Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Atari Online News, Etc. Volume 03 Issue 48
Volume 3, Issue 48 Atari Online News, Etc. November 30, 2001
Published and Copyright (c) 1999 - 2001
All Rights Reserved
Atari Online News, Etc.
A-ONE Online Magazine
Dana P. Jacobson, Publisher/Managing Editor
Joseph Mirando, Managing Editor
Rob Mahlert, Associate Editor
Atari Online News, Etc. Staff
Dana P. Jacobson -- Editor
Joe Mirando -- "People Are Talking"
Michael Burkley -- "Unabashed Atariophile"
Albert Dayes -- "CC: Classic Chips"
Rob Mahlert -- Web site
Thomas J. Andrews -- "Keeper of the Flame"
With Contributions by:
To subscribe to A-ONE, change e-mail addresses, or unsubscribe,
log on to our website at: www.atarinews.org
and click on "Subscriptions".
OR subscribe to A-ONE by sending a message to: dpj@atarinews.org
and your address will be added to the distribution list.
To unsubscribe from A-ONE, send the following: Unsubscribe A-ONE
Please make sure that you include the same address that you used to
subscribe from.
To download A-ONE, set your browser bookmarks to one of the
following sites:
http://people.delphiforums.com/dpj/a-one.htm
http://www.icwhen.com/aone/
http://a1mag.atari.org
Now available:
http://www.atarinews.org
Visit the Atari Advantage Forum on Delphi!
http://forums.delphiforums.com/m/main.asp?sigdir=atari
=~=~=~=
A-ONE #0348 11/30/01
~ Net Tax Ban Is Renewed ~ People Are Talking! ~ E-Shopping Concerns!
~ 1st Amendment Web Woes! ~ Senate To Hear MS Case ~ Tablet PC Challenge?
~ End of ExciteAtHome? ~ Child Porn Law Again!? ~ Type-Tracking Worm!
~ ~ AT&T Can Support Excite ~
-* Connecticut Says No To Deal! *-
-* Week 1: Half Million GameCubes Sold *-
-* Judge To Weigh Microsoft Antitrust Deal! *-
=~=~=~=
->From the Editor's Keyboard "Saying it like it is!"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Is it me, or has this been a really lousy past week? It certainly hasn't
anything to do with the weather, which has been nice - especially for the
last week of November! For some reason, it just didn't seem like a fun
week, or an interesting one.
On the news front, it's been surprisingly slow, especially with regard to
gaming news. You'd think that, with the holidays nearing and two new game
consoles just released, there would be a ton of news. Not so.
Sure, there's the inevitable story about the Microsoft antitrust case, and
the pros and cons pertaining to the proposed settlement. Personally, I
think the settlement proposal is a joke - and it's not on Microsoft! Or,
how about the usual story about another virus? Sure, we need to know so
that we can be cautious. But aren't these things getting "old hat" by now?
Do people really still get off on sending out such things?
I don't know. Maybe I'm just cranky because I don't have my usual
refrigerator-laden fill of leftover turkey and trimmings. Well, at least
it's the weekend - that's a good sign. I do plan to spend some time getting
reacquainted with the music of George Harrison. What a shame, the second of
the Fab Four is gone. The "quiet" Beatle was always my favorite.
Until next time...
=~=~=~=
PEOPLE ARE TALKING
compiled by Joe Mirando
joe@atarinews.org
Hidi ho friends and neighbors. I hope that everyone who celebrated it
had a wonderful Thanksgiving Day last week.
Since I celebrated Turkey-Day with my wife's family, I too missed out
on the best part of the holiday... the left-overs!
Well, we can't have everything now, can we? Who was it that said, "A
man's reach should always exceed his grasp"... or something like that.
The passing of Thanksgiving here in the 'States makes one thing plain:
Winter is on its way! I actually like winter. The cold air, the hint of
snow, the fact that most people stay inside (and out of my way) because
of it! <grin>
Ahhh, I guess I'm just a romantic at heart.
Well, let's get to the news and stuff from the UseNet.
From the comp.sys.atari.st NewsGroup
====================================
Martijn Scheltens asks for info about SCSI adaptors:
"I'm looking for an external SCSI host adapter for my Atari Mega STE,
to be able to make swift hard disk backups to my PC without too much
troubles. I'd be interested in an adapter from for example ICD, like
the Link, Link 2, Link 96 or Link 97. Adapters of other brands or DIY
kits, working or not, wouldn't be a problem too."
Edward Baiz tells Martijn:
"I recommend the Link II. That is what I use for my STe...."
Uwe Seimet adds:
"Note that the Link II does not provide initiator identification, which
guarantees the highest compatability. LINK96 and LINK97 do."
Edward Baiz now asks about a program to help deal with SCSI stuff:
"When I was asking questions concerning chaining SCSI devices, people
mentioned a SCSI program they used to help them. I have been looking
for this program and cannot find it. Can anyone tell me where to
download it or else upload it to me? Thanks..
Also, has anyone successfully gotten a Sony CD drive to work with an
Atari computer?"
Uwe Seimet tells Edward:
"What do you mean with "SCSI program"? What is such a program intended
to do? Note that for each device designated drivers are required in
order to access this device. You can use software like DISKUS, however,
to directly send SCSI commands to a device. But this only makes sense if
you are a SCSI expert and have something particular in mind with respect
to this device."
Derryck Croker adds:
"I think that Edward is searching for SCSIDRV.PRG from Steffan Engle.
It's part of the Gemar archive, which as you know is a tape streamer
backup program."
Peter Schneider answers the CDROM question for Edward:
"There will be no problem to use it as data drive ('read only hard
drive'), there might be problems to use it as an audio drive
('grabbing') but should not."
Edward now asks:
"Is there a good undelete program for an Atari computer?"
Ken Springer tells Edward:
"I liked Knife ST personally, but I don't know if it's available
anymore."
John Garone adds:
"Diamond Edge has an undelete feature."
Peter West adds his thoughts:
"But Knife does not get along at all well with hard disks, specially
with large partitions. Don't think it caters for LFNs either. It's
fine on floppies There is an UNDEL.TTP (awkward as you have to enter
the full path on the command line) as well as an UNDELETE.PRG which
offers its own file selector of sorts; however that tells me I don't
have enough memory when I start it - on a 14 MB Falcon!
There's also a rather good undelete in Diamond Edge, but unfortunately
that does not like large partitions of LFNs either :-( As it reports
nonsensical results (negative values!) for partition sizes with my 840
MB partitions, I wouldn't trust it for undeleting."
Emil Prpiæ asks for info:
"This is my first time visiting this group. I'm sorry if my question is
"look, yet another lamer with the same question" but I haven't found
any thread of a similar topic in this group.
So, I still have my old Atari 1040 STfm (german TOS, very early,
1.0 something I think, 1 MB, DS internal floppy). Some time ago, I've
bought an ICD Link 2 SCSI host adapter (basically, it's a cable that
connects to my Atari's AHDI hard disk port and on the other side there
is a SCSI controller inside a big (SCSI-I type 50-pin) connector that
plugs into an external 100 MB Quantum SCSI hard disk. Everything is
working fine, I'm happy.
My question is - would it be possible (since it basically is a
standard, normal SCSI hard drive) to connect this HDD to a PC with
SCSI host adapter running under DOS or Win95 (naturally, disconnect it
from Atari first) and - with help of some software on the PC side -
read/write files directly from/to it. That is - I know that it WOULD
be possible IF the software (a driver, a standalone program, whatever)
that makes Atari format readable to PC existed.
Well, has anyone tried this? Does such a piece of software exist? If
so, could you please give me the URL, or, if reasonable, E-mail it to
me, or put in some binaries group, or whatever.
The reason I ask for this is that I see this as the fastest possible
way of transferring data and software to my Atari - I surf the web via
a PC (Atari has a 19200 bps limit on its serial port so I think this
is reasonable, don't you think?"
Grzegorz Pawlik asks for directions to english documentation:
"Does anyone know where can I find the English docs of the Scripter
program from ASH? I have the German version, and the only bad thing
about it is that I don't understand much from the documentation... :(
Could anyone tell me where I can find the English HYP file, or
send it to me?
By the way, is there an English version of ASH Scripter available?"
Peter West tells Grzegorz:
"Yes, Atari Workshop market it in the UK, together with a
comprehensive HYP file (I translated the package for them).
Current price is 24.95 UKP + post/packing. Their email address is:
info@atari-workshop.co.uk"
Martin Tarenskeen asks about pricing for an Atari Laser printer:
"Anyone here who uses an Atari laser printer?
I have the opportunity to buy an Atari Laser printer from a used-to-be
Atari dealer new in the box (!) for NLG 100 (EUR 45.38). Is this a good
deal?"
Jim DeClercq tells Martin:
"One opinion: grab it. I paid USD $258 for mine, about a year ago, show
machine, little used. Another unsupported opinion, with no data: the
drums do not wear out, the wiper blade does. Those are made of
unobtanium, but someone posted the fact that Canon CX are close enough
fits to hack up a bit and use.
Original cost? First laser printer costing less than $1000 USD."
Well folks, that's it for this time around. Tune in again next week,
same time, same station, and be ready to listen to what they are saying
when...
PEOPLE ARE TALKING
=~=~=~=
->In This Week's Gaming Section - GameCube Sells Half Million
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Units In Its First Week!
=~=~=~=
->A-ONE's Game Console Industry News - The Latest Gaming News!
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Nintendo Sells Over 500,000 GameCubes in 1st Week
Nintendo said Thursday it sold more than 500,000 GameCube video game
consoles in the week after the console's U.S. launch, outpacing sales of
Microsoft Corp.'s competing Xbox.
Nintendo said in a statement that almost all of the first batch of consoles
that had been shipped to U.S. retailers had sold out, but the first
replacement orders of about 125,000 units had begun to arrive at U.S.
stores.
The Japanese game maker said it shipped a total of 740,000 of the $199
GameCube consoles to North America for the unit's Nov. 18 launch, with
about 80 percent of that total going to U.S. retailers.
Microsoft has not released figures on sales of the Xbox, but analysts have
estimated the company had about 300,000 units available for the Nov. 15
launch of that next-generation console with most of those selling out
within a few days.
Nintendo has marketed the GameCube to children and families and touted its
price advantage over both the Xbox and Sony Corp's market-leading (6758.T)
PlayStation 2, both of which are priced near $299 in the United States.
Sony Corp. sold out its first shipment of the PlayStation 2 when it
launched in the United States last year, but had difficulty keeping up with
demand as shipments lagged.
Nintendo now forecasts it will sell 1.3 million GameCube consoles by
year-end. Microsoft has said it expects to ship between 1 million and 1.5
million Xbox units by year-end.
=~=~=~=
A-ONE's Headline News
The Latest in Computer Technology News
Compiled by: Dana P. Jacobson
Judge to Weigh Private Microsoft Antitrust Deal
Is Microsoft a do-gooder, or up to no good?
That's the question a federal judge in Baltimore will consider on Tuesday
at a hearing on the company's billion-dollar antitrust settlement of
private, class-action lawsuits.
U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz will have to decide whether the
settlement proposed by the company is a creative solution that will put
computers in the hands of poor school children or a legal ruse that will
further the company's dominant position in the computer business.
Microsoft says the private settlement is a civic-minded way to resolve more
than 100 lawsuits filed around the country on behalf of customers allegedly
overcharged by the company.
Under the settlement, Microsoft would make amends by spending more than $1
billion to put software and computers into some of the poorest U.S.
schools. It would assist more than 12,500 schools serving nearly 7 million
children under the settlement of the private suits.
``It is a settlement that avoids long and costly litigation for the company
and at the same time ... really makes a difference in the lives of millions
of school children in some of the most economically disadvantaged schools
in the country," Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer told reporters
last week.
But at Tuesday's hearing, some class-action attorneys from California are
expected to paint quite a different picture for Motz.
The dissenting attorneys, who have filed a case on behalf of California
consumers, will ask Motz to strike down the settlement or allow their
lawsuits to proceed separately in California.
They portray the settlement negotiated by Microsoft and the other
class-action attorneys as a ploy designed to entrench the Windows monopoly
while allowing the company to pay back only a tiny fraction of what it
actually owes consumers.
Central to the dispute is a U.S. antitrust doctrine that holds that only a
``direct purchaser" can collect damages in private antitrust suits.
The direct purchaser restriction applies nationwide, except in the more
than a dozen states like California that have passed laws repealing it,
said Gene Crew, an antitrust attorney heading one of the cases against
Microsoft on behalf of California consumers.
In February, Motz ruled that in states that had not passed the so-called
``repealer" statutes, antitrust litigants could not recover damages from
the company. That's because most consumers do not get Microsoft's Windows
software directly from the company, but preloaded onto a machine they buy
from a computer manufacturer.
The cases in California and a handful of other repealer states, meanwhile,
have been moving forward. The California case is scheduled to go to trial
next August.
California attorneys dissenting from the settlement are accusing Microsoft
of singling out the attorneys in nonrepealer states -- those with the
weakest cases -- and secretly negotiating a sweetheart deal for the
company.
The dissenters fear such a settlement could neutralize cases like theirs in
repealer states, which they say still hold the potential for larger damage
awards against Microsoft.
``It was a clever tactic ... whereby they hijack the California case and
use it to lend value to meritless cases elsewhere," Crew said.
However, the settling attorneys will tell Motz the settlement is a better
deal for consumers than trying to divvy up money among individuals. Michael
Hausfeld, one of the lawyers who negotiated the settlement, said consumers
would have gotten as little at $10 apiece if Microsoft had agreed to
reimburse them directly.
``This was a very carefully thought-out plan," Hausfeld said. ``There's a
lot of complaining out there, and there's no relationship between the
complaining and reality."
Hausfeld said Crew had vastly over-estimated the amount of money that can
be recovered from Microsoft. And he scoffed at the idea that Microsoft had
singled out the weakest plaintiffs for settlement talks.
``Nobody pays over $1 billion to the weak link," Hausfeld said.
The five-year program would settle class-action claims that Microsoft
abused its monopoly over personal computer operating systems and
overcharged millions of people for software.
Microsoft said it would take a $550 million charge before taxes against
earnings in the current fiscal quarter if the pact is approved by the
court. Earlier this month, the software giant agreed to settle its
separate, three-year case with the Justice Department and many of the state
attorneys general who had sued the company.
At Tuesday's hearing, dissenters from the private antitrust settlement will
run through a list of legal objections to the deal, Crew said.
Crew said the private antitrust settlement is worth only a fraction of the
amount Microsoft might end up owing to consumers. He estimates that in
California alone, overcharges may total $3 billion to $9 billion.
``Right there it flunks the smell test," Crew said. ``It makes the
settlement look silly."
Crew argued that the settlement deal is actually a "marketing device"
that ``allows them to further entrench their monopoly" by spreading free
Microsoft software into primary and secondary schools.
``I think charity is great," Crew said. ``But they should do it as a
matter of charity, not a matter of settling a lawsuit."
Ballmer has denied the settlement is aimed at boosting the company's market
share in American schools. He said money from the settlement can be used to
buy software from Microsoft competitors.
Connecticut Won't Sign Microsoft Settlement
Connecticut on Tuesday ruled out signing an antitrust settlement reached
between Microsoft Corp., the federal government and nine of 18 states that
were party to the landmark case.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said the settlement
announced earlier this month, which must still be reviewed by a federal
judge, had too many gaps and ambiguities to sign in its current form.
``The settlement reflects good progress but not good enough," Blumenthal
said in a statement announcing his decision to continue the state's lawsuit
against the software giant.
Outside a Nov. 6 court hearing, Connecticut had been critical of the pact
to settle the three-year-old case but had not ruled out the possibility it
would sign.
Microsoft was found by a federal appeals court to have illegally maintained
its monopoly in personal computer operating systems.
The proposed settlement is designed to give computer makers freedom to
feature other software and requires Microsoft to share parts of the inner
workings of its Windows computer operating system with other software
makers.
During the five-year term of the agreement, a three-member panel would help
enforce the settlement.
But Blumenthal said he thought a longer period was needed, along with a
stronger enforcement mechanism and tighter provisions to stop Microsoft
from retaliating against rivals.
``I am hopeful that we can continue discussions with Microsoft and enhance
the settlement or reach a judicial result to ensure that competition is
restored and consumers benefit," he said.
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has said she will hold hearings
early next year on whether the settlement is in the public interest, while
the nine states that remain opposed to the pact prepare for hearings on
whether any additional sanctions against Microsoft are appropriate.
Senate Panel to Take Up Microsoft Settlement
The Senate Judiciary Committee is planning a hearing next month to
determine whether the Microsoft Corp. antitrust settlement will do enough
to prevent future antitrust violations, a spokesman for Committee Chairman
Patrick Leahy said on Wednesday.
Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, tentatively has scheduled the hearing for
Dec. 12, Leahy spokesman David Carle said.
The committee has not yet compiled a list of witnesses for the hearing, and
it's uncertain whether Congress will stay in session long enough to make
the Dec. 12 date, Carle said.
But ``appropriate witnesses" for such a hearing could include the head of
the Justice Department's antitrust division, Charles James, as well as
state attorneys general and a Microsoft official involved in the case, one
Senate aide said.
Leahy had scheduled hearings for mid-September that would have taken up the
Microsoft case as part of an overall examination of Internet competition
issues.
But Microsoft resisted and eventually the hearing was altered. The whole
idea faded after the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington, which
left the committee swamped with terrorism legislation.
Before the attacks, debate swirled on Capitol Hill over Windows XP and its
antitrust implications. Microsoft's critics contend the new operating
system is designed to extend the company's monopoly over PC operating
systems to Internet commerce and other business lines.
On Nov. 2 the company reached a settlement with the U.S. Justice Department
designed to restore competition in the personal computer software market.
Nine of the 18 states involved in the case joined that pact within days.
A federal appeals court in June upheld a lower court ruling that the
company used illegal tactics to maintain its Windows personal computer
operating system monopoly.
Bush Renews Ban on Internet Taxes
President Bush renewed a ban on Internet taxes on Wednesday, ensuring that
the country's 130 million Internet users will not face new taxes for at
least another two years.
Bush said the legislation which he signed into law would "ensure that the
growth of the Internet is not slowed by additional taxation and that
holiday shoppers will not be burdened by new taxes on their online
purchases."
Congress passed the original ban in 1998 to prevent states and local
governments from imposing new taxes that might discourage growth of the new
medium.
While those governments said there were few if any jurisdictions with
immediate plans for new Internet taxes after the moratorium lapsed on Oct.
21, the extension of the ban was sure to cheer many in the Internet
industry amid a nationwide economic slowdown.
Bush said online spending was expected to account for 15 percent of total
holiday purchases this year.
``The bill will protect American consumers from an unwanted tax surprise
when they purchase gifts online for friends and family," he added in a
statement.
Will Tablet PCs Kill Notebook Computers?
Microsoft chairman and chief software architect Bill Gates reintroduced the
Tablet PC earlier this month at Comdex, calling the hybrid laptop and PDA
"a new phase of mobile computing" for the business elite.
But to many onlookers, the scene was dj
vu -- at nearly the same time
last year Gates made an identical proclamation, but thus far no product
has been forthcoming. So is Microsoft's Tablet PC merely a diversion, or
will such a device be a genuine challenge to today's notebook computers?
The version Gates showed at Comdex weighs in at just two-and-a-half pounds
and translates voice and writing into text. The tablet converts into a
slate and allows for an attached keyboard or docking at a desktop station.
A longer battery life with wireless capability assists in running the
Microsoft XP software.
Compaq, Fujitsu, Toshiba, Tatung and Acer are among the companies that
introduced new Tablet PC concepts at the Las Vegas trade show.
A Microsoft spokesperson told NewsFactor Network that last year the
prototype was not ready for release, but since then, the company has
worked to perfect the decade-old concept.
"To be clear, no computer product is completely perfect. We have learned a
great deal from prior attempts at non-keyboard types of computing
applications, and can deliver a much more robust and useful set of
capabilities out of the box."
The Tablet PC is scheduled to become available in the second half of 2002.
Microsoft promises it will test the software extensively, and expects OEM
partners to do the same with their final designs.
Neal Goldman, research director for the Yankee Group, told NewsFactor that
Microsoft's Tablet PC is an effort by the company to incorporate the best
of laptops and PDAs into one easy-to-use product.
"PDAs are instant-on -- they have a lot of nice features to them -- but
their screens are too small for certain kinds of applications. If you want
a bridge between the two, the laptop is overkill. I think that's the
market they're going after," said Goldman.
While previous attempts at tablet hardware have been directed at vertical
markets such as the medical industry, Roger Kay, director of client
computing at IDC, told NewsFactor that he questioned whether Microsoft can
help the device make the leap to a more general audience.
"This particular product concept is better conceived than any other
previous round of tablet, but the historical fact is that tablets have not
done well with general audiences. So the question is, can they turn this
around by positioning it as a full-functioning notebook that does
everything a notebook does, plus more?" asked Kay.
For Microsoft, the Tablet PC is positioned as appealing to "the horizontal
knowledge worker" in attempt to break the traditional vertical hold.
But such a leap brings the tablet into competition with notebook
computers.
Though Microsoft says it envisions the Tablet PC as an "evolution" of
laptop computers and will not commit to an extinction of notebook devices,
the company is specific: "The Tablet PC is not a companion device."
As a Microsoft company spokesperson explained, "Long term, we see a
promising future for both fully functional PCs and more specialized
companions and appliances. Customers will always need the full power of
the desktop, laptop and Tablet PC."
While PC purchasing in the U.S. suffered during 2001, with one Dataquest
study estimating a 12 percent drop in shipments for 2001's third quarter
compared to last year, analysts point to a stronger laptop market and take
that as a sign that tablet PCs have a fighting chance.
Kay also noted that consumers and businesses have kept the notebook market
relatively stable.
"We actually saw some healthy growth with consumer portables in the third
quarter, and we expect to see more of that in the fourth quarter," said
Kay, who called 2002 forecasts generally "rosy."
"We may revise upward, but the notebook numbers will inevitably be higher
than the desktop. We're clearly seeing evidence of desktop replacement by
notebooks," Kay explained.
Type-Tracking Internet Worm Spreading
An Internet worm that leaves infected computers vulnerable to future
hacking by tracking what is typed on the keyboard, including passwords and
credit card details, was spreading rapidly on Monday, computer security companies warned.
The worm, called ``Badtrans," spreads through Microsoft Outlook or Outlook
Express e-mail programs and automatically sends itself to unanswered
e-mails in inboxes, according to several antivirus companies.
The attachment, which contains the malicious program, can be executed
simply by reading or previewing it and doesn't need to be double clicked or
opened separately, experts said.
The worm contains a keystroke logger which can be used to record what
people type to obtain passwords and credit card numbers, they said.
``It does no damage to files but does drop a backdoor trojan on the machine
which would allow a hacker to come back and access personal information,"
said April Goostree, virus research manager at McAfee.com.
While corporate e-mail gateways are blocking the worm, many home and small
office computer users who aren't up-to-date on their antivirus software are
getting infected, she said.
The subject line varies, often assuming the text of the unanswered e-mail
whose e-mail address it co-opts. The name of the attachment varies as well,
with suffixes including .doc, .pics and .news.
The worm, a variant of one discovered in April, has hit at least 50
countries, with most infections in Germany, followed by the UK and United
States, said UK-based MessageLabs, which reported receiving 400 copies an
hour this weekend.
ExciteAtHome Could Cease Service on November 30
Bankrupt cable Internet access provider ExciteAtHome Corp. said on Tuesday
it could cease providing service to its 4.1 million U.S. customers on
November 30 if it cannot renegotiate agreements with the cable companies
that carry its service.
Representatives of Redwood City, California-based ExciteAtHome will appear
in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in San Francisco on Friday, where a judge will
decide whether to have the service blocked if current negotiations fail,
said spokeswoman Stephanie Xavier.
``It depends on the decision of the judge," she said. ``All I can say is
we're in active negotiations with the cable companies. We're doing all that
we can to maintain service."
Xavier said many of the cable companies that carry ExciteAtHome have
informed users that their service could cease after Nov. 30.
``They've been notifying them and giving them a heads-up," she said.
AT&T Says Able to Keep ExciteAtHome Clients Online
AT&T Broadband, which plans to buy ExciteAtHome's high-speed Internet
business, believes it can shift about 20 percent of Excite users quickly to
its own systems if that service is shut down this week by a bankruptcy
judge, Chief Executive Officer William Schleyer said on Wednesday.
ExciteAtHome, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in late September,
provides high-speed Internet access to 4.1 million customers nationwide
over cable networks run by AT&T Broadband, Cox Communications Inc.
and Comcast.
If the judge decides to shut down ExciteAtHome's Internet service because
the company fails to reach new agreements with the three cable companies,
AT&T would be prepared to step in and offer continued high-speed Internet
access to the 800,000 Excite customers who get their service over AT&T
cable lines, Schleyer said.
Representatives of Redwood City, California-based Excite on Tuesday said
high-speed Internet service could cease for its U.S. subscribers on Friday
if it fails to reach new agreements with the cable companies.
Speaking to reporters at the cable TV industry's Western Show convention,
Schleyer said AT&T, a major investor in ExciteAtHome, has computer
networking systems in place to serve its customers should a U.S. Bankruptcy
Court in San Francisco decide to block ExciteAtHome's service.
``We are prepared to move our customers over very quickly," Schleyer said.
He said some customers may have their service disrupted for as much as one
week, ``but in most cases we are talking days."
ExciteAtHome briefly stopped providing Internet access in October, but
resumed after reaching interim agreements with the cable companies it
serves. Unless a permanent agreement can be reached before Friday, when the
interim deals expire, the bankruptcy judge will decide whether to pull the
plug on the service.
AT&T offered to acquire ExciteAtHome's high-speed Internet access service
for $307 million when ExciteAtHome filed for bankruptcy. But a lawyer for
ExciteAtHome bondholders told Reuters the group was unsatisfied with the
agreement because it would leave little cash for the repayment of
creditors.
Schleyer said AT&T Broadband continues to hope it will be able to complete
the acquisition.
Child Porn Law Heads to High Court
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider whether it should
reinstate a controversial child porn law.
The high court will hear arguments related to the constitutionality of the
Child Online Protection Act (COPA), a law that was passed three years ago
but never took effect. COPA would make it illegal for companies to sell
sexually explicit material to minors and would impose steep prison
sentences and fines on violators.
A federal appeals court had blocked the law on grounds that it would
suppress Internet speech and outlaw sites covering health, books, art and
other areas. The Justice Department appealed the ruling to the Supreme
Court earlier this year in an attempt to revive the law.
With Wednesday's hearing, COPA becomes the latest online porn law to test
the First Amendment in the high court. In 1997, the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) and the American Library Association challenged the
Communications Decency Act (CDA), a bill that would have made it a felony
to deliver indecent material to minors over the Internet. The Supreme
Court justices unanimously ruled that CDA was unconstitutional and
overturned major portions of the bill, saying such content is considered
protected speech for adults.
The outcome of Wednesday's hearing could have wide ramifications for the
future of cyberspace and free speech. Some legal experts expect the courts
to also strike down COPA, which is known as "the son of CDA." Owen Seitel,
a partner at the law firm Idell Berman & Seitel, which is not involved in
the lawsuit, said COPA is constitutionally "overly broad" in its effort to
protect children from what legislators deem to be harmful speech.
COPA "ends up applying to speech which is useful to an adult audience and
basically prevents that adult audience from obtaining that information,"
Seitel said. "Anytime that you have legislation that restricts speech in
any way, it's going to be strictly construed, meaning the court is going
to be very careful to ensure that any restrictions on speech are as narrow
as possible. And I just feel this piece of legislation fails that task."
The ACLU--which represents Web sites for bookstores, art galleries, sex
advice columns, online news organizations and other plaintiffs in the
case--will urge the justices to once again reject the law. The advocacy
group says the constitutional flaws in COPA are identical to those found
in CDA.
ACLU attorney Ann Beeson, who will be arguing the case before the court,
said the law suppresses "socially valuable speech" that adults have the
right to express. The only way to avoid criminal prosecution under the
law, she says, is to set up screens such as credit card requirements or
adult access codes. But screens could deter all users--both minors and
adults--from accessing content that would otherwise be free.
"The Web provides access to more speech by more speakers than any other
communication medium in history," Beeson said. "COPA threatens to
transform this dynamic medium into one...that is only fit for children."
Still, others hope the justices will rule in favor of the law. Donna Rice
Hughes, who runs Protectkids.com, said COPA is "a rifle shot approach"
that holds U.S. pornographers accountable for their commercial Web sites
and shields children from harmful material.
"The law is clear; it's worked in print for years," Hughes said. "COPA
essentially extends those laws in the material world to the cyberworld."
Justices Revisit the Issue of Child Protection
in the Age of Internet Pornography
Four years after the Supreme Court overturned the federal government's
first effort to shield children from pornography on the Internet, the
justices were back Thursday to consider whether the government's second try
could pass First Amendment muster.
Even more sharply than before, the central question is whether a body of
law that evolved in the heyday of the neighborhood adult bookstore and
movie theater suits the age of the Internet.
The federal appeals court in Philadelphia last year blocked enforcement of
the Child Online Protection Act, the successor to the invalidated
Communications Decency Act. The court reasoned that in the global context
of the Internet, the new law's use of "contemporary community standards"
to identify material that is "harmful to minors" placed an impermissible
burden on speech that deserved constitutional protection. The law gave
"the most puritan of communities" an effective veto power, the appeals
court said.
Hearing the Bush administration's appeal of the injunction issued by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the justices today
appeared inclined to agree with the appeals court's analysis, as far as it
went. But they wondered whether the Third Circuit read the law correctly.
Suppose what Congress really meant by community standards in the context
of the Internet was a national standard, "the United States taken as a
whole," Justice Stephen G. Breyer said. Wouldn't that solve the problem?
Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson said the government would be satisfied
with a national standard because that was what Congress intended.
"Congress felt there was not much variation in what the average adult
would think was harmful to minors" when it enacted the Child Online
Protection Act in 1998, he said.
Asked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the basis of that Congressional
conclusion, Mr. Olson said the report accompanying the legislation did not
explain the point. But it was "reasonable to conclude that the members of
Congress reflected a judgment developed as the result of running for
office and serving in the national legislature," he said.
"Doesn't any jury necessarily apply the standards of its own community?"
Justice Antonin Scalia asked, adding: "What does a juror who has spent his
whole life in North Carolina know about Las Vegas?"
Ann E. Beeson, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union
representing a group of Internet publishers and users who sued to block
the law, said any effort to apply a national standard "would be an
exercise in futility" because the "least tolerant" standard would
inevitably prevail. The law threatened to "transform this dynamic medium
into one that is only for children," Ms. Beeson said.
Ms. Beeson's clients include the online magazine Salon; ArtNet, a leading
seller of fine art on the Web; and providers of information about sex for
gay people and for people with disabilities. To her, the law's major
threat was to impose self-censorship on providers of material that has
full First Amendment protection when offered to adults but that puts them
at risk of prosecution if minors see it.
The law carries penalties of a $50,000 fine and six months in jail for
those who knowingly "make any communication for commercial purposes" on
the World Wide Web "that is available to any minor and that includes any
material that is harmful to minors," those younger than 17. It is an
acceptable defense to block access by minors by requiring an adult access
code, a credit card, an identification number or similar measures.
While Ms. Beeson focused on the protected nature of the speech for adults,
Mr. Olson's emphasis was on the "substantial, incalculable damage to our
children" from sexually explicit material on the Internet. There were
28,000 commercial pornography sites "readily available" to children "as
long as they can type and read," he said, calling the law a "solution to a
desperate problem."
Some justices shared that concern in 1997, when they still voted, 9 to 0,
in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, No. 96-511, to strike down the
Communications Decency Act as overly broad and infringing on the free
speech rights of adults.
Mr. Olson said that in enacting the Child Online Protection Act the next
year, Congress responded to the court's "explicit and detailed guidance"
and wrote a more carefully tailored law.
Among the differences, he said, was that the new law was limited to
commercial Internet sites, while the earlier law applied to chat rooms and
sites run by nonprofit organizations. In addition, Congress borrowed from
the Supreme Court's obscenity cases and made the law apply only to
material that "taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value for minors."
While the Federal District Court in Philadelphia found that the law still
deterred too much speech that was constitutionally protected for adults,
the Third Circuit did not address that broader question, instead basing
its opinion on its analysis of the community standards issue.
From the justices' questions during the argument today in Ashcroft v.
American Civil Liberties Union, No. 00-1293, it appeared that the Supreme
Court might vacate the Third Circuit's opinion on that point and tell the
appeals court that community standards really meant some kind of national
standard. Such an outcome would not be a final ruling on the law's
constitutionality, because the Third Circuit would then have to address
the other First Amendment issues that were raised in the trial before the
district court.
Any effort to determine a national standard for indecent speech, even if
limited to minors, would raise new problems of its own, however, to which
several justices alluded during the argument today.
The Supreme Court adopted the community standards approach to obscenity in
the 1970's in part to free itself from the need to make its own
determinations in case after case. A finding in this case that community
standards in the traditional sense no longer work could call into question
the approach to obscenity as well.
Online Limits to the First Amendment
A one-two punch handed down this week by U.S. courts to free-speech
advocates may signal that the freewheeling days of unfettered speech on
the Internet are numbered, First Amendment experts said.
The decisions in two lawsuits testing controversial copyright legislation
on Wednesday upheld the ability of content owners to restrict access to
their works and showed that U.S. courts are more than willing to limit
what can be published online.
Along with the government's push for more surveillance powers on the
Internet, the judgments could herald the end to the "untouchable" status
of free speech on the Internet, legal experts said.
"Unfortunately, I am not one of the optimists on this front," said Allonn
Levy, a partner with the HS Law Group and the lead attorney defending a
group of Web sites against a California lawsuit brought by the DVD Copy
Control Association. "There is a great deal of policy being created to
differentiate between analog media and digital media, between the Internet
and the real world."
A few years make a difference. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court readily
struck down the onerous Communications Decency Act, ruling that it would
hinder free speech on the Internet. Yet four years later, the judiciary
seems ready to limit the publishing of information across what the high
court referred to as the "new medium of worldwide human communication."
Most of the controversy revolves around the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act of 1998 (DMCA), a law designed to protect copyright holders' ability
to put digital fences around their content and placing restrictions on
what can be published online and what people may access.
The latest rulings support the DMCA, championing those who aim to own
information, Levy said. "I think the direction that policy-makers are
going is toward less free speech on the Internet."
In the most-watched case, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New
York upheld restrictions on the online hacker magazine 2600, limiting its
ability to post or link to the DeCSS program for cracking DVDs.
The magazine and its publisher, Eric Corley, were ordered to remove all
copies and links to copies of the program, but Corley's lawyers argued
that his site--a news page for hackers and underground Net users--is
protected by the First Amendment.
The appeals court did not agree, however. In a 71-page ruling issued
Wednesday, the three-judge panel affirmed a lower court's decision against
Corley, saying that DeCSS code is only partially protected speech and that
such speech can be restricted on the Internet.
"The court spends 10 pages arguing that code is free speech," said Cindy
Cohn, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Then, in the
second half, they say, well, because the Internet is a more efficient way
for people to get information and because it is more easy to use, we are
going to give it less protection," added Cohn, who with dozens of lawyers
submitted a brief arguing that the restrictions on Corley should be
dropped.
Charles Sims, a partner with Proskauer Rose who represents the Motion
Picture Association of America in its case against Corley, dismissed fears
of free-speech restrictions, calling them a "false bill of goods."
"Copyright and free-speech law have coexisted now for 200 years," he said.
"There is no free-speech problem with these statutes."
Yet the appeals court's own statements disagree with Sims'. Specifically,
the court acknowledges there is a trade-off between allowing unfettered
speech and preventing the misuse of protected copyrighted content.
"The fundamental choice between impairing some communication and
tolerating decryption cannot be entirely avoided," stated the panel in its
findings, adding, "it is not for us to resolve the issues of public policy
implicated by the choice we have identified."
That is Congress' role, the court maintained. And so far, lawmakers have
decided to strengthen content owners' rights at the potential expense of
free speech.
With a finger testing the legal winds, many companies have been quick to
take advantage of their new powers by quashing vocal online critics with
threats of legal action under the DMCA.
When posters to the tech-issues Web board Slashdot published
specifications for Microsoft's proprietary version of the security
standard Kerberos, the software giant sent the site's owner a letter
threatening a lawsuit under the DMCA. Slashdot resisted, and later
Microsoft dropped its demands.
And British medical research firm Huntingdon Life Sciences temporarily
shut down the Web site of anti-animal-testing group Stop Huntingdon Animal
Cruelty by delivering a cease-and-desist letter in late August to the
group's Internet service provider, alleging violations of the DMCA.
This week's second ruling seems to make issuing threats of legal action a
no-risk proposition as well.
Judge Garrett Brown of the Federal District Court in Trenton, N.J.,
dismissed a lawsuit brought by computer science professor Edward Felten
against the Recording Industry Association of America, the primary
representative for the music industry.
Felten and his research group had taken part in a music-industry challenge
to break several proposed technologies for protecting music. When he
decided to publish his findings, the music industry threatened legal
action against him.
When he decided to sue the RIAA, the music industry group claimed that it
had not intended to actually sue. These statements and the fact that
Felten did publish his paper in August without being sued convinced Judge
Brown that there was no threat.
Yet many researchers and hackers already feel threatened. Worried that
they could run afoul of corporate copyright lawyers, security academics
and professionals are starting to pull published information that may be
covered by the DMCA.
In September, two researchers removed software from their sites because
the programs could have been construed as "circumvention tools" under the
DMCA.
One, a professor of digital forensics, removed his evidence-gathering
tool--dubbed Forensix--from his Web site. The other, a hacker for
network-protection company Arbor Networks, pulled his own security-tool
site in protest.
In June, fearing he could be held liable for violating the DMCA, the
operator of a Web forum about digital video recorder TiVo asked posters to
stop publishing information about how to copy video from the device onto
other machines.
The only bright spot for free-speech advocates is a California appeals
court ruling that called source code protected speech. The court
overturned an earlier order barring online publishing of the DeCSS code.
Posting the program is the same as publishing other controversial
statements and merits full constitutional protection, the appellate judges
found.
Levy, the lead defense attorney in the case, is heartened by the ruling,
but says he believes policy-makers and the courts need to take a step back
and look at the issues outside of technology.
"Folks are looking at it a bit wrong," Levy said. "The danger may be
magnified by the Internet, but it's not being created by the Internet."
In the end, having a set of laws for digital information on the Internet
and a set of laws for the non-digital world doesn't make sense, he argued.
"We must have a uniform set of laws," he said. "New technology doesn't
alter basic rights and tenets."
Consumers Still Worried About Security Of E-Shopping
Online shopping may be convenient, but it has yet to win the hearts and
minds of many who fear their private information will be compromised or
stolen outright.
According to a Jupiter Media Metrix survey, fears persist about the
security of credit card numbers and personal information among those who
online, as well as offline.
According to the survey, 59 percent of shoppers who eschew online
purchases for trips to brick-and-mortar stores are afraid their credit
card data will be pilfered. More than half -- 54 percent -- said they are
worried their information will be sold to other merchants.
Consumers' concerns about fraud are legitimate because they will act on
their perceptions, said Jupiter Rja Dhinsa.
"And their fears are valid because some of the technologies are unproven,"
he said. "From time to time you do hear about credit card databases being
accessed and cards being stolen, so until security improves, you'll see
that fear remain."
Shoppers are also reluctant to have their personal information peddled to
marketers online.
Buyers' information is often sold by brick-and-mortar institutions, and
consumers have good reason to be wary of the practice being replicated
online, Dhinsa said.
"Consumers have a frustration level in terms of their information being
shared, and that will just continue to increase," he said. "Until they can
be assured their information will be confidential, this will be an
obstacle that will make them hesitate to provide their information
online," he said.
=~=~=~=
Atari Online News, Etc.is a weekly publication covering the entire
Atari community. Reprint permission is granted, unless otherwise noted
at the beginning of any article, to Atari user groups and not for
profit publications only under the following terms: articles must
remain unedited and include the issue number and author at the top of
each article reprinted. Other reprints granted upon approval of
request. Send requests to: dpj@atarinews.org
No issue of Atari Online News, Etc. may be included on any commercial
media, nor uploaded or transmitted to any commercial online service or
internet site, in whole or in part, by any agent or means, without
the expressed consent or permission from the Publisher or Editor of
Atari Online News, Etc.
Opinions presented herein are those of the individual authors and do
not necessarily reflect those of the staff, or of the publishers. All
material herein is believed to be accurate at the time of publishing.
