Alan Cox Resigns USENIX Post Over DMCA Arrest 241
1millionmhz writes: "NewsForge is reporting that Alan Cox has resigned from his position on the USENIX ALS committee in protest of Dimitry Sklyarov's arrest in Las Vegas. He is also urging non-US programmers to boycott American computing conferences until the DMCA is overturned." Boy, aren't you glad that the DMCA now has nine special units to prosecute hacking and copyright violations? At least it will help keep the country safe from programmers. Update: 07/22 01:05 AM by T : Yup, it's a dupe. Mea culpa -- I missed it the first time. Worth dwelling on, though ;)
Adobe is not the problem here (Score:1)
So, where is the real problem? It is in two places.
First, obviously, it is with the legislative branch (Congress) for passing this monstrosity, and with the executive branch (Mr. Clinton) for signing it. Hopefully someday the judicial branch will clean up this mess.
The other location of the problem is with US law enforcement. The FBI should have reviewed it and said, "Sorry, we have missing interns to look for, we're busy, handle it as a civil matter." The protests should be at the FBI's offices, and in front of Mr. Hatch's house.
Adobe is not the problem.
This doesn't mean that I'll be likely to everbuy any Adobe products ever again, but it would be more effective to "boycott" the FBI in some way... I'll leave that to your imagination.
Re:Caution - Contains abestos (Arrogant USians) (Score:1)
StarOffice/OpenOffice
QT
KDE
...
The list goes on and on.
Welcome to the real world, boy.
Re:Meanwhile (Score:2)
http://www.airwindows.com/dithering/MasteringTools Pro.hqx
http://www.airwindows.com/dithering/MasteringTools Screenshot.jpg
http://www.airwindows.com/dithering/MasteringTools ProSource.txt
Interestingly, it turns out that the declicker's real interesting to use _inverted_: you set it up to kick in on just the harder transients, and have it hop them up a bit. It sounds like a sort of expansion, but rather than broadly expanding everything it just opens out the top of snare hits etc. Dynamite subtle effect...
And hell yes, will it ever clean up Macrovision garbage. I wrote a routine to put in full crank samples every thousand samples... initially I thought it wasn't working, until I remembered to take the 'test file evil noise' generator back _out_ again. Then, it was clear as a bell without the tiniest trace of the junk that I'd put there at roughly twice the amplitude of most of the music...
This normal, useful audio signal processing tool works brilliantly as an access control circumventor. Cuff me :P
Re:What did Dimitry Sklyarov do? (Score:2)
Re:What really SUCKS... (Score:2)
\\\ SLUDGE
Not merely a symbolic gesture; real benefits (Score:2)
While the efficacy of Alan Cox's resignation as a symbolic protest may be debatable, the immediate practical ramifications need to be highlighted: Alan Cox will not be arrested while attending a Usenix conference in the U.S.. The DMCA is real and in our faces right now.
Don't scoff: he hacks closed hardware, and, judging from his diary, with great relish. All it takes in one disgruntled hw manu to have him arrested when he is in the U.S. because he circumvented "encryption" in one of their products in order to get to work or be supported by the Linux kernel.
Re:Aviod conferences in the US (Score:2)
Most people I know don't go out to a shooting range or hunt _that_ regularly, and I really don't know that many people that are actively into guns, most of them are hardly the business or techie type.
Re:Democrat Senator Leahy cowrote the bill! (Score:3)
The same guy also used Napster to download Metallica songs and say that they need a better songwriter.
He also quized the RIAA leader on what counts as fair use and pointed out that fair use has a larger scope than what the RIAA claims. The lady heading the RIAA simply did not know the rules.
Hatch also threatened that if they don't quit being an ass about fair use he'll codify a law explicitly laying down what fair use is and what rights consumers have, and promised that the RIAA et al. won't like it.
But let's not disclose facts inconvenient to our arguments, right?
Slashdot caught on the hop again; fillum at eleven (Score:5)
Great reporting, guys.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Re:But will it help?? (Score:2)
--
Re:But will it help?? (Score:2)
While you're correct in some respects, you need to learn more about the history of corporate law. The original poster is correct--the idea of what corporations entailed was, at the start of America, very limited. They could only be assembled for specific purposes, corporations had no "rights," could not own other corporations, and the charter could be revoked very easily.
If you learn your history, you'll see this was done precisely because of the power of royally-chartered corporations like the Hudson Bay Company you cited. These chartered companies had a great deal of political and legal power, to the point of acting as agents for the king. America's founders didn't want corporations to be able to have that scope and power initially.
As for "America's economic greatness," this is quite the red herring. Our economic greatness comes primarily from the vast resources we collectively have at our disposal; no other country has both the range of resources and the ease of access to and distribution of those resources. Our 'mixed capitalism' economic system is a primary factor in the latter (distribution and access), but that system doesn't intrinsically require nation-spanning multi-industry corporations; single-industry local and regional firms could do (and indeed, for most of our history, have done) just as well.
Re:But will it help?? (Score:2)
Corporations were intended to last only as long as necessary, and only created when there weren't any other particularly viable methods of doing something, often due to economies of scale or natural monopolies. They absolutely had to act in the public interest. On occassions where a corporation did not, it was dissolved by the government, which is what had chartered it in the first place.
Most businesses however, were ordinary sole proprietorships or partnerships. It would've been nuts to want to incorporate a shop or a farm; it doesn't serve community interests.
Even today, these requirements have not lessened, though enforcement has just gone out the window. We definately need to bring it back.
(as for your opinion of torts, they still apply no matter what the nature of the organization, it's good that they do, and they're not a replacement for governmental oversight of business.)
Re:Land of the free, home of the brave (Score:2)
Democrat Senator Leahy cowrote the bill! (Score:3)
Hatch is a moderate. He's one of the few Republicans who is in favor of the antitrust prosecution of Microsoft (the fact that Novell is in his state is only a coincidence I'm sure), and he's as clueless about techonology as you would expect.
Besides, the DMCA was a bipartisan bill, cowritten by Democrat Senator Leahy, who Senator Hatch praises here [harvard.edu]:
"Finally, I would like to particularly pay tribute to the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy. I don't know of anyone who has more interest in the Internet, more interest in computers, more interest in copyright matters than Senator Leahy, unless it is myself, and I don't think I have more. He has done a great job on this committee. It is a pleasure to work with him."
The bill passed 99-0, the nonvoting senator being absent. Can't get any more bipartisan than that.
At least Mr. Cox is taking a stand (Score:2)
You're asking "Will It Help ?" as if commenting that what Mr. Cox is doing is but a meaningless gesture.
Practically, there won't be ANY immediate change of heart or anything, based on what Mr. Cox has done, but AT LEAST, the action of Mr. Cox BY ITSELF HAS GARNERED ENOUGH MEDIA REPORT and _THAT_, my friend, in one way or another, WILL DEFINITELY HELP to ensure that NOBODY CAN GET AWAY BY SCREWING WITH THE PEOPLE !
More power to Mr. Cox !
More power to ALL WHO JOIN MR. COX IN BOYCOTTING US-BASED Tech Convention !!
we hate russia now? (Score:2)
IRNI
Re:The "fix it when it is a problem" problem (Score:2)
Sigh...
--
Re:dumb question--why? (Score:5)
It won't. Understandably, Alan is concerned about his personal security in a State which seems to have incorporated kidnap of alien nationals by its Police Apparatus as a law enforcement tool.
The question which should be asked is simply:-
"Why do the US State Security organs want to kidnap a Russian citizen"?
Re:dumb question--why? (Score:2)
His resignation has nothing to do with his ability to "help the cause."
His resignation is based on his personal belief that he would share the blame if another programmer was arrested, in a situation similar to Skylarov's, while attending a conference he helped organize and/or promote.
Jay (=
I don't like Republicans, but ... (Score:3)
But let's not disclose facts inconvenient to our arguments, right?
It is very, very counterproductive to cast the DMCA fiasco in terms of Republican's vs. Democrats. I do not like Republicans and will never forgive them the twelve Reagan-Bush years that gave us such treasures as an ongoing war on drugs (which is in fact a war on our youth and our civili liberties), Iran-Contra, Desert Storm, and so forth, but Jeff DeMaagd is absolutely right in pointing out that Orin Hatch, who may deserve our contempt for many of his stances and policies, is AFAIK the only congressman to come forward and publically admit that the DMCA was a mistake. For that he wins some respect from me.
Of course, talk is cheap. Until Hatch actually translates his regret into action and works to repeal the law he will remain nothing more than Yet Another Political Windbag.
However, I reiterate, this isn't about Conservatives vs. Liberals (a conservative congress wrote and passed the law, and a relatively liberal president signed it), this is about Corporatism vs. Individualism and the rights of the common man vs. the raw might of those synthetic capitalist beings we call corporations. Until we set aside our differences on other agendas and unite to lobby and effect change on those issues we do agree on, such as individual liberty, the civil rights of the common man, and the need to overturn the DMCA, those who benefit from such draconian laws will continue to ride roughshod over the rest of us.
Re:dumb question--why? (Score:2)
Perhaps he thinks there is a better way to get information about the issue out there.
Re:"+1, hubris attractive to moderator" (Score:2)
Firstly, this is not what you said before. Secondly, there already are penalties for corporate misbehavior. Few shareholders care what the technical status of the corporation is if they stand to lose the majority of their investment. The real problem, like with actual humans, is enforcement, not the laws themselves. Thirdly, revoking the chartership of a corporation is an odd and essentially meaningless punishment, since investors already stand to lose their investment and management their jobs.
Re:Ignorance, Bluster, and Immaturity. (Score:2)
I agree and disagree with these sentiments. Yes, i agree with you in the sense that we should have controls on corporate misbehavior. However, it is foolish to act as if the only acceptable deterrent is the revocation of corporate charter. Financial damages (e.g., RICO action) alone are enough to effectively destroy a corporation, never mind the thousand of other ways that shareholder wealth can be diminished, these are all deterrents.
Furthermore, I submit to you that revocation of charter is too drastic and too sudden to be an effective deterrent. A great many of these corporate "crimes" happen outside the scope of the investors knowledge. Even when the investor only owns but a few stocks, the information that they have is so high level, relative to the charges that are typically levied. Whether it be price gouging, malpractice, monopolistic practices, or what have you. For instance, it would not be reasonable to expect the shareholder to know of a flaw in a medical device, since understanding that flaw would require a degree in engineering, not to mention internal knowledge and a great deal of time. If the shareholder is incapable of knowing about the act, why penalize them? Why not penalize those that actually have the ability to control that kind of company behavior, like the CEO, and only do it where they are directly responsible.
Though this can be done currently, it is a very tough wall to climb. Certainly I would demand the same level of evidence that is seen in criminal trials, but it could be made easier, without hurting legitimate business. It would be far more effective.
NO reasonable investor WANTS unnecessary risk. (Score:2)
and therein lies the problem. It is not that society wants to make the investor richer, but rather that we need their investment. If we make certain classes of investment (or all investment) so risky that it becomes unpalatable for any investor, then we lose that source of investment. Thus, society as a whole suffers.
In other words, investments that once offered a sufficient return for the previous level of risk would become impossible given a drastic rise in risk. Some investments are very sensitive to even the slightest increase in risk.
Anyways, gambling and investing are quite different (even though investing may technically be called a gamble, depending on who you ask). Gambling strongly implies a game of negative or equal expected returns. The players play for the thrill (otherwise they're quite certainly stupid). Investment is almost always done with expected returns significantly exceeding the investment. For instance, the US stock markets as a whole have returned more than 10% a year on average (over the past 80 years or so). Riskier investments, like those in startup companies, offer multiplies higher returns. In other words, if you could invest in enough of them, you would expect to make a great deal of money over time, even though the returns on a few (or even the whole market) is uncertain and may result in the complete loss of the investment. Whereas if you walk into your average casino and stay for long enough, the law of averages says that you'll eventually walk out pennyless.
Ignorance, Bluster, and Immaturity. (Score:5)
No, just like people their wealthy varies all over the map, in fact, most corporations are quite small and unheard of.
Yes, they are afford some protections that humans are not. However, it is clear that you are confusing this with the limited liability that the shareholders have. Just because the shareholder cannot be held personally liable, does not mean that the corporation is immune, nor does it mean that the investor bears no risk; it just means that the investor can only lose what the investor invested.
Corporations are dissolved quite often. Shareholders can, and do, lose ALL of their investment. For some shareholders, this can be pretty traumatic. Anyways, the proof is in the pudding, investors are clearly risk averse. Baring all but the most fly by night corporations, the threat of criminal and civil lawsuits is taken very seriously indeed.
You totally fail to consider WHY corporations exist in the first place, or why they're founded. The shareholders of corporations bear a significantly increased task burden, it generally far exceeds that of sole proprietorships or partnerships. Essentially, they pay taxes twice. The corporations pay taxes on their earnings and the shareholders pay taxes on both capital gains and dividend checks (the two ways that investors get a return on their investment). They are willing to accept the diminishment of earnings because it is quite necessary.
Without corporate status, each and every one of the investors takes a great deal of personal risk (baring some notable and hardly relevant exceptions). What this means is that if you own even the tinniest number of shares, you stand lose your house, your car, and all of your savings. Consider investing in a well diversified portfolio. You could very expose yourself to MORE risk, not less risk, since just one company need default on a loan, run affoul of the law, get sued by some ambulance chaser, get struck down by some overzealous bureaocrat, or what have you. Many many businesses would simply become impalatable for the reasonable investor, not just "evil" corporations like tabacco companies, but medical devices companies, medical technology companies, drug companies, car companies, you name it. Without investment, those industries would eventually die.
Taking a stand? (Score:3)
Alan Cox has legitmate concerns about his safety if he enters the USA. He is also pointing out to other software authors that they should be concerned. This isn't a political game... the USA is arresting people for giving lectures on software design and security!
I work in the area of network security and I just turned down a contract in the USA. I won't touch foot on US soil until the DCMA is struck down.
Re:Ashcroft is shameless (Score:3)
FWIW, he was just doing the job -- the instant background checks were a comprimise reached by the stipulation that all the records at the federal level would be destroyed. The FBI never destroyed ANY of them, claiming it was simply keeping an "audit" trail. Whether you agree with the law or not, the FBI was clearly keeping an extensive list of legal handgun purchasers, in direct contradiction to the very federal law that implemented the background checks.
Nothing would kill the Brady bill and similar measures faster than things like this, where the FBI and fed proves it is unwilling to live up to their own comprimises with gun rights advocates. Now it will be MUCH harder to convince the NRA the fed is working in good faith.
So NRA aside, Ashcroft was just enforcing the federal law (and his FBI oversight responsibilities)...
---------------------------------------------
Re:dumb question--why? (Score:2)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:Adobe is not the problem here (Score:2)
Re:What really SUCKS... (Score:2)
And as for what you are insinuating, that, what, Canada and Mexico will follow the US in it's laws.. what do you base that on? Contrary to popular belief, us Canucks and the Mexicans do NOT base all our laws on what the us does; and, in fact, in Canada anyway, our legislative system is small enough we can actually prevent rediculous laws from coming in to play; there isn't as much corporate power.
Re:What did Dimitry Sklyarov do? (Score:2)
Just because it's the law, doesn't mean it's right.
Re:But will it help?? (Score:3)
Think of the children!
Mexico! (Score:2)
It could be held in Mexico, only a few hundred miles difference between Vegas and Tijuana, you know.
Illegal To Read All Of This (Score:2)
Therefore, it is illegal in the USA to try to read the following text.
He REALLY Wanted to Protest (Score:3)
Call for Technical Submissions (Write a Haiku?) (Score:2)
"... interested in receiving and publishing the following kinds of information:
Technical descriptions of the access control and encryption mechanisms associated with PDF files and/or eBooks.
Technical descriptions of remedies for these mechanisms, e.g., patches, key recovery algorithms, modified plug-ins, etc.
Source code for implementing these remedies.
[visit his website before submitting to see what he is already aware of. His website Gallery of Adobe Remedies [cmu.edu] already lists ElcomSoft, Xpdf, Ghostscript, but no Haiku ... yet]
Dr. Dave Touretzky notes that his web site is for "discussion of purely technical information of interest to computer scientists and lawful content users".
Dr. Dave Touretzky further notes that he is "not interested in receiving rants about Adobe or the DMCA" suggesting that said rants be submitted to Boycott Adobe [boycottadobe.com] wishing to keep his site focused on "Adobe's access control mechanisms and the remedies people have devised [i.e. 'lawful ways a purchaser desires'] to deal with them."
Tangential Editorial Comment by RM3 Frisker FTN
Re:But will it help?? (Score:2)
Re:Oh the irony... (Score:2)
Re:But will it help?? (Score:2)
Oh and the US has always had corporations, back to the earliest colonial days. Nearly all of the original colonies were founded by corporations, and much of America was opened up and explored by corporations (Hudson Bay Company ring a bell?) Do you know corporations where so popular for starting a colony? Because starting a colony was a very very risky operation, so investors back in England hit on the idea that if they pooled their money they could a) raise far more capital b) by sharing ownership they shared the risk, making it more reasonable. In a LLC (limited liability corporation) you as an owner (investor) are only liable for assests you put in, so if you toss $200 into a venture that goes tits-up you are only out that $200, the companies creditors can't after each investors personal assests only the money already paid up is at stake. This also opens up the door for the middle class to begin investing and playing an active role in big time business ventures, something they were unable to do previously. This inclusion of the middle class also makes vastly more capital available to businesses seeking to grow and further reduces the risk to individual owners, thus spurring more innovation and risk taking.
Now, armed with this knowledge do you see how corporations are in fact the cause for America's economic greatness?
Re:From the other side... (Score:2)
------
Re:Wrong System (Score:2)
------
Re:All sorts of different suggestions here, but... (Score:2)
------
Re:What did Dimitry Sklyarov do? (Score:2)
------
Re:But will it help?? (Score:2)
- - - - -
"+1, hubris attractive to moderator" (Score:2)
Most corporations consist of more than one person, and have more resources to draw upon than a single person. Even very small corporations have annual revenues in the millions. However, it's large corporations that are the bulk of the problem. Small business is, in general, better for the country than large business.
it is clear that you are confusing this with the limited liability that the shareholders have
No, it's not. It's clear that you're engaging in hubris and armchair psychoanalysis.
Corporations are dissolved quite often
They go bankrupt and are dissolved quite often. They go unmaintained and are dissolved quite often. But active corporations are almost never dissolved punitively. Don't cloud the issue. And point out the last few corporate dissolutions that were not the result of bankruptcy or neglect.
You totally fail to consider WHY corporations exist in the first place, or why they're founded.
There's that armchair head-shrinking again. I completely understand why they are formed, and why they exist. I happen to own a corporation. Thanks for the little "lesson," though, Professor Lugnut.
Furthermore, you are ignorant in many aspects of business law.
Are you one of those call-in radio show advice dispensers? Of course the corporate veil can be pierced. It's not easy, but it can and is done.
I'm not even talking about criminal behavior on the part of corporations! I'm talking about things that they do which are legal, but probably shouldn't be. Like owning other corporations. Lobbying. Owning patents and copyrights.
I wouldn't even say, as you did, that lowering the amount of effort required to pierce the corporate veil is a good idea. That does not diminish the power that can be wielded by corporations, it simply creates a new class of potential criminals. And the executive officers are not always in control of or aware of everything that goes on in their companies. It's a stupid idea to hold them accountable for everything, except their own personal wrongdoing.
Punishing the corporation and restricting its activities, however, gets to the root of the problem, where there is one.
(*hubris n : overbearing pride or presumption)
- - - - -
Re:But will it help?? (Score:4)
Corporations are legal persons and are afforded all the rights of a flesh and blood person. They just happen to also be very rich, and able to do more than one thing at a time (unlike flesh and blood persons). They also operate under a different set of law; law that sheilds them from the consequences of their actions.
So yes waging war on employers is shooting ourselves in the foot, because we need jobs to make moeny to buy food, etc.
So instead of smashing up a Starbucks like a hopped-up retard, do something positive like lobby the government to abolish corporations. Or at least take away their "human rights." The U.S. didn't always have corporations far and wide, you know. Once upon a time corporations were a very few select organizations, chartered by the government for some official purpose. Such as the Postal Service and the Internal Revenue Service. And not at all like Adobe, Microsoft, the RIAA, etc. Companies were just companies. And people were people (and small furry creatures from...)
Corporations are not the cause of America's economic greatness; they are its mummy.
- - - - -
Re:But will it help?? (Score:2)
$35 DVDs?? (Score:2)
I've bought dozens of DVDs, and have never seen one on sale for $35. Most can be had for $18-$22 at online discounters line buy.com
No big deal, but in a post that complains about bad and misleading information of others, it's pretty damning.
DVD discs are actually cheaper to make then a VHS tape.
Which is completely irrelevant, since you're not paying for the blank medium, but for the content. And the content on the DVD is far superior, thus naturally commanding a higher price.
Re:DCMA (Score:2)
Sent to Congress via snail-mail (Score:5)
July 21, 2001
The Honorable Brad Sherman
1524 Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20515-0524
Dear Congressman Sherman,
Several months ago, I had the opportunity to talk with you after you spoke at Temple Judea in West Hills. At that time, I attempted to convey to you my concern about some of the more onerous provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). Recent events have deepened my concern, and as one of your voting constituents, I ask you to work towards the repeal of the DMCA.
While I am fully in favor of creators retaining control over distribution of their works, the DMCA goes several steps further. The "anti-circumvention" provision restricts time-honored Fair Use rights of consumers, and essentially also destroys the First Sale doctrine. These, in and of themselves, could be considered a reason to work towards its repeal. However, the actual situation is much worse.
(Any references given in this letter are World Wide Web links, I don't have access to the necessary hard copy.)
The DMCA has had a chilling effect on academic research. Professor Edward Felten, a distinguished professor, who was also one of the lead witnesses for the Department of Justice in the Microsoft anti-trust trial, was recently prevented from delivering an academic paper on information hiding and watermarks (see http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/Felten_v_RIAA). This sort of chilling effect is precisely what the First Amendment is designed to prevent.
Again, that would be sufficient to work towards overturning. Even worse, however, the criminal provisions of the DMCA have been invoked against a Russian national, Dmitry Sklyarov, who performed "anti-circumvention" work in Russia for his employer, where he broke no Russian law. He came to the US to deliver a speech about his work, and was arrested subsequent to that speech. This sets a dangerous precedent. What would the US government do, if a US citizen was arrested for violating foreign law, while the act was performed in the US where it was perfectly legal? Needless to say, the irony of this occuring to a Russian citizen is immense, and embarrassing to the United States.
Here are some references to the Sklyarov case:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,45298, 00 .html (Wired)
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archiv es /2001/jul/18/512096646.html (Las Vegas Sun)
http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/010718/n17166094_2.html (Reuters)
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nyt/20010718/tc/u_s _a rrests_russian_cryptographer_as_copyright_violator _1.html (New York Times)
Congressman Sherman, please help ordinary people by working to repeal this draconian law.
Sincerely,
etc...
Download it All and Copy it All! (Score:2)
Hit them where it hurts the most, their pocketbook. Don't buy music. Don't buy software. Download it all and copy it all! And if the government refuses to obey the people's wishes, it will be our duty and right to refuse to pay our taxes also. It's our money after all.
Demand liberty! Nothing less!
Wrong System (Score:3)
Intellectual property laws exist only because we have a slavery system. Our livelihood depends on working for others so we can pay our taxes. The reason that we have to work for others is that 99% of people have been deprived of an inheritance in the wealth of the land. Income property is owned by a few and the state. The others are slaves. Artists, programmers and inventors depend on their work to make a living. Can we blame them? We all depend on our labor because we are all slaves. So now we are swimming in a ocean of laws and rules that take away our remaining liberties, one by one.
Let's face it, if you cannot put a fence around it or put chains on it, it does not belong to you. Makes no difference whether it is ideas, writings, software, music or what have you. Once you've released it, like the air, it belongs to nobody and everybody.
Intellectual property owners (such as Microsoft, Adobe, and the music industry) will fight freedom with everything they've got. Right now they have two formidable weapons: IP laws and powerful police states to enforce them. But those who yearn to be free also have a formidable weapon, the internet.
The internet and other communication technologies (e.g., file sharing systems) are the first major kinks in the armor of a sick system. As technology progresses, the system will eventually collapse. What will happen to a slave-based economy when robots and advanced artificial intelligences replace everybody, i. e., when human labor, knowledge and expertise become worthless?
And don't think for a minute this won't happen in your lifetime. The internet is the latest giant leap in human communication. Before that came mass telecommunication technologies and before that was the movable press. If history is any indication, we can expect a giant leap in technological progress and scientific knowledge. In fact, it is happening before our very eyes.
We should all demand a system where everybody is guaranteed income property, a piece of the pie, an estate if you will. There is plenty for everybody.
Communism confiscates all property and enslaves everybody. Capitalism gives property to a few and enslaves the rest. It's sad. The land should not be divided for a price. It should be an inheritance for us and our children and their children. It's the only way to guarantee freedom and a truly free market in a world where human labor is about to go the way of the dinosaurs.
Demand liberty! Nothing less.
Re:Democrat Senator Leahy cowrote the bill! (Score:2)
Hatch kissing democratic ass is a political tactic, not a sign he's a moderate. This is the same fellow who read from the Exorsist during the hearings for Clarence Thomas' spot on the supremes.
Aviod conferences in the US (Score:5)
The next Defcon conference should be outside the US... and other conferences should think twice before having a US based conference attended by programmers from outside the US.
Since the DMCA is protecting wealthy capitalists by disallowing any programs that compete with their popular programs, it is only prudent to avoid putting your programmers in harms way.
It was the ultra-conservative Republican, Orin Hatch (representing ultra-conservative Utah) that wrote the DMCA. Strange that these republicans say they want to "open markets", then pass laws to protect wealthy capitalists instead.
Maybe this is cause to boycott the 2002 Winter Olympic games in Utah too (it's worth boycotting since they won't let outsiders bring in their own booze, and must purchase booze from the limited variety offerred by the state store).
Re:Nice gesture, but I'm afraid doomed to failure (Score:2)
IANAMSE (I am not a Microsoft Employee) but I've heard (which makes it absolute fact) that MS now has major programmer plants (yes, you're all rooted) in India, if not other countries. WHat makes you think they're not going anywhere?
Political Prisoner. (Score:2)
Whilst your point is noted, this is certainly not a game. I take issue that this *IS* political.
Information Freedom is a Libertarian view point, indeed a defining difference between Libertarianism and nearly any other political position.
Dimitry has been jailed for exercising his political belief of Sharing information.
Sharing information is a crime in the US under the DMCA.
Therefore he is a political prisoner.
I always though freedom of politics was protected under the US constitution. Apparently not.
Whilst in the past I would have been v. *happy* to visit or work in the states. I don't believe I shall anytime soon.
Linux: Born Free; IE: No such thing as a free lunch.
Re:But will it help?? (Score:2)
If we boycot US, and people are stop coding new stuff in US, the it is gonna be a dead-lock for the US. No coders, no money :)
me hope :)
Unless WE all agree to shut them down... (Score:2)
Retarded Laws (Score:2)
Then some lockpick figures out how to pick the lock, and instead of using his knowledge to open doors, he tells everybody how to do it in the hope that the company will release a better lock.
Does the lockpick get arrested? Of course not. He's performed a public service, showing that these locks are, in fact, not undefeatable and forces the company to produce a better lock.
The DMCA is retarded because it targets the very people who are pushing for better products. DeCSS, for example, was SHIT. Say it with me, security through obscurity DOESN'T WORK. You know it and I know it.
Our recently arrested Russian friend figured out a way to crack Adobe's protection. What did he do? He wrote papers, did presentations. All in hope that Adobe would get a better protection scheme. What did he get?
Arrested.
Man, I'm fucking glad I live in Canada.
Call to arms! Organize! (Score:5)
As other slashdotters have pointed out, mere compaining is not likely to do anything in particular. An organized show of support against adobe, and against the DMCA is much more likely to be effective.
What is the best approach to organizing against adobe and the DMCA? Letter writing? Boycott? Something else?
What about flooding local editorial pages of newspapers with well written letters describing the dangers of the DMCA so that our non-linux guru friends (and the media) can understand and support the cause?
Nice gesture, but I'm afraid doomed to failure (Score:5)
The cold fact is this - the US lawmakers could not care less about what the non-corporate computer world thinks of their laws. Our opinions don't matter to them.
Consider! There are at last count a few hundred MILLION americans. Most of them can vote, a major percentage of them DO vote. There are also thousands of issues waiting to be addressed, most of which are more emotionally relevant to people than computers. Most people in the world use computers only to get specific jobs done - they have no need to appreciate the whole picture. Consider how small the percentage of voters who are worried about this are relative to the rest of the population. Probably about the same number who stand to profit from the DMCA. The net result, when you throw money into the mix, is that we are irrelevant.
So our vote doesn't scare them. What about what Cox tried, encouraging people to move their operations elsewhere. From the government's point of view, that's probably just what they are looking for! They have Microsoft in the US, and lawsuits or no it isn't going anywhere. And Microsoft controls probably between fifty and seventy percent of all computing, depending on how you count. On desktops considerably more than that. The Microserfs both within and out of the company aren't going anywhere, and neither is their economic clout or control of personal computing. So what do they care if they lose a few independant thinkers? From their standpoint it makes security through obscurity easier. The fact that this isn't secure at all apparently doesn't mean much to them.
Consider how much damage things like the Love virus do, and yet no action is taken to fix the fundamental problem (Microsoft's security). If that didn't teach them that unknown security problems are a danger, nothing will. They (and the companies) just want the visible problems gone. They are both monopolies - they don't have to care about a small buch of techno-geeks. We are bad. We wave problems in the face of everyone and teach people how to destroy the system! We should be stopped!
All the people who wrote the DMCA are interested in is money and public image. They've got the crap beat out of us on both. We insist that people THINK about the problem and find real solutions. The people are lazy. Most think a login prompt is a major hassle. They don't want to have to think about whether they are really secure. They just want to get buy. Anyone shooting their mouth off about problems makes that impossible, and people have to work more. Ohh, we can't have that.
That battle, at least in the US, is hopeless. It's money and votes people are interested in, and we don't have either. Therefore, our opinions don't matter to the powers that be.
The once chance that things will improve might be if all the best computer people go somewhere else to work because of the stupid US legislation. Enough dumb rules, and it might just happen.
Can anyone reach Timothy ????? (Score:2)
Someone tell Timothy that "Dupe" is a poor word to use here, as it is to easy to think he means hoax. I looked around for a while looking for other reports of the 'hoax' before I finally figured out he was too lazy to type 'duplicate post' out in it's entirety. It's really not that hard, Timothy
(and yes
Sheep (Score:2)
Re:Land of the free, home of the brave (Score:5)
Ghostview and DMCA? (Score:3)
The Alan Cox resignation adds a Free Software angle to this sorry case.
Another might well be potential liability by Ghostview and other Free Software PDF viewers. According to some sources, gv "bypasses" the Adobe Security API model and allows a user to read a PDF file with permissions the original publishers did not grant. For example, to print the file.
Could some of the Ghostview, Ghostscript, or other PDF developers comment?
Specifically, if ElcomSoft and/or Dmitry Sklyarov is liable under the DMCA for creating or "trafficking" in a "device" that "bypasses" an "effective" security API that is imposed by "authority" of the copyright owner--then could Ghostview, Red Hat, and other Free Software people be also harrassed by Adobe?
I got the response that Ghostview is not a "commercial" product. But I don't believe that is enough to excuse a piece of software under the DMCA--the "access" part of the DMCA doesn't require that the software be sold. Certainly Adobe will claim damages in lost sales.
Re:Call to arms! Organize! (Score:2)
Re:What did Dimitry Sklyarov do? (Score:2)
(And yes, I've written several letters to various congresspeople about this. I encourage everyone to do the same.)
-John
Re:But will it help?? (Score:3)
Infact the whole 1992 election cost less then a hundred million but in 2000 the cost was close to a billion with corporations paying for the vast majority of it.
Why such an increase?
Because Americans do not read the newspapers or get politically involved anymore. The vast majority of Americans prefer to get their information from blittzy hollywood produced 15 second commercials on television paid by lobbiets and corporate executives. The ad's are all bent on half truths because Americans are too lazy or ignorant to look up the facts. Less then %25 of Americans under 30 even read a newspaper on a weekly basis so the corporations pay more and more on television to produce an artificial image of a candidate to serve their interests. Anyone remember how Bush claimed he was extremely moderate on televsion? Or how NBC claimed he would be the most liberal republican since Nixon? Well after the blittzy "I want to be your friend " ads, George Bush actually was extremely conservative but ignorant televion watching Americans didn't know this untill the California gas crises. What can we do?
We need to educate Americans to read more newspapers and magazines and encourage others to be politically involved. In 1992 americans spent ore time researching and reading the newspaper to make their political deciscions. This is why money had less influence then in today. Counter lobbying is not the answer. We can not outspend corporate america with counter lobbying. They hold %95 of the worlds wealth. Its a hopeless battle. If people will learn from news oriented media like newspapers and doing their own research rather then from ads on entertainment sources like TV, we can make a difference. Also Corporations are buying their way into being international citizens and not only american ones by buying international trade laws to put the DMCA everywhere including england where Alan Cox is at. It will not stop. They need to grow at %50 every 4 years to make wall street happy and buyuing some laws to help them make secretive deals or brake laws is a great way to accomplish this. GE only had to pay to clean up half the hudson river thanks to some lobbying wich saved them money.
With regards to the DMCA, Americans do not even know how much money they are losing per dvd disc bought due to price gouging that the dmca was made to help enforce. VHS tapes are still $17 while a dvd movie is $35. DVD discs are actually cheaper to make then a VHS tape. After seeing all those glittz dvd movie ads they all of the suden forget about the price tage and even cmd-Taco himself must have his japanese animated dvd's.
Hmm that isn't right.
In the 1950's something like the dmca would not be tollerated. Americans who read back then would know about it and be outraged. Lets hit corporate america right where it hurts and make campaign ad's less effective by promoting people to read the new York times or some other news media which is not written by a lobbiest.
Historically, Corporations haven't existed long (Score:5)
Historically, "Father of the free market" Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations wasn't published until 1776. There was organized trade before that (e.g. Dutch East India Company), but the world's economic landscape looked nothing like it does today.
I just pulled Peter Lynch's book "Learn to Earn" off of the shelf, I wish I had a better reference.. Anyway, consider this sentence:
"By 1800, there were 295 corporations formed in the United States, but most of these remained in private hands so the general public couldn't own them."
In the early 1800s, there were various stock market panics and bubbles that didn't do much to encourage Americans to invest in the stock market. But during the later half of the 1800s, the corporation in the United States really took off. That's when we saw the proliferation of inventions like the steamboat, the cotton gin, fancy pistols, Edison's inventions, etc. Getting these new products out there took a lot of investment, and that's when the stock market became very active.
Since then we've incurred incredible societal changes with a move from agrarian life to urban and suburban life, various ethnic groups have more representation in government and less discrimination. The industrial revolution and factories have made mass production of prpducts possible. Corporations are a lot more VISIBLE now. Brand names weren't well known until the early 20th century thanks to A&P being the first popular chain store, making mass produced items like Nabisco crackers and Heinz ketchup ubiquitously known in American towns. Chain stores have now made our cities (particularly the suburbs) look like carbon copies of one another (read The Geography of Nowhere.) Advertising has gone from Burma Shave billboards along Route 66 to huge screens on buildings displaying brightly lit, flashing animated ads that distract drivers on the road.
Historically, you don't really have a CLUE what the answer is to the question "Which is better: GOVERNMENT or CORPORATION?" because the impact of the corporation on our culture has changed so much in only the past 150 years.
Henry Fool
Re:Bush and DMCA (Score:3)
It's all about currying favour with the current administration.
Kierthos
Patent != Copyright (Score:2)
The DMCA is actually quite useful... (Score:2)
Now, when your teacher catches you passing a note to your girlfriend in a high school class in the U.S., you can have him arrested for decoding it.
Re:But will it help?? (Score:2)
Does /. count?
Actually I don't read most newspapers because they are garbage and marketing exclusively. I glance at the headlines, skim certain articles, etc. There are few good newspapers in America, and they do include the NYT, Christian Science Monitor, Wall Street Journal, etc. but they are few and far between. Some of the alternative ones are slightly better than your agverage paper, but not much more so.
Simple reason: news is being sold as an entertainment product for the most part (though NYT and WSJ sell News as Business Information Commodity which is better, and the Christian Science Monitor seems to try to sell balanced informed coverage for its own sake but whether that is possible is a question I still entertain...
When will people actually do their own research instead?
Sig: Tell all your friends NOT to download the Advanced Ebook Processor:
Great Post, BTW. (Score:2)
This link between risk and return applies to patent law, drug companies, and other subjects that slashdot often gets all up in arms about too.
Again you are right here too, but I also think that one has to look at the whole system and ask two things: What are we trying to accomplish and how well are we succeeding? (I think that one could misunderstand your position as completely upholding draconian policies for publishers, biotech companies, etc).
What are we trying to accomplish thought IP law? We are trying to give an incentive to innovate both with practical and expressive innovations.
Patents are suppose to increase the resources everyone has access to in the research and development of their products because without them, inventors would have incentive to keep things secret. For this reason, the life of a patent used to be 14 years maximum after two extensions (US law here). After 14 years, the knowledge was avaiable for everyone to use.
Copyrights are designed to give authors incentive to write books, etc. However, beginning in the late 1960's in America, copyright law began to shift from the interest of the author to the interest of the publishing houses. The DMCA is a further example of this shift.
How well are we succeeding?
Miserably. The current patent system is actually preventing innovation in many areas because the lifetime has been increased radically (I think they are now at 70 years in the US) and the pase of technological innovation has increased, thereby ensuring that any technology will be useless when its patent expires. Patents were designed to give a slight market edge, not Intellectual Real Estate... Patents are now used to proprietize commodity crop markets and post frivolous lawsuits, etc.
And in copyright law, how are artist's interests being furthered when they get something like 5% of the recording industry (and those numbers are probably discounting the debt that they usually are given by record labels)? Why is a record deal today as financially profitable as being a coalminer at the beginning of the 20th century? (Yes I know several musicians who were screwed out of a lot of money by the recording industy.)
What we are atcually doing is damaging ourselves severely. The DMCA places the rights of large publishing houses above the rights of network administrators and above the rights of consumers. No amount of cost/benefit analysis can show that this act is not fundamentally a Bad Idea.
Sklyarov's arrest and Cox's resignation are clear signs of the danger that this act poses. I will certainly do my part to make the message heard.
Sig: Tell all your friends NOT to download the Advanced Ebook Processor:
Re:What did Dimitry Sklyarov do? (Score:2)
Sig: Tell all your friends NOT to download the Advanced Ebook Processor:
Re:But will it help?? (Score:4)
Cox's actions illustrate the danger that the DMCA poses to associations of computer security professionals.
There are 2 things that will kill the DMCA-- one of them is that the restrictions will eventually annoy the everage person, but the second it is that it will permanantly damage the ability of academics and other security professionals to do their work. (Well, maybe not permanantly...) Without the ability to freely work on cryptoanalysis projects, as a network administrator, I have no way of knowing how secure my networks are. The DMCA threatens to dampen the speech which goes on among security professionals, giving a greater edge to those who would maliciously attack my networks, and this is the primary reason I fight it. (Maybe when the whitehouse's web site actually goes down from a DDOS worm, then they will listen and realize the damage they have done.)
This is a serious issue, and if it continues, I will have to seriously rethink whether I want to remain in the States.
Nor is the actual letter of the law the worst though. YOu can expect major corporations to hide behind it, protecting themselves from the expense of investing in real security. So no one in the states will have any idea that that super-duper new encryption scheme is really the old spycode cypher or maybe rot-13. Their threatening letters (ala Felden) will become more important than their actual words, and could destroy the Amercian community of computer security professionals.
So yes, I hope Cox's move is effectual in making the security community aware of the grave threat that the DMCA poses. I think it just might be.
Sig: Tell all your friends NOT to download the Advanced Ebook Processor:
Fight it in the courts (Score:2)
Skylarov's case needs to go to court. The supreme court.
Re:Land of the free, home of the brave (Score:2)
If more people have been hurt by Governements, that's just b/c they've had a few centuries more than Corps to develop their resume. I suggest you search google for the words Oil+murder+Africa and see if you still are more afraid of your government. Or Banana+Central+America+murder.
The facts of the 20th Century seem to indicate that Governments have acted in a violent and colonistic manner for the sole benifit of Corporations. Point being, if you are dark-skinned and poor, and live somewhere a Corporation would rather you didn't...well, may God have mercy on your soul.
Re:But will it help?? (Score:2)
This isn't so much about war, as it is returning Corporations to their rightful place. And that is to serve the people. When they stop serving our interests, they get their charters revoked. They have no authority that the Gov't (and by extension, us) didn't give them. The balance of power has been shifted (through nefarious means) from The People, to the Corporations. It's high-time we shifted it back.
Re:Land of the free, home of the brave (Score:2)
That notwithstanding, there are a great many things a People can do to limit the ability of those with Power to exercise it. Term Limits (insure the same individuals arent' in Power very long), the Power to recall an elected official, and Laws written (as ours in the US orginally were) to protect the Freedoms of the citizenry, and the means to effectively defend yourself (both with a weapon, and a ballot.)
That Corps are considered to have all the same rights, yet little of the personal responsibility, of a Citizen is an abomination; legally, historically, and ethically.
Re:Historically, Corporations haven't existed long (Score:2)
The collusion of governments with business (whether corporations or other forms) goes back as far as Roman times. One could even argue that it was the norm in early states. And even when government arguably took the lead (say, the Nazi imperialist venture and the genocides that followed), "respectable" businesses were right there to help, and to cash in.
Incidentally, Adam Smith had a good understanding of the way that businesses subvert the political process for their own ends. He was a thinker of some subtlety, taking a balanced view nothing like the mindlessly absolutist pro-capitalist cheerleaders who post on Slashdot. He said He was a firm advocate of the rule of law, and of controls on monopolies. He recognized the power of the market, but also understood its limitations. We'll never get anywhere in our current debates on this topic unless we too can recognize shades of grey and get away from idiotic capitalist/communist cold war rhetoric.
I am pro-market, and I also want corporations out of government. The DMCA is one example of how the system can be distorted when commercial interests buy legislation. I just hope that the response to Alan's principled resignation is not for some corporate shill to be appointed in his place.
But will it help?? (Score:5)
Re:Aviod conferences in the US (Score:2)
It may suprise you to learn that there are plenty of successful conferences not held in the US. Also US hotel rates have over the past five years gone from being relatively cheap to much more expensive than other countries. Even Vegas is no longer cheap, these days there are plenty of casinos arround the US and the cheap hotel rooms are no longer cheap.
As for a smaller conference, that would probably be a good idea anyway. DefCON has become a flabby media whore event where most of the audience are wannabe script kiddies.
More an Anti-DMCA tactic? (Score:2)
The Bush Administration and Katherine Harris burried "We The People" in Florida, anyone who thought that the first ammendment was safe in their hands is a fool.
Ashcroft is a racist bigott and anti-gay bigott. He lost his Senate seat because he failed to conceal the fact sufficiently. However the circumstances of his appointment make it hard for him to discriminate against either group. Going after Russian hackers probably looks like a good substitute, a minority that can easily be made the subject of widespread public hatred and fear.
Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people
Way to protest? (Score:2)
It is somewhat interesting that the first ammendment allows the Anti-Abortion fanatics to run a site advocating the murder of their opponents with a hit list annotated with home addresses while the same first ammendment does not appear to protect someone who is merely reporting the poor security technique of a corporation.
Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people
Re:dumb question--why? (Score:2)
dumb question--why? (Score:5)
I am not being sarcastic; I really don't understand--can anyone clear it up?
Oh the irony... (Score:4)
Reporting Suspected Privacy
If you know of, or believe you know of, an organization or an individual who is committing software piracy, please let us know. Reporting piracy is a good thing because:
Adobe will work with the person or organization to help it become compliant.
If the information you provide turns into a corporate lead and if we get the company to legalize (by buying genuine Adobe software), Adobe will donate a portion of the proceeds as software to underprivileged schools and nonprofits in North America and the rest of the world.
Oh the irony. I suppose this only applies to people who are actually pirating Adobe products, and not just showing the world how worthless they are?
Source: http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/antipiracy/report. html [adobe.com]
There's no $$$ in 'team'...
What really SUCKS... (Score:2)
It is our responsibility, from a global perspective, to protest by actively spreading the code...
Let alone that, this kind of law is threatening the Free Software movement directly, its obvious that all this cases (decss included) put jurisprudence on behalf of code being locked... when the big case of O.S. comes, all the prosecuttor (or defendant) will have to say is: "As was clarified on X versus Y, open, publicly available code is dangerous and destroys the very fabric of society, letting those ruskies hurt our american companies...."
Im gonna be sick.... Alex
Half of this post is in rot13 (Score:5)
MYY YOUR NMFR MER BELONG GB US
Now do you see?
All sorts of different suggestions here, but... (Score:3)
How come nobody's mentioned writing their politicians about this? Try telling THEM how much you don't like sections 1201 [cornell.edu] and 1202 [cornell.edu] of Chapter 12 [cornell.edu] of Title 17 [cornell.edu] of the U. S. Code [cornell.edu]. It might be helpful to quote passages from it that you find particularly damning.
Tell them about Sklyarov [cnn.com] and Felten v. RIAA [eff.org] and Universal v. Reimerdes [eff.org] and any other of the big cases I missed. Talk about how the law is being abused and violates the First Amendment. Mention that it could harm business. Keep in mind that neither they nor anybody they know actually read Slashdot (as hard as that may be to grasp).
Here's the President's address:
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500-0001
Here's the address for the Supreme Court:
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
Supreme Court of the United States
1 1st St. NE
Washington, DC 20543-0002
Your representative? The House maintains a site here [house.gov] where it will tell you who your rep is after you tell them what your state and ZIP code are. Don't know your ZIP+4 code is? Go to the USPS site and put your address in here [usps.com] to find out. After you find out who it is, their address is on their website.
Senators? The Senate's web site maintains a list of the addresses (and phone numbers) of all current Senators organized by state here [senate.gov]
Too cheap to pay the $1.70 in postage to write all these people? E-mail them. I was amazed last week when Tauzin acknowledged an e-mail I sent him with a snail-mail response. Sure, it was a blanket form letter on the topic, but it's a sign that it got read. (I still reccomend paper mail, though, since it's harder to ignore).
At the absolute least, you should realize that bitching and moaning to Slashdot about all this is about as effective as bitching and moaning to a brick wall.
Oh, and one last note: If you DO write them, don't flame them (unless you want another note added to your FBI file and possible surveilance/wiretaps/etc.).
Major percentage? (Score:2)
Besides that, even if you do vote here, sometimes your vote does not get counted. Particularly in states where your brother is governor. Come on Americans, don't waste time. You country is rapidly being overhauled into a dictatorship. Don't get defensive about that observation, but DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Revolutions are part of the growth cycle of a country, it's your chance to create culture instead of always advertising 'european this' and 'european that' in commercials on TV.
Re:we hate russia now? (Score:2)
He said "hated by the US government". As you probably know by now, the US government no longer represents the American people anymore, so don't take it personal.
Re:Uhhh guys... (Score:2)
Why do you say that? Did Adobe 'invent' ROT-13?
Contact Adobe (Score:3)
Boycott Adobe has the following email contacts at Adobe to send a message to [mailto].
Also, Adobe's own forums apparently have discussions related to this matter. I think this forums are located under Adobe support.
Bush and DMCA (Score:5)
I have a feeling that the Bush Administration isn't opposed to DMCA?
Re:Unless WE all agree to shut them down... (Score:2)
Foreign workers (programmers admins etc) who come in on work visas. The corporations have already *bought* these visas so they import technical people from around the world who are severely restricted under the visa. The corps do not have to pay them benefits, have them work unspeakabale amounts of unpaid (or underpaid) overtime and hold the threat of deportation over their heads if they so much as sigh in protest.
What ever happened to *you cannot fill a job in America with a foreign worker as long as there is an American who can fill the job?* Seems to me there are a lot of techies unemployed but the foreign workers keep flooding in.
Re:Caution - Contains abestos (Arrogant USians) (Score:2)
Re:But will it help?? (Score:3)
There are voices of reason out there in beautiful downtown America. The mainstream rote learners (couch potatos) like to call them crackpots, liberal fanatics, and eco-terrorists (or whatever other buzz words the mass media dreams up) so they don't have to face the truth. It's very hard for people to come to grips with the fact that everything they've believed in and trusted their entire lives is a lie. It's a real challenge for ordinary Joes to break free from their comfortable little paradigms, but until they do, they are being held hostage to the whims of corrupt governments who are also controlled by these same multi-national corporations.
The Internet has been an invaluable tool in helping people to see beyond the propoganda machine and seek knowledge. There are also a few good journals available to the public, like Zmag for example, that contain no corporate sponsorship and thus are free from influence. There are some excellent academic works like Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian and Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky that spell out the conspiracy of corporate America in black and white. These authors are not crackpot leftists, they are the intellectuals in our modern civilized *cough* world that dare to tell the truth and dare to back up their findings. They stand accountable to us, the conscience of America, and the entire free world.Give up a couple of hours of primetime TV and go to the library or the bookstore and pick up these books and read them. Above all, do not depend on any corporate-sponsored media for an objective and honest view.
Re:But will it help?? (Score:2)
As for the DMCA, you can't expect judges that don't understand technology to overturn a law that congress passed and large corporations support. It's just a shame that companies can appoint lobbyists and make donations and those who oppose what they support don't have the resources nor the organization to do the same. Perhaps those who understand technology and support open source should form their own organizations, collect donations, hire lawyers and members and do the same. You'd think the ACLU would be eager to support this cause but they have more in common with the conservative capitalists than they'd like to admit. It's not going to be possible to overturn things without an organized effort, and currently such an effort doesn't exist. I'm not saying I don't somewhat agree with the voice of the corporations and those who have the money and the ACLU but it would be nice to have a voice of the opposing viewpoint with money and power to provide a formidable opponent to keep the powers in check.
This is probably the best way to get something done, but if you want someone to blame, make it those who don't understand the technology and are making the laws to govern it and ruling on it in the courts, but don't blame the man you, the liberal community, forced to swear he would uphold the laws.