Slashdot Mirror

Ok, I don't ordinarily reply to myself, but here's a wiki where I've put this, for now:

http://www.bytesfree.org/wiki/index.php/Bill_of_Rights

-John Mark

while that's an important point, if there's one thing the "235 patents" has shown us, it's that no matter how ludicrous the claim, no matter how unlikely they are to take legal action, the very fact that they leave that option on the table will reverberate in the industry. Microsoft would be idiotic to ever sue anyone as you suggest - but they're not going to shut the door on that option, either, because they want it to be the unspoken fear that gives companies the willies, thus preserving their office monopoly. And it works - companies are afraid of calling Microsoft's bluff, because what would they gain by publicly calling out Microsoft? Nothing - but there's a whole lot to lose, so companies just sort of ignore it, but not really, since it colors their future IT purchases.

-Cyrus
http://www.bytesfree.org/

I'm starting a project to assemble data on all federal as well as state legislators. Would you like to help?

I was going to try something like a hot-or-not for politics, or some other ratings system, but just to kick things off, I'm just going to use the wiki.

There is a ton of pulic info on the web. You just have to do the busywork of organizing it.

-Cyrus
http://www.bytesfree.org/

You are correct in that I had not yet looked at the research. However, now that I have, I still don't see anything there to suggest something approaching a balanced and informed view.

I did not intend to put words in your mouth. My main point is that the onus should be on groups such as the copyright alliance to explain why circumvention clauses are necessary in copyright law and why erecting artificial barriers to entry is beneficial to society. I cannot see how doing either doesn't break long-held tenets of post-enlightenment western culture. We need to think long and hard about long-term consequences. As I argue in my paper on human rights, the harm of current IP law is a large number of disenfranchised people without the same access to education as those with the means to afford it.

Creating closed data formats is a great, short-term solution to the illegal distribution problem, but it's a large obstacle to creating a society in which everyone can participate equally. I would argue that the latter is far more important than the former.

It's really a very simple idea: Congress should not be able to pass any laws that protect artificial barriers to entry.

It's actually not the publishers I'm targeting here - it's the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA. However, having said that, I have wondered if DMCA reform would result in a built-in extra "premium" paid to access content. I have to say no - without the legal means to sue those who reverse-engineer data formats, I can see market forces dinging those who charge premiums. At the moment, market forces are somewhat held at bay by current copyright law.

In your scenario, if data format encryption can be legally circumvented, then I can't see any premium for fair use remaining in place.

-Cyrus
http://www.bytesfree.org/

It doesn't recognize the right to access information we possess. Is it too much to ask for the courts to recognize this fundamental right? I'm glad CSS is ruled ineffectual, but what about BR and HD-DVD? When can we openly discuss the idea that erecting artificial barriers to entry is not something 21st century "enlightened" countries should engage in?

-Cyrus
http://www.bytesfree.org/

From your post, you seem to think that legally protected rights to access data are "extreme". You refer to the alliance as "balanced" and I say there's no such thing when there's not even the acknowledgement of my information access rights. I have the right to access information I possess. Period. To say otherwise would seem to be an extreme view.

Put simply, I cannot entertain the idea that any balanced view would not recognize the tyranny of anti-circumvention laws.

-Cyrus
http://www.bytesfree.org/

I started bytesfree.org under the shockingly banal premise that people have the right to access information they possess. Wow, what a concept! And yet, so many well-funded organizations are dead set against such a concept. Information access be damned, 'cuz we can't afford the risk of people distributing illegal copies! It's not surprising to me that companies will do anything to protect their revenue. What surprises me is that 1.) not enough people give a shit and 2.) we've allowed things to progress this far. -Cyrus http://www.bytesfree.org/

Excuse me, but the only reason it went unnoticed was because you didn't accept my submission on this exact same story last week. I wrote it up at http://www.bytesfree.org/ in the entry All Your Rights Are Belong to Us. LinuxToday was on the ball enough to report it.

Excuse me, but the only reason it went unnoticed was because you didn't accept my submission on this exact same story last week. I wrote it up at http://www.bytesfree.org/ in the entry All Your Rights Are Belong to Us. LinuxToday was on the ball enough to report it.

Goddammit, I want recognition of my right to access information any fucking way I choose. Stop "granting me permission" to use *your* approved methods. Fuck you. People have the right to access data that they legally possess. Period. It's very simple to understand. http://www.bytesfree.org/wiki/index.php/RightsPape r

I thought so :) As Andy Updegrove writes on his blog, Microsoft is taking a balls-out effort to do whatever is within its power to kill ODF. Gosh, I wonder why... And in other news: http://www.bytesfree.org/bfblog/index.php/2007/05/ 21/all-your-rights-are-belong-to-us/ -Cyrus

Yeah, I know he just wrote a mea culpa, but it's too late - the damage is done and you've been exposed. You can't cram the toothpaste back in.

http://www.bytesfree.org/bfblog/index.php/2007/05/ 01/kevin-rose-enemy-of-human-rights/