Lawmaker Revs Up Fair-Use Crusade

Rep. Rick Boucher is a rarity in Congress when it comes to digital media. He's taken the side of consumers -- not Hollywood and the music industry -- in the sundry controversies surrounding digital entertainment.

When it comes to file sharing, Boucher says he'll fight attempts to stifle it.

He thinks tech companies shouldn't be held liable for products that can be used for unlawful purposes, like pirating media.

He says the balance of copyright law has tipped too far toward the entertainment companies' interests, hampering consumers' rights to use digital media.

And he wants government sponsorship of universal broadband.

While other lawmakers have long-standing relationships with the entertainment industry, whose chief concern is piracy, Boucher sees his pro-technology policies as a way to further education, communication and job creation.

Boucher, a Democrat representing the rural 9th District of Virginia, has introduced a bill to restore some of the fair-use rights taken away by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Boucher was also one of only six candidates supported by IPac, a new, nonpartisan political action committee concerned with intellectual property. IPac favors candidates working for a better balance in copyright law between the rights of creators and those of consumers.

Boucher recently stopped by the Wired News office for a chat about broadband, copyright and the continued clashes between the entertainment and technology industries over peer-to-peer networks.

Wired News: The MGM v. Grokster case now before the Supreme Court has put file sharing in the spotlight. What are your thoughts on peer-to-peer file sharing?

Rick Boucher: First of all I am going to fight, tooth and nail, any effort to hobble file sharing. I mean, if the attack that the industry makes is against file sharing per se, I'm going to fight that, because there are very legitimate uses of file sharing.

Skype is a file-sharing application and that's used by millions of people. (Universities) are using file sharing as a way to disseminate research papers and other legitimate items. Getting away from centralized servers and going to peer-to-peer communications all across the map means the communications are faster and much more user-friendly. I will predict that within a number of years, most of the uses of file sharing are going to be legitimate.

WN: Fair use is all well and good, but isn't the entertainment industry saying, "You can use this stuff, but we are not obligated to present it to you in a form that is easy to copy?"

Boucher: But ... what they are able to do ... is prevent you from using it altogether. All that a creator of digital content has to do is guard it with a very simple technical measure and ... then you may not circumvent that for any purpose. And so the creator of content can take everything to a pay-per-use (format) and that means nothing is free on the library shelf anymore.

This is why librarians so strongly support my bill, they see that coming. History teaches us that when industry has a particular power, if they can make money using that power, that's what they'll do. And in this instance, the content industry has the power to prevent any fair use of their material and I have no doubt that's exactly where they'll go.

WN: Do you feel any sympathy for the entertainment industry? If an individual gets hold of just one copy of a work, it can be distributed widely. Take Revenge of the Sith -- thousands of people had it even before it debuted in the theater. This is an unprecedented kind of access to artistic works.

Boucher: First of all, while the arrival of the internet creates a potential hazard and peril for content creators, it also invests in them broadening abilities. It becomes another distribution medium that they can use and they need to do that. I have been saying (that) to the recording industry every time they have come crying to us (saying), "Oh piracy is costing us this, that and the other and we need to do something about it."

I would spend my time as a committee member when I was addressing them saying, "OK, why don't you do something about it yourself? Why don't you put your entire inventory up on the web and make it available in a user-friendly format for a reasonable price per track and get away from clinging to this old, outdated business model of selling the whole CD?"

Do I have sympathy for them? Not when they're clinging to a relic and when that's getting in the way of making good current business decisions.... They can make a fortune if they do that.

The other point to make is, they are asking us to do something that not only is it unwise from a policy standpoint for us to do, and that is inhibit file sharing, which has legitimate uses. But even if we thought it was wise from a policy standpoint, they are asking us to do something that we really can't.

We don't have -- within the reach of American law -- control over these networks. I mean, if we control one who happens to be a resident of the U.S., or people who generate the software ... it won't be a matter of weeks until a network like that would arise in some island nation where we don't even have commercial relations, much less extradition treaties.

And so we can't at the end of the day do anything that's really meaningful to help. We can make ridiculous laws but we are not going to be able to stop the problem....

The other thing that makes sense is for the industry actually to consider some kind of compulsory license.... If I were the recording industry I'd think seriously about doing that. People are going to be engaged in file sharing anyway: They may as well get some compensation for it. It's not a perfect solution to their problem, but then there isn't one at this point.

WN: What do you think of the state of copyright law right now? There are alternatives like Larry Lessig's Creative Commons option, which gives authors the option of choosing a more flexible copyright license. Do you think there will be a makeover of copyright, or is that off the table?

Boucher: I happen to think Larry is right. In the main I agree with what he is saying. And if you go back and you look at the history of how innovation occurs in creativity, it is an incremental process of people building on other people's innovations. Disney, which is probably the most aggressive of all the studios in terms of copyright protection, owes its major intellectual properties to the works of others.

And because of the falling of (such works) into the public domain, Disney was able to take it and essentially use it as the foundation for Mickey Mouse, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.... Mickey Mouse was an iteration of somebody named Steamboat Willie that came before. (Disney) didn't create it. Somebody else did.

I think Larry Lessig has performed a very useful function of pointing out how creativity will continue to advance our community and it depends on building on the success of others, and you can't do that if people lock up this property.

WN: How do you rank the current administration in terms of handling broadband policy? There is a lot of criticism about where we are right now.

Boucher: Well-justified criticism. We rank 13th in the world in terms of percent of the population that uses broadband. This is the country that invented the internet. We still create most of the popular internet applications in the U.S. And to be 13th in terms of broadband deployment is not a noble status.

And I fault this administration for not having been more aggressive in finding ways to stimulate broadband deployment more deeply into the population.... Most other countries in the developed world have made it a national priority to deploy broadband and they are putting public resources behind the effort. I think we should.

WN: How will you accomplish this?

Boucher: Two things in particular. One of those is to redefine universal service so as to make broadband an eligible subject for universal service support. Where at the moment it just makes telephone service affordable and that's something that it needs to continue to do ... we should add broadband deployment (to that mission).

(Secondly), I think the time has come for us to set national rules that will clearly get local governments to get involved in providing broadband services.... In some communities in my district, the populations are so small that we don't even have cable systems. And telephone companies haven't seen it as economically advantageous to offer DSL and so there is no broadband at all.

And I think where that happens, the local government has a legitimate role to play in providing the services, exactly analogous to what happened 100 years ago with municipal electric utilities. Where the investor-owned utilities didn't want to provide the service, the local government stepped in, and today, 100 years later, we still have municipal electric utilities. And this is a service every bit as essential in this century as electricity was in the early days.

WN: In the last session of Congress, the technology industry really came together and successfully blocked the Induce Act legislation, which would have held tech companies responsible for creating devices that could be used to pirate digital content. How unusual is that? Is the tech industry finally building more of a presence in Washington? Typically, the entertainment industry has been considered much more savvy and connected.

Boucher: Until about 2000, many of the technology companies had a real hands-off approach toward lawmaking. I think they perhaps somewhat naively thought that at the end of the day, Congress or the president would do what was right. And they either had total faith in the system or they had no faith in it.

I think some probably had one view and some the other. But whichever view they had they weren't dealing with us. They just were not in Washington defending their interests. And then they got mashed with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The tech industry was not involved in that.

I was making the same arguments in 1998 that I'm making today, which is that we shouldn't eliminate fair use for digital media, and we shouldn't say that developing technology that has substantial legitimate uses is wrong just because somebody can misuse it. You know, you don't punish a hammer manufacturer because somebody uses a hammer to break into a house....

Make no mistake about it, this is a war between content and technology, and you don't win a war over the long term just playing defense. And so it's time to go on offense and the way to go on offense is to enact HR 1201 (the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act, HR 1201) and that's why you see such a large collection of technology companies supporting this bill.

WN: What's your perspective on the broadcast flag? (The broadcast flag, now moribund, would have protected content from "unauthorized" redistribution, and may yet be resurrected in a different form).

Boucher: The circuit court for D.C. has invalidated broadcast flag rulemaking, saying that the FCC lacked statutory authority (to create the broadcast flag). Not surprisingly, the MPAA has now come to us and said, "We want you to legislate."

I don't think we are going to do that. I have been waiting for a long time for Hollywood to come to us and say, "Here's something we want" because there is something I want. And it's called the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act.

It would do two things. It would codify the Betamax decision of the Supreme Court that says that if you manufacture technology that is capable of substantial non-infringing use -- then if it is put to an infringement purpose somewhere down the road -- then the manufacturer has no responsibility for the copyright infringement....

The other thing that it does is say that if you circumvent a technical protection measure in order to perform a legitimate act such as exercising a fair-use right, you are not guilty of a crime.

Now, I have great support for this measure from the technology industry, which has proudly endorsed it. The public-use community, universities, consumer organizations, EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) and others have endorsed it.

But the motion picture industry strongly opposes it. So here is an opportunity to have a conversation with them and say, "All right, we understand the importance of the broadcast flag," and you know my normal position is to oppose any kind of technology mandate.

This one is a little bit different in that the only way that I think we are going to have high-value television programming delivered over the air in digital format is if the motion picture industry has some level of confidence that it's not going to get recorded and uploaded to the internet.

We need to make sure if we are going to do the broadcast flag that fair-use rights are preserved. So, for example, people when they record a television program off the internet should be able to move it around inside the home environment from digital device to digital device.

Your ISP as Net watchdog

The U.S. Department of Justice is quietly shopping around the explosive idea of requiring Internet service providers to retain records of their customers' online activities.

Data retention rules could permit police to obtain records of e-mail chatter, Web browsing or chat-room activity months after Internet providers ordinarily would have deleted the logs--that is, if logs were ever kept in the first place. No U.S. law currently mandates that such logs be kept.

In theory, at least, data retention could permit successful criminal and terrorism prosecutions that otherwise would have failed because of insufficient evidence. But privacy worries and questions about the practicality of assembling massive databases of customer behavior have caused a similar proposal to stall in Europe and could engender stiff opposition domestically.

In Europe, the Council of Justice and Home Affairs ministers say logs must be kept for between one and three years. One U.S. industry representative, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Justice Department is interested in at least a two-month requirement.

Justice Department officials endorsed the concept at a private meeting with Internet service providers and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, according to interviews with multiple people who were present. The meeting took place on April 27 at the Holiday Inn Select in Alexandria, Va.

"It was raised not once but several times in the meeting, very emphatically," said Dave McClure, president of the U.S. Internet Industry Association, which represents small to midsize companies. "We were told, 'You're going to have to start thinking about data retention if you don't want people to think you're soft on child porn.'"

McClure said that while the Justice Department representatives argued that Internet service providers should cooperate voluntarily, they also raised the "possibility that we should create by law a standard period of data retention." McClure added that "my sense was that this is something that they've been working on for a long time."

This represents an abrupt shift in the Justice Department's long-held position that data retention is unnecessary and imposes an unacceptable burden on Internet providers. In 2001, the Bush administration expressed "serious reservations about broad mandatory data retention regimes."

The current proposal appears to originate with the Justice Department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, which enforces federal child pornography laws. But once mandated by law, the logs likely would be mined during terrorism, copyright infringement and even routine criminal investigations. (The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.)

"Preservation" vs. "Retention"
At the moment, Internet service providers typically discard any log file that's no longer required for business reasons such as network monitoring, fraud prevention or billing disputes. Companies do, however, alter that general rule when contacted by police performing an investigation--a practice called data preservation.

A 1996 federal law called the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act regulates data preservation. It requires Internet providers to retain any "record" in their possession for 90 days "upon the request of a governmental entity."

Child protection advocates say that this process can lead police to dead ends if they don't move quickly enough and log files are discarded automatically. Also, many Internet service providers don't record information about instant-messaging conversations or Web sites visited--data that would prove vital to an investigation.

"Law enforcement agencies are often having 20 reports referred to them a week by the National Center," said Michelle Collins, director of the exploited child unit for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "By the time legal process is drafted, it could be 10, 15, 20 days. They're completely dependent on information from the ISPs to trace back an individual offender."

Collins, who participated in the April meeting, said that she had not reached a conclusion about how long log files should be retained. "There are so many various business models...I don't know that there's going to be a clear-cut answer to what would be the optimum amount of time for a company to maintain information," she said.

McClure, from the U.S. Internet Industry Association, said he counter-proposed the idea of police agencies establishing their own guidelines that would require them to seek logs soon after receiving tips.

Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, compared the Justice Department's idea to the since-abandoned Clipper Chip, a brainchild of the Clinton and first Bush White House. Initially the Clipper Chip--an encryption system with a backdoor for the federal government--was supposed to be voluntary, but declassified documents show that backdoors were supposed to become mandatory.

"Even if your concern is chasing after child pornographers, the packets don't come pre-labeled that way," Rotenberg said. "What effectively happens is that all ISP customers, when that data is presented to the government, become potential targets of subsequent investigations."

A divided Europe
The Justice Department's proposal could import a debate that's been simmering in Europe for years.

In Europe, a data retention proposal prepared by four nations said that all telecommunications providers must retain generalized logs of phone calls, SMS messages, e-mail communications and other "Internet protocols" for at least one year. Logs would include the addresses of Internet sites and identities of the correspondents but not necessarily the full content of the communication.

Even after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration criticized that approach. In November 2001, Mark Richard from the Justice Department's criminal division said in a speech in Brussels, Belgium, that the U.S. method offers Internet providers the flexibility "to retain or destroy the records they generate based upon individual assessments of resources, architectural limitations, security and other business needs."

France, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden jointly submitted their data retention proposal to the European Parliament in April 2004. Such mandatory logging was necessary, they argued, "for the purpose of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime or criminal offenses including terrorism."

But a report prepared this year by Alexander Alvaro on behalf of the Parliament's civil liberties and home affairs committee slammed the idea, saying it may violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

Also, Alvaro wrote: "Given the volume of data to be retained, particularly Internet data, it is unlikely that an appropriate analysis of the data will be at all possible. Individuals involved in organized crime and terrorism will easily find a way to prevent their data from being traced." He calculated that if an Internet provider were to retain all traffic data, the database would swell to a size of 20,000 to 40,000 terabytes--too large to search using existing technology.

On June 7, the European Parliament voted by a show of hands to adopt Alvaro's report and effectively snub the mandatory data retention plan. But the vote may turn out to have been largely symbolic: The Council of Justice and Home Affairs ministers have vowed to press ahead with their data retention requirement.

Copyright-Worried Photo Labs Spurn Jobs

Charlie Morgan says that if it weren't for digital photography, he wouldn't have a bustling business that specializes in publicity shots for musicians. That's because Morgan ? perhaps being a bit modest ? says he's not a very good photographer. He relies on Photoshop editing software to make his work look sharp.

But digital sometimes presents a puzzling problem.

When Morgan's mother and a client recently took CDs with some of his shots to a printing lab, the photo technicians spurned them. They said that since the shots seemed to have been taken by a professional, printing the pictures might be a copyright violation.

The situation is not unusual, and it's getting trickier in our digital age.

Copyright law requires photo labs to be on the lookout for portraits and other professional work that should not be duplicated without a photographer's permission. In the old days, questions about an image's provenance could be settled with a negative. If you had it, you probably had the right to reproduce it.

Now, when images are submitted on CDs or memory cards or over the Web, photofinishers often have to guess whether a picture was truly taken by the customer ? or whether it was scanned into a computer or pilfered off the Internet.

That leads to some awkward moments at photo desks when customers' images get barred for essentially looking too good.

Like others who have been told their work was unprintable, Morgan is frustrated that photo labs lack clear standards.

"They really don't have anything etched in stone," said Morgan, who lives in Plant City, Fla. "The person that works in the photography section of Wal-Mart could take a break, someone from the underwear department could take their place, and they could decide to print the picture."

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Jacquie Young said her company's photo departments are instructed to err on the side of protecting copyrights, even if that means a conflict with an insistent customer. She would not say what signs of professionalism the photofinishers are told to look for.

In the printing labs for the Kodak EasyShare Gallery, the photo Web site formerly known as Ofoto, professionally taken pictures are placed on the walls to remind technicians of such images' telltale signs, such as school photos and stylish backdrops in posed pictures of children.

"The majority of them are easy to spot," said David Rich, vice president of marketing. "We're doing our job as a good corporate citizen to protect the rights of others, just like we want our brand and our copyright to be protected."

There's also a more tangible concern: Professional photographers have successfully sued photofinishers for allegedly being lax about enforcing copyrights.

Steve Noble, who oversees regulatory affairs at the Photo Marketers Association, believes the situation will remain hazy unless copyright laws that were written in a different technological era are altered to reflect the possibilities of digital dissemination. Or, he said, for practical purposes photographers should consider charging more up front for their work and then signing away future copyright.

"We've got a law written back in the 1970s and we're trying to apply 2005 conditions to it," Noble said. "When you've got an eight-megapixel camera out there, which is what used to be reserved for professionals, and it takes professional quality, how is the processor going to know?"

Sometimes, even approval from a professional photographer doesn't settle the issue.

Kacie Powell takes pictures for Centre College in Danville, Ky. Several times, her Centre co-workers have been turned away when they tried to get her images printed at Wal-Mart, where employees said the shots looked "too professional."

So Powell went in and signed an affidavit stating that she was the photographer and that it was OK for the pictures to be printed. She included portraits of the Centre employees who were authorized to print her pictures.

Still, when one of the co-workers tried to print candid photos from Centre's graduation this year, Wal-Mart said no. The woman had to return to Centre and get another letter from Powell before Wal-Mart would make the prints.

"Apparently, they need something new each time pictures are printed," Powell said.

Last fall, Bill Wolfson of Columbus, Ohio, went to Walgreen's to order Christmas cards with a photo that he had taken in his backyard with an eight-megapixel Canon and retouched with Photoshop. It's a striking image: an extreme closeup of two bright red berries on a green yew shrub tinged with soft sunlight.

Walgreen's phoned Wolfson with the "too professional" rejection. He responded that he was flattered but insisted that he was a "serious amateur" who took the shot himself.

He pointed out that he had signed the photo in the corner so it could be used on his Christmas cards.

The photo supervisor wouldn't budge. How did she know Wolfson was really the photographer and hadn't forged the name on the processing order?

Not until Wolfson went into the store with his driver's license was everything resolved. The pictures were printed, and "the supervisor, three employees and I all stood around the cash register admiring my handiwork," he said.

Despite the pleasant ending, Wolfson considers the episode silly. After all, anyone with photo-editing software easily could add his name to the bottom of someone else's photograph.

"It's a real problem," Wolfson said. "And I think it's going to even get worse."

< There's a few layers of idiocy here. First of all, the entire issue. It has never been possible to tell whether someone is the taker of the photograph unless you're there watching them take it. In one way or another someone has always been able to make a negative from a print, swear to something that wasn't true, steal a negative, etc etc. To try to hold anyone responsible for something they can't possibly determine is stupid. It's only less and less possible day by day to have any reasonable criteria for judging, and the ones they're using now obviously aren't reasonable. What they're doing as is typical with protection measures, is causing extra trouble for the very people they're supposedly helping. As time goes by, EVERYONE will have the capability to take professional seeming photographs. As it is now, everyone can if they can afford a decent camera. In what was is this any of the photo-shops business anyway? They're stupid for trying to so something they can't do anyway and which has a daily attrition rate. This amounts to random censorship, the only reason you're more likely to be censored isn't if you have copyrighted work (how often does that even happen?) but if you're took a good picture, exactly the pictures that SHOULD be printed and shared with the world. >

Microsoft under fire for censoring China blogs

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp.'s new MSN China Internet venture is censoring words such as "freedom," "democracy" and "human rights" on its free online journals, Microsoft said on Tuesday, putting itself in the middle of a major Web controversy.

The world's largest software maker said that its "MSN Spaces" service operated out of China, which allows users to set up their own blogs, or online journals, was acting in accordance with local laws.

"MSN abides by the laws, regulations and norms of each country in which it operates," said Brooke Richardson, MSN lead product manager.

The move comes as the Chinese government attempts to tighten control over the Internet. Last week, a media watchdog group said China would close unregistered China-based domestic web sites and blogs. About three-quarters of domestic Web sites had complied with the registration orders, the group, Reporters without Borders said, citing Chinese figures.

Microsoft rivals such as Yahoo Inc., eBay Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and InterActiveCorp., which have made a string of acquisitions to expand their operations in China, have also been known to censor content in the country.

Words and phrases banned in the subject line of entries for Microsoft's MSN Spaces on Tuesday also included "Taiwan independence" and "demonstration," which returned an error message saying "prohibited language, please remove."

Not even former and current leaders' names such as "Mao Zedong" or "Hu Jintao" were allowed.

Most of the phrases, however, were allowed in the body of the entries.

Other blog sites lashed out at Microsoft. Online tech forum Slashdot had user comments calling the censorship a "really really awful thing" and accusing the software giant of trying to appease China's government in the interest of conducting business.

Matt Rosoff, analyst at Directions on Microsoft, an independent research firm in Kirkland, Washington, pointed out that any censorship by Microsoft's online service was relatively minor compared to the broader censorship by the Chinese government over all Internet activity.

"If Microsoft wants to do business in China they have to obey the laws set by the Chinese government," Rosoff said, adding that "they've done the calculations and decided this was worth it."

Microsoft's censorship was first reported by bloggers and news outlets in Asia after MSN Spaces was launched in China on May 26. So far, five million blogs have been created with the service, Microsoft said.

The company has long seen China as a key growth market, but also as a headache because of widespread software piracy and copyright issues. China represents the world's second-largest Internet market with 94 million users at the end of 2004, a number expected to rise to 134 million by the end of this year, according to official data.

Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft launched MSN China last month by establishing a joint venture with government-operated Shanghai Alliance Investment Ltd. (SAIL) to develop more communication, information and content tied to China.

< What is the "right: thing for Microsoft to do here, and why? We'd love to hear your opinion. Write to us and let us know. >

Tech Tools Used to Charge for Open Highway

SAN DIEGO - Interstate 15 running north from San Diego is more than a ribbon of asphalt carrying up to 295,000 vehicles a day. It's a glimpse at the future ? a highway that combines traditionally free lanes with toll lanes to give drivers an option when the traffic gets bad. It is, at once, a solution for easing the worst traffic congestion, raising money for cash-starved roads and a big step toward bringing more timesaving, high-technology tools to daily driving.

The difference from old tolls? The new system combines the latest technologies with good, old capitalism ? putting a price tag on a bit of uncongested roadway. San Diego's version nudges drivers to car pools and to mass transit, with part of its revenues going for high-speed buses that designers promise will outperform trains.

And while it started in Southern California, here and in Orange County, the concept is coming to traffic jams in metropolitan areas all across the country. Minneapolis, Washington, D.C., Seattle and Denver are only a few of the places where similar projects are finished or close to completion. The concept is known variously as value pricing, managed lanes or HOT lanes, short for High Occupancy Tolls.

"This is potentially as momentous as the decision to build the interstate highway system," says Michael Replogle, transportation director at Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Defense.

Replogle's excitement is shared by many experts on all sides of the traffic issue. The concept of using free-market style tolls to make motorists see the cost of their driving decisions has long been viewed as a powerful tool in easing traffic jams.

And while there was once resistance to foisting yet another expense onto taxpayers, that is changing as traffic steadily worsens and governments have been unable to come up with the money and political will to make commuting easier. Gas prices over $2 a gallon can only add pressure.

Every afternoon brings the same routine for Mario Aguinaga.

A rush out the office door to beat the flood of traffic. One ear tuned to the radio for tie-ups ahead. A nagging worry about accidents, as cars, trucks and motorcycles jockey at 75 mph one instant, brake to 15 mph the next.

This spring day is no different. Aguinaga is running a few minutes late and the highway is already thick with cars and trucks, a time-eating slowdown that is the bane of every grumbling American commuter.

Aguinaga, however, has a potential escape route: He can pay his way to an open road and a fast-moving trip home.

Some days the toll is $2, some as much as $8, depending on how heavy the traffic is. Paying electronically so he doesn't stop, he can zip onto express lanes reserved for car pools and bus transit. It's a two-lane highway-within-a-highway, running down the median of the interstate and it's often ? though not always ? clearer than the free route.

Sure enough, Aguinaga pulls onto the toll lanes and, after a few miles, the cars driving for free alongside him slow down to 20 mph, then 15. Separated from the pack by a low barrier, Aguinaga keeps humming along without touching his brake.

"If it's moving, it's heaven," he says. "I'm saving 15, 20 minutes."

Questions such as whether the new toll lanes will control congestion over the long haul and whether they will condemn poorer drivers to gridlock won't be answered for years.

But for those stuck in traffic, even temporary relief couldn't come too soon.

The latest national reports show congestion worsening on every front ? longer rush hours, more cities stuck in gridlock, more cars on the road. Back in 1982, when traffic jams already were seen as a widespread problem, the morning and evening commutes in American cities were severely congested 12 percent of the time, on average. That's more than tripled, with 40 percent of so-called "peak-period travel" severely or extremely jammed.

Even as a kid, Aguinaga was itching to drive.

He first got behind the wheel before he was legal, at age 12, and bought his first car two years later, a $25 junker that lasted all of three weeks. Still, it was a bargain for all it brought him ? speed, fun, freedom.

Now Aguinaga's 51, and his love affair with the road is long over. Though he leaves early enough for his job as a county land-use technician to beat the morning traffic, he's not so lucky in the afternoon. And that's where the express lane sometimes saves him.

When cars move easily, the price on the express lanes is only 50 cents, the starting rate for solo drivers. The toll rises with the traffic, jumping quickly to $4, sometimes as high as $8, where it's capped.

Traffic managers, relying on a network of cameras and sensors, monitor conditions and can change the toll as quickly as every six minutes. Electronic billboards flash the latest price before the entryway. Credit-card sized radio transponders on the windshield automatically bills drivers' credit cards.

To push car pools, vehicles with at least one passenger ride free all the time. To support mass transit, commuter buses are guaranteed access to the lanes, and toll revenue helps support operations on the Inland Breeze, the bus rapid transit system that carries 554 paying passengers a day ? a sliver of the area's commuting load.

In the morning, the reversible express lanes only run south, toward San Diego; in the afternoons, they run north.

Considered a success since the current version began operating in 1998, the eight-mile, two-lane project is being expanded to 20 miles and more lanes, with new, high-speed bus stations and access ramps so drivers can zoom straight onto express lanes without having to merge and cross the slower, free lanes.

Aguinaga was reluctant to pay at first, but now he's sold ? even though the extension's construction can leave him stuck on the express lanes, particularly on getaway Fridays.

Built primarily in the 1950s and funded by gas taxes, America's interstate highways were planned mainly as open, no-toll roads and are credited with helping drive the nation's economic growth.

For many, that freedom seemed like a right. Highways quickly merged with the very image of post-World War II America, translating the myths of the Western pioneers, cowboys and outlaws to truckers, bikers and free spirits on all-night drives. Think of the movies they inspired, from "Easy Rider" to "Convoy" to "Thelma and Louise."

But in 1991, Congress approved pilot projects that would test the free-market style tolls on interstates. Price controls also have been implemented overseas, in gridlocked London and Singapore. Their aim, however, is to keep traffic out of a crowded city, rather than road pricing's goal of moving traffic more swiftly.

Opposition, at times, has been fierce. The shorthand criticism is to dismiss the tolls lanes as "Lexus lanes" ? ones where the wealthy drive without delay, while those with less sit in frustration and watch the minutes tick past.

"What this is is a way for people with resources to escape the consequences of bad transportation policy," says Chris Bedford, who opposed toll plans in the Washington, D.C., area when he was president of Maryland's
Sierra Club chapter. "If a $15 HOT lane is all right, what about a $50 lane?"

San Diego's experience, however, has surprised some critics. Surveys show that users of the express lanes cross economic boundaries. Low-income people use it when they need to, as do middle-income and the wealthy. And wide majorities of San Diegans like them.

That evidence of acceptance, and the mass transit and carpooling incentives built into many of the programs across the country, has helped pull together a surprisingly diverse group of motorist groups, traffic designers, environmental organizations and politicians.

"We think there's an historic opportunity to develop community and environmental benefit agreements as part of new toll roads," says Replogle, with Environmental Defense, one of the more prominent environmental groups to get on board.

This moment of unity may not last, however. The free-market style tolls bring together two starkly different views of the future of transportation. One would use the toll money to build more roads; the other would pay for trains and buses that give travelers other commuting options.

The San Diego model emphasizes transit and car pools, aiming to persuade people to leave their cars behind.

"If we can see our utopia, it would be that these lanes are filled by people that car pool and ride the bus," says Ray Traynor, a senior project manager at the San Diego Association of Governments, a regional decision-making group that designed and runs the I-15 FasTrak Express Lanes program.

Another vision emphasizes the cash that tolls bring and the roads they can build. A study by the libertarian Reason Foundation argues for a larger road network with higher prices and tolls on car-poolers with up to three passengers, with revenues to pay for bonds so roads could be built faster, on borrowed money.

The Bush administration supports more tolls, and giving state and local government leeway to craft public-private partnerships for new roads, says Federal Highway Administrator Mary Peters.

"Today, people who are stuck in just choking congestion have no choice but to sit there and take it. People want choices," Peters says. "If we can bring market forces to bear ? and market forces generally don't work without some form of pricing ? then we can see long-term solutions to this."

Still, she and other advocates acknowledge congestion pricing isn't a "silver bullet" that will suddenly clear the highways of traffic jams. It's just a tool ? a powerful one ? to help manage the gridlock.

Back on the road home, Aguinaga has no confidence that the toll lanes are going to revolutionize the San Diego highways ? even when local governments finish extending them to 20 miles, or to a 100-mile network as planned.

Clear more space on the roads and more drivers will just fill it up, he says.

"Every generation wants to drive. I know I did," he says. "You're going to tell a 17-year-old, a 21-year-old, a 24-year-old not to drive?"

He wouldn't have listened at that age, though now he'd take high-speed buses in a heartbeat if they were convenient and fast.

He gets off the express lanes and back on the free lanes, now stop-and-go. The dreamcatcher that hangs from his rearview mirror, a finger-long American Indian charm of wood and leather, swings back and forth with each tap on the brake.

Aguinaga sighs, changes the radio station and waits.

< We think this is a bad idea. Just like so many other things in capitalism, it favors the rich and powerful. Sure any random person may use it. but the rich use it every single time, and to their wallets the price is nothing. In short, they get for free what others have to pay for, when they're already priviledged. What society needs is level playing fields. Socialism on the bottom and caps on the top, not more inequality. >

Police arrest killer cow

LAGOS (Reuters) - Nigerian police have arrested a cow that killed a bus driver who was urinating on a highway, a police spokesman said Thursday.

The horned African cow, which was wandering stray in the Ojo district of Nigeria's biggest city Lagos, also injured several bystanders after killing the man.

"The cow went mad, ran into a bus driver and knocked him down. Efforts to revive him were fruitless," said Lagos police spokesman Olubode Ojajuni.

Some people suggested the animal be shot, but the district police officer ordered it to be taken alive.

"You know what it will take to arrest a mad cow?" one newspaper quoted a policeman as saying. "We applied ingenuity and arrested the cow, which is now being detained at the station," he said without going into details.

Ojajuni said police were seeking the cow's owner to press charges for failing to keep it under control.

Did you call me a hoof?

A UNIVERSITY student has been fined £80 ? for making ?homophobic comments? to a police horse.

Sam Brown, 21, had staggered out of a bar in the early hours and came face-to-face with two mounted officers.

Sam, who is studying English at Oxford University, approached one of the cops and asked: ?How do you feel about your horse being gay??

He was taken to a police station and held in a cell until morning ? when he was given a fixed penalty fine of £80 for public disorder.

A police spokesman said: ?A man was arrested drunk and shouting homophobic comments at a police horse.?

Sam said: ?It was way over the top ? as far as I?m aware, horses aren?t that sensitive.

Chinese gamer sentenced to life

More gamers are taking disputes over virtual property to court

A Shanghai online gamer has been given a suspended death sentence for killing a fellow gamer.

Qiu Chengwei stabbed Zhu Caoyuan in the chest when he found out he had sold his virtual sword for 7,200 Yuan (£473).

The sword, which Mr Qiu had lent to Mr Zhu, was won in the popular online game Legend of Mir 3.

Attempts to take the dispute to the police failed because there is currently no law in China to protect virtual property.

Appeal plea

Buying and selling gaming artefacts such as imaginary weapons is a booming business on the web.

The internet games section of Ebay saw more than $9m (£5m) in trades in 2003.

While China has no laws to deal with the theft of virtual property, South Korea has a section of its police force that investigates in-game crime.

Dragon sabre

According to the Chinese press, more and more gamers are seeking justice through the courts over stolen weapons and credits accumulated in games.

In this case, Mr Zhu did offer to hand over the cash but Mr Qiu lost patience and stabbed him with "great force" according to media reports.

The suspended sentence given to Qiu means he could spend the rest of his life behind bars, although it could be reduced to 15 years for good behaviour.

The parents of the dead man are planning to appeal against the sentence.

"My son was only 26 when he died. He was sleeping when Qiu broke into his home. He was barely able to put his pants on before Qiu stabbed him," said his father, Zhu Huimin.

"We want Qiu to die, and immediately," he added.

The case has led to a debate about where the law stands on virtual property, such as the dragon sabre owned by Qiu.

Following the case, associate law professor at Beijing's Renmin University of China said that such weapons should be deemed as private property because players "have to spend time and money for them".

But a lawyer for one Shanghai-based internet game company told a Chinese newspaper that the weapons were in fact just data created by games providers and therefore not the property of gamers.

Keeping Up With Uncle Sam

European recording companies are pushing to extend terms of copyright to nearly 100 years to be more in line with U.S. law.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, or IFPI, which represents European music labels, is calling on the European Commission to bring the issue to EU countries, which will consider the matter sometime next year, according to IFPI spokeswoman Francine Cunningham.

"From a cultural point of view, we find it strange that European artists are protected more in the U.S. than they are back home," she said.

Currently in the EU, there are separate copyright terms for composers and performers. Composers are awarded copyright for the life of the author plus 70 years. Performers hold a copyright for 50 years from the first recording. It's the 50-year term the IFPI wants to extend.

"We feel there is real discrimination here," Cunningham said. "Record companies in the U.S., their assets are valued much more highly because they have a much longer term of (copyright) protection.... When you have such a huge disparity, it's very hard to do business."

Copyright terms for individual creators in the United States are awarded for the life of the author plus 70 years. Companies hold copyrights for 95 years before creative works return to the public domain.

Cunningham said that because the copyright term is longer in countries like the United States, Australia and Singapore, the European countries' copyright terms should be extended.

That's an "outrageous" argument, said Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig, founder of Creative Commons, a group that developed a system of flexible copyright licenses that enable sharing and remixing of creative works (with the author's permission).

"They had a 50-year monopoly," Lessig said. "They are asking for a welfare grant to say, 'Give us another 50-year monopoly.'"

He compared the situation to an engineer signing a contract to build a bridge in London for $2 million, then building a similar bridge in the United States for $4 million -- and then after the bridges are done, demanding $4 million for the London bridge, too.

"The justification from an economic perspective is absolutely baseless," Lessig said.

The issue of expanding copyright in Europe has flared up as the EU copyrights of famous rock 'n' rollers like The Beatles and Elvis are due to expire within the next several years.

James Purnell, the U.K. minister for creative industries and tourism, recently discussed the copyright issue in several newspapers.

"The music industry is a risky business and finding talent and artists is expensive," he told the Sunday Times. "There is a view that long-term earners are needed so that the record companies can plough money back into new talent."

A spokesman for the U.K.'s Department for Culture, Media and Sport said the government is reviewing the copyright term but no decision has been made yet.

"The government made a manifesto commitment to review copyright policy because we recognize that it is the economic foundation for the creative industries," he said. "All the European Union partners would have to be convinced that there was a justification for any change of the current terms. It's an EU law issue."

Purnell is expected to deliver a speech about the creative industries next week, but details on the subject of the speech have not been confirmed, the spokesman said.

One digital rights activist in the United Kingdom said he was concerned that Purnell was only listening to one side of the discussion -- the rights-holders'. There needs to be more of a balance when considering changes to copyright terms, said Rufus Pollock, director of Friends of the Creative Domain.

"The current U.K. government doesn't really have an awareness of the sea change that is coming about," Pollock said.

For example, the U.K.'s publicly funded broadcaster, the BBC, is making efforts to free much of its content for the public to use, Pollock said. The BBC has been highly praised for its efforts, though the project is still in its early stages.

But if powerful copyright holders get their way and the copyright terms are extended, the EU should work out a compromise allowing creative works that are no longer commercially viable to return to the public domain, said Stanford's Lessig.

When copyright terms were repeatedly extended in the United States, the changes created a huge class of orphan works that are no longer in print, but are locked away under copyright. The U.S. copyright office has solicited suggestions on how to sort out this problem.

One copyright reformer said that he expected a battle royal if the EU tries to extend the 50-year term.

"Any politician who tries to introduce this will have a big fight on his hands," said Danny O'Brien, activism coordinator at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "The idea that we can just do this constant ratcheting for literally 100 years is insane. I think people have caught on. People (have a) growing understanding for how important the public domain is."

Spray-On Mud Makes a Splash

It's sold as a must-have accessory to give urban SUVs a whiff of the outback. But U.K. officials say drivers who use spray-on mud to avoid identification by police speed cams face hefty fines for obscuring their license plates.

Targeting self-conscious 4x4 owners whose rugged vehicles seldom see obstacles bigger than a speed bump, the enterprising British e-tailer behind Sprayonmud sells the scent of the countryside in a squirt bottle.

For 8 pounds (about $14.50), buyers get 0.75 liters (.85 quarts) of genuine filthy water, bottled from hills near the company's premises on the rural England-Wales border. The aim, says the website, is "to give your neighbors the impression you've just come back from a day's shooting or fishing -- anything but driving around town all day or visiting the retail park."

"The mud is from Shropshire," said Sprayonmud proprietor Colin Dowse, a financial consultant who has been selling the product in the United Kingdom for 12 months. "It contains mud plus some secret ingredients to improve stickability so that it dries before it runs off the paintwork."

Dowse got the idea during "idle chat in the pub after work" and said the sprays, available only online and by mail order, are bought as "novelty gifts" by city folk. Asked if they take advantage of those who are either too lazy to bottle their own grime or too precious to take their 4x4 on the open road, he said "all of those."

But, while the site promises SUV owners a route around social stigma flung by a growing anti-4x4 lobby, motorists of other stripes are thought to use the same technique to freely flout speed limits.

Tipsters in motoring forums advise canny drivers they can smear mud over their license plate to avoid detection by police speed cameras, which photograph plates' registration details to ID lawbreakers using a national vehicle database. A few squirts of dirt, and snapped speeders would become as good as invisible.

Sprayonmud strongly warns customers against such practices, but the retailer last week took out an online advert that described the "speed camera special" spray as "a loophole" for those "thinking of being nicked for speeding."

"Clearly, it is aimed at blocking speed cameras," said James Bancroft, an anti-speed-camera campaigner whose Speedcam website gives away the location of many English speed-detection zones.

The U.K. government's Department for Transport said such use of mud carries a hefty fine.

"It is an offense to treat a number plate in a way that obscures the characters of the registration mark and I would imagine that this would include obscuring a plate with mud," said Scot Marchbank, a spokesman.

"We are aware that a number of products designed to obscure number plates are being marketed on the internet and through mail order and (we) have warned the small minority of motorists who might be tempted to purchase these sprays that they are illegal and could result in a fine of 1,000 pounds ($1,820).

"However, many cameras used by the police do not rely on flash photography but on Automatic Number Plate Recognition equipment using infrared radiation. The use of such an aerosol spray would not, therefore, have any effect."

Dowse acknowledged obscuring registration marks with his dirt "could be illegal," but suggested it is "conceivable that mud could get onto a number plate if, when spraying, one wanted a more authentic distribution over the car."

Mud in a can is just the latest tactic used to outsmart traffic police, whose policy of fining motorists caught speeding is seen by some as merely a revenue-generating exercise, despite helping to cut road deaths.

Other retail products include a high-gloss spray and an angular license plate cover that, when hit by camera flash, overexpose photographs to obscure registration marks. Drivers can even download cameras' locations to a dash-mounted GPS device that gives an audible warning when a camera is just around the bend.

Britain's Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which regulates license plates, said Sprayonmud itself was not breaking any laws, but added it was concerned by the emergence of such sprays and would report to relevant authorities anyone marketing them for illegal uses.

"(The spray) is an inevitable response to bonkers and counterproductive speed enforcement," said Paul Smith, an anti-speed-camera campaigner with the Safe Speed group who claims to have conducted more than 8,000 hours of research into speeding. "I think that the average copper would be mildly amused."

Evolution Controversy in Our Schools

Dear Colleagues:

I write to alert you to efforts by the National Academies to confront the increasing challenges to the teaching of evolution in public schools; your help may be needed in your state soon.

On February 7, 2005, Michael Behe, a founder and leading proponent of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, published a long Op-Ed in the New York Times in response to an editorial that the Times had released the previous week. In that letter, Dr. Behe claimed that some words I wrote support his view that scientific explanations for the evolution of life on the Earth need to be modified to insert the work of an "intelligent designer".

In my response to the Times (see http://www.nas.edu/nas/feb05times-evolution), I pointed out that, while my words are reflected correctly in Behe's column, he completely misrepresents the intent of my statement. This is a common tactic among those who are attempting to introduce religious views of the origins of life into the public schools -- or who are trying to undermine the teaching of evolution because of purported "weaknesses" in the theory.

I write to you now because of a growing threat to the teaching of science through the inclusion of non-scientifically based "alternatives" in science courses throughout the country. A recent article in the Washington Post pointed out that there are challenges to the teaching of evolution in 40 states or local school districts around the country today (for more details, visit the website of the National Center for Science Education, http://ncseweb.org). Major newspapers, magazines, and other media (e.g., Time, Newsweek, MSNBC, National Geographic) have featured major stories about the controversy during the past six months.

Recent tactics to cast doubt on the veracity or robustness of the theory of evolution have included placing disclaimer stickers in the front of high school biology textbooks (Cobb County, GA and Alabama; proposal before the Missouri House of Representatives), mandating or recommending the inclusion of Intelligent Design in high school biology courses (e.g., Dover, PA; Cecil County, MD, respectively); development of statewide lesson plans that encourage students to examine "weaknesses" in the theory of evolution (Ohio), and plans to revisit parts of state science standards that focus on evolution (Kansas State Board of Education). If these challenges have not yet reached where you live or work, they are likely to do so in time.

A federal judge recently ruled the Cobb County stickers to be unconstitutional and has ordered them removed from all textbooks; an appeal is pending. The courts will soon hear a lawsuit brought by the ACLU on behalf of parents in Dover County, PA about whether ID also is tantamount to promoting religion (for additional information about the various forms of "scientific creationism" and ID, see http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=8). However, these challenges continue unabated across our nation, and the New York Times and Education Week report that even where the controversy is not overt, teachers are quietly being urged to avoid teaching about evolution -- or have decided not to do so because it engenders so much rancor from a subgroup of students, parents, and members of the school board or local community. As a result, one of the foundations of modern science is being neglected or banished outright from science classrooms in many parts of the United States.

If your discipline is not the life sciences, you may be wondering why I have chosen to write to all members of the National Academy of Sciences. Although the controversy focuses primarily on biology, some who challenge the teaching of evolution in our nation's schools have also focused their sights on the earth and physical sciences. For example, when the Kansas Board of Education first removed portions of biological evolution from their science standards in 1998, they also eliminated statements mandating that Kansas students learn about the Big Bang, that there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is much older than 10,000 years, and the theory of plate tectonics. All of these items were returned to the Kansas standards following extensive pressure from many organizations, including a joint letter signed by me and the Presidents of AAAS and the National Science Teachers Association (see http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/s09231999?OpenDocument) and the removal of several Board members during a subsequent election. But, as noted earlier, the Kansas Board of Education plans to re-examine their science standards because the 2004 election has again resulted in a majority who favor the inclusion of "alternatives to evolution" in the state's science curriculum.

The National Academies have been involved for many years in helping scientific colleagues, teachers, and concerned citizens in individual states and school districts respond. While these challenges have national implications for science and science education, they are typically viewed as local issues, and "meddling" from organizations in Washington, DC is often viewed with skepticism. As a result, when asked to assist, I have contacted NAS members who live in the state where a specific challenge is presented, enlisting their assistance through the writing of op-ed pieces, speaking at school board meetings and related activities. The NAS also has published three reports, two of which are specifically directed to science teachers to help them understand both evolutionary theory and the social controversies that surround its teaching. Descriptions of these reports and our efforts to confront challenges to the teaching of evolution are summarized in a recent article published in Cell Biology Education (see http://cellbioed.org/articles/vol3no2/article.cfm?articleID=98).

We stand ready to help others in addressing the increasingly strident attempts to limit the teaching of evolution or to introduce non-scientific "alternatives" into science courses and curricula. If this controversy arrives at your doorstep, I hope that you will both alert us to the specific issues in your state or school district and be willing to use your position and prestige as a member of the NAS in helping us to work locally.

I have asked Dr. Jay Labov, Senior Advisor for Education and Communications in the NRC and a former professor of biology, to oversee the Academies' efforts in this realm. Please address all of your comments, ideas, and requests for assistance directly to him (jlabov@nas.edu; Telephone: 202-334-1458).

Thank you very much. We look forward to hearing from you.

With best regards,

Bruce Alberts
President
National Academy of Sciences

DVD copying software gets axed, what's next?

If you?ve been reading my columns for a while you must?ve noticed that I?m not too keen on how the movie and music industry chooses to fight piracy, or rather, as many people view it, uphold their inflated profit margins. In an attempt to put a stop to DVD copying they?ve now targeted individuals that develop software tools that allow you to circumvent the copy protection as found on DVDs and make successful backups. I?m actually specifically using the word backups here as despite the grim scenario the industry?s watchdog, the RIAA, paints most people do not supply copies to the whole neighborhood but rather make backups of their own, expensive, DVDs for home use.

Again I?m stumped as to why they?re resorting to such tactics and honestly they could be in for a surprise. In most countries you?re allowed to make a backup for home use or archiving, which sounds like fair play to me, but also have a law which prohibits you from breaking the copy protection. So you?re basically caught between two fires, you?re legally allowed to make a backup but breaking the copy protection in order to do so is prohibited. In order to fix this juxtaposition we?ll need to have a judge decide which law has precedence over the other. If it is the latter then indeed corporate gain and profit margins are paramount and the rights of the individual end user further limited.

But there?s a catch, many publishers have now put into place a EULA which states that the content stored on a DVD is supplied on a loan basis, you don?t actually own it. Hence you buy the right to use, cq. watch the movie or listen to the audio tracks, but are not the rightful owner of the content. This creates a whole new discussion as when that?s the case, and for some reason the carrier of that content gets damaged, it doesn?t void your right to use the content. Hence the carrier, CD or DVD, should be replaced at no cost by the publisher, they cannot charge you again for something to which you already own the right to use. This would also soften the backup argument used by many somewhat as now the publisher will need to replace your faulty discs, regardless whether you used them as coasters or they suffer from a manufacturing defect.

Either way it looks like we?ve entered another chapter in this ongoing saga of the end user fighting for his or her rights and the movie and music industry protecting their profit margins. I can?t blame the end users for putting up such a fight, as honestly we?d like to have a say in when, where and how we use the content we buy, whereas the movie and music industry tries to frantically limit our choices and forces the end users to abide by their rules, which are motivated by monetary gains, rather than ethics. If they?d just lower their prices and adopt to market demand we?d be getting along a whole lot better, unfortunately that?s not going to happen anytime soon by the looks of it.

Net porn plan labelled 'obscene'

The creation of the .xxx net domain has come under fire from net veterans.

The decision was called "obscene" by Karl Auerbach, former board member of Icann which approved the .xxx plan.

Mr Auerbach said Icann should be giving priority to socially positive domain name proposals rather than helping pornographers profit.

The decision was also called "dangerous" by net privacy campaigner Lauren Weinstein, who said it could provoke censorship problems for years.

Critical path

The plan to create the .xxx domain received its blessing from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) earlier this week. The decision was a surprise because the idea has been floated and roundly rejected several times over the last five years.

Writing in his blog and in an open letter to Dave Farber's well-known mailing list, Karl Auerbach took Icann to task for its decision.

Icann reluctance to approve the setting up of new net domains was creating an "artificial scarcity" said Mr Auerbach.

In light of this, Mr Auerbach said Icann should concentrate on socially constructive domains first rather than pandering to pornographers.

In his blog he asked: "Why should .xxx get precedence over schools, churches, civic groups, aboriginal communities, labour organisations, and artistic groups?"

Mr Auerbach said Icann already had many proposals for new domains from many groups that could actually contribute to the value of the internet.

He pointed out that more than 50 organisations have submitted proposals to Icann for new net domains but, so far, only seven of those have actually been created.

Mr Auerbach predicted that the .xxx domain would encounter problems in defining which sites should sit in the new domain.

Sex ghetto

This question of how to categorise sexual websites was picked up by Lauren Weinstein, a well-known net privacy campaigner.

Also in a letter published on the IP mailing list, Mr Weinstein said "the existence of .xxx is likely to create a political and litigious firestorm."

He predicted that the setting up of the domain would bring about attempts to shoe-horn all sexual sites into the .xxx domain and provoke huge rows about just what counts as an "adult" site.

Although some outright porn sites will be happy to move to the .xxx domain, others that only have some "adult" content on their pages could be much more reluctant.

Mr Weinstein said the religious right in the US might be motivated to make any site with any "adult" content move to the .xxx domain.

< Well let's see Mr. Auerbach, before we tell you to STFU. First of all, to answer your question "Why should .xxx get precedence over schools, churches, civic groups, aboriginal communities, labour organisations, and artistic groups?", it's because there's more than 100x as many XXX sites as all of those other groups put together. It's not only appropriate, it's Common Sense, something we see you have none of. Secondly, sexual desire is as natural as breathing and eating. Furthermore, as evidenced by the sheer mass number of porn sites. it is most definately wanted and needed. Things that peoplw want and need can generally be considered constructive. Of course other things might be more constructive, but that is nothing Mr. A is qualified to even discuss, much less decide.

What is "adult" is not the question here. XXX means sex. There happens to be a great number of things which aren't sex which are still "adult". The possibility of censorship is most certainly a problem, but we think it's far more likely to Solve said problem by making it easy for those who don't want it to opt out. Meanwhile, there seems to be enough support that it won't be censored in general ways, like your friendly neighborhoo ISP, very often or sucessfully. Of course it remains to be seen. Nevertheless, based on the massive amounts of porn sites alone, there should be a .xxx domain. >

System Lets Parents Spy on Kids' Lunches

MARIETTA, Ga. - As Garin Hughes picks through his school-lunch burrito and unidentifiable apple-pear dessert, he has a secret. Hidden underneath the eighth-grader's right leg is a chocolate cookie in shrink-wrapped plastic. That's for dessert. In the past, his parents had no clue when he bought a treat at school. Now, thanks to a new school-lunch monitoring system, they can check over the Internet and learn about that secret cookie.

Health officials hope it will increase parents' involvement in what their kids eat at school. It's a concern because federal health data shows that up to 30 percent of U.S. children are either overweight or obese.

"My parents do care about what I eat. They try, like, to keep up with it," said Hughes, a 14-year-old student at Marietta Middle School.

Three school districts in the Atlanta area last week became the first in the country to offer the parental-monitoring option of an electronic lunch payment system called Mealpay.com, created by Horizon Software International of Loganville, Ga.

For two years, the payment system, used by 1,000 school districts in 21 states, has allowed parents to electronically prepay for student lunches. Students type in their identification number before the cafeteria cashier rings up each day's lunch bill. The bill then is deducted from the student's account.

The system was initially designed as a convenient way to make sure children bought lunch without worrying that lunch money would get lost, spent on other things or stolen.

However, these days parents increasingly are interested in what their kids eat away from home. It was requests from concerned parents that prompted Horizon Software to develop the online meal-monitoring option.

Under the system, parents can see all of a student's lunch purchases. Even those paid in nickels and dimes ? instead of the prepaid lunch account ? are recorded in the system, said Tina Bennett, program director.

"A parent could give a child $20 and within two days that money's gone. This allows them to see if they bought chips," Bennett said. "What we're really hoping is to get parents' involvement, to let them know what's happening."

Mary Carol Eddleman looked into what her daughter at a Hoschton middle school was buying and found she was getting an extra 12-ounce can of juice each day, even when a four-ounce bottle of juice came with lunch.

"That's about 150 extra calories a day. It's one thing if she did it occasionally, but she was getting in the habit of buying it every single day on top of lunch because her friends are drinking it," Eddleman said. "They drink it down like a Coke."

Eddleman talked to her daughter, who has since switched to buying a bottle of water instead.

"Any system that would help parents understand what's happening to their children's diets while at school ... undoubtedly will help by raising awareness to the problem," said Dr. David Ludwig, director of the obesity program at Children's Hospital Boston.

The biggest challenge for many school lunch programs, though, is "moving things clearly not good for kids out and making the choices more appealing," said Dr. Douglas Kamerow, an obesity expert at RTI International and a member of the
Institute of Medicine panel that released a report on childhood obesity last fall.

"The problem in general is the a la carte system," said Kamerow, also a professor of clinical family medicine at Georgetown University. "Now you can buy french fries, chips and a Coke and it's called lunch."

Kids, when you buy a bootleg DVD, you may be supporting people who might sympathize with a terrorist group that hasn't actually attacked us

First it was drugs, and now it's DVD piracy. Some guys in the intellectual property crimes unit of the LAPD, guys who probably get made fun of by cops who risk their lives going after real criminals, have apparently played up their role as noble defenders of the homeland by telling Congress what the MPAA and RIAA want lawmakers to hear as they contemplate even more draconian copyright enforcement measures: copyright piracy funds terrorism. Or, rather, it probably has some kind of link to terrorism, because people whose homes have been raided over it may have been overheard saying anti-Israeli things and might also have some sympathies with Hezbollah, all of which of course means that when you buy a bootleg DVD you basically have the blood of innocent Americans on your hands.

"Some associates of terrorist groups may be involved in IPR crime," Stedman said. "During the course of our investigations, we have encountered suspects who have shown great affinity for Hezbollah and its leadership."

Even though Stedman's evidence is circumstantial, his testimony comes as Congress is expected to consider new copyright legislation this year. An invocation of terrorism, the trump card of modern American politics, could ease the passage of the next major expansion of copyright powers. Steadman said he saw Hezbollah flags and photographs of the group's leader in homes that he raided, coupled with anti-Israel sentiments on the part of those arrested.

In other news, I hear that it's a proven fact that Hezbollah gets some of their money from people who sell gasoline on the open market, right out in front of God and everybody. But don't expect Congress to trumpet that particular terrorist connection, much less use it as a pretext to go on the warpath against gasoline usage.

Cell phones on planes worry US law enforcement

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Allowing airline passengers to use personal cell phones during flights could help potential hijackers coordinate an attack or trigger a bomb smuggled on board, U.S. security officials have told regulators.

The U.S. Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation late on Thursday outlined the potential dangers associated with allowing cell phone use during plane flights, as the
Federal Communications Commission has proposed if safety issues can be resolved.

The Federal Aviation Administration would also have to approve any rule change.

At present personal cell phones and other communication devices must be switched off at takeoff, landing and for the duration of commercial flights because it could potentially interfere with the operation of the plane.

While some have told the
FCC they worry about an increase in loud, irritating chatter on flights, law enforcement officials were focused on preventing a possible attack.

"The uniqueness of service to and from an aircraft in flight presents the possibility that terrorists and other criminals could use air-to-ground communications systems to coordinate an attack," they said in comments to the FCC.

During Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, passengers and crew on the hijacked planes used cell phones as well as phones embedded in the seats to call for help and talk to loved ones.

If the cell phone ban were lifted, law enforcement authorities worry an attacker could use the device to coordinate with accomplices on the ground, on another flight or seated elsewhere on the same plane.

If wireless phones are to be allowed in-flight, the law enforcement agencies urged that users be required to register their location on a plane before placing a call and that officials have fast access to call identification data.

"There is a short window of opportunity in which action can be taken to thwart a suicidal terrorist hijacking or remedy other crisis situations on board an aircraft," the agencies said in the comments.

The security officials also worried that personal phone use could increase the risk of a remotely-controlled bomb being used to bring down an airliner. But they acknowledged simple radio-controlled explosive devices have been used in the past on planes and the first line of defense was security checks at airports.

Still, "the departments believe that the new possibilities generated by airborne passenger connectivity must be recognized," they said.

MORE AIR RAGE?

In other filings with FCC, several flight attendants worried that allowing cell phones to be used on planes could make their jobs harder during an emergency and lead to further cases of air rage by passengers.

"The introduction of cell phone use in the cabin will not only increase tension among passengers, it will compromise flight attendants' ability to maintain order in an emergency," said American Airlines flight attendant Joyce Berngard.

The possibility of air rage incidents also raised concerns among law enforcement who feared that it could complicate the job of armed air marshals disguised as passengers who are deployed on thousands of U.S. airline flights each week.

"The first and overriding priority of federal law enforcement on board aircraft is to ensure the safety of the aircraft and the flight," the law enforcement officials said.

< In other news, the FCC recently banned pencils from elementary schools throughout the country citing their usage as possible planning tools for terrorists. "President" Bush was also heard to say that they could be used as an instrument of domestic terror by "poking someone in the eye". In sports... >

Bush-Cheney require signed "loyalty oath" to attend public events

Some Democrats who signed up to hear Vice President Dick Cheney speak here Saturday were refused tickets unless they signed a pledge to endorse President Bush.

The measure was a security step designed to avoid a disruption, which Bush campaign spokesman Dan Foley alleged Democrats were planning. Democratic Party officials denied it.

Several Democrats, at least, encountered the screening measures Thursday after calling from a line that self-identified as ACT, America Coming Together, an activist group that supports Kerry, Foley said. Others attempted to give false names and were denied tickets, he said.

Two men who had sought tickets reported they were required to give name, address, phone number, e-mail address and driver's license number, then were presented the pledge of endorsement when they arrived to pick up the tickets Thursday.

One of them, John Wade of Albuquerque, said he signed the pledge because he wanted the tickets but then changed his mind.

"I got to thinking this is not right," Wade said. "They're excluding people -- that's what has me so upset."

He returned the tickets and campaign workers returned his pledge.

Vietnam veteran Michael Ortiz y Pino said he refused to sign the pledge and was refused tickets.

Ortiz y Pino said he was asked if he associated with veterans, pro-life, gun rights or teacher groups.

Neither man wanted to give driver's license numbers but did so.

"I said why do you need that?" Ortiz y Pino said.

A campaign worker, he said, replied: "Secret Service stuff."

Kerry campaign spokesman Ruben Pulido Jr. said there had been no plan by the campaign to disrupt Cheney's event.

"I think that every American should have the right to see their vice president and hear from him firsthand what he plans to do for our country," Pulido said.

He also said the Kerry campaign had not attempted to screen Bush supporters out of Kerry's appearance at the National Hispanic Cultural Center in Albuquerque on July 9.

On that occasion, about a dozen Bush supporters wearing flip-flop beach sandals began chanting "Viva Bush" and waved their flip-flops over their heads. They contend Kerry has flip-flopped on the war.

< Letsee. He makes decisions that effect us all, but you have to be his friend to hear him talk. Interesting choice. >

Creation Museum sparks evolution debate

PETERSBURG, Ky. (AP) - Ken Ham has spent 11 years working on a museum that poses the big question - when and how did life begin? Ham hopes to soon offer an answer to that question in his still-unfinished Creation Museum in northern Kentucky.

The $25 million monument to creationism offers Ham's view that God created the world in six, 24-hour days on a planet just 6,000 years old. The largest museum of its kind in the world, it hopes to draw 600,000 people from the Midwest and beyond in its first year.

Ham, 53, isn't bothered that his literal interpretation of the Bible runs counter to accepted scientific theory, which says Earth and its life forms evolved over billions of years.

Ham said the museum is a way of reaching more people along with the Answers in Genesis Web site, which claims to get 10 million page views per month and his "Answers ... with Ken Ham" radio show, carried by more than 725 stations worldwide.

"People will get saved here," Ham said of the museum. "It's going to fire people up. If nothing else, it's going to get them to question their own position of what they believe."

Ham is ready for a fight over his beliefs - based on a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament.

"It's a foundational battle," said Ham, a native of Australia who still speaks with an accent. "You've got to get people believing the right history - and believing that you can trust the Bible."

Among Ham's beliefs are that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, a figure arrived at by tracing the biblical genealogies, and not 4.5 billion years, as mainstream scientists say; the Grand Canyon was formed not by erosion over millions of years, but by floodwaters in a matter of days or weeks and that dinosaurs and man once coexisted, and dozens of the creatures - including Tyrannosaurus Rex - were passengers on the ark built by Noah, who was a real man, not a myth.

Although the Creation Museum's full opening is still two years away, already a buzz is building.

"When that museum is finished, it's going to be Cincinnati's No. 1 tourist attraction," says the Rev. Jerry Falwell, nationally known Baptist evangelist and chancellor of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. "It's going to be a mini-Disney World."

Respected groups such as the National Science Board, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Science Teachers Association strongly support the theory of evolution. John Marburger, the Bush administration's science adviser, has said, "Evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology."

Many mainstream scientists worry that creationist theology masquerading as science will have an adverse effect on the public's science literacy.

"It's a giant step backward in science education," says Carolyn Chambers, chair of the biology department at Xavier University, which is operated by the Jesuit order of the Catholic church.

Glenn Storrs, curator of vertebrate paleontology for the Cincinnati Museum Center, leads dinosaur excavations in Montana each summer. He said the theory of dinosaurs and man coexisting is a "non-issue."

"And so, I believe, is the age of the Earth," Storrs said. "It's very clear the Earth is much older than 6,000 years."

The Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Pleasant Ridge, takes issue with Ham's views - and the man himself.

"He takes extraordinary liberties with Scripture and theology to prove his point," Adams said. "The bottom line is, he is anti-gay, and he uses that card all the time."

Ham says homosexual behavior is a sin. But he adds that he's careful to condemn the behavior, not the person.

Even detractors concede that Ham has appeal.

Ian Plimer, chair of geology at the University of Melbourne, became aware of Ham in the late 1980s, when Ham's creationist ministry in Australia was just a few years old.

"He is promoting the religion and science of 350 years ago," says Plimer. "He's a far better communicator than most mainstream scientists."

Despite his communication skills, Ham admits he doesn't always make a good first impression. But, that doesn't stop him from trying to spread his beliefs.

"He'd be speaking 20 hours a day if his body would let him," said Mike Zovath, vice president of museum operations.

Ham's wife of 32 years agrees. "He finds it difficult talking about things apart from the ministry," Mally Ham says. "He doesn't shut off."

Ham said he has no choice but to speak out about what he believes.

"The Lord gave me a fire in my bones," Ham says. "The Lord has put this burden in my heart: 'You've got to get this information out.'"

Judge: Parents can't teach pagan beliefs

What is Wicca?

Wicca is not a centralized religion but a belief system observed by 50,000 Americans that is recognized by reference texts such as the U.S. Army Chaplain's Handbook.

Wicca is related to European tribal nature worship. Wiccans regard living things as sacred and often show a concern for the environment.

They do not worship Satan, but some cast "spells." Some worship in the nude as a sign of attunement with nature.

The core value of Wicca states, "As it harm none, do what you will."

An Indianapolis father is appealing a Marion County judge's unusual order that prohibits him and his ex-wife from exposing their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."

The parents practice Wicca, a contemporary pagan religion that emphasizes a balance in nature and reverence for the earth.

Cale J. Bradford, chief judge of the Marion Superior Court, kept the unusual provision in the couple's divorce decree last year over their fierce objections, court records show. The order does not define a mainstream religion.

Bradford refused to remove the provision after the 9-year-old boy's outraged parents, Thomas E. Jones Jr. and his ex-wife, Tammie U. Bristol, protested last fall.

Through a court spokeswoman, Bradford said Wednesday he could not discuss the pending legal dispute.

The parents' Wiccan beliefs came to Bradford's attention in a confidential report prepared by the Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau, which provides recommendations to the court on child custody and visitation rights. Jones' son attends a local Catholic school.

"There is a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones' lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school. . . . Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon (the boy) as he ages," the bureau said in its report.

But Jones, 37, Indianapolis, disputes the bureau's findings, saying he attended Bishop Chatard High School in Indianapolis as a non-Christian.

Jones has brought the case before the Indiana Court of Appeals, with help from the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. They filed their request for the appeals court to strike the one-paragraph clause in January.

"This was done without either of us requesting it and at the judge's whim," said Jones, who has organized Pagan Pride Day events in Indianapolis. "It is upsetting to our son that he cannot celebrate holidays with us, including Yule, which is winter solstice, and Ostara, which is the spring equinox."

The ICLU and Jones assert the judge's order tramples on the parents' constitutional right to expose their son to a religion of their choice. Both say the court failed to explain how exposing the boy to Wicca's beliefs and practices would harm him.

Bristol is not involved in the appeal and could not be reached for comment. She and Jones have joint custody, and the boy lives with the father on the Northside.

Jones and the ICLU also argue the order is so vague that it could lead to Jones being found in contempt and losing custody of his son.

"When they read the order to me, I said, 'You've got to be kidding,' " said Alisa G. Cohen, an Indianapolis attorney representing Jones. "Didn't the judge get the memo that it's not up to him what constitutes a valid religion?"

Some people have preconceived notions about Wicca, which has some rituals involving nudity but mostly would be inoffensive to children, said Philip Goff, director of the Center for the Study of Religion & American Culture at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

"Wiccans use the language of witchcraft, but it has a different meaning to them," Goff said. "Their practices tend to be rather pacifistic. They tend to revolve around the old pagan holidays. There's not really a church of Wicca. Practices vary from region to region."

Even the U.S. military accommodates Wiccans and educates chaplains about their beliefs, said Lawrence W. Snyder, an associate professor of religious studies at Western Kentucky University.

"The federal government has given Wiccans protection under the First Amendment," Snyder said. "Unless this judge has some very specific information about activities involving the child that are harmful, the law is not on his side."

At times, divorcing parents might battle in the courts over the religion of their children. But Kenneth J. Falk, the ICLU's legal director, said he knows of no such order issued before by an Indiana court. He said his research also did not turn up such a case nationally.

"Religion comes up most frequently when there are disputes between the parents. There are lots of cases where a mom and dad are of different faiths, and they're having a tug of war over the kids," Falk said. "This is different: Their dispute is with the judge. When the government is attempting to tell people they're not allowed to engage in non-mainstream activities, that raises concerns."

Indiana law generally allows parents who are awarded physical custody of children to determine their religious training; courts step in only when the children's physical or emotional health would be endangered.

Getting the judge's religious restriction lifted should be a slam-dunk, said David Orentlicher, an Indiana University law professor and Democratic state representative from Indianapolis.

"That's blatantly unconstitutional," Orentlicher said. "Obviously, the judge can order them not to expose the child to drugs or other inappropriate conduct, but it sounds like this order was confusing or could be misconstrued."

The couple married in February 1995, and their divorce was final in February 2004.

As Wiccans, the boy's parents believe in nature-based deities and engage in worship rituals that include guided meditation that Jones says improved his son's concentration. Wicca "is an understanding that we're all connected, and respecting that," said Jones, who is a computer Web designer.

Jones said he does not consider himself a witch or practice anything resembling witchcraft.

During the divorce, he told a court official that Wiccans are not devil worshippers. And he said he does not practice a form of Wicca that involves nudity.

"I celebrate life as a duality. There's a male and female force to everything," Jones said. "I feel the Earth is a living creature. I don't believe in Satan or any creature of infinite evil."

< File this under "none of your fucking business, asshole." >

Odd U.S. state laws ban owning skunks, swearing

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In Virginia, under the terms of a 1950 law, no animal may be hunted on Sundays except raccoons, which may be hunted until 2:00 a.m.

In Connecticut, a 1949 ordinance forbids the storing of town records in any place where liquor is sold.

A 1974 Tennessee law states: "It is unlawful for any person to import, possess, or cause to be imported into this state any type of live skunk."

The legal codes of U.S. states, counties and cities are replete with archaic, sometimes nonsensical and often humorous laws, many of which were passed decades or even centuries ago for a reason that seemed good at the time but has long since been forgotten or faded into irrelevance.

But these old laws occasionally come back to bite.

Sheriff Carson Smith of Pender County, North Carolina, recently relied on a 1805 law banning the cohabitation of unmarried persons to give one of his employees an ultimatum.

He told Deborah Hobbs she could either marry her boyfriend, move out of the house they were living in together or get fired. Hobbs, 40, quit and went to the American Civil Liberties Union, which launched a legal challenge to the law.

"This is not a dead-letter law in North Carolina. We have found this statute has been used 36 times since 1997 to charge people with a crime. At least seven have been convicted," said Jennifer Rudinger, the ACLU's North Carolina director.

It turns out six other states also have anti-cohabitation laws: Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi and North Dakota. Four other states -- Illinois, Minnesota, South Carolina and Utah -- have laws against fornication, defined as unmarried sex, according to Dorian Solot of the Alternatives to Marriage Project, a group based in Albany, New York which advocates for equality and fairness for unmarried people.

"The good news is most of these laws are not enforced, as far as we know," said Solot. "They occasionally come up when a prosecutor is already looking into an individual and may decide to throw another charge at them."

The ACLU argues all these statutes are unconstitutional, citing a 2003 Supreme Court decision striking down a Texas anti-sodomy law, which established a broad constitutional right to sexual privacy.

In Washington state, Gov. Christine Gregoire signed a law last month allowing pregnant women to divorce their husbands. It was prompted by the case of Shawnna Hughes who was denied the right to divorce her physically abusive husband by Superior Court Judge Paul Bastine because she was pregnant.

"There's a lot of case law that says it is important in this state that children not be illegitimized," the judge said at the time.

NO CUSSING

Most states still have anti-swearing laws on their books which police occasionally try to enforce. Judges usually throw them out but citizens sometimes get fined or spend a few hours in a local jail.

In one Michigan case, a man who let loose a stream of curses after falling out of a canoe in 1999 was convicted of violating a law against cursing in front of women and children. He was fined $75 and ordered to perform four days of community service. In 2002, an appeals court struck down the 1898 law and threw out the conviction.

According to Chris Edwards of the conservative Cato Institute, all this argues for increased use of "sunsetting clauses" when passing new laws and regulations. Such clauses automatically terminate statutes after a specified period, unless the legislature expressly reauthorizes them.

Sunsetting was included in important sections of the 2001 U.S. Patriot Act, passed by Congress shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks to give law enforcement agencies more tools to fight terrorism. Congress is now debating reauthorization and seems likely to make some changes.

"These hearings on the Patriot Act are exactly the kind of thing you want. Government doesn't spend enough time on oversight, looking at what's been done and how it's working," Edwards said.

President Bush's 2001 tax cuts also included sunset clauses; its provision are supposed to expire in 2010. However critics charge that this time, sunsetting was little more than a smokescreen, allowing Republicans to keep the projected costs of the tax cut within limits set by a congressional budget resolution.

Silly laws can be a source of amusement. Two enterprising high school students in Georgia, Andy Powell and Jeff Koon, started an Internet site, www.dumblaws.com. It gets up to 10,000 hits a day and has been spun off into a book and a follow-up on dumb warning labels.

The site contains numerous gems, although Powell acknowledged he has been unable to verify them all.

According to the site, in Minnesota a person may not cross state lines with a duck atop his head. In North Carolina, it is illegal to sing off key. In Idaho, you may not fish on a camel's back while Ohio makes it unlawful to get a fish drunk or to fish for a whale on Sundays.

Jackson, Wisconsin....

Sheriff investigators say that a 32-year-old woman was upset that her 9-year-old son had shot and killed a bird with his BB rifle, so she took the gun and told him he "needed to know how it feels" to be shot. "He began to run around in circles because it's harder to hit something that is moving," the investigation report says. The mother, who was not named to protect the identity of her son, fired but couldn't hit him, so she ordered him to stand still so she could shoot him in the chest. The boy was not seriously injured. When a sheriff deputy told her actions constituted child abuse, she replied, "Well, if you're going to arrest me, arrest me." He did: she has been charged with intentionally causing bodily harm to a child, a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

< 15 years in prison. Is there any possibility that a person should be at risk of losing 15 years of their life in a situation where a) no harm was done and b) they were carrying out their parental responsibility to teach a child not to kill shit randomly? The government here is absolutely as evil as it can be. >

Man arrested for wearing Grinch mask

WHEELING, W.Va. - A man is in trouble with the law for wearing a Grinch mask in public.

Norman Gray, who was stopped by police on Tuesday, was told to take the mask off and not put it on again.

Police say Gray took the mask off and asked why he couldn't wear it. After officers told him that wearing masks in public is illegal, he reportedly put the mask back on and said he didn't believe it.

Gray was then arrested and the mask confiscated.

Wearing a mask or hood in public is a misdemeanor under West Virginia law, punishable by a fine of up to $500, up to a year in jail, or both. Prosecutors say masks can hinder efforts by law enforcement officials to identify criminal suspects.

Children are allowed to wear masks. There are also exceptions for safety gear, theatrical productions and Halloween.

---

WHEELING, W.Va. - City and county attorneys are defending Wheeling police who arrested a man for wearing a Grinch mask while walking along a city street.

Norman Eugene Gray, 42, was arrested Tuesday. He was arraigned and released on a personal recognizance bond.

Officers saw Gray about 8:45 a.m. Tuesday, told him to take the mask off and not put it on again. Gray removed it and asked why he could not wear it, according to Wheeling police reports. Officers told him wearing masks in public is illegal.

Gray said he felt he had a right to wear it and said it was not illegal. He put the mask back on and was arrested. The mask was confiscated.

Wheeling City Solicitor Rosemary Humway-Warmuth and Ohio County Prosecutor
Scott Smith said masks as well as dark window tinting in vehicles can pose a safety hazard to law enforcement officers and hinder efforts to identify criminal suspects.

"When we think about masks, we don't always think of Halloween," Humway-Warmuth said.

Smith said wearing a mask or hood in public is a misdemeanor under state law, punishable by a fine of up to $500 or up to a year in jail, or both. Children up to 16 years old can wear masks. Traditional Halloween masks, safety gear used in occupations, theatrical productions, civil defense or protection from bad weather also are legal.

< I feel compelled to say something about this, but where to begin? A year in jail? >

Doctors say knives are too pointed

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.

The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.

Knife wound
Kitchen knives can inflict appalling wounds

In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon".

The use of knives is particularly worrying amongst adolescents, say the researchers, reporting that 24% of 16-year-olds have been shown to carry weapons, primarily knives.

The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established.

French laws in the 17th century decreed that the tips of table and street knives be ground smooth.

A century later, forks and blunt-ended table knives were introduced in the UK in an effort to reduce injuries during arguments in public eating houses.

The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.

"We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."

Government response

Home Office spokesperson said there were already extensive restrictions in place to control the sale and possession of knives.

"The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.

"Offensive weapons are defined as any weapon designed or adapted to cause injury, or intended by the person possessing them to do so.

"An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.

"The manufacture, sale and importation of 17 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons have been banned, in addition to flick knives and gravity knives."

A spokesperson for the Association of Chief Police Officers said: "ACPO supports any move to reduce the number of knife related incidents, however, it is important to consider the practicalities of enforcing such changes."

New Swedish law to ban downloading of films, music

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden's parliament approved a law on Wednesday that bans the downloading of copyrighted material such as films and music from the Internet after being singled out for criticism by Hollywood.

Sweden had until now allowed downloading of files, while uploading, or putting material on the Web, was illegal.

Actor
Morgan Freeman, in a Reuters interview, recently cited Sweden as an example of a country where illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing was a growing problem.

The Swedish parliament's decision, which comes into effect July 1, aims to change that.

"The decision means that a clear ban has been introduced against downloading music, pictures and other material on the Internet for private use without the copyright holder's permission," parliament said in a statement.

Anyone breaking the law can be ordered to pay damages.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which represents the U.S. film industry, had in March hailed a raid by police on a company hosting Internet servers as a major blow against piracy in Sweden.

The MPAA said the authorities seized four computer servers -- one reputed to be the biggest pirate server in Europe -- containing enough digital film and music content for up to 3-1/2 years of uninterrupted play, the organization said.

It added that authorities in Scandinavian countries had been reluctant to take such action in the past.

The MPAA says the film industry loses $3.5 billion a year to videotapes and DVDs sold on the black market, but it has no estimate for how much Internet piracy costs the industry.

The new Swedish law allows people to make one copy of a CD for personal use and to make copies of newspaper articles.

< This is from where EI draws it's concept of retroactive law. If a law was valid in the first place, it should always be, and vice versa. Sweeden just criminalized a whole shitload of it's citizens. For this to happen is about as far from what's right and good as possible. In cases where something depends in particular on a specific changable event or fact, it can be written in as an exception to retroactivity, but this will be rare. >

Senators urge international copyright crackdown

U.S. senators urged the Bush administration on Wednesday to increase pressure on Russia and China to respect copyright law, warning that those nations have become havens for movie and software piracy.

Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican who chairs the Senate copyright subcommittee, made one of the most ominous statements to date about what might happen if unfettered piracy continues. "Before Russia enters the (World Trade Organization), many of us will have to be convinced that the Russian government is serious about cracking down on the theft of intellectual property," Hatch said during a hearing.

James Mendenhall, the acting general counsel for the U.S. Trade Representative, said his colleagues are hosting a delegation from China this week to talk in part about copyright law. "We're going to be issuing a request through WTO rules seeking additional information from China on the status of enforcement in China," Mendenhall said. (A WTO spokesman later said the talks were still ongoing.)

The USTR recently highlighted the governments of both Russia and China as top copyright offenders. A report in April placed both on a "priority watch list"--along with Brazil, Israel and Indonesia--and plans to wield the WTO apparatus as a lever to force greater compliance with international norms. Another U.S. tactic is to ink free-trade deals including strict copyright regulations with individual nations.

Piracy in China alone costs U.S. companies between $2.5 billion and $3.5 billion a year, the USTR says. Industry estimates place Russia's infringement rates last year at 80 percent for motion pictures, 66 percent for records and music, 87 percent for business software, and 73 percent for entertainment software.

Hatch and Vermont's Patrick Leahy, the panel's top Democrat, said that pirated copies of "Star Wars: Episode III--Revenge of the Sith" already were available on the streets of Beijing and Moscow and expressed frustration about the situation. "What is enough of either a carrot or a stick to make them change, especially when it seems to be governmental policy to allow this?" Leahy asked.

"We've raised the issue at the presidential level, we've put them on the priority watch list," replied Mendenhall. Further progress will take negotiations, WTO pressure and patience, he said.

< Ignore for a minute the fact that what's illegal in this country isn't necessarily illegal in another. Several of the key precepts of this issue strike at the very heart of copyright's purpose in *this* country.

Copyright must strike a balance between providing payment to the creator for his or her work and making that work as widely available as possible. Without offering the work a free sphere of influence, there is no need for copyright, because the creator would be able to control it in other ways, through contract or by showing actual theft. On the other side of the issue is pfoviding feedback, and payment, to the creator. When the creator exceeds his sphere of influence, there is no profit to be made. You can't create an underground comic in Pikipsi and expect to get royalties from Zimbabwe. When you figure the profit potential for these works outside this country, your numbers quickly drop to zero. Even in places where they are Not zero, they are so miserably low that the value of the publicity you may achieve by being there far outweighs the value of capitalist earnings in the same sector. Assuming for a moment that practically no copyrighted works in this country have any valid use outside the country unless they are specifically designed to do so, why is it necessary to even brach the issue? Things which are tailored for release in other areas would, if the creator had a lick of sense, also be tailored for release within the system currently in place in those areas.

Where america goes wrong is in trying to force it's own versions of copyright, which are in no manner superior, rather than allowing other countries to deal with them in their own manner. Sure, applying pressure is fine. Then you have to also realize that the entire issue of copyright springs from popular usage of those materials. When profit wasn't the big catch, copyright was ignored for the most part and everything was fine. In other countries there are other social motives which may make copyright very important or totally useless. This narrow-minded view of what's acceptable is precisely why much of the world dislikes us and knocks over our trade-centers. >