Cognitive Dissident: Interview with John Perry Barlow 140
Bob Hellbringer writes "Mother Jones Magazine has an online interview with John Perry Barlow of the EFF, on the things that all slashdotters love: 'the Total Information Awareness project, online activism, file sharing, and the prospect of a digital counterculture.'"
Re:And what about.. (Score:5, Informative)
Short answer: yes, with a but.
The government does want to track and record all communications sent by you. This is called, in military parlance, SIGINT, for "signals intelligence," and it's a doctrine that's as old as the hills. Basically SIGINT means to keep your ear to the ground and listen for signs that the bad guys are doing something that you'll wish you could have prevented. But nobody really cares about you, personally, so as long as you're not planning to hide weapons of mass destruction in your garage or anything, you're fine.
Popularized the term "Cyberspace"? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wh o is this fell o? (Score:3, Informative)
A self-described "classic boomer," Barlow is still best known for his first career, songsmithing for the Grateful Dead, with classics like "Cassidy," "Estimated Prophet," and "A Little Light" to his credit. After a go as a back-to-the-land cattle rancher, Barlow, 55, is now starring in a digital third act, one that may well fulfill his ultimate aspiration: "To be a good ancestor."
Re:speak for yourself (Score:5, Informative)
By the devine digested foodstuff! If that law makes no sense, is it wrong of us to say that it is bad?
Seeing as how actually copying the CD's is illegal anyway, this is not a problem.
Huh? No, it isn't. Making copies might be legal or illegal. Redistributing copies is in most cases illegal.
Unscrupulous people want to copy CD's rather than paying for them. This is against the law
True so far.
Oh, you say, but this is infringing on my fair use rights! Guess what? You have no fair use rights. None.
This is where we disagree.
First of all, you should read about the legislative history of "fair use". The current fair use portion of US copyright law was defined and carved out by the courts because they were presented with cases where copyright law and other rights (such as the right to free speech, critisism, science, etc) collided, and they had to make a compromise. This was later codified as a set of "fair use" rules (the four step test) in the 1976 revision of the copyright law.
Some highlights to help your googling:
1841: Folsom v. Marsh
1973: Williams and Wilkins Co. v. United States
1976: Fair use and first sale codified in US copyright law.
If you make certain uses of a work, those uses are defined by the law as being non-infringing. But that's an exception, not a right.
Actually, without fair use and other safety valves, copyright law would be unconstitutional. Even the copyright clause itself limit the scope of copyright law:
"The Congress shall have power [...] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
If the copyright holder wants to use technological means to prevent you from exercising that exception, they're free to do so. And the law says you have to respect their wishes on that matter.
The law, prior to the DMCA, said nothing of the sort. And in the analog world, courts have ruled against copyright holders that have unfairly tried to limit other peoples' legal use of their creations.
And I violently reject the notion that private interests should be free to rewrite copyright law to suit their own business plans - that is not, and never was, the purpose of copyright law.
But here's the deal. The RIAA only cares about preventing digital copying. They only care if you try to make a digital copy of a CD, or to generate digital MP3's from that CD
Ah, young Skywalker. Let me tell you about the olde times and "Home Taping Kills Music". In the ancient times of the cassette recorder, the RIAA entered a similar panic mode to prevent analog copying. The difference is that RIAA was not powerful enough then to buy laws and dictate technology. Today is seems like the movie/music industry is.
Your arguments about chilling effects add up to a big fat zero. Sorry.
Crypto research and computer security? The right to preserve something I've bought? Those "fair use" rights and all the explicit exemptions in copyright law? The media industry controlling the tech industry? The DMCA giving the creator of a protected media format patent-like monopoly protection?
A few large economic interests are using copyright law to shape the digital world in their own picture, ignoring lots of other rights that are equally important.
Re:Popularized the term "Cyberspace"? (Score:2, Informative)
"In 1990, he first applied William Gibson's science fiction term Cyberspace to the already-existing global electronic social space now generally referred to by that name. Until his naming it, it had not been considered any sort of place."