[A2k] L&E and DRM/ TPMs - parking lot analogy
Arif Jinha
arif@stratongina.net
Tue Apr 28 01:51:02 2009
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
I think the devil's in the details.
We agree, I think, that DMCA-type anti-circumvention legislation is bad in =
general - it's bad in national contexts and it's bad in international agree=
ments, it should not be part of international trade agreements. It's there=
because the publishing industry wants a government bail-out in the form of=
taxpayer-funded enforcement system to extract money out of people who can'=
t afford it in the South or are drowning in personal debt in the North. Lik=
e other industries, it's easier to have that than to adjust to new realitie=
s of the global economy. When this doesn't work, they'll probably ask for =
a normal bailout of just plain old money.
But DMCA is really bad for certain groups of people, for whom exceptions ar=
e more warranted than for others because for them anti-circumvention laws d=
eprives them of basic and essential rights and freedoms, and the ability to=
do their job.
It would be better not to have DMCAtype legislation at all for all groups, =
and just because it's less injurious to an individual, middle income earnin=
g, able-bodied person, it doesn't mean they aren't affected. And they shou=
ld understand, if they any sense, that their rights and freedoms are bound =
up with the rest.
Where the solidarity comes in:
(This is a meta-level problem, but as it's only three levels. We can handl=
e that.)
1. We should stand against stupid laws. Together.
2. Failing the knocking down of stupid laws, we should support the mitigati=
on of their effects on the those who are injured the most by them. We shoul=
d stand by the fight for those exemptions!!
3. We should make the case that the more laws means more obstructions for d=
isabled people, therefore we can argue that the exceptions prove the rule -=
and the rule is that DMCA laws and their correlates are stupid.
By stupid I mean that these laws reward the bad guys (criminal industries o=
f pirating) and punish the good guys (educators, disabled people, that prof=
who they're putting in jail), while doing nothing useful for the industry =
except for rewarding its inabiilty to adapt.
Finally, we shouldn't get played into 'divide and rule'. That would be us =
being stupid.
Arif Jinha
-----
PS - On behalf of the 'kids downloading'
The under-40 generation has the highest debt to income ratio ever, so if th=
ey made it impossible for us to share music, we wouldn't be able to buy it =
anyway or we would go completely bankrupt doing so - we would just have to=
listen to the radio like our parents did in the 70s. All this economic gr=
owth that happened, did so on our credit cards. If we had bought all that m=
usic and software we shared, we wouldn't have bought any cars or jewellry, =
and we wouldn't be able to afford any food - so.....there's a limit, the su=
pply is more than the market can afford to pay for. Sharing is therefore na=
tural.
Sorry about that.
Arif Jinha
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <james.love@keionline.org>
To: "Arif Jinha" <arif@stratongina.net>
Cc: "Paul Lehto" <lehto.paul@gmail.com>; <a2k@lists.essential.org>; "Richar=
d M Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>; "Manon Anne Ress" <manon.ress@keionline.org>; =
"Janet Hawtin" <janet@hawtin.net.au>; "Claude Almansi" <claude.almansi@gmai=
l.com>; "Fred von Lohmann EFF" <fred@eff.org>
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [A2k] L&E and DRM/ TPMs - parking lot analogy
>I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding here about who is
> asking for what. Reading disabled persons are asking for (1) exceptions
> to exclusive rights of copyright owners, and in order to benefit from
> this exception, they are (2) asking for the right to circumvent DRM/TPM
> regimes.
>
> This is basically what every group seeking a copyright limitation and
> exception regime is doing these days, with most groups focusing only on
> national legislation, and some trying to put together requests for
> global norms.
>
> Some posts to this list make it sound as if reading disabled persons are
> promoting the use of DRM/TPMS in the WIPO treaty proposal, which is not
> what is going on.
>
> A few people are claiming that reading disabled persons should *not* ask
> for the right to circumvent DRM/TPM regimes, to promote their own
> access, since they are not making demands that benefit everyone. I must
> say this is something I have never heard of in the several years of US
> rulemaking on DMCA exemptions. Libraries, filmmakers, software
> developers, archivists, and others have made dozens of such requests to
> the U.S. Copyright office, all of them quite narrow. There are hearings
> on the latest round of requests for DMCA exemptions next week in
> Washington, DC. The following are just a few of the groups asking for
> such exemptions:
>
> Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/4875)
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> (http://www.eff.org/cases/2009-dmca-rulemaking)
> Media Resources Center, UC Berkeley.
> MetroPCS Communications, Inc.
> Kartemquin Educational Films, Inc. and the International Documentary
> Association (http://bit.ly/rCdWI)
> Library Copyright Alliance and the Music Library Association
> (http://bit.ly/hRvEC)
>
> Earlier exemptions include such things as:
>
> * Compilations consisting of lists of websites blocked by filtering
> software applications;
> * Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected
> by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of
> malfunction, damage, or obsoleteness.
>
> Are the people complaining about reading disabled persons asking for a
> exemption going to complain about all of these other efforts? I would
> like an answer from Paul Lehto, Richard Stallman and others on this last
> point.
>
> Jamie
>
>
> On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 14:23 -0400, Arif Jinha wrote:
>> I re-wrote my comments on this issue so many times that it is becoming
>> silly, I'll try to be general.
>>
>> My opinion is that any structure that enables disabled people to
>> participate fully without the need for exceptions, permits, special
>> privileges and other transaction costs and risks to privacy, is better
>> than one that requires such, better for disabled people and better for
>> society. Sometimes a structure requires this extra privilege for
>> disabled people - like a parking lot, because without
>> privileges gained by identifying disability there can be no
>> reservation of parking spaces.
>>
>> I think it does not make sense to bring forward a structure that is
>> obstructive but needn't be, and then grant privileges, because having
>> to gain those priviliges is more obstructive than a system that is
>> flat in the first place. A world with DRM/TPM/strong
>> anti-circumvention that require exceptions for disabled people is a
>> world more obstructive that an world without it, even if it is less
>> obstructive than a world without exceptions.
>>
>> Article 27 (1) UDHR and Article 15(2) of the ICESCR
>>
>> 'Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of
>> the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific
>> advancement and its benefits.'
>>
>> The right to participate fully in society bears on all people, but it
>> bears particularly on people that are marginalized or prevented from
>> that participation by structures that discriminate against them.
>>
>> The right to material interest of authored works (Article 27(2)-UDHR;
>> Article 15(3)-ICESCR) is not necessarily in conflict.
>>
>> General Comment 17 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
>> Rights regarding Article 15
>>
>> "The right of everyone to benefit from the protection of the moral and
>> material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic
>> production of which he or she is the author is a human right, which
>> derives from the inherent dignity and worth of all persons. This fact
>> distinguishes article 15, paragraph 1 (c), and other human rights from
>> most legal entitlements recognized in intellectual property systems.
>> Human rights are fundamental, inalienable and universal entitlements
>> belonging to individuals and, under certain circumstances, groups of
>> individuals and communities. Human rights are fundamental as they are
>> inherent to the human person as such, whereas intellectual property
>> rights are first and foremost means by which States seek to provide
>> incentives for inventiveness and creativity, encourage the
>> dissemination of creative and innovative productions, as well as the
>> development of cultural identities, and preserve the integrity of
>> scientific, literary and artistic productions for the benefit of
>> society as a whole."
>>
>> With privacy, there is a principle that no more information should be
>> gathered and shared than is necessary. From a human rights law
>> standpoint, no more obstruction should exist than necessary.
>> Necessity in the limitation of human rights is justified only in the
>> tension and balance with other human rights. If we know
>> that protection of material interest of authors is possible without
>> these laws (ACTA, DMCA etc.) which are IPR regimes that
>> grant entitlements (not human rights), than these laws are
>> not justified if they obstruct human rights. Since it is quite
>> possible to create incentives and alternative business models and
>> entitlements to authors without those laws, than these laws are not
>> justified.
>>
>> These laws are akin to turning a 'digital parking lot', where we could
>> imagine that every space could be made preferential without
>> obstructing others - and disability is not required to be reported
>> - to one more like a parking lot in the real world where the structure
>> requires exceptions, permits, identification of disability, than its a
>> reversal of progress for disabled persons and for society. It's true
>> that it's worse, if there are no means for exceptions in this lot, so
>> IF it is built, it is right that people would fight for those
>> exceptions. There are BEST, Second-BEST, and Worse scenarios - and
>> these legislations with exceptions are Second-BEST.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
>> To: "Paul Lehto" <lehto.paul@gmail.com>
>> Cc: "James Love" <james.love@keionline.org>;
>> <a2k@lists.essential.org>; "Richard M Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>; "Manon
>> Anne Ress" <manon.ress@keionline.org>; "Janet Hawtin"
>> <janet@hawtin.net.au>; "Claude Almansi" <claude.almansi@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 7:51 AM
>> Subject: Re: [A2k] L&E and DRM/ TPMs
>>
>>
>> > Paul and all,
>> >
>> > Nicely argued. I don't see any holes in this rebut argument. I
>> hope
>> > Jamie will recognize same as well as respect that if access to
>> knowledge
>> > is righteous enough for the blind, sight impaired or other disabled
>> persons,
>> > than it certainly is a good a righteous right for us all and should
>> be
>> > fought for on that basis as well as for the blind, sight impaired,
>> or
>> > other disabled. After the voting rights act of 1964 was not just
>> for
>> > afro americans as a minority, but for including all peoples
>> regardless
>> > of race, creed, religion, or nationality.
>> >
>> > To use Copyright regimes or legal structures that may differ as a
>> means
>> > to restrict access to relative works is not ethically or morally
>> sound, nor
>> > is it a wise business practice, not to mention bad for international
>> trade,
>> > especially as such relates to ecommerce. Allowing Guilds, or other
>> IP
>> > organizations to exert such a regime cannot and must not be allowed
>> to
>> > stand. The needs and desires of the many must outweigh the needs or
>> > wishes of the few... On principal and pragmatism alone, DRM's and
>> > TPM's are an evil that must be eradicated permanently.
>> >
>> > Paul Lehto wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dear Jamie,
>> >>
>> >> Even if I, per your request, set aside the elections issue (despite
>> >> the lack of any fundamental reason being given to dispute its
>> ability
>> >> to shed light on the issues here), my point, so far at least, still
>> >> stands: Once implemented, disability provisions trigger
>> investments
>> >> (ala Kindle) in circumvention that also happen to co-opt the moral
>> >> force of arguments for the disabled and then harness that moral
>> force
>> >> in favor of corporate DRM regimes. DRM is then not only
>> "manageable",
>> >> it also supports the rights of the disabled and blind. A whole
>> host
>> >> of talking points can be assembled on this foundation in favor of
>> >> continuing DRM by DRM advocates, with or without the support of the
>> >> disabled and blind communities, making it very difficult indeed to
>> >> further change the status quo.
>> >>
>> >> However, I'm inclined NOT to "set aside the elections issue"
>> because,
>> >> among other things, it's one of the sources of my proof that these
>> >> political and economic dynamics will in fact result and replicate
>> >> themselves in new areas (success breeds imitation). That being
>> said,
>> >> by no means is my argument here limited to "mere" analogy or the
>> >> process of reason, because this list has ALREADY seen the core
>> >> arguments made in the specific area of this list that will apply
>> with
>> >> much more force once DRM is reinforced by provisions intended for
>> the
>> >> disabled. The clearest example is this is the discussion about the
>> >> Kindle Swindle.
>> >>
>> >> The swindle regardling Kindle shows us the force AGAINST changing
>> the
>> >> Amazonian (proprietary) status quo, on the grounds that the
>> disabled
>> >> have already invested in that corporate-controlled regime for
>> >> accessing knowledge. Now just multiply that globally, and (take
>> your
>> >> pick) we are dealing with an argument that is either some multiple
>> of
>> >> the Kindle argument in terms of its force for maintaining the
>> status
>> >> quo, or is exponentially stronger in terms of its argument in favor
>> of
>> >> the status quo. (the argument, of course, is that knowledge MUST
>> >> continue to be supplied in the way that the blind/disabled
>> community
>> >> has invested in circumventing...)
>> >>
>> >> As far as your final point, Jamie, namely that "If people work on a
>> >> particular campaign different from yours, it doesn't violate your
>> >> rights" the truth or falsity of this statement depends entirely on
>> the
>> >> particulars of the campaign. As a general statement, it is false,
>> >> because a campaign (to use an extreme example) to restrict the
>> right
>> >> to vote to only those who are landholding males (I rent) is
>> certainly
>> >> ones that implicate my rights. It's only laziness, I suppose, on my
>> >> part, plus a wish not to belabor the point, the prevents me from
>> not
>> >> giving you a hundred counter-examples, though I'll do so for as
>> little
>> >> as one U.S. dollar per counter-example if anyone wishes such a
>> list.
>> >> ;)
>> >>
>> >> The fact is, and let's start a thread on this particular point if
>> it's
>> >> disputed, is that Mr. Stallman, myself and many others assert that
>> the
>> >> rights and interests of the non-disabled are in fact negatively
>> >> impacted by a campaign focused solely on the disabled, which
>> campaign
>> >> takes on the weaknesses of special interest legislation. Public
>> >> interest legislation could well provide for the same or similar
>> >> rights, but it would also have to address and eliminate the impacts
>> on
>> >> the non-disabled and thus the public generally. Perhaps such an
>> >> effort, however framed, could be considered a "public impact
>> >> statement" analogous to an environmental impact statement.
>> >>
>> >> You raise a good point in asking specifically me to clarify "what
>> >> gives anyone the right to advocate for the continued violation of
>> >> anybody else's rights?" At least I presume you're hinting that
>> such a
>> >> principle cuts both ways, and indeed it can or does. That's why
>> the
>> >> suggestion has been to move forward "shoulder to shoulder" instead
>> of
>> >> dividing up into separate campaigns and weakening ourselves.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, Jamie Love (and everyone else) is free to respond to the
>> >> appeal to act with unity and solidarity and in the public interest
>> >> overall with an "to each his or her own campaign" response. I can
>> be
>> >> invited, with "all due respect," to start my own campaign and
>> >> micro-organization (relative to some others on this list it would
>> >> certainly at least start small).
>> >>
>> >> But if that is the route that is taken, in whole or in part, then
>> >> we're acting as special interests scrambling for our own subgroup's
>> >> piece of the pie. It's everyone's right to do that, but inherent
>> in
>> >> the commitment to the ideals of this list, as I understand them, is
>> a
>> >> predisposition in favor of the public interest and in favor of a
>> >> unified approach/response by asserting that access to knowledge is
>> a
>> >> universal human right (regardless of whether it is presently
>> >> recognized as such or not by extant governments).
>> >>
>> >> Once again, a meritorious cause (access for the blind/disabled) if
>> and
>> >> when it takes a micro-approach where each side goes and gets their
>> >> "own campaign" suffers from the weakness, or the fatal flaw, of
>> >> considering only the easiest way to achieve its own interests
>> (special
>> >> interest legislation).
>> >>
>> >> The same goal of access for the disabled can be achieved in public
>> >> interest ways, but the fact that you suggest we all have our own
>> >> individual campaigns comes perilously close to closing the public
>> >> interest door, at least when combined with what appears to me to be
>> a
>> >> less than completely thought-through analysis of the impacts on the
>> >> non-disabled community. This last point only applies to the extent
>> >> the response below is indicative of the disabled community as a
>> whole,
>> >> perhaps there are others willing to listen and learn, on a two way
>> >> street basis, to find common ground that offers greater
>> >> "cross-platform" solidarity potential.
>> >>
>> >> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor
>> >>
>> >> On 4/26/09, James Love <james.love@keionline.org> wrote:
>> >> > Dear Paul,
>> >> >
>> >> > Let's set aside the elections issue, which no one is debating.
>> This is
>> >> > about copyright limitations and exceptions, and the cross border
>> sharing
>> >> > of accessible copies of copyrighted works for people with reading
>> >> > disabilities.
>> >> >
>> >> > Are you saying no one should get the ability to circumvent
>> DRM/TPM
>> >> > technologies, unless everyone does? Then how does this square
>> with your
>> >> > statement "what gives anyone the right to advocate for the
>> continued
>> >> > violation of anybody else's rights?"
>> >> >
>> >> > I think its a good idea for people to mount various campaigns to
>> have
>> >> > more freedom to circumvent DRM/TPM, in areas where access is
>> supported
>> >> > by public policy, or where the DRM/TPM violates rights.
>> >> >
>> >> > If people work on a particular campaign different from yours, it
>> doesn't
>> >> > violate your rights. Unless you think it is your right to force
>> people
>> >> > to only work through your campaign. They might not have the time,
>> >> > mandate, resources, inclination or optimism that others do. If
>> you want
>> >> > people to work on a particular campaign, offer some good reasons
>> for
>> >> > doing so.
>> >> >
>> >> > Jamie
>> >> >
>> >> >>Jamie Love: I don't object to the rights of the disabled, but I
>> do
>> >> >> object to the non-advocacy and continued violation of MY rights.
>> My
>> >> >> question would be, what gives anyone the right to advocate for
>> the
>> >> >> continued violation of anybody else's rights?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sun, 2009-04-26 at 12:18 -0700, Paul Lehto wrote:
>> >> >> I've heard this position Jamie Love advocates, namely an
>> opposition to
>> >> >> an "all or nothing" approach, sometimes styled as not "allowing
>> the
>> >> >> perfect to be the enemy of the good" literally thousands of
>> times in
>> >> >> the area of elections. In that area, the argument is that
>> because
>> >> >> computerized proprietary voting systems allow more access for
>> the
>> >> >> disabled (and perhaps some other claimed benefits) we should
>> support
>> >> >> its continuation -- even though that continuation violates the
>> rights
>> >> >> of many others...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> To answer the above, I always point to the following simple,
>> general
>> >> >> approach to questions of rights.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (1) Are the rights implicated core rights, or minor ancillary
>> and
>> >> >> statutory rights?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The preliminary question is whether the rights implicated are
>> core
>> >> >> rights, or not. If they are core rights, like freedom of
>> speech,
>> >> >> voting, or freedom from torture, a compromise of the right is
>> nothing
>> >> >> less than a violation of the right. Examples: If a country
>> such as
>> >> >> the USA is systematically practicing torture or degrading
>> treatment of
>> >> >> prisoners on a daily basis, to "compromise" by, say, allowing
>> freedom
>> >> >> of speech only every other day, or granting weekend breaks from
>> >> >> torture is not "progress" in the true sense of the word, nor
>> something
>> >> >> we should support because an "all or nothing" approach is not
>> >> >> something "we are not inclined to wait for."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is A2K a core right? I believe most or all on this list would
>> answer
>> >> >> "Yes." Certainly the disabled movement must say so, since it is
>> >> >> something they can not, or will not, wait for.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (2) If a core right is implicated, may the core rights of some
>> be
>> >> >> granted, or granted more fully, while continuing to violate the
>> core
>> >> >> rights of others? Alternatively, would a full or fuller
>> recognition
>> >> >> of the rights of one group make it more difficult or impossible
>> for
>> >> >> others to gain recognition of their rights? if so, this is a
>> big
>> >> >> problem because while one may certainly seek vindication of
>> one's own
>> >> >> rights, one may not rightfully violate OTHERS' core rights or
>> make
>> >> >> them substantially more difficult to achieve.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As applied to the issue of access for the disabled, will the
>> >> >> achievement of fuller rights for them negatively impact others?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Though this last point may perhaps be debated, it seems clear to
>> me
>> >> >> that achievement of the disabled community's rights without any
>> >> >> equivalent achievement for all creates a more difficult
>> situation for
>> >> >> the rights of all.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >From a strategic or tactical position (and "all or nothing"
>> >> >> incremental positions are just that-- strategic and tactical
>> positions
>> >> >> not anchored FULLY in principle even though they are in part
>> based on
>> >> >> principle) it puts the A2K community as a whole in a much more
>> >> >> difficult position to fight from for the following, and other
>> reasons:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The DRM-supporting forces, having achieved a wholesale transfer
>> of
>> >> >> power in their favor, can now effectively neutralize substantial
>> >> >> portions of the opposition to DRM by pointing to the mercy and
>> >> >> compassion shown to the disabled, as exemplified by the Blind
>> Union
>> >> >> treaty language (if adopted) and use that to argue strongly that
>> we
>> >> >> can not go backwards and, in any event, the DRM regime is just
>> and
>> >> >> rightful because it does good things for the disabled.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> One adopted, the disabled community invests in circumvention
>> >> >> technologies that it gets to enjoy. If we then are presented
>> with an
>> >> >> "All" opportunity, the disability community screams about the
>> >> >> "ultimate Kindle swindle" -- they've invested in an
>> accessibility
>> >> >> circumvention technology and will now LOSE their ENTIRE
>> investment in
>> >> >> accessibility if the DRM regime as a whole goes away.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is how "disability access" effectively functions to
>> incentivize a
>> >> >> "lockdown" of the DRM regime, politically and legally, and
>> divides the
>> >> >> A2K community into internecine debate between the disabled and
>> >> >> non-disabled.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jamie Love: I don't object to the rights of the disabled, but I
>> do
>> >> >> object to the non-advocacy and continued violation of MY rights.
>> My
>> >> >> question would be, what gives anyone the right to advocate for
>> the
>> >> >> continued violation of anybody else's rights?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Would the disability community (if this is even possible)
>> stipulate in
>> >> >> a binding way that it will not advocate nor countenance the
>> advocacy
>> >> >> by others of any claim that DRM as a whole should not be done
>> away
>> >> >> with because blind and disabled folks have invested so much in
>> >> >> circumvention technologies? Perhaps you've already done so?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Again, the rights of the disabled are quite meritorious, but
>> they
>> >> >> suffer from all the faults of special interest legislation if
>> they do
>> >> >> not simultaneously and fully consider the broader impacts on the
>> >> >> global community as a whole.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor
>> >> >> On 4/26/09, James Love <james.love@keionline.org> wrote:
>> >> >> > There are several areas where the exclusive rights of authors
>> are
>> >> >> > subject to
>> >> >> > limitations and exceptions. To benefit from such L&Es, you may
>> have to
>> >> >> > circumvent TPM regimes. Policy makers are being asked to
>> address this,
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > several different areas, including but certainly not limited
>> to
>> >> >> > disabilities. These are normally cases where the freedom to
>> circumvent
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > limited and not general. So far there are few areas where
>> circumvention
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > allowed and feasible. While we all await the day when
>> DRM/TPMs are
>> >> >> > gone,
>> >> >> > we are inclined to push for expanded areas to circumvent to
>> enable
>> >> >> > people to
>> >> >> > benefit from public policies regarding access to works. We
>> are not
>> >> >> > inclined
>> >> >> > to wait for all or nothing.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Jamie
>> >> >> > ----------------
>> >> >> > James.Love@KEIonline.org, http://www.keionline.org
>> >> >> > Work +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile +1.202.361.3040
>> >> >> > Geneva Mobile +44.76.413.6584
>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> > A2k mailing list
>> >> >> > A2k@lists.essential.org
>> >> >> > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> > --
>> >> > James Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International
>> >> > http://www.keionline.org | mailto:james.love at keionline.org
>> >> > Wk: +1.202.332.2671 | US Mobile +1.202.361.3040 | Geneva Mobile
>> >> > +41.76.413.6584
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
>> >> P.O. Box #1
>> >> Ishpeming, MI 49849
>> >> lehto.paul@gmail.com
>> >> 906-204-2333
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> A2k mailing list
>> >> A2k@lists.essential.org
>> >> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders
>> strong!)
>> > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
>> > Abraham Lincoln
>> > "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama
>> >
>> > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
>> > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>> >
>> > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
>> > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
>> > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
>> > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
>> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> > Updated 1/26/04
>> > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
>> > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
>> > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
>> > jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
>> > My Phone: 214-244-4827
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > A2k mailing list
>> > A2k@lists.essential.org
>> > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>> >
> --
> James Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International
> http://www.keionline.org | mailto:james.love at keionline.org
> Wk: +1.202.332.2671 | US Mobile +1.202.361.3040 | Geneva Mobile +41.76.41=
3.6584
>
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>
--