Results of the Commerce Dept's DRM Workshop 298
al3x's report:
I arrived early, heeding the warnings of first-come, first-served seating. With the small room packed to standing room only, this paid off. In addition to the panelists, listed on the Workshop's site above, notable included Robin Gross, attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, and journalist and Politech list-founder Declan McCullagh. Lobbying groups distributing materials to the audience included New Yorkers for Fair Use and the American Library Association. Several interns from NIST and a couple of other young folks like myself showed up unaffiliated with any group, and the remainder of the crowd appeared to be typical Washington: lawyers, politicos, journos (professional and college), and think-tankers. A proper press kit was noticeably (and notedly, by said journos) absent.
As the talks began, I was brimming with the enthusiasm and anger of an "activist," overjoyed at shaking hands with the legendary Richard Stallman, thrilled with the turnout of the New Yorkers for Fair Use. My enthusiasm and solidarity, however, was to be short lived. The Workshop's effective chairman and moderator, Chief of Staff and Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology Phillip Bond, offered some opening remarks touching on their previous meeting, held this past December, including noting that piracy has risen, particularly in the music industry. After further welcomes from James Rogan, Under Secretary for Intellectual Property, who acknowledged having worked with many members of the "roundtable." Rogan suggested that there were "no villains present," which drew the first of a number of chortles from the NY Fair Use crowd and their sympathizers. First on the table was a discussion of progress towards standards for Digital Rights Management (DRM henceforth).
This rather dry topic, upon which there appeared to be little consensus or definite progress, was dealt with relatively quickly, sparking only a handful of interesting and notable concerns. Here the clear divide between the tech industry and "content" industry (the movie studios , record industry, etc.) became apparent. Andy Setos of the Fox Entertainment Group called for attention to the "analog hole" in DRM standards, stating "from [the point content reaches analog televisions] it's a freeforall." The sentiment was echoed by several of the other content providers, and reiterated throughout the discussions. Oddly, with a number of opinions bounced around and no coherent conclusion, moderator Bond moved on, blessing the segment of discussion as having been productive.
Moving to discussions of business models, technological viability, and the government's role, the panelists took the gloves off and came out swinging. And as the discussion started to get juicier, so the "activists" got noisier. Comments from the RIAA's Mitch Glazier that there is "balance in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA), drew cries and disgusted laughter from the peanut gallery, who at that point had already been informed that any public comments could be submitted online. Even those in support of Fair Use and similar ideas began to be frustrated with the constant background commentary and ill-conceived outbursts of the New Yorkers for Fair Use and, to my dismay, Richard Stallman, who proved to be as socially awkward as his critics and fans alike report. Perhaps such behavior is entertaining in a Linux User Group meeting or academic debate, but fellow activists hissed at Stallman and the New Yorkers, suggesting that their constant interjections weren't helping.
And indeed, as discussion progressed, I felt that my representatives were not Stallman and NY Fair Use crowd, nor Graham Spencer from DigitalConsumer.org, whose three comments were timid and without impact. No, I found my voice through Rob Reid, Founder and Chairman of Listen.com, whose realistic thinking and positive suggestions were echoed by Johnathan Potter, Executive Director of DiMA, and backed up on the technical front by Tom Patton of Phillips. Reid argued that piracy was simply a reality of the content industry landscape, and that it was the job of content producers and the tech industry to offer consumers something "better than free." "We charge $10 a month for our service, and the competition is beating us by $10 a month. We've got to give customers a better experience than the P2P file-sharing networks," Reid suggested. As the rare individual who gave up piracy when I gave up RIAA music and MPAA movies, opting instead for a legal and consumer-friendly Emusic.com account, I found myself clapping in approval.
Though Jack Valenti proved he could stump with the best good ol' southern gentleman, deriding his intelligence before offering sweeping proclamations, the majority of the discussion was surprisingly consumer-friendly. All in the room, even Valenti, agreed that P2P technology was not inherently bad, but could merely be put to bad uses. Geeks should be happy to know that their voice is being heard by the tech industry: folks from Intel and IBM really seemed to "get it" along with Reid and the aforementioned crowd. There was clear animosity, however, between content providers and the techies. Elizabeth Frazee of AOL Time Warner, for example, was quick to say that "the content industry is looking for government help," and tech industry reps were quick to suggest that we're nowhere near even agreeing on standards or what needs to be enforced, much less imposing legislation. The general sentiment of the tech crowd appeared to be that piracy was a social issue and an everpresent one, and no amount of legislation or technological blocks (your Palladiums and whatnot) would stop it. The solution, the techs seemed to suggest, was competing well in the marketplace and offering consumers a good reason not to pirate content.
The session drew to a close, and a large bearded man in an ill-fitting suit quickly jumped up to say the NY Fair Use people would be giving a press conference of their own out front at 4:30. I followed a reporter from NewsForge to the motley band of activists, who preached largely to their own choir, with the exception of a few youths like myself and the remaining reporters. I confronted Richard Stallman for his thoughts on the "better than free" proposal that Reid had offered, to which he was happy to sermonize on the false construct of intellectual property. I suggested that perhaps artists could, if they so chose, license their music under a GPL-inspired copyleft like the Open Music License, and strike out an independent path, as he did in the software industry. I was informed that musicians needed the record industry for wide exposure, and of the record industry's various artist-related evils. I then inquired about how Stallman felt about downloadable music services like Emusic.com, which place no restrictions on how you use the music you've bought from them, though the music is copyrighted and the artists and labels are compensated. Stallman agreed, after having informed me minutes ago that intellectual property as a concept was bunk, that this sounded pretty reasonable.
I walked away from the afternoon's experiences feeling much more represented by the tech industry, though sympathetic to the activists' desire for more consumer representation in future Workshops. Notably, the EFF was explicitly shut out of this discussion, which is unfortunate; the NY Fair Use crowd, however, never bothered to request a representative, preferring to show up and disrupt the debate on their own terms, and for nobody's good but their egos, it seems. If the tenor of this discussion remains focused towards the marketplace, as the tech industry wants it to, then we as geeks and concerned consumers have little to worry about. However, if the content industry gets its way, we're looking at legislation mandating DRM, which is essentially subsidizing the slowly-failing record and movie industries like we've done with airlines and big steel. Our best hope, I'm surprised at myself to say, is in a Free Market, and not screaming, indignant geeks passing out buttons and shouting down Jack Valenti.
Fair use? (Score:3, Funny)
every tiem hear hear fair copying as a topic
I jsut feal sick..
Fair copying shouldnt be an issue, im all for it..
But i wish tehse guys would focuse on fair supply
for once..
try living in a DVD region such as 4..
bugger all..
we have somethign like 400 dvds..
a hopeless afair..
woudl these guys if they got the copy
protection they where after solve that problem?
I own one moive (the Dark Crystal) on 4 differnt
coppys on VHS.. all of them appernlty widescrean..
not one of them is.. this is a 1982 movie by Jim
Henson.. and when it was realsied in dvd.. you
got it.. region 1 only..
how cna they clame the regions are only to help
movie theathers when things that havent been in
the thearters for almost 20 years are still being
encoded into specific regions..
Look the part (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said: If every slashdot reader were to write a simple letter to their senators & congressmen about fair use, there'd be no stopping us. So go... right now... and write your letter, I plan to. If you don't, don't bitch about losing your fair use rights when it does happen.
Re:Look the part (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Look the part (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm in the pics (left of) Vin (the rather large fellow who actually got the roundtable to respond to him directly and have our position heard.
By biggest complaint in the way the situation was handled was that by going SO overboard, the New Yorkers hurt the point. It was important for us to interupt them, to "correct" thier "mistakes" and catch them on thier lies, but often it became less of that and more heckling as well as just making a spectacle of oneself.
That *hurts* the cause. Why? It lets them give the idea that we're just a bunch of kooks.
I think that the way things happened did help- but I certainly would have felt better if some of the attendees on our side had been a bit more low key.
- Serge Wroclawski
Re:Look the part (Score:2)
That *hurts* the cause. Why? It lets them give the idea that we're just a bunch of kooks.
The biggest problem with the "cause" is that a lot (dare I say "most") of the activists ARE kooks who think that Intellectual Property should be completely thrown out, and they should be able to steal anything they want.
The solution isn't to "dress up the kooks", but for the more reasonable voices to rise up and be heard. Unfortunately, the reasonable voices (such as myself) don't care about the issue to rise up, except perhaps if they start talking about mandating hardware solutions. That's the level that I start to care.
Re:Look the part (Score:2)
But let's ignore that issue for a moment and focus on the DRM issue. The question, even for the most fundamental believers in "Intellectual Property" (a term I have serious problems with), isn't what they will want and not want, but with what methods (technological but more importantly legal) they will use to achieve thier goals.
And we, the members of the concerned public (including those in the Free Software Movement) have intelligent, well spoken people who can represent our views. Even, dare I say, Richard Stallman, and Eben Moglen.
We musn't equate good speakers with being moderates. Otherwise we'd have to concede that the roundtable members (including our friend Jack) was a "moderate" on the side of big buisness interests.
- Serge Wroclawski
Re:Look the part (Score:3, Insightful)
I suggest that if you haven't- you read Richard Stallman's discussions of the history and purpose of copyright.
Stallman is a kook's kook who severely damages anything he touches. I'm not saying he hasn't also made contributions (obviously), but the last person I would want representing me is Stallman.
Stallman reminds me a lot of Libertarians, not in philosophy but in attitude. He tunnel visions around simplistic philosophical theories while ignoring the bigger picture that the real world doesn't fit his little theories. Instead of working with the real, messy world, he insists that reality change to suit his theory.
Some would call that madness, and I wouldn't disagree.
Re:Look the part (Score:2)
I say the solution is to have the industry dress up like clowns in jackboots. That way we can see Valenti et al for what they really are. Unfortunately, the reasonable voices (such as myself) are unlikely to be heard until these enemies of freedom push society within an inch of permanent intellectual servitude.
Re:This is "News for Nerds" not "Fashion Tips Inc. (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact is you have to KNOW HOW TO ADDRESS YOUR AUDIENCE. It has been proven time and again, that being right is absolutely not enough. It would be nice to live in a world where that wasn't true, but we don't. Get over it. If you want to effect change, make your change effective, don't just pretend that your rants mean anything outside your circle of backslappers.
Re:Look the part (Score:5, Informative)
I'll second that. At the VERY least, place a phone call to your US Senators [senate.gov] and US Representative [house.gov]. This is a 30-second (literally) process, and is the bare minimum that anyone concerned by this issue should do. It at least gets another tick-mark in the "no" column for DRM issues.
By all means, if you're more motivated, write, fax , email, or even set up a meeting with your rep's local staffer. I did that - it's not bad, and you can usually get a meeting with them within a day or so.
If you need to brush up on talking points, Digital Consumer [digitalconsumer.org] has a lot of great references, FAQs, etc. Make your points in a calm, logical manner, pointing out that DRM A) won't stop piracy, B) will retard the technological innovation that has pushed our economy in the past 50 years, and C) only serves the interests of a few fat-cat media cartels.
But, please, do something to help stop this. We as a community dropped the ball on the DMCA, and look where it's gotten us. We can't afford to do the same on DRM.
Re:Look the part (Score:2)
I'll second that. It only takes a few minutes and the potential payoff is HUGE. Here [congressmerge.com]is some good info on the protocols involved, and this [congressmerge.com]will let you find out who to contact.
Writing your congressman (Score:2)
Re:Writing your congressman (Score:2)
The other senator... well, he responds with a form letters, of course. Terribly appropriate. : )
Re:Look the part (Score:3, Informative)
No, tech industry reps do not count. They're going to follow the money, pure and simple. If they can make more money by screwing us, they will. That's their responsibility to their shareholders, after all: make money, not good social policy.
Dressing in a suit and playing The Game isn't always effective. It is stacked against the public at large.
While it's important that we all work within the system as well, it is equally important that when the process is completely stacked against consumers (i.e., no voice for consumers at the roundtable) we go ahead and change the rules.
What free copies really do to sales (Score:2)
AYBABTU (Score:4, Interesting)
George Orwell was one helluva an optimist.
Re:AYBABTU (Score:2)
That being said. I just put out a letter to Senator Rick Santorum about this. I doubt that he'll listen, but it's worth a shot.
Re:AYBABTU (Score:5, Insightful)
In the future, the people will own nothing, everything will be rented from the new state, i.e. the corporations.
What is wrong with you anti-corporation people? Do you just not know what one is? A corporation IS OWNED BY PEOPLE. That's like saying that "no one will have files in the future, only directories will have files". A corporation is just a container for holding assets, with certain legal protections for the owners of the corporation.
Unless you want to be criminally liable if you just happened to own a share of stock in a company that does something criminal, the legal protections are a good -- vital -- idea.
People REALLY need to clue in that corporations are not some magic, evil boogeyman.
Re:Corporations ARE people according to our gov't (Score:2, Informative)
This is why people are mad, corporations in effect have more rights than the people.
Re:AYBABTU (Score:5, Insightful)
Usually a very few people. Even companies with a large number of shareholders, who are ostensibly "owners", are run by a select minority.
The power belongs to a few, not to "the people". The rules are made by a few, and enforced by a few. Did you ever vote for your company's next CEO? Did his/her term ever expire? Do company employees collectively decide which causes to lobby, which public official to support?
You're right that companies are not inherently evil. Neither are they inherently good. The problem is that power structure more closely resembles a feudal aristocracy than a democracy. Some time ago, and even today, there were popular uprisings, beheadings, and all manner of grisly events resulting from popular transitions to a different system.
I'm certainly not suggesting that the state of multi-national corporatism is such that this kind of reponse is called for. All that's happening here in this forum is that people are *talking* about the issue. And you're getting upset about it.
As for the legal protections corporations provide, you're right, they are a good idea. But that doesn't necessarily argue a need for the status quo.
Re:AYBABTU (Score:2)
I am.
Seriously, though, the lack of responsibility for decisions created by the protections offered by the corporate legal structure is a real problem for our society as a whole. Corporations have all the rights of a person with none of the consequences. You can't put a corporation in jail. What needs to happen is for those protections to be reduced for the decision makers (meaning the board members and top executives). This does make sense in our legal structure, since a key part of our body of law is based on intent. The people in charge, the people responsible, need to be held accountable for the decisions they make, and not just financially, but criminally. I think this would bring a serious change, and I sincerely beleive that it would be for the better.
I would love to believe that our system will work, since I much prefer to do things that way. It may not be fast, but it is usually right in the end. If it comes down to it, though, I'll be right there on the front lines decapitating execs and their government puppets. If the system no longer responds to the people, than the people need to dismantle it.
Re:AYBABTU (Score:2)
Re:AYBABTU (Score:2)
A corporation is just a container for holding assets, with certain legal protections for the owners of the corporation.
Unless you want to be criminally liable if you just happened to own a share of stock in a company that does something criminal, the legal protections are a good -- vital -- idea.
So, then, just who is liable when a corporation does something criminal?
People REALLY need to clue in that corporations are not some magic, evil boogeyman.
People will probably find less reason to be cynical when corporate executives making the decisions in cases of criminal corporate actions get punishments comparable to the average person who commits theft, fraud or assault.
I'll be the first to say I know little about the subject, but I sure don't get the impression that corporate crimes get adequately punished these days. It seems that nobody is responsible for the criminal actions. Wierd.
Re:let's clarify some legal stuff, please (Score:2)
But it is important to recognize that the protection of the "corporate veil," as it's known to lawyers, is not absolute. The mere fact that you are an executive or director of a corporation does not constitute a license to commit crimes. If you do commit fraud, or any other criminal act, while serving in that capacity, the government can prosecute you just as it could any other citizen. My feeling, echoed by many at this juncture, is that far too few criminal prosecutions have been brought, and far too little attention given to ferreting out fraud and other criminal conduct by corporate officers. This systemic failure probably is in large part responsible for the wholesale breakdown in ethics among corporate officers that is now being exposed. But since the corporate structure does not protect individuals from criminal prosecution in the first place, eliminating it would not affect the degree of oversight or the rate of prosecution.
Re:AYBABTU (Score:2)
When was the last time you looked at a shareholder proxy?
The owners of the corporation elect the Board. If the Board is sucking ass, the owners of the corporation can withhold their vote for a nominated director, or - if a shareholder has an alternate slate of directors that he or she would prefer, and can convince a majority of other shareholders that this new board would be preferable to the current board - elect a new board.
I'll grant that this doesn't happen often. But whose fault is that? The fault of the board, or the fault of the shareholders who re-elect it?
Re:AYBABTU (Score:2)
Was there a point hidden among all the slogans? I saw was a lot of loaded words aimed at stirring up prejudace against corparations, a few wild accusations, and allmost no content. The fact that you hate and fear corparations is apparant, but if you have a logical reason for feeling this way, it was lost in the emotionalisic tone of your post.
Re:AYBABTU (crap) (Score:2)
THIS is exactly is what isn't needed. You sound like some sci-fi dork who is role-playing. This is exactly the perception that doesn't need to be propagated about people who care about this stuff. Stop with the diatribes, the real world is not an online chat-room, where flaming is cool. Why not deal in reality for once? That is where these issues are going to be decided.
Fending Off the Deluge of Angry Geektivists... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm happy, however, to at least offer my views and any clarifications readers want. Thanks!
I couldn't agree with you more (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fending Off the Deluge of Angry Geektivists... (Score:2)
* Post all music on-line, as free, high-quality MP3 and Ogg formats
* Offer a concert signup (w/CCV) page -- "Coming to your city on [date] (based on demand)"
* Offer refunds for cancelled concerts (for dates that fail, due to a lack of interest)
* Upon crossing the right signup/cost threshold, rent concert space and go to town!
I would think this business model would make the right band a killing and incur no strings attached from any label!
Let the music (downloads) drive people into the concert hall; Let the concert-take be the real source of income.
Could be far more work, but... Isn't this sort of what the Grateful Dead did much of the time?
Re:Fending Off the Deluge of Angry Geektivists... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the primary problem with the "content" industry as it exists now. The idea that only members of that industry are qualified to create content is a fundamental aspect of the current business model. Any unaffiliated, truly independant artist is shut out of the game. Please don't tell me a website is equivalent to radio, TV, magazine, billboard, etc advertisements.
The truly fair business model would leave the artist to directly schedule and manage promotional matters, and the Label/Studio would become simple manufacturing and distribution agents. No long term contracts assigning your rights over to someone else, simple non-exclusive contracts that allow multiple Label/Studio's to compete by each preparing and delivering the artist's content in the most cost-effective and appealing manner they can. This would open up the retail and broadcast channels and allow a much greater diversity in available content.
The problem with this is that revenues of existing industry members would dramatically fall. Although they could still make money, it wouldn't be as much as they make now - hence no interest in changing (but tremendous interest in preserving the status quo).
Re:Fending Off the Deluge of Angry Geektivists... (Score:2)
However, wherein labels use traditional channels of promotion to help move their product, including advertising (costly), commercial exposure (costly TV concerts and tie-ins), I would suggest a non-traditional approach to promotion (having suggested a non-traditional approach to distribution).
Word of mouth is a rather powerful tool -- and is free. Also, there seem to be many "independent" on-line radio stations cropping up which pride themselves in playing the obscure. (I'm listening to one now: KGNU. There's also KPIG, RadioParadise.com, etc.) If it's popular, they may play it. If it's good, they *will* play it. The DJs decide what's good, not a programming "consultant".
These means of promotion fit the rest of my model. Therefore, they should work. Save the CD selling for the concert. Charge $5 for a "cheap" run. Mass CD-R burners are relatively inexpensive. Paper cases are, as well. Don't depend on CD sales for much. Don't depend on publishers for much, either.
Why does making money have to conform in any way to yesterday's methods? This is like saying, farmers should stick to selling their goods locally, because selling to a broker that has a railway at his disposal isn't how it's ever been done, before.
We have new means of distribution (the web); We *could* use new means of marketing. I don't see why we need any part of the old edifice.
Re:Fending Off the Deluge of Angry Geektivists... (Score:2)
It's a matter of dragging your foot along the line, or standing on the line with your toes touching it or extending over it.
Re:Fending Off the Deluge of Angry Geektivists... (Score:2)
And as long as we're starting a spelling thread - for anyone reading, here's my pet peeve:
"Populous" was a cool game.
"Populace" is the noun that means "the population".
"Populous" is an adjective meaning "Having a population".
To wit: "PopCon 2001 was held in East Buttfsck, Montana. Nobody showed up. The gaming populace decided to hold next year's PopCon in a more populous region."
Extremists in the circle of life-- (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Extremists in the circle of life-- (Score:2)
the geeks need a good rep (Score:4, Insightful)
We do not want our (anti-DRM) message to be delivered by bozos and idiots. We need someone that can be articulate and persuasive. Will that person please step forward?
Perhaps they are at the EFF (or are the EFF). The trip report didn't give many details as to why the EFF was locked out. Can anyone elaborate?
Re:the geeks need a good rep (Score:2)
For the record, I'm a "he", in case that wasn't glaringly obvious.
As far as running for the U.S. House, I'm old enough, but I'm not nearly rich enough to be able to fund a campaign like that. Also, I'd have to move to a district where they have a liberal goof in office before it would even be worth my while. That, and I refuse to cut my hair.
Though.. it would be kind of fun to go to the house floor and totally go off on some of the absolute stupidity in DC. Like making every day a freaking holiday. Actually, that gives me an idea. For the liberals: National Bedwetters Day. :)
Re:the geeks need a good rep (Score:2)
Doesn't work. Or at least it doesn't work if you've got RICO violations in your past. See... Trafficant. No fun in Congress. (At least not if you're a felon).
regarding GPL'ing music (Score:4, Insightful)
While I have no problem whatsoever GPL'ing my software (even a BSD-type license would be sufficient in most cases), I would never GPL my stories or poems. The reason: there's a lot more intrinsic value in my writings, and itmeans a lot more to me emotionally, whereas software is purely intellectual nad hard work.
I believe that most musicians would feel the same way, as their best works are often written out of heart and feeling, and I don't think they'd be too keen on someone else taking it (or parts of it) and changing it to meet their motives.
Granted, there are some that are produced for purely commercial purposes, and that's a different story altogether.
Those that would GPL, however, I have a lot of respect for you. Maybe it's just a little different for you; or maybe it's because I'm not a musician, so it's not exactly just an intellectual production on my end.
Re:regarding GPL'ing music (Score:2)
Actually, Richard Stallman agrees with you. He differentiates between "functional" works (e.g. software) and "non-functional" works (e.g. music, literature, etc).
Re:regarding GPL'ing music (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy shit. What do you think writers do? They read, they hear, they interpret, they remix, they write. Your writings are not original. Neither are my songs. Artists _inherently_ feed on each others' emotions. Thats practically the freaking definition of culture.
This "I made it, so I own it" thing makes sense in the physical world - fixed supply of building blocks. It simply does not hold up in art. Every artist/writer you love is not 10% as original as you probably think they are. Hell, Beethoven used to steal 2 or 3 bars, verbatim, from other musicians.
If everyone has food, shelter and water and the means to make music at the end of the day, any impliciation that you should be free to set all the terms in which your creative works are used is simple greed, and is counterproductive to the system which produced you, the writer. Its 100% hypocritical to suggest that others should not be able to take your work and modify it - I agree that plagerism can be taken too far, but for the most part, start thinking about where you are getting your ideas from
my music [besonic.com] is not GPL'd per se, but go ahead and steal a few bars here and there. So long as you give credit where credit is due (thats just a simple case of respect, a trend which is waning thanks to the fact that artists are looking more and more greedy by the moment with every 'I own the work' stake we drive into our own coffin, so people are less likely place any importance on simple noted credit), steal it, remix it, change it, have fun with it.
Thats what culture is. If you dont like it, make sure you lock your poems up in a drawer and never publish them. If you make the ideas available, you're killing art if you think nobody should be able to take something and reinterpret it or rework it. So long as they respectfully note the influece they got from your fine work.
And again, anyone is free to take, rework, use, retinterpret my music. Go ahead. If my music is good enough, there is no way that I won't be payed in some form for my contribution to the state of the art. I refuse to contribute to scarcity in culture - why do you think TV and movies blow so badly? Because artists are simply not allowed to create first or second generation remixes without going through 20 legal forms first. Artsits are being forced to create in a vacuum, and its our own damn faults. This is why, increasingly, people are not giving credit where credit is due - think about it, there may be a kind soul out there whos dying to rework your art in a form that will launch your writing career
I am not afraid
Re:regarding GPL'ing music (Score:2)
Re:regarding GPL'ing music (Score:2)
This is a scenario of confusion and disaster. Artistic integrity distinction is a very important aspect of artistic works. This is something that you should not erode the artist of. Of course, that the artist borrowed from others, and plain to see.
Re:regarding GPL'ing music (Score:2)
Who would want to change my music, and republish it under my name? For it to considerably damage my reputation, I'd have to assume they'd have lots of money, lots of time, and lots of effort to do such a thing maliciously or to dilute my public image. It doesn't make sense that anyone would try and do this. And if they did, I'd rather fight it through more normal channels than black-and-white licence that forbids people from doing so?
It's an interesting point, I'd actually really be curious if anyone could come up with a situation in which this would be significantly detrimental to me.
Re:regarding GPL'ing music (Score:2)
Well, as Stallman has expressed on occasion, the best thing is to see what's natural and useful to people. Seems that changing music around is not something people like to do. Few are demanding an artist's Pro Tools files or other "source code". They like to keep it prestine and self-contained, though occasionally people like to make parodies or "collages" out of other people's music. People like to share music with each other, not because it solves some kind of problem, but because it makes them feel like they are part of something (emotions, as you said).
So it seems to me the best way to distribute music is to ask 1) don't change the music or the artist's name, and 2) don't profit from it without the artist's permission. This would match the usual way people consume and share music. When I was young, I thought copyright law meant that you couldn't make money from someone else's work, but you could share copies with your friends. I think a lot of people think this myth is true.
So basically, music and art can exist with a more restrictive "license" than software.
Re:regarding GPL'ing music (Score:2)
Oh man, you have apparently never been exposed to big-egoed programmers that think every single line of code they have written is pure gold, product of blood, sweat and tears, coming straight from their heart. :-)
I think that you are slightly mistaken in assuming programmers don't feel attached to what they have created. However, I think your main point is valid (if I understood you correctly),that even though you wouldn't mind free copying, you'd prefer it to be verbatim, unchanged. So that it would still be YOUR piece of art, instead of someone else's derivative work. This can be done with software (via licensing); some people love the idea of derivative work, some not. Many would prefer having a chance to choose who can do what.
Note however that this is not how things work with (music, literature) copyrights. Anyone can actually freely create their own versions of your writings (songs, paintings); AS LONG AS THEY DO MODIFY IT or pay royalties. Creating parodies is fair use, and doing cover songs is common in music industry (not so with books etc). I would bet that many (music) artists would do pretty much anything to prevent parodies and sometimes bad cover versions... even sacrificing copyright income. But that can not be done.
Isn't it weird that current copyright laws, then, enforce the exact opposite of your (and many others artits') ideals?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Jack Valenti "consumer friendly"?!? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Re:Jack Valenti "consumer friendly"?!? (contex (Score:2)
Re: Re:Jack Valenti "consumer friendly"?!? (contex (Score:2)
Sheesh. Sometimes your allies take the most persuading.
Too many camps (Score:3, Insightful)
screaming geeks: (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a reason there are "professional lobbyists" and "professional activists". These
people know how to play within the power structure
and know how to purport themselves at a discussion or a meeting or a hearing.
These "activists" that the author was speaking of
seem to think this is still the sixties, and that they were at a rally. When someone is on the stage, you dont boo and yell at them, you let them speak. If you must be heard, put one of your own people up there, or take a point-counterpoint
text version of their comments and get it out there.
But dont act like complete boors, lest you taint the rest of us with the view that we are *ALL* socially inept nerd-boyz (a-la the "arch nemesisis" on Buffy) rather than savvy people who may not have the money or size to work within the system *yet* but will someday.
One instance of the wrong person seeing people act like doofusi in a public setting like that can ruin the good value of a hundred positive but
thought provoking emails.
Maeryk
What bullshit. (Score:2)
Despite timid al3x's embarasment, I'm happy that someone spoke up and represented freedom. You know that no one was really disruptive because they would have been removed by armed gaurds, duh. Laughs and other expresions of human emotions are appropriate. Remember that the aim of the group is to end individual ownership of general purpose computing devices. This is the only way to enforce "digital security", and its a fundamental violation of the first amendment and much of what the United States stands for. Enforcement of existing laws is all that is needed. Good work New Yorkers for fair use. Good work RMS! Keep it up.
Now, I'm going to get back to my job, knowing that reasonable people are expressing my oppinion where it needs to show. Yeah, back to work in the "power structure", a nuclear power plant.
Those of you who would represent the crowd as "hippies" who "think this is still the sixties and that they were at a rally", can fuck off. Silly smear tactics like that won't wash of the facts of Paladium, Carnivore, Passport, CSS "zones" and all that other evil shit aimed at making pay per play, no fair use, and complete editorial control of all digital media. The real ugglies are those who would make laws to force perverse technology that no one wants.
No one needs to record the text, except by tape, because all proceedings are a matter of public record.
Re:What bullshit. (Score:2)
Remind me to show up and represent freedom at your wedding. Dude.. its not that they had points to make, but as Alex put it, they were more distracting and annoying than informative. Thats a black mark. It looks bad. And when you are dealing with the type of people on the offensive that we are now, that is not-affordable.
Those of you who would represent the crowd as "hippies" who "think this is still the sixties and that they were at a rally", can fuck off. Silly smear tactics like that won't wash of the facts of Paladium, Carnivore, Passport, CSS "zones" and all that other evil shit aimed at making pay per play, no fair use, and complete editorial control of all digital media. The real ugglies are those who would make laws to force perverse technology that no one wants.
Who is using a smear tactic? I was merely pointing out that running into congress and screaming is not the way to get a bill passed. Yelling and interrupting people (not just snickering) is not the way to be viewed as an intelligent person looking for discourse. It is how to be viewed as a heckler. And no-one cares what a heckler has to say.
as all that "evil shit" is concerned, no amount of acting like a jackass at a roundtable discussion is going to help. Getting RMS to speak clearly, concisely, and make sense might help. Getting him not to contradict himself in five sentences might help too. If he cant do it, get someone else in there who can, but we need a slick polished able-to-talk-and-be-heard person just as much as they do. We just dont have one right now.
You are not a revolutionary, neither are these people who are disrupting the round-table. (At least, you may be in your own mind, but others view those antics as childish and boorish.. much like telling people to fuck off is viewed).
As far as recording the text, its much easier to get your point across using a point-counterpoint than with one railing flailing article that doesnt give concise instances of what you are arguing *against*
Maeryk
Re:What bullshit. (Score:2)
Get a clue. The folks participating legitimately in the discussion made some jokes, even Jack Valenti grinned when he was called out on his old VCR comments by a rep from Philips. Even though there were some greedy shits in the group, they were the exception. The "aim of the group," which you're obviously uninformed on, having neither been near this event nor availed yourself of transcript (which may or may not yet be available), was to come to a balance between all the sides represented.
The majority opposed DRM. Think about it: the tech industry can sell more machines at a lower cost if they don't have to integrate DRM, and they know DRM will stifle the commodity hardware market. So they were on your side. Just because the meeting is going on in a big, spooky government office doesn't mean it was a conspiritorial gestapo session.
Stop watching so many movies and get involved. These processes are open to the public and people with an under-represented viewpoint. You just gotta work for it.
a thoughts... (Score:2, Interesting)
I think groups like the EFF, Digital Consumer, etc. need to pool their resources and start a TV commercial campaign (eg, "paid political announcements") showing the typical American family (eg, mom, dad, 1-4 kids) who downloads maybe 10 songs/day or simply wants to listen to Internet radio.
Have the setting be one where the entertainment industry has full control, and how miserable the life is for this family. eg, getting a knock from police at the door after downloading an mp3.
Maybe not even miserable. Have a little girl that's maybe 4 years old try to do something on a computer, then ask her dad why it's not working. "Sorry sweetie, NSync doesnt want their music played on a computer."
Yes, it's only a 30 second commercial, but it should get the point across of the entertainment industry making the average consumer a criminal. One also needs to target such a campaign. During local evening news shows is good, as are spots on MTV and similar channels.
Dont directly portray Hollywood as evil though (like having Mickey Mouse step on a house, like he did in that recent EFF video), as most people will see that as a turn-off for getting the point across.
Re:a thoughts... (Score:2)
Better than having Mickey step on a house, or an orwellian future portrayed might just be a simple ad stating that your rights are under assault, that, for instance, you no longer have the right to make a backup copy of your latest CD purchase due to the DMCA. I think that it had suge huge support merely because NO ONE CARED.
Getting people to notice something (even joe six pack) is tough.. but once you do it, it carries a lot of force behind it. Look at the marijuana referendum out in the midwest. That happened because joe six-pack is fed up with ridiculous arrests and silly court cases. It certainly must have had a LOT of groundswell support, simply because the official government line is "war on drugs". People are slowly getting fed up with the government, to the point where (I think it was louisiana?) told the government to go pound sand and keep their federal highway funding, rather then order the state around. That only happened due to concerned citizens as well.
Remember.. even if they "dont get it" doesnt mean that the proper rhetoric wont make them believe they are moving for something good. (See Clinton election for more info)
Maeryk
Re:a thoughts... (Score:2)
Most of the recording companies are just part of larger media conglomerates, and there is no way you'll convince NBC/CBS/Whatever to put on an advert saying that they are taking away people's rights. They don't have to play the commercial, no matter how much money you offer them.
That's the big catch-22 and conflict of interest.
Re:a thoughts... (Score:2)
I hear so many stories about journalists who publish articles that are contrary to the owner or corporate sponsors viewpoints and then are subsequently sacked.
I believe if a journalist can do it, and is willing to do it, feel free. But, in today society where big media rule. it's quite hard for those journalists to get the nerve to do it and then afterwards remain working for the big media.
I didn't know that PPAs had to be displayed, I thought the TV station could refuse any advertisement it was given. Therefore, it would be able to refuse any advertisement contrary to it's goals, or that would be bad for business. Like an advertisement denouncing something that will help them make more money.
Damn Activists (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like Republicans and Democrats. There are TWO REAL political parties in the U.S., though most people are moderate, one side detests the other for a few far flung individual views.
Or "Earth First" or PETA. Sure we're all in basic support of what these guys stand for. (don't pollute / don't be creul to animals) But they're RADICAL groups.
Don't let those wacko geeks represent the majority of us.
Re:Damn Activists (Score:2)
IMHO, that only applies when there is also an EQUAL AND OPPOSITE radical force. Else, the majority be misrepresented by 'the squeaky wheel'. This is how I see the courts as working. Say you steal a gumball. Your defense lawyer says you're living on the street, starving, stomach ballooned, and the prosecution says you're putting the storekeeper out of business, and his 6 kids will starve. Neither is right, but with equal and opposite forces 'pushing towards the middle' (and some common sence among the jury), we have balance.
defining those you with whom you disagree as "wackos" serves as little as the manic behavior which you so disdain; this level of argument is pure ad hominem; it's a logical fallacy, worthy of types such as Rush Limbaugh, but reduces the level of discussion.
You got me. They're just radicals, not wackos. ;)
Sometimes there is a need for someone to yell, just to be heard at all, especially if their views are completely being ignored; this is the true point of a democracy...
This is true, and I have been punished for such things. My whole point is that, according to the report, the median IS being represented by those on the panel, and those radicals in the audience are doing nothing but hurting the campaign.
Heckling is a horrible strategy in most cases (Score:2)
The best way to get the Media's attention is often to simply do their job for them. Write up insightful, well summarized and brief positions explaining a matter and distribute it to the reporters. Doing so goes a long distance towards guaranteeing that your position will be accurately reflected by a reporter's statements.
In these kinds of dicussions, the first person to get mad and upset is very often the one who appears to be on the losing side.
Re:Heckling is a horrible strategy in most cases (Score:2)
What I am saying is that I believe that most of these DRM issues escape the public's understanding. Since we are precluded from having the public's immeadiate empathy of why we are angry about exclusion, heckling a meeting makes it just too easy for the organizers to say "see why they aren't invited?".
Our problem is convincing legislators who quite rightly perceive that there isn't a lot of public momemtum against DRM.
Getting the message out is the most important job here. Thus I continue to believe sanguine well thought out commentary and action is the best attack. It is imperative our legislators be made to understand the very important issues of balance and public interest involved here.
Simply hooting at a public discussion will not accomplish this I think.
Excellent article (Score:2)
Thanks.
That's because (Score:2)
'Don't Test Me, Young Fella' (Score:2)
A parody, of course.
We are our own worst enemies.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Look at what happened with the DeCSS case - because of the tenor of 2600, it was far too easy to attack the man, not the case.
When you show up for these sorts of events, WEAR A SUIT! Yes, it it ananthema to our kind. Yes, many of us don't have to wear suits on a regular basis. BUT THAT'S HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED!
Be polite - let the other side have their say, no matter how BS it may be. Then, when you get a chance to speak, shred them, point by point, politely.
We already have enough minuses on our side - don't act like 3 Charisma morons.
Suits and Politeness (Score:2)
Absolutely! Very good point!
Suits, people. They're badges that the little brains inside business leaders and politicians use to signal to each other "Hey! I'm one of you! Listen to what I have to say!" One Brett Wynkoop worked that one out for himself.
Be polite - let the other side have their say, no matter how BS it may be. Then, when you get a chance to speak...
I think the point was that the geeks were not given a proper chance to speak at the table. They had to interject from the gallery, and so vented their frustration emotionally. The points they made were not the Gettysburg Address or the Sermon on the Mount, but who can blame them?
Re:We are our own worst enemies.... (Score:4, Insightful)
golf shirt + khakis will do. so would a golf shirt tucked into plain denim jeans. no shirts with statements on them (like that one guy's "got DeCSS?"). small company logo's on the left-upper portion are ok.
other suggestions: groomed hair (ie, combed). controlled beards (no jokes about RMS's - he was wearing a good example). remove odd piercings (gentlemen - this includes earrings). attempt to cover tatoos.
and yes - speak in turn, without flaming. if they interrupt you, they make themselves look bad, and you can cash in by interrupting them back (in a stern voice) "Excuse me, I have the floor. I waited for you to finish your statements, now it is my turn"
Re:We are our own worst enemies.... (Score:2)
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but did the protestors ever get the floor? If not, the civilty you call for here is unnecessary and counter-productive--if someone in power wants to ignore you there is no reason to make it easy for them.
Re:We are our own worst enemies.... (Score:2)
Re:We are our own worst enemies.... (Score:2)
That's the Real World.
I love DRM (Score:5, Funny)
Everytime a DRM scheme is cracked (DeCSS, ebook thingy, satellite cards, the HDTV thing, watermarks) I enjoy reading the papers that come out, describing in gory detail what the companies thought was "hacker proof". They have been quite educational.
Though if any representatives from the content industry are here, I would kindly request, please, no more schemes based on linear feedback shift registers, or XORing with constant keys. I really have those mastered at this point, and am looking forward to some more challenging material. Also, I'm pretty comfortable with frequency-domain watermarking based on pseudorandom sequences. Even Dr. Dobbs wrote about a more sophisticated scheme once.
So in short, keep the DRM coming, and I'll avoid the products religiously of course (or get my own copy out of the "analog hole" [is that like the "digital divide" heh heh]). But I love those DMCA-chilled papers.
Looks like a debacle... (Score:5, Interesting)
They are the Greenpeace nuts on inflatables ramming whaling ships or nuclear powered aircraft carrier off the coast of France.
They may have keen insights, wonderful diatribes on slashdot, and in on-line environments, they may seem on step away from Churchill in how the words flow from their fingertips and rouse us.
But in public, they are Type _G_ geeks. Easily spotable, obviously not comfortable (with themselves or others), and get caught in a moment of passion that they would normally rectify by re-reading and rewriting a flame email/newsgroup post/ slashdot post... but in real world there is no drafts folder.
We need logic, and sound reasoning to combat these RIAA types. We need to show the Dept of Commerce, Congress, the courts, and the public, that we really are this smart, and we can logically show why all or part of DRM is a bad thing.
I give all who attended tremendous credit, and even thanks. Any representation is better than no representation (much like publicity).
And to all the uber-geeks our there, I implore any who have the opportunity again to participate in such an hearing, to think of yourself as Mr. Spock (the star trek one, not the baby doctor). Try not to show emotion, counter the enemies emotion and rants with sound logic. And make sure you have the facts, and never assume. But please, don't try any mind-meld or vulcan sleeper grips.
-malakai
Re:Looks like a debacle... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that a lot of people posting to this have neglected the fact that the greenpeace nuts, the stallmanites, hecklers, etc., act as "Extremists" on a spectrum. There are always two most extreme sets of people in any particular debate. The farther these people are, the more extreme you can get and still appear reasonable. If you like source code availability, the Free Software movement acted as extremists, and the Open Source movement was made to appear very reasonable and thought-out. Without the FS movement, the OS movement would have looked extreme.
So yeah, they make you look bad. And they might not accomplish alot. But they're an important part of a dynamic in any debate.
-Rob
Re:Looks like a debacle... (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people don't want to be associated with a pack of fanatics, certainly not loudmouth boorish geek fanatics. There is nothing that the RIAA and the MPAA would like more than convincing most people that the fair use movement consists of nothing but a rag tag bunch of loudmouth louts looking to steal music, movies and software.
P2P file sharing a problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
I really don't think it ever was a problem. The only people who dowloaded stuff off of Napster when it was up without buying the actual single/album were in the minority. If you enjoyed the artist enough to download their whole back calalogue in MP3 format, you were more than likely to go out and buy at least one or two of that artists releases on CD. As an aside, the music quality of a CD is far superior to that of MP3 format (lossy compression does nasty things to music tracks).
I really think that the music industy is trying to whip up a hurricane in a teacup over this issue.
Screw reasonable (Score:3, Insightful)
Reasonable is for usenet discussion, weblogs, email, and pamphlets. Reasonable is for individual representations, newspaper articles, editorials, and letters. Reasonable works when you have someone listening to you.
In this forum, a ruckus gets results. Not breaking chairs, smashing faces and petrol bombs ruckus, but angry, frustrated displays of feeling, which the people on the panel probably did not expect. They may not agree, but the message probably got through to the government that this difference of views is not between the tech companies and the hollywood companies, but is a three-way conflict between tech companies, hollywood companies, and the public interest.
Prediction [bookmark this space!]
Next round-table discussion will either have a representative of the OSS community, or will be held behind locked doors. Either way, the meeting will be an intelligent, reasonable, and civilised discussion.
Re:Screw reasonable (Score:3, Insightful)
The ruckus basically ruined the chance of their view getting across. Fortunately, the tech industry folks are competent and eloquent enough to get it across for them.
Prediction [wise up sucker!]
Next roundtable discussion, like this one, will be intellgient, reasonable, and civilised, and there's only going to be a rep from the OSS community if they get off thier asses and lobby with the big boys.
Re:Screw reasonable (Score:2)
It's okay for the audience, as a representative of the general public, to show their outrage (tho appropriately-timed applause, or the lack of it, is much more effective than booing and catcalls, which just make the audience seem like unfairly biased and ill-bred hicks).
It is NOT okay for panel members to engage in NOR to endorse such behaviour. Panel members need to be seen as reasonable at all times. Otherwise, the end result will be the DRM equivalent of "we don't cut deals with terrorists" and there will be no further opportunity to make our side heard.
As someone above pointed out, and as I've said here many times before, there are reasons why professional lobbyists exist. When the game already has rules, you have to play by those rules, or you won't get to play at all.
I know I've seen this exact article before... (Score:2)
I'm on the NY Fair Use mailing list..... (Score:2, Interesting)
The NYers and Stallman (Score:2)
Valenti at wrong conference (Score:2)
No Fair Use == No Legitimate Criticism Allowed (Score:2, Interesting)
1) You can put pristine segments their precious garbage on the net legally.
2) You can make fun of it and point out how stupid and crappy it is.
Once your ability to actually capture clips legally (hello DMCA, DVD and Macrovision) has been destroyed what are you going to do? Draw stick figures? Go ahead! All of the fawning coverage people will see on Entertainment Tonight will have glorious, full motion, full color clips of the film and you, the guy shouting that the Emperor has no clothes, will have no way to illustrate your point.
That is what is really at stake with this threat to fair use.
- Night
It takes all kinds (Score:2)
BULLSHIT.
It takes all kinds to get things done. Back in the 50s and 60s, the heyday of civil rights activism, the people who got things done ranged from Rose Parks (sp?) keeping her seat to Black Panthers. Martin Luther King Jr. rousing the rabble, black politicians working the system, ordinary marchers facing up to Lester Maddox and his ax. It took all of them to change the system.
How far do you think they would have gotten if they had all been polite and worn suits and worked the system? Hint: they didn't get anywhere until the more rambunctious ones drew people's attention to the crap going on.
How long do you think the Vietnam War would have gone on if it had not been for street protests?
The people in control would love to have opponents wasting time quietly working the system.
Sometimes you gotta shake the tree to get any fruit.
Re:It takes all kinds (Score:2)
You might notice that you rarely see Martin Luther King in anything but a three piece suit, even in the heat of summer. You might notice that he was educated, eloquent, and able to converse with anyone from the working class to wealthy politicians.
The Black Panthers where the militant end of a civil rights fight that many claim they did more harm than good for with their unreasonable stances (freeing all black prisoners, regardless of their crimes, for example). And it was the media's coverage of the atrocities in Alabama that ultimately swayed the American public; what system is bigger than the media? They were working it.
And let's get real: as potentially chilling the effects of DRM are, they pale in comparison to the fights of the 1960s, and it's insulting to equate the two. Even more insulting, had you seen the behaviour of these "rambunctious ones." They were no Martin Luther Kings. They were no heros.
I was there (Score:5, Informative)
1) Really, this is not the way to get the message out. Yelling is counter-productive and makes those who do it look bad. I was quite suprised that no one got kicked out, and did not enjoy having a security guard standing next to me because people in front of me could not control themselves! I understand the frustration--hearing inane comments from Valenti et. al. and not being able to respond--but you do yourselves no favors by interuppting and acting like children in a sandbox.
2) Valenti's comments were just plain stupid. Defending his stupid comments circa 1981 of the VCR being like the boston strangler by saying "a little demoguagery never hurt anyone." Man, I need to get that transcript, but here he admits that is what he did best (and should we be suprised, he was a Presidential speechwriter after all). This came on the heels of him saying that it is time to get the inflamed rhetoric out of the debate and the best line of, "well I am the public" (which was reported by the record company execs as well.
He said that VCR piracy was a problem (on the order or $3.5B) and that it could have been fixed originally, though he never wanted to stop the VCR, only have modest copyright royalties. He was quickly corrected by Bob Schwartz, General Counsel for Home Recording Rights Coalition, who said, "I recall the word 'injunction' being used in the lawsuit and the modest royalty of $25-50 per VCR tape. GREAT STUFF!!!
But Valenti did say they want to give the consumer what they want at a price they will pay. When Bond interjected, well it is clear they want P2P, Valenti replied, well I may want a skeleton key that opens every door--bizarre stuff.
3) Rob Ried of Listen.com ROCKED!! Go on, very good stuff. Aside from his unwavering conviction to talk about a safe harbor for all out of print work, that can be rebutted by a take down notice of the original artist (which is a good idea, but he spent too much time on it), he has a great model and presented it clearly. It was what I have always thought, there is a way to beat free, offer something compelling. Once you reach a certain age time == $$ and if I can get my music with little time and portable, I will take that and pay for it. If I do not have that luxery, I will use what is available. He made a great analagy to all the "designer" water out there (although this is a little false, because DC tap water really does suck--then again so does most current music, so maybe I am wrong here).
4) A great argument from Intel to Valenti. "Looks like the only way we can clean up ponrongraphy and violence and drugs in the movies is through a government mandate." That's right, throw it in their face that our industry does not want to be mandated just like theirs doesn't.
5) Again, I reiterate, chose the messenger better. Flame me if you will, but 10 guys looking like the comic book salesman from the simpsons, disrupting a government meeting, does not help. You guys can bitch and moan about secret back room dealings (and I do too), but when you are given the opportunity to attend public meetings, do not show why they prefer to do things in private. It is embarrasing, counter-productive, and will likely lead to the reduction of these meetings (which I did think was highly productive in showing that differing industries come at it differently). Standing up and yelling, "the time for civility has now come to an end" (true quote) does no good!!!!
DRM AND FREE SPEECH: TWO RULES TO PRESERVE (Score:2)
1> Content must be considered "innocent until proven guilty" with regard to DRM - a file should pass unless it has been tagged in some way.
2> Anonymous speech must be possible.
Otherwise, along with DRM, you get to kiss a bunch of your first amendment rights away too.
DRM systems, perhaps like Palladium, may require a digital certificate to be able to create content: you sign that the work is yours and does not infringe copyright, then post.
That system kills anonymity.
Similarly, systems which require a work is signed before allowing it to be used kill the public domain, and could certainly be used to censor the internet by simply pulling the certificates for any work that people in power do not want to be seen.
Remember: 90+% of the fiber is owned by five companies: content filtering on the wire is possible.
Call it "raucous" or "obnoxious" if you will.... (Score:2)
Throughout history people demanding their rights have had to do just that: DEMAND THEIR RIGHTS! Sometimes being polite just isn't enough.
Is it important enough? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course those issues were much more obviously central to human need and survival than these are. It's not (quite) as hard to stand your ground and take a beating to keep your peers from dying. Or to give up personal liberties and face jail time to prevent the oppression of your society.
If people believed in the OSS/DMCA/Fair Use causes enough to step in front of harpoons, to march in force and risk beatings or jail time, I suspect they could force some significant change. There is a limit, after all, to the power of money - even the almost limitless amount that "the other camp" can muster against the causes of liberty...
The only question is: Is this fight important enough? Will it spawn an Abby Hoffman or a group like the Black Panthers? Is it enough to wake up the sheep that are most affected by it?
What's really being taken away from us? What are the chances that we won't be able to take it back?
What are we really fighting here? Is it corporate greed? Covernment control? Public laziness? Is there even a front line to hold here?
If the goal is to turn the MPAA/RIAA from thier current course, there's only one way to do it - get the public to see what they're losing, and make them care.
If the goal is to convince the government to support our freedoms in this issue, again - the decisions will fall to the largest group - get the public, the voters to side with you.
If it's to make the general public aware of what big media and the technology companies are doing to them, and get them to take action - That's what you need a real leader for. RMS is strong on ideals, and that's laudable, but he has no public presence, and without the charisma and drive to back up his ideals, he's only a footsoldier looking for a general. The EFF is stretching thier own wings lately, trying to use subversion as a tool to educate. A fantastic tactic, but once again, thier efforts lack charisma, and as a result, are ineffectual.
History has proven that "Merry Pranksters" are capable of bringing the message to the people, through public ridicule, shocking honesty, and downright ground-trembling spectacle. But they need organization, focus, control, and everyone needs to push behind the same arrowhead.
When unorganized efforts attempt this, they come off as purile whining, which is how the events detailled in this current article sound.
What if we had gotten 5 or 6 hundred people to arrive at this workshop - 400 of them lined up outside, chanting during the proceedings?
What if we had convinced educated, like-minded musicians, actors and directors to show up - would they dare to disallow the very people they claim to be trying to protect the right to speak?
What if we could get enough public awareness to get a 2-day boycott of cds, dvds, tv and movie theaters? Something heavy enough to show on the charts - to make advertisers and broadcasters take notice, and to make people everywhere wake up to the fact that they can take 100% control of this country anytime they really want to, no matter how long they've given thier power to the proxies in office... And then get those newly-empowered masses involved in a two-week boycott. During sweeps, the Superbowl, or the start of July.
How do these things happen? Once, there were people who could produce events like these - where are those people during this situation? Is it impossible for the 2000s to spawn a Martin Luther (King or t'other one), a Thomas Jefferson, or am Abey Hoffman?
Are they all dead, strangled by corporate greed, or are the problems we now face just not important enough to bring them to the forefront?
Best hopes (Score:4, Insightful)
You're absolutely right about free markets being the solution. Where you're wrong is that any form of DRM would be precisely anti-free-market. There is no optimum compromise here. Those "screaming, indignant geeks" are fighting for our basic freedoms of speech and expression in an open society. Those freedoms die if we lose control of our tools of expression.
The same goes for privacy rights. What would the world be like if everything we read, listened to, and watched was tracked by media giants for the purpose of pay-per-usage? And it wouldn't even have to be for extracting micro-payments. Any official DRM-enabled viewer device would have some sort of unique identifier. And any DRM-enforced information source would be able to get than info during authentication.
We all need to take a firm stance on this issue. If any of the crap being proposed makes it way into legislation, mass boycotts are in order. And I don't mean using the latest Napster clone to warez pop music. I mean spreading pamphlets throughout our neighborhoods, organizing peaceful demonstrations, refusing to buy any product of the offending parties--yes, that means stop going to / renting movies, cancelling your cable TV, not buying your favorite artist's CD's, ignoring record-label organized concerts, etc. Freedom is more important than a few minor pleasures for the time being.
Re:Best hopes (Score:2)
Re:The exact same thing is at Kuro5hin.org (Score:2)
Re:The exact same thing is at Kuro5hin.org (Score:2)
Re:The exact same thing is at Kuro5hin.org (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but slashdot and kuro5hin are two different sites, with different readership. I personally only read k5 for a short time; it simply didn't hold my interest. In contrast, I've been reading
Re:The exact same thing is at Kuro5hin.org (Score:2)
If the same article is going to be posted on two sites, does this mean that moderators should mod K5 up as informative and
First submitted article moderation, now "site" moderation.
I can see it now in the logs while grepping for "moderation" instead of default.ida.
Re:waaaaay too long... (Score:2)
1. The industry was cool in the meeting. Guys from Intel, Philips, Listen.com, etc. They're anti-DRM, and they totally rock.
2. We hate, as usual, the media companies: RIAA, MPAA, AOL/TW, etc. But we're also not thrilled about the geek-activists who interrupting, being obnoxious, and generally doing more harm than good.
3. There was something of a fight between tech industry and media, and I'd say the techies won. Media wants DRM legislated now, and the techs know that's bullshit.
Easy enough for ya?
Re:I can see it now (Score:2)