Today's Helping Of The DMCA 170
El pointed us to this nice DMCA story in UpsideToday. Time Warner says that it needs "effective protection, both technological and legal, against unauthorized uses of copyrighted works," showing that even AOL-TW agrees that the DMCA is intended to restrain personal use of copyrighted works rather than copying. For anyone around Stanford University, note that a protest is being organized for May 18 and 19.
Real Audio (Score:1)
Another reason to boycott RealAudio.
Copyright (Score:1)
bahaha (Score:1)
Read the DMCA carefully (Score:4)
Protests against the DMCA are to be considered strictly in violation of the DMCA
wow, that's horrible (Score:2)
If we let Time Warner protect their property, what will happen next? Will people try to protect their own cars, houses, foods, etc from theft? This can not stand if we are to create a communist society! Liberate all assets! Steal from the rich! They are only rich because they cheated and stepped on us honest masses. Down with money and greed!
Dr Kool
Loyal Slashdot Communist
DMCA == Corporations rights;DMCA =! authors rights (Score:2)
DMCA is corporate america tool for making the individual use their technology and buy their products. For example: DVD technology.
DMCA is just a new way of repression of consumer freedom in the internet age. Everybody know that this is not a law for protecting authors and copyrights. It is for making consumers buy products of big corporations
What should we do? Boycott almost every product?
Protests important (Score:5)
Most citizens are unaware how the DMCA affects them, or will affect their lives even if "pay-per-use" becomes standard.
Furthermore, the hearings will probably be a love-feast of the media business types. So, if we mere users wish to get our point across and educate the public, we need to do it in a way that not only gets the public's attention but also informs them of the real issues. It's the DMCA that's bad, not necessarily all of copyright law, and whether or not you believe in free software.
Another thing, it's really sad reading this thread right after reading the thread of the development of BSD and how academics at that time were more interested in the truth, and software that worked, instead of just the money and power.
As an example of our failure in one instance of getting our point across, please see yesterday's triumphant "beacon of light" message [boston.com] from the attorney who won the CyberPatrol case--it was decided under the DMCA too.
Re:Copyright (Score:3)
Re:DMCA == Corporations rights;DMCA =! authors rig (Score:1)
TW/AOL Forces Me to Parrot the Gun Lobby (Score:4)
There is already a body of law that prohibits "unauthorized use" of copyrighted materials in all domains: Copyright law.
Rather than allow our rights to be bled by further legislation, TW/AOL has a right to help the federal government enforce the laws that already exist. To do anything more, particularly in the form of the DMCA, unconstitutionally inhibits fair use of copyrighted materials in favor of stronger rights for copyright holders.
If TW/AOL wants to protect themselves against "unauthorized use" they should either increase their contribution to the federal government so they can afford to pursue their valid claims (do they have any?) of copyright violation by loosening their accounting standards to indicate a higher taxable income (a simple numbers manipulation), or they should make their product in a manner that does not encourage the market to ignore their copyright and create a grey market for their copyrighted goods (less expensive, copy-prohibitive media such as cave walls, or not selling it).
"anti-circumvention" (Score:2)
I just wanted to see "anti-circumvention" written like that one more time, because gosh darn it, they only did it 12 fscking times in the article.
Rule of journalism #27: You only put an unfamiliar phrase in quotes once. After that your "readers" are probably "smart enough" to be "comfortable" with the "new" "phrase".
Oh no, here it comes again... (Score:5)
Here comes another DMCA-bashing session. So, here comes another obligatory Typical Slashdot Response Parody poll from the Poll Mastah...
What would you post in response to this article?
Re:Oh no, here it comes again... (Score:2)
Oh I forgot one more option:
11. Boycott the DMCA! Boycott Amazon! Boycott everything! Move to a mountain and boycott modern society!
Let's get the public informed. (Score:2)
Send this news to your local media relations and get some air time for us. Bay Area channels 5 (KPIX [mailto]), 11 (KNTV [mailto]), 2 (KTVU [bayinsider.com]), etc. would be great.
Also, if someone could find the email address of the Mercury News & SF Chronicle, that'd get us some coverage as well.
We'll never do any good until people outside of our little circles are well informed about what the DMCA means to them.
Peace
-jt
Maybe not so bad... (Score:5)
-cwk.
Pro-2600 Legal Brief Slashdot Story (Score:4)
That being said, it's a real pity that the story on the 2600 freedom-to-link case [slashdot.org] didn't make it to the front page. The only reason given was that it was a long, long article that not everybody might want to read. So what? People should still know about it. It provides some dynamite anti-DMCA arguments that I hadn't even known about. Check it out.
--
Is this demostration going to be mirrored? (Score:2)
Because as much as I love the right of Americans to fairly exchange knowledge, I am not going down to Cali to do it. Are we going to have any mirror demonstrations in other cities?
In my own city of Portland, it will be interesting hearing the police explain why it was immanently neccesary to gas those dangerous free software protesters, who have been known to riot and destroy public property.
And BTW, I am glad that Slashdot is providing some links to "real world" political action. I only hope that eventually it will be some political action involving something more pressing, such as a living wage for all workers.
Re:wow, that's horrible (Score:1)
DMCA sucks, but (Score:3)
In any case, information should be defined more precisely, movies are just copyrighted material, not information (even though they can be stored as a set of bits). I am not sure what exactly a good defenition of information is, but I would exclude most movies (except for scientific films) from having status of informative.
Fight fire with fire (Score:2)
For example, put a requirement in there that protects "fair use". Maybe something that requires "fair use" to be easily accomplished. I know we can't think of ways off hand to to make it easy, but it would force the other side to have to come up with it.
This would be like what the FBI did (or at least tried to do) to laws attempting to allow the free use of encryption.
Shows how editors can be trolls (Score:3)
Come, on. The DCMA may be bad, but so is "unauthorised use" of copyrighted material. Why shouldn't TW do their best to minimise it?
New Business Models (Score:2)
The Open Source world is searching for the most effective business model. The Music world should be spending more time embracing such technologies and adapting their business model, instead of pursuing traditionalism.
IMHO, NOTHING will prevent consumers from getting what they'd like if they have the tools (decss) and the materials (the DVD stuff). The record industry must not deny this because this IS the future. Well, I can't say much more than this, as I think I've made my point :-)
Time-Warner is being *incredibly* hypocritical (Score:5)
The US Constitution grants Congress the power to grant copyrights for a limited time. If they keep upping the ante each time the deadline draws near, that is not "limited", because TW will never lose the copyrights of their characters to the public domain. Congress has overstepped its authority.
So, if TW invokes the DMCA to protect its characters, it's using an unconstitutional law to protect an unconstitutional franchise.
Normally, a copyright holder dies sometime, and their copyright fades. Not so for corporations like Time-Warner. Our legal system has been made into a twisted mockery of justice, in which immortal corporations are above the law.
The whole legal fiction of corporations being "persons" stems back to the 1886 Supreme Court decision in County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, in which the Court cited the "equal protection" clause of the fourteenth amendment. Equal. That means that the entire reason corporations are allowed to have rights as distinct entities is because all people have equal protection under the law.
This is a complete crock. Do the actions of corporations ever kill people? You betcha! So when was the last time you saw a corporation sentenced to death?
And, no, monopoly breakups don't count. Those are to keep the other corporations happy, and any benefit to real people is incidental.
Why do we as a society constantly reward and look up to these faceless legal machines which are designed to grow larger and make money at any cost?
The corporation may be an efficient way to run the economy, but it's a sick joke to even think of them as "persons". We need a system of laws that recognizes that corporations are a group of people, working together, and not some entity in and of itself.
Encourage people to break/ignore IP laws (Score:3)
encourage everyone I know to ignore intellectual
property laws of all sorts. Data and ideas cannot
be owned -- they lack scarcity. 'Pirating' is
not theft because nothing is *taken*. Post it
everywhere! Encourage your friends to ignore
'Intellectual Property'. IP is inherently invalid,
and it seems the DCMA is just taking us closer to
the inevitable conclusion of a pointless concept.
How much did Slashdot influence this discussion? (Score:3)
Critics of the DMCA have long argued that the "anti-circumvention" provisions tilt the balance too far in favor of copyright owners, while depriving the public of the ability to use and access information.
I equate "Critics of the DMCA" with "Readers of Slashdot and Linux users." Perhaps this is silly... are there other large groups of people organized against the DMCA? I think librarians in general probably are... but I also think that
Or I could be on crack.
---
Re:Shows how editors can be trolls (Score:1)
Content hoarders are seeking to extend their powers in an area where they have no natural rights to begin with. There are very clear Constitutional justifications for Copyright Law.
That justification is not to ensure that 'unprofitable' culture fades into oblivion, neither is it to ensure that record labels can grossly profit at the expense of artist, neither is it to allow corporations to continue hoarding works long after the author has died.
DMCA == Prohibition? (Score:1)
I mean, even those enforcing it are probably guilty of breaking it. A film that uses somebody elses material without permission for example (Ie. The Full-Monty, it's very very similar to a local play called "Ladies Night" that ran here about 10 years ago).
I can imagine Elliot Ness sitting down with a whiskey after a hard day with his Thompson machine gun.
So why do I make this point? Laws that are unenforcible and are broken everyone on a regular basis usually get forgottern about (Ie. The speed limit is 100km/h, but your speedo says 110km/h) They more you break it, the less anyone cares about it.
Though the american drug war is a notable exception, probably because politicians genrally don't shoot up in public or relax with some pot on friday night with the girls and boys behind the local bar.
Noone has taken up my idea of moving companies that seem a little dodgy under the DMCA to jump ship so-to-speak to another country with friendlier laws... Boo-hoo
tools (Score:5)
"a fair use defense might allow a user to quote a passage from a book but it does not follow that the user is allowed to break into a bookstore and steal a book."
The "technological protection" clauses of the DMCA are not an inadvertent extension of copywrite holders' rights by a naïve Congress, the limitation of fair use is entirely intentional. The argument that a digital work is fundamentally different from a pre-digital work was swallowed hook, line and sinker. The statement quoted above is absurd hyperbole; in a more accurate analogy, loaning a copy of Orifice2K to a friend is likened not to loaning a book but to loaning the press-plates for the book. The previously sufficient technical protection inherent in the expense of building a letterpress allowed for fair use to function without undue anxiety on the part of copywrite holders.
Congress is only too well aware of the technical issues, thanks to their friends in the content industries. Their eyes were wide open and their ears filled with the sound of the bell on the till.
Fair use is a dead letter, as intended. Arguments to restore it will fall on deaf ears. It remains to make clear that, in consequence, the very basis of copywrite, its ostensible role in supporting productive endeavor and the common weal, is subverted. Is this line persuasive? I doubt it. The DMCA effectively creates the conditions for a lively black market, essentially ensuring piracy. And this may be the key to its undoing. We may thus look on software piracy as a moral imperative.
In the immortal words of Wat Tyler (the punkers, not the 14th C. revolutionary):
Copywrite is for tools.
So, which one is this? (Score:2)
Artists, and software authors, don't have to use the DMCA - they don't have to restrict access to their work.
Indeed (Score:2)
Offer to write an editorial after you've explained the location and purpose of the story. They will be unlikely to cover the story themselves--instead they will take your suggestion to mean: "look for this story on the wire for the next two days." If it doesn't make Reuters or the AP, you probably won't see it in your paper. If they are at all interested in the story, they might want to see an editorial in case the story doesn't surface or as a tie-in to the wire copy. Local editorials on a timely issue are more valuable than an archive or wire editorial, and cheaper. If you are "credentialed" all the better.
We in the twin cities that have a local econ professor battling the stadium builders tooth and nail through editorials. The point being that his modest credentials (prof at a community college), combined with his rhetoric have earned him quite a loud voice in the region.
Have URLs handy (2600.com, opendvd.org slashdot) to start the editors on the right track. Give them the MPAA/RIAA's webpage too, so they can feel they're being complete.
Anyone have any more suggestions?
No. The proper response is to IGNORE the law. (Score:5)
(1) Prohibition. When alcohol was banned, people still produced, transported, and consumed it. "But it was the law!" The amendment was withdrawn by a subsequent amendment. Work through proper channels? Write your representatives? Convince legislators through proper means? Didn't happen. And the people were REWARDED for their disregard of an unjust law.
(2) Segregation laws. Blacks must yield their seat on busses to whites. Rosa Parks refused. "But it was the law!" Should she have complied? I think not. Her refusal spawned the great civil rights movement. Work through proper channels? Write your representatives? Convince legislators through proper means? Didn't happen. And the people were REWARDED for their disregard of an unjust law.
(3) The 55 MPH speed limit. The Federal Gov't, which is not supposed to be involved in making local state law (10th amendment) effectively extorted states into mandating 55MPH by refusing them federal highway dollars if they refused to comply and legislate 55. The law was widely ignored by the public. "But it's the law!" The threat was finally ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL and highway funds were ordered maintained regardless of local state speed limits. The result? Most states hiked local speed limits imediately. (And BTW, no increase in traffic fatalities appeared unkile what the naysayers predicted). Work through proper channels? Write your representatives? Convince legislators through proper means? Didn't happen. And the people were REWARDED for their disregard of an unjust law.
Am I making my point here?
Right now it's the internet turning IP law on its ear, just as the press removed literacy from the sole realm of high society. IP law cannot survive in a world of instantaneous global communication with each and every one of us granted equal power to publish anything. The dinosaurs will roar loudly, but they're already sinking into the tar pit.
Will the fall of IP law hurt a lot of people? Certainly. Recorded music put a lot of musicians out of business. Automatic pinsetters put a lot of people out of work. Computers and robots put a lot of factory workers out of work. Refrigeration put the ice deliverers out or work. The automobile hurt sales of horses. Airplanes depressed the commuter ship industry. The film camera hurt portrait artists. Cellular phones hurt the operators of coin operated phones. Something must be hurt or killed so that something new can live and grow. The fall of IP law will usher in a new wave of "information brokers" and "knowledge dealers". Knowledge will cease being for the wealthy or the "authoirized" and will become an omnipotent commodity upon which a new and better society will be built upon.
I for one am looking forward to the future.
Re:Shows how editors can be trolls (Score:1)
Well that's why I didn't say "totally benign", but "a little more benign"
Content hoarders are seeking to extend their powers in an area where they have no natural rights to begin with. There are very clear Constitutional justifications for Copyright Law.
I think it's a part of human nature to attempt to extend one's powers. That's why Copyright law is there - to protect authors' rights, and to limit how much power they have also.
The DCMA seeks to extend those limits past what most people here think is acceptable.
However, the point I was making in my original post is that the quoted text in itself did not show that TW is "intend(ing) to restrain personal use of copyrighted works rather than copying" as the article suggests.
Can you shrinkwrap license a book or CD? (Score:3)
In the software world, the GPL is an effective response to overly restrictive End-User License Agreements. Some of the best software in the world has been released under the GPL. The author chooses to use that license, and their works are protected under it. On this side of the fence, everything is working pretty well.
Wouldnt it be possible to release other media under a license that is more permissive than the DMCA tainted Copyright? Draw up a new contract that preserves the rights of the artist to profit, and protects the consumers rights to fair use. Include a provision that makes peer-to-peer distribution possible under certain, well defined conditions (payment for example). Make it easy for the end users to be legit, and stay legit.
Recruit artists who are benevolent and informed to start publishing under this license. Show them the benefits to their fans. Demonstrate that it wont cause a loss in revenue. This might take awhile (and some legal precedent), but it could be fairly feasable.
Push the benefits of this style of licensing to the consumer. Put little stickers on all permissively licensed merchandise, so people know when their rights are protected. Show them the benefits of the new licensing, highlighting the added value of having more rights to use the content at their convenience. Maybe even rally around someone who gets busted for doing something innocent under the DMCA copyright (linux DVD anyone?) to have a poster child for the cause. If we could get some consumer demand, then we have more pressure on the artists to release material under the new license.
So how about it? Can we take our ball and go home?
-BW
Re:wow, that's horrible (Score:2)
Soon people will think they can criticize corps, will think they can quote from books they own, even (gasp) have the right to play their cd's and dvd's whenever they want to.
And then there goes the neighborhood. Pinko city, every time. Just because their parents could do these things at whim, doesn't mean they can.
A fact we should remember, quite carefully.
Pug
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
Thanks for the insight (Score:1)
opinions on "How do you feel about DMCA?" article (Score:1)
Since (at this time) I am unable to properly form my ideas into text I will paraphrase. Did I get that right?
What I read below seems to be a very well thought out statementProfessor Pamela Samuelson of U.C. Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, a leading authority on the DMCA, has put the fair-use argument this way: "If owners of copies of copyrighted works do not have the ability to circumvent technical protection measures in order to make fair uses of protected material, fair use itself would cease to exist simply by virtue of the existence of technical protection measures."
I also read what seems to be a very well constructed sentence. The grammer is right and everything!
Of course, major copyright owners see the issue much differently. For example, in written comments leading up to the hearings, Time Warner (TWX) remarked upon on the "serious problems to copyright presented by the development of digitization" and the resulting need for "effective protection, both technological and legal, against unauthorized uses of copyrighted works and for effective prohibition against circumventing such protections."
With that said I expect to soon seek legal council for a violation of the DMCA. It seems I tried to view a DVD on a SUNY(tm) television as opposed to the DMCA approved MAGNAVAX(tm)
- sorry for posting,cole.
Re:Shows how editors can be trolls (Score:2)
So there must be "unauthorized uses" that are lawful but don't fit into TW/AOL's idea of a profitable society.
See my previous post on the License Economy [slashdot.org] as well. The idea is that there are several ways to increase the profitability of a good or service. The proponents of the DMCA have decided to persue a method that increases the Return on Investment by legislating obstacles into the path of the consumer, forcing them to purchase the use of a good rather than the good itself. What was previously free to do, Fair Use, under the DMCA becomes a profitable proposition. They get more money for the exact same product by being permitted by our government to charge for the "authorized use."
Put simply, we once had a say in what the copyright holders would be in a position to authorize, but it's been turned on its head. Now they're the ones with the rulebook, not us.
Really, they are being bad capitalists, not good ones, and the congress/the citizens haven't called them on it.
Stradling the border (Score:2)
Last time I looked, the DCMA was a US law, not an International law. Fuck 'em.
(BTW, the link needs QuickTime. Sorry)
Re:No. The proper response is to IGNORE the law. (Score:2)
1 - Prohibition? Sure it got overturned. After we, as a nation, ignored it and ended up creating organized crime syndicates that kill extort, and corrupt our cities. Sure - That was a great outcome. So glad people didn't stand up for their rights at the time instead of just ignoring the law and creating organized crime. Great example.
2 - Rosa Parks? Sure - that was a good example. If your not counting the lobbying by Dr. King and the creation of organizations like the ACLU and NAACP. Rosa Parks was an effective way of changing the law, because people were already trying to change the law.
3 - 55 mph?. Ummm - ruled unconstitutional. Perhaps your unaware perchance of what the term 'unconstitutional' implies? Someone fighting the law, and forcing it to the Supreme Court? Maybe you've heard of them? Or possibly not . . .
Yes, you made a point, but I don't think it's the point you intended. The point *I* see from your examples is that burying your head in the sand doesn't work. I don't see IP law falling - I support IP law as a rule. Creative people have a right to get a return on the fruits of their labor, and anyone, slashdot or otherwise that cheats people of that return deserves to get burned. Tes, this means you.
But the balance is out of whack, and will go further out of whack until people as group start pushing it back to center. And idiotic calls to stick our heads in the sand (Or possibly elswhere, in your case), will only allow the corps to keep pushing for more restrictive laws and more draconian enforcement. If this country becomes the United Corps of America, I'm willing to fight it. I'd rather simply protect my rights now thankyouverymuch.
Putz
Pug - feeling much better now thank you for asking.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
Having your cake and eating it too? (Score:2)
Sneaking into a theatre and watching without paying is theft of a service. Downloading a film may be illegal but in no way whatsoever is it theft of a service. Services are things like haircuts, legal advice, and blow jobs.
If copyrighted works are not information, then what the heck is a copyright protecting? Copyrights don't generally protect services, if ever. Words, images, sounds, software and generally everything that is represented by bits.
In a perfect world, I'd grant anyone creating anything the ability to state precise terms of use. This is not a perfect world. Theatres require permits (greasing local politicians). TV and radio stations require airwaves (greasing the FCC). Movies require union cooperation (overpaying the politically well connected).
There probably is a way to accomadate both camps - restrictive and unrestrictive copyright usage. Unfortunately, the intricate power structure of governments and corporations makes having 2 competing methods for popular media close to impossible. DIVX version 1.0 died a quick and well-deserved death. DMCA is DIVX 2.0. Beware. Boycotting Circuit City is easy. Boycotting Uncle Sam will get you locked-up and ass raped.
If there is going to be one way, it damn well better be one that errs on the side of freedom and doesn't toss people in jail en masse. Corporations and media owners will stop at nothing to use government power to trample on your rights to ensure your business. Don't let them.
The "funny" poster who talked about boycotting everything was right. I say, bankrupt the mother fuckers until/unless they clean up their act. If copyright holders want ANY respect from me of their rights, they have a lot to learn and do to not infringe on mine.
Re:Stradling the border (Score:1)
Send petition forms out. (Score:1)
I'm sure there are thousands who will gladly sign this, please help organize, I have finals this week so I can't deal with it.
Kick ass!
Re:wow, that's horrible (Score:1)
Heck yeah you can! (Score:1)
(i thought it was funny at one point)
-Tim
Something to remember. (Score:3)
Copyright is *not* an inalienable, natural right. It is an artificial right, granted by a government FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY AS A WHOLE.
Protecting a good authors work helps society, as that author can go ahead and produce more work.
This applies to patent, as well as other IP laws. Remember, laws like this are for THE BETTERMENT OF SOCIETY, *NOT* FOR THE BETTERMENT OF A COMPANY'S BANK ACCOUNT.
Remember. They will tell us it is 'illegal' for us to copy their DVD's, or to decode them.. let's remember who granted them those protections in the first place. Don't let this get any more out of hand than it already is.
Re:New Business Models (Score:1)
After DMCA fails to prevent piracy, they will go after all recording devices, speakers, monitors, everything. By then, you'll probably have an integrated compu-suit, you'll be targeted as well.
If they want to survive financially, they need new business models. The biggest threat to them is that distributors, marketers and middlemen become nearly obsolete. Once you can buy directly from the artists, not only will prices fall but you may even WANT to pay because it is fair and reasonable and you're not the piece of shit human trash like the assholes that pass these laws.
Implied contracts. (Score:3)
When Joe Smith walks into a store and buys a pack of twinkies, he grabs the twinkies off the shelf, pays the clerk, and eats his twinkies. There is an implied contract here, namely, the transfer of ownership of the twinkies to Joe, in exchange for money. We don't put it in writing, we don't attach 'terms of use' to the twinkies.. it's just assumed that, after the purchase, joe owns the pack of twinkies.
When Joe Smith walks into the same store and buys computer software, or a CD, or a DVD, he does the exact same thing. He takes it to the counter, gives them money, and walks away. The implied contract, again, is that Joe now *OWNS* the stuff he just bought.
Oh.. but wait.. there are OTHER things joe wasn't aware of. He wasn't aware that his software will force him to agree to a legally binding (debatable) agreement when he runs it.. so he may *own* the media, but he doesn't own the bits....
Oh. And running the bits on the DVD through some kind of algorithm and coming up with a decrypted movie to store on his HD? That's not legal, Joe.. even though it *IS* your DVD, and you *DO* own it..
The problem, folks, is that people don't understand the issues around what they are buying. They don't understand when they buy software that they aren't really buying it.. that they are just purchasing a license to use it... oh, but the store treats it as merchandise. They aren't a licensing agent of any sort... deceptive, no? The software industry DOES have their cake and eat it too.
Hey. Pirating movies is *ILLEGAL* already. So is pirating music. So. Tough. We can buffer these existing laws with other laws, just to make it seem scarier (sort of like, getting caught for armed robery, but also getting charged with assault with a deadly weapon (steak knife), posession of stolen goods (the twinkies you stole), illegal use of an automobile (getaway car), illegal posession of a steak knife, entering a business with intent to rob the store, and resisting arrest (running when the cops show up, oh, and posession of criminal equipment (the otherwise legal radio scanner you were using to listen to cop frequencies. It's totally legal, until you use it in conjunction with a crime)
Kiddie porn, piracy, soliciting minors for sex, all these things are already illegal.
A previous poster posted a really good note about how existing laws are fine, and about how AOL should spend their money to help enforce todays laws, rather than simply create newer ones.
Another thought. (Score:2)
When I go to buy a DVD, as I am more informed, I know that I am buying a plastic disc with digitally encoded & encrypted media on it. I know the basiscs of the laser mechanism that reads the disc, and I know how the data is encrypted. In other words, the 'creative work' that *I* am purchasing is very different than what Joe Smith is purchasing. I am not 'circumventing' a mechanism. I am just disassembling a work that I already purchased the right to 'use'.
Same disc, but different things to different people.
Re:How much did Slashdot influence this discussion (Score:5)
No comment. ;-)
As a small bit of historical background, DMCA was enacted in 1998, but there have been legislative proposals to deal with technological circumvention measures since about 1995, IIRC. Many Law Professors were concerned about those proposals from the beginning, fought them, fought DMCA, before ever enacted.
Obviously, the fight was not successful, but the outgrowth of that early work still influences the legal debate today. See, for example, this paper [berkeley.edu] by Professor Pamela Samuelson at Berkeley, published virtually right after DMCA became law, still frequently cited.
Re:How much did Slashdot influence this discussion (Score:2)
A simple argument against the DMCA... (Score:1)
All laws are supposed to exist to make the peoples' lives better, usually by protecting their rights. If it helps corporations as well -- good -- but that is not the primary objective. The copyright laws were put into effect to encourage corporations and artists to provide more works of art for the people. The DMCA helps corporations at the expense of the people. Any questions?
--
Re:Something to remember. (Score:1)
But...I think that almost every human society has admitted that people who invent something deserve some recognition and rights over their creation. If profit and the legal nicities of owning a copyright aren't universal, I think that the concept of some kind of rights or courtesies to creators are.
Just my 8% of 2 bits
Re:No. The proper response is to IGNORE the law. (Score:1)
Win was not because of the DMCA. (Score:2)
In the decision and determinminations of laws and facts, there was no mention of the DMCA. The issue argued was that they violated the stink (oops, shrink) wrap license agreement.
If you look at it, there is no argument from the defendants. It all refers to the "verified complaint" and counsel's affadavit.
Of couse, they repeat some of the same misrepresentations. That they decompiled the object code, onverted object code to source code. In the article, Schwartz claims that CyberPatrol was changed to make CPHack ineffective. But in the their papers, Mattel claimed that by not issuing the injunction, they would be subject to irreperable harm. If CyberPatrol was changed, how would it be subject to harm by an out of date, incompatble program?
A recipe for abuse (Score:2)
Anti-corporation sentiment was pretty common in the beginnings of the United States government, because of corporations like the Hudson Bay Company and their trade monopolies.
Now its all been downhill ever since that Supreme Court decision which gives corps the same rights as individuals, well individuals that never age, die, and are incredibly wealthy. Smart move.
Re:DMCA == Prohibition? OT (Score:1)
Marion Barry(sp?) was arrested in a cocaine sting and was elected to mayor of Washington DC after he was released from prison.
More recently the wife of the top drug enforcment officer stationed in Columbia was found to have been smuggling drugs into the country in diplomatic satchels.
It seems to me that the drug laws are routinely disregarded in the US. (The fact that a huge percentage of the US prison population are convicted on drug related offences bears this out.)
Re:Time-Warner is being *incredibly* hypocritical (Score:2)
Mmmm let me dig out the bible to see what it says about soul-less immortal beings.
Re:Implied contracts. (Score:1)
Look at how slashdot readers cheer on Janet Reno, Joel I. Klein, and their superhero trust-busting squad, as they take on Steve Ballmer, Bill H. Gates, and their diabolic trust-building legion of terror!
Oh, wait. Am I confused? Do slashdot readers like it when "rights" are protected (rights of the consumer vs. a "monopoly"), or are they opposed to the protection of "rights" (rights of the corporation/copyright holder vs. a consumer)?
Re:No. The proper response is to IGNORE the law. (Score:1)
corrupt our cities. Sure - That was a great outcome."
If you make something that people want illegal it does not make people stop wanting it. Prohibition was the cause of organized crime. People will always want gambling, prostitution, drugs and alcohol. As long as you make these thing illegal you create an opportunity for people who are able to provide them.
Re:Shows how editors can be trolls (Score:2)
Re:DMCA sucks, but (Score:1)
I think that should be... If you did not pay for your service again, and again, and again, and again... you can not use it.
Re:Something to remember. (Score:1)
So when they stop working for society, it's time to get rid of them? Is there any other solution?
TWW
I'll be going to the rally. Anyone want a ride? (Score:2)
Not to toot my own horn here, but I both do currently work for, and have in the immediate past worked for, companies that are potentially hugely affected by the DMCA.
I'm also responsible for our possible compliance thereunder. It Sucks. It makes my job a massive bitch, costs my company a boatload of cash and time to comply with, and generally makes my life miserable.
So, you bet I'm going to be there to let them know it's not just private citizen that are sick of the DMCA. It sucks hard for businesses, too - look at all the budding e-whatever, and I-whatever companies that are getting killed by the hired guns of the big media companies.
If you want a ride Thursday, give me a call. I work in Foster City, so I'll be heading down 101 sometime around 11:30.
650-520-5080
-Erik
A Presumption Of Innocence (Score:2)
Obviously, the citizen is in control of issue #1. If you don't want someone on your property, they're gone.
Item 2, a warrant, means the citizen must submit to a search for the items clearly delimited on the warrant. To obtain a warrant, the investigators must show they have reasonable suspicion that a crime has, or is about to be, committed on the property to be searched.
Contrast this with "personal" computers. NetPD was able to scan thousands of computers, obtain information about the users, compile and distribute the information without a warrant or your permission to access your machine.
The situation is grim. In my opinion, all communication between two computers must become legally protected. That is, no sifting or compilation of data about me, without my consent or a warrant from a judge; no monitoring of my communication with other PC users without a warrant or my consent.
Obviously, an employer has a right to know what their machines are being used for. I admit employers and company PCs do not fall under this umbrella.
One reason the presumption of innocence exists is to allow people to communicate freely. When I have a guest over to my house, I know we can speak and act freely -- any monitoring, without my permission or a warrant, is illegal.
My computer has microphones and video equipment attached. All transmissions between my computer and the outside world need to become protected. No monitoring without a warrant, or my express permission.
Re:Forgot one... (Score:3)
The US is *not* the centre of this planet, which is actually some 6000+ kilometres beneath your feet.
<FLAMEBAIT>
It is amazing how some people are saying that the internet is global and should therefore not be regulated, while otherwise they're still trapped in the good-old "We're-the-centre-of-the-universe" vision.
</FLAMEBAIT>
Perhaps it's time to add a 'US-centric stories' checkbox to the slashdot config page ;-)
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
Has the media's position changed here? (Score:2)
Quick, where's the cluestick? (Score:3)
Unfortunately, the attempt to limit priviledges is not matched by a reduction in price. By attempting to license music rather than selling the rights to the contents they are effectively devaluing the resale and second-hand market. Some economists have noted that the secondary value of a good is often a more important determinant for marginal pricing, e.g. you can use a CD for the bits on it or as a drink coaster. Passing off a wasting asset as a durable good assumes that the consumers can't tell the difference or detect the reduction in value. Afterall, it's a standard trick when you can't raise the price, you reduce the portion size or dilute the intrinsic value.
One wonders what's worse, not having copyright and people borrowing your ideas, or having copyright protection and people *NOT* listening to you. So what can the Internet do? Well, you can take advantage of laws in other countries, compare and arbitrage prices across countries, or extend the reach of your opinions or new services. In other words, it forces individuals to think on a larger scale than previously.
LL
Re:DMCA sucks, but (Score:2)
The article just made use of DVD's as one example of something covered by the DMCA. Is Artwork a service? I'd realize that no such medium exists now, but they could very well creates some sort of encrypted artwork (paitings) that you could only view on a certain player which had to conform to an absurd set of standards. It wouyld be the same thing.
Just to prove a point, lets role with the whole dvd example. I own several dvd's. I did not accept a license agreement when using any of them for the first time, or opening them. I did not pay for a service, I paid for the right to own a copy of the movie itself. This is how it was presented to me; it wasn't portrayed like some sort of on-disc version of Pay-per-view TV. So now I own all these movies now (or at least own copies of them), Right? Well, apparently I do own them, but only if I use them in the prescribed manner? God forbid I should wish to unencrypt my movie (remember one of aspects of the DMCA is that it makes the actual act of circumventing copyright protection a crime) that I paid for with my money. Why I might wish to do that is my buisness, it should not be of legal concern to anyone. Existing copyright law already exists that would make it crime for me to distribute that copy, but I should have every right to make that copy for my own uses.
And aren't there laws that state that its ok to make such copies for back-ups if they are for your own personal use (you know, in case I scratch up the disk playing frisbee)? It would seem that this would be in direct conflict with the DMCA mandate that circumventing copyright protections, even to make a copy for your own personal back-up use, is a crime.
Re:So, which one is this? (Score:3)
Medicine. It may make it possible to restrict the use of medicine in a way that increases profits but decreases use. E.g. selling a patented drug in batches of 10,000 and then banning redistribution, so that everybody has to pay for 10,000 pills whether they need them or not. Effectively this would stop some people being able to afford treatment.
The DCMA is so broad that you can use it to bugger things up in most markets, if you are ingenious/unscrupulous enough.
Re:Forgot one... (Score:2)
People in other countries should be concerned about the DMCA. The RIAA, MPAA and U.S. Government are probably going to attempt to shove it down your throat.
Re:Time-Warner is being *incredibly* hypocritical (Score:2)
Re:Shows how editors can be trolls (Score:2)
The DMCA allows copyright holders to prevent you from doing any of those things - reselling, tearing up, reading it more than once (or even once), lending it out - and be backed by the force of law.
That's why I put use in bold.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
The problem with boycotts... (Score:2)
...is the same as the problem with trademarks: dilution.
There's a lot of anti-DMCA, anti-UCITA, anti-MPAA and anti-RIAA sentiment, and a lot of people have called for boycotts. The problem is that no one's organizing anything; there are individuals boycotting all these things (well, the last two, anyway, and the sponsors of the first two), but not in large enough numbers for it to make a difference, and not in a coordinated, public way.
Am I part of the solution? No, I don't guess so. I'm boycotting the MPAA, but I know I'm in a pitifully small minority, and as a result, my actions are doomed to failure. But don't more people care about these issues? Is it just a lack of organization, or publicity, or what?
Are there coordinating organizations for any of these alleged boycotts? Would someone be willing to donate bandwidth and webspace to coordinate one? Until we get organized, we're just going to get trampled on.
phil
Re:Time-Warner is being *incredibly* hypocritical (Score:2)
This is one road to resistence, though, for those of us with capital -- buy into corporations, then petition the board to do what we tell them.
When we're a minority, we can argue that "our interests" are also our interests as consumers, citizens of the environment, and ethical human beings. We'd probably get shut out, but if the movement gains enough momentum, suddenly we're not minority public owners anymore.
This wouldn't work on every company, because for some of them, the phrase "publicly traded" is a joke -- they're privately held by other corporations/individuals who bought the stock and will never sell it. OTOH, many of those companies who own companies have a lot of public shares outstanding....
This could work, but it requires a long-term commitment to a cause ("I'm going to make the oil company a supplier of solar and geothermal energy over the course of thirty years!"), intelligent assessment of target companies ("oops, we're 51% owned by ScrewYouCorp Holdings, so bite me"), and risk tolerance, because they might find some way to screw you out of your money, if they try hard enough. (Or the stock could legitimately tank -- a buying opportunity for the People's Holding Company!) OTOH, making a company successfully transition from unethical to ethical business practices might make it more fit in the long run, and result in more profits for you!
Anyway, this is just a thought that's been banging around in my head for a while. I'm interested in reactions. Whaddaya think?
phil
Cornell protest (Score:2)
Bread and Circuses: 3, Fundamental Rights: 0 (Score:2)
I feel the same way, and I imagine many of the better informed people (here and elsewhere) do. Alas, I hate to say it, but I am skeptical that any good will come of such civil disobediance.
Why?
Because, to be effective, civil disobedience must reach a certain critical mass and become widespread enough to make a noticable impact. Alas, nearly all of my friends who privately agree with my stance on boycotting DVDs and the Entertainment Industry still cannot live a day without their bread and circuses, and routinely sell their rights to free expression down the river for another daily dose of "Friends" and the "X-Files."
The Media Moguls know this. They understand their history and know that the most important, and powerful, institutions of the latter centuries of the Roman Empire were Bread and Circuses, initially in the form of the Games(tm) and later in the form of the Catholic Church(tm). They assume, quite correctly I'm afraid, that consumers' craving to be entertained will outweigh their outrage of being stripped of their rights. So far, Disney, Time-Warner, and friends appear to be winning this wager.
Re:tools (Score:2)
"The DMCA effectively creates the conditions for a lively black market, essentially ensuring piracy. And this may be the key to its undoing. We may thus look on software piracy as a moral imperative."
This may be just what they want.
Consider the drug war -- it hasn't stopped the flow of drugs, but it's diminished our privacy, and increased the budgets of law enforcement agencies exponentially. If you, the law enforcement community, were accruing power and money for fighting an enemy without success, would you really be that happy if the "war" (a largely bloodless affair, on your part) went away?
Pirates have been around -- in spades -- since the software companies have begun. It was easier for me, as a 7-year-old and all through school, to get a copy of the latest commercial C64/PC software or a cassette of my favorite band than it ever was to get a joint. Software and media revenues skyrocketed during this time; in fact, there are some who argue the ubiquity of both was essential to the enormous profits both now make, and piracy had a lot to do with that.
The software/media community needs an enemy to "protect" their "rights" against. As long as that enemy exists, they can ask the government to continue to abridge our rights as citizens, exhorting us to take a bullet to get at "the enemy."
I'm reconsidering piracy as a form of social resistance, not because I consider it unethical infringement of corporate rights, but because it seems ineffective, and even serves the companies' interests.
Far better, IMO, to patronize Free software because it's Free, and (once the artists become educated) patronize musicians with a clue that release their recorded music as a loss-leader for concert revenue.
phil
Re:Stradling the border (Score:2)
Canadians are, however, subject to the whims of US corporations, either directly or through their Canadian subsidiaries. If the DMCA gets shoved down us Yankees' throats, just exactly how long do you think it will be before something similar gets railroaded through Parliament? Whatever your answer, it will be less than that.
You see, increasingly these days corporations seem to think that they are the law. How else can you explain the raid on Jon Johansen, orchestrated by the US entertainment industry, in a country which is even farther away from the US (both geographically and culturally) than Canada?
I wouldn't get too complacent.
--
Lawyer: 55 wasn't ruled unconstitutional (Score:2)
Actually, the 55 was never ruled uncostitional. Yes, it certainly was unconstititonal, like a majority of today's legislation, but the case was never heard.
Nevada passed a 75 law that had a provision allowing the governor to suspend it if the federal secretary of transportation threatened to pull highway funds. A single 75 sign was posted, and the governor waited for the phone call. ONce it was received, there was a dispute which could be heard in federal court. (Nevada had *no* speed limit other than the basic speed law on most highways before this).
The case was pending for oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court when the federal 65 law passed. A spineless state Attorney General withdrew the case at that point, and it was never heard.
A few years ago, th feds finally dropped the law entirely.
The reason it violates the constitution is that the constitution grants a set of powers to the feds. Recognizing that this law wasn't even close to those powers, the feds did not directly implement a 55 law, but required the states to do so under threat of loss of federal highway funds. If ordering states to pass legislation in this way is within the power of the feds, there is *absolutely* no limit on federal authority.
Note: there were a handful of trial judges around the country that correctly ruled that the law was unconstitutional, but that only applied in those individual courtooms--and they tended to be in jurisdictions with multiple judges. Also, Nevada and Montana "complied" by creating "wasting natural resources" infractions (the 55 was initially justified as an energy saving matter, and then extended as it got credit for the lives saved by improved safety features in cars [three point belt; reinforced doors]). This ticket was not a moving violation, could not be used by insurance companies in calculating rates, was equivalent to a parking ticket, and could be paid at the scene ($5, iirc) in Montana.
hawk, esq., displaced Nevadan
Re:Time-Warner is being *incredibly* hypocritical (Score:2)
True for tracking stocks (like AWE), not so true for other stocks. It is true for tracking stocks because there is no way for the parent compony to actually sell the asset, not because they wouldn't want too. They may even spin off the unit if the tracking stock goes high enough. Maybe.
For a non-tracking stock, you better beleve that a corp will sell off it's shares in another once the price excedes their percieved value, and the owning corp has reason to beleve the price has peaked (i.e. it's on it's way down now), or (the seller) needs a (profit) boost.
They have their own stock holders to answer too, and that is one of the (few) things a corp must must must do.
Remember though, perceved value isn't just money. Apple may not want to sell shares of Earthlink (assuming it has any) because as long as it owns a big part of them it can exert extra presure to make sure Earthlink keeps supporting Apple products. That is the same non-monitory value you are intrested in, so it's not supprising other have allready discovered it.
Re:Implied contracts. (Score:2)
Corporations don't have rights. Their very existence is a privilege, contingent upon good behavior and revokable at any time by the people. Unfortunately, the mechanism for this is badly broken at the moment.
In the case of Microsoft, rather than trust-busting I'd rather that the state had not empowered them to build a trust in the first place. Without the legal structure of the modern corporation, and bogus legal theories that loading a program into memory constitutes making a copy - not to mention copyright laws themselves, especially with a corporation as copyright holder - Microsoft would be no problem at all.
Governments don't need more power to fight the corporations. All we need are a few applications of existing powers:- Congress should use its interstate commerce powers to force corporations to be chartered in the state where they are really headquartered. No more of this Deleware corporation crap, which steps on the rights of the real home state.
- The courts should make it clear that corporations are not citizens or natural persons, that the mid-1800's Supreme Court decision that said so was as bogus as Dred Scott - that the state cannot create, via charter, new legal persons.
- State governments should start revoking some fscking charters of corporations that can't seem to learn to behave.
This would just about put corporations back in their place.Congress should use that same power to simply ban misbehaving corporations from engaging in interstate trade.
So, if Microsoft doesn't be good, it can sell Windows to the fine folks in Washington, but not bother the rest of us.
This would return power to the states, away from the federal government, and so should be appealing to conservatives, even if it does help liberal ends.
The courts should also make it clear that Congress's copyright and patent powers extend only to the original authors or creators - real natural people - of a work. (Yes, that might mean a collaborative copyright held by dozens of individuals. We can deal with that.) No 100-year copyrights held by corporations.
Both of these are reductions, not increases, in state power.
Of course, we know what the odds of this ever happening are.
Re:Time-Warner is being *incredibly* hypocritical (Score:2)
> the 1886 Supreme Court decision in County of Santa Clara v. Southern
> Pacific Railroad,
uhh, no. THat may be the first time the equal protection clause was applied to corporations (i really don't know off the cuff), but it certainly isn't the origin of "person" status of a corporation.
A corporation *is* a legally create person, as opposed to a natural person. THis is its nature, and it goes (at least) several centuries. This is where the limited liability of shareholders comes from--they don't own the debt, that "other person," the corporation, owes them. Also the legal notion of an "alter ego" when setting aside corporate protections--again a reference to the corporation as a person.
It used to take an act of parliament (later colonial and state legislatures) to create a corporation. Along the way the Common Law became friendly towards them, which greatly helped the forming of larger commercial enterprises, and is a major factor in the commercial success of Britain and its former colonies. This was a radical change from the roman law which was outright hostile to corporations--the status as a fictitious person was seen as a problem.
In other words, you're only a couple of thousand years off
hawk, esq.
Re:Lawyer: 55 wasn't ruled unconstitutional (Score:2)
Not necessarily; Alaska has enough income from its oil resources that it doesn't need federal funding, and I think it ignored those laws completely. I think the nat. gov't uses the same strategies to set a drinking age of 21 (states have the right to set that by the 21st amendment); at least one state found that income from under 21 drinkers was more than the fed. funding withheld.
-----------
Re:No. The proper response is to IGNORE the law. (Score:2)
--
DMCA & US-centrism (Score:2)
--
Re:Time-Warner is being *incredibly* hypocritical (Score:2)
--
Re:A Presumption Of Innocence (Score:2)
When someone runs Napster, or any other server, they are giving the world permission to access their machine. That's what servers do.
You can't have it both ways. If you can place restrictions (beyond those granted by copyright law, including the Fair Use provisions) on what clients do with the information they get from your machine, then why can't MPAA place restrictions on what people do with DVDs?
Compare
toWhen you run Napster, you consent to people accessing your machine. When MPAA sells DVDs, they consent to people playing the DVDs.
---
Re:Indeed (Score:2)
See if your paper accepts editorials or shorter letters. Get the word out to the community.
--
Re:No. The proper response is to IGNORE the law. (Score:2)
--
Re:DMCA & US-centrism (Score:2)
--
Re:Bread and Circuses: 3, Fundamental Rights: 0 (Score:2)
--
Re:No. The proper response is to IGNORE the law. (Score:3)
(1a) Drug Prohibition. When drugs like marijuana were banned, people still produced, transported, and consumed it. "But it was the law!" The laws were made harsher and harsher, until by the year 2000, a defacto "drug exception" had been carved out of the bill of rights, over two million Americans were in prison, about half of them on mandatory minimums for non-violent drug crimes, the economies of most Central American countries had been destabilized, and back in the U.S., the police in New York and Los Angeles had been transformed into roving gangs of death squads. Police were given the power to seize any and all property belonging to anyone accused of a drug crime without any process or trial. [fear.org] The citizens of a few states, in general elections, legalized marijuana use for medical purposes, but the federal government declared that the state laws were invalid, and began an intensive campaign to intimidate, arrest, and prosecute doctors and patients who tried to exercise their rights. At the local level, the police simply refused to obey the new laws. [kubby.com] Children were removed from core classes such as reading and math, in favor of mandatory drug propaganda classes tought by uniformed police officers, where they were encouraged to turn in their parents "for their own good." Still, all that the legislatures could or would do was pass harsher and harsher laws, and in May 2000 a law passed Congress that would create an explicit "drug exception" to the first amendment itself.
It is a common myth that alcohol prohibition was ended by civil disobedience. In fact, ending prohibition was part of a national political strategy, orchestrated by a group of New York lawyers, who were trying to save the United States from the disaster that it destroying it now. It was a strategy that helped propel FDR into power and in the process, reshaped Congress, and our entire government.
For the real story of how alcohol prohibition was ended, read here. [drugsense.org] It's quite interesting.
Re:Copyright (Score:2)
The Death of Kid Rock (Score:2)
http://www.theonion.com/onion3618/kid_rock_star
Keep open content legal! (Score:2)
What is important to me is that open content formats continue to be available freely and widely, so that alternative, free, open media and productions can prosper. With digital recording and PC-based audio and video production, a lot of really good content (concerts, theater, etc.) produced by non-profits and non-professionals is going to find its way onto the Internet, as long as the means for recording distributing that content remain open and affordable. Unfortunately, there are some restrictions already (MP3 players, for example, can't copy even free content); this is where we need to be vigilant.
Now, there is one exception where I think fair use provisions for media are really important even when it comes to the bogus content the big media companies are producing: news and other politically related media. It is really important to be able to call these organizations on the factual and logical errors they make. If they get to control who views their content, and when, and how, critics can be prevented from accessing it at all, or be kept from analyzing it carefully.
Of particular concern to us should also be what happens once the written word is customarily consumed using digital devices. The comments of the industry specifically talk about books; with DMCA, access to written materials by critical voices may become difficult, or, worse yet, different individuals may be shown different content altogether without even knowing it. That, too, is a good reason to be concerned about the DMCA and similar efforts even though, as far as the money making media are concerned, many of us couldn't care less what kinds of restrictions Disney puts on the latest Tarzan video.
Re:tools (Score:2)
With tools like digital video cameras and videoediting software movies can be made on a shoestring budget that have the potential to rival anything made 25 years ago. (storyline not included). Obviously software is there, hardware is just getting started. (I'll be eventually contributing robotics design). As content in other areas begins to come at too high a price free versions will be made.
One thing that worries me is the possibility that the corporations have identified this as a threat to their bottom line, and are working on ways to discretely destroy the movement as we speak.
I have been tossing that idea around for a while, and have been wondering. Does anyone have any ideas what it would take to create a "central repository" (perhaps via gnutella). Of free content. Imagine what would happen if we could amass such a large body of work that the Corps (much smaller in terms of creative peoples) would have to come to us to make a movie, publish a book, publish software, etc... At the very least, if we have record that it was created by us first, they could not then prevent us from continuing to use it(mabey a gpl style license could govern the content, the big thing is having a consistent and easy to use interface to access the content). (Mabey we should send 1*10^90 chimps into a room with typewriters, and publish the results.)
Perhaps i'm dreaming, but what a dream.
Re:Implied contracts. (Score:2)
Corporations don't have rights. Their very existence is a privilege, contingent upon good behavior and revokable at any time by the people. Unfortunately, the mechanism for this is badly broken at the moment.
You've done a very good job of dehumanizing your opponent. Allow me to remind you that corporations are only *legal* entities to themselves; their actions are the actions of people, and their defenses in court are directed and chosen by people. When you attack corporations, you are attacking the people who run them, and benefit from them.
When you support an active national government attacking the interests of these people, you set a precedent. Now, you may like the idea of government just replacing corporations as active players in the lives of people, but I'd rather hold off both. I'm reminded of Aesop's fable, The Horse and the Stag.
Congress should use its interstate commerce powers to force corporations to be chartered in the state where they are really headquartered. No more of this Deleware corporation crap, which steps on the rights of the real home state.
Interesting idea, but difficult in practice. "Headquartered" is a very vague notion, to define legally. All you'd end up doing is boosting the real estate market in delaware, as corporations would set up just enough of an office there, to meet whatever legal definition was made. The centers of power would remain where they are now; there would just be an "official" office in some Delaware backwater.
Congress should use that same power to simply ban misbehaving corporations from engaging in interstate trade.
Congress has the power to *regulate* interstate trade; to say that Congress could *forbid* it would be a questionable extension of power. Let me guess; you're a big fan of Franklin Roosevelt's legacy?
This would return power to the states, away from the federal government, and so should be appealing to conservatives, even if it does help liberal ends.
While I'm a big fan of federalism, I don't support state power for its own sake. And the way you talk about forbidding interstate commerce in some instances is not a reduction in national power; it's an increase.
The courts should make it clear that corporations are not citizens or natural persons, that the mid-1800's Supreme Court decision that said so was as bogus as Dred Scott - that the state cannot create, via charter, new legal persons. The courts should also make it clear that Congress's copyright and patent powers extend only to the original authors or creators - real natural people - of a work. (Yes, that might mean a collaborative copyright held by dozens of individuals. We can deal with that.) No 100-year copyrights held by corporations. Both of these are reductions, not increases, in state power.
Now, you're talking! This is what I meant in my earlier reply: focus on the corporations themselves, instead of the consequences of corporations. Their original existance was to support the privatization of public works, for the public good. They've now been perverted into some people's definition of capitalism.
However, the "invisible hand" can't guide you, if you aren't responsible for your own actions. Corporate law provides so much of a buffer, that people act with impunity. If more people understood that, then maybe it'd become politically feasible to revamp the corporate system. Right now, any attack on corporations will be assumed as some "wild-eyed, discredited Communist plot." :-)
Bill Gates on Fair Use (Score:2)
Corporations (Score:2)
And incorporation isn't just for the protection of businesses; the square dance club of which my parents and I used to be members was considering incorporating itself just in case someone fell and injured himself while square dancing and decided to sue.
Don't get me wrong, when a corporation starts acting badly, it needs to be slapped down. But if we didn't have some form of liability-shielding, then people would be too scared to advance anything. While "corporatization" may be a problem in the modern world, I don't think that blind Katzian anti-corporatism is the solution.
--
Re:Implied contracts. (Score:2)
If that makes for a rush on Delaware real estate as megacorps build large campuses there, Delaware might just change some of its laws when it finds that all these corporations it chartered are now showing up and affecting the people who live there, rather than leeching off their real home states.
I would think that regulating an activity includes determining conditions for taking part in it at all.Certainly banning a misbehaving corporation from selling across state lines is a hell of a lot less questionable application of the interstate commerce clause than, say, recent attempts to make violence against women a federal crime on the basis that it affects the economy.
(Lest I be misunderstood: violence against any innocent person is a bad thing. People who perpitrate domestic violence need to be removed from polite society. However, if a state fails to do so, the proper remedy is to use the federal courts to make the state respect the civil rights of women, not to expand the powers of the federal government on a half-assed pretext.)
Not really. His policies helped save capitalism, at the price of more regulation, but I don't desire a regulated capitalism so much as a libertarian socialism [geocities.com].(Briefly: it is a fallacy to think that the political left necessarily wants bigger government and the right wants smaller government. The attributes of government include not just its size and power, but also the direction in which it applies that power - think of it as a vector quantity. Like the libertarian capitalists, I wish to keep the magnitude of that vector small. However, I want it pointed in a different direction; one supporting personal freedom and a free economy, but based on labor (leftist) rather than property (rightist). Which doesn't mean the abolition of private property, just recognizing that it is a human creation meant as a means to an end - human freedom and contentment - not an end in itself; and that concentrating control of resources into the hands of a few is destructive of that end.)