Slashdot Mirror

Wendy writes "Oral arguments in the Microsoft Case appeal are scheduled Monday and Tuesday before the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In a first, the court is offering live audio streaming through ABC News and C-SPAN. Arguments begin at 9:30 a.m. -- monopoly maintenance and tying Monday; attempted monopolization, relief, and Judge Jackson's conduct of the trial Tuesday. Microsoft is, of course, appealing Jackson's breakup order and final judgment."

Wendy writes "Oral arguments in the Microsoft Case appeal are scheduled Monday and Tuesday before the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In a first, the court is offering live audio streaming through ABC News and C-SPAN. Arguments begin at 9:30 a.m. -- monopoly maintenance and tying Monday; attempted monopolization, relief, and Judge Jackson's conduct of the trial Tuesday. Microsoft is, of course, appealing Jackson's breakup order and final judgment."

Wendy writes "Oral arguments in the Microsoft Case appeal are scheduled Monday and Tuesday before the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In a first, the court is offering live audio streaming through ABC News and C-SPAN. Arguments begin at 9:30 a.m. -- monopoly maintenance and tying Monday; attempted monopolization, relief, and Judge Jackson's conduct of the trial Tuesday. Microsoft is, of course, appealing Jackson's breakup order and final judgment."

split horizon writes: "The New York Times is reporting that Professor Michael Rabin of Harvard University claims to have developed a cryptosystem that is both practical and provably unbreakable. It sounds to me like it basically uses a one-time pad that's generated on the fly very quickly." Good stuff, but don't expect to see this in the next version of gnupg - the logistical difficulties are high and the system you'll end up with won't be any more secure in practice than public-key encryption techniques already widely available.

split horizon writes: "The New York Times is reporting that Professor Michael Rabin of Harvard University claims to have developed a cryptosystem that is both practical and provably unbreakable. It sounds to me like it basically uses a one-time pad that's generated on the fly very quickly." Good stuff, but don't expect to see this in the next version of gnupg - the logistical difficulties are high and the system you'll end up with won't be any more secure in practice than public-key encryption techniques already widely available.

Today the U.S. Court of Appeals handed down a decision in the Eldred vs. Reno case, which challenged the most recent extension of copyright terms on the grounds that it violated the Constitution in several areas - that it violated the First Amendment by overbroadly restricting speech; that it gave protection to non-original works (since it retroactively applied to old, already-published works); and that the constant extensions of copyright terms were not a "limited Time" as required by the Constitution. The Court rejected all of these arguments. However, one of the three judges in the case wrote an interesting dissent, which at least holds out the hope that in some future case, skilled litigators may be able to convince the judiciary that permanent copyright is an unwarranted extension of Congress' powers.

Many people have sent in the breaking news from C|Net that the Appeals Court handling the Napster case wants to have the Napster injunction modified. The court website is throughly bogged, but the quick and dirty analysis is that Napster can continue to operate. Update by J : I've listed a couple of mirrors below if you can't get through to the court's site. I have some more comments below; the court's flat-out statement that "Napster users do not engage in fair use" is of special interest.

Mirrors:

• http://eon.law.harvard.edu/~wseltzer/napster.html
• http://www.politechbot.com/docs/napster.021201.html
• http://lvalue.com/nap.html

As Michael Sims points out, these 22 words are probably the most important portion of the ruling; everything else is technical details and window-dressing:

"...the record supports the district court's conclusion that Napster users do not engage in fair use of the copyrighted materials. We agree."

That doesn't look good for those who want to swap copyrighted music peer-to-peer. That same comment could probably apply to Gnutella users, for example. Brace for impact.

Moving on to the case of Napster specifically and what will happen in the immediate future...

The court found that the injunction is simply too broad in its current form, but bounced the case back to the district court with instructions, essentially, on how to do an injunction properly.

They were quite clear that an injunction should be issued to stop Napster:

The district court correctly recognized that a preliminary injunction against Napster's participation in copyright infringement is not only warranted but required.

But then went on to explain why the current injunction must be limited to the extent that Napster fails to comply with Metallica-style "here is the list of bad files" warnings. Only in such a situation can an injunction stand:

We believe, however, that the scope of the injunction needs modification in light of our opinion. Specifically, we reiterate that contributory liability may potentially be imposed only to the extent that Napster: (1) receives reasonable knowledge of specific infringing files with copyrighted musical compositions and sound recordings; (2) knows or should know that such files are available on the Napster system; and (3) fails to act to prevent viral distribution of the works. ... The mere existence of the Napster system, absent actual notice and Napster's demonstrated failure to remove the offending material, is insufficient to impose contributory liability.

I'm not quite sure how this could be enforced. Obviously, anyone can rename any MP3 "metallica-master-of-puppets.mp3" and Napster is not capable of acting to prevent distribution of same. What Napster can do is kick users off the system who have been shown to be pirates. And since they have shown their willingness to comply in the past, I'm not sure whether the court will ever find that Napster will "fail to act."

Finally, there was this simple comment:

Napster may be vicariously liable when it fails to affirmatively use its ability to patrol its system and preclude access to potentially infringing files listed in its search index.

sirhan writes "The ACLU made a court brief today concerning the DVD CCA case. The release can be found here." There were actually a number of amicus briefs filed at the same time for this case, and now I think most of them are online. Journalists and publishers, law professors, law professors II, the Association for Computing Machinery, programmers and academics, library and public interest, cryptographers, and Arnold Reinhold. These are all in support of the EFF's appeal in the case, of course. The briefs make good reading because they attempt to convey, in a very direct and concise manner, the arguments of these various groups against the DMCA.

Porfiry writes "NASA's Hubble Space Telescope may have, for the first time, provided direct evidence for the existence of black holes by observing the disappearance of matter as it falls beyond the "event horizon." An event horizon is the mysterious region surrounding a black hole that forever traps light and matter straying nearby. By definition, no astronomical object other than a black hole can possess an event horizon. The discovery comes from a detailed statistical analysis of a 1992 observation of one of the first black holes ever discovered, Cygnus XR-1, which lies 6,000 light-years from Earth in the summer constellation Cygnus the Swan."

And Tackhead sends in this related information: "The folks at the Chandra X-Ray Observatory appear to have detected event horizons by comparing the X-ray luminosity of the accretion discs surrounding black-hole-based X-ray novae versus neutron-star-based X-ray novae during their phases of dormancy. X-ray novae are caused by ignition of fusion in the accretion discs of hot gas drawn from companion stars near black holes or neutron stars. While the novae were dormant, the discs surrounding black hole companions were observed and found to be 100 to 1000 times fainter than those surrounding neutron star companions. The conclusion: 'something' must be consuming the energy that would otherwise be expected from the disc; the most likely candidate being an event horizon."

Porfiry writes "NASA's Hubble Space Telescope may have, for the first time, provided direct evidence for the existence of black holes by observing the disappearance of matter as it falls beyond the "event horizon." An event horizon is the mysterious region surrounding a black hole that forever traps light and matter straying nearby. By definition, no astronomical object other than a black hole can possess an event horizon. The discovery comes from a detailed statistical analysis of a 1992 observation of one of the first black holes ever discovered, Cygnus XR-1, which lies 6,000 light-years from Earth in the summer constellation Cygnus the Swan."

And Tackhead sends in this related information: "The folks at the Chandra X-Ray Observatory appear to have detected event horizons by comparing the X-ray luminosity of the accretion discs surrounding black-hole-based X-ray novae versus neutron-star-based X-ray novae during their phases of dormancy. X-ray novae are caused by ignition of fusion in the accretion discs of hot gas drawn from companion stars near black holes or neutron stars. While the novae were dormant, the discs surrounding black hole companions were observed and found to be 100 to 1000 times fainter than those surrounding neutron star companions. The conclusion: 'something' must be consuming the energy that would otherwise be expected from the disc; the most likely candidate being an event horizon."

Azog, joined by a bevy of like-mindeds, wrote with the news: "ICANN has selected several proposals for new TLDs for further negotiation. The selected entries, and their proposed TLDs, are: JVTeam (.biz), Afilias (.info), Global Name Registry (.name), RegistryPro (.pro), MDMA (.museum), SITA (.aero), and NCBA (.coop)." Here is the unanimously accepted resolution. cyrdog points to Wired's coverage, and pavelivanov points to the story at CNET. And as several people have pointed out, .web is conspicously absent, even though it seems like a shoo-in. Someone, somewhere is going to get that one day ... Update: 11/17 09:48 PM by H :Check out SatireWire's coverage as well *grin*.

ICANN's next meeting will be Nov. 13-16, 2000, in Marina del Rey, CA. The Internet Democracy Project is conducting a meeting of At Large members on the morning of Sunday, Nov. 12, same location, so you don't have work as an excuse to miss it! The new At Large directors will be speaking at the meeting. Following that, the Berkman Center will have its own meeting examining intellectual property and the proposed new TLDs, and they've helpfully provided a set of background materials if you're not quite current with the issues. Note that ICANN "updated" their bylaws to prevent the newly elected directors from actually taking part in the ICANN Board meeting next week - they won't take office until just after all the new decisions about TLDs, etc., which will be made by the unelected directors, so it is very, very important to have some public participation since there aren't any public advocates on the board.

ICANN's next meeting will be Nov. 13-16, 2000, in Marina del Rey, CA. The Internet Democracy Project is conducting a meeting of At Large members on the morning of Sunday, Nov. 12, same location, so you don't have work as an excuse to miss it! The new At Large directors will be speaking at the meeting. Following that, the Berkman Center will have its own meeting examining intellectual property and the proposed new TLDs, and they've helpfully provided a set of background materials if you're not quite current with the issues. Note that ICANN "updated" their bylaws to prevent the newly elected directors from actually taking part in the ICANN Board meeting next week - they won't take office until just after all the new decisions about TLDs, etc., which will be made by the unelected directors, so it is very, very important to have some public participation since there aren't any public advocates on the board.

ActMatrix writes: "Just in time for Halloween, the Chandra X-Ray Observatory has imaged a portion of the Perseus A Cluster that looks frightfully like an enormous skull. The "eyes" are apparently created by bubbles of gas created by electrons blasting out of a region near an enormous black hole, and the "mouth" is a galaxy with an estimated 20 billion stars. Chandra has snapped some amazing images so far, and this one is no exception. The Discovery.Com article has a good pic of the skull."

snottrue writes "This just in from comp.lang.python - the PythonLabs team is moving to Digital Creations (the Zope people)." Van Rossum's message is informative.

Jon Wild writes: "Eric Weisstein's online encyclopedia of mathematics, originally located at http://www.treasure-troves.com among Eric's other encyclopedias, and most recently hosted by Wolfram Research, has for some time been the most complete and reliable mathematical resource on the web. Now Wolfram has yanked it due to a lawsuit by CRC Press, the publishers of a print edition of the encyclopedia. See the announcement at http://mathworld.wolfram.com."

If you want to get muddy without paying huge corporations for the privilege, you may be interested in an Open Source MUD Engine some whippernappers have put together. If the idea of a WAP browser for the VIC20 is just a bit too obscure (and you don't have an spare PC to use as a proxy for it), have no fear. More on "enterprise level" features (take 2 buzzwords and call me in the morning), and how DigitalConvergence is being beaten with a Cue stick. All this and more, below.

More information to slip anonymously under Big Boss' door. digitaleopard writes: "Hey, the last posted story doesn't tell the whole scoop on the NWFusion articles. They are actually a group of stories in their 'technology Insider' banner, including pieces on the new enterprise level features in the latest kernels and their testing of these versions The main link page for all the stories is here."

Clearer thinking requires MUDdy vision. Sony / Verant may not like you to use servers other than the ones they provide for their multi-user games. Not everyone feels that way, so you can choose if you'd like to use a Free game in the first place. captaint writes: "The Open Source Graphical MUD Dusk has just gone into version 1.5. For those who haven't seen it yet, which should be just about everyone, it's just what it says it is. It's a fully functional OS G-MUD, which is open to anyone who wants to play, contribute, or start their own world."

In the 15 countries which have signed the Schengen agreement. An informant too shy to be named writes:"I saw a story on Slashdot about electronic ID cards in Hong Kong, so I wanted to let you know (if you didn't know yet) that there are already electronic ID cards in use in Finland. I don't yet know much about what you can do with one, but the official page explains: official page explains.=)"

And yes, it's short, but in English;)

Anyone else addicted to "Aztec" as a child? OK, ok, so a VIC20 as a WAP browser is of limited usefulness. These guys have some more important, utilitarian things to do, like ... browse the Web on a C64.

Gaelyne writes: "A story about the WAVE was posted at heise online earlier this year, but since then the software has had it's first public release and is Open Source - a direct result of the author having been influenced by Linux and other open source projects. Screen shots of the Web browser are also available."

And never one to give up hope, an unnamed correspondent writes:"Further to the news that Wine runs Excel and Word 2000, I'd like to report that OS/2 can run Photoshop 5.0. Seen here at http://os2.ru/soft/odin/gallery.phtml are the screenshots of the some of the programs that OS/2 now runs with Odin, the Win32 binary 'converter'. Functionality and reliability of Photoshop will increase as work continues. Odin has really begun to move forward in recent months, with the number of apps you can run increasing as more of the Wine code is brought in. Other apps such as Lotus Notes and RealPlayer 7 having been working for ages..."

Your host this evening will be Mr. Alan Cox. Paul Maragakis writes: "The European Commission has launched consultations via the Internet on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. As is mentioned in this announcement, enterprises favouring the "open source community" have raised concerns about software patents. You can all contribute until December 15 to help them reach a rational decision on what and why software concepts should or should not be patentable."

Someone is laughing all the way to the bank ... An anonymous reader writes: "http://www.paperclick.com/press/oct1900.htm Digital Convergence has agreed to pay NeoMedia $100 million (including $8 million in cash the first year) to license their patent, which basically covers using a printed ID to link back to content on the Web (sounds suspiciously like using a printed URL to reference a Web page, but oh well)."

This being a press-release, the tone is downright cheery, and this is described as a "win=win" situation for all involved. Can you imagine the boardroom conversations this must have inspired, though? "Y'know, Bob, I think it would be a real win to pay another company one hundred million dollars, don't you?" "You're right, Pete -- that sounds great to me."

Cy Guy was one of the legion who wrote with this news: "Dr. Robert Stickgold, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, released results of a study of amnesiacs who had played Tetris. Though they dreamed about playing the game (as is common), they failed to improve. Stickgold hypothesizes that dreaming uses the long-term memory area that the amnesiacs retained rather that the short-term memory areas of the brain that were damaged. More information on the study is available from this Reuters article, and Harvard Med School's Focus magazine." This is not what I dream about no matter how much tetris I've played.

ICANN's At-Large Elections are now underway. If you were lucky enough to be able to get through during the registration process, and then lucky enough to actually receive your PIN in the mail, congratulations, you can vote. Click through for your FREE Slashdot voter's guide... :)

There is actually a great deal of information available about these elections and the candidates - it puts the U.S. presidential elections to shame, quite frankly.

Where to Vote: ICANN's online voting site

When to Vote: Now until midnight (GMT), Oct. 10.

Who to Vote For: That's a little less straightforward. Here's some resources to help you decide.

• CDT's Election Guide - CDT mailed a questionnaire to the candidates asking a variety of questions, their answers are online: North American thumbnail guide - North American detailed guide
• Internet Democracy Project - They also sent out a questionnaire, and the answers from all candidates have been posted. These are good questions.
• Association for Progressive Communications voting recommendations
• Berkman Center candidate forum - The Berkman Center sponsored a debate between all seven candidates (not just the ones with more than 15% of the vote, heh), Webcast it, and recorded it for your viewing pleasure. Archives are available here. While the discussion is lengthy, there's no better way to see the candidates in action.
• Dan Gillmor, columnist
• Brian Livingston, columnist - Livingston has a good summary of what is wrong with ICANN.

The groups above recommend a voting slate of Lessig first, followed by Simons, followed by Auerbach, for the North American seat (you get to rank all seven candidates in order of your preference). Here's my recommendation, slightly different from the above:

1. Auerbach - Auerbach understands DNS, and he understands the civil liberty issues, and he has paid a LOT of attention to ICANN, and he understands - right now - how to fix its main problems. The other recommended candidates (Simons and Lessig) have the potential to understand ICANN as well as he does, but he has already put in the study time! I picked Auerbach as my first choice.
2. Simons - Simons understands the civil liberty issues, and has spent a lot of time in this sort of political environment, and has the potential to understand ICANN inside and out, but she hasn't put the time in yet. I picked her second.
3. Lessig - Lessig is a smart guy. I don't think he comes with as solid a commitment to civil liberties as the others, and I don't think he has any special understanding of DNS issues. Of course he's bright enough to understand anything he puts his mind to, but why distract him from the 20 other things he's undertaking (such as joining EFF as a board member recently). Lessig gets my third choice.
4. Tiller - Tiller is sort of a wildcard. From what he says, he would be a civil-liberties oriented candidate, but I had never heard of him before the elections, so he's a bit of a dark horse to me. Still, he beats the remaining candidates hands-down.
5. Langenberg - Langenberg seems like he would be a fairly ineffective candidate, no civil liberties focus, not (obviously) captured by IP interests or anything else. But we don't need an ineffective candidate.
6. Chapin - Chapin earns the second-to-last spot. He works for Verizon and can be expected to promote policies that would benefit the major telcos, as if they didn't have enough representation already.
7. Miller - Miller is dead last. President of the ITAA, he represents all that is wrong with ICANN right now, and states flat out that he thinks they've done a great job to date and he would continue the path taken so far. If you think ICANN is right on track, vote for Miller. Bleh.

Vote!

ICANN's At-Large Elections are now underway. If you were lucky enough to be able to get through during the registration process, and then lucky enough to actually receive your PIN in the mail, congratulations, you can vote. Click through for your FREE Slashdot voter's guide... :)

There is actually a great deal of information available about these elections and the candidates - it puts the U.S. presidential elections to shame, quite frankly.

Where to Vote: ICANN's online voting site

When to Vote: Now until midnight (GMT), Oct. 10.

Who to Vote For: That's a little less straightforward. Here's some resources to help you decide.

• CDT's Election Guide - CDT mailed a questionnaire to the candidates asking a variety of questions, their answers are online: North American thumbnail guide - North American detailed guide
• Internet Democracy Project - They also sent out a questionnaire, and the answers from all candidates have been posted. These are good questions.
• Association for Progressive Communications voting recommendations
• Berkman Center candidate forum - The Berkman Center sponsored a debate between all seven candidates (not just the ones with more than 15% of the vote, heh), Webcast it, and recorded it for your viewing pleasure. Archives are available here. While the discussion is lengthy, there's no better way to see the candidates in action.
• Dan Gillmor, columnist
• Brian Livingston, columnist - Livingston has a good summary of what is wrong with ICANN.

The groups above recommend a voting slate of Lessig first, followed by Simons, followed by Auerbach, for the North American seat (you get to rank all seven candidates in order of your preference). Here's my recommendation, slightly different from the above:

1. Auerbach - Auerbach understands DNS, and he understands the civil liberty issues, and he has paid a LOT of attention to ICANN, and he understands - right now - how to fix its main problems. The other recommended candidates (Simons and Lessig) have the potential to understand ICANN as well as he does, but he has already put in the study time! I picked Auerbach as my first choice.
2. Simons - Simons understands the civil liberty issues, and has spent a lot of time in this sort of political environment, and has the potential to understand ICANN inside and out, but she hasn't put the time in yet. I picked her second.
3. Lessig - Lessig is a smart guy. I don't think he comes with as solid a commitment to civil liberties as the others, and I don't think he has any special understanding of DNS issues. Of course he's bright enough to understand anything he puts his mind to, but why distract him from the 20 other things he's undertaking (such as joining EFF as a board member recently). Lessig gets my third choice.
4. Tiller - Tiller is sort of a wildcard. From what he says, he would be a civil-liberties oriented candidate, but I had never heard of him before the elections, so he's a bit of a dark horse to me. Still, he beats the remaining candidates hands-down.
5. Langenberg - Langenberg seems like he would be a fairly ineffective candidate, no civil liberties focus, not (obviously) captured by IP interests or anything else. But we don't need an ineffective candidate.
6. Chapin - Chapin earns the second-to-last spot. He works for Verizon and can be expected to promote policies that would benefit the major telcos, as if they didn't have enough representation already.
7. Miller - Miller is dead last. President of the ITAA, he represents all that is wrong with ICANN right now, and states flat out that he thinks they've done a great job to date and he would continue the path taken so far. If you think ICANN is right on track, vote for Miller. Bleh.

Vote!

One of Inside.com's columnists wrote a nice story on the Valenti-Lessig debate that we posted a few days ago. It's a pretty funny play-by-play evaluation, nails Valenti for his evasiveness, and there are archives of the debate available, which is not as dry as you might think it would be.

An Anonymous Coward writes "There will be a free public debate between Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA, and Lawrence Lessig, Stanford law professor tonight at 7pm in the Ames Courtroom of the Harvard Law School. This should be very interesting, especially if a lot of Slashdotters show up :)" It's actually on-going right now, though the quality of the webcast is terrible. There's also some sort of IRC channel for discussion.

sachsmachine writes: "The Harvard Crimson is reporting that MIT, Stanford, Duke, and UNC are refusing a Metallica request to block Napster, and that Harvard will likely do the same. Nice to see our institutions of higher learning sticking up for online freedom ..."

[Updated 14:07 GMT by timothy:] fredder adds another small evidence of persistent sanity: "I received this email from the powers that be at Duke University this morning:

'Duke has declined a request from the attorney representing several music performers to ban access to napster.

I do wish to remind all students that your license to use Duke's computing networks is predicated on legal use only, and that copyright infringement is not a permitted use.

Tallman Trask III'"

sachsmachine writes: "The Harvard Crimson is reporting that MIT, Stanford, Duke, and UNC are refusing a Metallica request to block Napster, and that Harvard will likely do the same. Nice to see our institutions of higher learning sticking up for online freedom ..."

[Updated 14:07 GMT by timothy:] fredder adds another small evidence of persistent sanity: "I received this email from the powers that be at Duke University this morning:

'Duke has declined a request from the attorney representing several music performers to ban access to napster.

I do wish to remind all students that your license to use Duke's computing networks is predicated on legal use only, and that copyright infringement is not a permitted use.

Tallman Trask III'"

adric writes: "It seems that MP3.com has removed decss.mp3 (but its still available), allegedly for having "offensive lyrics". You can read a bit more here. The best part is the gallery of DeCSS showing the world of clever places this little bit of code has migrated to. T-Shirts, songs, poetry, non-existent languages, PNG comments, embedded in jpgs, gifs, and more. Even if the MPAA's lawyers can make source code illegal, they'll never remove DeCSS from the Net. Can everyone please just drop this now and let us have Linux drivers (and for that matter, let us fast forward through commercials on DVDs!)

ICANN's elections are now underway. (We've covered this before.) ICANN's Nominating Committee has picked several candidates for each of the five open seats in a closed primary process; now there is a "member nomination" process underway where several more candidates will be selected to run for each seat. Civil liberties groups are actively attempting to promote democratic involvement in ICANN, such as the Civil Society Democracy Project being spearheaded by CPSR. We've asked each of the people seeking to be candidates for the North American region board seat to answer one question; here are the responses we've received. Update: 08/17 14:04 by michael : Two more responses added.

This is equivalent to a "primary" election - it is selecting the people who will run for the election. We are concentrating only on the election for the North American region, since the majority of Slashdot's readership is from this region. ICANN's nominating committee picked four candidates to run for the seat:

• Lyman Chapin
• Donald Langenberg
• Lawrence Lessig
• Harris Miller

and at the last ICANN meeting, it was decided to limit the total candidates for any one seat to seven, so this primary process will pick three additional candidates to run for the seat. A large number of people have thrown their hats in the ring for this process -- here's ICANN's list of candidates seeking member-nomination -- and we asked them all this question:

The Internet Democracy Project (www.internetdemocracyproject.org) and the Civil Society Internet Forum (www.civilsocietyinternetforum.org) have been involved in attempting to promote democracy and representation of individual Internet users at ICANN. The Civil Society Statement on ICANN Elections -

http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/Statement_July-13.html

- is an attempt to spell out what attributes are desirable in ICANN from such a perspective.

Distinguishing between 50+ possible candidates, with only one endorsement to cast, is likely to be difficult for ICANN's registered voters. Slashdot has talked with Hans Klein of CPSR (www.cpsr.org) and we feel that a reasonable way to allow the candidates to distinguish between themselves is to ask them an open-ended question:

-- What is your response to the Civil Society Statement on ICANN Elections?

What follows are the responses we received, edited only for HTML formatting. If you, as an ICANN registered voter, decide that you'd like to see one of these candidates run for the seat, you can endorse them on the ICANN Web site. Whichever three candidates receive the most endorsements (and are endorsed by more than 2% of the voter pool, and from at least two countries) will be on the ballot for the real election, which begins Sept. 1. You may change your endorsement before Sept. 1 by simply endorsing a different candidate. The candidate listing displays a running total of endorsements.

Clear enough? On to the candidates! These responses are listed in the order they were received.

Teri Powell

[Editor's note: Teri Powell informs me she has withdrawn from the ICANN election. --michael]

I have participated heavily and strongly re: ICANN issues on the Public Forums.

I have read and fully understand the position paper you reference. This has been evidenced in my opinions already expressed via any route I can. With this in mind, I have to admit the following: I can Not say it any better than as the Actual Statement linked below.

This will be short and sweet. I will reference (as a link) the Statement which I Totally Agree with.
http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/Statement_July-13.html

My web site can be found at:
http://www.brittany-technologies.com

The Prime Objective is to get Proper Representation onto the ICANN Board which Will Reflect ALL Internet Users.

My Very Best to the Other Candidates! I Believe the At Large Members Will Choose Wisely. I Will Support Whoever is chosen since this will, at least, be a Start in Representation for Us. Liz Bartlett

My candidate page can be found at http://www.khyri.com/icann/ and contains the information on my ICANN page, together with expanded sections on my qualification, background and viewpoints. I intend to add relevent content and links to it at intervals, so feel free to bookmark and return.

1. I strongly believe that ICANN must represent all. I feel I can represent many interests, being female and having lived in England, France and (currently) the U.S.A. I am heavily involved in web accessibility issues, making sure that web content is available to everyone regardless of physical disability, method of accessing the Internet, or level of technology.

2. I have had indirect experience of organizations whose leadership have resisted such transparency, and I know that this mentality is a fast road to destruction. I have always held the view that information must be shared with all interested parties, unless there are very good reasons to withhold it.

3. One of the strongest bases for an organization such as ICANN is the strength of its core membership. I believe the board should be drawn from the membership, that the board should then exercise the proper oversight of the staff, and that the ICANN staff should not be employed from the ranks of board members in order to maintain a proper employee-employer relationship.

4. I believe that only in the clearest cases of intentional misleading or profit motivation should the "first come, first served" domain name policy be overturned.

5. I do not have strong views on the organizational split of IP address and DNS root server management. I feel this issues are best solved on a "what is technically best" basis.

6. I do not believe governmental control over domain name space can be a practical solution, given the global nature of the internet, the increasing abuse of the two-letter country codes, and the absence of a global government.

7. I am strongly against artifical scarcity of names. However, I am ambivalent on the decentralizing of some functions, as I realize that the independent operation of many registration/name lookup/routing functions can cause technical chaos. However I feel, (maybe naively) that it must be possible to retain a single, core central registry without giving any individual, organization or company the temptation of "abuse of power". I see no great problem with the current system.

8. Privacy policies as generally adopted by organizations that hold elections should apply to all ICANN operations.

9. The costs of participating in ICANN activities, and the costs that ICANN itself incurs in its operations should be kept as economically low as possible. Expenses should be looked at with a view to "does this further the ICANN objective" before approval. Adam L. Beberg

I believe the first 3 values aim at something deeper which is that the membership base needs to be informed and educated about the issues they will vote on. Any issue that the members must decide needs to include the technical details, as well as a pro and con argument, all translated into multiple languages. The membership also needs to remain vigilant of the things happening in ICANN that have a public effect, and this can only be done with complete information.

One problem I have seen emerging due to ICANN's relatively few issues to deal with, but of high complexity and with extended impact, is that of "if I can get 50 non-technical friends to sign up, I can tell them all how to vote because they cannot understand the geekspeak". This is just as dangerous as the commercial makeup of the DNSOs, but far more insidious. Unfortunately this will probably be the operating mode for the At Large membership base.

Trademark laws as a social convention are an important thing if people are to know who they are dealing with, and that others with be prevented from pretending to be someone they are not. That said, I don't see how domain names or IP numbers affect free expression or privacy, other then the help privacy by limiting pretenders. Governments do not need ICANN's help to limit freedoms.

The scarcity of domains of any kind is completely artificial, and should be reduced or removed. Any TLD should be allowed, and is technically possible, but should be subject to some critical mass (N people want TLD .xyz) to avoid all domains turning into TLDs. Since other TLD's are not scarce, ccTLD's being a pain to get, if not scarce, doesn't seem to be a large problem. The ccTLD registrars must compete next to the generic registrars, and the market will eliminate the inefficient and unresponsive registrars. ICANN does need to take a role to insure that domain owners can easily change registrars, without hassle or loss/theft of their domains, which several registrars now prevent. Emerson Tiller

I will address each of the guiding principles put forth by the Civil Society.

1. ICANN must be representative.

I agree. In fact, I propose that:

• the majority (not just 9), if not all, of the board members should be elected by the at-large membership.
• Email, fax, and regular mail member registrations should be accepted. Registration should be 1-step.
• ICANN members should enjoy the protections of being members under California's non-profit laws.

Note that, for months, I have engaged in a public information campaign to increase and broaden the ICANN membership (http://www.icannvote.com).

2. ICANN must be transparent.

Absolutely.

3. ICANN must use bottom-up processes.

I agree. I suggest that petition processes be allowed to bring issues up for a membership wide vote. The membership should also vote on whether the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) passed in 1999 should be reauthorized.

4. Intellectual property rights should not be privileged over other rights.

Political, religious, anonymous, and other forms of free speech, as they reveal themselves in domain names or other web content, should be accorded equal standing with intellectual property rights.

5. ICANN should strive at all times to minimize or avoid policy-making on non-technical topics.

I agree. However, we should recognize the in an electronic age, technical decisions produce policy results, and thus in some sense the technical decisions are often policy decisions (much like decisions on process often determine the policy). Rather than ignoring this critical relationship, we would be better off to acknowledge the connection, and then be specific about which technology-driven policy areas ICANN should and should not involve itself. Any expansion of policy making should be authorized by both broad membership voting and broader international representation on the board.

6. The domain name space is a globally-shared public good with public and private functions.

I agree. And the more we can open the TLD space, the more effectively these multiple uses can be met.

7. Artificial scarcity and centralization should be avoided.

I believe that the expansion of the domain name space through the creation of new TLD registries should be one of ICANN's highest priorities. To the extent centralization occurs, or is necessary, it should be legitimized by broad public approval and international representation.

8. ICANN must respect privacy.

I agree. ICANN should avoid technical/policy decisions that compromise anonymity and the security of personal information.

9. Costs should be minimal and equitable.

And shared fairly among all countries, on condition that they have a fair chance at representation on the ICANN board and enjoy the services that ICANN performs.

Final Comments: ICANN is not beyond repair. There are a lot of good people who have worked to make it a forum that responds to the new demands of the Internet society. But ICANN is in need of restructuring, both in terms of process (election procedures, for example) and substance (the UDRP, for example). My platform: http://64.82.55.205/tiller.html. Barbara Simons

I state on my election web page http://barbara.simons.org/:

"I support the values enunciated by the Civil Society Internet Forum. These include 'democratic participation in decision-making, open processes, the right to communicate, and a fair balance between rights of privacy, speech, consumers, and property in Internet governance'. I shall work to defend privacy, speech, and the needs and rights of the smaller players; I sincerely hope that the other candidates will demonstrate their support for these important principles."

I also signed the Civil Society Internet Forum Mission Statement in Yokohama. (See http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/csif/signatories.html).

I am very pleased that you are asking this question of all the candidates. I hope that people will honestly state whether or not they will support the Civil Society principles. My support is public and long standing.

On my web page I also pledge to:

• be accessible and responsive to the members of the at-large community,
• create an advisory group of experts in technological, policy, economics, and the law,
• work to build a decision-making process that is open and inclusive.

The decisions made by the ICANN Board during the next few years will have a major impact on the speech and freedom on the Internet. I have a history of fighting for speech, privacy, and open access. My web page contains links to several policy articles I have written on these topics. Among other actions, I have:

• testified before a Senate subcommittee in favor of the legislation that would significantly reduce export controls on encryption,
• worked to defeat the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA),
• spoken out and written letters in opposition to UCITA,
• opposed attempts to censor the Internet,
• submitted a supporting declaration for the defense in the New York DVD trial (See http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/filings/NY/0503-reply.html#Simons),
• fought efforts to establish wide-spread monitoring by law enforcement of the Internet,
• worked to support privacy.

My support for the right to anonymity on the Internet is reflected in my membership on the Advisory Board of ZeroKnowledge Systems Inc.

I hope that the readers of Slashdot will read my statement on the ICANN web page and the material I have posted on my web site. If anyone has comments or suggestions, he or she can reach me at simons@acm.org. Karl Auerbach

I helped write it - I think its a darn fine statement. ;-)

(One can compare it to my rather long set of views as expressed on my election web page at http://www.cavebear.com/ialc/ )

ICANN as it is now constructed and operated seems to be premised on the notion that the Internet is there for the benefit of commercial interests and that ICANN ought to treat those who "merely" use the Internet as babes in the woods who can't be trusted to make decisions and who need paternalistic protection.

The Civil Society Statement is, to my mind, a roadmap of how ICANN can return to a more balanced state - so that the users of the Internet will be respected as people who can make their own decisions about their own interests.

Governance is hard. And ICANN is undertaking something new and difficult. ICANN cripples itself by creating a body of people who feel that they have been disenfranchised. The Civil Society Statement is a reminder to ICANN that it has forgotten to be inclusive of all those who believe they have role in these matters.

If you compare the Civil Society Statement with my own platform, you will see that I have gone rather further in certain areas - particularly with regard to procedures and ICANN structure. It is very much my belief that inclusive processes - even if they appear somewhat more chaotic than today's ICANN staff choreographed dictates - are at least as important as any substantive policy decision.

As a practical matter, whoever wins the election for a board seat is going to be but one person out of 19. So any single candidate's platform is probably not going to become fact, at least not immediately. ICANN's staff has become so entrenched and has taken control of the corporation so completely, that reform of ICANN is going to be a major effort. The Civil Society Statement serves as something we can always look to to see whether ICANN is improving.

Tom Lowenhaupt

Guiding Value 1. ICANN must be representative.

The ICANN needs to represent all of the Internet's current users - not just business interests.

But more than this, the ICANN needs to acknowledge the immense impact the Internet has on all people, and it needs to reserve representation space for those not yet on the net. When America was young it excluded women, workers, and African salves from its representation system. Let's learn from the 150 year struggle to remedy that stupidity. Let's set aside representation space now.

But representation on the ICANN is not a simple matter. How do you represent 5 billion people? I don't have all the answers to this question, but I began my search by asking the following. Who runs the military? Who sets water and air pollution standards? Who determines the direction and usage rules for our roadways? It's not the army or the air and highway bureaucrats. It's civil society - you and me. (Or at least it should be!)

Business might own the net, but it's you and me that pump in the cash that allows them to operate. Let's take control and make sure the net's something that's good for our families and good for our communities.

Guiding Value 2. ICANN must be transparent.
Guiding Value 3. ICANN must use bottom-up processes.

The ICANN's operation and its decision making process must be transparent and inviting to the public. Issues should be framed and brought to the public within a context and with comprehendible background information. Everyone should have the opportunity to comment on upcoming decisions using online forums, listservers, and polling systems.

Guiding Value 4. Intellectual property rights should not be privileged over other rights.
Guiding Value 8. ICANN must respect privacy.

First and foremost the net should be about communication that empowers the individual. It shouldn't be turned into TV 2. When intellectual property rights are treated with undue importance, our access to information and our privacy rights are reduced.

Guiding Value 5. ICANN should strive at all times to minimize or avoid policy-making on non-technical topics.

Rapid growth and technologic change guarantees a tumultuous future for the net. Unsettling developments will be thrown into the ICANN's waiting lap on a regular basis. And human nature will have the organization's employees accreting power.

So I support an open governance system with separation of powers and independent review mechanisms.

Guiding Value 6. The domain name space is a globally-shared public good with public and private functions.
Guiding Value 7. Artificial scarcity and centralization should be avoided.

There needn't be any shortage in the domain name space. Look at Karl Auerbach's page for a discussion this. (Karl's also an At Large candidate, see his page at http://www.cavebear.com/ialc/).

An acknowledged expert in the field, Karl's proposed adding 10,000 new names - per year. He says the net should be able to support somewhere between 1,000,000 - 7,000,000 new TLDs.

IP numbers need to the distributed equitably, with set asides for future net users.

Guiding Value 9. Costs should be minimal and equitable.

I agree that we should keep costs to a minimum - who wouldn't? But good governance doesn't come cheep. If you want an open decision making process, you need qualified and well paid employees to create and present balanced presentations. You need good systems to keep the communication channels opened. And you need checks and balances to prevent centralization of power and undue influences by a moneyed class.

The money to pay for the net's operation is coming out of our pockets - ain' t no two ways about it. Let's invest our pennies in a governance system that empowers its users and respects their privacy.

I'll conclude by saying, "Vote for me and I'll do my best to see that the net works for us all." Ted Phipps

The CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT ON ICANN ELECTIONS addresses 7 guiding values.
I will discuss each in turn.

1. Representation.

ICANN should mirror the people it represents. There needs to be a better balance between technical/non-technical capabilities. I've been involved with advanced IT aviation systems. However, it's my capabilities in understanding and handling international issues that ICANN is most short of.

2. Transparency.

We demand this from 'public for-profit' companies, why would we expect anything less from a 'non-profit?'

3. Bottom-up processes.

ICANN must be of the members, by the members and for the members. Directors must be diligent in protecting your interests. If they don't, then not only should they be removed; but 'you' have an obligation to remove them. This is your global village, not theirs!

4. Intellectual property rights.

Throughout history, property issues have been at the forefront of any new frontier. Interestingly, this virtual property issue was dealt with in 1776. It's roots evolved out of Englishman John Locke's Treatise on Civil Government. Locke identified three rights: life, liberty and property. Jefferson took property a step further. He replaced the word property with "the right to pursuit of happiness." Jefferson wanted to make certain that the rights were not limited to land. In effect, Jefferson made a momentous step toward recognizing virtual rights. James Madison cemented the concept when he said we must "equally respect the rights of property and the property in rights." [Madison went on to list some virtual property examples in a 1792 essay].

For speculators, there are rights in property. For the trademark holder there's property in rights. ICANN must balance these rights. Fortunately, there is a solution- release more gTLD's under different classifications.

5. Policy-making.

The 'White Paper' identifies 4 guiding principles: stability, competition, bottom-up coordination and representation. The directors should follow this course.

6. Domain-space.

I agree that, multiple, parallel and overlapping TLDs registries for various stakeholders should not be excluded from the root. This is not only the basis of a vibrant society, but an empowered one.

7. Artificial scarcity and centralization.

We don't need a DeBeers of the Internet. Holding gTLD's back is like building trade barriers - no one wins! Releasing new gTLDs is good for trademark holders, good for ebusiness, and good for the global village as a whole.

8. Privacy.

Information must flow freely across borders. This goes without saying for private users. For commercial users, ICANN's policies and procedures should adhere to Fair Information Practices. A good starting point is the OECD Privacy Guidelines. This policy actually makes life easier since companies' wouldn't have to guess whether they're violating a 'human rights' law.

9. Costs.

ICANN's operations should be transparent. If fees are charged they should be limited to commercial users. I polled the board members of ColorMeHome.com. They agree, as I believe most companies do: that it is better for businesses to contribute, than limit any individuals' access. Eric Grimm

Thank you for this chance to introduce myself and my candidacy to /. In response to your question, the Civil Society Statement reinforces and corroborates my opinion that the ICANN at-large elections, while certainly a welcome development, still are too little, too late. They only represent the first step toward reintroducing ideals of open and equitable decision-making -- including broad-based and fair representation of all interests, transparency, democracy, and freedom - into Internet governance generally and ICANN in particular.

I fully support the ideals of transparency, freedom and democracy not only in this context, but in other trans-national contexts, such as trade regulation, which should serve the long-term interests of the world's population as a whole, including future generations, and not the narrow interests of a tiny minority residing principally in industrial countries.

Following the ICANN vote, representatives of corporate power still will command super-majorities both on the ICANN Board and on every ICANN subcommittee. Therefore, the first at-large representatives will have to shoulder tremendous responsibility to keep things moving in the right direction. The costs of the status quo are already too evident. For example, the dispute resolution process that ICANN has established *COULD* have been designed to be fair and to promote impartiality, and should have included the following simple and obvious safeguards of fairness:

• Respondents should have the right to exercise a peremptory "strike" against the complainant's initial choice of forum. At present, the multiple Fora (WIPO, NAF) have every economic incentive to cater solely to the interests of trademark complainants, because they realize that complainants alone have the choice as to where the arbitration business will go. Respondents, at present, have no choice whatsoever in the process. Complainants naturally will select among fora based on their perception that, with respect to the issues in their particular case, one forum or another happens to be the most biased and unfair in complainants' favor. I have even had counsel for complainants admit this to me directly in particular cases that I have defended.
• Both complainants and respondents should have the right to exercise a limited number of peremptory "strikes" against individual arbitrators, whose track record demonstrates that they disregard the law and clearly fail to measure up to the standard of objectivity and impartiality. Yet, the people in control of ICANN omitted this important and obvious procedural safeguard.
• Complainants should be required, as a condition of invoking the ICANN dispute resolution process, to post a monetary bond, in case the complaint turns out to represent a bad-faith effort to engage in extortion, theft, and "reverse domain name piracy." Defending such a case is expensive, and the process was intended only to be invoked in "clear-cut" cases. In cases where the complainant has initiated arbitration in bad faith or for extortionate purposes, the arbitral panel should have broad discretion to compensate the respondent for the financial burden of defending a frivolous case.
• Each of the arbitration providers - like judges and courts in most forward-thinking jurisdictions - should be forbidden from commenting outside the arbitral process (i.e., to the press) on the merits of pending cases. They certainly should be prohibited from issuing press releases for the evident purpose of trying to drum up more business from new complainants by obliquely promising to "evict" respondents as often as can be managed. Specific press releases issued by more than one of the current arbitration service providers create a clear appearance of impropriety, and arguably constitute conclusive evidence of actual impropriety.
• The process should have a more robust mechanism for appeal from, and correction of, erroneous decisions. Also necessary is a mechanism for removing individual arbitrators who demonstrate a persistent inability to apply the rules fairly, and as those rules were written and intended to be applied. Even the most cursory examination of the output of the two most popular tribunals shows that their decisions are all over the map. Most decisions are mutually irreconcilable with one another. The ICANN process, as it is currently working, more resembles a random "domain name lottery" than a legitimate and balanced effort to administer fair rules in a consistent manner.

The problems with the status quo are also evident from both (1) the unnecessary and counterproductive delay in introducing new Top Level Domains, and (2) the proposed - arbitrary and unnecessary - barrier to entry of a $50,000 payment in order even to apply to establish a new Top Level Domain.

This is not to say that I believe that commerce is "bad," or that I am opposed to trademark law, or that I have any desire to banish commerce from the Internet. Quite the contrary, I strongly favor the application of TRADITIONAL principles of trademark law, within appropriate contexts. I firmly oppose the unnecessary EXPANSION of IP rights, however, and will fight to roll back the special rights that trademark owners have demanded. I also strongly favor commerce on the Internet -- both by small business as well as by big business. However, commerce is not entitled to a special place among the pantheon of Internet constituencies, and should assume its proper place among all constituencies of the Internet community as a whole.

In short, after reviewing the Civil Society Statement, I wholeheartedly agree with it and promise, if elected, to uphold every single principle listed in the document. I also pledge to work continuously to ensure that the process of democratization and open governance continues to move forward, rather than stagnating or moving in counterproductive directions.

A short biography is probably in order. I am an attorney who specializes in Internet law (including privacy, First Amendment, trademark, encryption, online commerce, and other issues). I represent clients from many different countries, with multiple perspectives on many of these issues (but never any clients in whose causes I do not believe). I live in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and practice in courtrooms all over the United States. I have experience working for the United States government, as well as for a state Supreme Court, for a large law firm that represents multinational corporations, and for a federal trial court judge. At present, however, I work in a small firm setting by choice principally because of the autonomy it gives me to choose to take positions because I believe in them, and not because a large client representation requires me to subordinate my principles to "the firm's" financial interests.

I have both the time and desire to contribute constructively to improving ICANN and Internet governance, and I thank all of you who choose to give me the opportunity to serve your interests as your ICANN at-large representative. John Alexander

At the outset, I should note that I strongly support the efforts of the CPSR, and the Internet Democracy Project, to keep our civil rights in the forefront at this formative stage of international internet governance. Bodies such as ICANN have a natural tendency to be driven by the most substantive financial interests in a controversy more strongly than by such notions as free speech and diversity.

I wholeheartedly agree with the Yokohama Statement's preamble. Indeed, ICANN must consider how its actions impact the global exercise of free speech and association, as well as the ability of those in the minority to take their places at the internet table.

In fact, this notion not only describes my own deeply-held beliefs, but also my very rationale for volunteering my most valuable asset - time and expertise - to the task of internet domain governance.

My online ICANN candidate statement and web page - http://www.netgaincc.com/icann - give more detail on my professional background and training. I have a great deal of experience as a journalist, attorney and, for the past four years, web designer. Throughout, I have donated my time to the assistance and representation of those whose civil rights have been threatened - in the arenas of federal and state court, and the internet. My company, Net Gain Communications Consultants, designed and hosted the website for a leading affirmative action organization founded by Martin Luther King III, as one example.

Most of the nine issues articulated in the Yokohama Statement describe values over which I suspect there may little debate, if just as little current compliance, by ICANN.

For example, ICANN President Mike Roberts likely would not argue with the second proposition, that ICANN must operate transparent to public scrutiny. Yet the group is woefully deficient in communicating the substance of ongoing issues and proposed resolutions to the impacted internet public with sufficient time to secure meaningful response from all factions.

That is why the first "plank" of my "platform" is Communication: I pledge a commitment of my own time and expertise to ensuring ICANN communicates in a more complete and timely fashion, using with some degree of sophistication the very technology it seeks to regulate. I feel well suited to do this, given my background in journalism, law and the web.

I cannot claim complete consonance with the Yokohama Statement, however. Some of the language is so vague as to be nothing more than the start of a conversation about the topic, while other particulars are simply off-course. For example, within principal number five, the proposition regarding separation of IP address and DNS root server management would simply complicate an otherwise complex process with more bureaucracy serving no reasonable purpose. The stated goal of "decentralizing authority" really does not articulate a valid reason for this move.

While I could take issue with several specifics of this sort, I think what is important is that I generally support the goals of the Yokohama Statement, and of the CPSR. If elected an at-large director, I will listen carefully to the CPSR's views on all issues before ICANN. Robin Bandy

While I certainly think that the CPSR Statement points in the correct direction, I also think that it ignores a few fundamental issues and, on the important issues it does address, it does not go far enough. The focus of most of the Statement can be grouped under the broad heading of "Democratic Representation", and as such they miss a few important considerations.

First and most important, is that ICANN (as a company incorporated under American, and Californian, law) cannot actually be representative of a global usership. ICANN's freedom to structure itself is proscribed by American and Californian laws governing the organization and operation of non-profit corporations and its actual existence is dependant upon the sufferance of these two governments, either of which could revoke its corporate existence at will. An organization so dependant on one country cannot, and should not be expected to, represent the users from or residing in other countries. By ICANN's control of the default DNS root it also illegitimately extends the jurisdiction of American and Californian law to governing interactions between Americans in other states and between citizens or residents of other countries.

While transparency and openness are obvious necessities of a democratic structure, CPSR also does not extend their call for a more democratic ICANN to including procedures for member initiative and referendum nor for member initiated recall of elected Board members, all features of any truly democratic system.

Additionally, a truly democratic ICANN should have no representation of government or corporate interests. Governments and corporations are already representative organizations, the first represent their citizens and the second represent their owners; these interests are already represented by the voting members who are also constituents of governments and corporations. To allow the U.S. government, for example, a representative in ICANN is to multiply the votes of the U.S. ICANN members by giving them two Board members (one shared with Canada and one of their own) while devaluing the votes of all non-American members. To allow NSI or CORE, to take another example, representation is to grant the owners of the corporation, as individuals, vastly greater influence than all other individual members. These are clearly not democratic scenarios, as they are basically the same as if R.J. Reynolds or any other special-interest lobbying group were given a direct seat in the U.S. Congress, but they are the essence of how ICANN now functions.

That CPSR calls for opening the current monolithic DNS root to a collaborative root shared between the ICANN and alternative namespaces is marvelous. In my capacity as a root server maintainer with the OpenNIC, I have been involved in discussing exactly that with several of the existing alternates and obviously am fully in support of that scenario. Though we have already begun discussions with several Linux and BSD distributions about the possibility of their installers supporting the alternative roots, we would obviously much prefer that the current root also support them.

That they also call for an end to the artificial domain name scarcity is also good, but I think they don't consider exactly how it needs to be managed. Simply adding new generic Top-Level Domains (TLDs) would not help solve another of their concerns, that of the over-focus on "Intellectual Property" (i.e. trademark) concerns. By implementing new TLDs with well defined charters, such as the .parody TLD served by OpenNIC, the trademark concerns can be properly confined to appropriately chartered TLDs, leaving space available for parody, criticism and personal sites which would be free from the current ever- present threat of trademark lawsuits. By chartering a geographic series of TLDs, trademark concerns could also be confined to their appropriate geographical regions rather than, as the current system does, allowing conflicts between properly registered trademarks in various countries and regions.

Since Slashdot asked us to keep these down to around 500 words, and I've already gone over that, here are a few additional informational links:

• My Candidacy page
• The OpenNIC, an alternative namespace which, I think, provides a good model

Sondlo Leonard Mhlaba

Response to Civil Society Statement on ICANN Elections
by Sondlo Leonard Mhlaba, PhD

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Civil Society Statement of July 13, 2000.

I have followed the work of CPSR for several years and, more recently, have benefited from the work of the Democracy Project. It should, therefore, come as no surprise to many that I support the nine Guiding Values of the Civil Society Statement. I do have some reservations about some details in Values 1, 7, and 8.

Value #1: Representativeness. The basis of my questions and my perspective on this item can best be appreciated through the mission of The New Franchise Institute at http://www.NewFranchise.Org which I am currently building . I see development of the internet as a momentous event in the history of the world. In 500 Years of Eurocentric Diplomacy: Prospects for the 21st Century (1999), I dared to suggest that the internet may become as integral to human life as the heavy coat is to the polar bear. Looked at in this light, the internet has the potential to separate "internet haves" from the "internet have-nots" so far apart as to constitute separate species. I am a naturalized American citizen and Zimbabwe native, having come to the US in the mid-60s. From where I sit, therefore, the work of ICANN and all the parties to internet development, is epoch-making.

In light of the above perspective, I believe that, at some point, ICANN needs to re-examine how the world is divided for purposes of representation. Should, for example, representatives be assigned in proportion to the at-large members, or in proportion to the population of the region (irrespective of the level of internet participation)? Readers may know that of the 58,000 at-large registrants for the purposes of this up-coming election, only 1,000 came from the Continent of Africa. How should language and the attendant worldview be factored in? A year ago, according to a study cited in my book, about 58% of internet communication was in English and 83% was in European languages. In the long term, I believe that a Eurocentric, and North-American dominated internet is not in our (North America's) political, civic, or economic interest. The North American representative must provide a more globalist, and future-oriented perspective, as he or she endevors to be responsive to his or her North American internet constituency.

Value #7. I believe that some domain name categories ought to be reserved for civic and governmental entities, while other categories are left to the market. Cyber-squatting and the after-market ought to be disallowed in the governmental and civic categories. However, I believe that cyber-squatting and related market techniques should be allowed in the market category. In order for this distinction to work in the interest of the general public, a great deal of care would, of course, need to go into defining the two categories.

Value #8: I support respect for privacy, but I also realize that there are differences among cultures as to what level of privacy is necessary or adequate. I believe that some of the OECD prescriptions, if they become a world standard, could dampen critical debate in the civic arena and complicate normal international market activity.

My major problem with Value # 8 is in the area of member voting. I strongly believe that ICANN board member voting must be open, and not through secret ballot. I think at-large members must be able to hold board members accountable for their votes, and a secret ballot process is inimical to the concept of transparency (Value # 2). Marty Freeman

As far as the Cival Society sataement, I agree completly. I think they sould have included some links or examples, however, to information sugsting that ICANN is not working in the manner it should. www.WIPO.org.uk (World Intelectual Piracy Orginization) has some more info. and examples.

Reading the statement did help me realize the depth of the problem though. The internet is so interseting and usefull because of the content provided by its users. If it becomes too dificult for someone to set up a server and give it an easy to find address, then the internet will loose the very thing everyone loves it for -- ridiculous ammounts of usefull, useless, interesting and funny information. It will become a homogonized channel for the distribution of U.S. corporate propaganda. That sucks. I don't want surfing the internet to be like watching TV. I am really glad to have a chance to change things and hope for at least a chance to be on the final ballot. I would like to note that the ICANN has put the 158,000 people who actually managed to sign up in a tight position. They have only two weeks to decide among the candidates for their area. Plus, the first few people to gain enough support in a area are the only ones to make it. That seams sort of unfair. On one hand you have to study info on 50 people and decide who is best for the job, on the other, you have to decide quickly which candidate to vote for, or all the slots may already be full. This is one of the first things I would change. It makes more sense for the top supported few to make it than the first few to get 2% of the total support. Anyway, thanks for giving me a chance to voice my oppenion. I hope you will all make an informed and responsible decision. Chris Stewart

The Civil Society's "Statement On ICANN Elections" addresses a number of issues that are quite popular amongst candidates seeking member-nomination. The paper focuses on a need for transparency, proportionate representation, fundamental rights, and the "bottom-up" process of administration. However, I am extremely disappointed that, once again consumer rights issues are not mentioned in the context of purchasing, owning, selling, or the security of a domain name.

As well, the paper does not address the need for ICANN to review its accreditation process, or the continued technical and administrative negligence of registrars. It is also disconcerting to conclude that the Civil Society opposes the current practice of selling, renting, or leasing a domain name in excess of its original registration cost incurred by the registrant. The following point taken from the paper's "Guiding Values" supports this conclusion,

Section 7. Artificial Scarcity and Centralization Should Be Avoided

"The use of domain names as a marketing device to index content creates excessive value in domain names and creates disincentives to innovation."

The Civil Society also argues that a "scarcity in domain names creates opportunities for control". However, the solution to this "artificial" scarcity should not be, as suggested by the paper, an unconstrained expansion of the Internet domain name space.

It can be agreed that a greater number of new gTLDs would benefit consumers by potentially reducing registration costs and allowing an increased selection of domains and registrars. However, it is irresponsible to ignore the incidents of technical and administrative negligence that currently hounds registrars and the domain registration/ownership process. These are the issues that need to be addressed prior to any consideration of an "unconstrained" expansion. I refer to two examples of registrar negligence and the lack of accountability on their behalf in the following two articles.

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,32974,00.html

http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2615087,00.html

Consumers want a system that will allow them to purchase a domain, maintain its security via an accredited registrar, use the domain in any context they wish without restrictions that impede upon their civil liberties, and the right to profit from the use or sale of that domain. This paper does not address these fundamental concerns with any conviction.

The Civil Society does however appeal to the interests of the Internet community in many aspects of the statement. The need for proportionate representation rather than "democracy deficit", and the minimization or avoidance of ICANN policy-making on non-technical topics are extremely favourable arguments. The latter of the two directly refers to policies such as the UDRP, which has attempted to handcuff the abuse of trademark infringement in the domain registration environment.

However, the paper does not comment on the use of the arbitration system (such as the WIPO) in order to settle disputes. This system has been fraught with negative response from domain name owners and the media alike. The absence of support for or against this system of dispute resolution is unsettling. Decisions from this arbitration panel have been inconsistent, extremely unfair, and unjust in many of the cases, suggesting that the scope of the UDRP has been abused and sometimes ignored altogether. I offer the following site, which addresses some of the specific cases. http://www.domainshame.com/

To view the issues I feel need to be addressed in this election, please visit http://www.iknowicann.com

Sincerely, Christopher Stewart Lee Fulmer

I fully endorse and support the intent of the Civil Society's statement on the ICANN elections.

It seems that since its inception, the internet has been driven by government and corporate interests. I think that ICANN needs to be fully transparent in its operation and accountable to the entire internet community. One of the most important tasks ICANN faces is to deal with the current problems of "scarcity" of domain space by clamping down on speculators and creating new gTLDs. It is equally important the ICANN is representative of the internet community and should include equal representation from all regions as well as from all interest groups (business, government, academia and individuals).

As an individual who has lived and worked in North America, Europe and Australasia across all the interest groups, I feel I have a unique perspective I can contribute to the process. The domain space should be more distributed among the registrars to help keep costs (including ICANN's) down. I certainly don't expect to paid for my work and I would strive to ensure that a balance between public, private, and personal interests is taken.

Please read my candidacy statement on the ICANN site at http://members.icann.org/nom/cp/47.html and visit my site at http://www.fulmer.com/ before you case your vote! Patrick D'Acre

The issues raised by the Internet Democracy white paper have significant merit. As such, they would need to be included in a larger conversation, involving activated participants, with the intention of finding the middle ground. The 'revisionist' approach to providing a 'FREE Internet' for every person, hints at some policies of the past (e.g. Commerce Secretary Hoover in the 20's).

For the Internet to progress, and be made available to the largest population, business practices are mandatory. And attempt to revert to the origins of the Internet would be woefully out of place and inadvertantly restrict access to the most deserving.

I can appreaciate some of the points in the white paper, yet look for more 'centrist' approaches to implementing those same objectives.

For information on my interests see http://www.letsdobizradio.bizland.com/personal/resume.htm. Laurie Williams

1. ICANN must be representative--Agree. Further, consideration should be given to not only developing countries, but also to developing areas within developed countries. For example, interests of those in rural Oklahoma, North Dakota, or in the furthest reaches of Canada, may be more aligned with those of a remote island or developing country, than with the metropolitan areas of the USA or Canada.

2. ICANN must be transparent--Agree.

3. ICANN must use bottom-up process--Agree

4. Intellectual property rights should not be privileged over other rights--ICANN should foster collaboration and cooperation instead of creating antagonism and divisiveness. Domains are not synonymous with trademarks--otherwise the system would have been called the TNS (Trademark Name Service) and not the DNS (Domain Name Service).

5. ICANN should strive at all times to minimize or avoid policy-making on non-technical topics--Agree.

6. The domain space is a globally-shared public good with public and private functions--Agree.

7. Artificial scarcity and centralization should be avoided--Agree, with the caveat that the technical efficacy of the internet should be guaranteed before expansion and diffusion is promoted. Further, registrars should continue to enhance their processes to streamline the needs of clients. In addition, registrars, portals, and search engines should expand to include more effective searches for domain names.

8. ICANN must respect privacy--Agree.

9. Costs should be minimal and equitable--Agree. In addition, the Berkman Center does an excellent job in providing remote participation of ICANN meetings. Emphasis should be placed on enhanced technology to make ICANN webcasts even better in the future so that individuals without the resources of large companies, can participate more effectively.

-->

-->

-->

-->

Iambic Pentametor writes "Defendants' brief is here and plaintiffs' is here. Openlaw has very comprehensive coverage including an ongoing discussion commenting on the briefs. The decision by Judge Kaplan is expected probably within a week."

Iambic Pentametor writes "Defendants' brief is here and plaintiffs' is here. Openlaw has very comprehensive coverage including an ongoing discussion commenting on the briefs. The decision by Judge Kaplan is expected probably within a week."

The DVD trial has been underway in New York City since last Monday, testing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and it's expected to run through Wednesday or Thursday this week. It's not looking good for the forces of light. See below for more reading material than you could possibly take in.

The EFF has put out a series of Updates covering the case day-by-day as it progresses. The most recent one or two aren't on the website yet, but should be soon.

2600 is keeping a complete archive of case-related documents, including transcripts. The transcripts are serious time-killers - it takes a long time to read 7 hours of testimony. But if you've got some time on your hands, they make good reading. Nothing beats first-generation source materials.

The New York Times has a nice summary in their Cyber Law section. Concentrates on the surprise testimony of Jon Johansen on Thursday, but touches on other issues as well.

The people at Harvard's Openlaw project have been scrutinizing the trial as it unfolds. They've collected a bunch of links to press coverage of the trial, and it's frankly pretty interesting to see the substantial differences between publications - almost as if they were watching different trials, one about the freedom to view DVD's as you choose, and a completely different trial about pirates, freebooters, and buccaneers. Their DVD-discuss mailing list often has insightful commentary.

So now that you've had a chance to read up on the trial, let's cut to the chase: the defendants are going to lose. (Note that the decision in the case may not come for a few weeks yet.) No doubt Monday-morning quarterbacks are already primed for action, and the MPAA's PR people have already prepared their after-action press releases calling 2600 a bunch of pirates, thieves, and baby-stealers. Some people will claim it was due to Judge Kaplan's evident bias (which has now degenerated into the lawyerly equivalent of a flame-war between the defense lead attorney Martin Garbus and the Judge); some will point out that any judge could have interpreted the statute as rigidly as Kaplan, with or without bias. Regardless of who wins, the case will be appealed, so this matter will be finally settled in the Court of Appeals or perhaps even the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, I'm going to take the liberty of reposting an email from John Perry Barlow. I don't think he'll mind.

Dave,

Thanks for the LA Times link. I like best the delicious irony of the following:

"This is a very profound moment historically," Time Warner President Richard Parsons says. "This isn't just about a bunch of kids stealing music. It's about an assault on everything that constitutes the cultural expression of our society. If we fail to protect and preserve our intellectual property system, the culture will atrophy. And corporations won't be the only ones hurt. Artists will have no incentive to create. Worst-case scenario: The country will end up in a sort of cultural Dark Ages."

A profound moment, indeed. Indeed, it is an assault on everything that has stifled the cultural expression of our society. It's an assault on the system that stole every dime The Chambers Brothers ever made while grotesquely enriching Brittany Spears.

There is certainly the potential for a cultural Dark Age here, by which I don't simply mean what would follow the death of Time-Warner. Rather, I refer to the very real possibility that Time-Warner and the rest of its loathsome kind will die with most of the expressive genius of the 20th Century buried with them, embedded in their corpses by their last success: using copyright to prevent the digitization and, hence, perpetuation of all that creation.

Only massive civil disobedience will prevent this ugly future. Speaking as someone who has created a lot of "intellectual property," I can assure you that my primary incentive was the possibility that what passed through my heart would be heard. I want it to be available to my great grandchildren. But they will never hear it unless it's stored in some other medium than the material objects the record industry manufactured, all of which will be as mute as stones by then.

Of course, I wanted to be paid for it, and I was. Just as Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and countless others were paid, despite the absence of copyright protection.

The only people who are likely to lose the lesser incentive of wealth will be the likes of Richard Parsons. His loss will be our gain. Unless, of course, he wins.

Mad as hell,

Barlow

The DVD trial has been underway in New York City since last Monday, testing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and it's expected to run through Wednesday or Thursday this week. It's not looking good for the forces of light. See below for more reading material than you could possibly take in.

The EFF has put out a series of Updates covering the case day-by-day as it progresses. The most recent one or two aren't on the website yet, but should be soon.

2600 is keeping a complete archive of case-related documents, including transcripts. The transcripts are serious time-killers - it takes a long time to read 7 hours of testimony. But if you've got some time on your hands, they make good reading. Nothing beats first-generation source materials.

The New York Times has a nice summary in their Cyber Law section. Concentrates on the surprise testimony of Jon Johansen on Thursday, but touches on other issues as well.

The people at Harvard's Openlaw project have been scrutinizing the trial as it unfolds. They've collected a bunch of links to press coverage of the trial, and it's frankly pretty interesting to see the substantial differences between publications - almost as if they were watching different trials, one about the freedom to view DVD's as you choose, and a completely different trial about pirates, freebooters, and buccaneers. Their DVD-discuss mailing list often has insightful commentary.

So now that you've had a chance to read up on the trial, let's cut to the chase: the defendants are going to lose. (Note that the decision in the case may not come for a few weeks yet.) No doubt Monday-morning quarterbacks are already primed for action, and the MPAA's PR people have already prepared their after-action press releases calling 2600 a bunch of pirates, thieves, and baby-stealers. Some people will claim it was due to Judge Kaplan's evident bias (which has now degenerated into the lawyerly equivalent of a flame-war between the defense lead attorney Martin Garbus and the Judge); some will point out that any judge could have interpreted the statute as rigidly as Kaplan, with or without bias. Regardless of who wins, the case will be appealed, so this matter will be finally settled in the Court of Appeals or perhaps even the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, I'm going to take the liberty of reposting an email from John Perry Barlow. I don't think he'll mind.

Dave,

Thanks for the LA Times link. I like best the delicious irony of the following:

"This is a very profound moment historically," Time Warner President Richard Parsons says. "This isn't just about a bunch of kids stealing music. It's about an assault on everything that constitutes the cultural expression of our society. If we fail to protect and preserve our intellectual property system, the culture will atrophy. And corporations won't be the only ones hurt. Artists will have no incentive to create. Worst-case scenario: The country will end up in a sort of cultural Dark Ages."

A profound moment, indeed. Indeed, it is an assault on everything that has stifled the cultural expression of our society. It's an assault on the system that stole every dime The Chambers Brothers ever made while grotesquely enriching Brittany Spears.

There is certainly the potential for a cultural Dark Age here, by which I don't simply mean what would follow the death of Time-Warner. Rather, I refer to the very real possibility that Time-Warner and the rest of its loathsome kind will die with most of the expressive genius of the 20th Century buried with them, embedded in their corpses by their last success: using copyright to prevent the digitization and, hence, perpetuation of all that creation.

Only massive civil disobedience will prevent this ugly future. Speaking as someone who has created a lot of "intellectual property," I can assure you that my primary incentive was the possibility that what passed through my heart would be heard. I want it to be available to my great grandchildren. But they will never hear it unless it's stored in some other medium than the material objects the record industry manufactured, all of which will be as mute as stones by then.

Of course, I wanted to be paid for it, and I was. Just as Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and countless others were paid, despite the absence of copyright protection.

The only people who are likely to lose the lesser incentive of wealth will be the likes of Richard Parsons. His loss will be our gain. Unless, of course, he wins.

Mad as hell,

Barlow

The DVD trial has been underway in New York City since last Monday, testing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and it's expected to run through Wednesday or Thursday this week. It's not looking good for the forces of light. See below for more reading material than you could possibly take in.

The EFF has put out a series of Updates covering the case day-by-day as it progresses. The most recent one or two aren't on the website yet, but should be soon.

2600 is keeping a complete archive of case-related documents, including transcripts. The transcripts are serious time-killers - it takes a long time to read 7 hours of testimony. But if you've got some time on your hands, they make good reading. Nothing beats first-generation source materials.

The New York Times has a nice summary in their Cyber Law section. Concentrates on the surprise testimony of Jon Johansen on Thursday, but touches on other issues as well.

The people at Harvard's Openlaw project have been scrutinizing the trial as it unfolds. They've collected a bunch of links to press coverage of the trial, and it's frankly pretty interesting to see the substantial differences between publications - almost as if they were watching different trials, one about the freedom to view DVD's as you choose, and a completely different trial about pirates, freebooters, and buccaneers. Their DVD-discuss mailing list often has insightful commentary.

So now that you've had a chance to read up on the trial, let's cut to the chase: the defendants are going to lose. (Note that the decision in the case may not come for a few weeks yet.) No doubt Monday-morning quarterbacks are already primed for action, and the MPAA's PR people have already prepared their after-action press releases calling 2600 a bunch of pirates, thieves, and baby-stealers. Some people will claim it was due to Judge Kaplan's evident bias (which has now degenerated into the lawyerly equivalent of a flame-war between the defense lead attorney Martin Garbus and the Judge); some will point out that any judge could have interpreted the statute as rigidly as Kaplan, with or without bias. Regardless of who wins, the case will be appealed, so this matter will be finally settled in the Court of Appeals or perhaps even the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, I'm going to take the liberty of reposting an email from John Perry Barlow. I don't think he'll mind.

Dave,

Thanks for the LA Times link. I like best the delicious irony of the following:

"This is a very profound moment historically," Time Warner President Richard Parsons says. "This isn't just about a bunch of kids stealing music. It's about an assault on everything that constitutes the cultural expression of our society. If we fail to protect and preserve our intellectual property system, the culture will atrophy. And corporations won't be the only ones hurt. Artists will have no incentive to create. Worst-case scenario: The country will end up in a sort of cultural Dark Ages."

A profound moment, indeed. Indeed, it is an assault on everything that has stifled the cultural expression of our society. It's an assault on the system that stole every dime The Chambers Brothers ever made while grotesquely enriching Brittany Spears.

There is certainly the potential for a cultural Dark Age here, by which I don't simply mean what would follow the death of Time-Warner. Rather, I refer to the very real possibility that Time-Warner and the rest of its loathsome kind will die with most of the expressive genius of the 20th Century buried with them, embedded in their corpses by their last success: using copyright to prevent the digitization and, hence, perpetuation of all that creation.

Only massive civil disobedience will prevent this ugly future. Speaking as someone who has created a lot of "intellectual property," I can assure you that my primary incentive was the possibility that what passed through my heart would be heard. I want it to be available to my great grandchildren. But they will never hear it unless it's stored in some other medium than the material objects the record industry manufactured, all of which will be as mute as stones by then.

Of course, I wanted to be paid for it, and I was. Just as Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and countless others were paid, despite the absence of copyright protection.

The only people who are likely to lose the lesser incentive of wealth will be the likes of Richard Parsons. His loss will be our gain. Unless, of course, he wins.

Mad as hell,

Barlow

Mr. GuySmiley writes: "Astronomers of the SpaceWatch Project have discovered a another moon orbiting Jupiter. It has been over 25 years since the last discovery of an outer Jovian satellite (Voyager found three inner moons in 1979). The moon has been designated S/1999 J 1. This brings the total number of moons orbiting Jupiter to 17. Hail the King of the Planets!"

More on the conflict of interest in the 2600 / DeCSS case. More on the South African penguins trapped in a world of petroleum, currents and love beneath the panopticon world of satellite observation. And congratulations to Distributed.Net for setting in place their new milestone. All below!

Why no, gentlemen, I see no conflict of interest. You may recall reading that Lewis Kaplan, the judge in the DeCSS trial underway in New York right now, consulted for Time-Warner, raising questions about conflict of interest. Jim Tyre of The Censorware Project writes: "Yesterday, CT posted a piece on 2600's attempt to disqualify Judge Kaplan in the New York DeCSS trial. Last night, Kaplan's 51 page Order denying the motion made it to the Net. No doubt he spent the weekend writing it, putting him in a nice mood for when trial commenced yesteday. Interesting reading for those who like to slog through such things."

The first 1000 days. emerson writes "According to their RC5-64 Stats Page, distributed.net's RC5-64 project turns 1000 days old today (July 18th; the stats page will show 1000 days when today's stats are digested and displayed tomorrow), with just over 28% of the keyspace checked out. Makes me feel pretty safe about RC5-64 versus brute-force attacks ..." Oskuro writes: "Today is the 1000th day distributed.net is searching for a winning key on RSA's RC5-64 contest. In that long time, the 28% of the keyspace has been tested, so there's a long way to go still. Maybe you want to download a client and start crunching for Team Slashdot?" Note: this means that as of today (day 1001), the stats reflect the 1000-day figure.

Wish I had scientists helping find me a mate ... John B. Hayes writes "Yahoo! News has a great story on an heroic high-tech penguin and his surviving the impossible. I wonder if there is a deeper meaning here... I mean, he made it 600 miles without a re-boot; ok, so there were some unexpected obstacles to deal with and the programmer had to step in, but that's the beauty of it. I'm charged!" cvd6262 writes "It seems that all's weel that ends well. Our Beloved Jackass Pequin, Peter, arrived home. I quote from the site: 'At 0456 this morning, Peter's satellite tag reported that he was at 33 48 S 18 22 E. Wait a moment. Those are the coordinates for Robben Island. Peter is home.' Now he only has to find a suitable Jackass Penquin mate."

All the same, I think I'd prefer some privacy. Oostendorpophile writes "I got this email today:

'Thank you for your inquiries into the FBI's "Carnivore". We have received many inquiries, many Kudos and many sneers for what has been in the news in the last couple weeks. Much of the information that the press has published has been inaccurate or misleading. Earthlink takes the following stance (in quotes below).

"We do not allow the installation of Carnivore on our network because it has the potential to compromise the privacy of our legitimate users and the performance of our network. We have an internal solution which allows us to comply with court orders without the presence of government personnel or equipment in our buildings. The government accepts this solution since they still receive the requested information about the criminal suspect, and we sleep well knowing that our customers are safe from unauthorized surveillance."

Sincerely,
Mary Youngblood
Privacy Policy
Earthlink/Mindspring Abuse Team Manager'"

This isn't the most satisfying possible answer, but at least it's nicer than block committees and "an enthusiastic welcome to the nice gentlemen who'll be sharing the building with us" ... Earthlink / Mindspring is one of the largest if not the largest ISP, though -- will smaller ISPs be able to stare down Carnivore as well?

And Apple Legal hasn't said a thing about this yet? Hollis writes "After months of discussion and work, linuxppc.org has been rewritten and is hosted at penguinppc.org. The new site has a slick design and lots of new content... check it out." And today's announcement of the new cube PowerMac puts a different light on the criticism Ryan Meader received for posting about such a thing on MacOS Rumors. It's a good thing to be wrong about! Dual G4 in a cube. Linux on PPC. Repeat.

ICANN is meeting once again, this time in Yokohama, Japan. And once again, No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session. Slashdot takes a look at ICANN and at the various attempts to beat some semblance of democracy and representation into the organization.

Before we even get into this, I'm going to recommend again that everyone sign up for ICANN's At-Large membership. The deadline is July 31 - if you haven't signed up by then, you've missed your chance to be one of a few thousand voters who will affect the course of the internet's development. U.S. registration is way below that of other internet-savvy nations on a percentage-of-internet-users basis, because the media in those countries has been running extensive registration campaigns. Slashdot will be covering the election process - register to vote! (Note: if you're planning to self-nominate yourself for one of the open board seats, even if it's not the North America seat, please email me - I'd like to talk to you.) We'll also take this opportunity to plug an unofficial site for the At-Large community created by a slashdot reader, www.applyatlarge.com. It's just getting started, but the At-Large community could use some non-ICANN methods of communication.

Jett writes "TomPaine.com has an interesting article discussing the upcoming ICANN elections. The article gives a lot of good info on how ICANN is set up as well as some analysis on some of the problems they are facing to ensure fair and democratic elections."

There's some information about the actual on-going meeting available in near-real-time, supposedly even a web-based chat though I haven't seen it in operation, sponsored by the Berkman Center. Keep in mind that Japan is ~14 hours ahead of the U.S., so the Saturday meetings will be occuring Friday night in the U.S.

Probably the most important news at this meeting is not the wrangling over new .TLDs, even though that is the only aspect of the ICANN meeting getting any press coverage. Though the vote hasn't happened yet, I'm willing to wager that the restrictive NSI proposals will win out - a few new .TLDs will be started, NSI will be running at least one of them (way to diversify!), with massive trademark protections so that most "good" domains will be unregistrable. That battle isn't going to be won any time soon. Note that every single problem associated with domain names - every single one, from squatting to scalping to companies hijacking domains from individuals - is caused by artificial scarcity of names. Eliminate the two sources of artificial scarcity (limited TLDs and trademark law) and all domain name problems vanish.

But the most important initiative at this meeting is the ambitiously-named Internet Democracy Project, started by the American Civil Liberties Union, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center. The site is already a great collection of links on ICANN, and promises more content in the future; it's a good place to start if you're new to this whole thing. They've articulated a civil society perspective on the ICANN elections process, ICANN itself, and the domain name system - excellent reading, excellent goals, I support them entirely. It remains to be seen what will come of this, but I hope that these organizations continue to do their utmost to push their views. Imagine a world where DNS was structured as they envision.

Kirch asks: " Company XYZ Encryption Technologies creates an encryption package (read anti-piracy) that will encrypt your data (read IP) for you and can only be read through licenced decrypted produced by XYZ. Now, the encryption used is very, very weak. It 'encrypts' by offsetting every bit by one and then 'decrypts' by offsetting every bit again by one. Or yet even better 'encrypts' everything by the Pig Latin method. Now the encryption is kept secret by XYZ. Users use this assuming they are protected by the encryption technology touted by XYZ. A semi smart user looks at the encrypted data and says 'Oh Look it's Pig Latin!' The user posts this on forums, makes a Web page exposing XYZ for using Pig Latin and writes a DePigLatin program. Who is liable here? The company, for producing a product with weak encryption, or the user for posting the DePigLatin program?" Sound familiar? It should, but not necessarily for the reason you expect.

ESRI makes a product called ArcView. Arcview has a feature that allows developers to customize it with Avenue. Developers can also encrypt their scripts so they can sell them to users. Dr. William Huber found out a way to decrypt the "encrypted" scripts using the Avenue scripting language. You'll find his findings here. It seems that he stumbled upon this a year ago. Again, who's at fault? ESRI or Dr. Huber? You'll notice he hasn't actually given out the code but does give out a few hints to those who know Avenue.

My limited understanding of the DMCA is that it is a crime to circumvent anti-piracy measures built into most commercial software. This would make the user a criminal for circumventing an anti-piracy measure. There is no provision saying, well if it's weak, then it's OK. So, according to the DMCA, was circumventing the XYZ Pig Latin Encryption technology a crime?"

The similarities to DeCSS should probably come as no surprise to you all at this point. What is a consumer to do when the very laws that are designed to ultimately protect us (as the software publishers keep saying) can be used as a bludgeon to silence the act of discovering what can and should be considered design flaws? Sure the DMCA protects someone, but the answer most assuredly isn't 'us' in any way shape or form.Of course, that last bit shouldn't come as any surprise to you, either.

Update: 07/13 12:43 AM by C :Some information for those of you who are still looking for ammunition against the DMCA: here's a lengthy paper from Pamela Samuelson, a professor at UC Berkeley, and another article from Openlaw . Finally, this bit from Michael Sims: "Sachems, grandmothers, and hackers of all ages have obtained a New York City Official Media Event Permit to peacefully assemble for the redress of wrongs:

Monday 17 July 2000
10:30 am to 5:00 pm
Court Yard of the Federal Court
500 Pearl Street"
(Manhattan, New York City, obviously)

Also, Martin Garbus (the famous lawyer who's representing the DVD defense) will be speaking at H2K, the hacker's conference this weekend. More precisely, he's speaking this Friday at 3PM at the Hotel Pennsylvania (you can go to Hope.Net for more info)."

Iambic Pentametor writes "Back in April, Slashdot had a story covering the first two rounds of a forum at The American Prospect between Eric S. Raymond, Lawrence Lessig, Nathan Newman, Jeff A. Taylor, and Jonathan Band. The third round is here. ESR's latest is pretty inspiring and despite some squabbling, each of the combatants make some good points."

There have been a few interesting legal maneuvers since our last update on the two lawsuits filed by the MPAA against people publishing copies of the DeCSS code. It's too much for a little blurb, so click below to read more.

First, the Openlaw forum has filed an amicus brief in the case. This is a legal "position paper" filed by people who aren't directly involved in the case but have some interest in the outcome. The Openlaw participants developed it in a collaborative manner primarily using a public mailing list. The brief is intended to address the continuing injunction that the judge issued which prohibits publishing or even linking to the DeCSS code for the defendants and anyone acting in concert with them.

A completely separate issue has also come up within the past week. The MPAA has asked the court to seal the depositions given by their witnesses, claiming that they feel threatened due to receiving hostile email sent to their main contact address, hotline@mpaa.org, and probably prompted by a previous slashdot story... Depositions are question and answer sessions conducted under oath before the trial actually begins, so that the opposing lawyers have some idea of what people will testify to when they're actually in court.

The defense has actually offered to redact any home addresses or personal information from the depositions, and the mail that the MPAA received is no more hostile than any good flame, so it's rather doubtful that the MPAA could truly feel threatened. Most likely, they don't want to see quotes from their executives to the effect that DeCSS is not responsible for any illicit copying published far and wide.

John Young writes "Cryptome has submitted a statement to Judge Kaplan in opposition to MPAA's motion for a protective order to bar revelation of deposition materials. A hearing is scheduled for June 6.

"Read the MPAA's motion for the way complaining e-mail has been used to justify its appeal closed depositions... Anyone can submit a statement in opposition to or in support of the MPAA motion for protective order to bar the press and non-parties from revealing deposition materials. It must be submitted in hardcopy (no fax, no e-mail) to Judge Kaplan by end of day June 2, 2000 (4PM EDT is the hard and fast deadline) at the address given in the letter above.

"Cryptome will accept e-mailed statements in opposition or in support to the motion, print them out and submit them to Judge Kaplan on behalf of authors who cannot themselves submit hardcopy. Send to: jy@jya.com, with the subject: Protect Free Speech. "

There have been a few interesting legal maneuvers since our last update on the two lawsuits filed by the MPAA against people publishing copies of the DeCSS code. It's too much for a little blurb, so click below to read more.

First, the Openlaw forum has filed an amicus brief in the case. This is a legal "position paper" filed by people who aren't directly involved in the case but have some interest in the outcome. The Openlaw participants developed it in a collaborative manner primarily using a public mailing list. The brief is intended to address the continuing injunction that the judge issued which prohibits publishing or even linking to the DeCSS code for the defendants and anyone acting in concert with them.

A completely separate issue has also come up within the past week. The MPAA has asked the court to seal the depositions given by their witnesses, claiming that they feel threatened due to receiving hostile email sent to their main contact address, hotline@mpaa.org, and probably prompted by a previous slashdot story... Depositions are question and answer sessions conducted under oath before the trial actually begins, so that the opposing lawyers have some idea of what people will testify to when they're actually in court.

The defense has actually offered to redact any home addresses or personal information from the depositions, and the mail that the MPAA received is no more hostile than any good flame, so it's rather doubtful that the MPAA could truly feel threatened. Most likely, they don't want to see quotes from their executives to the effect that DeCSS is not responsible for any illicit copying published far and wide.

John Young writes "Cryptome has submitted a statement to Judge Kaplan in opposition to MPAA's motion for a protective order to bar revelation of deposition materials. A hearing is scheduled for June 6.

"Read the MPAA's motion for the way complaining e-mail has been used to justify its appeal closed depositions... Anyone can submit a statement in opposition to or in support of the MPAA motion for protective order to bar the press and non-parties from revealing deposition materials. It must be submitted in hardcopy (no fax, no e-mail) to Judge Kaplan by end of day June 2, 2000 (4PM EDT is the hard and fast deadline) at the address given in the letter above.

"Cryptome will accept e-mailed statements in opposition or in support to the motion, print them out and submit them to Judge Kaplan on behalf of authors who cannot themselves submit hardcopy. Send to: jy@jya.com, with the subject: Protect Free Speech. "

hardcorebit writes: "The Amulet Group at the University of Manchester is working on a 'self-timed' or 'asynchronous logic' chip which uses the ARM architecture and instruction set. The benefits? Much lower power consumption, lower EMF emissions, and it works with everything written for the ARM. Their latest effort is 'broadly equivalent' to an ARM9. Anyone had a chance to get their hands on one of these beasts?"

Nick writes: "Salon has an interesting interview with Napster CEO Eileen Richardson. She brings up some good analogies about Napster, mp3 and the music industry." And nevertheless points out that the 9th Circuit Northern District court has ruled that Napster is not protected as a service provider by the DMCA: "Judge Patel's opinion is available in PDF form." Napster hasn't lost the suit yet but they've lost what could have been a valuable legal defense.

ICANN has been in the news quite a bit recently. Although new TLD's have been in the works for more than five years now, ICANN has given in to the lobbying of its patron mega-corps and stated that no new TLD's would be created unless trademark holders got first dibs on them. So much for a personal TLD exempt from trademark considerations... ICANN is currently pushing its At-Large Membership, which everyone should join, even though the system has been carefully rigged so that the public cannot make meaningful changes in the composition of ICANN's Board. All these and more will be discussed in their Cairo meeting, which will be Webcast starting 2 a.m. EST on March 8.

ralphclark writes "Some of you may already know of the OpenLaw project, hosted by the Harvard Law School-based Berkman Center for Internet and Society. The OpenLaw group is, in their own words "an experiment in crafting legal argument in an open forum". In other words: legal cases built, like open source, according to the principle that many eyeballs make bugs shallow." They are looking at taking it to a bigger level - click below to hear more from ralphclark. "

From ralphclark: I recently contacted Wendy Seltzer at OpenLaw to ask if they could assist the open source community in its struggle with the forces of evil (the MPAA and the DMCA and UCITA). After a brief dialogue she finally wrote back:

" I have been thinking more about this project and the tools we'll need for it, since I haven't gotten a negative response, indeed several positive ones, from people at the Berkman Center.

I think it's probably best to start low-maintenance, with a mailing list and a Web page, then to add components such as Web-based discussion and a collection of links and documents.

If you have suggestions for links to the key documents/Web pages, that would be a great help."

I think this is our clarion call: I've seen plenty of good quality debate on these issues here on Slashdot, and the most unsupportable viewpoints have been flamed to death by now so I'm sure there are lots of people reading this who have something valuable to contribute. You should e-mail your (sensible) suggestions to Open Law Feedback and she'll pick them up from there. One suggestion: When you mail, write your idea below in comments - than people can avoid duplication of effort.

ralphclark writes "Some of you may already know of the OpenLaw project, hosted by the Harvard Law School-based Berkman Center for Internet and Society. The OpenLaw group is, in their own words "an experiment in crafting legal argument in an open forum". In other words: legal cases built, like open source, according to the principle that many eyeballs make bugs shallow." They are looking at taking it to a bigger level - click below to hear more from ralphclark. "

From ralphclark: I recently contacted Wendy Seltzer at OpenLaw to ask if they could assist the open source community in its struggle with the forces of evil (the MPAA and the DMCA and UCITA). After a brief dialogue she finally wrote back:

" I have been thinking more about this project and the tools we'll need for it, since I haven't gotten a negative response, indeed several positive ones, from people at the Berkman Center.

I think it's probably best to start low-maintenance, with a mailing list and a Web page, then to add components such as Web-based discussion and a collection of links and documents.

If you have suggestions for links to the key documents/Web pages, that would be a great help."

I think this is our clarion call: I've seen plenty of good quality debate on these issues here on Slashdot, and the most unsupportable viewpoints have been flamed to death by now so I'm sure there are lots of people reading this who have something valuable to contribute. You should e-mail your (sensible) suggestions to Open Law Feedback and she'll pick them up from there. One suggestion: When you mail, write your idea below in comments - than people can avoid duplication of effort.

ralphclark writes "Some of you may already know of the OpenLaw project, hosted by the Harvard Law School-based Berkman Center for Internet and Society. The OpenLaw group is, in their own words "an experiment in crafting legal argument in an open forum". In other words: legal cases built, like open source, according to the principle that many eyeballs make bugs shallow." They are looking at taking it to a bigger level - click below to hear more from ralphclark. "

From ralphclark: I recently contacted Wendy Seltzer at OpenLaw to ask if they could assist the open source community in its struggle with the forces of evil (the MPAA and the DMCA and UCITA). After a brief dialogue she finally wrote back:

" I have been thinking more about this project and the tools we'll need for it, since I haven't gotten a negative response, indeed several positive ones, from people at the Berkman Center.

I think it's probably best to start low-maintenance, with a mailing list and a Web page, then to add components such as Web-based discussion and a collection of links and documents.

If you have suggestions for links to the key documents/Web pages, that would be a great help."

I think this is our clarion call: I've seen plenty of good quality debate on these issues here on Slashdot, and the most unsupportable viewpoints have been flamed to death by now so I'm sure there are lots of people reading this who have something valuable to contribute. You should e-mail your (sensible) suggestions to Open Law Feedback and she'll pick them up from there. One suggestion: When you mail, write your idea below in comments - than people can avoid duplication of effort.

Robert Wilde writes "The National Law Journal has published an analysis of the PTO's new proposed DNA guidelines. The PTO will accept written comments until March 22. " I think this is one of the most important issues of the upcoming years - can company's patent genes that exist in all of us? What work should be done in genetics? What do you folks think?

Robert Wilde writes "The Supreme Court has turned down Microsoft's appeal of a ruling, allowing 10,000 temporary employees to sue for benefits such as the right to purchase Microsoft stock at a 15% discount. This lawsuit has implications for permatemps throughout the tech industry." I'm actually interested in seeing how many of the temps take Microsoft up on buying stock options.

Robert Wilde writes "Slashdotters have shown great interest in knowing where the US Presidential candidates stand on the 'geek issues.' Now Microsoft's Slate has some answers."

Lawrence Lessig - the name may be familiar from the Microsoft trial - has written an excellent book, which I've taken my time reviewing because I felt I had to read it twice to grasp the full import. Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace covers the real future of your liberties on the internet, and it is not a happy book. Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace author Lawrence Lessig pages 297 publisher Basic Books rating 10/10 reviewer Michael Sims ISBN 0-465-03912-X summary A gloomy look at the forces which shape the internet.

Slashdot isn't the first to review this book. Declan McCullagh (Wired), Andy Oram, and Carl Kaplan (NY Times) have all taken a look at it, he's been interviewed, there's an audio debate (mp3 format) between Lessig and McCullagh, and at least a couple of other places have all mentioned it and it is, at this writing, 134 on Amazon.com's best-seller list. I was privileged enough to receive a review copy of the book some time ago, but my review has been delayed because the book is too deep to easily sum up. It's a book about law, and about policy, and about the internet, which doesn't require any grounding in any of the above, but it seems like it would be appropriate for people at almost any level of knowledge - if you know more, you'll get deeper insights, and if you know less, you'll get the basics. A fractal book, in other words. An almost philosophical work, disguised as a law book.

To start with, Lessig's book is a counter to John Perry Barlow's Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. Barlow had a good idea, a good goal, but he was totally and completely wrong about how to achieve it, and his declaration and the mindset it embodies has and will do great harm to the future of civil liberties on the internet.

Cyberspace is not and has never been independent of real life, or of government. What it has been is a place where the rules of real life were hard to enforce. That doesn't mean that the rules don't exist - just that it has been hard to make people obey them. The problem for people, like me, who like this state of affairs, this lack of enforcement, is that there's no reason cyberspace has to remain in its current state.

Cyberspace wasn't designed to enforce real-world rules. Such enforcement wasn't built in to the code that runs the internet, was consciously avoided in the early internet designs, and therefore regulators have been working in an environment unfriendly to them. Copying of digital works is easy. Transmitting and receiving content, even forbidden content, is easy. Etc.

But just because it was designed that way once, does not mean that it need be that way in the future. There are tremendous forces (business and government) that would prefer an internet which is friendly and cooperative to regulators. The people building the internet of tomorrow are not professors and geeks, they're CEO's and to a lesser extent, bureaucrats. If the architecture of the internet is "adjusted" to favor regulation instead of disfavor it - and the current internet builders all have reasons to favor regulability - regulating behavior on the internet is not impossible, it's trivial. Lessig has a short chapter on "is-ism", the belief that just because something is, so must it always be. Applied to the internet, this is "We are free, and will always be so." Wrong, wrong! The internet is totally man-made, and what man has made, man can change.

It is hard for me (or Lessig) to emphasize this point too much: the people who claim that we should keep our hands off the internet are completely playing into the hands of government and business. While the net-libertarians have buried their heads in the sand, the net is being changed, constantly, to favor regulation by business and by government.

Lessig takes a look at the infrastructure of the internet and how it is changing for the worse. There's another terrible flaw in thinking about the internet, which runs roughly: "whatever restrictions are placed, someone of technical competence can get around them". This is not true, not if the architecture is designed to support those restrictions rather than oppose them.

The internet, says Lessig, is about to "flip" from "unregulable" to "totally regulable". When that occurs (neither Lessig nor I think there's an "If" involved), who will be regulating the place? Currently corporations, with guidance from government - guidance coming in the form of regulations like CALEA, which make demands not on individuals, but on the code. Once the code is altered to be conducive to regulation, regulation follows naturally.

Lessig makes a great point about open source software. Closed source code which incorporates regulation (censorware is the easiest example, but there are many others) means that the people who are regulated can't even tell exactly what regulation is occuring. When the source code is available, you can at least tell exactly what you can and cannot do, or exactly how your privacy is being infringed. Open source code is inherently less suited to enforcing regulation on users.

I can't do justice to the book without rewriting it. Lessig is deeply skeptical about the ability of the U.S. government to initiate policies which promote, rather than denigrate, the civil liberties we have come to take for granted in cyberspace. Government is busy selling off our freedom to corporations through mechanisms such as ICANN. But no one else is going to do it - and with a government actively hostile to liberties or even one that adopts a hands-off approach, freedom in cyberspace is headed downhill at a tremendous pace.

I recommend this book to almost anyone who cares about the future of the internet. It's well-written - he's a good teacher. It's got some awesome examples - like how Communist Vietnam is more effectively libertarian than the U.S., because it doesn't have the infrastructure of control that we do. It is a scholarly work, but the footnotes are pushed off to the end - they alone are worth the price of the book to a serious student, but someone looking to just read can skip them without problems. It's a deep and thus far unmatched view of what will shape the net of tomorrow, the most inspiring book I've read this year.

Some of Lessig's other papers and articles are available on his home page. The book has a promotional website as well, available at code-is-law.org or what-declan-doesnt-get.com.

Pick this book up at fatbrain.com.

Slashdot's received a lot of submissions about RIAA actions recently, and the actions of colleges taken after the RIAA sent them nasty letters. One of the interesting things about this is that the RIAA is apparently not listing any specific offenders, just sending general warnings to any and all colleges with computer networks. Under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, copyright holders acquired several new rights, with the promise they wouldn't abuse them. They're abusing them. (More...)

A good example is a demand letter to a Swiss university, ETH Zurich, which demands that the school immediately terminate all web pages with illegal MP3 files (illegal is of course a judicial decision; the letter presumes that all MP3s are illegal); that the school provide names and home addresses of all students with MP3 files hosted on the school's servers; that the school provide the date that those MP3 files were first hosted (for every MP3 on every server); and that the school provide the IP address for every machine anywhere on the internet which downloaded a MP3 file from the school's servers.

The letter closes with a carrot: we'll adjust our monetary demands based on how well you comply with this letter. Better hope your IP address doesn't appear too many times in those web server logs.

We can probably assume that the demands to U.S. schools are much the same - far-reaching, extortionate letters which are not specific about any particular infringement alleged to be occurring, but which are intended nonetheless to scare the universities into cracking down on their students. The terms of the compromise of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act were that the RIAA and related groups would do the policing of their copyrights - if they found a specific file that they alleged was unlawfully infringing, they have a procedure to follow, specific information to provide about the specific infringing file, and the ISP (college or whatever) is supposed to "do their part" by deleting/removing said file if the paperwork is correct. ISPs and colleges are not supposed to do the grunt work themselves - that results in the kind of overbroad crackdowns that we've seen. This was the subject of specific negotiations during the process of creating this law.

But the RIAA, of course, would prefer that schools and ISPs do their cracking down for them. So they send these general scare letters, hoping to trigger a reaction.

Scare tactics work. Universities scan through student computers, trying passwords on protected directories. The new Rio players will incorporate all of the RIAA's desired protections against copying of MP3 files - the price of settling the RIAA's lawsuit. The next target is Napster.

RIAA will now be filing suit against Napster, an application which effectively functions like a single purpose IRC server, connecting people who want to share MP3 files, whether legally or not. (There's a linux port of Napster; better download it quick.) Some schools, like Oregon State University, are so scared they're blocking all access to Napster servers from school systems. In the ideal world, Napster should probably win - the RIAA could monitor their servers and demand that infringing users be eliminated, but the service equally provides people with an avenue to share legal MP3 files, and this significant non-infringing use is all that is needed under copyright law. The article I just linked to and a nice Wired story both show Napster feebly trying to insist on their duties under the DMCA, saying that the RIAA needs to tell them in writing about specific instances of infringement - but the RIAA doesn't care about the law.

Napster, of course, has no money to fight a lawsuit. This is exactly what happened to the Rio: they won in court, but since the RIAA planned to appeal the suit and drain more money out of Diamond Multimedia, they settled by promising that future Rio's would include the RIAA's copyright protections. Like the Dentist's extortion tactics in Cryptonomicon[1], RIAA lawsuits are equally powerful whether they are on solid legal grounds or not - Napster will lose this suit, whether they win or lose, because the RIAA can afford the money to fight it and Napster cannot. So presumably Napster and RIAA will come to some agreement, settle the lawsuit, and Napster's next generation will incorporate the RIAA's demanded copyright protection system.

Just remember, RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen says she loves the idea of Napster to build communities, "but not on the backs of huge mega-corporations with billions of dollars of revenue quarterly."[2]

The RIAA is hardly the only abuser. The Business Software Alliance, essentially a front group for protecting Microsoft's copyrights, does similar things with regard to "pirated" software. (What a PR genius it was who thought of describing all copying of software as piracy! Probably the same person behind the "cyber-squatter" label for anyone who owns a domain that a company covets.) The BSA is now raiding homes of people accused of copying software.

The idea behind copyright is to expand the amount of information available to the public by creating a government-mandated monopoly on reproducing it - for a limited time (28 years maximum, at the beginning - today the maximum copyright term could be over 150 years). Copyright has always has the inherent give-back to society - the work would pass out of protection, and then anyone could copy it and use it as they saw fit. But copyright is now essentially unlimited - over the last twenty years, the length of the copyright period has increased by forty years, so that essentially no materials produced since World War I have entered the public domain. In about 15-18 years, copyright holders will again be petitioning Congress to extend the copyright term, so that entities like Mickey Mouse never enter the public domain. The extension is now being challenged as unconstitutional, but the challengers lost in District Court and it's far from certain that this suit can succeed.

In today's world, it's customary to speak of copyright as some sort of innate right. It isn't. It's there for the betterment of society, but its functioning, today, contributes nothing to society - all it is is a government-sanctioned monopoly transferring money from your pocket to others, with nothing ever given back - and no possibility of give-backs until 2019, under current law.

We need to rethink copyright. It's not a fundamental right of corporations to receive a 95-year government monopoly. Businesses plan on a five-year cycle - if something isn't forecast to make a return on investment in five years, it doesn't get done. A five-year grant of copyright to corporate authors would serve just as well in promoting the development of new material, and would bring a tremendous amount of material into the public domain, which is copyright's true intent. With a much smaller amount of material actually under copyright, enforcement of it would be far simpler and more straightforward.

But naturally this would cost certain companies a lot of money - they're used to wallowing in their government-granted monopoly. Disney has made back their costs for creating Mickey Mouse billions of times over, but they're used to the cash flow now and would be willing to buy an entire Congress to protect it. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act was passed with the aid of a great deal of subterfuge, but most importantly, a great deal of campaign contributions. Now you can be a criminal not just for actually copying anything, but for making a "device" (hardware or software) which facilitates copying - we're talking five years in Federal prison. Imagine doing five years in Federal prison so that Congress can protect their campaign donations, errr, I mean, Disney's cash flow.

We're extremely close to the day when debuggers are illegal. Through threats, strategic campaign donations, and outright extortion practiced on upstart companies, copyright-holders like the RIAA are building copyright protection into the very infrastructure of computing.

Making changes in this system requires a fundamental commitment from the U.S. populace that it be changed. The commitment doesn't exist yet, but as more and more people experience the power of copyright to affect what they can and cannot publish online, and the abuses of the companies dedicated to protecting copyright beyond the terms of the increasingly-protective law, perhaps it will in the future.

Some slashdot readers will no doubt say, "Open source, you idiot!" Open source is a reaction to these problems, not a solution to them. Despite the open source phenomenon, the trend is toward more and more works being locked up, and locked up permanently, behind laws and cryptographic protocols. It shouldn't have to be a war between words, pictures and code that is always free to use and words, pictures and code that is locked up for all eternity - we should demand that the social contract envisioned in the Constitution be fulfilled by forcing copyright holders to give back to society, whether they want to or not.

-- Michael Sims

[1] Gratuitous Cryptonomicon reference provided free of charge.

[2] Quote may not reflect Rosen's exact words, but does reflect her intent.

Thanks to Lawrence Lessig for sending us a filing that he and Mark Lemley have put before the FCC. The filing, also in PDF, deals with open access as well as principles of network design. It's a long piece, but well worth reading.Thanks to Lawrence for another link.