Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming IT Technology Your Rights Online

Politics Follows Code 150

Posted by michael from the call-to-arms dept.
C. Scott Ananian has written a beautiful article for Salon: "Every day, in our increasingly networked world, our freedoms and privacy are being stolen from us. And most of us just let it happen -- most of us tend to accept our computer's workings as immutable, that we are chained to an irrational, vindictive, uncontrollable machine destined to rule over our 9-to-5 days."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Politics Follows Code More

Politics Follows Code

Comments Filter:

  • Yay, DeCSS! Boo, MPAA! Salon mentions slashdot, so we'd better post this! Free Mitnick... oh wait.

    But yes, our basic freedoms are important, and it's perhaps more important to see that they get enforced on our computers and over the internet, since that's becoming more important every day.

    As the outrage over what was probably a simple router problem illustrates, people are getting as sensitive about the internet as they do over their phone service. I hope the internet does not go the way of the phone company.

    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
  • There was an interesting snippet on the BBC recently, talking about the incomes that governments and corporations have.

    It would seem that the ranking list for the top incomes now has 51 companies and only 49 governments. So who do you think holds the power?
  • lately it's beginning to seem like open source is becoming synonymous with anti-government, anti-corporation.

    Not really. I believe Open Source is really synonymous with anti-stupidity.

    --

  • First off, have a good laugh at this [best.com].

    Since I put that Web page up four years ago, I've learned something: One guy can't do it alone.

    This seems obvious, but the popular political process in this country doesn't acknowledge it. The only political race that gets any attention at all is the Presidential race. But by him/herself, President can do nothing; the entrenched professional politicians will ignore him/her if she doesn't toe the party line (whatever it may be this week). The Lewinski "scandal" proved this beyond any further doubt.

    The House and Senate (and the Committees populated by their membership) are where all the legislation gets proposed, drafted, debated and -- yes -- purchased by corporate interests. Thus, it seems to me that the more pressing issue facing American voters this year is not the Presidential race, but the election for your Representative and Senator.

    We need smart, new people in Washington; the political equivalent of a computer hacker (the good kind). Know someone who's intelligent, of good character, and capable? Convince them to run for office. We need their sk1llz most desperately right now.

    On a rant,
    Schwab

  • Indeed, we should be happy for what we have now, and we should be glad that it is an improvement over the past, but we should still continue to make it better.
    Things have changed, and things do change, and things will change, but not because of the people who sit passively and just `let whatever happen'.

    <EM>Always</EM> seek to improve.
  • The U.S. Copyright Office is asking for comments on making exceptions to the DMCA for "non-infringing uses" of circumvention of encryption. The last day comments will be accepted is Feb 10, 2000, which is TOMMORROW.

    The Office is asking for comments from "all interested parties, including representatives of copyright owners, educational institutions, libraries and archives, scholars, researchers and members of the public." Electronic submissions are preferred, and can be submitted to "1201@loc.gov". Important instructions on the format of these submissions are included HERE [byu.edu]

    It is likely that the "flier campaign" of 2600 has largely failed, not because it was a bad idea, but because the general populace just doesn't understand or care. We need to take our case to the decision makers and those in power who can effect change. Influencing the Copyright Office's rule-making body is a way in which we can be effective. Let's make our voices heard. Be assured that the MPAA and DVD-CCA are making their cases before the Copyright office.

    DO IT NOW! [byu.edu]

  • There was once a period of time where I had too much free time on my hands, and, for a lack of anything better to do, I chose to entertain myself my engaging in useless Usenet flame wars.

    There were completely useless, but they were fun. And I learned something very key while doing that.

    The key to winning a confrontation relies on setting the rules, and taking advantage of your strength, and avoiding placing yourself in a position where someone can exploit your weaknesses.

    As a very brief example: I'm pretty good at writing scripts, and little hacks, so when I found myself engaged in a drawn out flamewar with a typical usenet.whacko, I wrote a bunch of macros which assisted me in putting together replies to that unnamed whacko's posts. They were pretty predictable in nature, and somewhat repetitive, and by leveraging my scripts I was able to put together the requisite replies very quickly, in a very short period of time. As the flamewar progressed and expanded, he was forced to expend a great deal of time posting in response, while my comebacks took almost no time to put together. Eventually, he got tired of it all, and I could stake a claim to another useless "victory".

    I believe that the way to attack the assault from the DVD industry is to adopt a similar kind of a strategy. Figure out what our strengths are, and change the rules of the game to take advantage of them.

    The DVD industry's main strength are the resources by which they can legally harass individuals. I think that fighting this out in courts is something that few of us are prepared to do. The combination of brain-dead judges, brain-dead politicians, and brain-dead legislation, works to DVD CCA's advantage. Battling this in court is a losing battle.

    So, let's rewrite the rules of the game. Move it to the grounds where we have unprecedented advantage over the DVD industry: our computers. We can beat the shit out of them, and nobody is going to stop us.

    Simply put: move our butts, put our collective heads together, write a Linux DVD player, then tell the DVD CCA to go and fuck themselves. They won't be able to do anything about it. The code is out there. Anyone will be able to download it, and use it. The DVD CCA will not be able to do anything about anyone viewing DVDs that they legally bought and paid for.

    DECSS is already out there, of course, but in its present form it is of very little use to anyone.

    Phase 1: rewrite DeCSS into a more modular, recyclable form.

    Phase 2: develop a standalone DVD player, that is only capable of playing unencrypted DVDs. It is my understanding that DVDs to do not have to be encrypted, like your home movies, for example. The DVD CCA's entire legal claim is based upon either trade secret or copyright law, depending on which side of bed you get up in the morning. With a player for unencrypted videos only, none of that applies, and I think that even our brain dead politicians would raise an eyebrow if the DVD cartel would try to go after even this kind of a software product.

    Phase 3: put two and two together. I still have a vain hope that there is a spot of dirt somewhere on this Earth of ours where sanity still prevails, and the individual's right to free speech and expression is still sacred, and where a fully-featured DVD player can be published and supported. Once a useful DVD player is out there, no amount of legal harassment by the DVD cartel will make it go away. Once it happens, the DVD industry has lost.

    Redefine the rules. Play their game, but according to our rules.
    --

  • Has it ever occured to you that some people might not agree with everything the EFF stands for? I am a gun owner who wants to be able to purchase and own weapons. But I'm not an NRA member because I don't want my money supporting some of the things they do. I would rather be a public advocate of the things I stand for and give my money to groups I wholy support. Or give money to specific issues.


    Bad Mojo
  • Having a drivers license is not a crime. Killing someone while in a drunken stupor is. For a crime to be committed, there has to be a damaged party. I'm sorry you feel that I'm an unethical person, I consider myself to be an extremely moral person. But how does standing up for my rights make me an unethical person? I fail to see the logic.
  • Excuse me, NOT having a drivers license is not a crime.
  • Yours and a few other posts here today make me feel much better. I thought I was the only one who knew this! I'm about to cancel my social security number, cancel my drivers license and put my car in a pure trust. (that way if I wreck it, someone sues me, the maximum liability is the car, the 'wrecked' car :)

    The truth about the car is that when you purchase a car, your buying a car for the government and by having a drivers license, they are giving you permission to drive their car. Its Sick.

    Here is a link which has helped me learn the truth and might help others. This guy, Brent Johnson, is considered the foremost expert on common law and is a soverign citizen. Unfortunatley, the website is not very informative, but his seminars are. If anyone of you has a seminar in your area, Go to it! Fork over the cash, you will be disgusted and scared at what has been done to you. The link is Here [americansovereign.com]. Thanks

  • If someone calls you a socialist after repeating what you said, you can safely assume that they have mental retardation and/or chose not to/didn't hear what you said.

    I do agree with you, governement should not control the economy.
  • When has any of that NOT been legal? It's always been like that. You haven't lost anything, you just haven't gained (from your point of view). If you want to view dvds on your computer, crack it yourself and don't tell the government. If you don't like the MPAA or authors that much, make your own movies and write your own books and watch them ad nauseum! You have no right to copy someone else's work if they don't want you to.
  • yeah take away the government is a great plan. I can just see everyone diving for the opportunity to build roads and collect garbage in the open-government model. Man lately it's beginning to seem like open source is becoming synonymous with anti-government, anti-corporation. This almost makes me ashamed to be a part of it all.

  • I don't see this so much as freedoms being stolen as I do opportunities, and technologies, being created. Essentially we are opening a big barrel of monkeys and are being told that we can have most of them, but not all. I see this as being better than in the past. I don't agree with the DVD situation in the LEAST. However I think we should be happy with what we have so far, and you should realise that in the past we didn't even have a big network where we could share ideas or code like this, let alone the tools to develop it for free. In the past, software such as linux may not have been legally developed in that they infringe on patents of company X's computer architecture. Furthermore, I don't think that if we don't act now, we never will get a chance. Things change. I find it hard to believe that there would never be free DVD code for Linux if we don't do something radical about it now. It sure is a good way to generate hits on slashdot.org though.
  • i havent worked for the man in years, i refues to work 9 to 5, i am broke and have made maybe 1000 in the last few years. but i am proud of who i am and what i do. i hate to think that i would help this machine to keep on rolling, i do not bludge off the goverment when i could and to all those who are working for the man, i hope you realise what it is you are helping to continue
  • The DMCA was designed to prohibit "black-boxes" (as several legislators refered to them). It is not supposed to apply to source code.

    Intentions of legislators (provided they had any or bothered to think about them) are interesting, but do not have much relevance. It has been known for the courts to try to gauge the Congress' intent while trying to sort out murky laws, but the letter of law as passed is much, much more important. In the case of DMCA, it talks about circumventing devices used to control access to the copyrighted material and that is the rub. It does not talk about copying, it talks about access. This is exactly why DeCSS falls under DMCA.

    And yes, DMCA guts fair use, regardless of what the congresscritters said in floor debates. The courts could revive the fair use, but that would necessitate some violence to the language of DMCA (and yes, courts can perfectly well do this).

    All of your second point assumes that source code is speech for the First Amendment purposes. This is hotly debated and is in no way an accepted statement. Regardless of your personal preferences both sides have a reasonable argument.

    His conclusions of harm to the MPAA are founded on the lie that DeCSS is a piracy tool. It's not - it's a playback tool that will actually EXPAND the market for DVD's.

    Oh, I see. Do you, then, claim that there is no harm whatsoever to MPAA from DeCSS and we are just trying to put some money into their pocket while they are running away screaming "Get that weirdo away from me!!!!"? It's all just a little misunderstanding, right?

    To restate, you seem to think that DMCA is an OK law that was misinterpreted by a dumb judge. I think that DMCA is a terrible law and the judge just applied it. You are horrified at the result and think that it was misapplied -- I think that the problem is with the law, not with its misinterpretation.

    Kaa
  • You are absolutely correct. The original author's point is moot then, because that can't happen in the United States -- our government never tramples on the Bill of Rights.
  • It's easy, when someone asks you if you are a capitalist just say:

    I'm a free market capitalist, which means that I don't believe that the people who control the state should control the economy. Of course, such a market is impossible in the current system, in which a few oppressive, evil corporations run the government and the economy.
    Of course, some people will still call you socialist, in which case you can start quoting Adam Smith about "the wretched spirit of monopoly" at them.

    My personal opinion is that the problem is that it is always capitalism, there just aren't any other economic models. We just have to keep and eye on people who would use either the government or the economic system to start opressing people.


  • It seems that every day our rights are being taken away from us. Our right to privacy, our right to free speech, our rights to be innocent until PROVEN guilty.... You want to keep this from happening, Do something! Below are a myraid of links to the ACLU which will allow you to contact your congressional representitive (via a FREE fax) to speak out against new laws that would restrict our freedoms and eliminate our privacy further.


    Secret Evidence [aclu.org] - Currently, about two dozen people are being held in American prisons solely on the basis of evidence that neither they or their lawyers have been able to review and dispute. This completely un-American process was authorized in 1996 as part of a wave of anti-immigrant hysteria.

    Person possibly affected : Linus Torvalds

    Senate must stop law enforcement from seizing American's property [aclu.org] - Abuses in law enforcement's ability to seize your property have become a nightmare for many Americans. Under a system called "civil asset forfeiture," federal law enforcement officials have the right to seize your home, your car, your business - even when you haven't even been convicted of a crime!

    Person possibly affected : YOU - for posting the DeCSS code.

    MedicalRecords Privacy [aclu.org] - For the first time in history, national medical privacy regulations were proposed on November 3, 1999 by the Clinton Administration. These regulations were proposed after Congress missed its self-imposed deadline to enact legislation that dealt with privacy concerns in an increasingly connected health-care industry. The ACLU believes that these proposed regulations are an important first step in a process that we hope will lead to comprehensive medical privacy protections, but we strongly urge that the regulations be strengthened.

    Person possibly affected : YOU - when you apply for your next job. *NOTE = this is a good law to protect our private medical records.

    Join the ACLU [aclu.org]. Join the EFF [eff.org]. Protect your rights!

    - Stuart Horner
    /me steps off soapbox.

  • If it wasn't possible to enforce copyrights, copyleft measures like the GPL wouldn't be necessary.
    --
    "HORSE."
  • I know that a good number of people on Slashdot like to think of themselves as Libertarians. And perhaps the Libertarian Party is the one that best supports the beliefs of our community. Realisticcally, I don't think the Libertarian party has a snowball's chance in hell that it will have a major say in politics, not while the GOP and the Democrats have more money and support.

    That kind of thinking is PRECISELY why the US has primarily become a 2-party system, and why the barrier to entry for other parties is so high. The world is what we think it to be.

    Those of us who believe strongly enough in some basic universal principles regarding freedom and self-determination are willing to stand up for what we believe in. The more of us that make that stand, the more our views will be noticed. For some people it's more important to make a stand for what is right than to "win" at something.

  • Oh yes! Samantha you hit the nail squarely on the head!
    Everybody thinks that money is the sole instrument of power. It seems it is very hard for a good many people to understand that most politicians seek office not for monetary reward but the power atained through law making ability.
    My only regret is that I am not a meta-moderator.
  • William of Occam formulated the idea "do not multiply entities unneccisarily", or put differently, "all things being equal the simplest explanation is probably the correct one".

    Arkham's razor, IMHO, is something from a H.P. Lovecraft story.

    Akums razor??
  • > Fact is, whether you need a license or not, a licensed driver is FAR LESS likely to kill someone than an unlicensed one.

    And your proof is ?

    With freedom comes responsibility.

    Since I DON'T have insurance to fall back on (insurance is the ultime ponzi scam) I am a LOT MORE carefull about my surroundings and other drivers then I normally would be.

    Cheers
  • > far too many people simply give away their right to privacy.

    Yes, its sad.

    "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    -Ben Franklin

    Many more good quotes can be found here
    Foundin g Fathers Quotes [google.com]

    > Many states use your social security number as your drivers license number

    You do know that there is no law requiring a person to have a SSN.

    I am not a number, I am a free man.

    Furthermore, there you CAN travel without a driver's license.
    Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel

    I travel without a Driver's License and have never been given a ticket for driving without one.

    Read the above and see for yourself the court cases!

    Cheers
  • Ok, here is the correct link.

    You DON'T need a driver's license to travel.
    Proof here:

    Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel [ptialaska.net]

  • You give corporations too much credit. Spread some to the people who have forgotten what rights really are, the proper role of government and how to stand for true rights and limited government. Before the corporation can practise legalized abuse the state must first have acquired powers which do not legitimately belong to it. Before you can write or support a sane licensing practice you must first understand a bit of ethical and political philsophy. Just blaming "big corporations" without saying much about what makes this stuff possible is useless and mostly reactionary.
  • Intentions of legislators (provided they had any or bothered to think about them) are interesting, but do not have much relevance. It has been known for the courts to try to gauge the Congress' intent while trying to sort out murky laws, but the letter of law as passed is much, much more important. In the case of DMCA, it talks about circumventing devices used to control access to the copyrighted material and that is the rub. It does not talk about copying, it talks about access. This is exactly why DeCSS falls under DMCA.

    Legislative histrory is and should be used by judges to resolve ambiguity in the plain text of the legislation. You have it exactly right, though - "it talks about circumventing DEVICES". Code is not a device. However, you didn't tell the whole story about circumvention access: the access it talks about is access "without the authority of the copyright holder". Fair use and the explicit DVD copyright language "for home use only" both grant this authority.

    Oh, I see. Do you, then, claim that there is no harm whatsoever to MPAA from DeCSS and we are just trying to put some money into their pocket while they are running away screaming "Get that weirdo away from me!!!!"? It's all just a little misunderstanding, right?

    Yes, emphatically. The MPAA are engaing in moronic business behavior. The economic payoff to the from allowing linux based playback should be huge - home use for linux is ~ 1-2% (growing daily) and these are the most technically savy users who are most likely to have advanced devices like a DVD. I am not alone: the fool.com article trashed the MPAA from the INVESTOR'S perspective. Waging war on your customer base is bad business. The VCR generated enormous profits for the movie industry despite it's copyability, but the MPAA had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this payoff to.

    To restate, you seem to think that DMCA is an OK law that was misinterpreted by a dumb judge. I think that DMCA is a terrible law and the judge just applied it. You are horrified at the result and think that it was misapplied -- I think that the problem is with the law, not with its misinterpretation.

    The DMCA was designed to prohibit things like cable descrambler boxes and PCI cards that use special hardware to decrypt pay-per-view or subscription internet broadcasts. It does this effectively and in these cases no claim can be made that "I'm trying to watch MY movie in my home as I please".

    I listed extensive citations to the actual text of the bill to show that as written it does not prohibit DeCSS. It's very odd that you ignore this and attack my supporting legislative history point on the grounds that it isn't textual. I further supported my arguement that neither the text nor the intent would ban DeCSS with a 1st amendment arguement that says that Congress would have no power to do this even if they wanted to (which they didn't). If you'd like to argue otherwise, please go back to my original post and tell me which numbered points you think are wrong.
  • IANAL, but most reasonable people seem to agree that under DMCA the judge's ruling is correct. I don't have an opinion on the judge's IQ, but it seems that the DMCA is the problem, not this particular judge.

    I strongly disagree with this. The DMCA was designed to prohibit "black-boxes" (as several legislators refered to them). It is not supposed to apply to source code. Congress did not intend to gut fair use as is clear to anyone who reads the floor debates. There are specific textual provisions that:


    1. Restrict DMCA from applying to "free speach ... using ... computer products" 1201(c)(4) [Judge Kaplan ignores this completely]
    2. Recognize and protect fair use 1201(c)(1) [Judge Kaplan misrepresents Congress's intention]
    3. Recognize reverse engineering as legitimate 1201(f) [Kaplan's analysis of this is absolutely moronic]
    4. Restrict prohibitions on access circumvention tools only when "without the authority of the copyright owner" (DVD's grant "for home use only") 1201(a)(3)(b)
    5. Grant the policymaking power to identify "noninfringing uses" of access circumvention to the "Librarian of Congress" not to judge Kaplan 1201(a)(1)(B,C)
    6. Do not list software or source code in the list of technological means 1201(a)(2) [The law ban's devices and services, not code]

    Furthermore, the Judge's analysis on the "balancing" between the copyright power and the 1st amendment is completely out of sync with Supreme Court precedent (and the plain text of the DMCA as noted above).
    1. He fails to employ "strict scrutiny" concept when using granted powers to restrict fundamental rights
    2. Kaplan's doesn't cite the copyright power itself (and notes this), but rather the "necessary and proper" clause. Outrageous. It is neither necessary nor proper to restrict the first amendment.
    2. He fails to employ the "least restrictive means" test
    3. He fails to employ the "void-for-vagueness" and "overbreadth" tests
    4. He looks the other way at a "standardless licencing" arrangement for prior restraint
    5. The "balancing" test has been rejected decisively by the court in favor of the Brandeiss test = incitement likely to bring about imminent lawless action
    6. Congress cannot delegate prior restraint inducing licencing powers to non-accountable officials (like companies!)
    7. U.S. V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, INC. [findlaw.com] restrained the copyright power to disallow noncompetitive business practices such as movie price fixing and "block licencing" a form of "tying" one product's licencing to that of another

    His preliminary injuction ruling is laced throughout with a confusion about encryption and copy-protection. His conclusions of harm to the MPAA are founded on the lie that DeCSS is a piracy tool. It's not - it's a playback tool that will actually EXPAND the market for DVD's.

  • Scott reads slashdot (User Info: Cananian [slashdot.org]) and regularly posts here.

    He maintains CUP and JLex [princeton.edu], which is where I first ran into him.

    I'm hoping he will come to the EFF Fundraiser [slashdot.org] in boston next week so I can meet him in person. Especially since he feels this way about this issue. :-) While I'm at it, I hope you all come.

  • I like the recipe book. =)

    My original article had a link to this plain-english to perl [iagora.com] script; one of several bits (including a long description of how DeCSS fits into the LiViD project) that got cut by my editor for focus.

    Salon assures me they're not going to let this issue rest, though, so hopefully there will be an opportunity to explore the legal issues --- including those raised by your script & those like it --- in a future article.

  • This is almost exactly what the EFF [eff.org] was formed to do. Look at their history --- they've been involved in every hacker-important issue in the last decade.

    But the only way lobbies work is if they have support. I'm a dues-paying member of the EFF. You should be one, too.

  • The ACLU site has a privacy survey which seems to be down at the moment. I'm guessing it will be back up at some point so here is the link [aclu.org].

    Make sure you all write to your congresspeople if you want to make your position known!

  • Oh yeah.

    Remember the GNU definition of "free" software wouldn't be possible without being able to enforce copyrights.

    Remember that.
  • But then the evil corporation would be able to take your code, change it and sell it to you, infringing on your rights and all that good stuff. Let's not get into that though.
  • - The part of the DMCA that makes the ISP not accountable for serving your copy of css_descramble.c is a Good Thing.

    - The judge said in papers previously posted here that they would need to prove the method for descrambling this was obtained by unreasonable means. Reverse engineering was reasonable means according to him.

    And of course the guy himself didn't write the code and I didn't understand that he was charged with anything even.

    But that still doesn't mean you shouldn't still be posting copies of the code on your school builliten boards.
  • even if a closed dvd player WAS licenesed(sp), it'd most likely be useless for anything but x86. this is one of the problems with closed source products "for linux": they're not really for linux, they're for linux/x86. i wish people writing articles such as this, would point that out. that is, that it's a big reason why closed source software is not an acceptible solution.

    anyway, other than my nitpicking there, that's a great article.
  • Remember in the 50s how people feared robots would take over the world and sodomize their children? Well, this is the 2000 equivalent.

    Esperandi
    That and fear of "big, scary corporations"
  • I'm not sure if this is a beautiful piece, I found myself shouting "BLAH BLAH BLAH" all throughout.

    I control my PC. I tell it what to do with lines of code. If its doing something I don't want it to, I stop it. It is not an uncontrollable beast looming over my 9-to-5 day (I don't have a 9-to-5 day).

    You know what this sounds like? It sounds like an advanced version of the 1950s pinheads who thought robots would enslave mankind, computers would put everyone out of work, etc, etc.

    Esperandi
    *** NO ONE GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT WHAT YOU DO ONLINE ***
  • I think with some effort (and possibly lobbying by VA-Linux, RedHat etc..) some more favourable laws may come to pass.

    Open Source World government!!!

    cya, Andrew...
    PS: Valentines day [slashdot.org] is comming.

  • >Pass off his opinion like its work something

    That troll needs to learn how to proofread.
  • And most of us just let it happen -- most of us tend to accept our computer's workings as immutable, that we are chained to an irrational, vindictive, uncontrollable machine destined to rule over our 9-to-5 days."

    If slashdot keeps serving up color schemes like this and keeps dominating my 9-to-5 days, then I really will have to accept it!

    still, at least now I know #CCCC66 is the hex for spewy green/yellow.

  • I keep reading these posts about DeCSS and other things pertaining to big companies trying to enforce their copyrights, and I wonder if /. readers really believe in copyright at all. Then I read other articles that involve people complaining about big companies trying to look at "free" software crosseyed or vaguely incorporating it in their product or some such thing.

    Come on folks! You can't have it both ways! Either copyright does not matter and people can do whatever they want with open source software, including making it closed, or copyright does matter and the big companies (and little companies, and everyone else) gets to enforce their copyrights.

    I am not a proponent of big corporations, and I think arresting minors for things like this is pretty lousy, but I think the way many people are behaving is counterproductive. How does one achieve anything then? Ask nicely. Write a letter telling x company that you would really like to buy a dvd drive, that you think their products are just great, and that as soon as they can provide a dvd drive that will work on your linux box, you will happily buy it. Be nice to these people. I understand that they are the big corporation, but they are people too. People like to help (or even just do business with) people who are nice to them - they prefer it vastly over people who say nasty things about them all the time.

    In short, be polite. Ask nicely. And if those two fail, create your own video standard. (remember betamax, which Sony only licensed with rather hefty fees? Remember what happened to it?)
  • We are being nice when we buy the DVDs from these big corporations. We are effectively paying their wages when we do this. We are supporting them.

    So when we try to watch their DVDs in the manner that suits ourselves we have a war raged against us. Are we supposed to ask them politely then. You can try but I don't think they would really care.

    If they did they would see from their market research that this action was going to do them more damage than good.

    Personally I think that power has gone to the heads of some of the people running these corporations. They have effectively become their own little Hitlers.

    As history has shown the ownly action that these people seem to understand is that of force. By hitting them effectively where it hurts we can have the ability to make them change their attitudes or at least stop their conquest over us.

    Namely by raising public awairness that these people are trying to effectively undercut that which we nearly every citzen holds dear. That of freedom of speech. Their lawsuits against DeCSS and MP3 are not about copyrighting but about their dominantion of their market. We need to make the public aware of this and show this lie for what it really is. And with all of this we can get at them where it REALLY hurts - their share price and their base line.

    We also need to win in the courts and show up these corporations are doing is illegal and against the constiution.

    Don't get me wrong. I'm not personally against corporations - alot of them have done alot for us. But I will oppose with every fibre in my body against the person who trys to remove our most basic values. That of freedom.
  • At the whim of American corporations
  • Amen to that. Big corps that hold all the power are the product of captialism but they also represent the exact opposite of one of the founding principles of what captialism is about. That of competition.

    If you are a large corp, or group of them, that holds all the power on a particular market then you have then you can effectively dictate how it is run. And it is simple enough to pull the strings of the politicians by providing funds, lobbying and scare tatics that if they don't pass the laws they want then ecomony will fail. And the last thing any politician wants is a failing ecomony.

    Anyone who trys to "musle" in on their market or market area which they don't want can either be bought over or sued and tragged through the legal process such they are ruined.

    As for the small businesses they are subject to domination and dication by corpate powers because they are usually either a part of a supply line for which the corporations are a part off (and what power do you think a small business has in dicating rules to a big corporation) or they enter into competition with a big corp or in a market that some big corp want - hence buy you out.

    Too me one of the founding princples of proper captialism is that of competition. And as part of that competition comes the right of the consumer to have the right to choose. Basically I have the right to choose weither I do my food shopping at the super market or the local corner shop. Both manage to survive because they can co-exist but still in competition with one another.

    However when a group of or a single corporation dictate the policy of what we the consumer have the right to buy or not buy. Never mind the right to say what we like for fear of prosecution. Then we no longer live in a capitialist society but in corpate dictactorship and the illusion of it still being democratic is only an illusion.
  • This arguement uses the mathematical logical deduction that the MPAA and the RIAA are actually full of crap.

    Proof :

    Right with the DMCA saying to the effect that it is illegal to produce something that has aids or has the ability to copy copyrighted material.

    Now if the MPAA and RIAA believe what they are saying and enforcing the DMCA then why aren't they going after the real culprates of recording technology.

    That is the ones who make the video casettes, the CD and DVD writers, the people who make file transfer programs and create the technology for copying or duplicating copyrighted material.

    Oh but heh the majority of the corporations behind the RIAA and the MPAA are the ones makeing these products and items.

    So if they hold true to what they say then they should be effectively sueing themselves. But the contradiction is that they aren't sueing any of the corporations that form themselves even though these corporations are breaking the DMCA by producing these products.

    Hence the MPAA and the RIAA are full of crap because they aren't sueing the real culprits, themselves.

    As an offsping to this logic - they only try sueing and bringing criminal charges against those outside side their band of corporations hence what they are is a front to form market control.
  • Come on folks! You can't have it both ways! Either copyright does not matter and people can do whatever they want with open source software, including making it closed, or copyright does matter and the big companies (and little companies, and everyone else) gets to enforce their copyrights.

    Absolutely. But would you say that it was okay for the police to run down dozens of innocent bystanders in pursuit of a murderer? Of course not. What the MPAA is doing goes far above and beyond what is reasonable for enforcement of copyright.

    The GPL doesn't attempt to restrict fair use - you can take a piece of GPL'd software and do whatever you want with it, "in the privacy of your own home", so to speak. It's only when you want to distribute something based on GPL'd software that its restrictions come into play. The MPAA, on the other hand, would gladly restrict plenty of uses of their copyrighted material that have nothing to do with distribution.

    Yes, copyright matters. But so does fair use. It's incredibly disingenuous of you to pretend that anyone who supports the availability of tools that can help to violate copyright (but that also have legitimate fair-use applications) is an opponent of copyright.

  • Thank you for clarifying, it was really late. The latter is the one I am talking about.


    Munky_v2
    "Warning: you are logged into reality as root..."
  • Mr. Slippery CID#91 is right. You can't just say, I want to take away fair use because I am afraid of losing control of my work. Which is what the DMCA does. Besides geekboy, if you would read my comment carefully I say straight out that copying and distributing someone else's work IS ILLEAGEL. What I am saying is that figuring out how to TRANSLATE someone's work and distributing that method, is not. Judge Kaplan and the MPAA disagree on that last point and we need to stop them before this goes down as a precedent case (which by the way would lead the way for killing the free sharing of information.


    Munky_v2
    "Warning: you are logged into reality as root..."
  • The sad thing is that when you try to tell allot of people about this, they just say "your wasting your time" or "your not losing any rights". I really wonder what has happened to the USA in the past 200 years to make people so blind to this kind of stuff. Here is an example I have used to get the message to people in a way they will understand. If you go out and buy a VHS cassette, say the Matrix for example and you know that you are going to watch it allot, you will want to make a backup so you don't wear out the original. The MPAA thinks that is illegal. This is not copyright violation as it falls under fair use. The same if an on-line book was published in German, and I made a program to translate it to English. I would be wrong if I gave away the English version of the book. I am not wrong if I give away my program that translates it, people still have to gain access to the book on their own. I think a huge part of the problem is that so many people live life by Akums Razor (all things being equal the simplest explanation is probably the correct one) and since they don't understand the technical details of the case, it is easier for them to believe what the corporations and the media tell them.


    Munky_v2
    "Warning: you are logged into reality as root..."
  • According to the article, the courts have in the past managed to prevent Progressive Magazine to publish plans for an H-bomb.

    How did they achieve this?

    And why did they bother? An H-bomb is:
    A. Relatively simple to build and
    B. Virtually impossible to get the parts for.
  • The real threat to rights online is not the Millenium Copyright in and of itself but the presedences it sets. These establish a double standard for the internet and everything else.

    <i>Criminal Tools</i>: In the physical (not the internet) world the US government does not pass laws against possessing tools that can be used to commit crimes. Crowbars, lockpicks, guns, etc are tools that COULD be used to commit a crime, but they are not outlawed and they where all designed for legitimate legal purposes. DeCSS COULD be used for piracy, but it too was designed for legitimate legal purposes, however it is illegal. Now if the government and other groups and individuals have nothing against this type of double standard, which strips away our rights, then it will be easier for them to set more in the future.

    --
    Hephaestus_Lee

    • I'm sorry, but no corporation controls me. No corporation possibly could. You are mistaking money for power. The only thing that can take away your freedom is government, because only they have the force necessary to do it.

    Hear, hear! I've been pushing this idea on Slashdot for a long time. Governments are intrinsically more dangerous and untrustworthy than corporations. Give me a choice between big government and big corporations and I'll pick corporations every time.

    When the government becomes the bought-and-paid-for puppet of the corporations, what is the significant difference?

  • I have been working on a project called Freenet [sourceforge.net] for over a year now. The aim is to produce a piece of software to address issues of personal liberty on the Internet. It is now being developed by a small but dedicated team in an Open Source fashion, and we are getting close to the first release of our software (which will initially be written in Java but with potential for implementation in other languages). Check out the link above if interested.

    --

  • To quote Bernard Shaw

    "A reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

    Think of the number of enormous changes the have been promulgated by one man, from Isaac Newton, to Karl Marx, to Linus Torvalds.


  • "Every day, in our increasingly networked world, our freedoms and privacy are being stolen from us. And most of us just let happen"

    Wait a minute, please!

    Stolen?!

    The act of _stealing_ something involves a party takes something from another party without the knowledge of that other party. But in the Net, most of the time, we the Netizens KNEW what is going on, but we CAN NOT DO A THING TO STOP IT.

    How many times you access a webpage with a cookie attached, and if you do not accept the cookie, you don't get to access that webpage?

    How many times do we have the option of refusing the cookies without having ourselves penalized?

    That is to say, in the "cookie" example, the act itself is no longer an act of _stealing_, rather, it's an act of ROBBING.

    The sentence thus should read :

    "Every day, in our increasingly networked world, our freedoms and privacy are being _ROBBED_ from us."

  • One of the issues raised by the DeCSS case is "is code a form of expression?". Come here for my initial effort to turn any piece of C-code into a recipe book (well, kinda sorta. Different streams of consciousness flowed while I was writing it.):

    [mit.edu]
    http://www.mit.edu/~ocschwar/recipe.pl


    I'll edit this in my "copious free time", and hopefully you can settle for this announcement when it comes to license issues: It's GPL'd.

    If any of you feel like giving me the regexps I need for this, please email me.
  • Small businesses certainly represent the vast majority of the world's economic activity, but that is not the same thing as power.

    A large corporation is effectively run by a fairly small number of people, and has mechanisms in place to coordinate its activities. It can therefore make its economic weight felt much more easily than any federation of small businesses trying to act together can do.
  • I can't help but think that the DeCSS case in some way represents a turning point in American society, and how it goes will be a prediction of much more important trends.

    Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. There are quite a few examples of citizen organizations that have risen up to protest injustices inflicted by large powerful bodies (in this case corporations). Consider the following:

    • The women's rights movement
    • The environmental movements
    • The anti-Vietnam war movement
    • The civil rights movement
    • Any number of groups objecting to nasty regimes (Phillippines in the mid 80's, East Timorese etc.)

    Indeed, it would be wise to learn the lessons from successful protest campaigns. One important lesson is the need to convince as many people as possible that the issue matters to them, so that they will get involved.

  • Marginally OT, but it came to mind:

    Yes, the advancement of technology has eroded our privacy. Credit card transactions are all in some database, susceptable to cracking - and what's worse (maybe), susceptable to corporate data mining. Use cash if it really bothers you. Don't want to use the ATM, see a teller. The cost of your convenience is a little privacy. Is that bad?

    Is data mining evil, if with it a business provides a better product?

    Those pesky little Stop&Shop discount cards keep track of what you buy. Does Stop&Shop really care that you're buying condoms and pregnancy kits and KY Jelly, and your last name is the same as that of the local minister? Hell no! Will they print in their flier that the town Rabbi buys pork? Nah!

    What Stop&Shop cares about is their mass market. They want to know if an area is predominantly consuming pork or beef, so they can stock accordingly, and not have food rotting in a warehouse. They care about the brands that are selling, so they can smartly bid against their competitors for the things that sell, and not buy too much of what doesn't.

    Could any individual or small group out there compromise this data? Sure. Could they exploit it to nefarious and pointed goals? I doubt it. All you could really do is convince the S&S reordering system that everyone (EVERYONE) wants more Sam Adams Wheat - thank you by the way.

    So that's what privacy buys you.

    If all of the minutae of our daily lives was publically available, would that be bad? Well, I don't particularly want people to know when and for how long I pick my nose - but does anyone really care?

    Privacy is not Liberty, and neither is Freedom. Freedom is not about being able to do anything you want behind closed doors, and get away with it. The whole issue of morality and ethical behaviour lies this way, and I don't want to wrestle with it this morning.

    IMHO, in the US this (privacy) is a big deal because of the strong Puritanical core of the society. Remember, sex is a dirty word, and if the word 'masturbation' appears in a song lyric at a political function - it makes the news. You (hypothetically) don't want your neighbors to know that you like it standing up and against a wall, do you?

    That's what this is about to the pop-culture. The same culture, I might add, that salivates over the subject matter of the current Jerry Springer - justifying their own kinks as lesser, and therefore acceptible.

    It's been a while wince I've been in the European mindset, but I suspect that there the issue is entirely different. It's not about your personal freedoms and the right to take liberties with the babysitter. It's more about the 'government' gaining undue control of the population (This is what worries /. , but that's not what the US population considers - it's a foreign (no pun int) topic to them). Austria just got sanctioned by the EU, because a right-wing government is now in charge there. We all remember the last time that a strong right-wing controlled Germanic people, don't we? Europeans are VERY sensitive to these matters. The populace of the US (again, /. being more globally aware) doesn't really think in these terms - case in point, who runs the Kansas B.O.E.?

    Anyway, enough ranting for the morning. I should do some work.

    One last point on privacy though. JenniCAM. Now, I'm not a subscriber, but I peek in now and again. I'm intrigued. The girl freely and intentionally exposes her private life (sometimes more than others) to the Internet.. Is her life somehow lessened by that? Hell, it's a claim to fame! Read over her journal entries sometime. Does my knowing about her parent's difficulties, or her recent asthma attacks, impinge on her personal liberties in any way? Absolutely not. Does it help me relate, and let me know that I'm not the only person with real problems? Yeah, and that helps. And maybe, in some karmic sense, my compassion for her experiences (which without my knowledge would be impossible) actually helps her deal, and helps me deal - and I just hope that this little blurb about Jennifer doesn't bring JonKatz's guns to bear on her life. She has enough problems.

    PPS: Let's hear it for a techno-lobby!!! Stick it to the MPAA! Could you imagine the power of a strike threat from a lobby of technologists?

  • How many times you access a webpage with a cookie attached, and if you do not accept the cookie, you don't get to access that webpage?

    Slow down there... if corporation X sets up their very own web server, they have every right to require cookies for the site to function. Setting up their server in this way, is not ROBBING you of anything!

    Don't expect corporations to give you free stuff. Servers, maintenance, and bandwidth cost nontrivial amounts of money. It seems, to me, slightly unreasonable to expect them NOT to try to recoup some of those costs, with advertising, and the additional advertising revenue that cookie-based tracking provides.

    Yeah, it's a pain.. but nobody's forcing anything.

  • The thing is, some of the ways that our representatives have betrayed us are not due to technical ignorance. You don't need to be a computer geek to understand the moral issues involved with:

    • Making is easier to tap everyone's voice phone line, whether there's a warrant or not
    • Allowing indefinate seizure of property when certain types of crime are suspected
    • Extending the copyrights of books and movies by a few more decades
    The people who vote in favors of these laws have moral problems that go a lot deeper than the subtleties of digital media issues. We don't need to rally under a "Hacker" banner; we need to rally under a "Take Back Our Country From The Crooks" banner. Hackers have no monopoly when it comes to seeing that all our rights are slipping away.

    Do you really have to be a hacker to be worried by megacorp (AT&T, Microsoft, Sony, et al) multi-million-dollar contributions to slush funds for both of the major parties? It smells fishy whether they are making software or low-tech widgets.


    ---
  • I can't help but think that the DeCSS case in some way represents a turning point in American society, and how it goes will be a prediction of much more important trends. I'd say a pretty factual way to describe it would be hackers versus corporations - a small non-commercial group of people want one thing (Open DVD access) and a megabillion dollar industry is in direct opposition. We know what we want and why we're right, and this is a cause we can back 100% percent. This isn't the Mp3 fight with one highly-IPOed company wrestling with its larger, older competitors or the Kevin Mitnick atrocity of a criminal being caught and unConstituionally punished with mostly script kiddies to back him up against the might of the government. It's not even UCITA with the larger concern of customers (the earlier VCR flap is like this) - be honest, the average Windows user doesn't care about DeCSS like we do - they have DVD access. This is the technological community that's grown in wealth and power by leaps and bounds as our society increases its reliance on computers, on their own, against the corporations, one of the largest power bases in modern American society.

    Who's going to win? That's the turning point. Is the corporate combination of money and influence going to destroy our fair-use rights and abuse our programmers to the point of arrest and imprisonment, or are we going to organize effectively enough to become another power base in America and prevent corporate control of our interests and information access? We don't really have any other allies - even when you're right about this, or other major issues, non-involved people are going to say "Oh, that's too bad. Someone should do something about that, but it doesn't really involve me." and turn away. It's not like the geek lobby is going to be electing presidents anytime soon or anything, but there's no reason we can't have our say on society just like say the NRA, NAACP or the ACLU. I'm not necessarily talking about just joining the EFF or whatever, I'm also talking boycott, education and quite possibly protest - electronic and real world. It's also probable that we stay unorganized and unmotivated - voiceless and ineffectual. Which one would you like to see happen?

    Don't think you won't make a difference, and don't think that the MPAA will win no matter what you do. The only thing that guarantees the MPAA a victory is everyone thinking so.

  • Che, I know that... but who do you think got Norway to do it? Was it a local company, concern or official? No, it was an American company. Like it or not, America has the power to meddle in other countries' affairs quite a bit - sometimes it's bad, like in this case, and other times it's good. And as I've said before, both to Americans and foreigners, it's because it can. Any other country that could would - and have, and do. But this is really a different topic. I said 'American society' for two reasons: 1) It's what I know the best and 2) This is largely an American legal concern. Yes, it'll effect other countries, but it'll be settled one way or another in American courts.
  • Don't ever complain about paranoids (Well, unless they're advocating violent action, but that's in a different category from a sense of oppression). Why? They're reacting to a legitimate concern - it may not be bothering you yet, but one of the reason it hopefully won't ever bother you is because like this author, who feel the first pangs of concern, are ready to fight tooth and nail.

    "Well, now that you put it that way... of course not. But you're missing one very important point. No business of any kind, even evil insensitive IP wielding conglomerates, can tell you what you can or can't do in your own home. That DVD is still yours and you can do what ever you want with it in your own home. As much as you hate them, the MPAA is not against people watching DVDs. Of course their priorities are twisted, thinking that the smaller evil of making an illegal copy is far worse than the greater evil of keeping DVDs off certain operating systems, but heh, we see twisted priorities every day on Slashdot. "

    Unfortunately, you're wrong. The MPAA can tell me what I can do in my home, if it succeeds in getting DeCSS banned. Morally, no, it can piss up a rope, but legally, it does have the power to interfere in my private viewing of DVDs. Yes, I know, the source will always be available, but I'm talking legally. And please, don't believe that propaganda about DeCSS being about pirated copies - the economics for pirating through DeCSS doesn't work - why pay more for an illegal copy? It's solely for allowing people to view DVDs. Tsk-tsk.

    I do agree with your point about government though - If our chickenshit govt. hadn't passed DCMA for money, the MPAA would be up shit creek. Fuck 'em both.

  • Sigh.... yes, I know, that's what I was comparing it too largely. See that NRA, NAACP comparison? The difference is, there's already a large, somewhat powerful community... but it's not quite focused. And we're going to have a hell of time convincing anyone else to care. As for larger trends, well, is the geek community going to stay unorganized and let corporations run rough-shod over issues too technology-oriented for most people to care, or will there be a change in the power structure of American society? Again, it's not like we'd take the helm of society or whatever, but considering the highly computerized nature of the world, I believe it'd make a significant difference over the years.
  • I don't think there's a contradiction here. We just want to preserve the right to use our eyes and brains. Our desire to be able to take a bought-and-paid-for product and look at it in any way we want to isn't so different from our desire to have our open-sourced software remain free for others to look at in any way they want.

    The big sticking point about the whole DeCSS scenario is that the copyright laws are supposed to control distribution, and the MPAA wants to kill DeCSS on the grounds that it is a distribution tool. But as we see it, DeCSS is a tool for personal use of copyrighted data, not distribution. When this very same issue came up in the Universal vs. Sony case, it was ruled that VCRs were not illegal because they enabled substantial legal uses of copyrighted material that had nothing to do with distribution. Hopefully some court will rule this way again soon.

    And incidentally, the whole GPL is about distribution, not use. You can do whatever you want in the privacy of your own mind - the law only kicks in when you try to pass the stuff around.

  • I hardly think Norway is so backward and inept that it would surrender it's own sovereignty just to keep a foreign film industry happy.

    Hmmm, I'm wondering if I distributed a modified DeCSS binary only, would the US arrest me under Norwegian law?
  • "This is why we need campaign finance reform."

    A better way to do finance reform than the typical slashdot opinion of banning any company that makes more money than you (not that I'm accusing you of that), would be to allow only eligible voters to contribute. This would eliminate campaign financing by corporations, traditional PACS, unions, etc. Only individuals could contribute. Of course, freedom of association can't be done away with, to there would have to be a mechanism for individuals to voluntarily pool their funds together.
  • Boy, this author has just a few feelings of paranoia! His sense of personal oppression is overwhelming.

    And why he's attributing a Norwegian arrest with an American copyright law is beyond me.

    "So even legitimate owners of legally purchased DVDs can be arrested for viewing their own discs"

    This has not yet been upheld in any court. There are some, including the MPAA, who believe that this is the case, but so far no one has been arrested for that. Only a Norwegian boy. And he certainly wasn't arrested for breaking the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Here in the US, we've had one brain-dead moron of a district court judge rule against DeCSS. But district court judges in the US have been making boneheaded decisions since 1787.

    "Do we want a future where corporations can obsessively monitor and nickel-and-dime us by charging for every single instance in which we look at or listen to a recorded piece of entertainment?"

    Well, now that you put it that way... of course not. But you're missing one very important point. No business of any kind, even evil insensitive IP wielding conglomerates, can tell you what you can or can't do in your own home. That DVD is still yours and you can do what ever you want with it in your own home. As much as you hate them, the MPAA is not against people watching DVDs. Of course their priorities are twisted, thinking that the smaller evil of making an illegal copy is far worse than the greater evil of keeping DVDs off certain operating systems, but heh, we see twisted priorities every day on Slashdot.

    "That case went all the way to the Supreme Court, being decided in 1984 against the studios."

    So what makes you think it will be a complete reversal this time (and what does this have to do with Norwegian law?) This was a Supreme Court decision. It's the highest precedence of law in a nation based on the common law of precendences. Reversing this precedence is about as likely as changing the constitution.

    "But the key issue at stake here -- corporate control versus individual freedom -- is fundamentally important."

    I'm sorry, but no corporation controls me. No corporation possibly could. You are mistaking money for power. The only thing that can take away your freedom is government, because only they have the force necessary to do it. Think about it - if the corporations have power, why the hell do they have to go to a New York district court or use Norwegian policemen? If they had the power to take away our freedoms they would already have their own courts and their own cops.

    Going after the MPAA is like taking aspirin for a hangover. Government is the booze, the MPAA is the hangover. And you all know how to stop hangovers, take away the booze.
  • "...a turning point in American society...abuse our programmers to the point of arrest and imprisonment"

    Uh, that arrest and imprisonment happened in Norway.
  • "Why isn't everyone on Slashdot a member of the EFF?"

    Oh please! Have you considered the possibility that the EFF is a political organization and that there are at least a couple hundred different political philosophies here on slashdot? How could one organization ever hope to syncronize its politics with those of slashdot.
  • A lot of the reason this country is as messed up as it is, is due to single-issue politics and special interest alliances.

    I particularly resent your screaming at me just because I won't contribute to your cause. Interesting how you thought the use of the word FUCK in caps was supposed to convince me.
  • "The large corporations tend to drive the economy of the nation."

    You are mistaken. Believe it or not, the small businesses (under fifty employees) holds more economic power than the large corporations. Yes, the large corporations get better press, but it's the small business owner that get's the congressman's ear.
  • But then I could take that evil (aren't they all) corporation's software and pass it out on the street corner, along with the original source code!
  • You missed my analogy completely. I drink booze. But I don't get hangovers. Why? I don't let the booze control me. I'm in charge. There is a very big difference between a government with limited powers and no government at all.

    Oh, and I don't know about your neighborhood, but in mine the garbage collection is done by a private company.
  • "The MPAA can tell me what I can do in my home..."

    They can tell you all they want, but they have absolutely no power to enforce their wishes on anyone. Not even if they succeed in convincing a court that DeCSS is illegal. Only the government has the power to go that. The problem isn't the MPAA. The problem is that the government has so much power that it's now hiring itself out as a bully to the highest bidder.

    The problem here is that we have all become so dependant upon the teat of government, that just like little piggies, we get pissed when a bigger piggie comes along and pushes us away from the nipple we're sucking on.
  • [being arrested for viewing one's own DVDs] This has not yet been upheld in any court. There are some, including the MPAA, who believe that this is the case, but so far no one has been arrested for that

    So what if nobody's been arrested yet? The US has a law on the books which quite explicitly states the conditions under which viewing one's own DVDs is a crime. Perhaps you are arguing that this is hard to enforce, but that does not change the fact that such a law has been enacted and could be enforced on a whim.

    we've had one brain-dead moron of a district court judge rule against DeCSS

    IANAL, but most reasonable people seem to agree that under DMCA the judge's ruling is correct. I don't have an opinion on the judge's IQ, but it seems that the DMCA is the problem, not this particular judge.

    No business of any kind, even evil insensitive IP wielding conglomerates, can tell you what you can or can't do in your own home

    And, pray tell me, why not? Most often they do this by lobbying for laws to be passed. For example, you cannot (legally, that is) use an illicit cable descrambler box -- in your own home! Besides, do you read the small print of all contracts that you sign?

    the MPAA is not against people watching DVDs.

    Nobody suggests they are. The problem with MPAA (as well as with RIAA) is that they want to control what people watch.

    I'm sorry, but no corporation controls me. No corporation possibly could. You are mistaking money for power. The only thing that can take away your freedom is government, because only they have the force necessary to do it.

    Hear, hear! I've been pushing this idea on Slashdot for a long time. Governments are intrinsically more dangerous and untrustworthy than corporations. Give me a choice between big government and big corporations and I'll pick corporations every time.

    Going after the MPAA is like taking aspirin for a hangover. Government is the booze, the MPAA is the hangover

    Bad metaphor, keeping in mind that MPAA was instrumental in formulating and passing of DMCA.

    Kaa
  • Interesting post

    Privacy is not Liberty, and neither is Freedom.

    I'll agree with this. I also agree with the draw of Riki or Jerry and even Jenni, is the unfettered view into someone's life. Sometimes it's just for the opportunity to look down at them, but mostly it's just fun to see how other people are dealing with life in a raw format.

    Privacy is a wierd thing. First off, you don't have a whole lot of privacy about your demographic (age,sex,location) info, and most likely your behavioural info either (what you buy, hobbies, etc). You'll have to trust me on this, basically 'cause I use this stuff every day. With an address and a name I can probably tell you what kind of car your drive, your religion, political affiliation, magazines you read, how many kids you have, age, sex, etc. etc.

    Like any other tool, its "goodness" or "badness" is based upon the use and the why. This information allows a less well financed company to reach the same number of highly potential customers without resorting to mass marketing. Collecting this info makes our economy more efficient as less money is wasted getting a message to people who will *never* buy your product (like all those AOL cd's, they need a "uses Linux" killfile).

    However the potential for abuse is high. The potential for annoyance to customers is extremely high. Such is the trade-off.

    I was actually thinking the other day of creating some type of Open Consumer Database, where you log in, set your preferences, info, product interests, and get kickbacks when somebody buys a subset of the list, perhaps on an annual basis. While tightly controlling what companies get access to the info, but allowing individuals to freely update or remove their information.

    Recent developements will most likely make a lot of you happy (States will soon not be allowed to sell driver registration info, which is one of the foundations that your profile is built upon) yet this action will just make info collecting that much more expensive, less accurate, and in the end you get more spam (in your mailbox, or over your telephone) (BTW, this law was created in a "save the children" type environment, a stalker had accessed driving records and hunted dwon

    Of course they could also buy your profile from Doublclick, which, after buying Abacus, associates online traffic patterns with real-world buying habits. (plus a whole bunch of other juicy stuff)

    Dunno where I'm heading with this, but you are and have been targeted since you were young. And you will be until you die. Understanding this for what it is, can be a tremendous leap toward making it a non-factor in your life, allowing the freedom of thought and action that so many of us hold deal.

    Anyway, enough ranting for the morning. I should do some work.

    good idea...
  • The Honorable (Your Senator's Full Name)
    U.S. Senate
    140 Russell Senate Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20510

    To: Senator (Your Senator's Last Name).
    I am writing in regard to a recent ruling by Judge Lewis Kaplan of the Southern District of New York in the case of Universal City Studios, Inc, et al. vs. Shawn C Reimeredes, et al. In this case, Mr. Reimeredes, et al. are accused of violating the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) by providing the computer source code for a program called DeCSS, which allows the users to play movie DVDs on their home computer. In that ruling, the judge makes some broad and very disturbing assertions about the nature of ideas and speech, which, if left unchecked, could fundamentally reshape the future of the Internet and our society.

    One of these assertions is that computer software source code is simply not speech but merely a kind of mechanism. Doing so sets a much higher burden on any defendant in a case where software source code is involved. We who actually make our living at developing software know that it is both a mechanism that does useful work, and it is speech: a mode of expressing ideas. Naturally, different parties in the software industry may weight the importance of each of these dual aspects very differently, but to those of us who actually sit at the keyboard and craft software, source code clearly embodies ideas and is a form of expression which can be highly personal. If a programmer produces software source code with the intent that it be speech, then it must be considered so.

    This is a deep philosophical issue that cuts to the very first and most fundamental of our constitutional protections; no individual judge should be able to rule an entire important class of ideas outside the pale of legal protection because he finds them abstruse or uninteresting. At least he should not be able to do so without a spirited public debate.

    In the practical sphere this ruling abridges many traditional rights of the consumer. It prevents users from playing DVDs that they purchased legitimately unless they also purchase a DVD from the consortium or its licensees. This allows the consortium if it wishes to quash by independent filmmakers and home movie enthusiasts to create their own DVD movies. It allows them to artificially segment the market and charge higher prices for the same product in different places. It totally eradicates the longstanding consumer right of free use, which, MPAA claims to the contrary, have not to date harmed the industry. Clearly, these abridgements of consumer rights and extension of monopoly power are in the economic interest of the industry, but they are not necessary to their fair and indeed handsome compensation.

    This ruling is truly appalling, for it abolishes traditional and harmless consumer rights, establishes the sovereignty of an industry consortium over an important realm of ideas, and makes criminals of people who, at personal expense and with no compensation, are performing an important public service. However what is most disturbing is that it may indeed be in accord with the letter of the new law as established by the DMCA. I ask that you consider reforming this law, so that it accords better with long established consumer rights and protects the rights of all software developers, not just a minority of influential commercial interests.

    For further information on the subject please visit http://www.opendvd.org. Thank you for your time.

    Sincerely,
    Your Name
    >>

  • The troubling aspect of the recent injunctions is not the technical misaprehensions, which are not particularly material, but that the judge may actually have interpreted the sense of the DMCA as it was intended to function. If DMCA proves to be constitutional (which it may well be literally while being against the bill of rights in spirit), then our only recourse is to our legislators. Lefletting on a Manhattan street corner or in MIT's infinite corridor is noble, but it is not going to affect any people who can make a difference.

    In an earlier thread, republic posted his model letter to legislators [slashdot.org].

    Using the sufficient number of eyeballs theory, we should all take this and develop several versions covering the different viewpoints from which DMCA is bad. I'm working on mine version and will post it here later.

  • That brief isn't about something interesting like how people without a driver's license is supposed to board a commercial flight in our brave new world.

    It's about how the public roads are "really" private property since they're paid for with taxes, and therefore the state can't ban people from driving their car on these "private" roads for minor issues like multiple convictions for drunk driving resulting in death.

    N.B., even this paper doesn't try to argue that this mass murderer isn't allowed to freely travel public roads - *as a passenger*, or perhaps on a bicycle.

    Instead the focus is on some silly "business"/"personal" use distiction which is completely irrelevant and utterly impossible to enforce.
  • California has a brand spanking new law protecting customers because of abuses of the frequent shopper cards by stores.

    The most notorious case, which was discussed in the _Privacy Journal_, involved a gentleman who slipped on a wet floor and was injured. This being California he sued, and the store started asking all of his friends and acquaintances about his drinking problem. Obviously, they sought to show that he fell because he was drunk ("'falling down' drunk").

    Where did the store get the idea that he was an alcoholic? From their own records. The lawyers pulled up his purchasing details and jumped on the fact that he purchased something like a case of beer every week or two. Perhaps they were legitimately investigating the possibility that he was drunk at the time (and nobody in the store or medical staff noticed it)... or perhaps they seized on this as a way to embarass the plantiff sufficiently that he would drop a justified complaint.

    Other abuses have involved stores checking up on customers (and staff), individuals checking up on customers, the government checking up on customers (IIRC the search seemed tuned to home gardeners, not murderers), etc.

    And *that* does worry me. I don't want to have to worry about a no-knock DEA raid as a suspected pot farmer for no reason other than the fact I bought a bunch of full spectrum bulbs to treat my seasonal affective disorder.

  • Perhaps an issue which few have addressed is that far too many people simply give away their right to privacy. Example: Many states use your social security number as your drivers license number. Also, many people put their SS# on their checks. (Stupid, stupid, stupid.)

    The ACLU has started to get proactive on the privacy issue [aclu.org]. Consider that the ACLU has been entrenched and accepted (or, at the very least, acknowledge) in American socio-politcal much longer than the EFF. It is a valid authority to which one can plea. Check the Link [aclu.org].



    ----
  • You have no right to copy someone else's work if they don't want you to.
    Not true. If I publish something, you have fair use legal rights to copy it.

    Say that I write, record, and distribute a song that you like. You have every legal right to sing it yourself (though if you're getting paid to do so, you're supposed to give me a cut through BMI or ASCAP), or to burn a mix CD with the song on it for your personal use. Certainly no one can stop you from memorizing it, thus making a copy based in your synapses. I can't say "I don't want Geek Boy to be allowed to copy this!" and expect the government to enforce that.

    (Note that I am speaking purely of rights under existing copyright law, not ethical rights I believe you have.)

  • A lot of the Europeans in the audience are shaking their heads and rolling eyes at the Americans now and their funny way of exaggerating things and congratulating themselves how things are better in Europe.

    Unfortunately, the US situation will reflect on us Europeans. Remember the Wassenaar agreement? [jya.com] Two months before it became public, many governments in Europe (Finland for example) were proudly touting their open-cryptography policy. Then, a few short months later, they grinned sheepishly and signed the agreement, probably due to US or international pressure, declaring cryptographic products as armaments to be controlled.

    The MPAA has so much leverage via the different giants in the entertainment industry, that whatever happens in the US will leak over to Europe as well. I'm almost certain that very soon something like the DMCA will be attempted to pass in the EU parliament, "in order to comply with international convention."

    Copyright and IP rights are an important matter, but we should still keep the fair use-policy that allows individuals to do as they please with their own, legally purchased property. Video did not kill the movie industry - vice versa. Nor did DVD. And neither will DeCSS or MP3. After all, deliberate piracy hasn't killed the computer games industry - and they use no copy protection whatsoever!
  • I felt a need to respond to something in this post:

    I know that a good number of people on Slashdot like to think of themselves as Libertarians. And perhaps the Libertarian Party is the one that best supports the beliefs of our community. Realisticcally, I don't think the Libertarian party has a snowball's chance in hell that it will have a major say in politics, not while the GOP and the Democrats have more money and support.
    I just want to make the point that I don't just "think of my self as a Libertarian," I'm registered on my voter registration card as a Libertarian and I'm also registered with the Libertarian party as a Libertarian.

    Mainly, I'm worried that people are confusing small "l" libertarians with Libertarians. Plenty of people who are registered in one of the two major parties will consider themselves libertarian on some issues, but that is different than actually being a member of the Libertarian party. Republicans and Democrats are not Libertarians, and never will be, both parties have beliefs that will trump any libertarian feelings in either party.

    Basically, I think H-PAC (Hacker Political Action Commitee) is a really good idea, but it is completely seperate from the idea of the two party system or Libertarianism. The NRA, for example, will support Democrats and probably even credible Libertarians who take a strong stand against gun control. Most lobbies cut accross party lines. Now, if the reason you bring up H-PAC is because you want me to start donating money to that instead of the Libertarian party, I'm afraid I can't do that. I'd consider contributing to such an organization along with the Libertarian party (just as I currently donate to the EFF).

  • The Web is a mass of information. It's no surprise that much of that information has to do with us, people, because we (well, most of us) enjoy social interaction. Why is it that there's a huge backlash against the pursuit and use of information? Surely I know people identify the Web as a safe haven, a place of privacy (i.e. connecting from the home), of personal identity (personalization and customization in Web development). But when do people realize that the vast majority of online entities are "not out to get you"? I don't know about you, but if I can't feel secure using my credit card online, then that (rather than the credit card) is my greater problem. But I do use it, egregiously, in fact.

    It's a shame people like the author are jumping at shadows, seeing the boogeyman under the proverbial bed because he wants to think in his mind it's there (so of course it is).

  • This isn't about copyright... it's about *control*. Personally, I am very active against the DVD CCA, and I am doing everything I can to ensure that they FAIL. But I am not a pirate, and I frown on anyone who is. I just believe that if I purchase content I should be allowed to listen to it anywhere and in any way I choose.

    You're at least partially misrepresenting the issue. I may never view DVDs on Linux. I just want the freedom to. I may never do a lot of things, but if they win this, believe me, they'll just come down on us harder and harder until we need a license to breathe.


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.

  • And you really think that if too many people stopped buying from corporations that the government wouldn't find some way to force the issue?


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.

  • You have just hit upon the downside of a capitalistic society. I am not quite a socialist or anything like that, but I am definitely not a capitalist either. Or at least I'm not a corporatist.

    The large corporations tend to drive the economy of the nation. It would be very easy for a few companies acting in concert to cause serious damage to this country's (and the world's, for that matter) economy. The way I see it, lawmakers really don't have much *choice* but to go along with them most of the time. What are they going to do? Even if they're not getting a cent, all the corporations have to do is convince them that the economy will fail because they don't get their way, and boom... they get their way.

    The problem here is the notion of corporations in the first place, the centralization of ecomonic power into a few very large entities, and the fact that the government allows this to happen. The corporations need to be toppled and a new economy based on fair trade and free market (which I believe has NOTHING to do with corporations) built. Only then will we be able to solve these kinds of problems.


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.

  • The point that we have to get away from our keyboards and start "pounding the pavement" is a very good one. We have spent a lot of time incubating this tecnhology and culture and lifestyle, and it is now to the point where out "geek" culture is going to go head to head with the "establishment". And, like it or not, we have to play by their rules just as much as they have to play by ours. We're not going to win with code... though we'll certainly give them QUITE a scare.

    Don't get me wrong. We hold quite a bit of power and most of the cards. But they hold a few important ones and we're going to have to work within them. this will ultimately be judged in the court of law and public opinion.

    So, yes. Protest. Boycott. Use all the tools we have. We're entrenched but we're not undefeatable.


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.

  • You are correct. I have put my money where my mouth is. Others have to. But we need to be even more active.

    To the rest of you: Where are you? Do something about it!


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
  • is the one that gets the ear of the congressman.

    I agree that the "Mom and Pop" stores are the backbone of the American economy.

    But I don't believe that they have that stong of a voice Because these business are ran by numerous individuals from every walk of life, they tend to cancel out each others voices. For every small businessman on one side of an issue you can find another small businessman on the other side of the issue. So small businesses tend to distribute their money amoung all the canidates and support both sides of the issues.

    But the large companies, whose controlling boards heavily overlap with each other, can goto these congressmen and say, if you support certain legislation for me I will put a million dollars into a political action committee for you.

    This is why we need campaign finance reform. We need to stop the undue influence of the corporations over the congressmen. We need to force these congressmen to goto the people in their own district and ask for support from the people that they are supposed to be representing.

  • The main problem is how our elected officials consistently allow corporations to write and interpret laws; this is, in my opinion, where the incredibly oppressive copyright restrictions placed upon even the most mundane software package comes from. It's the corporate entities who wrote these laws, rather than our representatives, and it's the corporate entities who prosecute whoever they deem to be a threat. Prosecutors, judges, and legislators just go along with them, even though they usually have no idea what exactly is going on. I don't think the situation is quite as serious as the author of the quoted article is saying, though. The enormous influx of money into both open source companies, as well as new internet commerce sites like MP3.com, will hopefully provide some targets that aren't quite as easily stifled as the individual hacker. As for the DVD suit, we've seen it before with the introduction of the VCR, or the introduction of the cassette tape. The industry organizations usually lose; hopefully it'll happen again this time.

  • The point that we have to get away from our keyboards and start "pounding the pavement" is a very good one. We have spent a lot of time incubating this tecnhology and culture and lifestyle, and it is now to the point where out "geek" culture is going to go head to head with the "establishment". And, like it or not, we have to play by their rules just as much as they have to play by ours. We're not going to win with code... though we'll certainly give them QUITE a scare.

    I've been saying this for a while now. This war is going to be fought on three fronts:

    1. Code. Fact is, the only way government can shut this down is by shutting down the Internet. It should be interesting to see whether the U.S. government is really more interested in free markets or law enforcement - by even beginning to impose the kind of restrictions that they could have to, would virtually kill the booming Internet economy. My point is, even if every last website is scoured of DeCSS, someone will put together a Napster-like program for normal software trade. As long as communication is free of government monitoring, and it's legal to own a programmable computer, code is still law.

    2. Court. Let's get one myth out of the way. If we lose in court, DeCSS will not go away. The MPAA will not start throwing tens of thousands of people into jail. Not even close. What will happen is that it will be tied up in appellate, and if we lose there, then things get ugly. You and I both know that the Open Source community won't say "oh, judge said it's illegal, better stop it or I'll get spanked". What happens then is war - it's not smart to piss off millions of very smart technical people in an Internet world. Bad things could happen; people could get hurt. A court victory can help prevent this situation from happening.

    3. Street. You're right. We need to get away from the keyboard. I've just printed up 500 flyers, plan to pass some of them out at the Linux users group meeting tonight. Hope to get the rest out to general public within the next week. The text of the flyer will soon be up on my site, and I'm trying to put together a list of flyer drops around the U.S. If you've done a flyer drop recently or are planning one, let me know at findcss@usa.net. It'll be advertised.

    Defendent 46
    findcss@usa.net
    46's DVD News [geocities.com]

  • Do we need a "Hacker" lobby? (Score:3)

    by Maul ( 83993 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2000 @10:51PM (#1293355) Journal
    It seems that a lot of our representatives and senators are willing to sign our rights away very quickly. Before we all jump on the bandwagon of bashing them, we must consider that a good deal of them are not familiar with computers in a sense where they realize what they are doing. This aside, it is still true that they are not representing our interests. I agree with the previous posts that we need new people in congress. People who understand technology a bit better.

    I know that a good number of people on Slashdot like to think of themselves as Libertarians. And perhaps the Libertarian Party is the one that best supports the beliefs of our community. Realisticcally, I don't think the Libertarian party has a snowball's chance in hell that it will have a major say in politics, not while the GOP and the Democrats have more money and support.

    But it seems we need a bit more input. People have said it before, and I'll say it again: We need a hacker (again: the good kind) lobby or something along those lines. Those among our community who have been made wealthy thanks to IPOs and such might consider donating a bit to starting some sort of lobby. If we could form a PAC, then hackers could start providing information to congress about tech issues, and we could gain access to the loop.

    Starting this lobby is clearly not an easy task by any means. It would take a lot of money and support, but I think if it were actually to happen, it would be quite beneficial, not only for us, but for the rights of people who don't even realize their rights are being stripped away (at this point, at least).

    "You ever have that feeling where you're not sure if you're dreaming or awake?"

  • The Internet was designed in order to withstand physical and military assaults of staggering proportions. I think that the community and freedom of the net was a wholly unexpected consequence.

    but it is true, that the net does interpret censorship, among other things, as damage, and routes around it.


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't get suckered in by the comments -- they can be terribly misleading. Debug only code. -- Dave Storer

Close