Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News Your Rights Online

CFP 2002 Wrapup 52

Posted by michael from the birds-of-a-feather dept.
Roger Clarke is an computer scientist who attends many of the CFP conferences, and more importantly for our purposes, takes notes. His notes for this year's conference make good reading and cover a wide variety of issues that Slashdot touches upon. Privacy, biometrics, domain names, the digital divide, intellectual property, it's all here. NTK this week has a nice quip on the conference: "And the more the CFPers confer, the more they seemed to realise that Hollywood is going for the hat-trick: taking away freedom, privacy *and* computers. Pretty impressive. But only if they manage it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CFP 2002 Wrapup More

CFP 2002 Wrapup

Comments Filter:
  • Because if they wern't then we would all be in the dark about these issues.
    • I too am so glad to see that someone took some notes. Alot of good brainstorming and information sharing happens at this conference but it seems that little gets shared with the public which is sad.

      One of the reasons I didn't attend was that there tends to be such a pessimistic air about issues discussed there. I know things can be bad but surely we can make them better!

      In retrospective, I am sorry I didn't attend this year though. It's not good to just stick one's head in the sand and think that good things will just happen. And being a hacker/geek/artist type, the program just didn't grab my interest much. But I missed seeing friends there and getting the scoop on current issues which is something that generally happens outside of the program/talks.

      The part on the DMCA seems important and I want to find out more about all the issues that surround it.

      Thanks again to Roger for posting his notes. I really appreciate you taking the time and effort to share. It's acts like this that give me hope.

      -lile

      hacker artist
      lile.com

  • Hackers/computer users need to remember that Hollywood and the entertainment industry employ thousands - if not millions - and generate huge revenues for the US. If we want to complain about the media industries taking away our freedoms then we have to have an alternative business plan that will assure John and Joanna Doe that we are not destroying their livlihood in the name of our freedom. For them, freedom from want and hunger is pretty important too.

    • Re:Need to do more than complain (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You could have said the same thing about slave trade.

      John and Joanna should have thought twice about working for an unethical entity.

    • There's a demand for content, so the content creation industry will survive. As long as people (or hardware manufacturers, or someone) pays for content, there will be a content creation business. If that business doesn't look much like it does today, and some people lose their jobs in the transition (which is not to say that there are more jobs available in one form than another -- but transitions are always painful)... well, too effin' bad. It's not the job of Congress, the courts or anyone else to assure anyone a profit, simply because they've made one before. Would you complain about the livlihoods of buggy whip manufacturers and suggest that an alternate business model be found for them before the automobile could be sold? Would you moan about how many people are employed making buggy-whips, and how much revenue is to be lost? Because that's roughly what you're doing.

      "Freedom from want" is not a freedom at all. "Freedom from want" means having something -- which (if you can't provide this "freedom" for yourself) means having something given to you, which means having someone else be forced to give you something. That's not any variety of the freedom I love. Anyhow, if John and Joanna can't keep their jobs making buggy whips, they can get new jobs building cars -- and if they're too inflexible to do that, screw 'em.

    • For them, freedom from want and hunger is pretty important

      This argument is Red Herring. Everytime some new technology comes out which allows consumers to duplicate content (radio, cassette tape, VCR) the content providers cry to the courts that this new technology will destroy thier business. The providers lost thier battles, and in fact the opposite happened, they made billions more dollars in the new markets. I don't see how it would be any different today.

      • This and all the other attacks on my original posting miss the point. Existing technologies - VCRs etc - were attacked by the industry and, yes, the industry had to learn to live with it.
        But the difference this time is that hackers and users are demanding the right to copy these things for free and pass them on to whomever (see RMS's comments on MP3s in the O'Reilly Free as in freedom).
        Who is going to make Star Wars if it is legal and moral for one person to buy the DVD and rip it and distribute it to all their friends?
        As for the comment that legislators don't have a role in ensuring that any particular industry does or doesn't make a profit - who are you kidding? What are the laws on dumping all about then? And drugs? All drugs...
        It's fair enough for the so-called libertarians to advocate anarchy but that is not the society that most people want to live in.
        Oh, and by the way, if you were going hungry you'd pretty soon revise your view on what constituted freedom...

        • But the difference this time is that hackers and users are demanding the right to copy these things for free and pass them on to whomever (see RMS's comments on MP3s in the O'Reilly Free as in freedom).

          This is not true, most of us are not advocating the elimination of copyright law. What we want is "Fair Use", there is a difference, although niether the RIAA nor MPAA seem to know it.

          Who is going to make Star Wars if it is legal and moral for one person to buy the DVD and rip it and distribute it to all their friends?

          This is exactly the argument made against radio, audio tapes and the VCR. None of that gloom and doom came true. Sure a few people did make copies of albums/movies and gave them to friends, but most people didn't. Most people legally bought and rented the content. Most people are honest and do the right thing.

          Oh, and by the way, if you were going hungry you'd pretty soon revise your view on what constituted freedom...

          This is a silly statement, if I were going hungry, I would not re-evaluate my definition of freedom, I'd get a job.

    • Re:Need to do more than complain (Score:4, Interesting)

      by White Roses ( 211207 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @02:55PM (#3383932)
      So very sorry, I wasn't aware that playing DVDs on my Linux box or copying CDs to my computer's hard drive were cutting in to their revenue stream. I mean, really, I thought purchasing their CDs and DVDs was helping them make money, not the other way around.

      And don't we already have laws in place crimializing file sharing? Copyright laws? Funny, if they can't adequately prosecute people under the existing laws, that's their own fault, not the law's.

      Frankly, it's not their content they're protecting, it's their outmoded business model. Their content is already protected by a myriad of laws. Yes, they need to make money, and yes, the artists need to have their work protected. But the current run of laws which are ostensibly for the latter, are really for the former, and make no mistake.

      Allowing me to play DVDs on my system of choice, or copying my CDs to my computer for my personal convenience, while not my right per se, is actually in the best interest of the companies currently trying to outlaw such things, because it makes me more likely to puchase more of their product.

      Region encoding and broken audio formats aren't protecting the artist from illegal copying. A bit-wise copy of some media on to other media can't be stopped, it simply has to be caught, which takes money and effort which the MPAA and RIAA aren't prepared to put forth, because laws are cheaper and require less effort to purchase. In any case, these two methods are merely for the protection of a business model. A bad business model, some may argue. The business model is dying, and rather than coming up with something else, the business is alienating it's customers with draconian tactics. Ultimately, these tactics will cut into their revenue far more than copyright infringements will. Selling one copy to an infringer is better than not selling any to people who despise you.

    • Re:Need to do more than complain (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Not Exactly. They need to come up with an alternative business model that all ows them to take advantage of the medium. This does not mean they need to buy a stack of legislation and turn computers into TV 2.0. It is not our responsibility to make their money. They provide a product, and if we like it , we can buy it.
      I worked for 4 years in the movie/tv business, and I guarantee that most of the people in that industry are perfectly capable of crossing over into other fields. Well, maybe not Actors, but the below the line technicians are some of the most resilient problem solvers I have every met.

    • Re:Need to do more than complain (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Glytch ( 4881 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @02:59PM (#3383945)
      Flash back a century. "Motor car owners need to remember that horse-buggy makers and the horse-buggy industry employ thousands - if not millions - and generate huge revenues for the US."

      Or maybe a bit earlier? "Electric lightbulb users need to remember that oil-lamp makers and the oil lamp industry employ thousands - if not millions - and generate huge revenues for the US."

      Get the picture yet?
    • Let's keep in mind that John and Jane Doe support the entertainment industry with their purchases -- and that they will also be supporting it with their tax dollars if federal laws are used to prop up an industry that is becoming obsolete. They have the right to say "No".

      No one concerned themselves with these alleged problems when the automobile destroyed the horse-and-buggy industry.

    • If we want to complain about the media industries taking away our freedoms then we have to have an alternative business plan that will assure John and Joanna Doe that we are not destroying their livlihood in the name of our freedom.

      Look at the Porno industry, they've made billions of dollars a year from the internet since the beginning. Heck there were BBS's making money on porno in the 80's. Thier secret is very simple, are you ready, here it is;

      "Provide a good service or product for a fair price!"

      I have to say though, it is not my job to come up with new and inovative ways for the media giants to make money. That is why all those CEO's make the big bucks. As we use to say in the Army "Lead, follow or get out of the way!". These people need to adapt to new technology, either by coming up with new ways to use it, or by copying another successful model. If they can't do this, then they don't deserve thier 7 figure income and if the Board of Directors keeps CEO's like this around, then the comapny deserves to die. This the nature of capitalism.

    • "Hackers/computer users need to remember that Hollywood and the entertainment industry employ thousands - if not millions - and generate huge revenues for the US."

      The reason that they generate just so much $$ is because they have such a tight grip on intelectual property -- if they didn't have as much control over how music, movies, screenplays, books, etc. are used in other mediums (i.e. people quoting sections of books, using music as background for short films or commercials) then they would make 10% of the money that they currently do.

  • Orwell Awards (Score:2, Informative)

    by bmw ( 115903 )
    Some of you may find this [privacyinternational.org] amusing. I discovered it at the bottom of the CFP 2002 notes. My personal favorite is John Ashcroft for Worst Public Official.

    In other news, the Department of Redundancy Department has found Roger Clarke guilty of abusing title tags.

  • Lerning from Skylarov... (Score:3, Funny)

    by martissimo ( 515886 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @02:20PM (#3383848)
    Associated Events
    EFF Pioneer Awards

    Norwegian teenager, Jon Johansen, and Writers of DeCSS (which makes it possible to play encrypted DVD movies on a Linux machine). Because of the corporation-protective and person-abusive provisions of the DMCA Act, he was advised not to risk arrest by coming to the U.S. for the ceremony

    guess the U.S will start having to ask for extradition on foreigners who seek to allow fair-use now.

  • Here is an idea to create "private" identification cards. Using our computers, we often create certificates and awards of merit for people. I propose simply creating our own id cards for ourselves. These are not forgeries and they are not in anyway fraudulent because the identification cards we create are our own totally original works.

    I know of someone who is without a valid drivers license because a certain government department requires a "breeder" card to issue a new drivers license. This person applied for the breeder card in the state of their birth where there is currently a strike by the government workers. The person is stuck because the state of their birth won't issue a birth certificate unless the person succumbs to a medical emergency in a foreign country. This person has had a warning and a US$70 fine for driving without a valid driver's license because of bureaucracy in this matter.

    This person has decided to leave the State of Fear and take some responsibility and use some imagination and create their own driver's license. Of course, the Dept. of Motor Vehicles of various organizations will still have to approve such a card but in the meantime the "private" drivers license will be shown to interested law enforcement officers.

    I invite the "many" lawyers to offer help in this matter.

    • A breeder card? What, they insist he get a Heterosexual License?

      Yeh, I show my Disneyworld Mickey License to cops that pull me over too. They laugh and chuckle, then tell me that if I don't waste any more time in handing over my REAL license, they won't penalize me for it.
  • Does this scare anyone else?

    Proponents argue that digitizing the nation's social security card system to resemble a credit card system, and creating one national information database, are needed to protect against terrorism. Critics argue that such a tracking and/or monitoring system would violate the core freedoms of the nation's citizens and that what is needed is better procedures among agencies and standardization of data entry.

    Our current system for credit cards is horribly insecure. A 12-15 year old child has no problem acquirring and using stolen credit cards. I know, because I used to be one of those children. Credit card fraud is remarkably easy. Combine this with the dangers of having an international database containing all this sensitive information and we have a serious threat on our hands. The risks involved here are astounding.
  • I, like most people, am totally against these new draconian methods being proposed to keep people from ripping and sharing digital music.

    I don't think laws of this nature are the answer to this problem, and I don't think laws should be created simply to preserve a dinosaur business model.

    I also don't think that the music companies are in any way fairly reimbursing the actual artists for their creations. I think the music companies are raking in far too much money for what they do, but that's debatable.

    What I'd like to see is: What IS the alternative proposal from the technical people? Not saying that we have to keep the music publishers afloat. A new business model could simply be that the musicians directly distribute their music over the internet - you buy your music directly from them.

    But, what keeps someone (besides personal honesty) from giving a copy to all their friends? I don't see a way. But it would really suck if even the actual musicians don't get paid for their work.

    I don't have any ideas, does anyone else?
  • is that I would rather they never produced music again (OMIGOSH), than take away my computer.

    If the RIAA can't make any money in music, maybe they should STOP MAKING MUSIC! AND LEAVE ME ALONE. They should be paying me to store their crap on my hard drive. It's a seller's market in real estate, I hear.

    And I enjoy music a lot. But not as much as reading this "great" site from MY own computer.
  • Sterling's speech is posted on the Viridian Design [viridiandesign.org] web site, specifically here [viridiandesign.org].

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close