EFFector Vol. 15, No. 12, May 3rd, 2002 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
In the 212th Issue of EFFector:
* Thank Philips for Standing Up to Hollywood
*
* EFF Releases DMCA Three Year Report Card
* Court Orders ReplayTV to Spy on Customers for Movie Studios
* EFF Thanks Google!
EFF News Flash
For more information on EFF activities & alerts: http://www.eff.org/
To join EFF or make an additional donation:
http://www.eff.org/support/
EFF is a member-supported nonprofit. Please sign up as a member today!
ALERT: Thank Philips for Standing Up to Hollywood
Philips CEO Rejects Entertainment-Industry Technology Veto
Issued 05/03/02
Expires 05/17/02
Introduction:
As Hollywood's Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (BPDG) rushes to establish a laundry-list of
mandatory and forbidden "features" for digital television devices -- including PCs -- one company has
called on Congress to expose the process to the "sunlight of government." Philips North America CEO
Lawrence J. Blanford broke ranks with the other BPDG participants when he testified before Senator
Hollings' Commerce committee on April 25th, blasting the process, calling its direction "not in the
interest of sound public policy, not in the interest of the affected industries and certainly not in the
interest of the consumer."
The BPDG mandate is meant to be the kinder, gentler face of Hollywood's bid to win a veto over new
technology, a "consensus" involving all interested parties (except, of course, the public, the press and
the small entrepreneurial companies whose technology would be banned under a BPDG regime). While the whole
world has been blasting Senator Hollings' Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act
(CBDTPA), the secretive BPDG group have been establishing a standard that bans free and open source
television software and leaves a veto on new technologies in the hands of the studios.
The end result will be a marketplace full of devices with components that have been effectively specified
by Hollywood; a world where "tamper-friendly" software licensed under free/open-source licenses cannot
interact with commodity PC components; a world startlingly like the one promised by the CBDTPA.
Mr. Blanford's brave stand marks the first public indication that the BPDG process is anything but a
consensus. As Philips stands up to Hollywood's self-centered assertion that only they are qualified to
assess the value of new technology, we need to recognize the risks Philips is taking on our behalf.
What YOU Can Do Now:
* Contact your legislators in Congress and tell them that you oppose technology mandates (see the Links
section below for details on EFF's campaigns to oppose the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television
Promotion Act [CBDTPA] and the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group [BDPG], and to repeal the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act [DMCA]). For information on how to contact your legislators and other government
officials, see EFF's "Contacting Congress and Other Policymakers" guide at:
http://www.eff.org/congress.html
* Send Philips North America CEO Lawrence J. Blanford a letter thanking him for rejecting the sham
consensus of the BPDG and standing up to Hollywood's outrageous demand for a veto on new technologies.
http://www.eff.org/support/
Sample Letter:
Here's a template you can use to send your thank-you notes to Philips. Feel free to crib from it or to
improvise. Note that comments in your own words are usually most effective. Send to:
Lawrence J. Blanford
CEO, Philips North America
64 Permiter Center East
Atlanta, GA
30346
larry.blanford@philips.com, CEO, Philips North America
cc: katrina.blauvelt@philips.com, Public Relations Director
cc: tom.patton@philips.com, VP of Government Relations
fax: 770.821.2250
Dear Mr. Blanford,
I am writing today to thank you for your brave words before Senator Hollings on April 25. The Broadcast
Protection Discussion Group raises the spectre of Internet piracy and expects us to grant Hollywood a veto
over new technologies. The film studios that BusinessWeek called "the most change-resistant industry in
America" cannot and should not run your business for you. You should be free to bring new, innovative
digital television products to market without depending on Hollywood's goodwill.
The Betamax decision established the principle that technology companies are free to make any device with
substantially non-infringing uses -- a principle that holds that it would be improper to punish customers
for what they *might* do with a technology. It's this principle that permits you to manufacture such
innovative devices as the TiVo PVR and future devices like DVD recorders.
The law is on your side, sir, and so am I. Hollywood does not deserve oversight of your commercial
activity. Your freedom to innovate and my freedom to use devices to enhance my life are inextricably bound
together. I am not a pirate, no matter what Hollywood's suspicious executives say, and I deserve better
treatment than they would afford me.
Thank you for speaking on my behalf before Congress. Please continue to uphold my interests, fighting all
attempts to mandate "standards" that presume my guilt.
Sincerely,
[Your name; include full address for maximum effectiveness]
Tips:
Please remember to be polite but firm. Ranting, swearing, or lack of clear focus and resolve will not make
a good impression. Try to make it brief (1 page or less written, or a few sentences spoken) and clear,
without getting into nitpicky details. Re-casting the letter in your own words will be more effective than
copy-pasting our sample.
Activists Around the World
This alert is primarily for U.S. residents. However, this issue is of importance globally, so keep an eye
out in your own jurisdiction for related matters you can act on. Many countries are considering
legislation like the US DMCA and SSSCA/CBDTPA.
Background:
What Were They Thinking?
On September 7, 2001, the working text of a proposed bill leaked from Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings' (D.
SC) office, raising a tide of bilious outrage from all corners of the Internet. The bill, called the
Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA), would have required every "digital media
technology" to be regulated by bureaucrats who would take their marching orders from the entertainment
industry, taking up to a year to grant permission for each new method and technology that the computer and
consumer electronics industries wished to bring to market.
A few short weeks later, the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) Copy Protection Technical
Working Group (CPTWG) chartered a new sub-group, called the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (BPDG).
The BPDG's mission was to set out the forbidden and mandatory "features" of all new digital television
devices and technologies, in order to prevent unauthorized redistribution, such as Internet
redistribution. The BPDG extended invitations to all the major technology players from the software,
hardware, and consumer electronics industries to participate in setting the standard.
The message was clear to industry insiders who understood that Senator Hollings takes his marching orders
from the entertainment giants who fill his campaign-contribution coffers:
"Join the consensus group and get a voice in the standard, or wait for Our Man in Congress to cut your
orders -- one way or another, your time of freely choosing what products you bring to market is at an
end."
So they joined. Intel, Philips, Matsushita, Apple, Microsoft -- the technology companies with the most to
lose from a mandate, choosing the lesser of two evils.
Through the fall and the winter, the process was relatively painless. The Electronic Frontier Foundation
sent representatives to the BPDG meetings to document and protest against the conspiracy to deprive the
public of fair use, to put innovation in the hands of Hollywood, and to ban free/open source software. The
group set out some easy principles:
* Digital TV signals would carry a label that distinguished freely copyable material from material with
copying restrictions.
* Devices that could touch those signals would be required to look for the mark (or assume its presence)
and respond to it in some way.
* Approved devices would be tamper-resistant, difficult to be modified by "consumers" (Hollywood-speak for
"customers") -- this makes software licensed under free-software/open-source licenses illegal, of course,
since those licenses *encourage* "consumers" to modify the technology.
* Approved devices would be constrained in what sort of recording and output methods they could employ, so
that only "secure" channels and recording options would be available to a received signal.
* There would be some process by which new outputs and recording methods would be chosen.
The Other Shoe Drops
As spring unfolded, Senator Hollings actually introduced the SSSCA under a new name: the Consumer
Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CPDTPA). The technologists at the BPDG got the message,
just as the group was turning its attention to the difficult issues before it:
* Which recording and output technologies would be approved out of the gate
* What process would be used to approve new technologies
* How technologies whose security had been compromised in the market would be addressed
This is where things got ugly. At the EFF's urging, representatives of other civil liberties and consumer
rights groups began to attend, and the press began to take notice of the BPDG conspiracy.
Two cliques of technologists, called 5C (five companies consisting of Intel, Hitachi, Matsushita, Sony,
and Toshiba) and 4C (four companies consisting of Intel, IBM, Toshiba, and Matsushita) had ready-to-market
"secure" technologies that had the features that Hollywood demanded (and that no sane consumer would ever
voluntarily buy). It became clear that these cliques had established a back-room deal with the MPAA to
include these technologies on the list of approved outputs and recording methods from the get-go.
This infuriated Philips, which had seen a great opportunity on the horizon to market DVD recorders that
could be used to store video from over-the-air, camcorders, and computers, and played back on existing and
new DVD players. Since the BPDG existed to stop *Internet* redistribution, DVD recorders should be on the
white-list, too, right?
Wrong. The MPAA companies pointed out that the BPDG charter required the group to stop unauthorized
redistribution, *such as* Internet redistribution -- the Philips technology would need to institute some
means of regulating duplication, even if that meant curtailing non-infringing uses, like duplicating home
movies.
The plot thickened. The MPAA and the 5C companies issued proposals for the approval process for new
technology that had no objective criteria -- they did not set out some set of technical characteristics
that forthcoming technologies must meet if they were to be legal.
Instead, the MPAA proposal included only *subjective* criteria, such as:
A technology may be added to Table A by meeting any one of the following criteria:
(1) 3 Major Studios and/or Major Television Broadcast Groups (of which at least 2 must be Major Studios)
use or approve the technology;
(2) 10 Major Device Manufacturers (including software vendors) have licensed the technology and 2 Major
Studios use or approve the technology.
In other words, new technologies will only be legal if *we* say so.
Finally, the MPAA reintroduced the idea of revocability, setting out terms that would require any device
that could be remotely disabled to have this "feature" enabled. The idea was that if your model of VCR was
found to have a security hole, Hollywood could push a button and shut down every one of the "compromised"
devices in the world -- reaching into *your* living room and destroying your lawfully purchased property.
Philips Backs Out
Philips has had enough. Mr. Blanford's April 25th testimony (reported at
http://www.newsalert.com/bin/story?StoryId=CpmD_qbWbqvrusdaYmq) eloquently pleads the consumer electronics
giant's case: Hollywood wants a veto over our technology. This is bad for us, bad for our customers and
bad for the country.
Let's hope that Mr. Blanford's bravery serves as an example to other captive technologists at the BPDG.
Perhaps our combined appreciation for Philips will be enough to convince Apple, IBM, Intel, Microsoft and
others to stop selling our rights out from under us.
The CBDTPA in Sheep's Clothing
The BPDG mandate extends into general-purpose personal computers. Computers that have hardware peripherals
that permit them to tune, demodulate, display, store or manipulate digital television must not permit the
digital TV signal to come into contact with non-approved technologies.
This leaves PC vendors with two choices:
* Include two parallel sets of storage, data and display technologies and ensure that digital television
signals only interact with the "approved" components
* Include only one set of technologies -- "approved" technologies with Hollywood's seal of approval on
them -- and restrict what you can do with your computer according to the rules set out in the BPDG mandate
The future is at risk. The entertainment industry's response to every new technology from the player piano
to the radio to the television to the Internet has been dread and loathing, chicken-little hysteria about
the certain doom that new technologies will rain down on their business. Time and again, Hollywood has
demonstrated its temperamental unsuitability to sit in judgement over innovation. We cannot leave our
technical destiny in their hands -- neither through broad laws like the CBDTPA, nor through mandates like
the BPDG, which achieve the same end through different means.
Links:
Philips North America:
http://www.gateway.com/home/deals/offers/music/dmz.shtml
Report of Philips CEO Lawrence J. Blanford's testimony:
http://www.newsalert.com/bin/story?StoryId=CpmD_qbWbqvrusdaYmq
EFF Weblog covering the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group:
http://bpdg.blogs.eff.org/
For more information on the future of digital television, see:
http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/HDTV/
Full text of CBDTPA (bill S. 2048):
http://www.eff.org/IP/SSSCA_CBDTPA/20020321_s2048_cbdtpa_bill.pdf
For more information about CBDTPA (and its older "parent", SSSCA), see:
http://www.eff.org/IP/SSSCA_CBDTPA/
EFF's "Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers) About Fair Use":
http://www.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.html
Declan McCullagh Wired News article on CBDTPA, "What Hollings' Bill Would Do":
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51275,00.html
EFF alert in support of Intel's Leslie Vadasz's statements on technology mandates:
http://www.eff.org/IP/SSSCA_CBDTPA/20020308_eff_sssca_alert.html
CAFE Campaign:
This drive to support Philips for its brave stand on consumer rights is part of a larger campaign to
highlight intellectual property industry assaults against the public's fair use rights, and what you can
do about it.
Check the EFF Campaign for Audivisual Free Expression (CAFE) website regularly for additional alerts and
news:
http://www.eff.org/cafe/
About EFF:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading civil liberties organization working to protect rights
in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF actively encourages and challenges industry and government to
support free expression, privacy, and openness in the information society. EFF is a member-supported
organization and maintains one of the most linked-to websites in the world:
http://www.eff.org
Contacts:
Cory Doctorow, EFF Outreach Coordinator
cory@eff.org
+1 415 436 9333 x106
Seth Schoen, EFF Staff Technologist
schoen@eff.org
+1 415 436 9333 x107
- end -
Back to table of contents
EFF Releases DMCA Three Year Report Card
Unintended Consequences: Rights Undermined
For immediate release: May 3, 2002
San Francisco The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has released a report collecting cases where
abuses of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) undermined fair use, free expression and scientific
research in the three years since its passage.
The report, titled "Unintended Consquences: Three Years under the DMCA," collects reported incidents
involving the controversial anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. These provisions prohibit the
bypassing of technological restrictions intended to protect copyrighted works. In pressing Congress for
these provisions in 1998, the copyright industries claimed that the law was needed "to thwart pirates." In
the three years following the DMCA¹s passage, however, the anti-circumvention provisions have instead been
used by copyright owners to stifle a range of legitimate, non-copyright-infringing activities.
The report describes how the anti-circumvention provisions have so far been used to: (1) chill free speech
and legitimate scientific research; (2) undermine the public¹s fair use rights; and (3) block legitimate
competition and technological innovation. The EFF report represents the first time all the reported abuses
of the DMCA have been gathered together in one resource.
"The DMCA went too far," said EFF's Senior Intellectual Property Attorney, Fred von Lohmann. "Fair use,
free expression, and legitimate science have all suffered collateral damage in Hollywood¹s war on piracy.
How many more scientists, hobbyists, and legitimate competitors have to be threatened or sued before we
all admit that the DMCA is not working?"
EFF will update the report as new cases arise. The current report is located at:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20020503_dmca_consequences.pdf
Links:
EFF's DMCA archive:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/
EFF archive of DMCA case materials, including:
the Felten case:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/Felten_v_RIAA/
the 2600 case:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/MPAA_DVD_cases/
About EFF:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading civil liberties organization working to protect rights
in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF actively encourages and challenges industry and government to
support free expression, privacy, and openness in the information society. EFF is a member-supported
organization and maintains one of the most linked-to websites in the world: http://www.eff.org
- end -
Back to table of contents
Court Orders ReplayTV to Spy on Customers for Movie Studios
Entertainment Industry Demands Massive Privacy Invasion
A court has ordered ReplayTV to rewrite its personal video recorder software to include spyware that will
capture every click from every customer's remote, gathering personal data detailing what each ReplayTV
owner watches, skips, and shares over the Internet. Once in place, the data gathered with this tool will
be sent to Hollywood studios and TV networks for use as ammunition in a pending suit against ReplayTV
concerning home recording rights. The court has determined that providing this information to the
plaintiffs is more important than safeguarding the privacy rights of lawful ReplayTV owners, despite the
absence of any ruling or injunction against ReplayTV.
The suit began last October when several film and TV studios sued ReplayTV, charging that the company
engaged in contributory and vicarious infringment when it shipped the Replay 4000, a device that allows
individuals to record and share television programs and to easily skip commercials. ReplayTV users
exercise fair use rights to home recording, a legal principle established in the watershed 1984 Betamax
Supreme Court case when Hollywood unsuccessfully attempted to outlaw VCRs under the same legal theory --
that home recording was a violation of copyright.
In a discovery motion, the studios demanded that ReplayTV turn over all of its information about end-user
activities, including lists of what individuals are recording and sharing, and what commercials they skip
past. When ReplayTV answered that its does not collect personal information about its customers,
Magistrate Eick ordered ReplayTV to change its software within 60 days to accommodate the studios' demand.
ReplayTV requested that the spyware be implemented on an "opt-in" basis, so that its customers could
choose whether their personal habits would be gathered and turned over to the studios, but the Magistrate
denied the request.
Here is the relevant text from the court order: "[ReplayTV must] take the steps necessary to use their
broadband connections with ReplayTV 4000 customers to gather all available information about how users of
the ReplayTV employ the devices, including all available information about what works are copied, stored,
viewed with commercials omitted, or distributed to third parties with the ReplayTV 4000, when each of
those events took place, and the like."
This is an unprecedented turn of affairs -- the courts *requiring* spyware in technology, without any
regard for users' privacy rights. Of course, the court is ordering this invasion at the behest of the
entertainment industry. These are the same entertainment companies that are demanding a veto over new
technology through bills like the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA) and
mandates like the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (BPDG) "standard." If there was any doubt
remaining that Hollywood's disregard for the public makes it unfit to govern new technology, then surely
this outrage will eradicate it.
Links:
The San Jose Mercury story on this issue:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/3186191.htm
Slashdot on the San Jose Mercuiry story:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/03/0425240
Metafilter on the San Jose Mercury story:
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/16864
SonicBlue's product site for the ReplayTV 4000:
http://www.sonicblue.com/video/replaytv/default.asp
The ReplayTV Technological Emmy for the Advancement of Television (press-release)
http://www.sonicblue.com/company/press.asp?ID=501
EFF Weblog covering the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group:
http://bpdg.blogs.eff.org/
For more information on the future of digital television, see:
http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/HDTV/
Full text of CBDTPA (bill S. 2048):
http://www.eff.org/IP/SSSCA_CBDTPA/20020321_s2048_cbdtpa_bill.pdf
For more information about CBDTPA (and its older "parent," SSSCA), see:
http://www.eff.org/IP/SSSCA_CBDTPA/
Contact:
Cory Doctorow, EFF Outreach Coordinator
cory@eff.org
+1 415-436-9333 x106
Fred von Lohmann, EFF Senior Intellectual Property Atty.
fred@eff.org
+1 415-436-9333 x123
- end -
Back to table of contents
EFF Thanks Google
In early March, popular search engine company Google proved its commitment to its users by opting to
provide information about attempts at censorship to EFF's Chilling Effects Clearinghouse.
The Church of Scientology (CoS) threatened Google with a lawsuit, citing violation of the Digital
Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), because certain Google searches provided links to a site that opposes CoS.
Operation Clambake (www.xenu.net), [link] located in Norway, posts some documents that CoS alleges violate
their U.S. copyrights. The xenu.net site came up under Google searches for "scientology," along with CoS
copyrighted leaflets in other locations on the xenu.net site. CoS, which has often been criticized for
filing lawsuits to silence its critics, sent a cease and desist letter [make word "letter" a link to the
letter, http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=232] to Google demanding that they
remove their link to the xenu.net site, which, according to CoS lawyers, "contains literally hundreds of
our client's copyrighted works and federally registered trademarks."
Google removed some of the links in order to comply with the DMCA. Google also decided to use the incident
to educate other about the law by turning the CoS letter, along with all other cease and desist notices it
receives, to the EFF-sponsored Chilling Effects Clearinghouse (www.chillingeffects.org) [link] site. The
previous location of the leaflet links now points to a new Google page explaining the removal in response
to DMCA-related complaints. [link "a new Google page" to http://www.google.com/dmca.html]
A joint project of EFF and the Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, and University of San Francisco law school
clinics, the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse catalogues cease and desist notices and presents relevant
legal information to help recipients resist the chilling of legitimate activities, as well as understand
when their activities are unlawful. "We're very happy Google is providing this vital information to
Chilling Effects," stated EFF's legal director, Cindy Cohn. "We hope this will inspire more companies to
help us track the number and types of cease and desist letters sent, as well as give greatly needed legal
information to Internet users."
The original premise behind Google was to create the largest collection of web links, someday possibly
reaching a googol (ten to the hundredth) of pages. Google's search technology mines the web, collecting
and ranking all pages objectively and without censorship. This type of threat seriously undermines
Google's efforts to provide a view of the web judged by relevance and popularity only; therefore, it put
Google in a tough spot.
Links:
New York Times article, "Google Runs into Copyright Dispute":
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/22/technology/ebusiness/22NECO.html
Chilling Effects article, "Google Asked to Delist Scientology Critics":
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=232
Google DMCA page:
http://www.google.com/dmca.html
Internet.com article, "Google Airs Scientology Infringement Demand":
http://boston.internet.com/briefs/article/0,1928,2371_1009321,00.html
About the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading civil liberties organization working to protect rights
in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF actively encourages and challenges industry and government to
support free expression, privacy, and openness in the information society. EFF is a member-supported
organization and maintains one of the most linked-to websites in the world: http://www.eff.org/
About Google Inc.:
With the largest index of websites available on the World Wide Web and the industry's most advanced search
technology, Google Inc. delivers the fastest and easiest way to find relevant information on the Internet.
Google's technological innovations have earned the company numerous industry awards and citations,
including two Webby Awards; two WIRED magazine Readers Raves Awards; Best Internet Innovation and
Technical Excellence Award from PC Magazine; Best Search Engine on the Internet from Yahoo! Internet Life;
Top Ten Best Cybertech from TIME magazine; and Editor's Pick from CNET. A growing number of companies
worldwide, including Yahoo! and its international properties, Sony Corporation and its global affiliates,
AOL/Netscape, and Cisco Systems, rely on Google to power search on their websites. A privately held
company based in Mountain View, Calif., Google's investors include Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and
Sequoia Capital. More information about Google can be found on the Google site at http://www.google.com.
About the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse:
The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse is a unique collaboration among law school clinics and the Electronic
Frontier Foundation. Conceived and developed at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society by Berkman
Fellow Wendy Seltzer, the project is now supported by clinical programs at Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford,
University of San Francisco, and University of Maine law schools and the EFF.
- end -
Back to table of contents
EFF News Flash
News on the Electronic Liberty Front that you should know about even though EFF is not directly involved.
See the latest story below:
BarkingDogs.org is given cease and desist order by Dallas Morning News over deep linking. See:
http://www.BarkingDogs.org
- end -
Back to table of contents
Administrivia
EFFector is published by:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA
+1 415 436 9333 (voice)
+1 415 436 9993 (fax)
http://www.eff.org/
Editor:
Katina Bishop, EFF Education & Offline Activism Director
To Join EFF online, or make an additional donation, go to:
http://www.eff.org/support/
Membership & donation queries: membership@eff.org
General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries: ask@eff.org
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged. Signed articles do not necessarily
represent the views of EFF. To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors for
their express permission. Press releases and EFF announcements & articles may be reproduced individually
at will.
To subscribe to or unsubscribe from EFFector via the Web, go to:
http://www.eff.org/signup/mailserv.html
To subscribe to EFFector via e-mail, send to majordomo@eff.org a message BODY (not subject) of:
subscribe effector
The list server will send you a confirmation code and then add you to a subscription list for EFFector
(after you return the confirmation code; instructions will be in the confirmation e-mail).
To unsubscribe, send a similar message body to the same address, like so:
unsubscribe effector
(Please ask listmaster@eff.org to manually remove you from the list if this does not work for you for some
reason.)
To change your address, send both commands at once, one per line (i.e., unsubscribe your old address, and
subscribe your new address).
Back issues are available at:
http://www.eff.org/effector
To get the latest issue, send any message to effector-reflector@eff.org (or er@eff.org), and it will be
mailed to you automatically. You can also get, via the Web:
http://www.eff.org/effector/current.html
Please send any questions or comments to webmaster@eff.org
