Responses from Consumer Advocate Jamie Love 159
1) Politician's Reaction
by dexter1
From my perspective, it seems that all of the politicians in congress seem to be firmly in the grasp of big business ......... or intellectually aware of the issues and responsive to viewpoints other than those of big business? Are there any particular politicians that seem more receptive (that could potentially campaign and convince others)?
Jamie Love:
Politics have gone downhill ever since the US Supreme Court decision in
Buckley v. Valeo. By making campaign spending a constitutionally
protected form of speech, and essentially legalizing bribery, we created
a system where the average member of Congress spends most of his waking
hours trying to raise money, just to compete with some other person who
might do the same thing. Now the new members of Congress are people who
excel at fundraising, or have money to begin with. Once they get on
this treadmill, the spent all their time socializing and speaking with
the lobbyists who can raise more money. It isn't so important that a
politician be genius, or have deep insights of their own into problems,
but if you hang out too much with lobbyists and make friends with people
just to ask for money, you get a warped and fairly limited view of the
world.
That said, I have my own favorites. In the Senate I like John McCain, even though I hate what he does maybe half the time. Patrick Leahy is smart and has his moments. Paul Sarbanes is a decent guy, as is Byron Dorgan. All of these guys will make you mad part of the time, but not all of the time. In the House, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Browne, Jan Schakowsky, Jessie Jackson, Jr. and some others have helped us a lot on our work on access to medicines in developing countries. I think Barbara Lee is very good, and independent -- she was the only member of the House that voted against the bill to give the executive branch a blank check in its war against terrorism. She is one of a small handful of members of Congress who are focused on the tragedy unfolding in Africa over AIDS.
2) Consequences for Patent Breakers?
by Bonker
I believe it was Brazil(? Please correct me) who recently ordered pharma plants to start manufacturing AIDS drugs in violation of U.S. patents. What are the consequences for countries who violate patents like this? Can we take this as a sign that violating a patent in this manner, 'for the public good' so to speak, is going to become more common and acceptable?
Jamie Love:
The Brazil case was poorly reported. Yes, Brazil has threatened to
issue compulsory licenses on some patents on AIDS medicine, which has
forced the price down, and yes, Brazil manufactures a number of AIDS
medicines itself. Brazil only included medicines in its patent Act in
1996, after considerable pressure from the US government, so the earlier
AIDS drugs are not covered by patents in Brazil. Now what else has
Brazil done? It spends more than $300 million per year to buy AIDS
drugs, provides universal access to triple therapy for every person in
Brazil who needs it, regardless of their income. Brazil is the only
country in the developing world that makes triple therapy available to
any significant number of patents. Without triple therapy, most HIV+
people will die within ten years.
Brazil hasn't "violated" any patents. Brazil didn't issue patents on pharmaceuticals before 1996, and now it issues patents. Patents are a grant from the government. If the government wants to limit that right, it can, even here. We recently pushed a report that provides examples of compulsory licenses on patents in the United States, to provide a better understanding of how often this is done in richer countries. It makes no sense for the government to give unlimited power to patent owners. Patents are instruments of public policy, to achieve public purposes. People can't do whatever they want with regular property, and they can't do whatever they want with intellectual property.
We have global trade rules that determine what countries can and cannot do in terms of patents. The most important of these agreements is the World Trade Organization's TRIPS agreement on intellectual property. Articles 27, 30 and 31 of that agreement give governments the right to limit patents in important ways, including cases where governments can create either exceptions to patent rights, or step in and authorize third parties to use patents. In September of this year, the US Department of Justice required 3D Systems Corporation and DTM Corporation to license 178 patents to competitors. I didn't see screaming headlines all over the world announcing that the US was violating patents. Also in September, the US Federal Trade Commission announced it was considering a request for compulsory licenses on Unocal's clean fuel patents, at the request of Exxon. There are lots of circumstances under which the US government can limit patent rights in the United State. But there is often a big international trade crisis when a poor countries wants to issue a compulsory license for a patent on a pharmaceutical drug. This is the case for example in Africa, where infection rates are astonishing. We are working on a compulsory license application in South Africa. Right now more than half of pregnant women in their 20s are testing positive for HIV. They will all die without access to medicines. What type of government would put the interests of patent owners above the interests of half a generation of mothers?
The Clinton Administration was very friendly to the pharmaceutical industry in trade disputes involving medicines, having brought dozens of trade actions against countries all over the world. On January 11 this year, a few days before he left office, President Clinton filed a WTO case against Brazil, claiming their "local working" requirements in the Brazil patent law violated free trade rules. After a great deal of opposition by the public health community, the Bush Administration withdrew the case. Although Clinton actually filed the case and Bush ended it, Clinton is now touring developing countries as a champion of AIDS patients. For eight years Clinton and Gore placed incredible pressure on poor countries to adopt very high levels of intellectual property protection on medicines. President Bush started out with a fairly moderate policy on this, but seems to be increasingly captured by the big pharma companies, in terms of trade policy, and is opposing every effort the poor countries to make the WTO agreement more friendly to the poor, in terms of access to medicine issues.
3) How to communicate issues?
by Sinistar2k
Obviously, the big ticket item is getting the citizenry involved in making changes at a legislative level regarding the liberties that have been traded in
the interest of corporate domination. The problem, however, is finding a way to communicate that without spending three days pointing out cases of
encroaching corporate control.
Do you have any tips/suggestions on how an average technology enthusiast such as myself can best go about conveying to the every-day public the sense of urgency surrounding technology issues and the reason such issues should be addressed?
Jamie Love:
The Internet is an amazing showcase for creative ways to call
attention to various issues and causes. I would barely know how to
start. But I can give what I think are some basics.
- People who take the time to be informed are taken more seriously.
- It helps to have some idea of who the decision makers are, and how you can get in touch. Writing a member of Congress an email probably has some effect, but probably not much. Writing a Congressional staff member who is working on an issue is likely to have a much large effect.
- It is rather amazing how much impact public comments have on government bureaucrats, particularly in formal rulemaking and requests for comments. Something more interesting than you might think would be to spend some time searching the federal register on topics you find interesting.
- Letters to the editor in newspapers are underrated, particularly if you target key papers in a member of Congress' hometown. That's a letter they will read!
- If the issue is getting press attention, lobby the press. What reporters or columnists say and think is pretty important.
- For the non-amateur: during the 1996 Telecom debates, $1,000 apparently would buy about 10 minutes of face to face with the Chairman of a key subcommittee. I don't know the current price. We don't do this, but some small businesses might want to, it costs money to elect a Congressman, and it may make sense to support members who support you. I'm only half kidding.
4) Patent Issues
by michellem
It seems that the patent office has, in the last few years, lost their collective mind. Patents are incredibly broad, or amazingly misdirected, like in the case of the patents on human genes. They currently seem to protect only litigious patent holders, not the consumers or anyone else, for that matter. What is your organization doing to change this current patent landscape? Is there anything that can be done?
Jamie Love:
Well, we are doing what we can. We spent a lot of time communicating
with the patent office, and dealing in particular with the international
dimensions of this. One issue that needs more work is documentation of
the costs of the patent system in various industry sectors. It makes no
sense to have patents issued for software or business methods. The
American Medical Association (AMA) told Congress that "thanks but no
thanks," they did not want patents on surgical methods, and Congress
provided an exception. One problem here is Article 27.1 of the WTO
TRIPS agreement, says that
The US government has been pushing a very aggressive interpretation on this, and some people at the World Trade Organization or the World Intellectual Property Organization claim that this requires every countries to patent software, business methods and just about anything else. So the USPTO isn't just issuing patents on everything under the sun, it is lobbying the whole world to do so. For example, Jordan is now required by the US government to issue patents on business methods and software.patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application
Another very important international fora concerns the proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments. I have written a lot about this, and this is our main e-commerce project right now. I can't think of a bigger threat to the Internet than the Hague Convention. The Hague treatment of patents is a nightmare. Everyone would be liable for infringement of foreign patents, and the Hague Convention would give exclusive jurisdiction for both validity and infringement in the county of registration. Every country who signs the Convention would agree to enforce both money judgments and "protective and provisional" measures, such as injunctions, across borders. Companies like Microsoft can find or even rent member countries to adopt and enforce bad patents, and harass the free software community or competitors. In the end, every country will try to tax the Internet through overreaching patents. It presents a huge problem. The US government is actually the most progressive delegation on this issue, and the problem now is convincing Europe to take patents and other intellectual property out of the Convention.
On medicines, we are working with Representative Sherrod Brown, who has introduced HR 1708, a bill that would create a stronger compulsory licensing authority in the US, to deal with such issues as blocking patents, or refusals to license on reasonable terms. This bill is limited to public health, but could be expanded.
One thing the average hacker could do is to communicate more with the Judges who make policy, and by this I mean the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which really makes patent policy in the US. These Judges hear from patent owners all the time, but not from the public.
5) Free Speech
by Nexus Maelstrom
As a University student currently involved with a student group called the Campus Democracy Collective, what is the best way to inform both my peers and government representative that the fight for speech, liberty and freedom from oppression will be fought over bits and bytes, and not how many miles per gallon their car will get?
Jamie Love:
I would start by thinking a bit about what types of freedom you
think are being threatened. Certainly you can find a lot of free
speech on the Internet. What you may find less free are some other
media, such as television, which features a remarkably narrow range of
views, or the new limits on liberty by expanding concepts of
intellectual property. I also think there is a big relationship
between privacy and freedom, this is an area where the role of the
government is complicated, because on the one hand, you want the
government to protect the public from invasions of privacy by businesses
and other institutions, and on the other hand, you want the government
to leave you alone. After September 11, all of this has become much
more difficult to manage. The world has changed, and we have to have
a new strategy to protect privacy and human dignity and freedom in a
world that wants more surveillance and less liberty, in order to be more
safe. How do we enable the government to protect us, while having some
protection against the government?
6) Neverending Copyright
by oddjob
The entertainment industry appears able to get copyright protection extended as long as they wish. While not as directly related to technology as patent law, copyright law is becomming more of a concern, especially with the recent mess with the DMCA. Is your organization making any efforts to convice congress to return copyright duration to a sane limit, and if so, is there much hope for success?
Jamie Love:
Our proposal is to have short terms for works for hire, where a
corporate entity owns the right. This would put movies into the public
domain much sooner, for example, as well as much of the archives of
newspapers. More generally, we need to have a much stronger public
domain lobby, and an international dimension too, to address the WTO
requirements for copyright term.
7) Patents and the cost of development...?
by tenzig_112
How does CPT balance fighting patents on drugs (and other technologies) with the cost of developing those technologies?
Surely, the cost of life-saving medications should not be prohibitive. And dozens of ridiculous patent disputes cannot be good for any industry. But without some means of recouping the often crippling cost of development (for example, 1000s of drugs begin the development process and only a handful make it to the consumer) what incentive is there to investigate new ideas?
What will happen to the fields of medicine and information technology if the market for invention dries up?
Jamie Love:
I spend a lot of time on R&D issues, for example as a member of the
MSF working group on Drugs for Neglected Diseases, and also proposing
various approaches for R&D treaties. It does cost a lot to develop a
drug, but not as much as one might think. If you look at the Orphan
Drug Tax Credit, for example, you find that in 1998 drug companies
spent only $8.6 million on clinical trials per approved orphan product,
a major development cost. Of course for some drugs this can be much
more expensive, running into tens of millions of dollars. The most
difficult and risky part of drug development is the pre-clinical stage,
where there is less data. In general, the US pharmaceutical industry
spends about 7.5 percent of sales on R&D, according to its tax returns.
This amounts to a lot of money, but even here, a lot of this is fairly
low priority stuff, such as "me-too" drugs.
We have proposed R&D mandates for the drug industry. Specifically, we think that every firm that sells drugs in the US market should make mandatory contributions into R&D funds, as a cost of doing business. Companies could manage all or part of this money, for their own benefit, under whatever conditions the government wanted to impose in terms of transparency or public health priorities. This would give the US government new policy tools to increase R&D, if other policy tools, such as compulsory licensing, reduced private incentives.
If you knew how much crap the drug companies get away with now, in terms of ripping off the public on government funded inventions, or "evergreening" patents beyond 20 years, you too would be looking for ways to avoid the constant blackmail over R&D that you get every time you try to introduce some fiscal discipline to the system.
The story on the information technologies side is different, and patents play a much lesser role in protecting investment. Software gets copyright, trademark, trade secret and contract protections. It doesn't need patent protection.
8) The public cost of copyright
by underwhelm
It seems to me that because copyright is intangible, that the public domain is immeasurable, and because expanding copyright takes no money out of
the budget, that IP laws are the pork barrel legislation of the Digital Millennium. Senators and legislators see no problem with enlarging copyright
beyond its traditional boundaries, past fair use and first sale, because there is no means of accounting for the theft. Is there a sense in Washington that
wrapping new copyright restrictions with a bow and handing them to entertainment conglomerates has no downside politically or economically?
If this is the case, how can we change the climate in Washington to make our representatives accountable for diminishing the public domain and enlarging copyright?
Jamie Love:
This is tough, because the entertainment companies really invest in
Congressional campaigns. I would have to say that consumer interests
are weak, as a movement, on the IPR issues. Larry Lessig and others are
trying litigation, raising constitutional arguments. Maybe one
exercise would be to ask members of Congress to estimate the loss to the
public domain for all of these new claims for privatization. One of
the issues is who will pay for the lobbying to protect the public
domain? It helps to have money to fight these battles. We have to
figure out where the money will come from. It isn't easy. I worked
on various IPR issues for a long time before any foundation would fund
this aspect of our work. No one understood what it was about. Very
few groups work on these issues. We do. EFF has been doing some useful
work. Public health groups have been doing a great job on the global
medicines issues, and librarians are pretty well organized on issues
that directly impact them. The ACLU is beginning to think more about
IP issues. Sun Microsystems used to be more active on these issues, as
did a few other firms, but really fairly minor. Bill Gates is very
involved, but not on the side of the public domain. Richard Stallman
seems to have engaged some lobbyists on issues more directly related to
free software.
I guess the best answer is to get organized. In 1996 we formed a group called the Union for the Public Domain (UPD). Richard Stallman, Mickey Davis, myself and several others are on the board, but due to my poor leadership, it isn't active at the moment, and we are looking for a new board chair. Suggestions would be welcome. The main problem was that I couldn't even raise the money for a single full time staff, which is really needed. If someone wants to pay for this, it would be a very good investment.
9) What's your job really like?
by Masem
Whenever I hear the word lobbyist, I think of someone carrying a bag of money to a Congressman, and expecting to get legislation passed; the image
is most likely a result of hundreds of political cartoons and editorals. Obviously, this image isn't 100% true, but from what we as citizens hear on daily
events in Washington, this doesn't seem like an overexaggration.
Can you describe what a typical day is for you - for example, do you see Congressmen, how do you influence their voting (financial or otherwise), and what do you do when you are NOT on Capitol Hill?
Jamie Love:
I spend almost no time on Capitol Hill. I spent a lot of time
outside of Washington, DC, and a lot outside of the United States. In
August I was in Pakistan, the Dominican Republic, Zimbabwe and South
Africa. Tomorrow I leave for Berlin. These face-to-face meetings
are pretty important. We use the Internet a lot, but it is quite
important to build some confidence first, particular when dealing with
international issues, where cultural differences take some time to
understand. I also spent a lot of time writing and sending email,
managing email lists and posting stuff on our web pages. Our typical
contribution is to get fairly technical on policy issues, and share
information fairly widely, via the Internet, trying to build a broader
movement on this or that. In terms of Capitol Hill, I personally talk
with staff more than members, and the same is true with the federal
executive branch agencies -- I talk with middle level staff quite a
bit. Every once in a while I participate in a meeting with the
President or a high level official, but not often, and rarely do I have
much to show for it later. But if you do a good job convincing a few
key staffers, or the general counsel of an agency, or a lead negotiator,
you have really done well. As a practical matter, one of the main
things you also need to do is talk to the press. When I travel a lot,
reporters get a bit tired of trying to track me down. But you can
always call reporters. They play a pretty important role in
government.
10) Why do you use Microsoft Windows
by Anonymous Coward
If you are so anti-corporation, and so anti-Microsoft, to the point of publically criticizing them and their practices, why does the Consumer Project on
Technology, and specifically you, Mr. Love, choose to use Microsoft Windows on your office and home machines?
Jamie Love:
Well, our office uses just about everything. We have Windows boxes,
Linux boxes, Macs and Suns. For a while I moved the CPT unit entirely
to Linux, to have a Microsoft free environment to see how that would
work. We did this for more than a year for everything. Recently I
switched some machines back, and now I use an IBM lap top with Windows
as my main machine. I decided to switch back for several reasons.
First, I had lost touch with what Microsoft was up too, and I needed to
know that. Second, I wanted to use a large number of new devices that I
couldn't get to work on my Linux box. Third, I was having trouble
sharing my Linux documents with colleagues using MS Office, due to the
typical Microsoft anticompetitive practices. And I was pretty unhappy
with the progress in the various GPL office productivity tools, with
the exception of the GNOME spreadsheet program, which was pretty good.
I didn't see much work by AOL in improving the Linux version of
Netscape, and wasn't happy when Microsoft invested in Corel and they
seemed to be dumping the Linux apps. Recently I went back and tried a
few current Linux distributions, and am deciding what to do on that
front right now, wondering why Sun can't make Star Office an easier
install. I've used lots of different computers over time. My first
one didn't have a monitor, only a printer, and my first personal
computer was a Commodore 64, which I used to dial into an IBM
mainframe. I like computers and computing, and I like Linux a lot, but
I am not that happy with the current state of client applications, and a
bit frustrated tying to use various PDAs, scanners, cameras, printers,
etc, with my Linux box.
11) Outside the US of A
by bfree
I'm not American, but in recent years I have been boycotting many American corporations due to the influence they have on the US legal system and
their seemingly inexhaustable ability to gain any IP law they require. I am seriously concerned by the aparently relentless push by US based
coporations to bring an American style Intellectual Property regime to the rest of the world. As a Free Software advocate I find few ideas as repellent
as "Software Patents"! My question to you is how do you see the International Intellectual Property arguments going, and ultimatley will we reach a
system where everyone is under the thumb of software patents or where the US is forced to give up on this terrible idea?
Jamie Love:
As I noted above, the most pressing current danger is the proposed
Hague Convention. We have a lot of information about this on our web
page. Also, by all means file
comments in the EU consolation on the Hague Convention, which can be
done by electronic mail.
I think the second major issue is the WTO TRIPS Article 27.1 language, which is quite expansive in terms of what countries must patent.
The third area to watch out are the various bilateral and regional trade agreements, which are basically out of control. In the US, USTR is the lead agency, and is largely captured by a handful of large corporations. But things are really pretty bad elsewhere too. Some European trade officials and bureaucrats have patent envy, and can't wait to get Europe to become even more aggressive than the US. On the Hague negotiations it is the Europeans who want intellectual property in, and the US that wants it out. So sometimes the problem is in Europe more than here. Look too at the mess caused by the EU decision to create these rights in data under the database directive.
12) Effective technology lobbying and activism for DMCA
by melquiades
I'm part of the group that's organizing the DMCA protests in Minnesota. We're passing out fliers and staging protests, but haven't managed to get any
press. We're also trying to get a face-to-face meeting with our senators...but no luck so far -- their offices haven't even called us back, despite both
written and phoned requests for a meeting.
The problem is, we're technology people, not activists, and we don't know how to lobby effectively. What's your advice? How can we get the attention of our senators? How can we attract media attention (in a respectful way, that is)? Are there other activities we should be undertaking that would be more effective than what we're doing?
Jamie Love:
What worked well in the struggle to change US policy on patents in
AIDS drugs for Africa were people doing some brave things, like
participating in demonstrations, chaining themselves to office furniture
in government offices, getting arrested, and doing lots of civil
disobedience. Today everyone seems a bit spooked by the September 11
events, and I don't know how well this will work. But I believe many
of these older direct action tactics are quite effective. Why not
just find out where the Senator is going to speak and disrupt the
event? That seems to get attention. And maybe some good attention if
you can show that he meets with the other side, but doesn't get your
views. Does he take money from MPAA or RIAA members? And won't meet
with his own constituents? Will the local papers take letters to the
editor? There are ways that you can get a Senator's attention, and
show him that it is in his interest to give you the time of day. Call
me and we can talk about this.
13) consumers and quality
by tim_maroney
Ralph Nader's consumer advocacy has always been first and foremost about quality, of which safety is a subset. Given that the commercial operating
systems (MacOS and Windows) are much more user-friendly than the current slate of Linux offerings, and that even many Linux advocates have
now come around to admitting that fact, how does Linux advocacy benefit the consumer? Isn't it strange for a consumer advocacy organization to be
advocating a lower-quality product over a higher-quality one?
Jamie Love:
I think you have to look at the longer run. Where is Microsoft
taking us? Where is AOL/TW taking us? What will it take to get a
paradigm shift away from Microsoft, and what would be the benefits?
One thing that is unacceptable are actions to undermine the Linux or other alternatives. We think the USDOJ should stop Microsoft from undermining dual boot PCs. We think that remedies in the Microsoft case should make it easier for rivals to be interoperable with Microsoft products, that Microsoft should be restrained from using file formats as an anticompetitive weapon, particularly against its installed base, in order to force unwanted upgrades. Every OS has its strengths and weaknesses, and we favor more biodiversity in the OS space.
focus on ease of use (Score:3, Informative)
What a telling comment on the state of Linux. Same boat I'm in. This guy is no newbie, yet it still gives him fits.
Easier, people, easier!
It's called the LFT (Score:1)
Re:focus on ease of use (Score:1)
What's that supposed to mean? Do you think developers are sitting around not sure what to do with themselves? And now that you've shared your insight, they will jump up and make their projects easier to use?
Re:focus on ease of use (Score:1)
Show me ONE Linux developer who's willing to talk about interface and ease of use. No one cares, and it shows.
If you point out the usability flaws in an application, you get flamed. I'm not a coder, what else can I do?
ironic that the watchdog muzzles itself (Score:2, Troll)
Just goes to show... (Score:2)
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:1)
not exactly. It's more like the manufacturers of these devices won't talk to open source programmers. If you can't get the specs, you can't write the device driver.
Know thy enemy (Score:1)
Could it be... (Score:1)
Re:Could it be... (Score:1)
Maybe there is some confusion as to what "the best solution" might mean.
You see, for quite a few of us, the best solution is not purely based on technical merit. I am for the purpose of this post completely ignoring the fact that Linux is technically superior to any similar Microsoft offering in several aspects, just as I won't repeat your point that perhaps, for technical reasons, a Microsoft product might seem the better tool in other situations.
It's about ethics, I guess. And I'll venture to guess further that it's about whether you choose to care or not. If you can't be bothered to think of something so trivial as the ethical foundation for your choice of software then perhaps you shouldn't waste time reading the rest of my post.
For me, Microsoft isn't an option, regardless of what it allows me to do. Just as I won't by a DVD player, because I feel that I'm being denied fundamental consumer rights and freedoms over my own purchase, I won't use Microsoft code because it violates a whole range of principles that are critically important to me.
Now admittedly, you were talking about some people, whereas I have only been talking about myself. But perhaps for some people there's more to the question of what the best tool for the job is than what gets it done the quickest/slickest.
Everything to Everyone (Score:1)
It's sad to think that that a company that takes such a large, sweeping, shoddy approach to computing makes someone believe somehow that is going to be the right choice for an individual.
The larger your audience becomes, the less likely you are to please, or even satisfy your target. That's Marketing 101. When MS's installed base was smaller, people were happier with it. That's the reason why Mac users are so happy with Macintosh; it's targeted to predominantly aesthetically creative people, and Linux users are happy; it's targeted towards technically creative people.
What a well-honed sense of irony. (Score:1)
So if you use Word, then you must be 100% lockstep behind of all of MS' business practices, huh? Sheesh.
Re:What a well-honed sense of irony. (Score:1)
Biodiversity? (Score:3, Funny)
we favor more biodiversity in the OS space
I always knew that operating systems were people, too.
Re:Biodiversity? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Biodiversity? (Score:1)
Re:Biodiversity? (Score:1)
SoylentXP is people!
Re:Biodiversity? (Score:1)
Patents on AIDS drugs can be EASILY ignored! (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple answer: None
Reason:
Acting with the genuine intention to save somebodys life is (under any legal system) is a legtimimate mitigation for any crime, up to and including murder.
Illegal manufacuture of lifesaving drugs isn't going to bother any judge (or any right thinking person) :-)
Making cheap viagra on the side may land you in a spot of trouble though
Re:Patents on AIDS drugs can be EASILY ignored! (Score:1)
Re:Patents on AIDS drugs can be EASILY ignored! (Score:1)
Re:Patents on AIDS drugs can be EASILY ignored! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Patents on AIDS drugs can be EASILY ignored! (Score:2)
Have a look outside your own borders. In many countries, medicine is an entitlement.
Re:Patents on AIDS drugs can be EASILY ignored! (Score:2)
Re:Patents on AIDS drugs can be EASILY ignored! (Score:1)
Oh is it really? I'm sure you, Mr Random Slashdotter, has examined all the laws of all the countries of the world very carefully before arriving at this conclusion? Let me name some countries where I believe what you're claiming to be the case is in fact not the case at all:
Afghanistan
Pakistan
India
Saudi Arabia
Russia
Ghana
South Africa
Brazil
Mexico
...
China
Madagaskar
USA
You're just full of shit.
Jamie's Answer (Score:2, Interesting)
Our proposal is to have short terms for works for hire, where a corporate entity owns the right. This would put movies into the public domain much sooner, for example, as well as much of the archives of newspapers.
OK, this seems a bit vague. A corporate entity holding the copyright? I do not think it would lend itself to a short copyright term. Also, what defines this "short term". How long is "short"?
It was an excellent question but the answer was quite vague. Disappointing.
Re:Jamie's Answer (Score:4, Insightful)
If we cut down that copyright from 95 years for a corporately-owned copyright to, say, 20 years, it would have two effects; first, as pointed out, things would move MUCH faster into the public domain. But secondly, if a privately-owned copyright lasted significantly longer (say, 35 years, or life+10 years) than the corporately owned copyright, this might encourage more artists to use the indy system (which typically does not do works-for-hire) to publish their works in order to reap more benefit to themselves.
Of course, that's using PSI::ESP, so I may be reading too much into his response.
Re:Jamie's Answer (Score:1)
Re:Jamie's Answer (Score:1)
I think you underestimate the ability of lawyers to fudge ownership. What would stop a corporation from getting a contract that is, in effect, an exclusive lease of the IP for the duration? The author might, technically, still own the copyright, but all the profits would still go to the corp.
To take an example from another field, consider corporate tax law, and all the available tax shelters. Undermining the intent of this law will be so easy it will be like going back to kindergarten for them.
~kGood long term? (Score:1)
Is it just me? (Score:1)
Re:Is it just me? (Score:1)
I realize that it is tough to survive in politics, and that their is a lot of pressure to constantly raise money. However, that is NOT and excuse to abandon your oaths of office (or whatever they take, if anything) and prostitute yourself to the private sector. Jamie acts as though it is our responsibility to sweeten the pot if we want our interests represented, as if electing them and paying for their salaries and perks were not enough.
Frankly, it sounds to me like he has been in the game too long. Perahps he has contracted a touch of the Stokholm Syndrome.
Re:Is it just me? (Score:2)
Grab.
Comments on DCMA and Patents activism (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the more effective methods myself and friends had at the WTO was not to protest, but to go to the restaurants and hotels the delegates were staying at and talking reasonably (while dressed nicely) about all the issues, and engage the delegates in discusssion of these issues.
For a Senator or Congressmember, the action I would suggest would be to get four or five people to go to the normal boring "coffee talks" in the home district and have each person have a short question about an issue one wanted to discuss. Then have other members react typically to the response.
E.g. "Do you think that the DCMA should be changed so that we can make backup copies of our software as is our constitutional right?" Response: "No, Microsoft told me it was cool" Audience: "I thought you worked for us, not for them."
This really zings them.
Re:Comments on DCMA and Patents activism (Score:2, Interesting)
Other methods for DCMA and Patents activism (Score:1)
Actually, that's how I got a lot of my early connections, back before I had money. A lot of campaigns could use some savvy tech people.
The bonus is you get to see how the process works, and you make some great connections.
Plus, for the guy geeks, most campaign staffers are intelligent young women. Even if one doesn't date at the office, they're fun to hang out with. And they have friends.
Re:Comments on DCMA and Patents activism (Score:2)
Participating in civil disobedience generally makes you look like a fool. I've never had much respect for the "mob mentality" or for extremists who chain themselves to things or block the very roads that I try to get to work every day. There are much more intelligent and effective options to getting the message accross.
Re:Comments on DCMA and Patents activism (Score:2)
I agree, most people do not change their minds simply because someone has chained themselves to a tree, blocked a road, set their hair on fire, or whatever crazy stunt that wackos are up to nowadays. If you aren't able to convince people by reasoning with them, then perhaps that says something about your cause.
Re:Comments on DCMA and Patents activism (Score:2)
Re:Comments on DCMA and Patents activism (Score:2)
No, more likely it says, you aren't able to convince people by reasoning with them because they don't actually care about your concerns, and/or they won't even bother to listen. That's why people engage in direct action.
Re:Comments on DCMA and Patents activism (Score:2)
And you wonder why people consider these kinds of people to be wackos. Forcing me to care about your "concerns" through "direct action" is nothing but thinly veiled terrorism.
If you are strongly involved in any cause that A) no one cares about, and B) is willing to resort to force, then this definitely says something about your cause.
There are all sorts of causes that I care about, but there isn't a single solitary cause that I care about enough to curtail someone else's right to life, liberty, or property. Groups that are willing to cut these corners to promote their ends are wrong, whatever their beliefs might be.
Re:Comments on DCMA and Patents activism (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Comments on DCMA and Patents activism (Score:2)
A lobbyist I like. wow. (Score:2)
I wonder how many times he gets called a communist/socialist/radical/luddite for advocating for the public domain..
Also, anyone know of any newsletters, good websites to keep track of IP stuff? The best place I've found is james-boyle.com [james-boyle.com].
Re:A lobbyist I like. wow. (Score:1)
Now days, I think we just call these people fascists. It doesn't have to make sense; it's just what you call people with opposing views you don't want to face.
Name calling has recently gotten strage. For example, someone who is against affirmative action can be called a racist, but so can someone for it. Someone against gun control could be said to promote murders, but so can someone for gun control. It sometimes depends on who's right; sometimes it doesn't have to even apply.
Doesn't it appear that some (very long) public debates are just this name calling with no real inquiry into the facts? Too bad.
Thanks for the reply but ... (Score:2)
How do I talk to a judge? (Score:3, Interesting)
At the risk of sounding like a babe in the woods, How do I talk to a judge? Do I call up the clerk of the local US Court of Appeals and ask to take her honar out to lunch? Or do I have to sue Micro$oft to get face-time with a judge?
Re:How do I talk to a judge? (Score:3, Interesting)
When there is a case you are interested in write a letter in the form of a "friend of the court brief". There are specific formats they like to see this in, but pretty much everything gets read. You may or may not infulence the decision, but at least the judge knows there is public interest.
Judges are also less swayed by money, so you have a better chance of getting a fair ruling from them.
Re:How do I talk to a judge? (Score:1)
Let's imagine to walk in their shoes (Score:1, Flamebait)
This is the case for example in Africa, where infection rates are astonishing. We are working on a compulsory license application in South Africa. Right now more than half of pregnant women in their 20s are testing positive for HIV. They will all die without access to medicines. What type of government would put the interests of patent owners above the interests of half a generation of mothers?
The US government, and the government of the vast majority of the other industrial countries (actually I don't know any exception).
We should be ashamed when we read things like that (I am, although I knew this before, but I'm ashamed every time I'm reminded to such things). No I'm don't want to justify sep 11 events and I strongly abominate them - and I don't like the urge I feel that it's necessary to assure this in any critical statement nowadays - but we (the "developed" nations) sacrify a lot of lives for out wealth, day to day, year to year.
Go to www.bhopal.org, especially here [bhopal.org] and here [bhopal.org],here [bhopal.net] or here [bhopal.org] (I choose one random example here, to add to the drug thingy) and wonder with me why we as western people can yet go to so many countries in the world and be welcomed, while every dark skinned, muslimic looking man in our countries gets looked like he will soon begin to kill people.
The typical theme of critizing the united states for their past politics is far to easy for western citizens. No, we all as a big group of people bear the blame for much of the hatred against us, because of our way of living. We amuse ourselfes on a gigantic pile of nearly world wide misery.
Sorry, this post isn't loaded with facts, sometimes I just get a little depressed and have to rant.
Re:Let's imagine to walk in their shoes (Score:1)
That is one way of thinking
However, do you truly believe that drug companies and scientists who get up every morning and work hard to come up with these new drugs are evil ?
Do you believe that our ability to develop advanced drugs is directly related to slavery and death rates of people in 3rd world countries ?
In other words, if it weren't for us and our riches, would these poor people have better lives ?
Re:Let's imagine to walk in their shoes (Score:1)
As for the scientists, I don't know why you mention them, they may be evil, they may be good, they are morally on the same ground as everyone else is. I didn't say anything about them.
Now the companies, well they are neither evil nor good, they are amoral in the fundamentel meaning of the word.
Companies are profitable or unprofitable, and their determination is to be as profitable as possible - in a true capitalistic economy, many states' constitutions in fact impose a little bit more in that determination, but let's leave it at that.
No, I think that we, as consumers, don't get of our lazy asses and provide companies with the feedback that acting as if they were good (which they per definition can't really be) is economically advantageous.
Do you believe that our ability to develop advanced drugs is directly related to slavery and death rates of people in 3rd world countries ?
No, I don't believe that, I'm neither anticapitalistic nor against technical progress. I'm not an american, and when I compare the outcry in my country after sep 11 to incindents like bhopal and other incidents, I realize how blind we as western people seem to be to suffering in 3rd world countries.
Just compare the money which will be spend in order to eradicate bin ladens organization to the money spend for development aid. Why do western states now give 600.000.000$ for food for the afghan people to prevent mass starving, and didn't do it before?
Does someone really think that this money wouldn't have been necessary anyway (without american air strikes) to prevent enourmous suffering? It just wouldn't have been spended.
In other words, if it weren't for us and our riches, would these poor people have better lives ?
No, and if it hadn't been for the allies in 1933-1942, the jews in germany wouldn't have been better of, too (yeah, I know Goodwin's Law). What kind of argument is that?
Re:Let's imagine to walk in their shoes (Score:1)
Why should we ?
Again, do you believe that our prosperity is a directly related to their inability to maintain civilized and proficient society ?
Do we owe anything to these people?
Do we have obligation to help all people who are less fortunate then we are ?
Does that extend only to people who threaten us if we don't help them ?
There are lots of questions like that once you get into this "nation building" business.
Re:Let's imagine to walk in their shoes (Score:1)
Well your not alone. At the start of the year the Pope had this to say [vatican.va] about Western society:
I suspect he was referring to the US and various European countries. The devil may win a few battles, but evil by its nature is destined to fail...
Re:Let's imagine to walk in their shoes (Score:2)
No, apparently you've been miseducated. Sorry to say that, but you seem to have a problem with reading. Nowhere I did talk about "bearing the blame".
I also didn't imply any blame for things like bhopal.
But - and this is just a matter of fact - our countries could do a lot more to help, our industry could do a lot more to not amplify suffering. If you don't believe this, go and reread the above interview, esp. the part about patents for drugs and the role of the WTO.
Re:Let's imagine to walk in their shoes (Score:1)
Uuups, small correction, I did, but not in the context you said. I just meant to make clear that this hatred I presumed needs not to be attributed to "bad things we did", rather to things we don't do, to sum it up: we don't care.
Re:Let's imagine to walk in their shoes (Score:1)
I would like to point out that the current africa situation is a direct result of years of colonization by the european contries. Shure America didn't done it, but remember that when this savage exploration began there was not america just england. So who did this to Africa were in fact America's forefathers.
The extractivist colonization of africa by the Europeans divided the country with new borders that would mix together diferent cultures. This would make the cultural pressure bigger making room for enouth hate to create the so called wars.
All the colonist just wanted the diamonds from Africa, so they came build the bigger infrastructure it could do to take the diamonds he could do and then he simply go back home with the money. This is very different from the kind of colones that came to the USA, they went to america because they need a place to stay where they would not suffer from persecution from the local rullers. So all the money american colones made weer invested in America it self, because this colones didn't want to go back home, they were home.
well just to round it up, even thought you're not to blame for what happen in Africa now. All the suffering that is happening there could be 'blamed' on the way the colonist explored africa. The same thing is happening right now in the middle east, and on this matter the US is an active player. The US is creating borders, fomenting war and collect the most it can from the petrol from the region. The events of september 11 are a consequence of this police. I don't think that this act was of extreme cowardice (is this a word?) and I don't think that no one deserved this kind of horror. But I also think that maybe the US should rethink it's police in the region.
And, by the way, throwing food and medicine along with bombs will not help.
We need simple copyright laws (Score:2, Insightful)
just my $0.03 - adjusted for inflation
Disappointing (Score:2, Flamebait)
As a result it isn't too surprising that Love isn't spending much time on Capitol Hill. He doesn't have a constituency there.
Love's slam of Microsoft on the patent front is somewhat unfair. Unlike Apple, Sun, Rambus, Entrust etc. Microsoft is one of the few major computing companies that has played the IP game with a straight cue. (That is not to say they have played every game with a straight cue). But Microsoft has not sued to prevent others using the Xerox windows GUI as apple did, sued to prevent extension of an 'open' language standard as Sun did, or steer standards bodies towards a technique they owned an undisclosed patent on.
After the 9/11 attack it is unlikely that there will be a great deal of political capital that the US can expend to further extend its idea of Intelectual Property and errect more barbed wire accross the plains.
Re:Disappointing (Score:2)
Re:Disappointing (Score:1)
Nader cost the Democrats the Whitehouse.
While this must be true, any things that he was running for will now have some greater attention from the Democratic Party next time. If Nader took away Democratic voters, it's the party's responsibility to get those voters back, and not by getting rid of opposition (other choices), but by addressing the desires of those voters -> DEMOCRACY!
Re:Disappointing (Score:4, Insightful)
The exact opposite has happened. Nader has caused the Democrats to move away from the green party position.
The Dems are not going to respond to Nader by moving to the left to pick up part of the 3% of the vote he won. They are going to move further to the right to pick up votes in the center.
Nader's attack claiming that there was no difference between Bush and Gore devalued the Democrats lead on environmental issues. At the next election Gore (and it will be him since no other Dem will run against Bush now) will be running against broken campaign pledges on the environment.
Nader's campaign was really not about the 'environment', his real issue was a barely articulated anti-corporativism that tied in with 'anti-globalism'. The Dems can't move in that direction because it is an ideology of opposition. Nader has nothing practical to replace the thing he attacks. He doesn't need to because he knows he won't be president. The Dems cannot adopt Nader's anti-capitalism without proposing an alternative.
Re:Disappointing (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Disappointing (Score:1)
Bullshit. The democrats are just as much of corporate sellouts. Medicare and Medicaid is a perfect example of how the democrats have sold the good of the american people for corporate dicksucking.
Gore also got tons of money from the entertainment industry during the election. Hmmmm?? And the DMCA was made into law when who was president? Oh yeah, that sack of shit they call bill clinton.
You don't get it. Gore or Bush, we were fucked either way.
Re:Disappointing (Score:1)
I am sure you have seen that quote before
Just wondering how would this policy fit into realities in Gulf region.
Say, Hussein takes over whole region ( which he was very capable of doing) and then jacks up gas prices 6 times ?
Do we just sit and pay or do we do anything about it ?
Re:Disappointing (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, as Nader said, Gore cost him the election.
If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say "I'd vote for [blank] but then I'd be throwing my vote away so I'll just vote for (Bush|Gore)" -- better yet, if I had a freakin' vote every time -- maybe the major parties would pull their heads out of their asses and realize a lot of us don't like them any more.
But, that's a pipe dream. People like to play it safe.
The status quo wouln't be the status quo if it changed.
Re:Disappointing (Score:1)
Ever considered the fact that people might actually like the status quo ?
Re:Disappointing (Score:2)
Strike one.
Exqueeze me? Microsoft replaced several key calls with proprietary API of their own... violating their license agreement to use the Java trademark. You don't like it? Go write your own [perl.org] damn [ruby-lang.org] language [python.org], but if it doesn't meet standards [sun.com], you can't call it "Java". That's not dirty pool, that's just fair.Microsoft never had to sue to prevent the bogus breaking of a language; they were the ones doing the bogus breaking. There's a difference in adding things to a language [netscape.com] and breaking what's already there.
Strike two.
Oh, yeah? [slashdot.org] Tell me Microsoft isn't behind RAND.Strike three called, on the outside corner. Go siddown, Casey.
They don't call it the Evil Empire for nothing.... and I don't care if you are a troll (obviously the moderators don't think so), the hoi polloi need setting straight. I don't hate Microsoft for their products. Some of them are actually decent. I hate Microsoft because they do, in fact, play dirty pool.
--
If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Inagural Address (I)
Re:Disappointing (Score:2)
You should learn some history. Apple ripped off the Xerox GUI technology when it rolled out first the Lisa then the Mac.
Then when Microsoft, Atari and others tried to bring out their copies of the Xerox desktopo Apple sued them claiming that they 'owned' the GUI metaphor.
Apple drove Atari into bankrupcy. The Atari O/S was better than any Apple produced until release X last year. They had true pre-emtive multi-tasking with protected memory working.
Apple also sued Microsoft which is what I was refering to. Microsoft refused to submit to blackmail. The suit was settled as part of the Microsoft rescue package when Jobs took over.
The Apple management believed that they didn't need to invest in the MacOS because they owned the desktop metaphor. They wasted their R&D on whizzy projects like the Newton and Dylan thinking they could eliminate the competition to their cash cow in the law courts.
Re:Disappointing (Score:1)
One example...
Have you ever wondered why real don't just stream using an ASF format? (or anyone else?)
After all, ASF streamhandling is implemented in all current versions of windows...
...
Well the answer is because microsoft holds a patent on the file format.
No reason really, except to create/stream an ASF file you need a patent license (which you don't get) so the only streamers which can stream to media player are microsoft streamers...
Its not because its hard to do... hell an GPL'd video editing program which could output ASF (virtualdub) had to remove the ability after they received threats from MS Legal
MS most certainly don't play with a straight cue...
there are soooo many examples
Re:Disappointing (Score:1)
Untrue. It would be far more accurate to say that the war on drugs cost the Democrats the Whitehouse. Consider that the Clinton administration prosecuted the war much more vigorously than the Republicans (for example, the total number of drug arrests during the 8 years of Clinton was substantially more than the total during the 12 years of Reagan-Bush.)
This played out in Florida, in which the number of blacks who had lost their voting rights due to felony drug convictions was several times the margin of Bush's victory.
Furthermore, Nader campaigned on a drug law reform platform, which attracted many voters who might otherwise have voted Democrat, in the mistaken belief that the Dems are more rational than Bush on drug reform matters.
linux not where it should be (Score:1)
Stop and think - possibly, Linux isn't all that easy to use: possibly, Linux isn't the best over all operating sytem in the world.
-neil
Re:linux not where it should be (Score:2)
(SDR, VIC, RAT, WBD and NTE are some of the best videoconferencing tools available, IMHO, and some of the easiest, since you can drive everything from SDR.)
Votes for sale (Score:2)
This is probably true. So what has gone so horribly wrong with the citizens of the US that are so shallow?
I think there are real 1st Ammendment issues when barring issue ads -- not just real issues, but huge issues... how can you tell someone they can't express their opinion, just because that opinion agrees with a certain candidate (isn't that supposed to happen?)
Probably a significant part of the problem is that, with no other real difference between candidates, ads are the only thing to tip the balance. One way to fix that would be to bring some real democracy to the parties, instead of having candidates simply be anointed by a party committee. The other solution, of course, is the very hard path of a third party. Or maybe the option of a "I don't like any of them" vote to demand an election with all-new candidates.
Still, we're all a bunch of losers to let our votes follow the money. OTOH, the other option is not to vote at all -- which is, unfortunately, mistaken as nihilistic apathy (which I don't think it is). No one mentions that Bush wasn't elected with 49% of the vote, but actually less than 25%. Pathetic.
Re:Votes for sale (Score:1)
In fact, it might be my view that the two party system is keeping a lot of issues off of the table completely, at least at the national level. So how do I vote against the two party system? If I vote for Perot or Nader, all my friends will tell me that I am throwing my vote away.
Unfortunately, I don't know how we can effectively reform the system. Maybe, if we had a national referendum and initiative, as many states do, we could get the people more involved in politics. And I don't see what grounds anyone would have to object to it (especially the referendum). The trick would be to get the item on the agenda in the first place.
Well, that's my semi(at best)-coherrent $0.02
MM
--
Government schooling is bad! (Score:1)
-B
Most-hated nation status (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I can see, globalization of IP looks like a means to allow the haves of the world to 'tax' the have-nots. This situation is not good for long-term peace or stability in the world. It will only increase the hatred.
In other news... (Score:2)
... yet another suicide bombing occurred today, just outside a trendy LA nightclub. Eight people were killed and 19 more wounded. The wounded were immediately rushed to Cedars-Sinai Medical center, where 14 were treated for minor injuries and released. Most of the injuries were caused by flying shards of dozens of copy-protected DVD movies the bomber had attached to the explosive device.
Investigators say that the perpetrator was a 27-year old man with a Master's degree in Computer Science from Stanford University. According to one official, he "really wanted to watch movies on his Linux computer. Why can't these people just use Windows like everyone else does?"
The MLF (Media Liberation Front), a radical, extremist offshoot of the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) immediately claimed responsibility. According to the press release: "The violence will never stop until the DMCA is repealed, all media is freed from the chains of IP law and corporate control and Disney Corporation is abolished."
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
But I'm thinking more of other aspects of IP law, and consider the W3C thing, copyright, etc, to be 'another brick in the wall.' Look at the current furor over patented AIDS drugs, Terminator Seeds, and the like. In these cases it's patent revenue and profits vs lives, in the simplified case. In the more complex case, we have to realize that drug development is expensive, and is currently funded through profits. No profits, no new drugs, in today's model.
But back more directly to W3C, DMCA, etc. The French in particular have been most vocally fearful of the loss of their culture to creeping English. Others are, if not there today, certainly not far behind. In this light, the real danger of our IP-anal "standards" is the potential to shrivel ready availablilty of non-protected hardware. Currently DVD players can play non-CSS media. That may not forever be the case.
Imagine a world where all widely distributed digital media is protected, and the only mass-produced players play only that protected media. Then the MPAA and RIAA become the digital gate, either neglecting other cultures because of insufficient (local) revenue or active neglect because they see them as competition, however slight.
The real issue isn't a bunch of geeks wanting to play DVDs on Linux. It's other parts of the world wanting to preserve their local cultures.
A friend chided me for my inaccurate picture of 'fat, greedy, American' noting that this company is German, that company is Japanese, another British, another French, etc. But like it or not, we're dealing with people too poor to understand these subtleties - they've never read a prospectus. America is the standard-bearer, and the target. Accuracy and sophistication are not necessary, only perception.
Re:In other news... (Score:1)
Imagine a world where all widely distributed digital media is protected, and the only mass-produced players play only that protected media. Then the MPAA and RIAA become the digital gate, either neglecting other cultures because of insufficient (local) revenue or active neglect because they see them as competition, however slight.
The real issue isn't a bunch of geeks wanting to play DVDs on Linux. It's other parts of the world wanting to preserve their local cultures.
Regardless, my point is that anger over copy protection on entertainment is unlikely to create the kind of resentment that causes violence. People who have enough physical property to care about intellectual property will find non-violent ways of expressing their dissatisfaction.
Not that it isn't a problem, because it is, but to say that it will add to the sort of hatred that results in terrorism seems a bit over the top to me.
As an aside, your imaginary world isn't that much more realistic than mine; I've yet to hear of any digital rights restriction mechanisms that prevents the creation of unprotected media and I can think of no business or technological reason why such a mechanism would make sense.
Re:In other news... (Score:1)
Nor do digital rights restrictions prevent creation or playing of unprotected media. What I fear here is if we get to a point where all *cheap* players and media is of the restricted sort. Compare to the way the WinModem is pushing the real modem to a higher price point, only more extreme. Real modems just never were that expensive to begin with, so as WinModems took over the low-price point, real modem prices didn't rise that badly.
But in the case of digital media players, that's an expensive chunk of silicon, and economy of scale is the only way to make it cheap. If economy of scale is only applied to players that play only protected media, then unprotected media gets locked out because of cost. It's not a matter of rights, it's a matter of economics and mass production.
Re:In other news... (Score:1)
Hmmm. Either we have a fundamental disagreement, or I'm failing badly to communicate.
I don't think people who are likely to engage in terrorism will care one whit about IP issues. I think it's far more likely that those bothered by IP-related restrictions will steal their seeds and drugs and make their own music. IP laws cause grumbling and lawbreaking, not violence.
Also, I reiterate that I have never yet seen a proposal for DRM that includes players that won't play unprotected media. The laws of economics will favor players that can play either protected or unprotected media. Simply put, players that can do both will cost the same to manufacture as players that don't, so the more capable devices will win. It's actually a real testament to the power of the MPAA that they can convince the hardware manufacturers to make players that enforce any protection (c.f. Region Coding), because it's not in the best interest of the hardware manufacturers to do so. It seems very unlikely that the MPAA will ever be able to force them to make completely restricted players -- heck, if they had that much control, do you think CD-R and DVD-R drives would be available?
PS: Winmodems are a red herring. It actually is cheaper to make so-called winmodems (I prefer the term "dumb" modems, since they're not really windows-specific) than regular modems, because regular modems need a processor. In fact, most of the time winmodems are also *better* than regular modems; they provide lower latencies because the processing is being done by a big 1Ghz CPU rather than a little DSP chip. Their only disadvantage is that the drivers are more complex, making open source drivers harder to write. Harder, but not impossible. The computer I'm typing this on has a winmodem, and I use it under Linux all the time.
To use the winmodem analogy, you'd need to show that protected media-only players would be cheaper to make than those that can handle both. I've spent the last couple of weeks hacking on Xine (a Linux DVD player) and I can tell you that handling the encrypted DVDs is a huge pain, but it's a trivial "if" to skip all the decryption code for unprotected copies.
Re:In other news... (Score:1)
No, I'm being obtuse.
I agree with what you say about terrorist-might-bes not caring about IP issues - until the first (maybe second or third) time we go after them with a club.
The test case for this is in AIDS drugs, and in countries that want to break patents because they've got a REAL problem. Brazil plans to give every HIV-positive person the triple-treatment cocktail, but I assume there's no way they can afford this at U&P rates. This situation appears to be lives vs royalty dollars, and paints in a bad light anyone who defends the latter position. Again, I put a caveat in because it costs serious money to develop drugs, but that gets lost in the shuffle, and I have no idea what part it plays in the profit picture.
Compared to this, the geek IP issues we normally talk about are chump change, I agree. It's an annoyance, and mostly to the middle-class moderates, not likely to become terrorists. But right now in Afghanistan we're treading a delicate line between being effective against radical Muslims while not offending moderates. In this and future situations, if we have middle-class moderates somewhat annoyed with us, it may make it more difficult to pursue other, not necessarily related objectives. As I said earlier, another brick in the wall.
As for protected media, I hope you're right. But the SSSCA and the like are getting serious bandwidth right now. Hopefully it's geek panic, but I'd rather not count on that. The SSSCA is far more intrusive and onerous than the protected-only media and players I posit, but it's getting serious discussion. Using the same logic, one could easily make the point (erroneously, but easily, and with enough $$$, convincingly) that, "the only unprotected media is pirate media".
I'm sure the hardware makers would rather offer more versatile products for negligible cost, as you say. But don't forget that the protected media is licensed, and what *wonders* Microsoft has learned to do with licensing. Imagine a license that says, "Licensing this media decryption algorithm excludes capability of playing unencrypted media on the same system." A DVD player that can't play unencrypted media is an annoyance to a few leading-edge home/college movie types, but a DVD player that can't play encrypted media is DEAD in the market.
As for CD-R and DVD-R, I think CD-R took them a bit by surprise. They spent their money and developed their skills, and it wasn't soon enough to stop DVD-R. But I'm sure they'd love to, and I fear the money-raising needs of our legislators.
Lobbying (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lobbying (Score:2)
Re:Lobbying (Score:3, Insightful)
That's an excellent question, and I think it's near one heart of the problem.
Some people out there have no spare time at all. They are forced, by necessity, to spend all their time working to keep a roof up and food on the table.
But I think a fair number of us simply choose not to leave any time to participate in public affairs. And if you're interested in being an activist, you have to get your own life under enough control that you have 2 to n hours per week to work on it. That's step one.
Bad start (Score:4, Insightful)
Ruling that campaign spending is protected free speech is not what forced politicians to become full-time fundraisers. It was the stupidity of allowing limits on campaign contributions that caused the problems. Before limits were in effect, politicians had a range of techniques for funding campaigns. Some raised money in small increments. Others got big contributions from organized labor. Others got big contributions from corportations. Others got big contributions from a few rich folk.
We ought to remove all restrictions on donations and simply insist on full and immediate disclosure. Then politicians could get plenty of money without attending 300 fund-raisers per year, and voters could see exactly where it's coming from.
Re:Bad start (Score:1)
Re:Bad start (Score:1, Informative)
People running for elected office do not show up out of the blue with no constituency except in the most local of elections. There is a ladder that must be climed and at each step more aspiring politicians get sloughed off. Not hearing about Mrs Smith because she didn't get any money isn't the fault of Mr Jones or the campaign finance system, but the result of Mrs Smith setting her sights too high too soon. If she had worked at the local level and made herself an outstanding candidate, she would certainly have both the loyal constituency and the name recognition necessary to run for higher public office. Nobodies do not become governors and mayors.
Re:Bad start (Score:1)
Or are you arguing that the Federal government should regulate the content of private media?
Re:riight (Score:1)
In fact, with hundreds of thousands of very small donors, it probably is pretty difficult to get to the bottom of it. (In fact, we saw the way Clinton arranged for very large donations from foreign contributers to be split between hundreds of U.S. citizens, many of whom didn't know anything about it.) On the other hand, if a candidate had 150 huge donors, the press would be all over them like flies. Every single one would be scrutinized. And, too, his opponent would have a team of investigators checking them out, putting every one in the worst possible light, and using them as fodder for campaign ads.
Campaign Financing Reform (Score:1)
Limit campaign contributions to registered voters. Limit voter contributions to actual races and legislation pending before the voter. No other restrictions are necissary.
This would eliminate Lobbiests and PACs from contributing to polital causes directly. This would eliminate outside influences to localized politics. This would force politicians to spend more time in their "home districts" representing the people there.
Personally I don't see anyone's rights violated with my proposal. People who aren't registered to vote, shouldn't have any say in the process, and don't have any right to influence the system, especially at the expense of those that do have that explicit right.
'biodiversity' (Score:2)
"[We] favor more biodiversity in the OS space."
Exactly! Let the software industry/environment evolve, without artificial, commercially driven restrictions. I'd like to see developers compete for whatever motivates them (eyeballs, downloads, dollars, etcetera), with quality, instead of semi-transparent deception.
Save the beatles. (Score:2)
The problem is they don't realize this is the end result of these originally well intentioned laws.
Unfortunatly we can only trust Internet and independant papers on this issue, mainstream media cannot be trusted to cover this, they have to much at stake. That said, at true news sources attacking "Works for Hire" in the headlines is a good way to seperate the industry from the artist in the public eye.
I believe the duration of copyright overall is the problem, but this proposed battle against unfair "Works for Hire" makes it harder for the MPAA/RIAA to argue. The fact that little money goes to the artists is semintuitive with that phrase(although that intuition may be flawed.)
Artist writes song -> Artist records song -> artist gets paid flat fee and never gets paid for song again -> all profits and control go to industry.
So copyright protects the artist, ehh?
Next Weapon Against Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
This point has been all but neglected in the government's case against MS. There was a good Be View in the August Byte Magazine [byte.com] that talked about this subtle topic. No matter what the outcome is with the current DOJ vs. MS Harmful Monopoly case, this dual-boot concern should form the base of the next case against Microsoft. Perhaps it would be helpful to start lobbying officials in the states that are poised to press their own cases against MS once the current federal action is complete.
Byron Dorgan (Score:1)
Want to contact congres? (Score:1)
Capitol Advantage [capitoladvantage.com] will even do a custom version for slashdot for a price.
-- full disclosure: I work for capitol advantage.
Intellectual Property (Score:1)
let them pay for intellectual property (Score:1)
I would like to see a similar system for copy rights. That would at least bring the big majority of it into public domain.