Slashdot Log In
Interview with EFF's Fred Von Lohmann
Posted by
michael
on Wed Jan 08, 2003 10:44 AM
from the talking-the-talk dept.
from the talking-the-talk dept.
scubacuda writes "Tech Focus has an --> interview with EFF's Fred Von Lohmann, Senior Intellectual Property Attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Covered in the interview: Kazaa, commercial skipping, DMCA, 802.11b networks, congressmen friendly to the idea of "fair use", and how to "make a difference"." Update: 01/08 17:42 GMT by M : Link changed to reduce the load on Techfocus.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Interview with EFF's Fred Von Lohmann
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 156 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
slashdotted (Score:1)
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you...
The article - compelling read (Score:2, Redundant)
Wow... (Score:5, Interesting)
We all agree that piracy isn't a good thing, but I'd like to think the P2P is viable even without copyright infringement. There was that innovative mechanism a while ago where you could download a file and other people could share the pieces they've already downloaded with you, distributing the load on-the-fly. And there's the unique streaming audio solution that works similarly. Just because some folks throw away the tags on their pillows doesn't mean we don't need a place to rest our heads, right?
There's a lot of interesting stuff coming out that's dual-use, and no doubt that'd be the motif of the interview if it didn't die before the second frigging comment was posted. Why aren't the links cached on here, again?
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Informative)
> copyright infringement if someone makes money off
> it without paying royalties?
I wish that was true, but it isn't.
> On the other hand, if I don't charge you, then I
> have NOT violated copyright.
I wish that was true, but it isn't.
> Of course, following the radio model, the music
> companies should've been paying Napster to host
> songs and promote the bands, a la payola.
Look up "compulsory licensing" and "ASCAP and BMI".
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
No. Article I, section 8, of the Constituion states that Congress is empowered " 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 ." This is the source of copyright, and as you can see, public benefit, in the form of progress in science and the useful arts, is the purpose of copyright. Granting the exclusive right (which is subject to restrictions) is just a means to that end.
In other news, Speed of /. Effect defined. (Score:3, Funny)
Researchers at Cal Tech measured the speed at which a server went down when linked from a slashdot post as, "Damn near the speed of light."
When asked for clarification on that speed. The researcher said, "We've observed it in 10 replies or less. That's shorter than a New York Minute for Gosh sakes."
Wow.
I really liked the part about dietcoke! (Score:3, Funny)
mysql://dietcoke:@localhost/techfocus_org failed to connectToo many connections
Dear Fred (Score:4, Funny)
Article body... (Score:5, Informative)
Posted by: Bill_Royle on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 12:09 PM
Interviews "Noone has ever suggested that Ford should be liable for every bank robbery committed with one of its cars..."
We've conducted an interview with Fred Von Lohmann, Senior Intellectual Property Attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an membership organization that has spearheaded many technology-related causes and legal battles, with civil liberties being on the forefront. In cases such as the halt of US encryption method publishing, the 2600/DeCSS case, Morpheus, ReplayTV and constant clashes with the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has been one of the most active organizations representing technology.
We fielded questions from visitors along with some of our own, and Fred Von Lohmann took the time to discuss the issues with us. Some of his work with the EFF includes his work on the MGM vs. Grokster case, which threatens to set legal precedent on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing. He is also involved in the Newmark vs. Turner Broadcasting case, which involves the use of ReplayTV to skip commercials, record content and share the content with others.
We appreciate the questions from our visitors, and would particularly like to thank Fred Von Lohmann and the Electronic Frontier Foundation for taking the time to discuss important issues in the industry, and for consumers!
"In the Metro-Goldwyn Mayer v. Grokster case, the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that US courts hold no jurisdiction over regulation of the Kazaa product, as it is located in the island-nation of Vanuatu. The EFF contends that as there are no contacts of substantial value within the US, and as such the courts do not have the authority to regulate or impose fines upon Kazaa. Therefore, does this claim indicate a trend developing in which software companies under legal fire move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to avoid financial liability or injunction?"
First, EFF does not represent Kazaa and has taken no position on the jurisdiction questions regarding Sharman Networks, which now controls the Kazaa software. Sharman's position is that they have no business contacts with the United States, and therefore should not be dragged into court here. Their chief place of business is in Australia, and they have plainly stated that they would submit to jurisdiction in Australia (not exactly a copyright rogue state).
I think too much has been made of the Vanuatu angle regarding Kazaa. Although the various Kazaa entities are off-shore, they have been located in the Netherlands and Australia. There's no difficulty in litigating in their home countries. In fact, copyright owners have sued (and so far have lost) in the Netherlands. The increase in off-shore developers in P2P is simply a function of the very expensive, hostile environment in the US, where entertainment companies have made it clear that they will sue any company that enters offers general-purpose P2P tools. In the Napster case, moreover, the entertainment companies dropped hints that they might actually sue Napster's investors (Hummer Winblad), a development that has chilled investment in the entire P2P industry sector.
Is it any surprise that US innovators have given up the mantle to other countries? So Blubster is apparently located in Spain, Xolox in the Netherlands, Kazaa in Australia.
"In the case of Newmark v. Turner, EFF argues that the SendShow feature and commercial-skipping using the ReplayTV DVR (Digital Video Recorder) are features which in themselves do not constitute infringement or engage in piracy. If this is true and a user does utilize the commercial skipping technology, then distributes the DVR'd content over the internet using Kazaa somehow, who should be prosecuted for the action if it is found to be an illegal use of copyrighted content?"
The Copyright Act, like most of our laws, has been built on the premise that you go after the guy who actually breaks the law. Sure, sometimes we extend the reach of the law to get the wheel-man, too. But no one has ever suggested that Ford should be liable for every bank robbery committed with one of its cars. Yet the entertainment industries appear to want to let all the bank robbers run free and *only* punish the car makers.
It makes you wonder whether the fight is actually about piracy, or if it's instead about asserting control over new technologies.
If someone uses a PVR (or computer, or crow bar, or car, for that matter) to break the law, then by all means go after them. Find the guys who are distributing "the Sopranos" to their friends who don't pay for HBO. Once you've rounded those couple dozen PVR owners up, then leave the hundreds of thousand other, innocent American PVR owners alone. Stop calling them thieves, stop trying to cripple their cool gadgets, and stop threatening innovative companies like SonicBlue.
Oh, and by the way, once you've busted all the "Sopranos" sharers, don't be surprised if you see a drop in new HBO subscriptions, as you've ended up killing off a free, viral marketing channel that most consumer-products companies would have given their right arm for. But hey, it always pays to ignore your marketing staff and let the lawyers run the show, doesn't it?
"Recently HP threatened legal action under the guise of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in order to subvert the disclosure of flaws within it's Tru64 operating system. This was also the methodology behind Adobe's initial complaint against Elcomsoft employee Dmitry Skylarov, done in order to squelch disclosure of flaws in their eBook software. What effect overall does the DMCA realistically have over the disclosure of bugs and security holes, and is it positive or negative for the consumer?"
The DMCA is having a very negative impact on computer security research. Don't take my word for it -- Richard Clark, the Bush Administration's Cyber-Security Czar, recently called for DMCA reform for this very reason. For more examples of the chill imposed on legitimate activities by the DMCA, see EFF's white paper, "Unintended Consequences: Four Years Under the DMCA" (google: "DMCA unintended consequences"). To take only the most recent example, Lexmark just filed a DMCA lawsuit against a company that makes chips that permit third-party toner cartridges to be used in their laser printers. I don't think that, when it passed the DMCA, Congress intended to help Lexmark shut out legitimate competition in the toner market.
"Internet Service Providers have begun warning and enforcing portions of their user agreements which forbid subscribers from sharing their wireless internet access with others. In response specifically to Time-Warner Cable's specific warning to customers not to do so, the Electronic Frontier Foundation compiled a list of ISP's who it deemed unlikely to enforce or encroach on this networking method. What methods of discovery and enforcement can ISP's legally take to insure that customers are not using their bandwidth via wireless networking?"
Well, it's not easy to predict what kinds of enforcement options ISPs may undertake to prevent community 802.11 networks. Whatever measures they undertake, however, the right answer is to abandon ISPs that don't provide you the service you want. Choose an ISP that gives you the real Internet, not their port-blocked, bandwidth-shaped, you-can't-run-a-server version of the Internet. We at EFF have compiled a list of ISPs that do not forbid connection sharing. We hope it will help consumers vote with their pocketbooks to support ISPs that are not interested in limiting your Internet options.
"Which US Senator would you consider to be the strongest voice for consumers in regards to the "Fair Use" doctrine? Which US Congressman?"
As a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization, EFF cannot endorse particular politicians or engage in direct campaigning. But we certainly do take positions on legislation. For two of the worst pieces of legislation in the last Congress, you might want to check the Hollings Bill (aka CBDTPA, S. 2048), the Berman Bill (aka P2P Vigilante Bill, H.R. 5211). For examples of legislation heading the right direction on copyright, you might want to check out the Boucher-Doolittle DMCRA (H.R. 5544), Zoe Logren's Bill (H.R. 5522) and the Cox-Wyden Fair Use Bill of Rights (H. J. Res. 116). I expect many of these measures to be reintroduced in the new Congress.
"Most of my letters to legislators and organizations about intellectual property go unanswered or I receive formletters. What are the most effective ways I can make a difference in intellectual property policy and law?"
Keep writing. We at EFF have even set up an Action Center to make it easy to write and fax your members of Congress.
Just because you get a form letter doesn't mean you're not making a difference. I used to work for a Senator handling constituent mail, and it can make a big difference. When only a few letters come in, they get a generic "thanks for writing" note. Once it's a steady stream, a staffer looks into the issue, brief his boss, and composes an issue-specific form letter. Once it's a torrent, them members of Congress start calling each other and asking whether there's any legislation they can sign onto to take credit for fixing the problem.
So keep writing.
"What kind of support or help can the average user provide which is most helpful, in assisting the EFF in their efforts, monetarily or otherwise?"
Become a member, make a steady donation. Set up a $10 monthly recurring payment on your credit card. We're a membership-supported organization, with no fat endowment or corporate support. Without our members, we simply cease to exist.
Second, tell 5 of your non-technical family, friends or acquaintances about EFF issues and about why they matter. Holding the interest of the mainstream is critical to making real change. In 10 years, I want every elementary school child to have as much sympathy for digital freedom issues as they do today for environmentalism.
Third, drop us a note if you're able to volunteer. We need all kinds of help -- sometimes we need office furniture, sometimes envelope stuffing, sometimes web design, sometimes strong crypto programming. If you're prepared to devote some real time and make a commitment, we'd love to hear from you.
And keep writing to your representatives, where ever you may live.
"If you were to write one piece of legislation, what would it be, and why?"
Surprisingly enough, it's already been written, and not by me. It's called the DMCRA, H.R. 5544 in the last Congress, sponsored by Rep. Boucher and Rep. Doolittle, and it would reform the DMCA. It fixes the most egregious aspects of the DMCA, making sure that our traditional copyright law balance is restored. If it were law, it would ensure that there were no more Sklyarov cases, no more Felten cases, no more DeCSS cases. That'd be a fine start.
"What do you think is the single most compelling reason why the average person should support the EFF's intellectual property fight?"
If you care about culture, radio, television, literature, music, art, information or knowledge, then you should be supporting our fight on intellectual property. EFF is not against intellectual property. We are fighting for a return to a balanced form of copyright, one that respects the owners and the public equally. After all, copyright law is made, ostensibly, for the benefit of the public. If you, as a member of the public, think that our culture should not be regulated exclusively by high-priced lobbyists working for the entertainment industry, and if you don't believe our copyright law system today is working in the best interests of the public, you should be supporting EFF.
"If you were king for a day and could make one single change to anything concerning intellectual property in the United States, what would you change?"
Striking the right balance in intellectual property is not a matter of making a single change. It's a matter of making lots of changes to adjust to new technologies on an ongoing basis. Today, reform of the DMCA, reduction of copyright term, and fighting to preserve a healthy fair use doctrine are at the top of my list.
"Has there been a court case where more than any other, you think that the "good guys" have lost? What was the reason for their loss?"
The biggest defeats for the public interest in the last decade came not in court cases, but rather in the legislative arena, with the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the DMCA.
But, in the long run, the Napster decision may well end up being the biggest courtroom defeat. Not because it put down Napster, but rather because it did so in a way that created a dangerous precedent for all technology companies. In the name of stopping P2P file sharing, lots of bad copyright law is being made in the courts right now, law that effectively puts entertainment companies in charge of technological innovation. If the precedents being made today were on the books 20 years ago, we would never have seen the photocopier, the VCR, or the CD recorder. I'm afraid, the bad copyright precedents will be with us long after Napster is a dim memory.
"What is your stand on the concept of intellectual property? Eg, should it be abolished altogether or is there a way to make it work?"
I'm a copyright lawyer. I like copyright, and I think it is plenty flexible enough to see us through the transition to a digital media world. The basic challenge hasn't changed -- we need to strike a fair balance between an author's need to get paid and the public's right to have access to its cultural and media heritage. In order to make it work, we may need to let go of the obsession with perfectly counting and controlling "reproductions" of copyrighted works. Fortunately, there are historical precedents for that. After all, in response to the last revolution in distribution, namely broadcast radio and television, copyright owners learned to let go of the need to control and count every single listener and viewer. And it turned out to work pretty well for all concerned.
Text from the article (Score:2, Informative)
We've conducted an interview with Fred Von Lohmann, Senior Intellectual Property Attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an membership organization that has spearheaded many technology-related causes and legal battles, with civil liberties being on the forefront. In cases such as the halt of US encryption method publishing, the 2600/DeCSS case, Morpheus, ReplayTV and constant clashes with the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has been one of the most active organizations representing technology.
We fielded questions from visitors along with some of our own, and Fred Von Lohmann took the time to discuss the issues with us. Some of his work with the EFF includes his work on the MGM vs. Grokster case, which threatens to set legal precedent on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing. He is also involved in the Newmark vs. Turner Broadcasting case, which involves the use of ReplayTV to skip commercials, record content and share the content with others.
We appreciate the questions from our visitors, and would particularly like to thank Fred Von Lohmann and the Electronic Frontier Foundation for taking the time to discuss important issues in the industry, and for consumers!
"In the Metro-Goldwyn Mayer v. Grokster case, the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that US courts hold no jurisdiction over regulation of the Kazaa product, as it is located in the island-nation of Vanuatu. The EFF contends that as there are no contacts of substantial value within the US, and as such the courts do not have the authority to regulate or impose fines upon Kazaa. Therefore, does this claim indicate a trend developing in which software companies under legal fire move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to avoid financial liability or injunction?"
First, EFF does not represent Kazaa and has taken no position on the jurisdiction questions regarding Sharman Networks, which now controls the Kazaa software. Sharman's position is that they have no business contacts with the United States, and therefore should not be dragged into court here. Their chief place of business is in Australia, and they have plainly stated that they would submit to jurisdiction in Australia (not exactly a copyright rogue state).
I think too much has been made of the Vanuatu angle regarding Kazaa. Although the various Kazaa entities are off-shore, they have been located in the Netherlands and Australia. There's no difficulty in litigating in their home countries. In fact, copyright owners have sued (and so far have lost) in the Netherlands. The increase in off-shore developers in P2P is simply a function of the very expensive, hostile environment in the US, where entertainment companies have made it clear that they will sue any company that enters offers general-purpose P2P tools. In the Napster case, moreover, the entertainment companies dropped hints that they might actually sue Napster's investors (Hummer Winblad), a development that has chilled investment in the entire P2P industry sector.
Is it any surprise that US innovators have given up the mantle to other countries? So Blubster is apparently located in Spain, Xolox in the Netherlands, Kazaa in Australia.
"In the case of Newmark v. Turner, EFF argues that the SendShow feature and commercial-skipping using the ReplayTV DVR (Digital Video Recorder) are features which in themselves do not constitute infringement or engage in piracy. If this is true and a user does utilize the commercial skipping technology, then distributes the DVR'd content over the internet using Kazaa somehow, who should be prosecuted for the action if it is found to be an illegal use of copyrighted content?"
The Copyright Act, like most of our laws, has been built on the premise that you go after the guy who actually breaks the law. Sure, sometimes we extend the reach of the law to get the wheel-man, too. But no one has ever suggested that Ford should be liable for every bank robbery committed with one of its cars. Yet the entertainment industries appear to want to let all the bank robbers run free and *only* punish the car makers.
It makes you wonder whether the fight is actually about piracy, or if it's instead about asserting control over new technologies.
If someone uses a PVR (or computer, or crow bar, or car, for that matter) to break the law, then by all means go after them. Find the guys who are distributing "the Sopranos" to their friends who don't pay for HBO. Once you've rounded those couple dozen PVR owners up, then leave the hundreds of thousand other, innocent American PVR owners alone. Stop calling them thieves, stop trying to cripple their cool gadgets, and stop threatening innovative companies like SonicBlue.
Oh, and by the way, once you've busted all the "Sopranos" sharers, don't be surprised if you see a drop in new HBO subscriptions, as you've ended up killing off a free, viral marketing channel that most consumer-products companies would have given their right arm for. But hey, it always pays to ignore your marketing staff and let the lawyers run the show, doesn't it?
"Recently HP threatened legal action under the guise of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in order to subvert the disclosure of flaws within it's Tru64 operating system. This was also the methodology behind Adobe's initial complaint against Elcomsoft employee Dmitry Skylarov, done in order to squelch disclosure of flaws in their eBook software. What effect overall does the DMCA realistically have over the disclosure of bugs and security holes, and is it positive or negative for the consumer?"
The DMCA is having a very negative impact on computer security research. Don't take my word for it -- Richard Clark, the Bush Administration's Cyber-Security Czar, recently called for DMCA reform for this very reason. For more examples of the chill imposed on legitimate activities by the DMCA, see EFF's white paper, "Unintended Consequences: Four Years Under the DMCA" (google: "DMCA unintended consequences"). To take only the most recent example, Lexmark just filed a DMCA lawsuit against a company that makes chips that permit third-party toner cartridges to be used in their laser printers. I don't think that, when it passed the DMCA, Congress intended to help Lexmark shut out legitimate competition in the toner market.
"Internet Service Providers have begun warning and enforcing portions of their user agreements which forbid subscribers from sharing their wireless internet access with others. In response specifically to Time-Warner Cable's specific warning to customers not to do so, the Electronic Frontier Foundation compiled a list of ISP's who it deemed unlikely to enforce or encroach on this networking method. What methods of discovery and enforcement can ISP's legally take to insure that customers are not using their bandwidth via wireless networking?"
Well, it's not easy to predict what kinds of enforcement options ISPs may undertake to prevent community 802.11 networks. Whatever measures they undertake, however, the right answer is to abandon ISPs that don't provide you the service you want. Choose an ISP that gives you the real Internet, not their port-blocked, bandwidth-shaped, you-can't-run-a-server version of the Internet. We at EFF have compiled a list of ISPs that do not forbid connection sharing. We hope it will help consumers vote with their pocketbooks to support ISPs that are not interested in limiting your Internet options.
"Which US Senator would you consider to be the strongest voice for consumers in regards to the "Fair Use" doctrine? Which US Congressman?"
As a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization, EFF cannot endorse particular politicians or engage in direct campaigning. But we certainly do take positions on legislation. For two of the worst pieces of legislation in the last Congress, you might want to check the Hollings Bill (aka CBDTPA, S. 2048), the Berman Bill (aka P2P Vigilante Bill, H.R. 5211). For examples of legislation heading the right direction on copyright, you might want to check out the Boucher-Doolittle DMCRA (H.R. 5544), Zoe Logren's Bill (H.R. 5522) and the Cox-Wyden Fair Use Bill of Rights (H. J. Res. 116). I expect many of these measures to be reintroduced in the new Congress.
"Most of my letters to legislators and organizations about intellectual property go unanswered or I receive formletters. What are the most effective ways I can make a difference in intellectual property policy and law?"
Keep writing. We at EFF have even set up an Action Center to make it easy to write and fax your members of Congress.
Just because you get a form letter doesn't mean you're not making a difference. I used to work for a Senator handling constituent mail, and it can make a big difference. When only a few letters come in, they get a generic "thanks for writing" note. Once it's a steady stream, a staffer looks into the issue, brief his boss, and composes an issue-specific form letter. Once it's a torrent, them members of Congress start calling each other and asking whether there's any legislation they can sign onto to take credit for fixing the problem.
So keep writing.
"What kind of support or help can the average user provide which is most helpful, in assisting the EFF in their efforts, monetarily or otherwise?"
Become a member, make a steady donation. Set up a $10 monthly recurring payment on your credit card. We're a membership-supported organization, with no fat endowment or corporate support. Without our members, we simply cease to exist.
Second, tell 5 of your non-technical family, friends or acquaintances about EFF issues and about why they matter. Holding the interest of the mainstream is critical to making real change. In 10 years, I want every elementary school child to have as much sympathy for digital freedom issues as they do today for environmentalism.
Third, drop us a note if you're able to volunteer. We need all kinds of help -- sometimes we need office furniture, sometimes envelope stuffing, sometimes web design, sometimes strong crypto programming. If you're prepared to devote some real time and make a commitment, we'd love to hear from you.
And keep writing to your representatives, where ever you may live.
"If you were to write one piece of legislation, what would it be, and why?"
Surprisingly enough, it's already been written, and not by me. It's called the DMCRA, H.R. 5544 in the last Congress, sponsored by Rep. Boucher and Rep. Doolittle, and it would reform the DMCA. It fixes the most egregious aspects of the DMCA, making sure that our traditional copyright law balance is restored. If it were law, it would ensure that there were no more Sklyarov cases, no more Felten cases, no more DeCSS cases. That'd be a fine start.
"What do you think is the single most compelling reason why the average person should support the EFF's intellectual property fight?"
If you care about culture, radio, television, literature, music, art, information or knowledge, then you should be supporting our fight on intellectual property. EFF is not against intellectual property. We are fighting for a return to a balanced form of copyright, one that respects the owners and the public equally. After all, copyright law is made, ostensibly, for the benefit of the public. If you, as a member of the public, think that our culture should not be regulated exclusively by high-priced lobbyists working for the entertainment industry, and if you don't believe our copyright law system today is working in the best interests of the public, you should be supporting EFF.
"If you were king for a day and could make one single change to anything concerning intellectual property in the United States, what would you change?"
Striking the right balance in intellectual property is not a matter of making a single change. It's a matter of making lots of changes to adjust to new technologies on an ongoing basis. Today, reform of the DMCA, reduction of copyright term, and fighting to preserve a healthy fair use doctrine are at the top of my list.
"Has there been a court case where more than any other, you think that the "good guys" have lost? What was the reason for their loss?"
The biggest defeats for the public interest in the last decade came not in court cases, but rather in the legislative arena, with the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the DMCA.
But, in the long run, the Napster decision may well end up being the biggest courtroom defeat. Not because it put down Napster, but rather because it did so in a way that created a dangerous precedent for all technology companies. In the name of stopping P2P file sharing, lots of bad copyright law is being made in the courts right now, law that effectively puts entertainment companies in charge of technological innovation. If the precedents being made today were on the books 20 years ago, we would never have seen the photocopier, the VCR, or the CD recorder. I'm afraid, the bad copyright precedents will be with us long after Napster is a dim memory.
"What is your stand on the concept of intellectual property? Eg, should it be abolished altogether or is there a way to make it work?"
I'm a copyright lawyer. I like copyright, and I think it is plenty flexible enough to see us through the transition to a digital media world. The basic challenge hasn't changed -- we need to strike a fair balance between an author's need to get paid and the public's right to have access to its cultural and media heritage. In order to make it work, we may need to let go of the obsession with perfectly counting and controlling "reproductions" of copyrighted works. Fortunately, there are historical precedents for that. After all, in response to the last revolution in distribution, namely broadcast radio and television, copyright owners learned to let go of the need to control and count every single listener and viewer. And it turned out to work pretty well for all concerned.
Our thanks to Fred Von Lohmann and the Electronic Frontier Foundation for their time!
The right to slashdot... (Score:3, Funny)
mysql://dietcoke:@localhost/techfocus_org failed to connectToo many connections
They should have asked him wheter slashdotting should be made illegal. Or is it covered by free speech as a form of expression?
How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
"Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man"
- Mohandas Karamachand Gandhi
Nonviolent disobedience people. Download the music, rip the DVD's, skip the commericials, encrypt the email. Don't buy the X-Box or the PS2. Don't go to see Disney movies. Don't give in. Don't give up.
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:5, Informative)
copyright is not a birth right, but a "wholely statutory" grant (Wharton v. Peters, 1834). The Copyright grant exists by the grace of the public as a public investment for the public benefit, much like a loan. "The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors" (US v. Paramount Pictures, 1948; Sony v. Universal City Studios, 1984).
Bad Writing on TechFocus (Score:2, Insightful)
I hate to play the role of Grammar Police, but it's discouraging to see that TechFocus writers haven't even grasped the basics of proper English grammar.
It's supposed to be "a membership organization", not "an membership"!!
In the Real World, such poor use of the English language reflects very poorly on the organization.
mirror (Score:4, Informative)
Killing the market (Score:5, Interesting)
That about nails it right on the nose, doesn't it. If one doesn't hear/see/notice a product, then a sale is lost. If somebody notices the product, even if it's pirated, but then gets a legal copy or related merchandise, then the company benefits.
It makes me wonder about the attempted increase on taxation of recordable media in Canada. If the media becomes too expensive, what happens to companies like Sony who not only sell the original discs but also recordable media and the devices which use them (mp3-disc players, etc). Killing one's customer base off is rarely a smart move. Of course, how a private industry gains a tax is beyond me anyways
hyperlinks (Score:4, Interesting)
Pretty soon, people are going to stop using hyperlinks all together and just use google keywords. Maybe there should be a google:// .. I know if I'm in a conversation and someone wants a hyperlink, I say "google for (keyword) instead of using a url.
BTW, here is a link [eff.org] to the paper.
Re:hyperlinks (Score:5, Informative)
gg:
into the Location bar and, viola! Google search on the words. Konqueror still has some bugs to work out, but it is a good browser. Much better than Netscape 4.x.
Back on topic: The most insightful remark in the interview has to be:
I cannot agree more with this. Friends of mine who have worked in congressional offices tell me that just ten letters on a single topic gets noticed. Why? Because there are probably ten people with similar feelings and thoughts on an issue for each one that actually writes. Many elections (esp. in the House) are won or lost by a few hundred or a few thousand votes. The mailbox and the ballot box are still your first best hope for Democracy.
I support the EFF [eff.org] also because lobbying is more direct than mailing and voting, but the influence of the EFF is enhanced with each letter your write. Write, write, write!
Optimism: The Media Monsters Will Lose (Score:5, Interesting)
But lately the more I've thought about it, the more I've realized the media monsters are fighting a losing battle. They just can't win (in the long run.) Here are reasons why I think this:
So overall I think we, the people, will win in the long run. But it won't happen overnight and in the meantime we may be in for some rough times.
This issue is more important and far ranging than (Score:5, Insightful)
It really amounts to the beginning of the Decline of Western Civilization.
Go back to around the tenth century, for a moment. Islamic civilization was supreme. Science was seen as learning about God and his works, rather than being in conflict with religion. Eventually the Islamic dominance came under seige for other reasons, but they lost that attitude toward science. European civilization picked it up, and the era of Western dominance began.
Nor do I mean to hold up Science as a religion. For my working definition, Science is the mindset that we can study and attempt to understand the Universe and its contents. For the religious, this really is learning about God and his works, essentially the old Muslim belief.
But now for the decline of the West... We have apparently decided that the current business models of the entertainment industry are more important than digital innovation. Both the legislation *and the attitude under which we crafted that legislation* are significant. Recently there was a blurb about the Bush Administration wanting science to have a "conservative tilt." Science has always been used and tilted, but AFAIK never as a piece of public policy. New Age pseudoscience is on the rise - creation "science", crystals, magnets, copper bracelets, etc.
Essentially, the West is beginning to turn its collective back on science and progress - to remain comfortable in what is known or at least doesn't require really hard work. (like math) Most of what I mention happens in the US, but those same things have analogs around the rest of the Western world, so don't pretend non-US shouldn't worry.
Obviously this isn't universal. There are people fighting these trends, there are people still studying science, math, etc. Presumably the trend is still reversible, I hope. But it's there, it's growing, and it lends another chunk of urgency to the FSF's fight.
A disturbance in the force... (Score:1)
I felt like some pseudo-asian Obe Wan was staring at me saying, "These aren't the copyright lawsuits you're looking for."
Changing attitudes (Score:5, Interesting)
I find this interesting. In my experience, it's often those who are comfortable with technology that have attitudes which, IMHO, are counter-productive to intellectual property and copyright concerns. For example, I was recently talking with a friend (who happens to be in a very technical graduate program), and mentioned some CD that I was thinking of buying, but that I wasn't sure if I was going to have the cash. And my friend says, "Why not just download it?" I didn't want to get into an argument, so I made an excuse about wanting the better sound quality of the CD, knowing that it was ripped to MP3 by me and my standards, wanting the liner notes, etc. But I was taken aback that downloading the album seemed to be the default to my friend, and that paying for the album was more of a last resort option. And despite my views on record labels and price-fixing and DRM legislation and such, I don't think that violating current copyright law by downloading an album instead of buying it is the way to go.
So what's the point in all of this? I'm wondering how much the technical people need "told about EFF issues and why they matter" vs. non-technical people. My non-tech mom would be outraged if she suddenly couldn't record an episode of Babylon 5 from the TV -- as well she should be. But if this happened, I'm sure she would switch cable companies, buy a non-DRM recording device, or whatever would be required that would send a message to those who want unfair controls on intellectual property. But my tech friends would just find a way to download the material from somewhere. Perhaps technical and non-technical people alike need told about why these issues matter, and how the actions they take (for those who choose to download CDs, or share TV shows, or whatever) or don't take (like my mom not being concerned about the issues because so far, they haven't affected her) have an impact on all of us.
Food for thought. Hopefully I won't be marked as a troll or start a flamewar.
Cool (Score:1)
We bitch about /.'ed sites but then once in a while you guys do The Right Thing. Kudos.
Letter to my congressman (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I felt that in a half-page letter I couldn't get all the details in. And I should have included a referral to a URL for him to get more information. Oh well, it's already in the mail, I'll do better next letter.
----
Dear Representative Bishop,
I don't often write my Congressional representatives, but I feel the need to do so in this case. I'm writing to encourage your support of HR 5544, "The Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2002", introduced by Reps. Boucher and Doolittle.
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), while well-intentioned, has resulted in a massive power grab by the entertainment and media cartels. The grant of copyright by the citizens of this country to copyright holders was never intended by our founding fathers to be a bludgeon with which large corporations can force citizens and non-citizens into only writing software or publications of which they approve. It was granted as a measure to encourage new works, for limited times, by the author(s) who created an original work. Now it is being abused in an attempt to control not only the copying of works, but when, where, and how a legal purchaser of a copyrighted work can use it.
The DMCA has been appropriated by many companies now to prevent the publication of material which is not in their best interest, to prosecute competitors into oblivion with court cases rather than competing on product merit, and to silence would-be critics and whistle-blowers. We're now in a situation where a law is being abused by organizations to limit the free political and economic speech of individuals, and those individuals have insufficient resources to defend themselves from deep-pockets corporations in court.
HR 5544, while principally focussed on requiring media companies to label intentionally defective compact discs designed to prevent playback on non-approved devices, also includes a brief amendment to the DMCA which would be a valuable step towards preventing the egregious abuses of power currently trampling the first amendment landscape. Please support this bill, particularly the "Sec. 5. Fair Use Amendment", and restore the rights of scientific research, fair use, and free speech to the copyright landscape.
With kind regards,
Matthew P. Barnson
P.S. See also the Electronic Frontier Foundation's information regarding the unintended consequences of the DMCA by searching Google for "DMCA unintended consequences"
Support the EFF? Not me... (Score:2)
Umm... Wrong meeting. (Score:1)
Re:How do you feel about Lindows? (Score:2)
Re:How do you feel about Lindows? (Score:4, Interesting)
actually though, why hasn't