The Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Part Two 358
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a frontal assault on the open source ethic, both technological and social. The underlying political issue is both clear and significant: Must we depend on the creative choices and products of a handful of ferociously greedy and monopolistic corporations who have increasingly come to dominate media, culture and entertainment? Or can we define our own cultural experiences? (Read more below.)
Before the passage of this law, the answer was yes; individuals controlled at least some of their choices.
Increasingly, though, the answer now seems to be no; corporatism rules. This act directly affects individuals' consumer options and cultural choices. It also dramatically restricts the right of individual artists to have their works seen, heard and sold. That makes it a First Amendment as well as a corporate issue. One of the Net's universally shared ethics, at least among geeks, has been empowerment and choice, along with a growing open-source instinct about software and technology. But new software and hardware applications that affect entertainment, culture and information are now limited by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Before DMCA, sites let users create custom playlists, creating individualized music programs. That practice has been slowed by the law's restrictions on the number of songs from a single artist or album that can be transmitted at one time.
Internet radio stations are still allowed to broadcast music, but under a completely different set of rules. The DMCA stipulates that unlike ordinary radio and TV broadcasters, Webcasters must pay royalties to record companies. Webcasts are limited to three songs from one album in any three-hour period.
This is a particularly noxious provision of the DMCA, as it sets a different standard for Net music than for offline music broadcasting. Previously, Net culture has tended to be freer than offline culture. Music, the spark for a surprising percentage of the Net's legal battles, has become a metaphor for the emerging political struggle over who defines and propagates culture on the Web and the rest of the Net.
The implications are enormous. Several years ago, the federal courts overturned not one but two efforts by Congress to police "indecent" speech on the Net: the Communications Decency Act and its equally hoary successor, the baby CDA. The federal court ruling, one of the first significant legal precedents set regarding online freedom, held that the Internet had established a tradition of free speech and free flow of ideas and opinions that was entrenched and constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. It said congressional efforts to curb that freedom were offensive as well as unconstitutional. Hopefully, that precedent will apply to the DMCA.
Judicial rejection of CDA notwithstanding, the DMCA threatens to do much more harm to freedom on the Net than the CDA ever would have. The Communications Decency Acts, however obnoxious, were both efforts at political theater, staged mostly for constituents. They were ludicrously unenforceable and vague. By contrast, the DMCA is already proving itself shockingly effective.
The Net is, in fact, redefining what content and intellectual property are. Many people of good faith are bitterly divided about that issue. Many artists and companies argue that the distributors of content have the right to be paid for the work they transmit or create, and that music downloaders are stealing, plain and simple. Others sense that music will simply be distributed and sold in freer, more diverse ways. It's a valid debate, and a necessary one. But the DMCA doesn't promote a debate on that issue; in fact, it's a back-door effort by lobbyists and politicians to circumvent debate or discussion entirely.
The law's proponents claim that the DMCA was intended to promote balance, but so far, at least, it tilts sharply towards copyright holders, not copyright challengers. It advances a principle of blind copyright protection that in no way takes into account the Net's unique nature, nor the rights and sensibilities of a generation that defines culture differently. Nor does it even acknowledge the idea of any universal right to define choice, options or personal enjoyment. This kind of pre-Net copyright protection will advance the same sort of tepid and homogeneous culture that the music and movie industries have forced on the offline world by promoting products that can generate enormous revenues, and by gobbling up independent companies and acquiring media and entertainment companies and mass-marketing (and in effect, censoring and moderating) popular culture. Corporatism isn't the same as capitalism, or corporations. It's new, bigger, more global and vastly more powerful. It has acquired most mainstream media. It is the primary contributor to the political system. It is viscerally at odds with free speech and individual expression.
Everywhere it reigns, from Wal-Mart to AOL/Time Warner to Microsoft, corporatism discourages creativity, pushes individuals to the margins and promotes conformity and control of software, hardware, intellectual content and culture.
One of the striking aspects of geek culture is that it's so far remained much freer than the mainstream. Software and hardware have enabled individuals to seek out rich, diverse and highly individualized entertainment. The ability to personalize culture in this way is unprecedented, a unique feature of life online.
But that ability is endangered. A less appealing hallmark of geek ideology is the sometimes unconscious but pronounced arrogance that comes from having so much freedom. The belief that even if laws restrict the Net, innovative software and hardware will triumph, is pervasive. The DMCA suggests that may be wishful thinking.
Although many people online pride themselves on their lack of traditional political consciousness, what they have built -- the software and hardware that runs the Net and the Web -- is intensely political, especially to corporations seeking footholds online. Geeks may be the only barrier standing between us and the rampaging corporatists drooling over profits from cyberspace.
The primary political struggle of the 21st Century -- corporatism versus individualism -- has erupted right under our noses. And with little political consciousness or response, we seem to be losing the first big battle.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:1)
I've never seen a rational basis yet that justifies the theft of property. "Because I want it, and it doesn't cost you anything," is a total cop-out.
Nope (Score:1)
Radio and TV broadcasters do pay royalties for their content. Radio music broadcast (and all public music performance) fees are paid through licensing agencies like ASCAP and BMI.
Internet radio stations are violating the letter and the spirit of laws predating the DMCA by operating without the appropriate licenses.
We do have a choice... (Score:1)
Back in the days (Score:1)
MODERATORS SMOKING CHEAP CRACK AGAIN! (Score:1)
Whoever moderated this one was smoking cheap $3 crack.
The fact is that Jon Katz advocates Communism in its most brutal form, and its up to us to send him to a place where he will be appreciated. I reccomend China or Pluto.
Thank you.
Two words: "Second Amendment". Let them try. (Score:1)
"Eminent Domain" is a legal theory popular in the days of kings. It won't wash in a free society. I'll be pilloried for saying this, but an unarmed society is not and can not be a free society, for this very reason: You can't enforce an unjust law on an armed man.
Ideas vs. expression (Score:1)
In music, who owns the recording of a performance? Where is the line drawn between idea and expression? (Or, if I don't own my expression of an idea, why should I bother expressing it?)
This is the idea (freely availabe-- distribute it as you like) behind the current copyright scheme. The publishing industry (whether paper print or music) has perverted this so the publishers (and distributers) of the music end up with 98% of the profits.
I, for one, am willing to pay for the music and print I consume, whether on or off-line. What I am *not* willing to do is support a system where the creators see almost nothing, while the distributors get the profit.
If no-one can "own" expression, then the argument is moot. But, if you think artists (whether music, print, or visual media) deserve something for their time, effort, and creativity, then there *must* be some way for the artist to see the rewards of their labors, and not have some heavyweight thugs suck off the cream of the revenue stream.
At least, that's my opinion. I could be wrong.
Limitations (Score:1)
Using music distribution as an example, you mention that the creator of the music should be able to decide the ways in which their music is distributed. This is fair, I agree, but even in today's society their options are extremely limited.
The only way an artist can distribute their music is to enter into an agreement with a record company. This agreements essentially strip ownership of the creation from the creator. Now, you might say the artist has willingly agreed to this arrangement. But let me ask you, would *anyone*, especially an artist, agree to release their rights to their creation unless there was no other option?
So, we've established that a person has the right to do whatever they want with their creation (except harm other people, as you've noted), but that *in practice*, they are limited to the available methods of distribution.
The internet, and the free trade of information (trade meaning exchange, not sale) it embodies, provides another means of distribution, one that is completely outside the current regime of recording studios. This distribution channel does not rely on the physical distribution of any media; rather, it relies on the logical distribution of pure information. This distribution channel has certain trade-offs WRT the media moguls that currently rule music distribution; but, there are many successful models that give control *back* to the artist.
*THIS* is what the media is afraid of-- if the artist controls their own wares, there is no way for the middle-man to siphon off profits. Instead of creating distribution stations (like mp3.com), the current lords of music are fighting the encroachment of an entirely new outlet. And they are doing it at the source.
By essentially outlawing the legitimate trade of music (that is, music put out on the 'net by artists who are not beholden to a media tychoon), they are stopping the creation of a new music industry based on a creator/consumer relationship. Since the media giants do not get to choose the next star musician, they can no longer manufacture the industry. *THIS* is what they fear-- the end of easy money. Lots and lots of easy money.
Anyway, I just thought I'd clarify the real issue. The creator currently has no control over their creation anyway, so this new media just cuts out the middle-man (or, should I say, the *real* pirates).
.................... Tony
hmm (Score:1)
I must be getting senile with age. Katz actually started making sense with this one.
Anyway, I've been wondering lately whether or not Microsoft might actually be more of an ally in the content wars than an enemy? I would be willing to bet that they're not very interested in becoming a minor fiefdom in the Sony/Disney empire.
Old Economic laws still work. (Score:1)
Supply and demand are not destroyed through the information age. Oh, sure, they are in superficial and trivial ways, such as the "abundance of distribution" argument... but we discovered that almost a decade ago: remember, Microsoft is a monopoly today partially because of the theory of increasing returns.
There will *always* be a shortage of skill and talent when it comes to producing interesting content. That is: good software, good music, good movies, good books, good periodicals, etc.
The old media companies are noticing this disturbing trend: we're watching less TV, we're buying less music, and even though we're watching more box-office movies, we're renting less movies - indicating that we're becoming more demanding with the movies we watch.
To solve this, their bulking up through mergers and lobbying - trying to set up a situation where they can milk every last cent out of the relatively few "hits" they have. They're not innovating, they're running away frightened.
Re:Information is a Commodity (Score:1)
Hence, we need to keep money flowing to those that have the skill and talent to actually enthrall us...
.. Or would you prefer a cacophony from the whole world sharing "free information", where the truly valuable stuff is drowned out amid the noise?
Controversial thought: Some thoughts and opinions are more valuable than others. To paraphrase the editor of Slate magazine, "There's no such thing as an intellectual free lunch".
Slashdot is a prime example of this observation in effect.
That's the whole point. (Score:1)
But the times have changed. Now there is a place where an economy of abundance exists. And now, we need those business models that no one ever worried about before. And I can pretty much guarantee, whoever figures out how to make it work is going to die a very rich person indeed.
Re:A16:Call to Action!(not for the weak of spirit) (Score:1)
You're saying that Seattle accomplished nothing? That the university occupations haven't accomplished anything? That the 9-month long UNAM student occupation was worthless? That the Zapatistas should just give up and vote for somebody different in the next Mexican election? Where have you been?
By the way, I am an anarchist [infoshop.org], and a wobblie [iww.org] too.
Oh yeah -- before you flame me, let me point out that I've been an activist since the early '80's and have been helping to build the Michigan Green Party for the last 7 years. I know what I'm talking about -- been there, done that. I don't disagree with your ends -- just your means.)
Ah, so you're a Green [demon.co.uk]. Great, why don't you just keep writing your letters and soliciting donations, voting for candidates that have been proven ineffectual, and hoping that you can make capitalism more "environmental" and "caring" any more than you can make the marxist state "egalitarian" and "democratic."
Meanwhile, I'll be focusing on things a little bit more realistic.
Protest is to effective political change as masturbation is to sex -- it feels great, but there's no chance at a long-term effect.
Either you skipped history class completely, or the class you enrolled in was taught using the John D. Rockefeller Approved (tm) Curriculum of the Bosses ©.
Go read "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. Protest, striking, sabotage, etc., are all very strong parts of our history,and they're the reason you're able to write emails to fellow "Greens" who have faith in the capitalist system that otherwise would have you working in a sweatshop.
You don't get things accomplished by continually demanding and attacking. At some point you have to get off the streeets and take to the ballot box!
Why, so I can choose my temporary dictator? That's not democracy, and it is definitely not freedom.
Be one of *them*, not just some hippydippy-wannabe, who thinks that simply being morally correct is going to change anybody's mind.
If you'd like to be an ineffectual liberal (probably middle-to-upper class, I'm betting, as most Greens are), that's your choice. The fact of the matter is that a couple of days of lockdowns, occupations or strikes would accomplish the kind of awareness that Greens haven't been able to attain with years of working "within the system".
Michael Chisari
Re:DCMA, etc. (Score:1)
The problem is that individual citizens are more and more disconnected from the political process and corporations can use their vast amounts of money to get many laws passed.
You're rights are being sold by your congressmen.
I'm in the middle of reading a rather depressing book by Arianna Huffington, "How to Overthrow the Goverment", in which she details some of these nasty connections between big bussiness and the goverment.
Re:Radio stations *do* pay royalties. (Score:1)
The problem is that less than 10% of the price goes to the artist and the rest goes to the person making and distributing the plastic. Furthermore, to get this artists are forced to sign away the rights to their own creations.
The Internet removes the need for making and distributing plastic.
Re:Quit whining, start downloading (Score:1)
Re:Property is property. (Score:1)
Re:Property is property. (Score:1)
my math is off though. it ought to be 2.28 * 10^29.
This is 27! * 21, because you need a 27th character for 'end of word' and sometimes you'll have a 20-character long word but still need to fit in a EOW. But i forgot about the 21st character last time.
but it's been so long since i needed to do any math besides rotate a ratio wheel, that i'm obviously completely wrong and any preschooler nowdays can point out my errors...
so far i've got
a, b, c, d....
However, I must point out that some bastard already invented *letters* which is really going to make this a difficult thing to pull off
Re:What's the big deal? + Shakespeare (Score:1)
Perhaps we just need to have Sherman set the wayback machine
And I agree that there are severe problems with any idea of legislating the use and distribution of information. One thing a lot of people here may not be aware of is that when you wish to distribute your copyrighted information widely (e.g. take it to a book publisher, or a music label) they will refuse to even consider it, unless you give them the copyright.
So in fact, illegally copying copywritten information rarely does hurt the author or artist. It's not theirs either, and they only get to work with the fruits of their own labor if the company which owns it permits them to. Which is not always the case.
Example: One great filmaker (he makes films) by the name of Mike Jittlov is well aware of this. Particularly after having been screwed royally wrt his opus magnum, "The Wizard of Speed and Time." But he's very cool, and encourages people to just duplicate the film since he hasn't got any more rights to it than anyone else, and is most decidedly not being harmed by anything other than having had it effectively stolen from him to begin with. He has his own usenet group, alt.fan.mike-jittlov, and posts there, so you might wish to talk with him on the subject. You'll never find a more bright and cheery guy, I kid you not. (and watch the movie, it's very geeky)
Re:Yeah, that was flamebait all right. (Score:1)
I think offhand there could be a 13th amendment case against the draft. In fact, there _have_ been 13th amendment cases against the draft, and suprise, suprise, the Supremes didn't go for them. I seem to recall a sentiment which was something like '...any American should be proud to serve...'
As for your second point, the 5th amendment has been violated all over the place. When I-90 was being built in Boston, the city basically kicked out with virtually no compensation, the residents of Boston's West Side. Note that you don't hear about that neighborhood anymore.
However, I'm all for the exercise of 5th amendmetn rights when real property is confiscated by the government. This has nothing to do with copyrights though.
Re:DCMA, etc. (Score:1)
Such as what? Letter campaigns are more ineffective than violence, afaik... and probably make us look just as stupid in the lawmakers' eyes.
I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not a bit optimistic.
--
The real problem... (Score:1)
The pirate's actions are causing all the problems for those who want to use mp3's for their own collection, or for legitimate uses. You can whine and complain all you want, but the artist signed a contract restricting re-distribution, and you agreed to pay for that CD. You knew all along what you were getting in to. If you want to trade music around freely, then only listen to and purchase music from bands and independent labels that will allow it. If you can't find any then start your own band and allow unlimited redistribution.
Don't claim the "right" to break a contract you entered into just because you don't like it.
You can also whine and complain all you want about how much the big media companies stink. If you don't like them, don't patronize them. Don't support them. Find alternatives. They may be influential because of their size, but that doesn't force you to support them.
The big media companies don't have absolute control over music.
Government influence over space and non-space (Score:1)
The government is in the unenviable situation of trying to regulate the patterns and processes of Net activity. In real space, the various geographies (physical, economic) are pretty well understood, they can do this--hence, we have things like the Interstate Commerce Commission. Granted, illegal activities take place in which we can't account for the movement of capital and goods, but it's a relatively minor part of the economy.
In digital space, geographies are difficult to define, change rapidly, and are poorly understood in general--especially by government types. Things like MP3s, which are getting everyone into a froth, can be created, copied, hosted, and distributed with no relation to political boundaries, and the actors involved may or may not be U.S. citizens.
I understand the government's position of wanting to do something about what's happening on the Net, because it clearly facilitates gross violations of laws and regulations that are applied in physical space.
Hopefully, someone can clearly articulate to our lawmakers what it is about online culture that's different from physical space and deserves to be treated differently.
MODERATE UP! (Score:1)
Re:DCMA, etc. (Score:1)
What this article tells us is that the corporations are asking for hideous restrictions on the use of their works.
Go one better. Stop using the things. In the words of your grandfather, make your own entertainment - and license it the way you want. You won't make the sort of money the Spice Girls have made; you won't get the exposure, but at least you can think of it as adding to the resources of humanity.
The goods are tied to the license; if you take the goods and leave the license, you're committing theft. So leave the goods and leave the license also; stick to, and add to, the pool of liberally-licensed content out there.
Did RMS distribute someone else's editor or compiler against their license conditions? Hell no! He wrote emacs and gcc, then used the rights of a creator to license them pleasantly.
Tom
Equal Protections (Score:1)
Re:a geek jihad? (Score:1)
the world is packaged in neat little
containers for the consumption of
mothers and grumpy dads with not
enough time on their hands to
make real choices...
People have such a limited view of existence though. Listen, when the web is a mess of corporate goo, the hardcore geeks among us will retreat back to our FTP sites and IRC and find another way to communicate that allows us to be just as free. That is the great thing about computers. We fashion our own reality. I remember BBSes all gone and forgotten. One day the World Wide Web will be yesterday's news as well. Another way will come and we will get the play free pass until the government and the corporations figure out how they can make a buck off of it. I can't complain too much because out here in the digital world is where I make my money as well. Remember the internet is not the Web and the Web is just one big ass corner of something far bigger.
Don't despair there will always be a place for freedom, you just have to look for the next frontier before the big boys do.
Another way to fight (Score:2)
Theory vs. reality (Score:2)
For instance, you say that corporations are not allowed to support candidates for federal office. This is, in fact, correct. In practice, it is *not* correct.
Corporations have spent many years circumventing rules and regulations. By spinning off "non-profit" groups and supporting these non-profits with huge amounts of cash, they are able to influence (perhaps even "buy") politicians. That is why corporate-friendly laws are passed more often than consumer-friendly laws. Corporations also have more lobbying money than the opposition, and so are able to buy votes that way.
Even though individuals contribute more money to political parties than corporations, individuals do not have a coherent political agenda. This is the difference between a lightbulb and a laser.
Now, even if the DMCA were designed as a copyright protection mechanism, it is used to coerce an online community to follow the rules as the RIAA chooses. For instance, by trying hard to stamp out MP3 sites and software in the name of "copyright protection," they interfere with the legitimate distribution of artists who *choose* to distribute their works in this manner.
Copyrights are designed to protect the artist. However, in todays society artists, especially musicians, have no control over their own creation. Currently, almost all profits go directly into the coffers of the corporations who distribute the music; musicians (eg, those who created the work in the first place) see only a small (often as little as 1%-3%) percentage of the profits of their labors. If they wish to see their works distributed at all, they must enter into contracts that strip them of their rights, essentially giving all copyright to the distributors, leaving them with nothing.
You may say that is the price of doing business. You would be correct. That is the price of doing business the *old* way, where the distribution of a physical CD or vinyl album was important. But today, an artist can place their work on the 'net, and distribute their work themselves.
The members of RIAA want to maintain their extremely lucrative stranglehold on the distribution mechanisms of music; this is what Katz is referring to as "corporatism." They see the net as a friction-free distribution system for the artists; the 'net cuts out the middle-man, the recording studios.
The current plan for distribution is to create a system in which the consumer downloads music for free, and is only able to play the music on a device that bills the listener every time a song is played. Who will manage this system? The members of the RIAA. Who will reap the benefits? The members of the RIAA.
This has nothing to do with copyright, and everything to do with corporate control.
In an ideal world, the musician would retain complete copyright control over their works. In today's world, a musician with a contract to any member of the RIAA cannot release their own non-album music on the net. If they created a song that will not be available to their fans, they have no recourse. They have signed away the rights not only to the music they produce for the studio, but the rights of any music they produce in the future, sometimes for years in the future.
The current situation is hardly equitable; the internet may be able to change that.
And finally, Katz' definition of mainstream media is probably close to mine-- anything that is nationally distributed, like NBC, Newsweek or even the New York Times. These media outlets are getting swallowed whole by other major corporations; they are no longer only in the business of providing news or entertainment. The media sources are being subsumed by the media distribution channels.
So, to sum up: corporations eat individuals whenever possible; corporations have more political clout than individuals; and the DMCA is designed to allow old-media corporations to control the new-media distribution channel (the Internet). Geeks don't like it, because it wrests the power from the person and gives it to the corporation, and individuals may have a concience, but corporations do not.
Re:Property is property. (Score:2)
1)I never said copyright/patent/trademark laws in general are dumb. I said that the current laws go too far, and are probably unconstitutional. Further, the argument which I was replying too not only was in favor of the harsh laws we currently have, but actually suggested that we go even further than we have.
I don't mind supporting copyright et al laws if they satisfy the constitution (which means that they are of limited duration, which is de facto no longer the case, and that they promote the useful arts and sciences, which is more frequently not the case either) and my moral faculties.
The DMCA is not satisfactory for either requirement.
2)I have created a number of works, which puts me on par with Apple, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, etc. I have a number of copyrights, though sadly no patents yet. However, I'm all for doing away with the *current* laws, and putting in some *good* laws.
3)The original poster was operating on the untrue assumption that copyright laws have some basis in reality and are not artificial legal constructions. I feel that I proved him wrong: Copyrights exist as a matter of law, but they are not natural rights, such as your right to free speech.
It is important to keep this in mind, because copyrights are an incentive to get more material into the public domain, where it truly benefits everyone, not just those that can afford to pay for it. The intent and construction of copyrights in the Constitution is clearly not so that people can assert nonexistant property rights.
4)Why isn't it fair to use someone else's ideas or works without fairly reimbursing them, provided that you in no way impair their ability to use their own ideas or works? As I had mentioned before, the coining of words or phrases seems to be a legitimate, though extreme, use of copyright from this point of view.
Let us consider the word 'Quiz.' There's a fairly likely, though apocryphal story that this word was coined by a man in Dublin. Basically he made a bet that a word which had no meaning would be the talk of the entire city within a day. Whereupon he wrote it in chalk all over the town. And won the bet
Let us assume that this story is true. Furthermore, let us assume that at that time, everyone adopted copyright laws which stated that 'because it is fair, people who create ideas or works deserve to be reimbursed if those ideas or works are used by others.' That's what you propose, is it not? And lastly, let us assume that the current trend towards extending copyrights illegally is followed to the logical conclusion, and that copyrights last forever, and can be transferred just like real property (sold, inherited, etc.), and that 'quiz' has never entered the public domain.
This *is* your argument, right? While the current law has a time limit on copyrights, that's a legal issue - you're talking about 'fair.' 'Quiz' will always have been coined by the same guy. So this means that just speaking that word, or writing it, incurs a use. And you have to pay him.
Now how come the logical extension of your argument sucks? It would be a world in which people couldn't even communicate unless charitable souls placed the words that they coined or inherited into the public domain, or where you had to give different people nickles whenever you opened your mouth.
Because that's _fair_. You're using things that other people invented. You have to pay them for that.
Fortunately, this has never happened. What has happened, and what has been the rule for most of history, is a state in which no one is ever compelled to pay for the use of an idea, and where there are no protections on ideas.
Strangely enough, companies like Apple, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, etc. have benefited from the use of ideas which had no legal restrictions on them. Disney routinely makes movies which are derivative works of other creators - "The Little Mermaid" was originally written by Hans Christian Andersen. Disney never paid him a red cent. By your argument, this is unfair.
I would argue that it's okay because in a world with no relevant laws (intriguing certainly) I could make a copy of their movie without paying them. Of course, I couldn't just take the tape - that would be stealing the tape (not the movie). But I could pass out copies to all my friends. Curiously, this state of affairs is what Andersen had to deal with, and he still published.
More realistically, I would argue that Disney can keep the monopoly for only a short period of time. Let us say, 5 years. They have that long to recover the cost of the movie, plus any profit they wish to make. After that, it's up for grabs.
The only difference between that and the current system is that right now Disney has roughly 100 years to do so. And Disney is well known for lobbying legislators to extend copyrights so that when that ~100 years is up, it will surely have been extended to ~1000 years. Obviously this is an unconstitutional copyright law, but that's besides the point.
I suspect that, accounting tricks aside (never take the net) Disney made the cost of their movie and a healthy profit in 5 years. I can accept letting them get _some_ profit as an incentive to do it in the first place, but copyrights exist to benefit everyone, and not the copyright holder. Beyond a certain point, when greed takes over, I have no more reason to support *that* copyright.
Re:Atlas Shrugged (Score:2)
Quite simply, unless you never, in any way (speech, writing, implementation) reveal the idea, you can't. Of course there is no value to a secret idea in the marketplace.
Already, fundemental differences in the nature of real property versus ideas become evident.
Here's another conundrum which illustrates that you cannot treat ideas as though they were tangible things: It's well established that the owner of some real property can own it for as long as they live. They can do anything with it that they like. This includes transferring it to another person, who may then own it for as long as they wish and transfer it, etc.
However, if this is the case for ideas, then even thinking about something that someone else says, without their permission is a violation of their property rights. Using a word someone else has coined is similarly a violation. And since the original owner can transfer ownership and this process can be repeated indefinately, ideas will forever be owned by people.
Clearly this is bad.
The reality of the situation is that ideas are never owned by anyone. This means that while you own some tangible expression of your ideas (e.g. a CD with music you made on it, which you own as real property) you don't own the ideas themselves (e.g. the actual music). Again, this levels the playing field - while I have the ability to copy content you created, you have the same for me.
However, and this was hotly debated when the US constitution was framed, an incentive system was developed, even though this infringes on your natural rights.
The idea behind copyright is simply that to encourage people to create content or advance science a monopoly which is only in effect for a limited time can be granted by Congress. It clearly isn't considered to be an ennumerated right, and in fact the Constitution itself does not state any copyright laws. It merely permits Congress to make those laws. And the laws are clearly unconstitutional if they are not of a limited time (and they meant limited - copyrights were originally 14 years long) or do not promote the advancement of the useful arts and sciences.
And don't forget that copyrights don't confer ownership anyway. Only secondary rights (usage, redistributing new copies, etc.) which generally are not held to impair the rights you have to real property (which is why you're allowed to redistribute copies that you bought from the author).
Going one step further, while IANAL it is my understanding that the courts generally look very closely at whether copyrights have not advanced the useful arts and sciences. It is from this that much of the fair use doctrine came. Should a teacher have to get a copy of a book for every student in order to read aloud to them? No, it is a foolish argument, and requiring this would not advance anything except the author's pocketbook. Making money is not enough to justify copyrights, as you can clearly see.
Now licenses are a different matter altogether.
Licenses are contracts. But you don't need a contract at all to protect a copyright. I am not allowed to make copies for sale of some content I do not hold the rights to, as a matter of federal copyright law. A license would be redundant. It's obvious that the only instances in which a license is useful is when the licensor wishes to further restrict your rights beyond what is granted as a matter of copyright.
This is disturbing morally. And furthermore, the courts (AFAIK, IANAL) generally look down upon non-negotiated contracts, including the sort we're used to in the computer world.
Throw UCITA and other similar legislation into the mix and we might end up in the very BAD position of automatically agreeing to a contract that you don't even get to read first upon listening to music that someone else is playing.
Rand rather depended on both a peculiar legal system *and* certain types of behavior from the people who interacted in it. But we do not live in her little world.
We have to work with what we've got, and what we're getting these days stinks on ice. Copyrights are going way too far, and it's being driven by corporate interests that have become so large that we generally can't influence them any more. (particularly when the companies you're boycotting owns most news sources, the tools used to distribute information widely, etc.)
If you use bunk to debunk something... (Score:2)
...do you actually increase its credibility?
The first "way" ATKeiper uses to criticize Jon is as follows:
This sounds good, but unfortunately Katz is factually correct. And ATKeiper is factually incorrect (although he is close to getting it right).
Ordinary radio stations etc. do not have to pay money to record companies for playing their songs. They have to pay it to ASCAP and BMI, who pass it on to the copyright owners (who are the songwriters, not the performers). Paul Anka has made more from "My Way" than Frank Sinatra because he wrote it.
This is an important distinction, and (I believe) the one Katz was trying to make. This is the first time an entity not involved in the creative process has been granted copyright interests simply for being the distributor of the intellectual property. Note that the performer (who is probably the one the listener is tuning in to hear) is getting the short end of the stick on both the old radio rules and the new Internet radio rules.
So, the net effect of the DMCA is to restrict artists' ability to get their stuff played on the web (it can't be done without paying their record company). This (I believe) is the point Katz was making in the sentence criticized in point 2 of ATKeiper's rant. And, once again, Katz is factually correct and ATKeiper just doesn't get it, however much his view of the world may be popular with some of the pseudo-Libertarians on /. who don't mind any restrictions to their freedoms as long as they are restrictions which come from corporations rather than governments. In this case, they even seem to be willing to accept the restrictions coming from governments as long as government is acting on behalf of those corporations.
I'm not going to comment on the rest of the items in this rant because they are more opinion-oriented than fact-oriented. But I don't mean to imply by not commenting that I agree with the opinions either.
Does anybody know who this organization he's promoting is? The TESOC?
Experience the DMCA for yourself... (Score:2)
This basically is supposed to let you make up a 'compilation tape' of mp3's which you want everyone to listen to, a mini radio show of your favourite tracks.
Of course, because of the DMCA broadcasting/sequencing rules myplay has to check and 'approve' your selection before it can be legally made available. Some poor programmer has had to go and code up a DMCA compliance checker. You can't go and put up the complete 'Dark Side Of The Moon', at least not without cheating.
Personally, I've never come close to infringing these sequencing rules, I think the idea is to have fun with the mixing - if you can't come up with more interesting sequencnig than the original then what's the point? BUT! I don't like any rules like this, even if it does help keep the playlists more interesting......
(go on - try my playlist [myplay.com] - DMCA Approved).
How many times... (Score:2)
I _finally_ downloaded the gnapster client last nite. I've been reading about it for awhile, and finally decided to see what it was all about.
I was, naturally, impressed. The first song I snagged was "Strawberry Fields", by the Beatles.
I sent my little sister (she's 40, but she's still my little sister) an email urging her to check out napster.
And what I typed next set me back a bit; it forced home just what's going on with MP3's and DVD's. I justified my download by stating that "I have this song on a 45 RPM, an LP, a cassette tape, a CD, and a VCR tape. I think I've paid for the right to download it from the 'net. Most of my copies of that song are unplayable, anyway".
THIS is what is scaring the 'labels'; people are finally realising that they're being forced to pay for the same IP over and over and over again. And that the media DOES wear out.
It's not a big leap from worn media to pay-per-play!
I've been buying 'albums' for 30 years now. I have over 600 LP's, about 400 cassette tapes, and about 200 CD's. There are some duplicates in there (Beatles, Led Zep...) but I've been busy converting a lot of my favorite single tracks from CD's to MP3. I've been planning to buy a turntable (a what?) to start ripping some of my LP's. I may still do that, but in the mean time, if I find a track I want using napster that lives on an LP I bought 20 years ago, I'll not think twice about downloading it, and I won't lose (lose, NOT loose) any sleep over it.
Re:Sensationalism (Score:2)
Don't expect copyrights to be expiring anytime soon. The Sonny Bono (may he rot in his grave) Copyright Act extended copyrights from 75 years to (I believe) 95 years, just in time to keep Disney's lousy Mickey Mouse out of the hands of The People(tm).
The DMCA is clearly written to protect corporate interests, and clearly assumes that copyrights will be extended, indefinitely. Expect legislation to extend copyrights again about 15-19 years following the enactment of the Sonny Bono Act. And, assuming some fairly radical campaign finance reform hasn't been passed (and it isn't bloody likely it ever will be in any form), expect your congressperson to industriously line their pockets with entertainment money in exchange for your rights again when the time comes.
Re:consumer warfare (Score:2)
They control everything. Even our bold online revolutionaries take their pseudonyms from mass market paperbacks.
Don't worry, Ender Wigginz, I'm not talking about you. I'm sure your handle came from a much more original Open Source source.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
In some states "squatters rights" can be more important than ownership. IANAL, and I don't know all of the provisions but if someone "squats" in your abandoned house for 20 or 30 years ad you do nothing about it, then you can't arbitrarily evict them.
LK
Re:Property is property. (Score:2)
There still are plenty of original ideas waiting to be thought up... Maybe if people did, they could use those ideas as leverage to get access to other people's ideas. In most cases it just doesn't seem fair to expect to be able to use someone elses ideas or works without fairly reimbursing them... And if they don't want to share, they don't have to.
It's called Freenet (Score:2)
Freenet [sourceforge.net] (not to be confused with the library system of providing free Internet access) apparently creates a sort of decentralized network for the exchange of files and information and such. It looks like an interesting idea, though critics charge it would be nothing more than a tool for piracy.
Is it time for a Music-and-Movie Out? (Score:2)
If you wanted to get really hardcore, you could also boycott companies who buy advertising on TV, radio, and in movie theaters.
--
Re:A16: Call to Action! -- oh, puh-leeze! :p (Score:2)
Protest is to effective political change as masturbation is to sex -- it feels great, but there's no chance at a long-term effect.
A better way to act would be to organize progressive people in your local neighborhood and do something *locally* (NOT stand around with a sign "protesting", though). Put pressure on your local politicians by showing up at their meetings, asking the questions that no-one else will, talk to everybody you can, and organize yourself and your friends into a local political party. All over America people are waking up, organizing (using the Net), and scaring the sh*t out of professional politicians. Be one of *them*, not just some hippydippy-wannabe, who thinks that simply being morally correct is going to change anybody's mind.
(Oh yeah -- before you flame me, let me point out that I've been an activist since the early '80's and have been helping to build the Michigan Green Party for the last 7 years. I know what I'm talking about -- been there, done that. I don't disagree with your ends -- just your means.)
You don't get things accomplished by continually demanding and attacking. At some point you have to get off the streeets and take to the ballot box!
Re:Rhetorical question (Score:2)
Who [eaglering.com] is [aynrand.org] John [dailyobjectivist.com] Galt? [mindspring.com]
Re:No, you had it right (Score:2)
I just went down to his office [house.gov] (its in the same building, yes I can be that lazy) and will be setting up an appointment when he returns from Washington.
That's the big fight for me, fighting the cynicism over seeing the way our government appears to work. I told the secretary I wanted to talk about Internet laws and give my two cents on the growing copyright debates. I was thinking about wearing by DVD-CCA t-shirt..anyone have suggestions on how to approach (first time talking to a congressamn) or good URLs that I can give him?
--
My role in the government, or lake there-of (Score:2)
I am also a fairly mobile young professional. This makes my voice in goverment mean even less to that goverment, since power is accumulated on a fairly local level, and the main problems I see are on the (inter)national level. Also with a market based culture, I would rather use that to solve the problem. When you keep asking the government for help, you depend on them to save you, so where do you turn to save you from them?
--
radio stations do pay royalties. (Score:2)
mtv doesn't, because it claims it's doing promotion for the song, even when they use it in something like 'the real world.' when you're an 800 pound gorilla, you can get away with that.
i admit to not knowing all the answers, though: i don't think they pay royalties to the record company.
do web broadcasters pay ascap/bmi royalties in addition to the record company?
Re:you're oversimplifying (Score:2)
I have yet to see any DMCA critical articles or coverage in ANY mainstream media. And of all the articles I read about the DeCSS affair, ALL of them had a pro-"let's keep the gun in their mouths" slant. Were I dependent on mainstream media to gain understanding of the existing power structures desperate struggle for survival at the cost of our freedom, I would probably be as ignorant to gravity of the situation as you are (though you speak eloquently and a lot - right at home in Washington I guess).
Oh, and the situation is _simple_. Enforced copyrights and freedom cannot coexist in cyberspace. Period.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Re:Freenet will not work for Media exchange. (Score:2)
1: While this sort of attack is an issue, Freenet does deal with it. Because Requests and Inserts are randomly spread over the entire network, in order for such an attack to be successful you have to have greater capacity then the rest of the entire network put together. Also, as long as all your inserts and requests are targeted at a limited number of nodes, those nodes will "float" toward one another in the routing (that's a vague statement, for a better reply you have to understand the system), until your attack is only hurting the nodes you are targeting directly (in which case you might as well DoS them conventionally).
2: This is true, Freenet is not ideal for copying wide arrays of large media. That is the cost of freedom and anonymity. Freenet does allow for a large amount of parallelism however, and specs for how to split files into smaller chunks that can be requested simulataneously are being worked on. Also, the size of a 5 meg file is shrinking rapidly (Freenet will not be ready for mainstream use for some time).
I encourage everyone to give our project a little more thought before deciding that it doesn't work. I'm not convinced that it works either, but so far nothing has convinced me that it doesn't (and I have been looking for a reason for the last nine months), which justifies going for it in my book.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
a geek jihad? (Score:2)
Radio stations *do* pay royalties. (Score:2)
Are content companies trying to surpress progress? Yes. But it's out of fear, not out of malice.
Atlas Shrugged (Score:2)
Now, I'm not saying that I think the DMCA is a good idea. From what I know about it (admittedly not that much), it sounds flawed. But I'm talking about this article and the responses to it, not the DMCA.
So what do I mean by "for me, Me ME!"? The attitude of "I have the right to do anything I want." Fortunately, at least some people add the caveat of "as long as I'm not actively injuring someone else," but even those who do generally seem to ignore indirect or passive "injuries" to others.
Let's say I'm a musician. I write a song. I want to sell it. Do I, or do I not have the right to choose how to sell my work? Do I have the right to give it away for free? As long as I haven't (freely) made a contract with someone which restricts my right to do so, yes. Do I have the right to sell hard copies without placing any copying restriction on the purchaser? Same answer (though I don't think this is very common). Do I have the right to sell copies that do include restrictions on copying? It sounds like most of the people posting here want to take away the freedom to choose this business model. Is it a smart business model? Would the artist be better off choosing a different model? I don't know. As far as laws are concerned, I don't care. The artist (and whoever else has acquired a legal interest in their music) should have the right to choose whatever sales model they want, even if it's a stupid, selfish model.
Despite what a few people have said here, capitalism is not simply a question of material supply and demand. Just because digital copying is essentially free, that doesn't mean that a person has no right to charge for digital copying. A person has the right to sell the product of their work however they want (not caveat below). The consumer has the right to refuse to do business with a person who chooses to sell in a way they don't like.
Has anyone here read "Atlas Shrugged"? While I certainly disagree with certain aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy, one thing I do agree with is the idea that no one has the right to take the product of someone else's work without the free consent of the producer. No one has the right to dictate the terms by which others may be allowed to do business (except to prevent harm to unrelated parties--for example, it is legitimate to restrict a person's right to hire a hit man to kill someone).
Getting back to my ill-informed opinion of DMCA, I agree that people should have the right to make their own archival copies and personalized collections of things they've paid for, and that they should be able to copy them to other media for their own use. I suppose the producer COULD legitimately restrict all copying in their license agreements, but I personally would be tempted to boycott anyone who did.
Anyway, the main point I want to make is, while you're campaigning for freedom, remember to take others' freedom into account, and take into account how the policies you're advocating will affect the freedom of others.
Re:It's called Freenet (Score:2)
The original poster was trying to suggest something like Napster but with no central server. (And hopefully serving a broader audience than Warez d00ds).
Re:Napster alternative (Score:2)
Alternate method 5.
Relying on sheer penetration of such a client and the growing horsepower of both client user
bandwidth and CPU power to hold a local database. Inter-client communication would be
weakly peer-to-peer and individual client 'hello' could be handled by either a
single server (a la ICQ) or by simple contact list notification and keep-alive (NetPhone). Once
again, search results are communicated to each node of the search for local cache, and the
nodes are daisy-chained for bandwidth conservation. The local search database can
consist, in addition to the cache of results from previous searches, of any locally available
information. Browser cache, the local file tree, etc, are possible sources of information.
Advantages: No centralized entity required for operation. Dedicated servers/and repeaters
could be added to the network on an impermanent basis.
Disadvantages: The trust model of a weakly peer-to-peer network would lead itself to
all sorts of abuses. Hacked clients returning incorrect result data (pr0n, spam, etc). A trust
model for other clients, call it client moderation, could cull the bad results but would require user interaction to be effective.
An RIAA scare letter (Score:2)
Some of my favorite parts: "he RIAA is a
trade association whose member companies create, manufacture and
distribute approximately ninety (90) percent of all legitimate sound
recordings sold in the United States."
So, If I record a sound and distribute it, its not legitimate wothout their blessing??? At least they call it sound and not music.. bleh.. They also say that, we, the ISP may be in violation of the DCMA for allowing this to reside on our network. IANAL but I thought that the ISP was not responsible for the content posted by its customers??
So, without further BS, here is the whole thing:
Some parts have *'s to protect the ISP and the site address.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 13:40:58 -0500
From:antipira@riaa.com
To: dns@***.com
Cc: webmaster@***.com
Subject: unauthorized music site
VIA E-MAIL
March 3, 2000
Administrative Contact
*** Communications
**** **** Lane
******, ** *****
RE: ftp://leech:leech@216.**.**.**/c:/
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am contacting you on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of
America, Inc. (RIAA) and its member record companies. The RIAA is a
trade association whose member companies create, manufacture and
distribute approximately ninety (90) percent of all legitimate sound
recordings sold in the United States. Under penalty of perjury, we
submit that the RIAA is authorized to act on behalf of its member
companies in matters involving the infringement of their sound
recordings, including enforcing their copyrights and common law rights on
the Internet.
We believe your service is hosting the above referenced site on its
system. This site, which we accessed on 3/1/00 at 1:34 p.m. (EST),
offers approximately 740 sound files for download, including songs by
such artists as Bryan Adams, Ozzy Osbourne, Filter, Cake, Radiohead and
Sponge. Many of these files contain recordings owned by our member
companies. We have a good faith belief that the above-described activity
is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. We
assert that the information in this notification is accurate, based upon
the data available to us.
We are asking for your immediate assistance in stopping this unauthorized
activity. Specifically, we request that you remove the site, delete the
infringing sound files or that you disable access to this site or the
infringing files being offered via your system. In addition, please
inform the site operator of the illegality of his or her conduct and
confirm with the RIAA, in writing, that this activity has ceased.
You should understand that this letter constitutes notice to you that
this site operator may be liable for the infringing activity occurring on
your server. In addition, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, if
you ignore this notice, you and/or your company may be liable for any
resulting infringement. This letter does not constitute a waiver of any
right to recover damages incurred by virtue of any such unauthorized
activities, and such rights as well as claims for other relief are
expressly retained.
Finally, if you or your users wish additional information concerning
copyright law as it applies to sound recordings, please feel free to
visit and/or link to our educational web site at
http://www.soundbyting.com.
Please communicate with me at RIAA, 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite
300, Washington, D.C., 20036, Tel. (202) 775-0101, or e-mail
antipiracy@riaa.com, to discuss this notice. We await your response.
Very truly yours,
Sarah Ehrlich
Paralegal, Anti-Piracy
RIAA
Re:DCMA, etc. (Score:2)
It's unfortunate that a lot of people, yourself included, look down on protesting in the way you do. It's as if you'd prefer to just go with what the corporations say and keep your mouth shut, because thats the "repectable" life.
It's also unfortunate because this is exactly the kind of publicity we need: how many people even know about these bills? This is step one to get them overturned.
Re:Absolutely. (Score:2)
That is absolutely not a fact, currently it is only a possibility, specifically for any corporation who deals in "information" as you described early in your post. It all depends on what the consumers decide to do with their money, whether its against the current law or not. Here are three possible futures I just thought up, with varying amounts of corporate control:
1)
The world slips into a "1984" style environment where the internet is heavily censored and run by corporations, and free flow of information is very limited (so you still have to pay lots of money for your one copy of some music).
2)
The world stays similar to what is is today as far as control. A few new corporations figure out how to make money on the internet without imposing copyright protections on the information they distribute, at the cost of having to sell it for much less than the old music corporations would have charged. Most old music corporations die, a few survive by making the price concessions to consumers.
3)
Society decides that it has had enough of this corporate bondage and fully supports open formats like mp3. Society also decides it will no longer accept the crap that is spoon fed to them, and becomes pro-active about which music they listen to. All music corporations die, as all music is now purchased directly from the artist at a very low fee that covers studio costs, bandwidth costs, and a bit of profit.
I would prefer to see number three happen, but since I'm usually pessemistic I'd say two or one is more likely. They all depend on what society decides to do (or doesn't do). The technology isn't the variable, it's what we decide to do with it. This is nothing new: technology can be used for good or evil.
Something to think about. (Score:2)
Look at it this way. As long as we live in a society based on money and large corporations we're gonna have problems. CD's are always gonna cost over $15.00 and any micro$oft product is gonna cost at least $88. Sure, the idea is to get rid of large corporations, but can we survive as a country without them?
I sense a digital war in the future.
Take a step back. Look at the RIAA. Copying music and giving it away for free. It's been going on for years, but on a smaller scale. How many tapes do you own? Sure it may cut into corporate profits, but they shouldn't be worrying about that. Real bands want recognition. Corporations don't give a s*** when (say) Hanson goes out of style because they're riding the fad wave and making immense profits. (Ohh, ohh. Mommy, mommy. I want a Spice girl doll too!) Overall, adaption is the key word. Until corporations realize this, they are absolutely helpless.
I hate it when the government starts trying to create "rights" for the internet. Sure, there may be some "decency" issues, but it should be taken on at the family level. In essence, there never will be any so called "rights" on the internet, because it is based in a purely virtual world where there truely are no real rules. Sure, the US may come up with a law to totally outlaw or regulate something, but (a) how many people are going to listen to it or even hear about it and (b) how hard is it to host a site in another country? Any so called "rights" that are placed on the internet can only be described as censorship and a clear violation of civil rights.
I say we form an official pro-rights coalition. Remember the phrase "strength in numbers."
(End rant)
Copyrights become patents (Score:2)
For example, copyright provides NO protection against reverse engineering. An musician can hear a rhythm from another musician, figure out how to make it, and add it to his repertoire. The source code of a program can be read, studied for its algorithms, and then those exact same algorithms can be implemented in different code completely legally.
But the DMCA specifically forbids reverse engineering to get around copyright protective measures. These measures can be totally trivial and they still prevent things like using DeCSS in the USA. That is a patent level of protection. This level was originally specifically EXCLUDED from copyright law - it is in patent law. A patent provides you the chance to forbid others from using your new invention without licensing. You can note how cleanly now the DMCA prevents others from playing DVDs without licensing. This has turned a copyright into a patent, plain and simple.
The separation between these concepts, copyright and patent, was made for a reason. Copyright is identified as coming from a source - one's reputation and value from one's words are at stake. Patents are intellectual property, and must pass a MUCH higher standard for being awarded.
This higher standard (regrettably not high enough IMHO) has now been bypassed with DMCA so that corporations with lawyers can prevent people from accessing copyrighted material than they own. What a gross perversion, and it will only get worse if UCITA passes.
Sensationalism (Score:2)
Obviously, this is an opinion piece, but this little paragraph definitely falls under the category of "sensationalism". Such a strong statement should be backed up with some evidence, lest it be dismissed as superstition.
Multiplayer Strategy [toronto.edu]
Re:No, you had it right (Score:2)
Those are some fascinating numbers and I'd like to know who told you that
> Your voice does have an impact and just giving up because big bad corporation has more money than me just doesn't hold water.
I think it holds a lot of water and at least I don't really believe most elected representatives really listen to what I have to say. Before pointers to some hard information I'll give you an anecdote from my own experience:
The Michigan Music is World Class Campaign, led by Tom Ness [ness4senate.com], a local independent magazine publisher (and Green Party candidate for US Senate), was part of the national movement to relegalize low power FM radio stations. In this process, the MMWCC petitioned the Michigan State Legislature to pass a resolution in support of a favorable FCC ruling. The MMWCC presented each and every representive thousands of constituent letters of support, including dozens of community and religious organizations. Many cities (I think up to 45 at last count) in MI passed resolutions in support. Resolutions are non-binding and simply and expression of the constituency the legislature purports to represent. Members of the MMWCC visited EACH and EVERY member of the legislature at least twice face to face. Every member was presented with well put-together packets of information. They didn't even bring the issue to the floor. Why? Four words: Michigan Association of Broadcasters (aka Big Bad [media] corporations with lots of money.) And this is how a group with a simple demand (with incredibly limited adverse consequences -- the only consequence I can think of is less money from the MAB), and an incredible range of constituent support is treated -- how do you think a simple individual's concern will actually affect any decision your "representative" will make?
> Pick up the phone and call to get a meeting. It's that simple.
And they might even meet with you, shake your hand, and nod their head politely, and listen with all seriousness... and then turn to the folks who are slipping $10000+ checks into their campaign funds when it comes time to make decisions on the floor.
For some info online check out:
Common Cause [commoncause.org]
Also, I recommend Jim Hightower [jimhightower.com]'s new book, If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote, They'd Have Given Us Candidates which is a great read and dishes out some dirt on who gets money from whom and what they get in return.
Campaign contributions buy access to politicians -- even most politicians will admit that. Only 4% of the population in this country donates $$ to campaigns, and most of those are less than $200. Only
You might say: "Just because they take the money, doesn't mean they do what the people giving them the money say?" Yeah right. If their voting record doesn't match up with a company's interest, the plug is pulled. So if your "representative" is voting in the interest of the 99.9% that don't fill his/her pocket, and those votes happen to contracdict the interest of the money that is filling their pocket
It's not all bad (Score:2)
Music, the spark for a surprising percentage of the Net's legal battles, has become a metaphor for the emerging political struggle over who defines and propagates culture on the Web and the rest of the Net.
Music hasn't really become a metaphor, more like the first battle of the war.
It advances a principle of blind copyright protection that in no way takes into account the Net's unique nature, nor the rights and sensibilities of a generation that defines culture differently.
Okay, I'm as big a fan of the net as the next geek, but the Internet doesn't deserve special treatment because of any "unique nature". This counts both ways - while we might lose some of the benefits we currently enjoy, we would also be free of laws that impose stricter controls in the net than for the offline world, such as the DMCA. Of course in an ideal world the freedoms we can theoretically enjoy on the net should also be available in the real world, but that's just being idealistic unfortunately.
This kind of pre-Net copyright protection will advance the same sort of tepid and homogeneous culture that the music and movie industries have forced on the offline world by promoting products that can generate enormous revenues, and by gobbling up independent companies and acquiring media and entertainment companies and mass-marketing (and in effect, censoring and moderating) popular culture.
That's not entirely true. There has always been, and always will be, an underground scene for music especially. I listen to a lot of acid techno, a form of music not available on any major label but which I can find supported by any number of independant record labels, some of which have been going for years. There have been many genres of music which go unnoticed and untouched by major record labels.
Everywhere it reigns, from Wal-Mart to AOL/Time Warner to Microsoft, corporatism discourages creativity, pushes individuals to the margins and promotes conformity and control of software, hardware, intellectual content and culture.
Again this is a sweeping statement about a subject which has a vast scope. Yes, maybe most corporations are like this, but certainly not all of them. There are companies out there which encourage their staff to be creative and push their ideas - the first example I can think of is Dyson who make vacuum cleaners over here in the UK.
Geeks may be the only barrier standing between us and the rampaging corporatists drooling over profits from cyberspace.
Okay, now this sounds like part of the trailer for a Hollywood film - you know with that bloke going "It was a time for political activism" :)
the value of copyright (for poets) (Score:2)
How do poets, guitarists or actors wring use value out of their creations? How do they eat without some copyright protection? Bob Dylan should have been a college professor, or harmonica coach? John Lennon ("imagine no possessions
Of course they shouldn't. Trying to wring use value out of an artistic creation, as in the above examples, is far more hoary and commercial than simple copyright, which lets at least popular artists focus on art, rather than on making money
from art.
It is not that copyright protection needs to be as intrusive as it may be in the DMCA. But, reading through Mr. Katz's post and some of the top responses, I repeatedly encountered the notion that copyright itself is less valuable in the digital world, since the cost of reproducing data is close to zero.
But the cost of producing content is never xero, no matter what it costs to *re*-produce. Content producers have to eat, and it is the independent, struggling artists and writers and creators who are hungriest. Shouldn't they have some say in whether Live365.com can rake in $2,500/day in banner and audio ads off of some newly-popular song they've written? Shouldn't they get a cut of that? And shouldn't hugely popular musical geniuses on major labels be able to live well off of their creations? Should the Ani DiFrancos and Arto Lindays and DJ Shadows and Dr. Dres, whose tunes make some people feel really, really good, have to get day jobs? Do we want them to have to get day jobs?
Do we want budding musicians and writers, child prodigies, to know that they will never be able to dedicate themselves to any creation without use value? There is a gulf between Perl and the Philharmonic.
Does DCMA help AOL/Time Warner a great deal? Excellent! Hundreds of the country's best government watchdog journalists, best folk singers, best actors, best directors, best agitators, best iconoclasts, best Think Different billboard candidates, best Penguin-drawers, best hack-on-Apache in their spare time webmasters and best gotcha-made-you-think nonfiction book authors eat every day because of AOL/Time Warners copyrights.
And while most slashdotters can eat without owning, most of these bright folks cannot.
Because there is, in the end, a difference between emacs source and "Oye Come Va." Not everyone can afford to give it away.
Re:DCMA, etc. (Score:2)
I must have been watching the OTHER WTO protests in Seattle that week, since that's not what I saw. Whipping on over to cnn.com, and doing a search for "seattle wto protests" yields two articles at the top of a long list. The first [cnn.com] is a classical "free trade is good, even though sometimes it's hard to see that" argument, but the second [cnn.com] says, more or less "the protests worked, people are thinking".
I do look down on most civil disobedience because there are better ways to go about making a change happen, specifically when dealing with the US government. Throwing rocks and bottles and staging sit ins does nothing to help reverse or modify the policies or the DMCA.
I'd argue that throwing rocks and bottles never helps anything, and nonviolent civil disobedience is probably not the most effective tack for changing the DMCA. However, nonviolent civil disobedience has a long history as an effective tool to work towards positive change.
Obvious examples are Mahatma Ghandi and the Indian liberation movement, Martin Luther King Jr, and the civil rights movement. Even today, your distasteful "long hairs" are using it effectively in smaller battles, such as the recently-ended tree sit in the Pacific Northwest. Maybe you're convinced that Ghandi could have written to the British governer of India and had much better results, but somehow, I doubt it. Many issues, including the WTO, require the attention of the public at large to start a change.
Thoreau wrote the now classic essay Civil Disobedience [berkeley.edu] over a century ago, and it argues the point of civil protest in social action more eloquently than I can, here.
Please, don't denegrate a culture or method of social activism you obviously either don't want to or can't understand.
Differences (Score:2)
Firstly let's analyse who is behind the two acts mentioned in the article : DMCA - large corporates, people that are trying to grab the control of everything (I'm not questioning why - I assume you all will have a different, correct answer). CDA - the US government (and others too - is there a law in Australia that forbids 4 letter words in information sent over the net ?).
If the CDA would have passed, it would have ment the sudden death of a very young industry : cyber-sex. Does anyone know how much money does this mean ? Billions ? More ? Thus, you have a perfectly good reason for not passing the CDA - that would have hurt the corporations - which is bad
On the other hand, the DMCA is trying to prevent free access to information (music is only a fashionable subject) by imposing some stupid rules. And even if this may seem far out of line : this is exactly what happened in the late '70s when the govt. banned drugs. There was a movement that preached freedom, that was non-conformist, that didn't care about the rules imposed from above. As long as they could make money from selling drugs to them, they allowed it. When a whole generation said "Fxxk you, I don't want to fight your stupid war" then all changed. It wasn't profitable any more. So they destroyed it.
They may do the same with the internet. I'm almost sure they will.
However, we will find another way to express our freedom (virtual reality, populating other planets, who knows ?) because after all that's what all is about. Since Adam, we tried to be free, to be our own chiefs to assume responsibilities.
This has been around long before Microsoft, AOL or WalMart. And it will remain long after they will not even be remembered.
What's this all about then ? Easy : there will always be a battle for dominance between corporates trying to own the minds and souls of individuals and their will to remain free. History tells us that human have existed longer than corporates. This is the difference !
Re:No, you had it right (Score:2)
But in general, be nice, professional and be prepared. Most likely you won't get more that 20 minutes with the representetive, but you can meet with the telecom aide for a lot longer, he/she's the one who really does the work on this anyway. Lay out your point of view like this:
- A little background of the problem
- Your personal impact as a constituent
- several possible solutions
- Brief closing
If possible, practice your twenty minute gig beforehand, also try to get time with the aide the same day, the aide will update the member at the end of the day. If possible, bring a camera and get a picture of the two of you, they love that stuff.
Get Involved! (Score:2)
Look, the current administration is not going to help. Clinton's policies surrounding this are all over the road. His administration is focusing on only two things, 1, ramp up the failing Clinton legacy and 2, get Gore in the White House. This needs to come from grass roots efforts, they do have impact if they are communicated effectively. This means politely, professionally and with out flame. Find out who your local congressional member or senator is and communicate with them that the DMCA is way off base and catering not to the general good of the citizens, but to specific industries.
Make sure that in all your verbal or written communication to either an elected official, industry lobby or industry exec that you be nice. Elected officials really don't respond well to flames, spam, mail floods or harsh language. You will come off as a script kiddie and be completely ignored. For a loose reference, re-read the Linux Advocacy Guide, it will give you the right sort of flavor for your communications. The bottom line is don't JUST bitch about how "big brothers keepin' us down man" do something about it!
The house of representatives has a search facility to find your representative:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/ [house.gov]
The senates listing is here:
http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.c fm [senate.gov]
Re:DCMA, etc. (Score:2)
So what we have now is Hacktivism boiling down to nothing more then Script Kiddie antics. Great. I am sure this will help to convince people that it is a legit method of action.
All the protests and Dos attacks made for some sexy headlines, but in the long run made the folks attempting the disobedience look like a bunch of hippies with nothing better to do than stage riots, both physical and electronic.
Maybe a better track would be to use the channels available to us, like writing your congressmen or joining an association like EFF . Civil disobedience doesn't change laws, Congress does.
No, you had it right (Score:2)
Normally I agree with you, however I think your view is somewhat narrow.
Have you ever sat down with your congressman or senator? Explained as a constituent your point of view? From you post I would have to say probably not. I have and I was amazed at the impact. The big companies have their industry lobbies and their PACs but the constituents voice has a much higher volume. I forget the exact numbers, but it goes something like this when in comparative perspective you look at constituent volume vs lobby volume.
1 Constituent letter = 100 Lobby or PAC letters
1 Constituent phone call = 500 Lobby or PAC phone calls
1 Constituent face to face meeting = 100 Lobby or PAC meetings
Again, I'm not right on with the numbers, however I am in the ballpark. Your voice does have an impact and just giving up because big bad corporation has more money than me just doesn't hold water. You can have a difference and the avenues for you to have a face to face with your elected officials are there and easy to use. Pick up the phone and call to get a meeting. It's that simple.
Re:DCMA, etc. (Score:2)
I do look down on most civil disobedience because there are better ways to go about making a change happen, specifically when dealing with the US government. Throwing rocks and bottles and staging sit ins does nothing to help reverse or modify the policies or the DMCA.
I agree that getting publicity will help in curbing the DMCA, but WTO style antics are not step one, writing you representatives is step one. Save the civil disobedience and hacktivism for the hippies, the anti-DMCA front needs to professional or at least have the appearance that we're not a bunch of pot smokin' kids, and needs to use the avenues in place. They will work if they are used.
Copyright law and PB&J... (Score:2)
You compare owning copyright to owning a house...but the two are very different things. Ownership of a physical object is simple. I have it, I own it, it's here in my hand, and that's that. If you want one, you can make one like it, true, but that requires work on your part and materials. Otherwise, you can buy mine, giving me something that I value as much as the Thing in question to recompense me for the effort and and materials that went into making It, and also to recompense me for the loss of Its use. And if you steal It, well, I'm out all of those things and have nothing to show for it.
Information isn't like that.
If I discover the Great and Mighty Secret(G&MS) behind the production of a better peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and I choose to share my knowledge with you, I still know the G&MS myself. Just because I showed you how to do it in no way deprives me of the ability to make my new and improved PB&J sandwich. And if I share that secret out, then society can only benefit from it -- someone might be inspired by my G&MS into producing a more flavorful tofu, for instance -- but there's a hitch...what if I spent $100 on experimentation to get the recipe just right? Shouldn't there be a mechanism in place that allows me to recoup my research investment as well as give me a chance to reap some reward for improving humanity's lot? It's only fair...so we come up with an arrangement where for the first little while, I'm the only guy who has the right to produce this new improved sandwich (and I can license that right to others), giving me a chance to benefit from my creativity. But it can only be temporary, else how si that information going to eventually get out to that guy experimenting with tofu and inspire him to _his_ great contribution to the culinary arts? And that's the origianl basis for copyright law....recognizing that society reaps the most benefit from the free exchange of information, but acknowledging that the folks who come up with the ideas need some incentive (and reward) for doing so. Copyright law is a compromise, allowing us to make our PB&J sandwiches and (eventually) eat them, too.
--WhiskeyJack
Locke and property rights (Score:2)
The counterargument, though, is that copyright and IP rights in general are not natural rights in the same way that other property rights are. They are created rights that were invented by society to benefit the public by encouraging creativity. Thus the government is only obligated to protect those rights to the extent that it is generally beneficial. If the web is structured so that it is more beneficial that IP have less protection, then that's the way that it ought to be.
"The Net is redefining..." (Score:2)
The heritage of the Net has always been free, probably because it was born of the University setting. But now it's a largely commercial place, like it or not. There are many, many points of control where the freewheeling days of the past can get shut down, cold.
To begin with, the Law has come down against linking to deCSS code. The Law has also gone to ISPs to enforce this situation. This comes VERY close to turning ISPs from common carriers into content providers - potentially putting AOL-like Terms of Service on all of us. (in the US - to begin with)
Beyond that, in the old days anyone could buy a bank of modems and become an ISP. In these days where we all crave bandwidth, the rules have shifted. So far cable modem users end up having the cable provider as their ISP. DSL is a little more diversified, but not far from the same boat. Becoming a DSL ISP requires co-located equipment, and has become a higher bar to jump over. Forget about satellite - the sky's the limit on requirements, there.
So the very infrastructure has shifted - become less diffuse and has better defined points of control. Money has been speaking, and freedom eroded. We're not that many steps from being forced into AOL-like user status, TOS and all.
We can scream to our representatives, but we're also a small minority. As long as content flows TV-like along the pipes to the majority (AOL-like) we lack the clout needed to stop this trend. Note that none of these legal moves do a thing to hinder TV-like delivery of content from big providers.
Oh, well.
How is this a crime or a theft (Score:2)
(1) According to the RIAA - because they didn't get any money from the sale of your computer, and as far as they're concerned if you have the ability to play a fraction of a second of any of their intelectual property on 2 machines at the same time, you're depriving them of money, and the purchase only allows one person to listen to it at the same time. (It should also be a criminal offence to hum the tune if you don't own it)
(2) The movie companies feel that you should not be able to see a film before its released on the cinema in your country because that is stealing the claim to first showing from the cinemas.
(3) You COULD use this to produce pirate videos. It doesn't matter that you wouldn't. The fact that you merely have the knowledge to do so means that they should lock you up and throw away the key.
Physical people (Score:2)
Time to be devil's best buddy (Score:2)
Re:you're oversimplifying (Score:2)
I spent a few minutes looking for articles on the websites of newspapers, magazines and TV networks to disprove you, but I was hard pressed to find anything. I came across a few, like this at USA Today [usatoday.com] and another at CNN [cnn.com], but most of their coverage was articles culled from ZDNet, C|Net and IDG. I certainly hope their coverage improves, and I expect it will. Newspapers and TV networks sometimes do a superb job of reporting on controversies in their industry, and I hope that continues. I think my real point - that news groups owned by corporations often report against the alleged "corporate agenda" - is still valid.
I also agree with you that "Enforced copyrights and freedom cannot coexist in cyberspace." But it would have been just as true if you inserted "meatspace" instead. Copyright enforcement, like all intellectual property - or any law enforcement, for that matter - inherently involves limits on freedom. As precious as our current freedom in cyberspace is, it is going to be curtailed again and again in the coming years. We must accept that, and realize that it is incumbent upon us to make sure we influence the direction of those limitations, so as to minimize their authoritarian effect.
I also agree with what you said about me being a windbag; it's inherited.
Cheers.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
If you deed your house to your children, and they to theirs, there is no "time limit" after which the house becomes public property and any random homeless person can just walk into your living room and make himself at home. That would be absurd. So how is this any different? Ownership persists. That's what "ownership" means.
This is not about stealing property, it is about the right of how to use that property.
To use a better analogy, think about purchasing a frozen dinner. Some of them only have instructions for using the overn, others only for the microwave, but most for both. Imaging the following conversation after the police break down your door: Sorry, you can't cook your food in your legally purchased microwave; you have to use the oven. Why? Because that restriction was made when you bought the meal. Read the fine print. Your oven broke yesterday? Too bad; get it fixed or starve.
Edward Burr
Time to turn on the brain... (Score:2)
Your house is yours. You paid for it. But you may not have more than 3 people at the same time in it, or the company that built it may sue you and disable your house's functionality without prior notice. There's no time limit after which the house becomes public property, but there is a time limit on how long you may use it. Sure, you paid for the house, but the company that built it will disable its functionallity if you dont pay per use, which means you need to deposit a quarter each time you go through the front door.
You have a bookshelf in your house with some books in it that you bought. You can only read those books once each, or you need to pay the author again if you want to reread it or look something up. Your encyclopedia is riddled with advertising banners.
One day your oven has an electrical failure and puts your son on fire. He gets severe burns and is treated in hospital for months. An investigation shows that a very simple error in the oven's design caused the accident, and that the company that made it could have fixed it easily for you. You may not sue the company, because there was a shrink-wrap license with it that you agreed to when you opened the oven the first time, making the company not liable for any damage whatsoever. In fact, the company that made your oven sues you for talking about it in public, which was agains the license agreement to.
We can keep comparing software to the real world with these good new laws like the DMCA and UCITA in place if you want, but i sure hope you've gotten my point by now.
Abraham Lincoln on corporatism (Score:3)
http://www.ratical.org/corporation s/Lincoln.html [ratical.org]
What about compilations or import DVDs I paid for? (Score:3)
Please enlighten me and describe how any of the following constitute a "crime" or "theft":
(1) Combining tracks from several different CDs I own onto a single read and burned fully digitally (no analog conversions) on my computer's CDR burner for my own personal use.
(2) Modifying my DVD player or buying the parts or modify my DVD player or buying a pre-modified DVD player in order to defeat the region coding so I can play the import DVDs I ***paid*** for.
(3) Defeating macrovision in order to copy a DVD to VHS so my daughter can watch The Little Mermaid over and over and over. Kids can be brutal to media and easily scratch and ruin a DVD.
I'm listening.
Re:Property is property. (Score:3)
It is impossible to, and immoral to attempt to restrict the ways in which a person can think. Yet this is what you propose.
I am going to coin a phrase: The frogs jumped from the tower.
According to you, I not only now own this phrase, but you aren't allowed to redistribute it. You can't repeat it. You can't write it down. You can't write something derivative of it. Frankly, you aren't even allowed to *think* it. No without my specific approval.
And furthermore, you (I'm making the safe (IMHO) assumption here that you're the previous AC) claim that I can eternally assign this ownership to my heirs, so that unless they're feeling charitable, no one will ever, through the entire course of the future ever, EVER repeat that phrase in any way whatsoever.
That's insane.
However, my course is now clear. I think I'll just rev up the old computer and have it print out a list containing every possible combination of letters up to words that are 20 letters long (approx 2*10^29 unless my math is off). I and my heirs will forever own all of these words, so you'd better not get caught using any of them, ever.
Beginning to see the problems with your argument?
Re:Natural rights vs. Legal rights (Score:3)
The phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is not even in the Constitution. It's in the Declaration of Independence.
Furthermore, copyrights are not ennumerated rights. The constitution never, ever says that people can own ideas. It says that the Congress has the power to enact legislation which grants copyrights, patents, etc. This is very different. It means that the only controls over ideas are laws, which are trumped by the Constitution. Therefore it's easily possible for a court to interpret the current gang of copyright laws as being unconstitutional, even though the Congress has the power to make these types of laws (because the exercise of that power requires that it carry the intent that is explicitly written in the Constitution).
So to recap:
1)Copyright laws are not natural, ennumerated rights
2)Copyright laws are not granted in the Constitution
3)Copyright laws are merely possible, provided they fulfill the associated requirements spelled out in the Constitution
4)The copyright laws you're so fond of are quite likely unconstitutional
5)And not only that, but any copyright law ever is contrary to your natural rights anyway
I won't even dignify the 2nd part of your post with any response other than reiterating that you're very much a troll. Why people can't be honest around here is beyond me....
Information is a Commodity (Score:3)
I disagree with the last statement that this is erupting under our noses. This has already erupted and has long since been put to bed. As much as we like to think that information and intellectual property in and of itself should be granted, to some degree, to the public (humanity itself), the very obvious reality is that information and any intellectual effect which can be profited from, can be.
In addition, the construct of our political and legal system seems to prefer the rights of those who would make commercial use and economic gain by means of exploiting information and intellectual creations over those who would wish to make that information more or less available to all without restriction.
This may not be our law or the way we see ourselves, but it is what we've seen practiced over the last few decades. As we know, precedence often supersedes word-for-word legal decrees.
Perhaps I'm just a bit too cynical. I have been the 'victim' of plagiarism and copyright infringement and acknowledge the right of the creators to distribute and limit their 'product' as they see fit, but I also am slightly (and unrealistically) compelled to side with the utopian dream of limitless free information for everyone. I say this not as some punk who wants to rip every CD on the face of the earth to build his MP3 collection (I actually OWN a CD copy of every MP3 I have), but as someone who believes that information should never-the-less not be limited by and for those who can afford it.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Occlusion Of The Point (Score:3)
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a frontal assault on the open source ethic, both technological and social. The underlying political issue is both clear and significant: Must we depend on the creative choices and products of a handful of ferociously greedy and monopolistic corporations who have increasingly come to dominate media, culture and entertainment? Or can we define our own cultural experiences?
Before the passage of this law, the answer was yes; individuals controlled at least some of their choices.
And after the passage of this law, individuals no longer control their choices? How amazing -- the DMCA subverts free will. I no longer have the ability not to watch television, or not to listen to the radio, or not to write my own books or songs? DMCA enforcement squads will prevent me from flying halfway across the country to attend an Over the Rhine concert? I doubt it.
While your concerns may be warranted, you do your argument a disservice with this exaggeration.
One of the Net's universally shared ethics, at least among geeks, has been empowerment and choice, along with a growing open-source instinct about software and technology.
Is it universal, or is it shared among geeks? Be precise.
Previously, Net culture has tended to be freer than offline culture.
This, from someone who has decried the so-called "Digital Divide"? Aren't the barriers to participation in Net culture sufficiently higher (the cost of a PC and an Internet connection) than those of offline culture (the cost of a radio)?
If you don't like me reframing the question in those terms, be more specific on what you mean by 'freer'. (I suspect the answer lies in a latter paragraph which mentiones "free flow of ideas and opinions". I was fortunate enough to find this, among college students, before I discovered the Internet.)
Music, the spark for a surprising percentage of the Net's legal battles, has become a metaphor for the emerging political struggle over who defines and propagates culture on the Web and the rest of the Net.
Step back and look at the bigger picture. The question is, "What are the legal and ethical ramifications of trivially duplicated Intellectual Property?" That question has bounced around for decades, if not longer. (I would imagine that it came up as recording equipment became popular and practica for home use, and again as photocopying technology spread.) The current incarnations of the debate (MP3s, DVDs, TV rebroadcasting) only demonstrate that the issue has never been resolved.
The Net is, in fact, redefining what content and intellectual property are.
Some would argue that the definitions were never very good.
The law's proponents claim that the DMCA was intended to promote balance, but so far, at least, it tilts sharply towards copyright holders, not copyright challengers. It advances a principle of blind copyright protection that in no way takes into account the Net's unique nature, nor the rights and sensibilities of a generation that defines culture differently.
What is "the Net's unique nature"? Who is this mythical generation? How does it "define culture differently"? Please support your opinions with some facts. That will, at least, give your essay the semblance of commentary.
Nor does it even acknowledge the idea of any universal right to define choice, options or personal enjoyment.
Perhaps you need a law to tell you that it is okay to like something you didn't see on TV or hear on the radio, but the rest of us are doing okay without it. I am not a mindless consumer, bleating advertising jingles all day long, waiting for 5 pm when I can invade the mall with the rest of my flock, emerging bleary eyed, emblazened with the corporate logos.
This kind of pre-Net copyright protection will advance the same sort of tepid and homogeneous culture that the music and movie industries have forced on the offline world by promoting products that can generate enormous revenues, and by gobbling up independent companies and acquiring media and entertainment companies and mass-marketing (and in effect, censoring and moderating) popular culture.
Someone interested in "choice, options, or personal enjoyment" might even acknowledge that some people have made the choice, or, horrors, personally enjoy that "tepid and homogenous culture". Jack Valenti certainly did not send his good squad to force me to attend a movie or two last year.
One of the striking aspects of geek culture is that it's so far remained much freer than the mainstream.
Again, in which ways? The geeks who like Star Trek? The hardcore libertarian bunch? Cypherpunks? Script kiddies? Alt.binaries.* readers? MCSEs? Warez d00ds?
Software and hardware have enabled individuals to seek out rich, diverse and highly individualized entertainment.
As did cable television, libraries, oral tradition, and imagination before them.
The ability to personalize culture in this way is unprecedented, a unique feature of life online.
When you define culture as "a list of bookmarks in a web browser", you are correct. Unfortunately, no one else defines culture in such a short-sighted fashion.
The belief that even if laws restrict the Net, innovative software and hardware will triumph, is pervasive. The DMCA suggests that may be wishful thinking.
Whereas you suggest that the idea that I can decide not to partake of the "tepid, homogenized mass media culture" is wishful thinking.
Is there cause for concern with the DCMA? Certainly. Is it anything new? No. Is it the end of the world? Certainly not.
Grandiose exaggerations, sweeping generalizations, a limited sense of proportion and history, and vague notions about some sort of utopian geek paradise threatened by evil big business do very little but occlude the real issue.
--
Re:Absolutely. (Score:3)
Yes, but the thing about it is...these distribution and reproduction costs are ALL PAID FOR BY THE CONSUMER. The zero cost is what is incurred by the owner of the media (if they wish to set it free.) One could also include promotion as an unnecessary cost, if you take the stance that if something is good enough the average consumer would want to tell their friends about it and a mechanism exists that they can share the something. But as it stands the current copyright holders would rather pay for distribution, reproduction, and promotion themselves, it's a lot easier to add $3 to $15 than it is to add it to $1.
--
Odd side effects. (Score:3)
- The first network is for those people who currently live off of and feed these corporations. The people who want their music fed to them. Hopefully they'll take over the new AOL [aol.com].
- The second network will be for the theives and pirates. Those who want what the megacorps put out and think they shouldn't have to pay. Unfortunately, I think they'll take Freenet [sourceforge.net] as well.
- The final net will be where it always was, out in the public and hard to find. It will be the college radio stations and the small bars like the old el&gee [el-n-gee.com] club I used to frequent. It will resemble the way things used to be here, where some
.plan or .project pointed you to a cool gopher file somewhere.
The truth is, the corporations can sue us only as long as we buy their stuff. Once we realize that it's just glitter without substance, we're free from them.-----
Re:Absolutely. (Score:3)
Napster alternative (Score:3)
Proposal: an open source, distributed database search engine, where the search is performed in parallel by a large number of logged-in clients, and results are combined on the requesting client. When a new client runs, it uploads file info onto several other clients, whose location is found from the cached results of the last run / public web sites / hidden ftp servers / information from friends / whatever else you might come up with. Search can be performed akin the infamous worm viruses with graph search depth limitations.
As for the name, we can call it World Wide Search (WWS), or some other silly choice to attract attention. Obviously, this thing has to be portable enough to run on all platforms, including non-Linux.
E-mail me if you are interested.
Remove "SPAM" twice to reply.
*can* be used in a crime != *will* be used. (Score:4)
Now this really *pisses* *me* *off*. RIAA thinks it it entitled to assess a fine *upon* *me* because *other* people are pirating. This leads me to one of two conclusions. (1) this fee is wrong, and should be banned or (2) Since I'm being punished along with the pirates, I may as well actually set out and pirate since I've already been judged guilty with sentence carried out. Since the crime has already been paid for, why not to pirate?
What's next? Do we tax a "murder fee" onto knife sales and give the monet to law enforcement, because x% of knives are used in murders every year?
(2) The movie companies feel that you should not be able to see a film before its released on the cinema in your country because that is stealing the claim to first showing from the cinemas. I might agree with this if region locks somehow automatically expired after a certain time. But fucking 50 year old movies are coming out today on DVD with region locks?! Kinda lays waste to the distribution argument, eh? Of course, many of the import DVDs I have will *never* see a local release, and even if they did, videos are often edited, extra features removed, audio dubbed over... the point being that IT ISN'T EVEN THE SAME PRODUCT ANYMORE. It's changed, so how can it can be seen as competing with the other region product anymore? And when I buy an import DVD, are not the original IP owners getting compensated? Isn't this what this whole protection scheme is supposed to really (3) You COULD use this to produce pirate videos.
This logic is so flawed, I'll leave its dubunking as an excercise for the reader.
OT: You own your body/mind, but don't have control (Score:4)
You may own your body, but you're in error if you think you can do anything to it that you like. Suicide is a crime in many jurisdictions (although enforcement is a bit of a problem). You do not have the right to determine what you put in your own body (see the "War On Drugs"). Altering your own brain/body chemistry without government approval IS a criminal offense. In many places, it's a felony. That's right, if you put the wrong thing in your body, and your government finds out, men from said government will come with guns to put you in a cage.
If we can't, as a nation, accept that people have the natural right to do to their own bodies as they see fit, then we shouldn't be surprised when we find our other freedoms abridged.
Thoughtcrime isn't a crime yet, but only because it's not yet possible to police. Don't you thing EMI or Bertelsmann would love to take a penny every time you hum/remember a tune they own? Don't you think they'd require it if they could?
Waxing cynical,
-Isaac
A16: Call to Action! (Score:4)
Listen up, people!
On April 16th, a diverse group of protesters will be converging on Washington DC to protest the IMF. More importantly, though, they will be protesting corporate rule and the placement of profit over freedom.
It just so happens that I found this on the RIAA website:
> The RIAA is located at:
> 1330 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 300
> Washington, DC 20036
> Phone: (202) 775-0101
> Fax: (202) 775-7253.
If I'm not mistaken, this isn't that far from where the A16 action will occur. We need to organize and get our voices heard! We have a few different options, from physically occupying their offices and demanding certain concessions, to locking arms around their building, to attacking their building with grafitti and posters outlining why we feel the RIAA and others are destroying the culture of sharing information.
If you can get to A16 [a16.org] in D.C., do it! Contact groups like the Direct Action Network [agitprop.org], the Ruckus Society [ruckus.org], or possibly other more revolutionary [infoshop.org] groups, and start talking about how to organize.
You don't get things accomplished by continually posting on Slashdot. At some point you have to get off your butt and take to the streets!
Michael Chisari
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:4)
If ideas _were_ property, you'd still owe money to the heirs of the guy who invented words like 'the'.
Rather, there is no natural law that grants anyone ownership of any idea. That's impossible. Just conveying your idea to others spreads it. I suppose if you had an idea which you never said, or wrote, or illustrated in any way you would own it. Wouldn't do any good though, huh?
Furthermore, copyright laws are really quite new. For thousands of years, barring any cultural restrictions (e.g. our God says you have to be a holy scribe to write his mysteries down; the King frowns on people who correspond with his enemies) there have been no laws regulating ideas.
If you wrote a book anyone could reprint it (although there were limits on what kind of writing the government might allow, and if they'd let you keep your press or your life...), if you gave a speech, anyone could repeat it, and if you invented something, anyone could figure it out and make a copy.
(in fact, the only reason we have anything of Shakespeare's is due to people stealing his papers and printing the contents, and actors transcribing the plays from memory. I remember seeing a really hilarious version of Hamlet's soliloquy where the actor didn't remember things properly)
But the common thread here, is that there is no such thing as ownership of an idea. Ownership relies on the scarcity of things. But tell me an idea and now we *both* have the idea. Scarcity has not been reduced. Ergo, you do not own your ideas. No one does.
As an INCENTIVE for coming up with ideas though, copyright and patent laws came about. They granted a temporary monopoly on some limited types of use (e.g. copyrights prevent other people from making many copies and selling them all, although they can sell any copies they bought from the copyright holder)
But the monopoly is only to be granted for a limited time (so sayeth the Constitution), because monopolies stifle creativity. They only give you a reason to persue creative persuits in the first place, but limit you when you're doing it. After this time has expired, your monopoly ends and your ideas are no longer artificially constrained. Anyone can use them in any way, and if this helps them come up with something, so much the better.
And btw, you're dead wrong on your ideas about real property too. Squatter's rights have a long established history. If you own some piece of property which you ignore, and someone else improves your property for you - putting in effort that you don't expend yourself - eventually the rights to it transfer to them. You have to use it or lose it.
So do try to remember that free copying and use are the natural way of things. Congress has actually been acting unconstitutionally IMHO in regards to copyrights for the few decades. (the Constitution says that it has to both promote progress and be for a limited time, and right now it's effectively doing neither)
Re:"The Net is redefining..." (Score:4)
When are we going to figure out that what 534 boneheads and one libertarian (the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ron Paul) vote on up there in the District O'Crime, aka The Law, means exactly jack when it comes to what you and I do on a daily basis? How many of us speed on a daily basis? Even better: How many of us actually stop the car completely every time at a stop sign when nothing is coming? I thought so.
The Law can't be everywhere.
What does this mean for you and me and the DMCA? Nothing, really. The DMCA is worth less than the paper it's printed on.
On the other hand, it also means a lot. It means that we've just been pushed (back) over the line into being a culture of outlaws, like our predecessors in the Sixties. This is constraining, in that some of us will have consequences for exercising our freedom of choice. It is also freeing, in the idea that, hey, if we're going to be outlaws, we may as well act like it. They can't kill the net, they can only push it underground. You guys still remember how to do Fido and UUCP, don't you? We can also tunnel protocols across the "legit" Net, encrypt our data, steganize it, all sorts of shifty things to keep The Man off our backs. The tech to do this is already out there, in the clear, currently unfettered. All we have to do is USE IT.
Bottom line is, I agree with a previous poster. If we don't like what Big Brother is doing, t'hell with him. See to it that he doesn't get any of our money, or our friends' money. Support your local mom and pop band. ISP. Grocery/health food store. Credit union. (Get the hell out of Megabank.... but that's a whole 'nother can of worms)
In short, make the message resoundingly clear with our silence: Big Brother, stick it.
--
"Take this jooooob and shove it,
I ain't workin' here no more...."
-- George Jones
consumer warfare (Score:4)
seriously... they treat all of their customers like criminals. They lie, cheat, spread propaganda and attack their customers... And worst of all, they force stuff like the backstreet boys and brittney spears on us...
And yet, the very people that they are attacking are supposed to patronize these fascist dictators of america.
Seriously - if someone described a country where control of the government is centralized into the hands of a few (big corporations), the artwork was controlled by the same few i.e. movies, books, music.
And the NEWS was controlled byt these same groups...
We would call it a fascist/communistic country...
and that folks, is where we are at.
Round Peg in a square hole (Score:4)
If you go to the library and check out a book, the next person must wait for you to return the book before he/she can check it out.
If you go to the digital library and check out a book, there is always a book left.
A fundamental shift in business model. The companies who can understand this shift have a significant advantage on how we are going to be tdoing business tomorrow. The same goes for DMCA if they apply the same "Old School" model to today./tomorrows technical environment problems, the problems will not get addressed, they will increase ten fold.
I don't thing the folks behind DMCA are nessasarily evil, they just simply are using the wrong tools, the wrong model and for some reason forcing a round peg in a square hole.
Absolutely. (Score:5)
The digital realm is different. While initially producing something may cost money, once that has been done it is present in the digital realm in basically infinite supply. As long as one instance of something exists, an infinite amount of instances can be created at zero cost. Because the digital realm is a zone of abundance rather than one of scarcity, new rules must be found to work with it.
The DMCA, and its silly restrictions on Net broadcasts/publishing/whatever, isn't really trying to impose a double standard. What it's trying to do is fit the old rules over a new realm. And in the end that doesn't work. The Net restrictions on broadcasting, for example, are there because RIAA sees Net radio not as a broadcast medium but as a distribution medium (in truth it is both and neither at the same time, but this isn't possible in the physical world so RIAA never realized that), and therefore lobbied for different standards.
The truth is, corporations are scared of the Net. They're afraid that it'll kill off their precious profits. The fact is it won't, but corporations have to adapt, to be willing to throw the old rules out the window for a new set which fits the digital realm.
What are those rules? I don't claim to know; I don't think the Net has yet been around long enough that one could form a set which works. The old economic laws certainly don't work; the Net itself violates even the most basic law of supply and demand (supply is essentially infinite, but demand is clearly nonzero). The Open-Source ethic might be an answer, but it also might not.
Companies don't have to worry as much as they do, not even RIAA. This is simply an economic evolution, one which they would be better off adapting to rather than resisting. If they want to pull out of the digital economy completely, the physical economy will always be there. At least, it will as long as there are physical beings, like people. But it's useless to map old economic laws onto a place which violates just about every one of them by its very nature.
I've been giving this more thought.. (Score:5)
Let's use art as an example. You paint a picture. Do you own the painting? Yes; you bought the materials and made the painting. You build a sculpture; do you own it? Yes; again you bought the materials and used them. But let's say you record a CD. Certainly you own the CD. But how do you own sound, even a specific configuration thereof? Or let's say you write a book; you certainly own the book, but how do you own words? You write a piece of software; how do you own thought? You build something; you own what you have built, but how do you own the concept of whatever it is you have made?
The simple fact of the matter is, you don't. You can't, any more than you could own fire. So who owns it, then? Nobody does; nobody can. This is where the patent, copyright, and trademark offices come in. The idea is to promote the distribution of these non-ownable things by stating that for a certain period of time, no one but the first person to register these may use the idea, except by permission or fair use. Each handles a different thing; trademarks cover corporate identity, copyrights cover thoughts, and patents cover devices.
Now, before someone goes to claim that I'm saying that a person has no rights to his mind, that's not what I mean. It does mean you have to view the mind from a different perspective, but it ends, as with the "intellectual property" myth, with a person keeping rights to his own mind.
Certainly you own your own body. This means that among other things, you own your brain. Your brain (at least according to generally accepted theory) houses your mind, and you own that too because it's a part of you. What does the mind do? It produces thought. I don't think anyone here will argue against the assertion that the mind is (or at least should be) sacrosanct, not something that anyone else has the right to interfere with, if only because each person owns his own mind. Because of this, you have a right to your own thoughts, just as if you did own them. The difference is only that you have no intrinsic right to sell your thoughts (the concept doesn't work anyway; if you sell your idea to someone else you lose nothing except perhaps the time it took to explain it, so it's not a fair trade).
This is why I think we really need to come up with a better phrase than "intellectual property" for this sort of thing. No doubt it was started by the corporation, because it tips the balance in their favor. But it's also a misnomer.
Resistance is not futile (Score:5)
In the future world where two or three mega-corps control every industry, it is only through vocal protests and real-world action that the teeny-tiny voices of indinidual consumers will ever be heard. We must speak up, we must spread the word, and when it's needed, shout from every rooftop and bitcast from every node.
People can't resist when they don't know they are fighting. It's in the established businesses best interests to keep consumers ignorant, and they'll spend a lot of money o their best interests. It won't be as much censoring what you say, but just saying so much more than you so that no one can ever hear. Or spewing forth such rhetoric, that by the time you have a chance to debate with "average joe" he has already been told 100+ times that you are a pirate, a thief, and the scum of the earth because you don't think you should pay for unnecessary services from a monopolist.
Make conscious consumer choices, make an effort to educate your friends, and don't give up. The only way to lose is to stop fighting.
--
DCMA, etc. (Score:5)
I agree that it makes sense to do some of the innovation ourselves, but we can't depend upon that for our consumer rights - we have to simply say that the Government has no right to regulate our private use of products we pay for. It doesn't derive that from anything - read up on political science theory and you'll see that our government is based upon the idea of natural rights, one of which is to do things with stuff that we pay for. That's not a libretarian-geek philosophy, which is where Katz would place it, but it's simply a standard idea in these thoughts. Read Locke or Thoreau sometime - it has to do with the core political theory upon which our government derives its power as a democracy. Esp. read Thoreau to understand what you're doing when you host your copy of DeCSS.
Partly, the DCMA applies to copying for profit of artistic works, which is where it should be applied. Not to private use - they have no right.
Uh oh - are those the UN Black Helicopters? gotta go
"The romance of Silicon Valley was about money - excuse me, about changing the world, one million dollars at a time."
what a damn fool thing to write (Score:5)
1.
This is false. Radio stations - like TV stations, cable networks, etc. - need to get licenses from performing rights groups like ASCAP or BMI [bmi.com]. Even businesses and restaurants larger than a certain size (2000 sq. ft. and 3750 sq. ft., respectively) need to get licenses. Those licenses are not free - they are bought for millions of dollars sometimes, and the money from their purchase goes to the songwriters and performers.
2.
Well, duh. All copyright laws are First Amendment issues in part. All of them. Why? Because copyright laws are inherently about what you can and cannot do and say. The DMCA is no more especially a First Amendment matter than any other copyright law.
And recognizing that there are free-speech issues involved, the DMCA (like other copyright acts) leaves intact the "Fair Use" doctrine, which permits the use of copyrighted material for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.
3.
First of all, calling it a "back-door effort" ignores the facts that there were lobbyists and politicians on both sides of every part of the issue, and that comments and input were solicited from the online community and libraries and computer makers. What's more, some of the Act's provisions had been discussed and debated internationally, as part of a World Intellectual Property Organization treaty - and were first publicized years and years ago. Calling it secretive or "back-door" is plain inaccurate.
4.
This is nonsensical. How is the DMCA "blind"? The point of the law, whether you like it or not, is that it does take into account the Net's unique nature, by recognizing that the Net can be used to disseminate information instantly everywhere. It isn't blind: it tries to stop some of that information from just disappearing into the ether, possibly leaving creators unpaid. What do you mean this generation "defines culture differently"? Every generation defines culture differently, and (if you'll allow me to follow your logic to its natural conclusion) every person defines culture differently. This is not a culture gap, and there is no acceptable reason for lawmakers, musicians and other copyright holders to be held hostage by people who don't want to pay for anything.
5.
Like the theory of phlogiston, your argument here sounds great. But, like the theory of phlogiston, there is not a great deal of empirical evidence to back it up. First of all, your statement about "mainstream media" is circular since you are defining mainstream media as "those media which are owned by corporations." Second, the primary contributor to the political system, in terms of money and in terms of vocal input, is the ordinary voting population; it contributes more money than any other contributing segment. In fact, even though nobody talks about this, corporations are not allowed [fec.gov] to support candidates for federal office.
6.
O, Katz, come on. Compare the words you use for corporations (discourages, pushes, conformity, control, rampaging, drooling) with the words you use for geeks (free, diverse, individualized, unprecedented, unique). What propaganda!
Things are a whole lot more complicated than that. First of all, you refuse to admit the positive effects of the corporate control you so disdain. Thanks to AOL, 20 million people are online. Thanks to Microsoft, lots of confused non-techies are able to use these machines we take for granted. Thanks to WalMart, people have access to more and cheaper products.
How you can claim this is not capitalism is beyond me. With the exception of monopolistic behavior (the integrated-browswer debate is not worth getting into here), each of these companies is behaving as capitalist firms should - by offering products and services that consumers are drawn to.
What's more, it's ridiculous to cast corporations as an Evil Empire trying to crush the plucky, charming geeks who can see how "culture" is changing around them. Even as the Net lets people express themselves more individually, it also spreads a common culture, full of common language and terms and beliefs which can themselves become tyrannical. Before writing "Geeks," you should have sat down and read some Alexis de Tocqueville.
7.
I disagree here again. Technology is extraordinarily powerful, and right now, it is shaping the law - not the other way around. (And if you believe Lawrence Lessig, in many ways, the technology is the law.) I expect that trend will continue for several decades.
8.
First of all, to claim that "corporatism versus individualism" is the "primary political struggle" of the next century demonstrates as much a sense of history as the people who called the O.J. Simpson trial the "trial of the century." Life always ends up amazingly unlike what we had supposed.
Second, again, you are unwilling to see political activism by geeks because you are defining "geeks" circularly - as those who are not politically active. There are many people, including many people here in Washington, D.C., who share the political and technological views of geeks, and are fighting every day to prevent new dumb laws from being passed. Most people are not politically conscious - not just geeks - and that's a wonderful thing. It's a sign of our freedom and safety. The places where political cognizance is a necessary good are places like Chechnya or Somalia or Cuba or China, where a lack of political sense can land you in jail.
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society [tecsoc.org]
The law moves slow, the world moves fast (Score:5)
Besides, EVEN IF it can be fairly maintained that digital music is a first amendment issue, don't forget that the actual rights to the music are owned by record companies, rendering it more a commerce and copyright issue if the courts so decide.( This wouldn't be the first time an anti-free-speech law went on the books in the US, either (1798, repeatedly in the 1890s and during the Red Scare)).
And that's another problem-- the fact that these new laws, CDA, UCITA, DMCA, span so many legal categories, makes them hard to grok fully, much less fight. Your average legislature hasn't the time to parse 80 pages of text when they have 800 bills on the docket and an expert testimony in front of them that says it's okay. Of course that testimony was written by. . .
2) Do you know where staffers from Capitol Hill go when they burn out?? Across the Potomac to the Northern VA/Maryland tech corridor, where they get jobs as "legislative consultants." That's fancy talk for lobbyists. The tech companies are not stupid, they're mining the very source for legislative talent. See # 1 above, and marvel at the collusion going down.
--