iii/jobstitleiii-39.htm) and Implementation (http://www.sec.gov/comments/jobs-title-iii/jobstitleiii-39.htm).
sent from eddan.com
> From: "Kapczynski, Amy"
> Date: April 10, 2013, 8:10:50 AM PDT
> Subject: [Ipprofs] Can you patent a steak?
>
> This from NPR today:
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/04/08/176570066/can-you-patent-a-steak-…
>
> "Price works at Oklahoma State University. The school says its researchers, working with an outside expert, discovered a new steak. They call it the Vegas Strip Steak. It's hidden somewhere inside a part of a cow that's now commonly used for hamburger, Price told me. The school is trying to patent the steak (and the method of cutting it out of the carcass of the cow) so it can license the process to big meat companies."
