BBV - Diebold threatening indymedia with cease and desist

Didn't see this anywhere else...

ISP Rejects Diebold Copyright Claims Against News Website
EFF Defends Right to Publish Links to Electronic Voting Memos

San Francisco - Defending the right to link to controversial information about flaws in electronic voting systems, EFF announced today it will defend an Internet Service Provider (ISP) and a news website publisher against claims of indirect copyright infringement from the electronic voting machines' manufacturer.

On October 10, 2003, electronic voting company Diebold, Inc., sent a cease-and-desist letter to the nonprofit Online Policy Group (OPG) ISP demanding that OPG remove a page of links published on an Independent Media Center (IndyMedia) website located on a computer server hosted by OPG.

Diebold sent out dozens of similar notices to ISPs hosting IndyMedia and other websites linking to or publishing copies of Diebold internal memos. OPG is the only ISP so far to resist the takedown demand from Diebold.

...

http://www.onlinepolicy.org/media/031016dieboldthreat.shtml

Bev Harris' web site got yanked by her ISP and she couldn't get a straight answer from anyone.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=546669

bogus spam complaint.

And the site is back up.

David Allen
www.plan9.org

Diebold Voting Machines
We vote for you, so you don't have to!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They are still using a "patent" attorney. If they were serious in pursuing this action in court they would certainly have an expert in copyright and DMCA. But this could be a smoke screen. I once won a big one by having a legal aide attorney as the attorney of record. The big guns stayed in the back ground. My opposition came to court totally unprepared and shocked when they saw who and what they were up against. We were able to set a legal precedent with that win.

Heads Up.....let us not get arrogant.

:kick:

From the Clinton Days:

"Where there's that much smoke, there MUST be some fire!"

:evilgrin:
dbt

For Immediate Release: Thursday, October 16, 2003

Contact:

Will Doherty
Executive Director
Online Policy Group
press@onlinepolicy.org

ISP Rejects Diebold Copyright Claims Against News Website

EFF Defends Right to Publish Links to Electronic Voting Memos

San Francisco - Defending the right to link to controversial information about flaws in electronic voting systems, EFF announced today it will defend an Internet Service Provider (ISP) and a news website publisher against claims of indirect copyright infringement from the electronic voting machines' manufacturer.

On October 10, 2003, electronic voting company Diebold, Inc., sent a cease-and-desist letter to the nonprofit Online Policy Group (OPG) ISP demanding that OPG remove a page of links published on an Independent Media Center (IndyMedia) website located on a computer server hosted by OPG.

Diebold sent out dozens of similar notices to ISPs hosting IndyMedia and other websites linking to or publishing copies of Diebold internal memos. OPG is the only ISP so far to resist the takedown demand from Diebold.

"What topic could be more important to our democracy than discussions about the mechanics and legitimacy of electronic voting systems now being introduced nationwide?" said EFF Staff Attorney Wendy Seltzer. "EFF won't stand by as corporations like Diebold chill important online debate by churning out legal notices to ISPs that usually just take down legitimate content rather than face the legal risk."

http://www.onlinepolicy.org/media/031016dieboldthreat.shtml

---

As much as EFF as been maligned around here, it's important that we all understand what is going on and give them the support they need to fight this.

The most important thing here is to understand that if your ISP (the host) is not willing to stand and fight the cease and desist, there's nothing EFF or anyone else can do. Step #1 is an ISP that has the courage to fight. EFF will step in and help any of them who are.

So let's stop bashing one of our greatest allies in this battle and give them some support.

Thanks DEMActivist

And, a :kick: to boot

Hi, not sure I understand... What has been maligned around here, precisely ?... That EFF is plotting to do... WHAT ??? ...
They said they'll support and help and all that, but when it comes to actually doing the work and shelling out money, that may be another story... Could be a bluff, or some little piece of a bigger plan. Who knows ? Thanks for your patience... -C

"As much as EFF as been maligned around here, it's important that we all understand what is going on and give them the support they need to fight this."

this one takes the cake.

EFF has an established reputation for being on the right side of this issue and others like it. To malign them is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

I've seen shouts of Qui Tam for months now. There's no Qui Tam lawsuit and there never has been. Everyone who dares to disagree with book promotions and hyperbole are accused of trying to make money or some sinister motive.

None of that is true today, and has never been true.

And, what's sad, is that if anyone bothered to look, the people with the established reputations have been standing there, in the background just waiting to help when the players were playing straight up and really interested in activism.

There's only one crowd around here with a money agenda and it's NOT EFF.

And, despite the allegations being thrown at them, I quote yesterday's email from EFF:

Basically, I think that the real enemy here is the electronic voting machine companies. I think they are the big winners when those of us on the right side of this issue turn against each other.

So EFF will be trying to stay out of the fray and keep our focus on Diebold and the others. We will also try to help Bev if we can do so, just as we'll continue to do for you.

that there is no Qui Tam lawsuit in progress? Ashcroft told you ?... I hope there isn't one, but that is not what I was asking when I asked the question about what might the EFF be up to. Assuming the worst, that is. I did not understand what you were accusing others of saying (I still don't). Paranoia is what got us to Diebold. It is a good mindset in these situations. It is a good exercise to think about hidden motives, all of them, and to keep our eyes open for signs, just in case.
-C

1. IF there were a qui tam, it wouldn't be Diebold issuing cease and desist letters, it would be the DOJ.

2. IF there were a qui tam, all evidence would be under subpoena, not a cease and desist.

3. IF there were a qui tam, there wouldn't BE a book.

4. IF there were a qui tam, none of us would be discussing this here and now. The matter would be under DOJ seal.

5. All the players who COULD file a qui tam, who have the knowledge, the evidence, have refused to do so because of reasons 1 through 4.

6. The folks with the REAL evidence have given statements under the single condition that they cannot be used in any way for profit or personal gain.

There is no qui tam lawsuit. And there never will be.

on edit:
Once a complaint is filed, the DOJ will assign the case to an investigative agency that has jurisdiction over the allegations. During the period of time the complaint is under seal, the Government investigators will conduct a preliminary investigation based on the information disclosed by the relator. This usually includes a comprehensive interview of the relator and review of relator's records if any exists. It also will include interview of any corroborative witnesses, review of appropriate government records and interviews of government officials. The investigation can also be expanded to include obtaining and reviewing the records of the defendant through the subpoena process. Once the preliminary investigation is completed, the results are analyzed by the DOJ in order to determine whether it will join in the lawsuit.

http://www.quitam.com/quitam6.html

qui tam is not always filed as a federal case. The same kinds of suits can be filed in specific states or even with certain counties.

Almost none of the points above are accurate.

1. IF there were a qui tam, it wouldn't be Diebold issuing cease and desist letters, it would be the DOJ.
This is apples and oranges. Diebold is issueing c & ds on alleged copyright violations, and qui tam is not always adjudicated by DOJ, and the DOJ would not be issuing cease & desist letters for links to Diebold memos.

2. IF there were a qui tam, all evidence would be under subpoena, not a cease and desist.
You have to subpoena piece by piece. You can't just say "all evidence is under subpeona." This statement makes no sense.

3. IF there were a qui tam, there wouldn't BE a book.
No one can shut down a book because someone else filed a qui tam. Writing a book has nothing to do with it. The only way this would be relevant is that if I were to file a qui tam, I couldn't write a book about the specific evidence in my qui tam case.

4. IF there were a qui tam, none of us would be discussing this here and now. The matter would be under DOJ seal.
Only the evidence filed in the case would be under seal, and not necessarily by DOJ, and to the extent that reporters or others independently have the information, it would not be sealable.

5. All the players who COULD file a qui tam, who have the knowledge, the evidence, have refused to do so because of reasons 1 through 4.
On this point DemActivist has no idea. She does not personally know everyone who has the evidence (there are many, many people who could do so, ranging from people at the ITA certifiers to other universities besides JSU and Rice whose academics downloaded the files, to election officials.) I do personally know of others who have been trying to persuade me to join their case. It is quite likely -- perhaps a certainty -- that cases will be filed by someone, somewhere.

6. The folks with the REAL evidence have given statements under the single condition that they cannot be used in any way for profit or personal gain.
See #5.

There is no qui tam lawsuit. And there never will be.
I concur with creativelcro. Since the cases are filed under seal, no one knows.

This is a valid topic for reporters to write about, and I know that articles about it will appear, precisely because this is such a temptation. Apparently, qui tam-type suits can be filed in every jurisdiction that has the machines, lumped together or individually. Sounds like a mess to me, and would probably take forever to litigate. Not my party, thanks.

In a separate post, one time and one time only, I am going to elaborate on what happened with EFF, BlackBoxVoting.org, and its current status.

Thanks,

Bev

So, is there agreement that the 6 reasons brought up earlier to prove there is no Qui Tam (and there will never be one) do not demonstrate anything ? Bev's counterarguments seem rather compelling... Any counter-counter arguments ? Much appreciated. It really helps in clarifying this issue. Thanks.
-C

I would put my search engine - http://new.globalfreepress.com/mnogosearch/search.cgi - back up ;->

DU if anyone has any contacts there :hi:

peace

Cindy Cohn cindy@eff.org

http://www.eff.org/about/

who is she?

she isn't mentioned in the link :shrug:

:hi:

peace

Don't know her title. Never asked.

on edit:
Cindy Cohn
Legal Director

Cindy Cohn is the Legal Director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. She is responsible for overseeing the EFF's overall legal strategy. Cindy first became involved with EFF over seven years ago, when EFF asked her to serve as the lead attorney in Bernstein v. Dept. of Justice, the successful federal court challenge to the U.S. export restrictions on cryptography. That case was the first to hold that source code was protected expression and subject to protection under the First Amendment. Cindy is a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School. She did her undergraduate studies at the University of Iowa and the London School of Economics. For ten years prior to joining EFF, she was a civil litigator in private practice handling Internet-related cases, including domain name disputes, suits arising from unsolicited commercial e-mail (also known as spam), and challenges to government efforts to gather information from Internet Service Providers about their customers. Before starting private practice, she worked for a year at the United Nations Centre for Human Rights in Geneva, Switzerland. In 1997, as a result of her work on the Bernstein case, Ms. Cohn was named as one of the "Lawyers of the Year" by California Lawyer magazine. #

http://www.eff.org/contact/staff_bios.php

i will send her a note to let her know of my situation.

thanks :toast:

peace

it would be easy for anybody who has downloaded the files to use a local disk search engine ("afsearch", for instance), without having to rely on web engines. -C

"I would put my search engine - http://new.globalfreepress.com/mnogosearch/search.cgi - back up ;->

DU if anyone has any contacts there :hi:

peace"

.

It's important we all understand that selecting an ISP is critical to this issue.

She might want to link up with OPG.

It was all talked about in great length yesterday. She knows about the EFF decision. It was on another chain.

not enough time. I haven't been able to keep up with Diebold's stuff. BBV really nailed them and it is going public.

Bev is a real hero.

The more people will be directed to the website willing to fight against Diebold and continue publishing the memos. Thanks Diebold. :D

Read the memos.

that's the worst enemy of the right wingers! Anything to prevent the truth from coming out.