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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Censorship Spam Your Rights Online

EFF Chairman Interviewed 104

Posted by michael from the two-fer dept.
mpawlo writes "I have just published an interview with Mr Brad Templeton, chairman of the board of the EFF, over at Greplaw. Mr Templeton presents, among other things, his view on spam and freedom of speech among. If that's not enough, there is also a rather unique tongue-in-cheek interview with Professor Lessig."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EFF Chairman Interviewed More

EFF Chairman Interviewed

Comments Filter:

  • Maybe he could explain what they actually do (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 31, 2003 @01:34PM (#6582042)
    I donated about a $100 per year to EFF foundation before, but I will stop the practice this year. I am not sure what the goal of the foundation and how it helps the simple folk anymore.

    A friend of mine lived in Germany and was harassed by the local hand of IFPI, which I guess would correspond to RIAA over here. All I wanted from EFF was a simple consultation on what should be done. Specifically since the German IFPI wanted a $300 fine not to take the matter to the court.

    Two e-mails to EFF from their contact page and dead silence, as if you're e-mailing a black hole. If I had not donated $300 to EFF in years before but just gave the money to my friend to pay the fine, I'd be better off.

  • Usenet Useful (Score:4, Informative)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Thursday July 31, 2003 @01:34PM (#6582043) Homepage
    Well surprising it is especially to check out spammers to see if they have a history before they signup for account. Of course groups.google.com makes it all nice and easy to search

    Rus

  • USENET not stagnant (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 31, 2003 @01:37PM (#6582063)
    even though USENET has stagnated and not added much new since the 80s, it's still the best way to read an online conversation. None of the web message boards come even close to the speed and ease of use.

    USENET has not stagnated. Not much has been added since the 80s because nothing more was needed. Even with all this p2p nonsense, USENET continues in its near-perfect simplicity and utility. If you're one of these puckered-rectum FAQ Nazis, USENET is chaos. If you're willing to do due diligence of your own filtering and scanning, USENET consistently delivers great text info and binaries.
    • In 1988, I could ask a question on a USENET newsgroup, and as long as the question was relatively mainstream among the particular crowd that I was asking (e.g. in the C programming group, if I asked about a pointer management problem), I would get several answers withing a day.

      Today, when I ask very straight-forward questions on USENET groups that are focused on the specific issue that I'm asking about, I get nothing.

      Why? Because no one READS USENET any more. Sure, there are a hand-full of die-hards, but
      • Im going to completely disagree with you here. I'll post to Usenet, and get several relevant answers, usually within hours. Of course, I have to weed through a few GET VIAGRA ~FREEE GNFDJS posts, but hey....

        I guess it all depends on what information you are looking for. With well over 67671 groups (on my news server at least), are you sure you are asking in the right place?
      • um, yeeaaah, i'm going to have to uuuuhhhhh, disagree with you here.
      • Have you been smokin son? Whatever the question, I first google the relevant news groups, then google the web if nothing comes up. news groups almost always give me waht I want. Else I post a question on the group itself. again I get excellent answers.

        I also stick around while I learn the particular package in full, and offer new passers by the answers others were nice enough to offer me.


        • > I also stick around while I learn the particular package in full, and offer new passers by the answers others were nice enough to offer me.

          Yeah, I feel a social obligation to hang around long enough to answer several newbie questions that are even simpler than mine, partly to "pay" for the service I'm getting, and partly to unload the burden on the gurus so they'll have time to cover the hard questions.

    • Re:USENET not stagnant (Score:5, Insightful)

      by btempleton ( 149110 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @02:39PM (#6582495) Homepage
      What I mean is that USENET has stagnated, innovation wise. It's very difficult to do something new (both technologically, and socially) in USENET, and that's not because it's already perfect.

      The web is not this way. Anybody can build anything they can think of into a web site over a fairly broad range of possibles. It's their web site, there is nobody there to approve or disapprove. If people like it, they read the site, if not, they don't.

      Proposing something new on USENET results in mostly flamewars. Imagine having to have a vote before you can put up a new website!

      At the same time USENET retains some core functions not found on the web. In its true form -- reading news from a local or very nearby server at LAN speed -- it provides a response time that is unmatched. Instant response has a profound affect on UI. You can do things you would not tolerate doing with even a 500ms delay on your clicks as is typical even of fast web sites.

      And it's aimed at conversation, with good thread support, fancy killfile facilities in many readers, and most importantly a basic understanding of what you have read and what you haven't. You can handle a much larger discussion group in USENET than you can with mailing lists, or web boards for example.

      But, counter to this, web boards have had the ability to innovate. Slash was able to add the moderation point system because they wanted it to, and it's vital to a system as big as /. (Even though in total posting volume, /. is a tiny fraction of the size of USENET.)

      USENET is not stagnant in terms of discussions, or the creation of alt groups, but go ahead and try to name the recent innovations there. DejaNews/Google is about the last thing to make a big difference, and that didn't even come from USENET.

      I must say I wish I had seen this thread right away and then I could have done a "first post" and had the only such post to get modded up. :-)
      • That was a great interview. I was particularily impressed with your big-picture view of civil rights. You mentioned the DMCA and it's general effect. Why doesn't the EFF do this? Sure, the EFF's literature claims that the DMCA infringes freedom of speech and hampers competition. But the EFF doesn't but it into words that ordinary people can understand.

        The 2600 case came down to a legitimate business versus a couple pirates trying to weasel their way out of a lawsuit. The court didn't seem to realize

    • Usenet is still the king, no holds barred. PAN for binaries and groups.google.com for text. Perfect.

  • Usenet not Useful? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IcebergSlim ( 450399 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @01:41PM (#6582098)
    # You were involved in the early days of Usenet. Today, Usenet news seems to me to be only slightly more useful than the average Nigerian scam letter. Are you disappointed?

    Not at all. What's amazing is that even though USENET has stagnated and not added much new since the 80s, it's still the best way to read an online conversation.

    I couldn't disagree more. While there are definitely groups that have unfortunately descended into the chaos of uncontrollable spam and retarded flame-wars, many are thriving with great information. Even the ones infested with crap can be useful by using Google Groups search to glean the content out.

    • if you are already on google, why not do a search for what you are looking for? I have never found much useful information from anything on USENET. I stopped using it MANY YEARS ago.

      Like a +5 post just said, "if you do you own scanning and filtering" it's full of good binaries and text.

      So's the web. In this interview it was said that the web is not as good as USENET.

      What's the difference then?
      • What kinds of information do you specifically look for on Usenet? Give me an example and I'll do a search to see if I can find useful info.

        I'd never say Usenet is better than the web --- they're totally different 'animals'. I would say that Usenet is better for certain things, though. The Usenet archive purchased from Deja by Google allows you to go back decades to find information that would have expired long ago on the web. Looking for information on a vague system error? Try Google Groups sometime
    • It sounds like you agree with Templeton.
      • I just didn't agree with the interviewer's statement that Usenet is no longer useful, or Templeton's statement that Usenet had stagnated.

        I do agree with him that it can be a great place to have an online discussion; it's sometimes necessary to plonk a few individuals beforehand, but by no means is it difficult as many in here suggest.

  • Lawrence Lessig owes me a hug! (Score:3, Funny)

    by otter42 ( 190544 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @01:43PM (#6582112) Homepage Journal
    Quote--

    Most great things in the world are for girls. I'm happy to embrace as many as I can.

    (Unless he's French. In this case, I forbid him to m'embrasser.)

  • Professor Lawrence Lessig says "Most great things in the world are for girls. I'm happy to embrace as many as I can." All your base are belong to the girls

  • spam and copyright laws (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Trelane, the Squire ( 608266 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @01:50PM (#6582168)
    Already, I notice more and more of my phone solicitations are done by cheaper labour in India. Telephony has become as global and cheap as E-mail, but some people don't know that yet.
    and I'll bet when companies do realize this, and the calls start flowing as frequently as email spam, the backlash will be severe enough to take care of both problems. I just hope it doesn't destroy my freedoms with its severity.
    Lessig on copyrights:

    No copyright protection at all for any software whose source code is not deposited.

    This struck me as reasonable. Either I trust the government to keep my stuff safe, or I try to keep it safe myself. It's when I try to keep it safe myself, yet task the government with going after anyone I say is using my stuff, that things get sticky... I could use the government to try to stop competition.

    • Re:spam and copyright laws (Score:5, Interesting)

      by RevMike ( 632002 ) <revMike@gmail. c o m> on Thursday July 31, 2003 @02:08PM (#6582280) Journal
      >>No copyright protection at all for any software whose source code is not deposited.

      This struck me as reasonable. Either I trust the government to keep my stuff safe, or I try to keep it safe myself. It's when I try to keep it safe myself, yet task the government with going after anyone I say is using my stuff, that things get sticky... I could use the government to try to stop competition.

      I agree as well, although the 10 years might be a little steep for software. Patents should probably be thrown into the mix as well, with a graduated expiration based on the area of knowledge. Business Process patents would be very short - 3 years. Software patents would run about 7, perhaps. Things like pharmacueticals, with tremendous R&D costs, would still get protection for about 20 years.

      The other issue with copyright I'd like to see addressed is "continuous use". My idea is that certain types of copyrighted work would continue to be protected provided that it was in continual use. For instance, since Disney continues to use the Mickey Mouse character on an ongoing basis, Mickey Mouse works continue to be covered by copyright. Ian Flemming's James Bond character also would be covered since every few years a new movie is released. Once a work is "abandoned" - not used for perhaps 5 years, however, a clock starts ticking for a copyright expiration in, say, 15 years rather than 75.

      Taking a traditional Locke property view of copyrights: As long as a farmer is continuing to till his soil every season, there is no reson to take the farm away from him. Once he abandons his farm, perhaps because he can't till it profitably, others should have a chance to give it a try.

      • The other issue with copyright I'd like to see addressed is "continuous use". My idea is that certain types of copyrighted work would continue to be protected provided that it was in continual use. For instance, since Disney continues to use the Mickey Mouse character on an ongoing basis, Mickey Mouse works continue to be covered by copyright. Ian Flemming's James Bond character also would be covered since every few years a new movie is released. Once a work is "abandoned" - not used for perhaps 5 years, ho

      • Continual use is not sufficient, because the content SHOULD go to the public eventually. Although, Lessig does have a proposal to require a charge of $1 for copyrighted works, which would allow vast amounts of stuff that is copyrighted, but has not been claimed or used, to fall into the public domain. Still, it's not the complete solution.

      • software patents (Score:4, Insightful)

        by brlewis ( 214632 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @02:41PM (#6582506) Homepage
        How about we respect the opinions of the US Supreme Court for a change, and not allow software patents at all?
      • Software patents of seven years (or shorter) duration would not be a good idea. Given the incredibly low standard most patent offices (in America and Europe) apply, a company can simply apply for twice as many patents to cover the fact that they last half as long. If you are currently infringing 4000 (trivial) software patents held by Lucent, then with a seven year duration you'd probably be infringing about 2000. They can still shake you down for money.

        It would be interesting to see an economic study a
      • There is no traditional lockean approach to copyrights. Copyrights are utilitarian, not lockean. Locke can go to hell -- he has no place in a discussion of IP.
      • For instance, since Disney continues to use the Mickey Mouse character on an ongoing basis, Mickey Mouse works continue to be covered by copyright.

        As far as I know that has already been taken care of. It is called a trademark. Trademarks protect characters such as Mickey Mouse in parrallel with copyright. Trademark will not expire at all unless they are not defended. And that is the most ridiculous part of the copyright extension. Disney DOES NOT need it to protect the character of Mickey Mouse... they

        • I don't think it'll work. It's only barely been touched on in the courts, due to the situation not arising much, but a trademark is basically an inferior right to a copyright; it cannot supplant it. Congress isn't allowed to grant anything that can do the work of a copyright that isn't one, or that lasts forever.

          If the work falls into the public domain, I see little chance of a trademark surviving. Disney seems to have thought so too, as otherwise they wouldn't've bothered with the CTEA.
      • Define "use" though.

        Let's take a cartoon character that's been languishing for awhile that is dangerously close to your 5 year rule. Simple solution: Make a Tshirt ($10), slap it on some kid in some movie somewhere, and now it's "used" (to make it more legitimate, maybe charge $10 as a licensing fee for that movie). Have a bunch? Make a Tshirt with a giant collage of them. Same deal.

        Basically, you'd end up creating another beaurocratic system arguing semantics over "use", all at tax-payer expense, an

    • Re:spam and copyright laws (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Steve B ( 42864 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @02:22PM (#6582363)
      This struck me as reasonable. Either I trust the government to keep my stuff safe, or I try to keep it safe myself.

      Note that this is precisely the legal regime that applies to physical products -- you can either have a patent, or a trade secret, but not both.

  • triumph of the commons (Score:5, Insightful)

    by urbazewski ( 554143 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @01:56PM (#6582209) Homepage Journal
    Not a lot, other than if that spectrum were made unlicenced, there would be an internet-like explosion of communications tech in wireless.

    In fact, that's already going on, with just a few tiny bands opened up.

    Oddly, a reverse of that tragedy of the commons I spoke about above, because spectrum allows sharing very nicely with everybody doing their own thing.

    In the 90's a whole bunch of economists, led by Hal Varian at Berkeley and J. MacKie-Mason (still at Michigan I think), churned out a whole bunch of papers about the impending and inevitable "tragedy of the commons" on the Internet --- the whole enterprise was going to come to a grinding halt if one of their pricing schemes wasn't implemented soon.

    It still amazes me how little they understood about the incentives for innovation, and how little their incorrect predictions mattered to their careers/credibility. Not too surprisingly, many of these same economists have argued that a private licensing of spectrum through auctions will increase efficiency, even as it kills innovation.

  • Balance of copyright (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Magic Thread ( 692357 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @02:07PM (#6582278) Homepage Journal
    From the Lessig interview:
    # Speaking of copyright - what would a Lessig balance of copyright look like? Would you regulate books and computer programs different?


    Deposit requirement.
    Registration requirement.
    Anyone else think these two are unreasonable? They deal no harm to huge corporations of the kind that now own our culture, but they would be a major obstacle to people who just want to make stuff. If I had to go fill out forms and spend money every time I wrote an article or composed a song, I would do much less of those things.

    • Re:Balance of copyright (Score:5, Interesting)

      by RevMike ( 632002 ) <revMike@gmail. c o m> on Thursday July 31, 2003 @02:14PM (#6582317) Journal
      >>Deposit requirement.

      >>Registration requirement.

      Anyone else think these two are unreasonable? They deal no harm to huge corporations of the kind that now own our culture, but they would be a major obstacle to people who just want to make stuff. If I had to go fill out forms and spend money every time I wrote an article or composed a song, I would do much less of those things.

      It depends alot on how difficult it is to register your work. If it was a simple and free web form/ftp to the library of congress, probably not big deal (to us - there would need to be methods for the non-computer literate as well).

      If you needed to spend $10, you probably wouldn't bother with some things.

      If you needed to spend $1000, well, that would really suck and would stifle creativity.

      As a major side benefit, all the works would automatically be freely available from a set of libraries as soon as the copyrights expired.

    • Re:Balance of copyright (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Thursday July 31, 2003 @03:18PM (#6582791) Journal
      The whole point is that he doesn't want things like Slashdot comments to have automatic, near-infinite copyrights.

      He wants most things (emails, notes, blogs) to be free of copyright. Copyright would only apply to things that actually had some cost in their production, and would not get produced without copyright.

      That means that instead of having a giant WWW full of copyrighted material, you'd have a giant WWW full of the public domain.
      • Has he forgotten that the intent of copyright is to get people to make stuff? I wouldn't write most of my e-mails, notes, and blogs if I couldn't copyright them. I also compose songs and distribute them on the Internet, but if I couldn't copyright them, I would keep them to myself. And maybe not even make them to begin with.
        • You would be able to copyright them. Larry Lessig doesn't want to stop you. However, if you wish to do so, you'd need to make a point to request a copyright.

          The reason for this is that there are many things that no one ever desired a copyright for, but they are still prevented from being used/archived/etc due to automatic copyrights. So we lose helpful but forgotten material. This has only been going on since the mid 60s, and it only happened because content industries didn't want to have to compete with f
        • Yeah, but the intent isn't _just_ to get people to make stuff. The intent is to benefit the public. The public _may_ be benefited if you make stuff, but the public is also benefited by having a healthy public domain.

          I sincerely doubt that you would cease your personal correspondence with people if it weren't copyrighted. I don't think that anyone writes letters to their friends because they think they'll be able to profit off of them later should they be published.

          If something is to be copyrighted, it sho

          • the author should be willing to jump through some hoops, so secure is he that his work will later profit him. If he's not, it seems rather wasted to give him protection for something he doesn't value economically. I say economically because copyright only benefits an author in that fashion; if an author wants to create art for art's sake, or wants the fame, he'll be encouraged without the copyright.

            That's where you're wrong, assuming it's all about profit. I happen to be a vegetarian, and if I wrote a son

            • That's where you're wrong, assuming it's all about profit. I happen to be a vegetarian, and if I wrote a song that was then used by some food company in a commercial for a meat product, that would displease me greatly. Copyright allows me to prevent such a scenario. For at least the term of the copyright, I won't be inadvertently supporting something I don't like.

              But this isn't a copyright goal. Consider the First Sale and Fair Use doctrines.

              In fact, in your scenario, you're dead wrong. All the food comp

              • In fact, in your scenario, you're dead wrong. All the food company needs to do is have a performer who's willing to work for them play your song per the compulsory license. Using your song in their ad without your permission is entirely legal even during the copyright term.

                I've researched this compulsory license concept just now, and it's very interesting. Thanks for alerting me to it. Still, that's a special case; my general point still holds.

                No. Only every time you want a copyright in it [

                must you spe

                • I wasn't considering things like /. posts as "creative works."

                  They are. I don't have a problem with that, however I don't want to have to worry about them being copyrighted unless the author wants them to be above a certain threshold. The mere desire is too damn expansive.

                  What I don't like about having to pay money and register copyrights is that it will be easier for those with deeper pockets to register copyrights. Copyrighting should not be a privilege reserved for the rich.

                  Maybe, but as a general
                  • No, they're not.
                    Oh, that was a nice rebuttal. Care to elaborate, or is that all I'm getting?
                    • The public has numerous desires with regards to creative works. Satisfying these desires as much as possible is the single core goal of copyright law.

                      They include, but aren't limited to: that original works will be created; that derivative works will be created; that such works will be freely available (in terms of price and ease of acquisition); that such works will be preserved for posterity; that such works will be able to form the basis of later derivative works; that such works can be used and enjoyed

  • Is it a revolution? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Phoenix666 ( 184391 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @02:20PM (#6582348)
    I wonder. On the one hand, there are 60 million Americans out there ending the old media cartels one download at a time, and that's a very good thing and it's revolutionary. But on the other hand, the online community seems utterly paralyzed in terms of taking real political action against those powers-that-be who are trying to take our rights away. Whether it be privacy or the DMCA or monopoly behavior, everytime they announce some new scheme to disenfranchize us, the answer from the online community is a deafening silence.

    The EFF is a very good organization, and they're doing a lot of good work on our behalf. But they're more like the ACLU of cyberspace than, say, the Sierra Club or NRA. What we need is a membership organization that can carefully target politicians like Tauzin or Berman who do not vote our way. When millions of voters and campaign contributors speak, then, and only then, does the government listen.
    • there are 60 million Americans out there ending the old media cartels one download at a time...

      The EFF is a very good organization, and they're doing a lot of good work on our behalf. But they're more like the ACLU of cyberspace than, say, the Sierra Club or NRA.

      Don't forget the AARP. The "Gray Panthers" are by far the most powerful lobby group in the USA.

      People very infrequently vote on a single issue. Voters tend to look at a handful of important issues and decide that they agree or diagree with

    • I don't think so. A lot of folks here like to say that touring is where the money's at with bands and I, as a musician, strongly disagree. Smaller acts mostly take losses on tours, CD sales at the merch table typicall lessens the effect (and pays for gas and dinner to the next town), not to mention that TOURING FUCKING SUCKS (you try living with 5 of your friends in a van for a couple months. Chances are, you won't be friends afterwards. Even if you do live through it, it's still a miserable (albeit rew

    • The EFF doesn't find cute baby harp seal cases (Score:4, Insightful)

      by geekotourist ( 80163 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @04:53PM (#6583425) Journal
      As a side note, the EFF as a non-profit has strict rules about what it can do politically. Non-profits cannot support or fight against particular candidates, so another organization needs to do this. At the same time you still need the EFF's work to prevent the "Because the internet scares me I'll weaken it" attempts by politicians and the law in the first place.

      The EFF's major 'problem' is that they attempt to work on major issues long before most people would recognize that the issue exists. Back in 1989, how many people would know what a BBS is, let along why it isn't constitutional to seize an entire email server to check out one person's email? The EFF is fighting the equivalent of Physical and Link layer issues, while most people can only really get worked up about Application layer issues. The EFF's fights are the "why we need to protect plankton and krill" issues of the online world- critically important but doesn't have big-eyed sympathetic megafauna that photographs well symbols.

      Nor does the EFF get to choose sympathetic posterboy cases. Much as the EFF would love to take on a "RIAA threatens to eat babies at the widows and orphans facility" case, the XXAA is never going to give them one. They get 2600, not the NYTimes. They get Hamadi, not the girl scouts.

      But by fighting the one case early on, however obscure or unsympathetic, the EFF is preventing a whole timeline of worse court cases later on. So donate! [eff.org] with this quote from the interview in mind:

      " ...if you agree with us 75% of the time you should donate some money. If you agree with us 50% of the time you should be on the board.


      The issues the EFF deals with are novel and contentious, and we are rarely all of one view..."
    • i think eventually the Internet will help change lots of things, but it is going to take a long time. our (the US) Democracy is slow to change, which is a good thing. and things may get worse (DMCA) before they get better (shorter copyrights?)

      for example, in presidential elections (to choose the most famous but not necessarily most important election, for these issues anyway) i don't think the Internet has yet played a major role. i don't think Bush was elected because of his use of a new medium to acc

  • Templeton as head of EFF is ironic (Score:3, Interesting)

    by russotto ( 537200 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @02:58PM (#6582626) Journal

    There's something very ironic about Brad Templeton, who once proposed the banning of alt.binaries.pictures.* on copyright grounds, being the head of the EFF, when the greatest threat to "electronic freedom" is copyright.

    Brad Templeton in 1993:

    Indeed, the binary groups are not all violations, but some binary groups are mostly violations, and groups that are mostly violations must be taken from your system if you want to avoid participation in organized copyright violation.

  • I wish the EFF would make a simple statement... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    'The EFF is against copyright infringement on principle. Copyright infringement is, as of this time, illegal. Those who contribute to the EFF because they are 'for file sharing' and then share copyrighted music do a double disservice to the organization - first, they have a mistaken impression of what the EFF supports (which is the free distribution of information not bound by copyright or other restrictions), and two, they no doubt share this mistaken belief with others, giving the impression that the EFF
    • That copyrights are not a right, and aren't as great as they're cracked up to be, and infact they're outright immoral. That they riun peoples lives who are most often creative people and artists (look at the crap in hollywood culture), and they stagnate the entire economey except for the infinitesimal few (whoopie, I can get a 100$ copyright monopoly, but loose out on over a trillion $ worth of info that's out there - thanks)

      Finally, as our society enters into the information age - there can be no middle

      • This is refreshing to hear (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It is seriously morally wrong, always, for the economic or political benefit of one individual or group over one's peers, to prevent, regulate, or stifle the copying of information, expressions, and ideas by telling and enforcing the lie that those things which can be freely distributed, can not be.

        You have an obligation to your brothers and sisters of this world to foster physical well being and to encourage and see to their intellectual and moral advancement, especially to do these things even when were
    • I certainly can't speak for the EFF, and for this issue I don't think any individual at the EFF could speak for it either: In the interview Brad states that board members have divergent views on this issue.

      That said, the statement 'Copyright infringement is wrong.' is an very complicated set of concepts and assumptions boxed up in a seemingly simple set of 4 words. I think the EFF should and does focus on better statements like "Protecting free speech is right" and "Protecting technological innovation is ri

    • Indeed... The EFF's "File Sharing: It's Music to our Ears [eff.org]" campaign sends a message that seems to endorse copying others' works.

      It seems the message should be encouraging Creative Commons and GPL for those that choose that route, and respect for those that don't.

      The typical "RIAA vs. freedom" spin turns a blind eye to all the small independents that also sell their work, and not just musicians, but software developers and so on.

      I make software for playing music over the Web (Andromeda [turnstyle.com]) and I'd like th

  • Lessig's ideas are unconstitutional (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geekee ( 591277 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @03:23PM (#6582822)
    " # Speaking of copyright - what would a Lessig balance of copyright look like? Would you regulate books and computer programs different? 14 year term, renewable to 28 for all but computer programs. Deposit requirement. Registration requirement. Vastly limited "derivative rights". 10 years for software max, if and only if, the source code is deposited. No copyright protection at all for any software whose source code is not deposited. "

    The idea that you need to deposit a work to copyright it is ridiculous. It's a scam where "the public" tries to benefit unfairly from an individual by forcing him to turn over a work to the public in order to get protection from the public. In the US, if I write something, whether I release it to no one or sell to anyone, I still retain the exclusive copyright. This is particularly important in the case of software, since there is not necessarily a motive to sell the source to the public. Lessig wants to force every company into a BSD style coding license after 10 years, however, or receive no protection for written software (if you refuse to deposit). This is a direct attack on proprietary software, as well as GPLed software, since both lose copyright in a very short time, after which anyone is free to copy out of a public archive and do as they wish with it.
    • I disagree. How much software is commercially viable after 10 years? Besides, any law such as the one Lessig proposes would be consitutional as the constitution states:

      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;

      Thus, as long as it could be proven that their requirements promotes progress, they can change the copyright laws, as long as it's for a limited time. Copyright's an unna

    • Yes, but "a scam where 'the public' tries to benefit" is exactly what copyright is supposed to be. It's an incentive to publish. Consider that when the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as binary-only publishing. With a book, it's all or nothing, unlike software with it's source/binary distinction. And it used to be that if you didn't send a copy of your book to the Library of Congress, you didn't get a copyright. I'm not saying I agree with a deposit requirement, but it shouldn't be di
    • Show me the part of the constitution that contradicts his proposal, and I'll show you a naked picture of my girlfriend. She's 19, and she's hot. The constitution is 200 and wrinkly. I'd say that's a fair spread...
  • That copyright length is a dream come true.

    However, isn't Lessig's ideas on copyright length against the Berne Convention(50+ years)?

    Need to get everyone to withdraw from that treaty :).

    -Quotes from Interview-
    # Speaking of copyright - what would a Lessig balance of copyright look like? Would you regulate books and computer programs different?

    14 year term, renewable to 28 for all but computer programs.
    Deposit requirement.
    Registration requirement.
    Vastly limited "derivative rights".
    10 years for software ma
  • I looked around the website recently, and even Googled about for it, but I've not seen a recent count on the number of people who are EFF members. If it's possible to disclose or at least approximate, I'd love to know how many of us exist.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer

Close