Slashdot Mirror

Allow me to take this up another level.

To paraphrase Lawrence Lessig, the control they seek is of "culture". If you accept that much of culture in our society is commuted through music and film, then you may begin to see that the RIAA and MPAA have evolved beyond controlling their respective businesses and are on the precipice of controlling certain aspects of the transmission of culture in our society.

Look at the top lobbys in congress, the RIAA is strangely in the top 5. Why should they feel the need to spend millions and millions on public policy. The tech lobby on capitol hill is tiny by comparison, although the market for tech product is an order of magnitude larger.

Peoples opinions may vary, but I remember back to the Fall of 2001, during the creation of the Homeland Security legislation. A friend on the hill informed me that the RIAA was trying to insert language into said legislation affording them freedom from liability in the event they hack someones computer insearch of copyright infringments and "accidentally" destroy said computer. Imho this is a total abuse of power.

Ehrm... (not connected w/ the Dean campaign or any other in any way, shape, or form -- I'm just an interested observer :)...

Have you looked at deanforamerica.com? I'd say that site is a good indicator of Internet-awareness. The man has a *blog*, for crying out loud! Actually, all the Democratic candidates are trying to capitalize on the Internet, which is IMHO a Good Thing, though it's taking some of them longer than others.

Contrast Dean's site with Bush's (ooh, shiney) for a good illustration of why the former is considered "net-savvy." (yes i know incumbents don't need to mobilize as early as challengers, yes i know Bush's site is a "temporary site," but Dean's campaign is still a masterful example of how to mobilize the internet community. i long for the day when the *president* writes a daily weblog.)

Oh, and if you think Dean is another Democrat who is against everything Slashdotters hold dear, check out some of his posts on Lawrence Lessig's blog. (Kucinich has some interesting things to say here as well. He's even pro-GPL!)

Ehrm... (not connected w/ the Dean campaign or any other in any way, shape, or form -- I'm just an interested observer :)...

Have you looked at deanforamerica.com? I'd say that site is a good indicator of Internet-awareness. The man has a *blog*, for crying out loud! Actually, all the Democratic candidates are trying to capitalize on the Internet, which is IMHO a Good Thing, though it's taking some of them longer than others.

Contrast Dean's site with Bush's (ooh, shiney) for a good illustration of why the former is considered "net-savvy." (yes i know incumbents don't need to mobilize as early as challengers, yes i know Bush's site is a "temporary site," but Dean's campaign is still a masterful example of how to mobilize the internet community. i long for the day when the *president* writes a daily weblog.)

Oh, and if you think Dean is another Democrat who is against everything Slashdotters hold dear, check out some of his posts on Lawrence Lessig's blog. (Kucinich has some interesting things to say here as well. He's even pro-GPL!)

Ehrm... (not connected w/ the Dean campaign or any other in any way, shape, or form -- I'm just an interested observer :)...

Have you looked at deanforamerica.com? I'd say that site is a good indicator of Internet-awareness. The man has a *blog*, for crying out loud! Actually, all the Democratic candidates are trying to capitalize on the Internet, which is IMHO a Good Thing, though it's taking some of them longer than others.

Contrast Dean's site with Bush's (ooh, shiney) for a good illustration of why the former is considered "net-savvy." (yes i know incumbents don't need to mobilize as early as challengers, yes i know Bush's site is a "temporary site," but Dean's campaign is still a masterful example of how to mobilize the internet community. i long for the day when the *president* writes a daily weblog.)

Oh, and if you think Dean is another Democrat who is against everything Slashdotters hold dear, check out some of his posts on Lawrence Lessig's blog. (Kucinich has some interesting things to say here as well. He's even pro-GPL!)

Ok, so everybody is making fun of this story with all its inane questions.

But think of this: DRM in software makes it possible for corporations to give an exact answer to every one of these inane questions.

Where we used to have "common sense", unregulated uses of the media - for example, loaning your CD to your buddy for the afternoon - software will very soon dictate EXACTLY when and where you have each and every one of these inane rights.

If we don't act to protect the unregulated use of the media, code will decide it for us.

I got these ideas from Lawrence Lessig .

Lawrence Lessig suggested a system of spam bounties - make spam illegal (unless marked by a standardized subject header for trivial filtering), charge hefty fines for violator, and use the money to reward the first spam recipient who finds the sender (and proves their guilt). Now, of course that would be easily circumvented by national boundaries (just move the spamming offshore to a third-world country), but since most of the Internet is used by industrialized countries that would all hate spam, they can easily bully other nations into enacting the same laws (with mutual extradition). Much like drug laws, except smuggling would be a lot harder, so it might actually work.

1. Functional
   These are works that serve some sort of functional use within society. This includes text books, manuals, and software. These works should be free as in speech.
   
   
2. Biographical
   These are works that are compliations of a particular authors opinions. RMS thought these could go either way. Maybe they could have a limited period of monopolistic power (of course no longer than 2 years).
   
   
3. Aesthetic
   These are works that only have aesthetic value (in other words, they are the shiny things of the world). Stallman stated that a copyright system should allow a 2-3 year monopoly on such works (this means the RIAA could still do all it does but that you'd be allow to trade songs that were 3+ years old).

Quick book plug for people interested in this issue.

Lawrence Lessig had this topic as a major theme of his book "The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World."

The book is a good read to get a feel for Lessig's ideas about copyright, the Public Domain, and other commons. It was written while the Eldred case was still winding its way through the courts, so that section is now a bit dated (but his blog can get you up to date on the case, which was lost on appeal in the supreme court).

I don't want to waste what time we have left with the present PC paradigm waiting for open source applications to catch up to the features and quality that proprietary software has TODAY.

How ironic it is then that you're talking about an Ogg Vorbis player--a patent-free encoding scheme invented to provide a competitive alternative to a patented scheme that can not legally be implemented in Free Software.

Peruvian Congressman Villanueva probably doesn't want to wait either, so he's working on Bill 1609 to put Free Software into public administration in Peru. The German government is funding a Free Software replacement for Outlook. These are just a couple examples of the things non-programmers around the world can do to help the cause of Free Software.

Nobody is saying you can't choose which software you want or that you will die if you pick proprietary software, those are straw arguments. I'm saying it is more reasonable to increase the number of people who are allowed to know what's going on with the software you run. We should hold all proprietary software to the same high standard we currently hold Microsoft's (overwhelmingly non-free) software to. Proprietary software, no matter what its ostensible purpose, can do things you would not like it to do. In order to keep the software from doing these undesirable things, we all need to develop and maintain a network of people who will inspect, share, and modify software to suit our needs. Keeping people from understanding how the software works helps these undesirable features stay hidden.

Couldn't geeks have found something better to support than "Free Software"? What was wrong with good old environmentalism or fighting against sweatshops in 3rd world countries?

There is no need to choose just one cause. There are people working on Free Software, the issues you name, and many other socially progressive issues all at the same time. I happen to be adept with computers, I support the Free Software movement, and I work on multiple other socially progressive projects. I think these movements draw like-minded people because their opposites (anti-environment, pro-sweatshop labor, anti-Free Software) usually come as a result of putting more power into fewer unaccountable hands.

Another way in which the anti-sweatshop movement and the environmental movement are both like the Free Software movement is how they all encourage you to think beyond your immediate desires. Sweatshop labor produces cheap goods which are readily available. But sweatshop labor also means people are working very hard and not getting paid a living wage. The anti-sweatshop labor movement encourages you to think beyond buying goods strictly based on price and consider helping poor workers make a fair living. The environmental movement wants you to think more about the car you drive, your heating and cooling system, and the advantages of recycling (amongst other things). In the Free Software movement you are encouraged to think beyond your immediate desire for a particular piece of software (such as the Ogg Vorbis player in this thread) and consider using a Free Software replacement instead. All of these things take a little bit of foresight and a lot of hard PR work to get people to not blindly comply with the latest advertisement.

These causes are not unique in the amount of work it takes to make them practical: it's hard work to make people aware of things and aware of people beyond themselves. It takes a lot of time and effort to provide socially responsible substitutes (competitive fair-wage clothing, low-emission vehicles, and yes, complete free software operating systems). So each of these movements (and many others) want you to volunteer your time and expertise.

MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT NOR EVER WANT TO BE PROGRAMMERS.

That is true, but most people do not want the private information on their computer leaked via a security hole, and most people are unhappy to discover that the secrecy of proprietary software allowed "spyware" (as it is called today) to execute on their machine. We aren't all scientists who understand the finer details of the things we use every day, but that doesn't mean we can't understand that gas hog cars, high pollutant exhausts, certain refrigerants, garbage landfills, and proprietary software are all bad in the long-term.

The Free Software movement has responses to the challenges they face and they target all computer users with their message. The Free Software movement can certainly use help in making their message clearer to non-programmers and getting their ideas out in front of the public. I hope you'll read what the FSF has to say and help them focus their message to reach a wider audience. After having worked on a congressional campaign, I have experienced first-hand how difficult it is to get the media's attention for an ethically-based message. I imagine helping the FSF get their message in front of the public is no easier.

No one is going to di[sic] if they can't copy a piece of software, a song, a video or a book. LIFE WILL GO ON, and it won't be bad.

Ask Lawrence Lessig how bad it will be. He knows a lot about the connections of copyright law, media access, and dissenting opinion. He champions what he calls "free culture", an idea that is well worth hearing. Preserving the freedoms to communicate and increasing these freedoms to allow more dissent to be heard are movements worth fighting for. Criticizing works can require copying portions of works, so if copying is made unavailable, critique and dissent are far more difficult. This might not seem like a big deal to you, but it is to people who want to convey unpopular messages including: not wanting an infinitely long copyright term, not bombing Iraq, and stopping the war of sanctions against Iraq, and no more "software patents". I hope you'll become more politically aware and see the extant connections that govern your life.

• Don't just tell your friends, though that is an OK start if that's all you feel comfortable with. I think you should seriously lobby the person(s) who you know (or have some sort of access to) who:
• Have influence over more people than you do. This could be your boss, your Mayor, your Bartender. Choose someone who can affect the habits of more people than you can with less effort.
  
  
  • As an example, I sent the link to Lessig's site plus information on his books, a link to the EFF's whitepaper Unintended Consequences: Three Years Under the DMCA, information about the Skylarov Case, and links to Lessig's other speeches to the VP of Information Technology at my University.
  • I sent this same information to one of my former professors who teaches classes in leadership for a Masters program that churns out upper-level managers for technolgy and telecommunication firms. He in turn will probably (knowing him) make his students read it. I have suggested Lessig's books as textbooks for his class. He also teaches classes in public policy... which is right up this alley.
  
  
  
• Work to raise the level of outrage in your local and national politicians. Seriously... one hand written letter a week will get noticed. Even better, form collectives with Geeks in your area and create letter rings. One person in the group writes a letter and a SASE, then mails it in a larger envelope to another in the group. That person can read the letter for inspiration, writes his or her own, includes more postage, and sends it on. After it gets to the last person, the letters are put into their respective SASEs and mailed off. In the end, how ever many letters (equal to the number in your group... the more the better) lands in the inbox of your Rep roughly once a week. It WILL have an impact. No Rep will ignore 40 letters on the same topic a month (assuming you have a group of 10 writers and that the month has 4 weeks... more is always better). Make sure to always tell how many voters you have influence over. My wife once included the fact that she worked with a couple of hundred voting age students on a questionaire that we recieved from a Rep. Not long after, we got a personal letter that addressed some of the concerns that we had raised.
• Other examples of Highest Order of Power are welcome

For those of you who don't want to download the massive 8mb presentation here are the links at the end.

eldred.cc

creativecommons.org

publicknowledge.org

eff.org

lessig.org

posted anonymously for humanitarian purposes.

IANAL...However...I remember watching a TechTV special with Lawrence Lessig talking about copyright and the Internet. In the program, he said that cable can regulate what they can and can not carry. Phone companies, however, because they are a "common carrier", have to allow any type of transmission on their network without bias and discrimination.

In many cases, however, a read through the theory will save you a lot of time

I think it's valuable to do reading in things other than technical manuals to get a handle on the forces that shape and are shaped by the technology that IT professionals help shape. I know I'm playing fast and loose with the context of the quote I put above, but I really think that computer professionals benefit a lot by reading about how the law and technology influence each other (and how one sometimes outpaces the other and the ramifications that can have).

To that end, I'll recommend anything written by Lawrence Lessig until I'm blue in the face. The Future of Ideas and Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace go really far in illuminating what (to anyone without Lessigs years of education and practical application) can seem like randomly occuring and chaotic changes in policy and technology.

I also think that being able to speak about history and law in technology contexts is a good career move, especially for those of us who aren't the most talented coders. Business, government and education all waste millions every year because they lack the foresight to come up with good IT policy. There's a lot of change to be made here, but it takes more than just technical knowledge to do it right.

>Demonstrate to me why you have the right to take another's thoughts and use them for your own purposes?

Shakespeare and his analysis of the human condition through plays is the basis for much modern literature.

What you propose would make almost every single book written in America illegal because it takes the thoughts of Shakespeare and reworks them.

Hell, you even just proposed Star Trek: Wrath of Kahn and the episode where data gets "drunk" be illegal, not to mention countless other programs that have used references to his literature without attribution.

>Apparently the framer's of the Constitution felt that the right to own the interpretations of one's ideas was vital to the expansion of science and art in America

Yeah, they put limited copyright in there because any and all copyright slows development with an unlimited money supply. They also realised that since the money supply isn't unlimited, a reasonable amount of copyright must be in place to ensure people have enough resources to create new works. Do you think Disney, the RIAA, or the MPAA needs more copyright to remain profitable -- because they are the ones always asking for it.

I really hope I've completely misread what you've said.

If so, sorry. If not, take a trip to this site and read more about what I'm saying from a law Professor.

BTW: You'll see below I used some else's thought (this is an actual quote) for my own purpose. And, you'll also notice, they can't do anything about it whatsoever, even in America!

I was there - alternative views *did* get a hearing - albeit in a minority. Mundie's talk was mainly dedicated to hyping some MS gadgets - tablet PC & somethig he called 'Ring Cam' in blythe ignorance of Australians' anatomical interpretation of the word 'Ring'. I didn't hear him mention GPL - if he did it was very quick - remember he was preaching to the IT industry. he was more interested in predicting a future populated by billions of wireles knick-knacks that do stuff we are told we will want

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Lessig does not think copyright is evil, he thinks it's a useful tool to ensure that creators have an incentive to create. But he feels that it should be for limited times only. In any case, I'm not gonna sum up lessig for you here. I'll let him do that.

There's an .pdf article with some interesting ideas linked to this at Lessig's site - Reclaiming a Commons