Interview with EFF's Fred Von Lohmann 156
scubacuda writes "Tech Focus has an --> interview with EFF's Fred Von Lohmann, Senior Intellectual Property Attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Covered in the interview: Kazaa, commercial skipping, DMCA, 802.11b networks, congressmen friendly to the idea of "fair use", and how to "make a difference"." Update: 01/08 17:42 GMT by M : Link changed to reduce the load on Techfocus.
slashdotted (Score:1)
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you...
Re:slashdotted (Score:1)
I am curious what you mean by smelling 'the smoke from their server from here. If it's not down yet, it will be soon.' Do you mean that someone's (I'm not sure who's) server will be shut down (by what method and by who, and why) because of internet content? If so, I wonder if you know of other servers/websites that have been shutdown as well. I'd appreciate any info in this regards; you can e-mail me if you wish at btren@canada.com.
The article - compelling read (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:The article - compelling read (Score:2)
Re:The article - compelling read (Score:2)
Re:The article - compelling read (Score:1)
checking for error after a function call. That
said, I've read lots of articles that complain how
MySQL behaves badly or crashes under sufficiently
high load.
I have no idea if that is still the case with the most
recent versions.
Wow... (Score:5, Interesting)
We all agree that piracy isn't a good thing, but I'd like to think the P2P is viable even without copyright infringement. There was that innovative mechanism a while ago where you could download a file and other people could share the pieces they've already downloaded with you, distributing the load on-the-fly. And there's the unique streaming audio solution that works similarly. Just because some folks throw away the tags on their pillows doesn't mean we don't need a place to rest our heads, right?
There's a lot of interesting stuff coming out that's dual-use, and no doubt that'd be the motif of the interview if it didn't die before the second frigging comment was posted. Why aren't the links cached on here, again?
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
It's anonymous - by its nature, you don't know who is on the other end. I sure as heck won't be downloading programs from it anytime soon.
It's unreliable - what's on the network can vary from where you are on the net, and can change at any moment.
There's no quality control - there are a lot of files out there with bad names, and a lot of names for some files. It's easy to waste hours downloading a file and find that it's not what it says.
I have the option of going to Project Gutenberg or P2P for Tom Saywer - why should I waste my time trying to fish it out of P2P? I have the option of going to Debian or P2P for Exim - why on Earth would I risk a trojan by pulling it off P2P?
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Informative)
> copyright infringement if someone makes money off
> it without paying royalties?
I wish that was true, but it isn't.
> On the other hand, if I don't charge you, then I
> have NOT violated copyright.
I wish that was true, but it isn't.
> Of course, following the radio model, the music
> companies should've been paying Napster to host
> songs and promote the bands, a la payola.
Look up "compulsory licensing" and "ASCAP and BMI".
Re:Bullshit (Score:2, Interesting)
Why not? Isn't the purpose of copyright to create a (monopoly) market for the holder? What does it matter to him whether you charged or not? You still used his own work to "compete" with him.
Besides the fact that another poster brought up something I don't know about that could potentially defeat my entire position, I will continue to defend my position. :) (haven't looked up what he said yet)
The purpose of copyright is to balance an "artist's" ability to capitalize on his work (and I use the term artist loosely) and the public's right to use his work. That's where "fair use" comes into play.
On EVERY CD that you purchase, it says "Unauthorized duplication, lending, public performance..." etc. HOWEVER, you ARE allowed to lend it to your friend, and he can listen to it. Same with books, vhs and dvds, etc. Once upon a time, it was the same with software even!
The thing is, now people are accepting the idea that copyright provides a monopoly for the holder, and that it's his and only his right to say what can and can't be done with the material. While the more people accept this idea the more it becomes law (regardless of how it's legislated), it's complete and utter bullshit.
The reason it's bullshit is for all the reasons the EFF has been fighting to restore the balance to copyright law. It stifles innovation and competition in the marketplace.
Now, IMHO (which wasn't asked for :) ) I'd like to do away with intellectual property law completely for awhile and see how that works. I don't claim it'll work better or worse, but then I'd like to introduce a law that says "You can't use someone else's material and claim it's yours" and see how well that works.
Also, with the advent of digital filesharing, the concept of lending isn't nearly as black and white as it used to be. I could load you a CD, but while you had it I couldn't listen to it (except that I probably would have a copy on tape, because back in the days I had a tape copy of all of my CDs that was usually made before I bought the CD). Nowadays, I can give you the whole CD, or at least the content of the CD, without any loss to me personally.
But I digress. The point is, copyright law was never intended to provide a monopoly for anybody, it was only intended to protect for a time the creator's right to make money off his own work.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
No. Article I, section 8, of the Constituion states that Congress is empowered " To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries ." This is the source of copyright, and as you can see, public benefit, in the form of progress in science and the useful arts, is the purpose of copyright. Granting the exclusive right (which is subject to restrictions) is just a means to that end.
In other news, Speed of /. Effect defined. (Score:3, Funny)
Researchers at Cal Tech measured the speed at which a server went down when linked from a slashdot post as, "Damn near the speed of light."
When asked for clarification on that speed. The researcher said, "We've observed it in 10 replies or less. That's shorter than a New York Minute for Gosh sakes."
Wow.
Re:In other news, Speed of /. Effect defined. (Score:2)
I really liked the part about dietcoke! (Score:3, Funny)
mysql://dietcoke:@localhost/techfocus_org failed to connectToo many connections
Re:I really liked the part about dietcoke! (Score:1)
"That's right folks, we've been Slashdotted
Dear Fred (Score:4, Funny)
Article body... (Score:5, Informative)
Posted by: Bill_Royle on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 12:09 PM
Interviews "Noone has ever suggested that Ford should be liable for every bank robbery committed with one of its cars..."
We've conducted an interview with Fred Von Lohmann, Senior Intellectual Property Attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an membership organization that has spearheaded many technology-related causes and legal battles, with civil liberties being on the forefront. In cases such as the halt of US encryption method publishing, the 2600/DeCSS case, Morpheus, ReplayTV and constant clashes with the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has been one of the most active organizations representing technology.
We fielded questions from visitors along with some of our own, and Fred Von Lohmann took the time to discuss the issues with us. Some of his work with the EFF includes his work on the MGM vs. Grokster case, which threatens to set legal precedent on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing. He is also involved in the Newmark vs. Turner Broadcasting case, which involves the use of ReplayTV to skip commercials, record content and share the content with others.
We appreciate the questions from our visitors, and would particularly like to thank Fred Von Lohmann and the Electronic Frontier Foundation for taking the time to discuss important issues in the industry, and for consumers!
"In the Metro-Goldwyn Mayer v. Grokster case, the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that US courts hold no jurisdiction over regulation of the Kazaa product, as it is located in the island-nation of Vanuatu. The EFF contends that as there are no contacts of substantial value within the US, and as such the courts do not have the authority to regulate or impose fines upon Kazaa. Therefore, does this claim indicate a trend developing in which software companies under legal fire move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to avoid financial liability or injunction?"
First, EFF does not represent Kazaa and has taken no position on the jurisdiction questions regarding Sharman Networks, which now controls the Kazaa software. Sharman's position is that they have no business contacts with the United States, and therefore should not be dragged into court here. Their chief place of business is in Australia, and they have plainly stated that they would submit to jurisdiction in Australia (not exactly a copyright rogue state).
I think too much has been made of the Vanuatu angle regarding Kazaa. Although the various Kazaa entities are off-shore, they have been located in the Netherlands and Australia. There's no difficulty in litigating in their home countries. In fact, copyright owners have sued (and so far have lost) in the Netherlands. The increase in off-shore developers in P2P is simply a function of the very expensive, hostile environment in the US, where entertainment companies have made it clear that they will sue any company that enters offers general-purpose P2P tools. In the Napster case, moreover, the entertainment companies dropped hints that they might actually sue Napster's investors (Hummer Winblad), a development that has chilled investment in the entire P2P industry sector.
Is it any surprise that US innovators have given up the mantle to other countries? So Blubster is apparently located in Spain, Xolox in the Netherlands, Kazaa in Australia.
"In the case of Newmark v. Turner, EFF argues that the SendShow feature and commercial-skipping using the ReplayTV DVR (Digital Video Recorder) are features which in themselves do not constitute infringement or engage in piracy. If this is true and a user does utilize the commercial skipping technology, then distributes the DVR'd content over the internet using Kazaa somehow, who should be prosecuted for the action if it is found to be an illegal use of copyrighted content?"
The Copyright Act, like most of our laws, has been built on the premise that you go after the guy who actually breaks the law. Sure, sometimes we extend the reach of the law to get the wheel-man, too. But no one has ever suggested that Ford should be liable for every bank robbery committed with one of its cars. Yet the entertainment industries appear to want to let all the bank robbers run free and *only* punish the car makers.
It makes you wonder whether the fight is actually about piracy, or if it's instead about asserting control over new technologies.
If someone uses a PVR (or computer, or crow bar, or car, for that matter) to break the law, then by all means go after them. Find the guys who are distributing "the Sopranos" to their friends who don't pay for HBO. Once you've rounded those couple dozen PVR owners up, then leave the hundreds of thousand other, innocent American PVR owners alone. Stop calling them thieves, stop trying to cripple their cool gadgets, and stop threatening innovative companies like SonicBlue.
Oh, and by the way, once you've busted all the "Sopranos" sharers, don't be surprised if you see a drop in new HBO subscriptions, as you've ended up killing off a free, viral marketing channel that most consumer-products companies would have given their right arm for. But hey, it always pays to ignore your marketing staff and let the lawyers run the show, doesn't it?
"Recently HP threatened legal action under the guise of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in order to subvert the disclosure of flaws within it's Tru64 operating system. This was also the methodology behind Adobe's initial complaint against Elcomsoft employee Dmitry Skylarov, done in order to squelch disclosure of flaws in their eBook software. What effect overall does the DMCA realistically have over the disclosure of bugs and security holes, and is it positive or negative for the consumer?"
The DMCA is having a very negative impact on computer security research. Don't take my word for it -- Richard Clark, the Bush Administration's Cyber-Security Czar, recently called for DMCA reform for this very reason. For more examples of the chill imposed on legitimate activities by the DMCA, see EFF's white paper, "Unintended Consequences: Four Years Under the DMCA" (google: "DMCA unintended consequences"). To take only the most recent example, Lexmark just filed a DMCA lawsuit against a company that makes chips that permit third-party toner cartridges to be used in their laser printers. I don't think that, when it passed the DMCA, Congress intended to help Lexmark shut out legitimate competition in the toner market.
"Internet Service Providers have begun warning and enforcing portions of their user agreements which forbid subscribers from sharing their wireless internet access with others. In response specifically to Time-Warner Cable's specific warning to customers not to do so, the Electronic Frontier Foundation compiled a list of ISP's who it deemed unlikely to enforce or encroach on this networking method. What methods of discovery and enforcement can ISP's legally take to insure that customers are not using their bandwidth via wireless networking?"
Well, it's not easy to predict what kinds of enforcement options ISPs may undertake to prevent community 802.11 networks. Whatever measures they undertake, however, the right answer is to abandon ISPs that don't provide you the service you want. Choose an ISP that gives you the real Internet, not their port-blocked, bandwidth-shaped, you-can't-run-a-server version of the Internet. We at EFF have compiled a list of ISPs that do not forbid connection sharing. We hope it will help consumers vote with their pocketbooks to support ISPs that are not interested in limiting your Internet options.
"Which US Senator would you consider to be the strongest voice for consumers in regards to the "Fair Use" doctrine? Which US Congressman?"
As a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization, EFF cannot endorse particular politicians or engage in direct campaigning. But we certainly do take positions on legislation. For two of the worst pieces of legislation in the last Congress, you might want to check the Hollings Bill (aka CBDTPA, S. 2048), the Berman Bill (aka P2P Vigilante Bill, H.R. 5211). For examples of legislation heading the right direction on copyright, you might want to check out the Boucher-Doolittle DMCRA (H.R. 5544), Zoe Logren's Bill (H.R. 5522) and the Cox-Wyden Fair Use Bill of Rights (H. J. Res. 116). I expect many of these measures to be reintroduced in the new Congress.
"Most of my letters to legislators and organizations about intellectual property go unanswered or I receive formletters. What are the most effective ways I can make a difference in intellectual property policy and law?"
Keep writing. We at EFF have even set up an Action Center to make it easy to write and fax your members of Congress.
Just because you get a form letter doesn't mean you're not making a difference. I used to work for a Senator handling constituent mail, and it can make a big difference. When only a few letters come in, they get a generic "thanks for writing" note. Once it's a steady stream, a staffer looks into the issue, brief his boss, and composes an issue-specific form letter. Once it's a torrent, them members of Congress start calling each other and asking whether there's any legislation they can sign onto to take credit for fixing the problem.
So keep writing.
"What kind of support or help can the average user provide which is most helpful, in assisting the EFF in their efforts, monetarily or otherwise?"
Become a member, make a steady donation. Set up a $10 monthly recurring payment on your credit card. We're a membership-supported organization, with no fat endowment or corporate support. Without our members, we simply cease to exist.
Second, tell 5 of your non-technical family, friends or acquaintances about EFF issues and about why they matter. Holding the interest of the mainstream is critical to making real change. In 10 years, I want every elementary school child to have as much sympathy for digital freedom issues as they do today for environmentalism.
Third, drop us a note if you're able to volunteer. We need all kinds of help -- sometimes we need office furniture, sometimes envelope stuffing, sometimes web design, sometimes strong crypto programming. If you're prepared to devote some real time and make a commitment, we'd love to hear from you.
And keep writing to your representatives, where ever you may live.
"If you were to write one piece of legislation, what would it be, and why?"
Surprisingly enough, it's already been written, and not by me. It's called the DMCRA, H.R. 5544 in the last Congress, sponsored by Rep. Boucher and Rep. Doolittle, and it would reform the DMCA. It fixes the most egregious aspects of the DMCA, making sure that our traditional copyright law balance is restored. If it were law, it would ensure that there were no more Sklyarov cases, no more Felten cases, no more DeCSS cases. That'd be a fine start.
"What do you think is the single most compelling reason why the average person should support the EFF's intellectual property fight?"
If you care about culture, radio, television, literature, music, art, information or knowledge, then you should be supporting our fight on intellectual property. EFF is not against intellectual property. We are fighting for a return to a balanced form of copyright, one that respects the owners and the public equally. After all, copyright law is made, ostensibly, for the benefit of the public. If you, as a member of the public, think that our culture should not be regulated exclusively by high-priced lobbyists working for the entertainment industry, and if you don't believe our copyright law system today is working in the best interests of the public, you should be supporting EFF.
"If you were king for a day and could make one single change to anything concerning intellectual property in the United States, what would you change?"
Striking the right balance in intellectual property is not a matter of making a single change. It's a matter of making lots of changes to adjust to new technologies on an ongoing basis. Today, reform of the DMCA, reduction of copyright term, and fighting to preserve a healthy fair use doctrine are at the top of my list.
"Has there been a court case where more than any other, you think that the "good guys" have lost? What was the reason for their loss?"
The biggest defeats for the public interest in the last decade came not in court cases, but rather in the legislative arena, with the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the DMCA.
But, in the long run, the Napster decision may well end up being the biggest courtroom defeat. Not because it put down Napster, but rather because it did so in a way that created a dangerous precedent for all technology companies. In the name of stopping P2P file sharing, lots of bad copyright law is being made in the courts right now, law that effectively puts entertainment companies in charge of technological innovation. If the precedents being made today were on the books 20 years ago, we would never have seen the photocopier, the VCR, or the CD recorder. I'm afraid, the bad copyright precedents will be with us long after Napster is a dim memory.
"What is your stand on the concept of intellectual property? Eg, should it be abolished altogether or is there a way to make it work?"
I'm a copyright lawyer. I like copyright, and I think it is plenty flexible enough to see us through the transition to a digital media world. The basic challenge hasn't changed -- we need to strike a fair balance between an author's need to get paid and the public's right to have access to its cultural and media heritage. In order to make it work, we may need to let go of the obsession with perfectly counting and controlling "reproductions" of copyrighted works. Fortunately, there are historical precedents for that. After all, in response to the last revolution in distribution, namely broadcast radio and television, copyright owners learned to let go of the need to control and count every single listener and viewer. And it turned out to work pretty well for all concerned.
Text from the article (Score:2, Informative)
We've conducted an interview with Fred Von Lohmann, Senior Intellectual Property Attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an membership organization that has spearheaded many technology-related causes and legal battles, with civil liberties being on the forefront. In cases such as the halt of US encryption method publishing, the 2600/DeCSS case, Morpheus, ReplayTV and constant clashes with the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has been one of the most active organizations representing technology.
We fielded questions from visitors along with some of our own, and Fred Von Lohmann took the time to discuss the issues with us. Some of his work with the EFF includes his work on the MGM vs. Grokster case, which threatens to set legal precedent on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing. He is also involved in the Newmark vs. Turner Broadcasting case, which involves the use of ReplayTV to skip commercials, record content and share the content with others.
We appreciate the questions from our visitors, and would particularly like to thank Fred Von Lohmann and the Electronic Frontier Foundation for taking the time to discuss important issues in the industry, and for consumers!
"In the Metro-Goldwyn Mayer v. Grokster case, the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that US courts hold no jurisdiction over regulation of the Kazaa product, as it is located in the island-nation of Vanuatu. The EFF contends that as there are no contacts of substantial value within the US, and as such the courts do not have the authority to regulate or impose fines upon Kazaa. Therefore, does this claim indicate a trend developing in which software companies under legal fire move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to avoid financial liability or injunction?"
First, EFF does not represent Kazaa and has taken no position on the jurisdiction questions regarding Sharman Networks, which now controls the Kazaa software. Sharman's position is that they have no business contacts with the United States, and therefore should not be dragged into court here. Their chief place of business is in Australia, and they have plainly stated that they would submit to jurisdiction in Australia (not exactly a copyright rogue state).
I think too much has been made of the Vanuatu angle regarding Kazaa. Although the various Kazaa entities are off-shore, they have been located in the Netherlands and Australia. There's no difficulty in litigating in their home countries. In fact, copyright owners have sued (and so far have lost) in the Netherlands. The increase in off-shore developers in P2P is simply a function of the very expensive, hostile environment in the US, where entertainment companies have made it clear that they will sue any company that enters offers general-purpose P2P tools. In the Napster case, moreover, the entertainment companies dropped hints that they might actually sue Napster's investors (Hummer Winblad), a development that has chilled investment in the entire P2P industry sector.
Is it any surprise that US innovators have given up the mantle to other countries? So Blubster is apparently located in Spain, Xolox in the Netherlands, Kazaa in Australia.
"In the case of Newmark v. Turner, EFF argues that the SendShow feature and commercial-skipping using the ReplayTV DVR (Digital Video Recorder) are features which in themselves do not constitute infringement or engage in piracy. If this is true and a user does utilize the commercial skipping technology, then distributes the DVR'd content over the internet using Kazaa somehow, who should be prosecuted for the action if it is found to be an illegal use of copyrighted content?"
The Copyright Act, like most of our laws, has been built on the premise that you go after the guy who actually breaks the law. Sure, sometimes we extend the reach of the law to get the wheel-man, too. But no one has ever suggested that Ford should be liable for every bank robbery committed with one of its cars. Yet the entertainment industries appear to want to let all the bank robbers run free and *only* punish the car makers.
It makes you wonder whether the fight is actually about piracy, or if it's instead about asserting control over new technologies.
If someone uses a PVR (or computer, or crow bar, or car, for that matter) to break the law, then by all means go after them. Find the guys who are distributing "the Sopranos" to their friends who don't pay for HBO. Once you've rounded those couple dozen PVR owners up, then leave the hundreds of thousand other, innocent American PVR owners alone. Stop calling them thieves, stop trying to cripple their cool gadgets, and stop threatening innovative companies like SonicBlue.
Oh, and by the way, once you've busted all the "Sopranos" sharers, don't be surprised if you see a drop in new HBO subscriptions, as you've ended up killing off a free, viral marketing channel that most consumer-products companies would have given their right arm for. But hey, it always pays to ignore your marketing staff and let the lawyers run the show, doesn't it?
"Recently HP threatened legal action under the guise of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in order to subvert the disclosure of flaws within it's Tru64 operating system. This was also the methodology behind Adobe's initial complaint against Elcomsoft employee Dmitry Skylarov, done in order to squelch disclosure of flaws in their eBook software. What effect overall does the DMCA realistically have over the disclosure of bugs and security holes, and is it positive or negative for the consumer?"
The DMCA is having a very negative impact on computer security research. Don't take my word for it -- Richard Clark, the Bush Administration's Cyber-Security Czar, recently called for DMCA reform for this very reason. For more examples of the chill imposed on legitimate activities by the DMCA, see EFF's white paper, "Unintended Consequences: Four Years Under the DMCA" (google: "DMCA unintended consequences"). To take only the most recent example, Lexmark just filed a DMCA lawsuit against a company that makes chips that permit third-party toner cartridges to be used in their laser printers. I don't think that, when it passed the DMCA, Congress intended to help Lexmark shut out legitimate competition in the toner market.
"Internet Service Providers have begun warning and enforcing portions of their user agreements which forbid subscribers from sharing their wireless internet access with others. In response specifically to Time-Warner Cable's specific warning to customers not to do so, the Electronic Frontier Foundation compiled a list of ISP's who it deemed unlikely to enforce or encroach on this networking method. What methods of discovery and enforcement can ISP's legally take to insure that customers are not using their bandwidth via wireless networking?"
Well, it's not easy to predict what kinds of enforcement options ISPs may undertake to prevent community 802.11 networks. Whatever measures they undertake, however, the right answer is to abandon ISPs that don't provide you the service you want. Choose an ISP that gives you the real Internet, not their port-blocked, bandwidth-shaped, you-can't-run-a-server version of the Internet. We at EFF have compiled a list of ISPs that do not forbid connection sharing. We hope it will help consumers vote with their pocketbooks to support ISPs that are not interested in limiting your Internet options.
"Which US Senator would you consider to be the strongest voice for consumers in regards to the "Fair Use" doctrine? Which US Congressman?"
As a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization, EFF cannot endorse particular politicians or engage in direct campaigning. But we certainly do take positions on legislation. For two of the worst pieces of legislation in the last Congress, you might want to check the Hollings Bill (aka CBDTPA, S. 2048), the Berman Bill (aka P2P Vigilante Bill, H.R. 5211). For examples of legislation heading the right direction on copyright, you might want to check out the Boucher-Doolittle DMCRA (H.R. 5544), Zoe Logren's Bill (H.R. 5522) and the Cox-Wyden Fair Use Bill of Rights (H. J. Res. 116). I expect many of these measures to be reintroduced in the new Congress.
"Most of my letters to legislators and organizations about intellectual property go unanswered or I receive formletters. What are the most effective ways I can make a difference in intellectual property policy and law?"
Keep writing. We at EFF have even set up an Action Center to make it easy to write and fax your members of Congress.
Just because you get a form letter doesn't mean you're not making a difference. I used to work for a Senator handling constituent mail, and it can make a big difference. When only a few letters come in, they get a generic "thanks for writing" note. Once it's a steady stream, a staffer looks into the issue, brief his boss, and composes an issue-specific form letter. Once it's a torrent, them members of Congress start calling each other and asking whether there's any legislation they can sign onto to take credit for fixing the problem.
So keep writing.
"What kind of support or help can the average user provide which is most helpful, in assisting the EFF in their efforts, monetarily or otherwise?"
Become a member, make a steady donation. Set up a $10 monthly recurring payment on your credit card. We're a membership-supported organization, with no fat endowment or corporate support. Without our members, we simply cease to exist.
Second, tell 5 of your non-technical family, friends or acquaintances about EFF issues and about why they matter. Holding the interest of the mainstream is critical to making real change. In 10 years, I want every elementary school child to have as much sympathy for digital freedom issues as they do today for environmentalism.
Third, drop us a note if you're able to volunteer. We need all kinds of help -- sometimes we need office furniture, sometimes envelope stuffing, sometimes web design, sometimes strong crypto programming. If you're prepared to devote some real time and make a commitment, we'd love to hear from you.
And keep writing to your representatives, where ever you may live.
"If you were to write one piece of legislation, what would it be, and why?"
Surprisingly enough, it's already been written, and not by me. It's called the DMCRA, H.R. 5544 in the last Congress, sponsored by Rep. Boucher and Rep. Doolittle, and it would reform the DMCA. It fixes the most egregious aspects of the DMCA, making sure that our traditional copyright law balance is restored. If it were law, it would ensure that there were no more Sklyarov cases, no more Felten cases, no more DeCSS cases. That'd be a fine start.
"What do you think is the single most compelling reason why the average person should support the EFF's intellectual property fight?"
If you care about culture, radio, television, literature, music, art, information or knowledge, then you should be supporting our fight on intellectual property. EFF is not against intellectual property. We are fighting for a return to a balanced form of copyright, one that respects the owners and the public equally. After all, copyright law is made, ostensibly, for the benefit of the public. If you, as a member of the public, think that our culture should not be regulated exclusively by high-priced lobbyists working for the entertainment industry, and if you don't believe our copyright law system today is working in the best interests of the public, you should be supporting EFF.
"If you were king for a day and could make one single change to anything concerning intellectual property in the United States, what would you change?"
Striking the right balance in intellectual property is not a matter of making a single change. It's a matter of making lots of changes to adjust to new technologies on an ongoing basis. Today, reform of the DMCA, reduction of copyright term, and fighting to preserve a healthy fair use doctrine are at the top of my list.
"Has there been a court case where more than any other, you think that the "good guys" have lost? What was the reason for their loss?"
The biggest defeats for the public interest in the last decade came not in court cases, but rather in the legislative arena, with the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the DMCA.
But, in the long run, the Napster decision may well end up being the biggest courtroom defeat. Not because it put down Napster, but rather because it did so in a way that created a dangerous precedent for all technology companies. In the name of stopping P2P file sharing, lots of bad copyright law is being made in the courts right now, law that effectively puts entertainment companies in charge of technological innovation. If the precedents being made today were on the books 20 years ago, we would never have seen the photocopier, the VCR, or the CD recorder. I'm afraid, the bad copyright precedents will be with us long after Napster is a dim memory.
"What is your stand on the concept of intellectual property? Eg, should it be abolished altogether or is there a way to make it work?"
I'm a copyright lawyer. I like copyright, and I think it is plenty flexible enough to see us through the transition to a digital media world. The basic challenge hasn't changed -- we need to strike a fair balance between an author's need to get paid and the public's right to have access to its cultural and media heritage. In order to make it work, we may need to let go of the obsession with perfectly counting and controlling "reproductions" of copyrighted works. Fortunately, there are historical precedents for that. After all, in response to the last revolution in distribution, namely broadcast radio and television, copyright owners learned to let go of the need to control and count every single listener and viewer. And it turned out to work pretty well for all concerned.
Our thanks to Fred Von Lohmann and the Electronic Frontier Foundation for their time!
Re:Text from the article (Score:2)
Re:Text from the article (Score:1)
You know, you and someone else posted the article text into slashdot at the same time. Is this equiv of a dupe story by the editors? :)
It's worse because it's the readers that are always bitching about it.
Re:Text from the article (Score:3, Funny)
The right to slashdot... (Score:3, Funny)
mysql://dietcoke:@localhost/techfocus_org failed to connectToo many connections
They should have asked him wheter slashdotting should be made illegal. Or is it covered by free speech as a form of expression?
Re: (Score:1)
How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
"Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man"
- Mohandas Karamachand Gandhi
Nonviolent disobedience people. Download the music, rip the DVD's, skip the commericials, encrypt the email. Don't buy the X-Box or the PS2. Don't go to see Disney movies. Don't give in. Don't give up.
Nonviolence is an immoral philosophy (Score:1, Interesting)
Bollocks.
Nonviolence and pacifism is fundamentally highly immoral. Refusing to kill even if one's own life or loved ones' lives are at stake is an atrocity.
Re:Nonviolence is an immoral philosophy (Score:1)
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:2, Insightful)
By "Download the music, rip the DVDs" are you suggesting that one download copies of music that have been posted without the copyright owner's permission and rip the DVDs for purposes of sharing? Or are you suggesting that people download music that has been made freely available by its producers and rip the DVDs for their own personal use in ways that the entertainment cartel doesn't necessarily approve of (e.g. making it available on your home LAN).
This distinction is the deciding factor between whether you are a conscientous protestor or just another criminal trying to justify your theft with the trappings of civil disobedience.
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:2)
While that statement is technically correct, copyright infringement denies the copyright owner their legal right to control their intellectual property, and is therefore quite close to the dictionary definition of larceny. I suppose it rests upon whether you consider intangible works of equal status to material ones.
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:2)
[Sorry - I can't resist!]
<sarcasm>
Sounds damn near like one o' them "inalienable rights".
I'm surprised it didn't make its way into the United States Declaration of Independence.
Most citizens I talk to on the street every day are intensely aggrieved with the way that their "legal rights to control their intellectual property" are being abused in the most horrific ways.
</sarcasm>Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:2)
Copyright law, and the associated rights to the copyright owner and the public, is established in the U.S. Constitution. It makes little difference to the average citizen on the street because most currently do not make their living from intellectual property. As the "information economy" continues to evolve, though, and the distinction between physical and intellectual commodities continues to blur, you can be sure that more and more people will take an active interest. The emergence of HDTV and the erosion of the right to copy certain TV broadcasts will also be interesting in as far as it should be a wake up call to currently uninterested consumers.
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:3, Interesting)
No, you're right, that the topic deserves some careful consideration.
I tend to believe that intellectual commodities are fairly tenuous constructions and that the current legal protections err on the side of generosity to the "holders of IP" rather than on the side of the general public. If my patent (I actually do have one) were to generate a lot of revenue perhaps my attitude might change, but as it stands, 17 years seems appropriate to the 17th century.
The Digital Bill of Rights [digitalconsumer.org] is a nice start towards defining some of what might make a good society, but it avoids the touchy issue of your right to share your right to listen to a song with friends, acquaintences, or people you don't even know.
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:2)
Extrapolating your observation about patents to copyrights, you're right on the money about the terms being too long. I think the lifetime of the author is reasonable for copyrights (which do not protect items with the same "useful" value to society as patents, and may well require a long time to fairly compensate the creator) but extending it much beyond that is just absurd in a society where marginalized works are routinely lost to the mists because there's no big-money profit motive to keep them in print. It's the cultural analogue of children starving while the grain rots in the hoppers to artificially maintain prices.
As for the sharing issue, I am pretty much an absolutist on the rights of individuals to control their work. As long as the property is controlled by copyright, it should be the copyright owner's right to be as big a jerk about it as they like. They should get to decide if no copy is ever made for any amount of money or if a million copies are made for free. I definitely don't believe anyone has the right to distribute another's IP unless that right is licensed in some way. Guess I just wasn't high enough back in the eighties when I was subjected to those "Property is Theft" rants...
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:5, Informative)
copyright is not a birth right, but a "wholely statutory" grant (Wharton v. Peters, 1834). The Copyright grant exists by the grace of the public as a public investment for the public benefit, much like a loan. "The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors" (US v. Paramount Pictures, 1948; Sony v. Universal City Studios, 1984).
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:2)
One could also make a claim that my car is a loan from the steel and rubber gods, but my right to control its use is still not in question, or I would not have paid $20K for it.
Serious Response:
Can you offer a simple, alternative term (to "Intellectual Property" that is) that acknowledges that many things of very real value to their creators are not bound to physical quantities? If you can, I will gladly use it.
Whether it is a "birth right" or "a loan from the public domain", the effect is essentially the same. As an author, there is a strong disincentive for me to publish if my work is not protected. Without copyright, it becomes a might-makes-right question and he who can distribute the most copies fastest wins. Whether that "he" is a global corporation or a networked group of parasites, the effect is that the value of my work is reduced below the level of commodity, to essentially zero.
When copyright was established, I don't think the framers anticipated the possibility of an effectively infinite number of perfect copies of a work distributed at high-speed through a global medium. That is why it is a modern problem for our culture and legislators.
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:2)
When the first copyright law was passed, Copyright lasted 14 years, renewable once. That was adequate. Also, copyright should go to the author/artist alone, not to anyone else. Far too often, people other than the creator of a work hold copyright. Here is one outrageous example. When someone buys a Beatles CD in the US, royalties got to Michael Jackson, because he bought the rights. Ringo and Paul get nothing. That is wrong.
Whether the framers of the constitution imagined that new media might exist in the future or not is irrelevant. Greedy bloodsuckers want to control every new medium that is created, to the detriment of the public and to artists. This was true of the printing press, player piano reels, the radio, and every new medium. Before the printing press, the wealthy elite controlled who would be taught to read and write!
Copyright was intended to benefit society as a whole, and creators in that order. It has become something that harms them only to enrich a scattered few undeserving bloodsuckers.
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:2)
I have worked in the music business as an artist, so I definitely don't need to be informed that it's rife with bloodsuckers. I was also appalled when MJ bought the Beatles catalog. The corporatization of copyright is another topic and if you want someone in the trenches with you to fight against that, then sign me up. I'll throw in advocacy against ridiculuous patents to boot. It doesn't contradict my view that copyright as a protection for the creator is a good thing.
I'm also with you on the impetus to art, but I can tell you from experience that the choice often comes down to create or thrive, largely because of the hammerlock that a corporate elite hold on the entertainment market. It is repugnant that artists have to sell out their work to the Vivendis of the world, and it has been and is my sincere hope that technology will level the playing field. We need to be vigilant to ensure that the entertainment cartels do not successfully position themselves as the regulators of technology, or we can kiss that dream goodbye. Part of that vigilance, IMO, is ensuring we take the right steps in resisting the corporate dominance. Those steps include not buying their products, but do not include infringing their copyrights, which puts the debate back on their terms and virtually guarantees they will win the specious legal protections they are seeking.
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:2)
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:1)
Okay, so you agree that copyright infringement isn't theft, although I take it you want to hold onto a position of "it's quite close to coming under a definition of larceny I managed to dig out"?
I suppose it rests upon whether you consider intangible works of equal status to material ones.
NO.
Valuing intangible works a lot doesn't turn copyright infringement into theft. Valuing them a really obessive amount doesn't turn it into murder either.
If you take from me, without my permission, without any legal right to do so and with the intention of permanently depriving me of it, a scrap of paper that I own that is of no particular value to me nor to anyone else then that is theft.
If instead of a scrap piece of paper it's a love letter of great personal value to me but no economic value to anyone, still theft.
If instead of that it's a valuable work of art, still theft.
If you copy something of mine then that is not theft, no matter how valuable the work is, no matter how devastating the effect is on me.
If you break my arm then that's not theft, even though my arm is of great value to me.
If you smash all the windows in my house that is not theft, even if the effect on me is essentially the same as if you'd managed to somehow remove the windows and run of with them (which would be theft).
Theft is a different offence to copyright infringement, and to murder, criminal damage, rape, treason, etc etc etc.
This is not about value. They are different offences. The mens rea differs. The actus reus differs. The available penalties differ. They are not the same.
If you want to convince people that copyright infringement is every bit as serious as theft then go ahead. But pretending it is theft just detracts from your point, because it gets you sidetracked. It's like vegetarians saying "meat is murder" it might be great for a giggle with other vegetarians, show how committed you are etc. but with anyone not already in agreement with you it just sets eyes rolling and leads the discussion awawy from what presumably actually matters to you i.e. that you think copyright infringement is a bad thing.
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:2)
At risk of going off-topic, can you explain "mens rea" and "actus reus". I could go back to the dictionary for a definition, but based on this post, I think I'd rather hear your explanation.
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:1)
Any intellectual work is strongly based on social environment, public knowledge and previous work. The very use of a language deserves some credit to the whole society.
So what portion of that work deserves exclusively to its author?
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:2)
Please lets not get into the interminable extensions to the copyright interval that have been pushed by Congress and their Hollywood masters. I am no defender of effectively unterminating corporate copyrights.
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:1, Flamebait)
[does spit-take with coffee into monitor; writes this one-handed while wiping the screen]
So now the pirates are wrapping themselves in the sari of Ahimsa?! Glad I read it here; If someone had told me this, I would not have believed it.
Thanks, son, for my laugh of the day.
Oh, wait, I just visited your homepage [furinkan.net].
Anime Fan-Fic, eh? Great God in Heaven, where do I begin...? I'd probably have an easier time finding some common ground with a cross-dressing Islamic fundamentalist... OK, try these two concepts:
[1] Imagine that all the manga, from which so much of the anime that floats your boat is based on, were to suddenly be given away for free. I'd say you'd be looking for a new hobby pretty quickly. Might I suggest butterfly-catching?
[2] Or, let's imagine that, instead of spending your time writing derivative work based upon that of another creator, you had enough talent to author an original story (I know it's a stretch, but work with me on this one, 'kay?). Let's even pretend that you had to support your family on the revenue you derived from the distribution of your masterpiece. Dat ol' information don't want to be so free anymore, now, does it, Bunky?
One last suggestion: Print out what you wrote here today, and save it in a cigar box, to be opened 20 years from now. This way, after you have become one of those "old people on the Internet" [furinkan.net] whom you abhor, and are about to chew some naive punk's head off in whatever constitutes a cyber-community in 2023, you'll show some restraint, being reminded of your own angry and idealistically naive youth.
It (usually) works for me.
Dude! (Score:2)
Seriously, that was majorly fscking funny!
Re:How you can *really* make a difference... (Score:1)
Re:you left out part ... - MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Bad Writing on TechFocus (Score:2, Insightful)
I hate to play the role of Grammar Police, but it's discouraging to see that TechFocus writers haven't even grasped the basics of proper English grammar.
It's supposed to be "a membership organization", not "an membership"!!
In the Real World, such poor use of the English language reflects very poorly on the organization.
Re:Bad Writing on TechFocus (Score:2)
In the Real World, poor use of the English language doesn't matter one bit. Read some magazine ads, especially ads in magazines for parents and families. If grammar mattered even a little bit, a third of those would never get printed.
mirror (Score:4, Informative)
Killing the market (Score:5, Interesting)
That about nails it right on the nose, doesn't it. If one doesn't hear/see/notice a product, then a sale is lost. If somebody notices the product, even if it's pirated, but then gets a legal copy or related merchandise, then the company benefits.
It makes me wonder about the attempted increase on taxation of recordable media in Canada. If the media becomes too expensive, what happens to companies like Sony who not only sell the original discs but also recordable media and the devices which use them (mp3-disc players, etc). Killing one's customer base off is rarely a smart move. Of course, how a private industry gains a tax is beyond me anyways
Re:Killing the market (Score:2)
Re:Killing the market (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also stupid for government to attempt (or succeed in) passing legislation that allows said companies to attack individuals, whether legally or via the previous RIAA-will-hack-you. P2P has an increasing amount of legal uses (distributed computing etc) and not everyone who trades music/video-clips or burns a CD is doing so illegally, as not all content is RIAA copyrighted.
Can I go around killing stupid people because I feel in the long run the human gene pool will benefit by having less of a chance of propgating stupidity within the human species?
Should I go around sueing people just because their product or other's use of said product conflicts with my business model? Should I be able to attack anyone who uses said product, based on the slightest evidence that it is used against me - even if this might not be the case. The RIAA seems to think so.
Re:Killing the market (Score:2)
You're assuming "big business" is the only entity that benefits from copyright. You're wrong there. Inividuals can, and do, own copyrights to their work. The fight against copyright is the fight against ALL artists and creators, not just "big business".
Should I go around sueing people just because their product or other's use of said product conflicts with my business model?
The consumer (read: geeks who think they know better) launched the first shot in this war. They came down hard on the businesses who rely on copyright to control distribution. The RIAA merely responded to the attack from Napster and its ilk. The internet doesn't really change the fact that one can own the rights to intellectual property. Geeks may tend to think so, but it simply is not true. The internet makes it easier to violate copyrighs but it does not mean the record and film industries business models are out of date. The consumer (once again read geeks who think they know better) does not have the right to break the law to affect change in teh way a company legally does business.
Re:Killing the market (Score:2)
Well, they can't very well blame all the world's problems on Big Danny's Home Video and Big Cindy and her SUV...
Re:Killing the market (Score:2)
Pop quiz. The people that wrote that Constitution: shining examples of law abiding citizens, or bloody handed insurrectionists that got to write the history books?
Name me an increase in civil rights in the USA that hasn't been achieved through protests, civil disobedience or outright armed rebellion.
Re:Killing the market (Score:2)
Re:Killing the market (Score:1)
When there's a law the vast majority of the people is over, but anyway the law is imposed, maybe there's a civilization, but it hardly would be called democratic.
Laws are always a compromise between all the citizens conforming a civilization. When a law is massively broken, it's a sympthom the law ought to be changed.
Re:Killing the market (Score:2, Interesting)
I am worried about this too. That levy amounts to plain theft (something like $20 per GB so an iPod would come to $1000). It sure beats any law US is passing to tax recordable media. Is there someone in Canada (like EFF) doing anything about it? Any pointers are much appreciated.
hyperlinks (Score:4, Interesting)
Pretty soon, people are going to stop using hyperlinks all together and just use google keywords. Maybe there should be a google:// .. I know if I'm in a conversation and someone wants a hyperlink, I say "google for (keyword) instead of using a url.
BTW, here is a link [eff.org] to the paper.
Re:hyperlinks (Score:1)
Pretty soon, people are going to stop using hyperlinks all together and just use google keywords. Maybe there should be a google:// .. I know if I'm in a conversation and someone wants a hyperlink, I say "google for (keyword) instead of using a url.
I already browse that way. See, I've got a real browser [mozilla.org], and with this browser I can configure it to use one of several search engines from the URL bar. I chose google, and so I just type in keywords in the URL bar, click Search (or use the arrow key to navigate to the google search choice in the dropdown menu and hit enter).
Re:hyperlinks (Score:2)
Re:hyperlinks (Score:1)
I use mozilla too and have it configured for google seach, but the search button is too far away to be useful. What I ment was having a whole link system, where you can click on a hyperlink that is a standard for google search. Like:
I know that's what you meant, but it would not be an open standard. I mean, the link itself would be part of an open standard, but it would depend on Google's proprietary search technology.
Now, if it was just a "search://In Soviet Russia" deal, it would be different, but then your end-users would expect drastically different results based on what they configured to use as their search protocol.
On the other hand, while the search button itself is too far to click, and in fact grabbing the mouse and moving it to click on a button after you type in your search terms is a pain, there is the other option, which is what I use most. When you start typing something into the URL bar, you usually get a combobox widget containing your history (also called the "history bar"). You can use your arrow keys to navigate down to a choice below urls that is a search choice. I realize this is a feature that can be turned off, but I find it extremely useful.
Admittedly, the solution we have isn't as good as a link you can just click on a page, but what you're talking about is a shorthand for "http://www.google.com/search?q=in+soviet+russia".
There's still another option, though. But it may require several additions to the standard.
First, a search attribute, such as:
<a href="search://in soviet russia" engine="www.google.com">Russian Google Search</a>
Second, more attribute choices for the link tag, that would define a search engine for the entire page.
Finally, a meta tag for the entire site that would define a search engine to use for the search protocol. Since this would have to be used on every page on account of the webmaster never knowing what page a visitor will enter the site, then this will be a fairly useless tag, actually.
Re:hyperlinks (Score:2)
Re:hyperlinks (Score:5, Informative)
gg:
into the Location bar and, viola! Google search on the words. Konqueror still has some bugs to work out, but it is a good browser. Much better than Netscape 4.x.
Back on topic: The most insightful remark in the interview has to be:
I cannot agree more with this. Friends of mine who have worked in congressional offices tell me that just ten letters on a single topic gets noticed. Why? Because there are probably ten people with similar feelings and thoughts on an issue for each one that actually writes. Many elections (esp. in the House) are won or lost by a few hundred or a few thousand votes. The mailbox and the ballot box are still your first best hope for Democracy.
I support the EFF [eff.org] also because lobbying is more direct than mailing and voting, but the influence of the EFF is enhanced with each letter your write. Write, write, write!
Re:hyperlinks (Score:1)
Re:hyperlinks -- Opera rocks (Score:2)
Re:hyperlinks (Score:2)
Re:hyperlinks (Score:1)
g keyword keyword2
Optimism: The Media Monsters Will Lose (Score:5, Interesting)
But lately the more I've thought about it, the more I've realized the media monsters are fighting a losing battle. They just can't win (in the long run.) Here are reasons why I think this:
So overall I think we, the people, will win in the long run. But it won't happen overnight and in the meantime we may be in for some rough times.
Re:Optimism: The Media Monsters Will Lose (Score:2, Insightful)
The trouble is, it's not likely to be you or your 8yr old cousin in the Senate or the judges office - it's likely to be the same sort of venal bastards as are there now.
Unless you radicalise your peers who are going into the law or politics, and impress on them the need to protect fair use, to take a balanced view of IP rights, etc. etc., they'll blithely take the **AA dollar and sing their tune.
Remember, there are very few Jeffersons and Lincolns around these days, and if they were, they'd be unlikely to put up with all the shit involved in getting into office.
Still, at least you haven't got idiots of Tony Blair's calibre in charge - Dubya's at least got the excuse of moderate intellect to justify his actions...
Re:Optimism: The Media Monsters Will Lose (Score:2)
This has got to be a wonderful example of "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, err, pond."
Thank you, I needed the laugh.
Re:Optimism: The Media Monsters Will Lose (Score:1)
Re:Optimism: The Media Monsters Will Lose (Score:1)
Yes, the old die, but they seem to be replaced by younger versions of their own kind.
Having grown up in the '60s and '70s, I expected to see a day when "our government" was peopled by peace-niks and environmentalists. Instead, we are itching to invade Iraq and seem to be handing national forests over to loggers at every opportunity.
There are exceptions, of course, but the general rule seems to be that the sons and daughters of the powerful inherit the power. Maybe it's nepotism, or maybe it's a genetic predispostion to want power. Whatever the cause, the only way to change things is for YOU to secure power and influence and then pass it on to YOUR children.
Rick.C - .sig-less, as were my parents
Re:Optimism: The Media Monsters Will Lose (Score:2)
Ah, young pup.
I remember during the sixties, when the old people were polluting our air, poisoning our water, and choosing to increase our dependence on foreign oil sources instead of developing new technologies. They were lying, stealing, and voting for republican-evil like Nixon and Reagan (in CA).
"The old will die" thought the boomers, "then we will be in control and things will be better. And the boomers did grow. And they did more than replaced the old-guard, they became just like them. And they started polluting our air, poisoning our water, and choosing to increase our dependence on foreign oil sources instead of developing new technologies. They were lying, stealing, and voting for republican-evil like Bush and Bush.
Your generation will grow up, and become like the old, for evil is insidious, and most people don't resist it.
Re:Optimism: The Media Monsters Will Lose (Score:1)
Yes I do agree with this and don't doubt that there will always be evil, power-hungry and greedy people in this world.
But come on, the internet and the information age we are currently in is different than the environmentalism that was started in the 1960s.
Enviromentalism tends to actually DEGRADE your life, in the short term. It is a pain in the butt to conserve gas and electricity. It sucks to drive a slow and cramped economy car when a gas-guzzling SUV is so much more powerful, larger, safer, more comfortable, etc. Recycling takes time and apparently even costs more for society (monetarily.) But we can hope that the long term benefits will be worth it. Of course most people prefer to benefit in the short term, which can be exemplified in all the SUVs on the road and how must trash is produced each day.
But on the contrary, having rights with our media and information is a great BENEFIT!!! No one REALLY wants to have all the restrictions, unless having those restrictions makes them more money in the short term (or in the case of politicians makes their contributors and lobbyists money.) So there is a short term benefit for some when we have these restrictions, but in the long term society as a whole suffers (which will also affect those who benefit in the beginning, whether they realize it or not.)
Also I just think the information age is a much more important and far reaching societal change than the environmentalism started in the 60s. People who have grown up with computers will be much less likely to restrict them than the old farts currently in office who can't even write an email and are actually AFRAID of computers and all the power it gives us.
So sure there will be evil people in the future, but even evil people want to be able to listen to their CDs wherever they want and be able to send email without a DRM publishing license.
Re:Optimism: The Media Monsters Will Lose (Score:2)
I don't think so. It looked that way for sure in the early nineties, but society has pretty much caught up with and regulated the 'net into submission. Witness what happened to Napster, the DMCA/EU-Infosoc, the way WIPO always hands over domains to big corporations, the DSL fiasco and so on. It's not going to get any better, even in the long run, only worse.
One day you'll wake up and the 'net will be nothing more than an advanced telephone somewhat integrated with a TV and a radio. Governments will regulate what you can do with it, how you can connect it and what you can watch/listen to on it. Just like they regulate the telecomms "market" and the airwaves today.
The technology to harness the 'net and its users is already on the drawing boards. Many big corporations are lining up to provide the necessary technology, Microsoft with Palladium and Intel with LaGrande, to just name two of the more important ones.
Re:Optimism: The Media Monsters Will Lose (Score:2)
I'd just like to point out the things the entertainment cartel is doing affect much more than this. I'd rewrite the paragraph more like this:
...Once Joe can't use his cellphone when someone walks by playing RIAA music or record his wedding with a camcorder, or when Aunt Tillie can't publish her nutbread recipie on the internet anymore...
Not only is the cartel trying to take away everyone's right to use cartel products in a fair manner, they are also trying to take away free speech and the common person's right to use their own property!
This issue is more important and far ranging than (Score:5, Insightful)
It really amounts to the beginning of the Decline of Western Civilization.
Go back to around the tenth century, for a moment. Islamic civilization was supreme. Science was seen as learning about God and his works, rather than being in conflict with religion. Eventually the Islamic dominance came under seige for other reasons, but they lost that attitude toward science. European civilization picked it up, and the era of Western dominance began.
Nor do I mean to hold up Science as a religion. For my working definition, Science is the mindset that we can study and attempt to understand the Universe and its contents. For the religious, this really is learning about God and his works, essentially the old Muslim belief.
But now for the decline of the West... We have apparently decided that the current business models of the entertainment industry are more important than digital innovation. Both the legislation *and the attitude under which we crafted that legislation* are significant. Recently there was a blurb about the Bush Administration wanting science to have a "conservative tilt." Science has always been used and tilted, but AFAIK never as a piece of public policy. New Age pseudoscience is on the rise - creation "science", crystals, magnets, copper bracelets, etc.
Essentially, the West is beginning to turn its collective back on science and progress - to remain comfortable in what is known or at least doesn't require really hard work. (like math) Most of what I mention happens in the US, but those same things have analogs around the rest of the Western world, so don't pretend non-US shouldn't worry.
Obviously this isn't universal. There are people fighting these trends, there are people still studying science, math, etc. Presumably the trend is still reversible, I hope. But it's there, it's growing, and it lends another chunk of urgency to the FSF's fight.
Science as public policy... (Score:2)
I'll keep this short.
Does the name Galileo Galilei ring a bell? You remember, the guy that was branded a heretic for saying the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. Who branded him a heretic? Why, the Catholic church, which just happened to control most European governments at the time, one way or another.
Science as a tool of public policy is standard practice for *any* long-standing established govenment.
And "intellecutal property" problems? Look into how many English people came to the Colonies in the 1700s so they could use patened machines without paying patent fees. It's amazing how much industry came here for that reason. Lots of textiles, for example.
What is the quote from Plato? "The youth these days, they have no respect for their elders." There are no new problems, only people with a poor knowledge of history. (And I count myself in that group.)
Re:Science as public policy... (Score:2)
But you also prove my point. None of your examples look good or were good in the long run. IMHO the only good public science policy is to foster education and research. Controls should be minimal safeguards for public safety, and facts have enough misinterpretation problems without adding an official slant to it.
Re:Science as public policy... (Score:2)
Science should have two distinct goals, with requirements set as makes sense for those goals.
Simply because scientific learning has so many interesting unintended consequences (who knew the Mercury program would put a microwave oven in my kitchen?) basic scientific research (the Research part of R&D) should have as few external requirements as possible.
Directed research for the point of specific applications (the Development part of R&D, rather than the Research part) should have as many controls as whoever is providing the money wants to put in it.
Of course, all this really did is shift the argument to defining what is research, and what is development. Exactly where you draw the line becomes significant.
This also leads to another argument about how much funding/time should be spent on research, and how much on development. My impression (based on not enough data, I admit) is that a lot of research is being abandoned to focus more on development. That's sad, and will cost us as a society in the next 100 years or so.
agree and disagree (Score:2)
When I rail against "science as a tool of public policy," it's precisely against slanting of results of basic research according to a political agenda. Again, enough slanting gets done already without making it a part of official policy.
Re:This issue is more important and far ranging th (Score:2)
*Ahem*. AFAIK there are no other western countries seriously considering teaching "creationism" in schools alongside or instead of evolution and natural selection. I think the US has more or less cornered the market on falling ass-backwards back into the dark ages. Read any book by Stephen Baxter [amazon.co.uk], but in particular Titan, for a dark view of where this might lead.
Re:This issue is more important and far ranging th (Score:2)
Re:This issue is more important and far ranging th (Score:1)
A disturbance in the force... (Score:1)
I felt like some pseudo-asian Obe Wan was staring at me saying, "These aren't the copyright lawsuits you're looking for."
Changing attitudes (Score:5, Interesting)
I find this interesting. In my experience, it's often those who are comfortable with technology that have attitudes which, IMHO, are counter-productive to intellectual property and copyright concerns. For example, I was recently talking with a friend (who happens to be in a very technical graduate program), and mentioned some CD that I was thinking of buying, but that I wasn't sure if I was going to have the cash. And my friend says, "Why not just download it?" I didn't want to get into an argument, so I made an excuse about wanting the better sound quality of the CD, knowing that it was ripped to MP3 by me and my standards, wanting the liner notes, etc. But I was taken aback that downloading the album seemed to be the default to my friend, and that paying for the album was more of a last resort option. And despite my views on record labels and price-fixing and DRM legislation and such, I don't think that violating current copyright law by downloading an album instead of buying it is the way to go.
So what's the point in all of this? I'm wondering how much the technical people need "told about EFF issues and why they matter" vs. non-technical people. My non-tech mom would be outraged if she suddenly couldn't record an episode of Babylon 5 from the TV -- as well she should be. But if this happened, I'm sure she would switch cable companies, buy a non-DRM recording device, or whatever would be required that would send a message to those who want unfair controls on intellectual property. But my tech friends would just find a way to download the material from somewhere. Perhaps technical and non-technical people alike need told about why these issues matter, and how the actions they take (for those who choose to download CDs, or share TV shows, or whatever) or don't take (like my mom not being concerned about the issues because so far, they haven't affected her) have an impact on all of us.
Food for thought. Hopefully I won't be marked as a troll or start a flamewar.
Cool (Score:1)
We bitch about /.'ed sites but then once in a while you guys do The Right Thing. Kudos.
Re:No, no kudos yet (Score:1)
Letter to my congressman (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I felt that in a half-page letter I couldn't get all the details in. And I should have included a referral to a URL for him to get more information. Oh well, it's already in the mail, I'll do better next letter.
----
Dear Representative Bishop,
I don't often write my Congressional representatives, but I feel the need to do so in this case. I'm writing to encourage your support of HR 5544, "The Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2002", introduced by Reps. Boucher and Doolittle.
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), while well-intentioned, has resulted in a massive power grab by the entertainment and media cartels. The grant of copyright by the citizens of this country to copyright holders was never intended by our founding fathers to be a bludgeon with which large corporations can force citizens and non-citizens into only writing software or publications of which they approve. It was granted as a measure to encourage new works, for limited times, by the author(s) who created an original work. Now it is being abused in an attempt to control not only the copying of works, but when, where, and how a legal purchaser of a copyrighted work can use it.
The DMCA has been appropriated by many companies now to prevent the publication of material which is not in their best interest, to prosecute competitors into oblivion with court cases rather than competing on product merit, and to silence would-be critics and whistle-blowers. We're now in a situation where a law is being abused by organizations to limit the free political and economic speech of individuals, and those individuals have insufficient resources to defend themselves from deep-pockets corporations in court.
HR 5544, while principally focussed on requiring media companies to label intentionally defective compact discs designed to prevent playback on non-approved devices, also includes a brief amendment to the DMCA which would be a valuable step towards preventing the egregious abuses of power currently trampling the first amendment landscape. Please support this bill, particularly the "Sec. 5. Fair Use Amendment", and restore the rights of scientific research, fair use, and free speech to the copyright landscape.
With kind regards,
Matthew P. Barnson
P.S. See also the Electronic Frontier Foundation's information regarding the unintended consequences of the DMCA by searching Google for "DMCA unintended consequences"
Support the EFF? Not me... (Score:2)
I agree with the EFF on spam (Score:2)
Spam is crippling the usefulness of email, and measures should be taken to curb spam, but we don't need to completely stop all unsolicited commercial email. All we need to do is go after the perpetrators of fraudulent spam for fraud, not spam... A movement in this direction is beginning in the us government. One of the most important things to recognize is that a bogus link for getting removed from a mailing list, is fraud. If opting out actually worked, instead of bringing more spam, I don't think spam would be such a hassle. So I say, let the legitimate (non-fraudulent, even if they are assholes) ones continue doing business, and bust the ones that are criminals, because they are the ones really crippling email.
Re:I agree with the EFF on spam (Score:3, Insightful)
Electronic mail is not an advertising medium. It's a one-to-one communications medium. Allowing anyone, commercial or not, to hijack it is what will destroy it...and that's happening today.
You miss the point (Score:2)
If I am wrong, and the elimination of fraudulent spam doesn't reduce the mail server load, maybe then it is time to consider legislation, but even them I would favor national opt-out lists like we will (hopefully) have for telemarketing.
one more thing, don't try the any spam burden is unacceptable because it is not their equipment argument. There are many situations in which you are recuired to use your own resources to benifit the comunity (shoveling snow off your sidewalk comes to mind).
Re:You miss the point (Score:2, Insightful)
criminal. That is, according to the laws where I live. If the 23 states of the US that have outlawed spam actually enforced those laws, maybe a small dent in the flow could be seen. Then again, spammers would just move their operations elsewhere. Ralsky is mostly spamming from
Free speech? Okay - let them have an ISP that lets them spam all they want. Exellent - everyone
can block that ISP off and forget them. Free speech does not compel anyone to listen, does it?
I do shovel snow outside my house, actually, I just take exception to the neighbour dumping his snow on my property. Especially when the temperature is below -15 C
Umm... Wrong meeting. (Score:1)
Re:How do you feel about Lindows? (Score:2)
Re:How do you feel about Lindows? (Score:4, Interesting)
actually though, why hasn't