DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas
- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: FC: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:06:07 -0400 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/ Politechnicals may remember that Attorney General Ashcroft personally approved my subpoena in the Jim Bell case. Federal prosecutor Robb London threatened to subpoena other reporters writing about developments in U.S. v. Bell (such as interviewing the defendant) in an apparent and reprehensible attempt to dissuade them from covering the trial. Background: http://www.mccullagh.org/subpoena/ Other coverage of this case: http://www.rcfp.org/news/2001/0725inregr.html Excerpt from USA Today article: >The hearing was closed to the public at the government's request. The >transcript remains sealed. Even the name of the judge who sentenced her >for contempt of court has not been made public. --- Declan, I thought that the politech mailing list would be interested in this. If you have already discussed please disregard. Also please keep this mailbox anon if you post it. Thanks for your great work! http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/july01/2001-07-27-ashcroft-journalists-usat.htm - POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ - - End forwarded message -
Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas
Declan, The larger problem notwithstanding there's at least one little bit of language in this piece that is odd : "He said the government is seeking all of Leggett's material, including all originals and copies." Even if we make the extreme assumption that there is some pressing and justifiable need for federal prosecutors to have access to her materials how do you explain the need to possess "all originals and copies?" It doesn't make sense. Why should she not be allowed to keep a copy of her work? How does the existence of an uncontrolled copy lower the value of the original in the case of a recording? Or in the case of her own notes why would a copy not suffice. Looks like a reporter ( or anyone else for that matter ) should keep well hidden backups of their notes and work so that they can comply with Napolean complexes, fishing expeditions and spin control operations and not lose their life's work. Mike
Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 1:23 PM Subject: Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas > Declan, > > The larger problem notwithstanding there's at least one little bit of > language in this piece that is odd : > > "He said the government is >seeking all of Leggett's >material, including all >originals and copies." > > Even if we make the extreme assumption that there is some pressing and > justifiable need for federal prosecutors to have access to her materials > how do you explain the need to possess "all originals and copies?" It > doesn't make sense. Why should she not be allowed to keep a copy of her > work? How does the existence of an uncontrolled copy lower the value of > the original in the case of a recording? Or in the case of her own notes > why would a copy not suffice. > > Looks like a reporter ( or anyone else for that matter ) should keep > well hidden backups of their notes and work so that they can comply with > Napolean complexes, fishing expeditions and spin control operations and > not lose their life's work. No. Well hidden backups would put the reporter in a position of contempt, committing obstruction of justice or perjury. Better to escrow such documents with an attorney in a jurisdiction not likely to cooperate with the United States. (I can suggest several to interested parties privately).
RE: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas
> -- > From: Black Unicorn[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > > Declan, > > The larger problem notwithstanding there's at least one little bit of > > language in this piece that is odd : > > > > "He said the government is > >seeking all of Leggett's > >material, including all > >originals and copies." [...] > > > > Looks like a reporter ( or anyone else for that matter ) should keep > > well hidden backups of their notes and work so that they can comply with > > Napolean complexes, fishing expeditions and spin control operations and > > not lose their life's work. > > No. Well hidden backups would put the reporter in a position of contempt, > committing obstruction of justice or perjury. Better to escrow such > documents > with an attorney in a jurisdiction not likely to cooperate with the United > States. (I can suggest several to interested parties privately). > I'm curious what the term 'copy' refers to when the Internet and encryption gets involved. If a reporter posted an encrypted copy of her notes to usenet on a regular basis, she could recover them anytime, anywhere, from etin.com, dejanews, or any of the other news archiving services. However, if ordered to 'turn over all originals and copies', what can she do? Ask deja to dismount a drive and send it to the court? Ask the NSA to please gather up all their tapes which had copies and send them? Isn't there an implied and anachronistic assumption here that a requested private document is physically seperable from other private documents, and that to be private a document has to be under the authors physical control? And that there is a meaningful distinction between an 'original' and a 'copy'? This comes of a the same problem we find with so much of the IP arguement, that information exists only bound to some physical object, and shares it's limitations. I can only assume that the court, for reasons which seem unclear but which seem to amount to punishment, wish to deny her access to her own work. If many copies exist which are readable only by her, but not under her control, how can she be so deprived? (I suppose the court could order her to forget her passphrase :-) [I'm not addressing the issue of forced exposure of keys, just the information-theoretic notion of destroying or sequestering widely distributed information, and how that collides with the assumptions of ill-educated or maleific judges] Peter Trei
Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Black Unicorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 1:47 PM Subject: Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas > Black Unicorn wrote: > > No. Well hidden backups would put the reporter in a position of contempt, > > committing obstruction of justice or perjury. Better to escrow such documents > > with an attorney in a jurisdiction not likely to cooperate with the United > > States. (I can suggest several to interested parties privately). > > > That is one method of "well hidden" No, that's not hidden. > How about placing blocks of data on a safe site? A petit Napoleon would > be able to subpoena a plaintext copy of the data and possibly make a > fight about getting the keys but would not be able to deprive the owner > of the data. Nope. Compare: Prosecutor: You retained copies of this document? Witness: Yes. Prosecutor: You were aware that all copies and original were subpoenaed by the court? Witness: Yes. Prosecutor: Where are these documents located? Witness: I won't answer that. (Oops) with: Prosecutor: You retained copies of this document? Witness: Yes. Prosecutor: You were aware that all copies and original were subpoened by the court? Witness: Yes. Prosecutor: Where are these documents located? [Witness: I placed blocks of data on a safe site so they would be accessible.] [Witness: I split a cryptographic key and spread it among my friends and encrypted the document to it.] [Witness: I (insert clever but legally naive cypherpunk solution here) the document.] (Oops) with: Prosecutor: You retained copies of this document? Witness: No. Prosecutor: You have none of these documents in your possession or control? Witness: No. Prosecutor: Are you aware of any other copies of this document? Witness: Yes. Prosecutor: Where are they? Witness: An attorney representing the ABC trust bought a copy of the document before I knew about these proceedings. Prosecutor: Why didn't you instruct this attorney to turn over the documents? Witness: I have here a copy of the agreement assigning all my rights to the document over to this Isle of Man trust under control of the attorney listed here. I understand Simon and Schuster has expressed interest in the manuscript but since I no longer have the power to influence the fate of the document I cannot produce it, or I most certainly would comply with the court's most legitimate wishes and interest in effecting justice. > Why should an owner not be allowed to retain a copy? Cause the court says so. > Mike
Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas
Black Unicorn wrote: > > Looks like a reporter ( or anyone else for that matter ) should keep > > well hidden backups of their notes and work so that they can comply with > > Napolean complexes, fishing expeditions and spin control operations and > > not lose their life's work. > > No. Well hidden backups would put the reporter in a position of contempt, > committing obstruction of justice or perjury. Better to escrow such documents > with an attorney in a jurisdiction not likely to cooperate with the United > States. (I can suggest several to interested parties privately). > That is one method of "well hidden" How about placing blocks of data on a safe site? A petit Napoleon would be able to subpoena a plaintext copy of the data and possibly make a fight about getting the keys but would not be able to deprive the owner of the data. That is, to me, the strangest and most disturbing part of this story considering how easy and cheap it is to make decent copies of almost anything written or taped. Why should an owner not be allowed to retain a copy? Mike
Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas
-- Dark Unicorn: > > Not a particularly useful answer and not necessarily justifiable on the > > part of the court. I think eventually a better answer would have to be > > produced, one that justified the censorship. We're back to what > > originally struck me as odd, and wrong, about this item. Whoever has her > > stuff should copy it and move the copy offshore because something is > > very wrong on the part of the court. On 31 Jul 2001, at 0:12, Dr. Evil wrote: > Just because they're wrong and you're right doesn't benefit you at all > when you are in jail for contempt, losing your ass-cherry. The belief > to the contrary is what M. Unicorn would call a "classic Cypherpunk > fallacy". M. Unicorn is absolutely right here. Trusts are a great > thing which, in this case, allow you to completely achieve what you're > trying to achieve, while complying all of the court's instructions. > Use them! Why waste time being an outlaw? The point of using cryptography such purposes is to make ones non compliance undetectable, or at least unprovable. Trusts and the like raise a red flag. You are generating legal documents that advertise your intended non compliance and explain how you intend to do it. Further, if authorities really have the hots for you, they can apply pressure to the trust authority is all sorts of ways. They do not have to comply with the law -- you do. For example they could kidnap the child of the person holding the trust, and hint that in return for cooperation they will overlook the crack they planted on him, carrying a twenty year prison sentence. Encrypted data with a long passphrase will resist any amount of pressure. Legal solutions will not. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG MkiOliQYRoCsvFgXrPssDQkVSSND546JvVIRynLL 46tYSopIdwQ4wSNumiw8frcVouKamWs1caYcGGMD4
Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist , subpoenas
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Black Unicorn wrote: > Prosecutor: You retained copies of this document? > Witness: No. > Prosecutor: You have none of these documents in your possession or control? > Witness: No. > Prosecutor: Are you aware of any other copies of this document? > Witness: Yes. > Prosecutor: Where are they? > Witness: An attorney representing the ABC trust bought a copy of the document > before I knew about these proceedings. > Prosecutor: Why didn't you instruct this attorney to turn over the documents? The attorney has no legal obligation to turn over HIS property to me, he did buy the document after all. The subpeona was directed at me, not another person who I have no control over. Here's his name and address, serve him a subpeona at your discretion. > > Why should an owner not be allowed to retain a copy? > > Cause the court says so. Worthless answer, but clearly exemplary of at least one of the problems of the court system. About the only way a judge could justifiably require all copies would be if any copy not in control would represent a clear and present danger/harm to some party. -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. Was: Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas
> On 30 Jul 2001, at 14:38, Black Unicorn wrote:
>
> > Prosecutor: You retained copies of this document?
> > Witness: Yes.
> > Prosecutor: You were aware that all copies and original were subpoened by
the
> > court?
> > Witness: Yes.
> > Prosecutor: Where are these documents located?
> > [Witness: I placed blocks of data on a safe site so they would be
> > accessible.]
> > [Witness: I split a cryptographic key and spread it among my friends and
> > encrypted the document to it.]
> > [Witness: I (insert clever but legally naive cypherpunk solution here)
the
> > document.]
> >
> > (Oops)
> >
>
> Forgive me for being naive wrt the law, but as I interpret what you
> have written, the critical distinction is, if you refuse to comply
> with a judge's orders (for whatever reason) you'll get cited for
> contempt, but if you cannot comply with his orders you're ok.
> Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.
Pretty close I think.
> So it seems to me that if you, say, publish documents to freenet
> (encrypted or not) then you're ok; it's right there in the spec,
> documents cannot be removed, even by the original author. If your
> life depends on removing the document, then you die.
> How is this wrong?
Not being intimately familiar with the spec of freenet I can't really comment
on that aspect or what a court will consider "impossible." What will not
amuse a court is the appearance of an ex ante concealment or disclosure in
anticipation of court action. If it looks like you knew it was going to be a
court issue and you put it on freenet for that purpose, you're in trouble.
Not only that but if you encrypt the stuff and it doesn't appear to be
recoverable it almost sounds tantamount to destruction of evidence or
spoliation (much more serious). ("The intentional destruction of evidence...
The destruction, or the significant and meaningful alteration of a document or
instrument...") I've never seen a case play out like that but I would
certainly make the argument as a prosecutor. Encrypting the stuff sure
_looks_ like spoliation, particularly if it seemed likely that the evidence
would be the subject of a judicial action. "Knew or should have known" will
likely be the standard with respect to the stuff being the subject of judicial
action and they can use actions to demonstrate intent. In this light freenet
might be the _worst_ place to put it because its only purpose is (I believe)
to avoid censorship or seizure of the data. Why would you have used this
relatively obscure and very specialized service if not in anticipation of
court action which would later prevent the distribution of the data? Who else
was threatening the manuscript, document, etc. to such a degree to require you
to use freenet? (Not only that but spoliation carries with it the permissible
inference that the data was detrimental to you and the jury gets to hear
that).
> If it's a crime to take actions specifically for the purpose of later
> rendering you unable to comply with a judge's order (is it?),
> how is escrowing it on the isle of man any different?
There are legitimate purposes for escrowing it on the Isle of Man over and
above keeping it out of a court's hands. The key is to have _some_ leg to
stand on when asked "if not trying to thwart the authority of this court, why
did you do that." Good answers might sound like: "I wanted the proceeds of
the manuscripts sale protected in trust for my grandchildren." "I wanted the
negotiations to be handled by the same attorney that manages my spendthrift
trust" (You do have one, right?) "I wanted to publish it anonymously, and
needed a good attorney in a jurisdiction with strong confidentiality statutes
to accomplish that end. I had no idea that the irrevocable trust was so far
reaching that it would deny access to a legitimate judicial proceeding, your
honor..." I'm not sure there are many arguments for using freenet other than
"I knew you pigs were going to try and grab it so I sent it far, far away."
> Thanks,
> George
Sure.
Re: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. Was: Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas
> There are legitimate purposes for escrowing it on the Isle of Man > over and above keeping it out of a court's hands. The key is to > have _some_ leg to stand on when asked "if not trying to thwart the > authority of this court, why did you do that." Good answers might > sound like: "I wanted the proceeds of the manuscripts sale protected > in trust for my grandchildren." "I wanted the negotiations to be > handled by the same attorney that manages my spendthrift trust" (You > do have one, right?) "I wanted to publish it anonymously, and > needed a good attorney in a jurisdiction with strong confidentiality > statutes to accomplish that end. I had no idea that the irrevocable > trust was so far reaching that it would deny access to a legitimate > judicial proceeding, your honor..." I'm not sure there are many > arguments for using freenet other than "I knew you pigs were going > to try and grab it so I sent it far, far away." Some reasonable legal advice on the c'punk list! Amazing! M. Unicorn, I could sugest a few valid reasons for posting it on freenet: "Your honor, freenet is a system which backs up data on multiple servers. I thought the document was extremely important, and that was the most reasonable way I could find to ensure that it is not lost." "Your honor, this document describes the situation in Tibet/democracy in Taiwan/Falun Gong, and I wanted to make it available to the citizens of China, and Freenet seemed like the most reasonable way." "I wanted to publish it. Freenet is an alternative to using a more expensive or difficult web server." Would some of these be convincing to a judge? Btw, if the defendant had any reason to believe that the document might soon be the subject of a court proceeding, and he then placed it out of his control in a trust, he would be in just as much trouble as if he had used any c'punk methods. It would be called a "fradulent conveyance", right?
RE: Spoliation, escrows, courts, pigs. Was: Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas
Apologies if this is a repeat, I never received it.
> -Original Message-
> From: Aimee Farr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 9:35 PM
> To: Black Unicorn
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Spoliation, escrows, courts, pigs. Was: Re: DOJ jails
> reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas
>
>
> Unicorn wrote:
>
> > Not being intimately familiar with the spec of freenet I can't
> > really comment
> > on that aspect or what a court will consider "impossible."
> What will not
> > amuse a court is the appearance of an ex ante concealment or
> disclosure in
> > anticipation of court action. If it looks like you knew it was
> > going to be a
> > court issue and you put it on freenet for that purpose, you're
> in trouble.
> > Not only that but if you encrypt the stuff and it doesn't appear to be
> > recoverable it almost sounds tantamount to destruction of evidence or
> > spoliation (much more serious). ("The intentional destruction of
> > evidence...
> > The destruction, or the significant and meaningful alteration of
> > a document or
> > instrument...") I've never seen a case play out like that but I would
> > certainly make the argument as a prosecutor.
>
> I think the courts will reach for spoliation, too. (Sanctions,
> penalties, legal presumptions -- all the way to a default
> judgment.) I brought this up in another thread, either the one
> dealing with timed-key memoirs (Tim called this a "beacon") or
> logs, but the conversation was soon whittled to dribble.
>
> > There are legitimate purposes for escrowing it on the Isle of
> Man over and
> > above keeping it out of a court's hands. The key is to have
> _some_ leg to
> > stand on when asked "if not trying to thwart the authority of
> > this court, why
> > did you do that." Good answers might sound like: "I wanted the
> > proceeds of
> > the manuscripts sale protected in trust for my grandchildren."
>
> *gaf* :-)
>
> In another digital datahaven (not Freenet), security and
> anonymity are legitimate purposes standing by themselves. As you
> noted, the one-time involvement of offshore counsel suggests
> sophistication.
>
> Do any of the IAALs think the courts would recognize a written,
> good faith "datahavening" policy (for business), or a consistent
> personal practice (for individuals), and engage in the legal
> fiction of permissible destruction by unavailability? Seems like
> that is the rationale underlying the spoliation cases -
> consistency and good faith (legitimacy).
>
> D: "I datahaven (however you do it) with X all my [data] weekly
> as a matter of regular practice."
>
> D: "I did so prior to having any knowledge of the relevance of
> this data or the likelihood of litigation." (nor should I have)
>
> X: "X is a digital information privacy trust, managed by Y,
> allowing individuals to datahaven their personal papers for
> posterity and WorldGood -- for the benefit of future researchers,
> and their blood descendants. Clients include members of the
> United States Congress, world political figures, members of the
> intelligence community, journalists, human rights activists, and
> everyday individual diary-keepers."
>
> X: "X uses timed encryption and biometric identification."
> (Sorry, no passwords.)
>
> Which is the idea expressed the following paper, but "Tim May
> said..." (Mr. May inferred this was an old idea, and that it was
> better to use traditional means.)
>
> @ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=266153
> (some discussion of the erosion of the 4th and 5th Amendments in
> regard to the protection of personal papers, as well as
> contemporary commentary on the chilling effects of keeping
> personal diaries, "flammable materials," etc.)
>
> I am also reminded of those e-death comz (if they aren't dead
> themselves by now). You compose your goodbye email, and when your
> nominee notifies the company of death --- everybody finds out
> what you really thought of them.
>
> The hard part is coming up with "good faith" arguments. (I know
> Mr. Unicorn was speaking off the cuff -- and still came up with
> some really good ones. No doubt he could do better.) Still,
> posterity would seem to be a weighty argument, and a sincere one.
>
> ~Aimee
Re: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. Was: Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas
--
On 31 Jul 2001, at 12:22, Black Unicorn wrote:
> Not being intimately familiar with the spec of freenet I can't
> really comment on that aspect or what a court will consider
> "impossible." What will not amuse a court is the appearance of
> an ex ante concealment or disclosure in anticipation of court
> action. If it looks like you knew it was going to be a court
> issue and you put it on freenet for that purpose, you're in
> trouble. Not only that but if you encrypt the stuff and it
> doesn't appear to be recoverable it almost sounds tantamount to
> destruction of evidence or spoliation (much more serious).
> ("The intentional destruction of evidence... The destruction,
> or the significant and meaningful alteration of a document or
> instrument...") I've never seen a case play out like that but
> I would certainly make the argument as a prosecutor.
> Encrypting the stuff sure _looks_ like spoliation, particularly
> if it seemed likely that the evidence would be the subject of a
> judicial action.
>
> [...]
>
> There are legitimate purposes for escrowing it on the Isle of
> Man over and above keeping it out of a court's hands.
And there are legitimate purposes for encrypting it and "forgetting" the key.
The big difference is "I forgot the key" is pretty much immune to cross examination,
whereas your "
legitimate" purposes for escrowing it on the isle of man requires a complicated cover
story which w
ill undoubtedly fall apart.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
l767+hopKaK3OhmU00x5dLsP9twS9adqsTDwX706
4GSivlIXyiUoZh4L503KHLLGtYLbjnNG8iNfZDzGr
Forced disclosures, document seizures, that kind of stuff. Was: Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas
- Original Message - From: "Trei, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Black Unicorn'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 1:54 PM Subject: RE: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas > >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > > > Declan, > > > The larger problem notwithstanding there's at least one little bit of > > > language in this piece that is odd : > > > > > > "He said the government is > > >seeking all of Leggett's > > >material, including all > > >originals and copies." [...] > > > Looks like a reporter ( or anyone else for that matter ) should keep > > > well hidden backups of their notes and work so that they can comply with > > > Napolean complexes, fishing expeditions and spin control operations and > > > not lose their life's work. I said: > > No. Well hidden backups would put the reporter in a position of contempt, > > committing obstruction of justice or perjury. Better to escrow such > > documents > > with an attorney in a jurisdiction not likely to cooperate with the United > > States. (I can suggest several to interested parties privately). Mr. Trei replied: > I'm curious what the term 'copy' refers to when the Internet and encryption > gets involved. If a reporter posted an encrypted copy of her notes > to usenet on a regular basis, she could recover them anytime, > anywhere, from etin.com, dejanews, or any of the other news > archiving services. > > However, if ordered to 'turn over all originals and copies', what can she > do? Ask deja to dismount a drive and send it to the court? Ask the > NSA to please gather up all their tapes which had copies and send > them? Here is some text from an order I was a party to some time ago: Further, [someone who was kind of naughty] is hereby ordered to produce and disclose all copies, originals, reproductions, derivations, translations or other documents related to [a certain document] _within his direct or indirect control_. (Emphasis mine). That's pretty typical, the control part. > Isn't there an implied and anachronistic assumption here that a > requested private document is physically seperable from other > private documents, and that to be private a document has to be > under the authors physical control? And that there is a meaningful > distinction between an 'original' and a 'copy'? Copy is an old term of art. "A transcript, double, imitation, or reproduction of an original writing, painting, instrument, or the like." As distinguished from original: "As applied to documents the original is the first copy or archetype; that from which another instrument is transcribed, copied, or imitated." Part of the confusion is because "copies" and "originals" bear different evidentiary weights. Copies can only be submitted as evidence in lieu of originals under certain circumstances (because of the risk of alteration or forgery or suchlike) and blah blah blah. "Copy" started to see the use you are describing because of the following kinds of exchanges: Prosecutor: And do you still have this document? Witness: No. (Thinks: but I have a xerox in my briefcase- ha ha ha). > This comes of a the same problem we find with so much of the > IP arguement, that information exists only bound to some > physical object, and shares it's limitations. Very true. Consider: "An original of a writing or recording is the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An 'original' or a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom. If the data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight shown to reflect the data accurately, is an 'original.'" This leads to the very strange situation where data on a disk (not readable by sight) is not an original or a copy but a sort of "quasi-original." A meta-original if you will, capable of spawning infinite originals- as it were. It's curious to me that no one has pursued this kind of argument in a copyright/MPAA type case. It's not readable by sight is it? Might be too technical an argument. > I can only assume that the court, for reasons which seem unclear > but which seem to amount to punishment, wish to deny her > access to her own work. If many copies exist which are > readable only by her, but not under her control, how can > she be so deprived? (I suppose the court could order her to > forget her pas
