[comp.org.eff.talk] Steve Jackson Games

daemon@netsys.NETSYS.COM (09/25/90)

I'm writing to you all to see if you can give me a hand.  I'm preparing
a speech for my speech class on computer users constitutional rights.
What I'd like to do is highlight two cases, Craig Neidorf's and Steve
Jackson's, and then present EFF's purpose and intent to pursue proper
rights for the users of computers.  There are plenty of articles out there
on Craig's case and so I don't believe I'm lacking there.  I do need some
legitimate articles (when I say legitimate, I mean print media - newspapers,
magazines, etc.) on Steve Jackson's case.  My professor is being picky and
won't accept electronic media such as CuD.  Any help you could give me would
be appreciated.

Please respond in email and also someone tell me the actual name of this
newsgroup so I can join it.  Thanks.

Mike

edp@jareth.enet.dec.com (Eric Postpischil (Always mount a scratch monkey.)) (09/26/90)

Mike's return path didn't look healthy, so I'm responding here.  Hope he sees
it.

He asked for print media sources of information on the Steve Jackson case.  Here
are two:

John Perry Barlow, "Crime and Puzzlement," _Whole Earth Review_ 68 (Fall 1990):
44-57.
"CyberPunk Could Prove End of Steve Jackson Games," United Press International
(10 May 1990).

For the UPI story, check newspapers on that day and after.


				-- edp

milliken@bbn.com (Walter Milliken) (11/14/90)

In article <3014@igloo.scum.com>, learn@igloo (Bill HMRP Vajk) writes:
>It is not likely that the real damages to SJG can be ascertained. What segment 
>of the potential marketplace, fearing future intercession by a federal agency, 
>will elect to forego purchasing any games associated with a firm whose 
>business records potentially might bring goverment agents to their doorstep ?

As a close observer of the whole SJG fiasco (I'm a customer and a
frequent user on their BBS), I think this statement is probably a bit
off target.  As far as I know, no one has *not* bought products from
SJG due to the raid (though only Steve Jackson knows for sure).
Rather, as I understand it, many of SJG's distributors were very
supportive through the raid and its aftermath.  Also, the resulting
attention on the product the Secret Service somewhat confusedly
seized, GURPS Cyberpunk, probably boosted its sales somewhat -- it
even proclaimed on the front cover that it had been seized by the
Secret Service!

The real damage the raid seems to have done to the company is somewhat
different.  The raid put a one or two month delay into SJG's
production scehdule, as they had to rewrite and re-edit GURPS
Cyberpunk pretty much from scratch.  Since the company depends in
large part on a steady release of new products to maintain its cash
flow, that hurt them badly.  In addition, they were suffering from
other cash flow problems at the time, which would have been
troublesome, but not severe, if the raid hadn't additionally disrupted
their business by taking every copy of a major new product in final
production.

As it is, SJG it still reeling from the financial blow the raid dealt
it, and the company's survival is still somewhat in doubt, though
things appear to be improving slowly.

(Most of the above information is paraphrased from news and messages
posted on SJG-BBS, or from an article printed in the SJG newsletter
for GURPS players, Roleplayer.)

---Walter

new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) (11/15/90)

In article <60825@bbn.BBN.COM> milliken@bbn.com (Walter Milliken) writes:
>troublesome, but not severe, if the raid hadn't additionally disrupted
>their business by taking every copy of a major new product in final
>production.

Yet another good reason for off-site backups.  Live and learn.  -- Darren
-- 
--- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware ---
----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, 
      Formal Description Techniques (esp. Estelle), Coffee -----

learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill HMRP Vajk) (11/15/90)

In article <60825@bbn.BBN.COM> Walter Milliken writes:

> In article <3014@igloo.scum.com> Bill HMRP Vajk writes:

>>It is not likely that the real damages to SJG can be ascertained. What segment
>>of the potential marketplace, fearing future intercession by a federal agency,
> >will elect to forego purchasing any games associated with a firm whose 
> >business records potentially might bring goverment agents to their doorstep ?

> As a close observer of the whole SJG fiasco (I'm a customer and a
> frequent user on their BBS), I think this statement is probably a bit
> off target.  As far as I know, no one has *not* bought products from
> SJG due to the raid (though only Steve Jackson knows for sure).

Excuse me, Walter. You seem to have missed the entire point of this segment of 
my article. No one, not even Steve Jackson, knows the magnitude of potential
purchasers who have never previously contacted him and now will not.

Do you think these folks are running about the countryside proclaiming that
they now won't buy a product because they are afraid of the Secret Service ?
Already exhibiting a bit of perhaps justified paranoia, do you think they're
stupid enough to present a challenge to the cop mentality which says that if
a fellow is afraid, he's somehow dirty, so go nail the fool ?

You can have it your way if you wish. 

Yes, Walter, there is a Santa Claus.

Bill Vajk

curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) (11/18/90)

new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes:

> In article <60825@bbn.BBN.COM> milliken@bbn.com (Walter Milliken) writes:
> >troublesome, but not severe, if the raid hadn't additionally disrupted
> >their business by taking every copy of a major new product in final
> >production.
> 
> Yet another good reason for off-site backups.  Live and learn.  -- Darren

They *had* off-site backups.  They went home with employees and forced them to 
surrender *every* copy of the relevant (?) information.

cjs


curt@cynic.UUCP                  | "The unconscious self is the real genius.
curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca          |  Your breathing goes wrong the minute your
{uunet|ubc-cs}!van-bc!cynic!curt |  conscious self meddles with it."  --GBS

jmc@Gang-of-Four.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) (11/19/90)

Unless the items were mentioned in a subpoena or the search warrant
mentioned each home of each employee, the employees were not legally
required to retrieve their backups.  Very likely, not knowing their
rights, they allowed themselves to be bullied.

milliken@bbn.com (Walter Milliken) (11/21/90)

In article <3026@igloo.scum.com>, learn@igloo (Bill HMRP Vajk) writes:
>Excuse me, Walter. You seem to have missed the entire point of this segment of 
>my article. No one, not even Steve Jackson, knows the magnitude of potential
>purchasers who have never previously contacted him and now will not.

True, but if this effect were substantial, one would expect that SJG
would notice a loss of business from existing customers, as well.  As
far as I know, this hasn't happened, and I believe that SJG is selling
their products about as well as they ever have.

Naturally, this doesn't disprove your point, and it's certainly a
valid problem to be wary of.  But I was simply stating that I
seriously doubt that it's been a major effect in this particular case,
and that other, much more obvious damage occurred.

---Walter

milliken@bbn.com (Walter Milliken) (11/21/90)

In article <D1Xss3w163w@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca>, curt@cynic (Curt Sampson) writes:
>new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes:
>> Yet another good reason for off-site backups.  Live and learn.  -- Darren
>
>They *had* off-site backups.  They went home with employees and forced them to 
>surrender *every* copy of the relevant (?) information.

I haven't heard anything about this.  To my knowledge, the only copies
were at SJG's offices, and at the home of the author.  Normally, that
would be plenty of backup, but the author was the target of the raid,
so both the home and office copies went.  The various discussions
about the raid on SJG-BBS have never said about the Feds going to
anyone else's home (at least SJG people).

There were, in fact, partial off-site backups in that many playtesters
had bits and pieces of the manuscript, downloaded from copies on
SJG-BBS.  As far as I know, the Feds never bothered any of these
people, and SJG managed to collect parts of the manuscript back from
playtester copies.  But some of it had never been posted for playtest.

---Walter

learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill HMRP Vajk) (11/24/90)

In article <61026@bbn.BBN.COM>, milliken@bbn.com (Walter Milliken) writes:

< In article <3026@igloo.scum.com>, learn@igloo (Bill HMRP Vajk) writes:

< >Excuse me, Walter. You seem to have missed the entire point of this segment 
< >of my article. No one, not even Steve Jackson, knows the magnitude of 
< >potential purchasers who have never previously contacted him and now will not

< Naturally, this doesn't disprove your point, and it's certainly a
< valid problem to be wary of.  But I was simply stating that I
< seriously doubt that it's been a major effect in this particular case,
< and that other, much more obvious damage occurred.
 
Progress at last.

Now comes the really tough question.

Why do you seem to wish to minimize the appearances of a detremental
impact when you've agreed it is impossible to quantify this subject ?

Obvious damage is bad. And if your market is not expanding, even if
you don't know why, or have not had the sort of unnecessarily bad
experience Steve Jackson Games has just had, you'd best start looking
at a different business or product line right away.

I suggest that if a single potential distributor had a change of heart
as a result of the Secret Service raid, that damage has the potential
of killing off the company in the longer term. If not, then most certainly
a much longer growth cycle with a greatly reduced ROI.

Please bear in mind that when one is reviewing damage, the obvious is 
important to the immediate response. A deeper analysis is necessary to
predict the complete results.

I can't help but wonder why Mr. Milliken attempts to wish away real
damages.

Bill Vajk

zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (11/24/90)

In article <1990Nov20.041806.29066@digibd.com> merlyn@digibd.com (Brian Westley (Merlyn LeRoy)) writes:
>You're all missing the most obvious solution:
>
>Old Adage: Never write anything down.
>
>New Adage: Keep everything in RAM.
>
>Cops usually remove what they are searching for, and I doubt they
>would give a second thought about turning the computer off & unplugging it.
>
>
>---
>Merlyn LeRoy
>"Eeelectricity
>   is penny cheap from N..S..P..to..yooooooooou!"


	Now THAT is a good idea.  Yet, RAM is a BIT more expensive than your
average magnetic media.  On my machine one MEG costs $50. Yet a 60 MEG HD
would cost only about 490.   That is about $8 per MEG.

-- 
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM

 
                                   

zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (11/24/90)

In article <009400DE.974B20C0@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu> price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price) writes:
>
>	This is the wrong attitude.  First, I would suspect that it is 
>indeed illegal - something about tampering with evidence (Mike, help me on 
>this - is it evidence before the police have it?).  Second, I don't think 
>that was the intent of the original question.  These "illegal" files were 
>due to a user on the system, not the sysop.  A person running a BBS is 
>another story.  Third, do we really want to use this group to discuss 
>methods of implementing the 11th commandment ("don't get caught") ?  My 
>understanding was that this group is for the discussion of the rights of 
>computer professionals (where that term may be loosely defined, I suppose). 
>Have I missed the point?
>
	But UNTIL our rights are secure. . .


-- 
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM