21 September 2000: Add message from Donald Ramsbottom. Add messages from Richard Clayton.
20 September 2000. With permission.
PGP sigs by Andrew Simmons omitted.
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:42:11 +0100 From: Andrew Simmons <andrew@zpok.demon.co.uk> Subject: [DeCSS] Demon Internet Hi all. A friend who uses the same ISP as I - Demon Internet - received this not-very-nice-gram from them recently. I've anonymised it at his request. See following mail for his response. So far they haven't tried this on me. \a ----- Hello, We have received notice that you have made DeCSS available from your website http://www. [ anonymised ] .demon.co.uk/ The notice declares that you are not authorised to publish this material from your website and are acting illegally in doing so. Please can you let us know what you intend to do about this. It is likely that the argument is that this material is in breach of copyright law. We take no view on this but if you are in breach of copyright law, then you should remove the material from your website within the next 5 days or provide proof that you have permission to publish the material. You may also wish consider seeking legal advice over this matter. If we do not hear from you or the material remains on your website after 5 days then we may have to temporarily suspend access to your website, whilst this matter is resolved. We have also be asked that you email MPAA23@pacbell.net about this. We look forward to hearing from you. Mark - -- Mark Gracey legalnotice@demon.net Legal Liaison Manager tel: 0845 272 0666 X5176 Thus Legal Services fax: 0870 052 2740 Demon @ Thus plc http://www.demon.net http://www.thus.net -----
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:30:40 +0100 From: Andrew Simmons <andrew@zpok.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [DeCSS] Demon Internet Copy of friend's response to Demon. \a ----- From: [ xxxxxxxx ] [mailto:xxxxxx@xxxxxx.demon.co.uk] Sent: xx September 2000 To: Mark Gracey Subject: RE: www.xxxxxxxxxxx.demon.co.uk The DeCSS code is effectively public domain as you can see from looking at it. You are proposing to take unilateral action against me on the basis of a legally unsupported assertion. Apart from the fact that the complaint comes from another legal jurisdiction that has no force in UK, the claim is not even backed up by law in US. I am a founder member of Demon (yes, your employer was set up with my money), and I would be very sorry to change ISP, but I shall not put up with an ISP that bows to censorship that is not backed up by legal precedent. If the complainant's argument is successful in a UK court, I shall comply with their request to remove the code, otherwise I propose to take no action (other than changing ISP if necessary). I am also currently consulting my solicitor to establish whether I would have cause to take legal action against Demon in the event that access to my site is suspended. -----
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:47:58 +0100 From: Andrew Simmons <andrew@zpok.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [DeCSS] Demon Internet ... and Demon Internet's reply to friend's 'get lost' response: \a ----- From: Mark Gracey [mailto:legalnotice@demon.net] Sent: 14 September 2000 14:16 To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: legalnotice@demon.net Subject: RE: www.xxxxxxxxxxx.demon.co.uk Thank you for your email. [Copy of previous message omitted.] Your comments are noted. We will not be taking any further action at this point. Mark -- Mark Gracey legalnotice@demon.net Legal Liaison Manager tel: 0845 272 0666 X5176 Thus Legal Services fax: 0870 052 2740 Demon @ Thus plc http://www.demon.net http://www.thus.net -----
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 07:56:13 +0100 To: ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk From: Donald Ramsbottom <donald@ramsbottom.co.uk> Subject: Re: Demon & DeCSS See Below from Crytpome http://cryptome.sabotage.org/decss-demon.htm Basically, it would seem that Demon have received a "Cease & desist" letter from MPAA, and have buckled by threatening to pull someones site (although they have indicated they will take no further action at present). The DMCA has no jurisdiction in these Isles. DeCSS does not copy but decrypts, there is no Statute which prevents decryption in England & Wales. The Mars case makes it clear that there is no right to privacy just because something is encrypted. Our own legislation simply did not contemplate decryption (as opposed to copying) and is not covered by statute law. The code is and has been in the public domain for over a year and is widely distributed. There have been cases on deep linking and metatagging, but these do not concern the position here. If someone has DeCSS on their site( in England & Wales), that is fine, if someone downloads it it is fine. If they use it to decrypt that is fine. What is not OK is then copying the decrypted material. I know Demon got a raw deal in the Godfrey case, but there is no reason for them to start hassling their customers at the behest of the MPAA. It may be a botty covering exercise, but Demon really should have taken some advice before knee jerking. If you receive a cease and desist letter take advice. Donald Ramsbottom LL.B, BA (Hons). RAMSBOTTOM & Co. Solicitors Internet Law & Global Cryptology Law Specialists 5 Seagrove Avenue, Hayling Island, Hants, PO11 9EU, England. Tel (44) (023) 9246 5931 Fax (44) (023)9246 8349 Ramsbottom & Co is regulated by the Law Society in the conduct of investment business Service by Fax or E-Mail NOT Accepted
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:41:20 +0100 To: UKcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk From: Richard Clayton <richard@turnpike.com> Subject: Re: Demon & DeCSS -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In article <1.5.4.32.20000921065613.00fb1220@192.168.0.65>, Donald Ramsbottom <donald@ramsbottom.co.uk> writes > http://cryptome.sabotage.org/decss-demon.htm It was interesting to see Mark's email posted in public (sans his usual PGP signatures that allow one to check if it has been changed ... but it didn't look tampered with). It was especially interesting to see "with permission" on the top of the page ! This must have been Mr Simmon's permission. >Basically, it would seem that Demon have receieved a "Cease & desist" letter >from MPAA, The MPAA did indeed write to Demon. They quoted a great deal of US law and a US judgment. They were asked to explain how relevant this to the UK (they may not have been aware of Demon's physical location) but they have yet to respond to the email that was sent back to them :( >and have buckled by treatening to pull someones site (although >they have indicated they will take no further action at present). "buckled" ?? this is tabloid-speak :-( The MPAA letter suggested that the customer was not authorised to publish the DeCSS material. The standard procedure for such matters was then put into effect and the customer was invited to explain what permission they had. The response was that the DeCSS material is said to be "public domain" [[a complex concept, but exploring its depths is probably not relevant]] so there was no question at present of an infringement of Demon's AUP for web space. Hence no further action at present. The "threat" (more tabloid-speak) was present in the email because it is necessary to set some sort of reasonable time limit for a response (otherwise people would never respond lest they lose out in some way, which can be problematic from Demon's point of view). In the event the response was prompt and so the "threat" disappeared - as indeed it usually does. >It maybe a >botty covering exercise, but demon really should have taken some advice >before knee jerking. The procedures that Demon operate in cases of complaint are applied whether it is the MPAA complaining or the web site owner's girlfriend... If the right to publish material is questioned (whether it is DeCSS or a photo of a pet cat) then these procedures involve putting the matter to the web site owner ... which is exactly what happened here. By all means discuss the MPAA's operations in the UK... but bringing Demon into the middle of this is of strictly limited relevance. - -- richard writing to inform and not as company policy fewer than 10 MPs still need adopting: http://www.stand.org.uk/ "Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind" quoted in ZAMM -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBOcoQAOtbVxwhgXFWEQIh5wCg/WRasrqONzJswxv3NOiAnRlgvOIAoOsk oEpO0EXfj/n4G6rguOkvNFgW =f32J -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:30:23 +0100 To: UKcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk From: Richard Clayton <richard@turnpike.com> Subject: Re: Demon & DeCSS -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In article <200009211841.OAA02983@blount.mail.mindspring.net>, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> writes >This bears on crypto - whew - in that there is also a practice >in the US, which may be true elsewhere, for legal departments >of ISPs to voluntarity cooperate with law enforcement and >intelligence agencies in dislosing private communictions >without court order. This most often violates the privacy >policy of the ISPs so these arrangements are kept covert, >among the justice practitioners who believe they know >what is best for the commonweal. You may wish to note the work being done in the UK to develop "Best Practice" guidelines to address this sort of issue. http://www.iupf.org.uk/ >In any event, we would like to hear more of Demon's >view on this transnational issue which we believe will >become more common as the global corporations >endeavor to expand their control of markets -- not only >the proponents of the G8-way-only. I hope that Demon's view on how ISPs are being reluctantly dragged into the middle of these issues (and how to change UK law to avoid this) will be available shortly. It is not really crypto-related, but I will try and remember to post the URL here when it is released. - -- richard writing to inform and not as company policy fewer than 10 MPs still need adopting: http://www.stand.org.uk/ "Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind" quoted in ZAMM -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBOcpv3+tbVxwhgXFWEQJ40QCfTX/6e+SwKf6cnYneoPZusegzyrwAmwXu nShbpR3z6NOY0AUPnync3jFF =fQsP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----