72 research outputs found
Inhuman Copyright Scene: The Forgotten Law of Art in the Holocaust
Artists, authors, musicians, and other creative individuals formed an integral part of the horrific life in the ghettos, concentration camps, and extermination camps during the Holocaust. Through their works, Jewish prisoners documented the atrocities of the Nazis and exposed the untold stories of six million Jews who walked or labored to death. The vast majority of the authors of these works were murdered in gas chambers, labor camps, and ghettos. While much has been written about looted works of art, which were stolen from Jewish families during the Nazi occupation, this material covers only one limited subset of questions relating to ownership of works owned or created by Jews during the Holocaust. Scholarship on art and authorship in the Holocaust has failed to legally and morally explore the works that were created in the most extreme circumstances under which copyrighted works have ever been created. This Article aims to remedy this lack of awareness. The Article opens a debate that has no comparable example in human history.
The lack of social and legal discourse on property rights vested in works created within the ghettos and concentration camps has created legal anomalies that perpetuate historical injustice. These anomalies, disguised as copyright rules, prohibit legal owners of these works from claiming their rights and restrict public access to these works, while permitting public bodies (such as European and international museums and archives) to make repositories of these works, to declare ownership of the works, and to patronize their social fate and unprecedented historical value. This Article aims to reconcile the unexplored tension between the authorial rights in these works and the public interest in accessing and learning from them. Copyright laws protect and incentivize access to and use of creative voices vested in cultural commodities in a manner that is mutually beneficial to creators and communities of listeners. The creative voices of Jewish prisoners in the ghettos and concentration camps have been continuously silenced since the end of the Holocaust. From the moment they were stripped of their basic humanity in the ghettos until now, more than seventy years later, authors, artists, musicians, theatrical and opera playwrights, and stage actors have yet to receive legal protection in their works.
This Article offers the first inquiry into the fundamental law of ghetto art. The Article focuses on works created by Jewish prisoners in the ghettos, concentration camps, and extermination camps, with the aim to expose the many flaws in the way contemporary copyright laws are used to hold these works captive in institutions where they do not belong, rather than freeing them to the public in order to raise awareness, provide moral respect to their authors, rescue them from illegitimate owners, and deliver historical justice. As the third-generation of Holocaust survivors, we find this Article a moral duty. It is a duty that travels through works of art, music, and authorship and tells the many stories that the creators of the works could not tell. The unsettling findings of our research call for a reassessment of the common standards applied to the use and ownership of copyrighted works created during the Holocaust within the ghettos and concentration and extermination camps—in the most inhuman copyright scene humanity has ever created
NXNSAttack: Recursive DNS Inefficiencies and Vulnerabilities
This paper exposes a new vulnerability and introduces a corresponding attack,
the NoneXistent Name Server Attack (NXNSAttack), that disrupts and may paralyze
the DNS system, making it difficult or impossible for Internet users to access
websites, web e-mail, online video chats, or any other online resource. The
NXNSAttack generates a storm of packets between DNS resolvers and DNS
authoritative name servers. The storm is produced by the response of resolvers
to unrestricted referral response messages of authoritative name servers. The
attack is significantly more destructive than NXDomain attacks (e.g., the Mirai
attack): i) It reaches an amplification factor of more than 1620x on the number
of packets exchanged by the recursive resolver. ii) In addition to the negative
cache, the attack also saturates the 'NS' section of the resolver caches. To
mitigate the attack impact, we propose an enhancement to the recursive resolver
algorithm, MaxFetch(k), that prevents unnecessary proactive fetches. We
implemented the MaxFetch(1) mitigation enhancement on a BIND resolver and
tested it on real-world DNS query datasets. Our results show that MaxFetch(1)
degrades neither the recursive resolver throughput nor its latency. Following
the discovery of the attack, a responsible disclosure procedure was carried
out, and several DNS vendors and public providers have issued a CVE and patched
their systems
Recommended from our members
AI Strict Liability Vis-À-Vis AI Monopolization
Some argue that applying a strict liability regime on AI-inflicted damages may allow well-financed big AI companies to monopolize the industry. They hypothesize that a strict liability regime would expose AI companies to significant legal liability. Since small AI companies lack the necessary resources to pay for damages inflicted by their AI technology, a strict liability regime could erect barriers to entry for these small companies. Ultimately, the argument continues, such a regime would give a small group of companies a virtual monopoly on the AI industry. Thus, some conclude that strict liability inherently stifles innovation and should not be applied to emerging technologies, such as AI.
This Article maintains that legislators should adopt a strict liability regime, and it rejects the above argument for two reasons. First, there is no substantial connection between a strict liability regime and the AI monopolization that is already underway. Second, insurance policies could mitigate the effects a strict liability regime may have on the capabilities of small AI companies to enter and compete in this important market. Therefore, the ongoing process of monopolization of the AI market should not by itself render strict liability a non-viable regime when AI-inflicted damages occur
M-COMMERCE VS. E-COMMERCE: EXPLORING WEB SESSION BROWSING BEHAVIOR
With the growing popularity of mobile commerce (m-commerce), it becomes vital for both researchers and practitioners to understand m-commerce usage behavior. \ \ In this study, we investigate browsing behavior patterns based on the analysis of clickstream data that is recorded in server-side log files. We compare consumers\u27 browsing behaviors in the m-commerce channel against the traditional e-commerce channel. For the comparison, we offer an integrative web usage mining approach, combining visualization graphs, association rules and classification models to analyze the Web server log files of a large Internet retailer in Israel, who introduced m-commerce to its existing e-commerce offerings. \ \ The analysis is expected to reveal typical m-commerce and e-commerce browsing behavior, in terms of session timing and intensity of use and in terms of session navigation patterns. The obtained results will contribute to the emerging research area of m-commerce and can be also used to guide future development of mobile websites and increase their effectiveness. Our preliminary findings are promising. They reveal that browsing behaviors in m-commerce and e-commerce are different
- …