21 May 2000: Add messages on provisions for freedom of speech in UK universities and legal penalty for false complaint.
18 May 2000: Add messages.
17 May 2000. Thanks to AB.
Here's an instance of the David Shayler affair [see correction] being used to justify closing an Oxford student's Web site.
This is the student's original message:
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 15:48:55 +0100
From: Adrian Baugh <adrian@merlin.keble.ox.ac.uk>
To: decss@lists.lemuria.org
Subject: [DeCSS] Well now I'm really pissed off
Hi,
I thought you guys might like to know that I've had to completely pull my decss page. Apparently the university computer services have talked to their lawyers and reckon it's against British copyright law (despite there being nothing on there except "DeCSS is a ludicrous thing to use to try to pirate DVDs, the code hasn't been here since January, try OpenDVD instead."). I reckon this is complete bullshit; there's nothing on the page that I didn't make up except for a link, so how can it be against copyright law? Anyway, they're the ones with the big red button so I've had to comply.
So, the pressure's still on even outside the US. Keep up the good work in court and let's hope this travesty of justice gets buried soon.
Reluctantly bowing out of the fight for now,
Adrian.
--
Adrian Baugh Keble College,
Oxford adrian.baugh@keble.ox.ac.uk
Mobile: 07773 893682 (email to SMS at
adrianbaugh@sms.genie.co.uk)
College Phone 01865 280021 ext22534 finger kebl0850@163.1.2.4 for PGP
key
Cryptome follow-up:
In response to a report that Oxford University had closed a student site for offering DeCSS, Cryptome spoke today with Mr. Alan Gay, Deputy Director of Oxford University Computing Services (44 1865 273200).
Mr. Gay said he was not familiar with the university's action against the student account, though he said he is familiar with DeCSS. He said student sites come and go regularly. That the university cannot allow violations of law to occur on sites it provides. That it is in the business of education not controversy. That as a common carrier of internet services it must obey laws governing the medium.
Mr. Gay said complaint had come from outside the university. We asked who made the complaint and he said he would rather not tell. We asked if it was the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) which made the complaint, and he answered that he could not say that was the complainant.
He said that DeCSS-posting cease and desist letters have appeared in many locations. We asked if the university had received such a letter. He said he would not answer that, but said "you know as well as I who is sending those letters." We said Cryptome had received one of them.
While earlier Mr. Gay said he did not recall the specific case, by this point he was speaking as though familiar with the purpose of the call.
Cryptome asked if lawyers had been consulted on the matter as the student claimed and he said no, that he had referred the matter to "university authorities." And that it was those authorities who had directed the site be closed.
Mr. Gay said closing the site did not violate the student's freedom of expression. We stated that DeCSS was being litigated in US courts for this purpose. He said he is aware of that but that US and British law differs on freedom of expression.
He cited the David Shayler case [ see Mr. Gay's correction] as an example of what cannot be published under British law, saying, "in the US you can publish information we cannot in Britain."
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 08:05:46 +0100
To: ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk
From: Donald Ramsbottom <donald@ramsbottom.co.uk>
Subject: MPAA and Oxford uni
Well it did not take too long for the tendrils of the MPAA to reach further into these shores over the DeCSS affair. See link to cryptome given below:
http://cryptome.org/ox-chill.htm
A student has had his site pulled for "DeCSS" and "Copyright" violations.
As we know in England & Wales the restrictions are on "copying" devices and not "decoding" devices. As DeCSS is a "decoder" and not a copier (a concept which many have difficuty grasping it would seem), there are no civil legal restrictions in England and Wales.
The Uni alleges (in its first letter) that it took advice ( legal), well all I can say is they did not get specialist advice and the lawyer just covered his bottom taking the easy way out (or so it would seem).
Alternatively the Uni receives loadsa money from the MPAA or its members and cannot afford to offend them.
Either way the last place I would expect censorship and the denial of free speech (etc etc etc) is in one of our oldest seats of learning.
Donald Ramsbottom LL.B, BA (Hons).
RAMSBOTTOM & Co. Solicitors
Internet Law & Global Cryptology Law Specialists
From: simon@cozens.net (Simon Cozens)
Newsgroups: ox.oucs.misc,ox.talk
Subject: Deep linking
Date: 17 May 2000 23:41:47 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Computer Society
It seems our director of OUCS has been getting us some publicity:
http://www.cryptome.org/ox-chill.htm
I presume that deep linking to controversial sites is now forbidden for
Oxford-hosted web sites. This *does* set a rather interesting precedent.
Then Alan Gay decides that universities are not in the business of
controversy. Well, this is particularly interesting, since without
controversy universities would not have made a huge number of important
research breakthroughs through the ages. But then, I do not believe
so many research breakthroughs have occurred in computer services
departments. Anyway, it is interesting to contrast Mr. Gay's views
with CMU's attitude, for instance, at
http://gollum.mac.cc.cmu.edu/univ_policy/documents/FreeSpeech.html
For their part, colleges and universities must hold vital the
students' right to know. When so-called controversial speakers are
invited to the campus by a recognized campus organization, they speak
not because they have a right to be heard but because the students
have a right to hear. It is the students' right to hear that the
university must defend if it is to serve its high function in society.
Or Dayton, Ohio:
By the library's purpose, role, and design, its collections will
contain materials which are controversial, even offensive to some. The
library has a responsibility to protect, perhaps even to seek out,
works that are controversial because these works are a reflection of
our free and pluralistic society, a microcosm of social conscience
past, present, and future.
Maybe it's just the Americans. Let's look at the University of Calgary
computer services policy, since this is particularly enlightening:
Controversial material
2.5.13 Information can be found in many forms and places on networks
to support or contest or vilify almost any ideology, doctrine, social
policy, party platform, professional practice or attitude. It is one
of the missions of a university to be a place of free debate and
controversy.
The lodging of such controversy in an electronic medium does not change
that mission.
It seems I'm not alone in thinking that controversy is exactly what
universities are for, and that computer services departments are
expected to uphold that. Ever wonder why we have the doctrine of academic
freedom? Most universities actually support their students with respect
to this doctrine, but I suppose this doesn't extend to our beloved
OUCS.
But this is slightly peripheral to the point - not only was Mr Gay's
remark that we are not in the business of controversy perfectly
incorrect, it's also quite irrelevant to the case at hand. There was
no illegal material hosted. There was only a link.
The point is, we now appear to have restrictions placed on not just what
we can host, but also what we can link to. This style of censorship is
quite unprecedented, so we need to understand it. No other network
provider in the world has taken quite so dramatically stupid a policy
as forbidding deep linking, so we have to get a clear idea of what OUCS
thinks it is playing at here. I don't what to find my site in Oxford
pulled because someone somewhere objects to material on a completely
different continent. That would be ludicrous.
So, OUCS, can we have some *real* rules on what's permitted and what
isn't, what we can link to and what we can't, what you're going to
censor and what you aren't, rather than whatever line you happen to get
bullied into toeing this week?
--
There seems no plan because it is all plan.
-- C.S. Lewis
----------
From: Drew Amato <insipid@bigfoot.com>
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 01:08:12 +0100
Organization: Oxford University, England
Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> It seems our director of OUCS has been getting us some publicity:
> http://www.cryptome.org/ox-chill.htm
>
> I presume that deep linking to controversial sites is now forbidden for
> Oxford-hosted web sites. This *does* set a rather interesting precedent.
<snip lots of interesting points>
> So, OUCS, can we have some *real* rules on what's permitted and what
> isn't, what we can link to and what we can't, what you're going to
> censor and what you aren't, rather than whatever line you happen to get
> bullied into toeing this week?
>
Amen.
----------
From: Nick Sweeney <nsweeney@jesus.ox.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: 18 May 2000 01:38:50 +0100
Organization: Sultans of Ping FC
>> So, OUCS, can we have some *real* rules on what's permitted and
>> what isn't, what we can link to and what we can't, what you're
>> going to censor and what you aren't, rather than whatever line you
>> happen to get bullied into toeing this week?
>>
> Amen.
JANET prohibits <http://www.ja.net/documents/use.html>:
9.4. the transmission of material such that this infringes the
copyright of another person;
but also prohibits:
9.7. deliberate activities with any of the following characteristics:
corrupting or destroying other users' data;
violating the privacy of other users;
disrupting the work of other users;
using JANET in a way that denies service to other users (for example,
deliberate or reckless overloading of access links or of switching equipment);
::
hmm.
Nick
--
http://www.jesus.ox.ac.uk/~nsweeney/head/
"A letter always arrives at its destination." - Jacques Lacan
----------
From: simon@cozens.net (Simon Cozens)
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: 18 May 2000 00:40:14 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Computer Society
Nick Sweeney (ox.talk):
>JANET prohibits <http://www.ja.net/documents/use.html>:
>9.4. the transmission of material such that this infringes the
> copyright of another person;
>
>but also prohibits:
>
>9.7. deliberate activities with any of the following characteristics:
> corrupting or destroying other users' data;
> violating the privacy of other users;
> disrupting the work of other users;
> using JANET in a way that denies service to other users (for example,
> deliberate or reckless overloading of access links or of switching equipment);
>
>hmm.
No problem here. A web link does none of these things.
--
`And when you've been *plonk*ed by Simon C., you've been *plonked*
by someone who knows when, and why, and how.' - Mike Andrews, asr
----------
From: Nick Sweeney <nsweeney@jesus.ox.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: 18 May 2000 01:43:43 +0100
Organization: Sultans of Ping FC
> Nick Sweeney (ox.talk):
>> JANET prohibits <http://www.ja.net/documents/use.html>:
>> 9.4. the transmission of material such that this infringes the
>> copyright of another person;
>>
>> but also prohibits:
>>
>> 9.7. deliberate activities with any of the following
>> characteristics:
>> corrupting or destroying other users' data;
>> violating the privacy of other users;
>> disrupting the work of other users;
>> using JANET in a way that denies service to other users (for
>> example, deliberate or reckless overloading of access links or of
>> switching equipment);
>>
>> hmm.
> No problem here. A web link does none of these things.
My point being that OUCS has certainly done some of them. Call it a
DoS by fiat.
Nick
--
http://www.jesus.ox.ac.uk/~nsweeney/head/
"A letter always arrives at its destination." - Jacques Lacan
----------
From: jstacey@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk (J-P)
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: 18 May 2000 10:58:44 +0100
Organization: Wadham College Oxford
In article <87itwcg01t.fsf@lease13.jesus.ox.ac.uk>,
Nick Sweeney <nsweeney@jesus.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>My point being that OUCS has certainly done some of them. Call it a
>DoS by fiat.
Ah, but that's different. Er. Yes. I know we do it, dear, but we're
grown-ups so it doesn't mean you're allowed to do it.
J-P
--
Superman was my attorney // ice ball UFO's // weird pizza delivery // war
games
----------
From: adrian@merlin.keble.ox.ac.uk (Adrian Baugh)
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: 18 May 2000 00:43:40 GMT
Organization: Oxford University, England
In ox.talk, Nick Sweeney wrote:
>
>JANET prohibits <http://www.ja.net/documents/use.html>:
>
>9.4. the transmission of material such that this infringes the
> copyright of another person;
I fail to see how a chunk of (my) entirely original prose together with a
link to http://opendvd.org can be seen as copyright violation. It's not as
if I had the source code there (since the CA injunction) or even linked to
it directly. I'm (fairly) sure I could find an arbitrarily contorted link
to the code from http://www.ox.ac.uk; there is a path to the list of
users' homepages from there, and /someone/ must have linked slashdot...
Yours a little older and a lot more cynical,
Adrian.
--
Adrian Baugh Keble College, Oxford adrian.baugh@keble.ox.ac.uk
Mobile: 07773 893682 (email to SMS at adrianbaugh@sms.genie.co.uk)
College Phone 01865 280021 ext22534 finger kebl0850@163.1.2.4 for PGP key
Do not use adrian@merlin.keble.ox.ac.uk; it may stop working after June 5!
----------
From: simon@cozens.net (Simon Cozens)
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: 18 May 2000 00:38:53 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Computer Society
Drew Amato (ox.talk):
>> So, OUCS, can we have some *real* rules on what's permitted and what
>> isn't, what we can link to and what we can't, what you're going to
>> censor and what you aren't, rather than whatever line you happen to get
>> bullied into toeing this week?
>>
>
>Amen.
You'll note that I was the one supporting OUCS over blocking access
to sites they don't like. No. Not any more. There are limits.
--
`And when you've been *plonk*ed by Simon C., you've been *plonked*
by someone who knows when, and why, and how.' - Mike Andrews, asr
----------
From: Alan Gay <alan@ermine.ox.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 10:45:06 +0100
Organization: Oxford University, England
> It seems our director of OUCS has been getting us some publicity:
> http://www.cryptome.org/ox-chill.htm
> I presume that deep linking to controversial sites is now forbidden for
> Oxford-hosted web sites. This *does* set a rather interesting precedent.
Luckily I'm saved from having to quote and reply to Mr Cozens' lengthy
email, as I can simply say that I agree with him (except for the bits that
are factually wrong), so there's no need to quote all these venerable
sources.
Mr Cozens falls into the trap of assuming that what a journalist has said
is correct. I don't need to tell you that's odds-against.
I doubt really if the journalist misheard, but I'll give him the benefit
of that doubt. I certainly did not, and obviously would not, say the the
University was in the business of "education not controversy". What I
*did* say was that we were here to further the aims of the University in
Education and Research, not to fight other people's copyright actions.
I also did not mention David Shayler (who was a Have-I-Got-News-For-You
participant?), but I did mention the David Irvine case as a recent example
of how an American academic and a British publisher had successfully
defended freedom of speech. The last clause is a total fabrication!
To go back to Mr Cozens' message, I don't know what he's on about linking
to other sites - this hasn't come up at all - the issue was material on an
Oxford machine (and Mr Baugh is perfectly at liberty to turn his reference
to http://OpenDVD.org into a link).
So, to try to dig the real point out of all this rhetoric, the University
is firmly behind the principles of freedom of speech. However, freedom
brings with it many risks (defamation, obscenity, copyright, Intellectual
Property.. the list is endless). When the University receives a warning
that it may be legally liable (and it *will* be the University - we are
the "deep pocket"), it must act first to protect its position. After
that, the University is perfectly prepared to consider an issue (let us
take defamation as the most pertinent example) and decide whether material
should be withdrawn, or reinstated and defended.
This is not a decision to be taken lightly, as the cost are enormous, but
I have no doubt that faced with something like the Irvine case, the
University would stand behind its principles.
But I don't *really* think Mr Baugh's case comes into the same category:
there is plenty of heat about this already, and those more directly
involved can fight it out. The University has no good reason to get
involved, and killing Mr Baugh's web page does not limit the actions being
taken elsewhere.
As to OUCS, we/I don't make the rules - we get the complaints (I'm the
RIPE contact for the oxford domains) and we ask the University for a
ruling. An emergency ruling has been given: anyone who wants to take it
through the University committees is welcome.
Best regards Alan Gay
----------
From: adrian@merlin.keble.ox.ac.uk (Adrian Baugh)
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: 18 May 2000 11:44:32 GMT
Organization: Oxford University, England
In ox.talk, Alan Gay wrote:
>I doubt really if the journalist misheard, but I'll give him the benefit
>of that doubt. I certainly did not, and obviously would not, say the the
>University was in the business of "education not controversy". What I
>*did* say was that we were here to further the aims of the University in
>Education and Research, not to fight other people's copyright actions.
>
>I also did not mention David Shayler (who was a Have-I-Got-News-For-You
>participant?), but I did mention the David Irvine case as a recent example
>of how an American academic and a British publisher had successfully
>defended freedom of speech. The last clause is a total fabrication!
>
>To go back to Mr Cozens' message, I don't know what he's on about linking
>to other sites - this hasn't come up at all - the issue was material on an
>Oxford machine (and Mr Baugh is perfectly at liberty to turn his reference
>to http://OpenDVD.org into a link).
In which case I don't see what all the fuss was about. All that was on the
page that I was asked to remove was a linux to www.linux.com and a link to
www.opendvd.org and some text. Near the top it stated that decss source
code was available from the site, but further down there was a passage
saying it had been removed and replaced with a spoof piece of software
that removes Cascading Style Sheets from html documents (essentially
entirely useless and certainly not harmful). Coincidentally also called
decss.tar.gz. I can see now where the confusion came from (I'd forgotten
I'd put the spoof up there instead) but I would have thought someone would
have taken the trouble to at least gunzip it and have a cursory look at
what was in there before going postal. I believe the spoof decss is to be
found somewhere on freshmeat if anyone wants a copy!
Regards,
--
Adrian Baugh Keble College, Oxford adrian.baugh@keble.ox.ac.uk
Mobile: 07773 893682 (email to SMS at adrianbaugh@sms.genie.co.uk)
College Phone 01865 280021 ext22534 finger kebl0850@163.1.2.4 for PGP key
Do not use adrian@merlin.keble.ox.ac.uk; it may stop working after June 5!
----------
From: simon@cozens.net (Simon Cozens)
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: 18 May 2000 11:51:25 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Computer Society
Adrian Baugh (ox.talk):
>saying it had been removed and replaced with a spoof piece of software
>that removes Cascading Style Sheets from html documents (essentially
>entirely useless and certainly not harmful).
I beg to differ. Cascading Style Sheets are the scourge of the web. :(
>Do not use adrian@merlin.keble.ox.ac.uk; it may stop working after June 5!
Or earlier. Who knows?
--
The best book on programming for the layman is "Alice in Wonderland";
but that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.
----------
From: Neil Long <neil.long@oucs.ox.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 12:59:21 +0100
Organization: Oxford University, England
I am not going to dip any toes in to this murky little puddle but
would offer the following bit of advice.
Put nothing on your web page (especially anything easily trawled by
the web bots) that you (or your employer) don't own the copyright to.
If you do put in links to other sites then you need to figure out how
to pop up a disclaimer indicating that whatever this link leads to is
nothing to do with you and that the viewer is leaving your site.
Couple of observations -
there are a lot of lawyers who are unhappy not to have made mountians
of dosh out of the big Y2K non-event
there are companies who are trawling (some ignore robots.txt) and
match up such as image files with the real owner and play 'introduce
the two lawyers' for a fee.
lawyers win whoever's client loses
copyright, etc is a difficult area and nobody wants to be a test case.
N.
----------
From: Alan Gay <alan@ermine.ox.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 13:14:54 +0100
Organization: Oxford University, England
> spoof piece of software...
> Coincidentally also called decss.tar.gz
So, you are saying that all this fuss is because you wanted to wave a red
rag at the bull by *pretending* you were offering decss software. The
result of this is that the University has spent, and is still spending, a
vast amount of administrative effort and lawyers' fees over something that
has nothing to do with it, and is just a game to you.
I'll leave others to discuss the sense of that.
----------
From: simon@cozens.net (Simon Cozens)
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: 18 May 2000 12:24:39 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Computer Society
Alan Gay (ox.talk):
>So, you are saying that all this fuss is because you wanted to wave a red
>rag at the bull by *pretending* you were offering decss software. The
>result of this is that the University has spent, and is still spending, a
>vast amount of administrative effort and lawyers' fees over something that
>has nothing to do with it, and is just a game to you.
So OUCS *have* pulled a site in panic without checking the contents!
*And* spent time and money in the process, which could have been
oh-so-easily avoided if anyone at OUCS had bothered to stop and check
what they were doing.
And *now* they're trying to pass this blame onto someone else. Hooray!
In which case, Mr Gay, apologies for my earlier email. It was silly of
me to assume that OUCS would carry out rational investigation before
embarking on a potentially embarassing course of action. The communal
knees must just be exceptionally jerky today.
>I'll leave others to discuss the sense of that.
Likewise.
--
In related wibbling, I can see an opening for the four lusers of the
Apocalypse... "I didn't change anything", "My e-mail doesn't work",
"I can't print" and "Is the network broken?".
- Paul McCauley
----------
From: jstacey@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk (J-P)
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: 18 May 2000 13:28:46 +0100
Organization: Wadham College Oxford
In article <slrn8i7o87.tf5.simon@spiffy.ox.compsoc.net>,
Simon Cozens <simon@cozens.net> wrote:
>So OUCS *have* pulled a site in panic without checking the contents!
You spelt that wrongly. You meant to say "An emergency ruling has been
given: anyone who wants to take it through the University committees is
welcome."
J-P
--
This is Hello Kitty (an icon of cuteness).
This is Cthulhu (an unknowable evil).
----------
From: simon@cozens.net (Simon Cozens)
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: 18 May 2000 12:39:45 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Computer Society
J-P (ox.talk):
>In article <slrn8i7o87.tf5.simon@spiffy.ox.compsoc.net>,
>Simon Cozens <simon@cozens.net> wrote:
>>So OUCS *have* pulled a site in panic without checking the contents!
>You spelt that wrongly. You meant to say "An emergency ruling has been
>given: anyone who wants to take it through the University committees is
>welcome."
I'm sorry, yes. An emergency ruling has made OUCS pull the site in
panic, and nobody involved, from the University commitees (which we'll
keep anonymous so you can't make recourse to them even if you want to)
who discussed this obviously without the evidence to make an informed
judgement, (what's one of them, then?) or OUCS, where I'm sure *someone*
knows how to operate a browser, tar, and an editor, even bothered to
check the contents.
Better?
As for damage limitation, we'll proceed to waste taxpayer's money and
blame our incompetence and hot-headedness on the students.
On the other hand, maybe *that*'s what universities are for.
--
void russian_roulette(void) { char *target; strcpy(target, "bullet"); }
----------
From: jstacey@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk (J-P)
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: 18 May 2000 13:27:17 +0100
Organization: Wadham College Oxford
In article <Pine.OSF.4.21.0005181312340.18165-100000@ermine.ox.ac.uk>,
>I'll leave others to discuss the sense of that.
I agree. To assume that someone is offering illegal software without
reading the entire content of their site to find out it's actually a spoof
does seem a bit nonsensical. The fact that the person or organization that
fell for it has sufficiently little grasp of spoof that it felt it had to
bring in its lawyers before reading the whole thing - well that's
unfortunate all round, to make a serious understatement.
But fundamentally Adrian hasn't done anything wrong by the spoof. Spoofs
are neither illegal nor necessarily immoral. Next thing they'll be wanting
to retroactively outlaw Andy Kaufman and imprison Chris Morris.
J-P
--
This is Hello Kitty (an icon of cuteness).
This is Cthulhu (an unknowable evil).
----------
From: imc@comlab.ox.ac.uk (Ian Collier)
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: 18 May 2000 00:26:45 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Computing Laboratory
Simon Cozens entertained ox.talk with the following story:
>Then Alan Gay decides that universities are not in the business of
>controversy.
See also: University of Central England and a book of Mapplethorpe photos...
> This style of censorship is
>quite unprecedented, so we need to understand it. No other network
>provider in the world has taken quite so dramatically stupid a policy
>as forbidding deep linking
Not sure you can claim that: public web hosts such as GeoCities have
pulled some sites on the most flimsy of excuses and I couldn't guarantee
that where they link to hasn't been one of them.
Also, you can't necessarily claim the link was the cause of the web page
being pulled: it could merely have been the subject matter (not that that
makes it any better).
--
---- Ian Collier : imc@comlab.ox.ac.uk : WWW page below
------ http://users.comlab.ox.ac.uk/ian.collier/imc.shtml
----------
From: simon@cozens.net (Simon Cozens)
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: 18 May 2000 00:37:00 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Computer Society
Ian Collier (ox.talk):
>Also, you can't necessarily claim the link was the cause of the web page
>being pulled: it could merely have been the subject matter (not that that
>makes it any better).
Pulling a site for deep linking is monumentally stupid. Pulling a site
for the opinions contained on it is even more so. I was giving OUCS
the benefit of the doubt.
Oh well, sit back and wait for the media stink, people. Because it's
coming.
--
An algorithm must be seen to be believed.
-- D.E. Knuth
----------
From: imc@comlab.ox.ac.uk (Ian Collier)
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: 18 May 2000 10:21:58 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Computing Laboratory, UK
Simon Cozens entertained ox.talk with the following story:
>Pulling a site for deep linking is monumentally stupid. Pulling a site
>for the opinions contained on it is even more so.
No. If I put up a web page saying that Tony Blair is a child molester
then the university is quite within its rights to have it pulled before
it gets its arse sued for libel. (This isn't related to the DeCSS case
but it does show that pulling a site because of the opinions therein is
not always stupid.)
--
---- Ian Collier : imc@comlab.ox.ac.uk : WWW page below
------ http://users.comlab.ox.ac.uk/ian.collier/imc.shtml
----------
From: rlanyon@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk (Richard Lanyon)
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: 18 May 2000 08:55:36 GMT
Organization: Nun
On 17 May 2000 23:41:47 GMT, Simon Cozens wrote:
> The point is, we now appear to have restrictions placed on not just what
> we can host, but also what we can link to. This style of censorship is
> quite unprecedented, so we need to understand it.
It is, of course, unprecedented because there was nothing truly analogous
to deep linking before the Web existed as it did now.
> No other network
> provider in the world has taken quite so dramatically stupid a policy
> as forbidding deep linking, so we have to get a clear idea of what OUCS
> thinks it is playing at here. I don't what to find my site in Oxford
> pulled because someone somewhere objects to material on a completely
> different continent. That would be ludicrous.
Why does it matter what continent it's on? The fact is you chose to link
to it. If you're unaware of what you're linking to then fair enough, but
the fact is that technology (deep linking) allows you to do things (like
linking to offensive material rather than saying it yourself) that may
require legislation - to claim otherwise is analogous to the saying "guns
don't kill people - people kill people".
Incidentally, OUCS may still be entirely stupid in their decision - I'm
just trying to point out that the possibility of ruling over deep linking
is not inherently ridiculous. Places in the US think so, but then they
also have the right to carry a particularly vicious form of technology in
the form of guns.
--
Richard
richard@jitter.co.uk | "I lead my life in a quest for
http://www.jitter.co.uk/ | information" - SFA
----------
From: dsl@comlab.ox.ac.uk (David Lecomber)
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: 18 May 2000 10:02:18 +0100
Organization: Oxford University Computing Laboratory
In article <slrn8i7c07.e2h.rlanyon@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk>,
Richard Lanyon <rlanyon@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 17 May 2000 23:41:47 GMT, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
>> The point is, we now appear to have restrictions placed on not just what
>> we can host, but also what we can link to. This style of censorship is
>> quite unprecedented, so we need to understand it.
>
>It is, of course, unprecedented because there was nothing truly analogous
>to deep linking before the Web existed as it did now.
References in a paper? PO Boxes to write to to obtain stuff?
>Why does it matter what continent it's on? The fact is you chose to link
>to it. If you're unaware of what you're linking to then fair enough, but
>the fact is that technology (deep linking) allows you to do things (like
>linking to offensive material rather than saying it yourself) that may
>require legislation - to claim otherwise is analogous to the saying "guns
>don't kill people - people kill people".
"May require legislation" is the key issue - the legislation making
this illegal does not exist. Remember the Scottish newspaper that
linked to a rival's stories? The gist of the ruling was that so long
as it was clear the story was from elsewhere then no copyright law
had been breached. Scottish law is not a precedent for the rest of
the UK, granted..
David
----------
From: Alan Iwi <iwi@atm.ox.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: 18 May 2000 10:27:54 GMT
Organization:
David Lecomber (ox.talk, 18 May 2000 10:02:18 +0100):
> In article <slrn8i7c07.e2h.rlanyon@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk>,
> Richard Lanyon <rlanyon@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >It is, of course, unprecedented because there was nothing truly analogous
> >to deep linking before the Web existed as it did now.
>
> References in a paper? PO Boxes to write to to obtain stuff?
How about...
You own a shop, which is located opposite a dubious establishment which
illegally displays sexually explicit material in their window.
You put a mirror in your shop window, deliberately positioned in such a
way that people who look into your window will see the window display of
the establishment opposite.
Can you be done for having the mirror?
Alan
----------
From: Nick Sweeney <nsweeney@jesus.ox.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: 18 May 2000 10:02:47 +0100
Organization: Sultans of Ping FC
> Incidentally, OUCS may still be entirely stupid in their decision -
> I'm just trying to point out that the possibility of ruling over
> deep linking is not inherently ridiculous. Places in the US think
> so, but then they also have the right to carry a particularly
> vicious form of technology in the form of guns.
that's such an apples and oranges argument I'll stop now.
Nick
--
http://www.jesus.ox.ac.uk/~nsweeney/head/
"A letter always arrives at its destination." - Jacques Lacan
----------
Date: 20 May 2000 19:02:20 -0000 From: Anonymous <nobody@remailer.ch> Subject: Freedom of speech in UK Universities To: jy@cryptome.org Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (1986 c. 61) ... Part IV: Miscellaneous [Freedom of speech in universities, polytechnics and colleges.] 43.---(1) Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any establishment to which this section applies shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law in secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers. (2) The duty imposed by subsection (1) above includes (in particular) the duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the use of any premises of the establishment is not denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with--- (a) the beliefs or views of that individual or of any member of that body; or (b) the policy or objectives of that body. (3) The governing body of every such establishment shall, with a view to facilitating the discharge of the duty imposed by subsection (1) above in relation to that establishment, issue and keep up to date a code of practice setting out--- (a) the procedures to be followed by members, students and employees of the establishment in connection with the organisation--- (i) of meetings which are held on premises of the establishment and which fall within any class of meeting specified in the code; and (ii) of other activities which are to take place on those premises and which fall within any class of activity so specified; and (b) the conduct required of such persons in connection with any such meeting or activity; and dealing with such other matters as the governing body consider appropriate. (4) Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any such establishment shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable (including where appropriate the initiation of disciplinary measures) to secure that the requirements of the code of practice for that establishment, issued under subsection (3) above, are complied with. (5) The establishments to which this section applies are--- (a) any university; (b) any establishment which is maintained by a local education authority and for which section 1 of the 1968 (No. 2) Act (government and conduct of colleges of education and other institutions providing further education) requires there to be an instrument of government; and (c) any establishment of further education designated by or under regulations made under section 27 of the 1980 Act as an establishment substantially dependent for its maintenance on assistance from local education authorities or on grants under section 100(1)(b) of the 1944 Act. (6) In this section--- ``governing body'', in relation to any university, means the executive governing body which has responsibility for the management and administration of its revenue and property and the conduct of its affairs (that is to say the body commonly called the council of the university); ``university'' includes a university college and any college, or institution in the nature of a college, in a university. (7) Where any establishment--- (a) falls within subsection (5)(b) above; or (b) falls within subsection (5)(c) above by virtue of being substantially dependent for its maintenance on assistance from local education authorities; the local education authority or authorities maintaining or (as the case may be) assisting the establishment shall, for the purposes of this section, be taken to be concerned in its government. (8) Where a students' union occupies premises which are not premises of the establishment in connection with which the union is constituted, any reference in this section to the premises of the establishment shall be taken to include a reference to the premises occupied by the students' union. [Political indoctrination.] 44.---(1) ...
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 00:54:44 -0700 From: Sean Donelan <sean@DONELAN.COM> Subject: Oxford yanks a spoof of DeCSS To: CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Slashdot has a story about Oxford University yanking a students web page because of a spoof of the DVD CSS code. Apparently the University didn't bother to ask the student about the page before unilaterally making an "emergency ruling." Now the university has a bit of egg on its face because it doesn't appear there was anything illegal on the page, and the university declines to identify who filed the original complaint. It looks like the university administrators have gone into full C.Y.A. mode. Although the MPAA and DCA haven't been identified as the source of the complaint, what are the penalities for falsely filing a complaint or alledging infringement for something you have no legal rights? Obviously Oxford is not in the USA, but the DMCA makes a big deal about complaints must include a signature under penalty of perjury. What is the penalty?