Slashdot Mirror

But to me there is a big practical difference between the former example -- which involved the unambiguous butchering of human beings -- and the latter, which involves issues that are arcane and technical for the typical "Joe on the street" (even though it may seem much more clear and obvious to /. readers and tech-savvy people in general). Unless the Feds did due diligence in looking very carefully at the crypto and interoperability exemptions in the DMCA, sections 1201(c)(1) and 1201(c)(4), then they were basically (and, IMHO, not unreasonably), following the law as written. Since this case is not nearly so obvious to a lay person as murder would be, and since there is zero case law on the books for the DMCA, it's not that unreasonable for them to take the "seems like the right thing to do; if not, the court will tell us" approach. Unfortunately this means that an (again, IMHO) innocent person gets thrown into a federal detention center for several weeks.

I'm not saying it's right -- just understandable.

Remember: it takes a solid, clear-headed understanding of US constitutional history and philosophy; a good knowledge of the pertinent recent history in the technological realm (Betamax, PC-BIOS, DAT, Diamond Rio, DeCSS, and now this); and a decent technical understanding of how this affects crypto folks, researchers, everyday users, and the net in general; to truly appreciate the implications of this case in its full context.

I've been trying to educate my parents (who immigrated to the US from Soviet Russia in 1977) about this case, and even for them it has not been an easy sell. It makes for an interesting barometer, though, and I suggest anyone trying to educate their less-tech-literate friends about this keep that idea in mind.

-HJR

"We need fewer laws, not more."

Depends on the law. We need fewer laws that restrict our freedoms. What we need is more laws that limit the power of Government and wealthy corporations: campaign finance reform, "sunshine" laws, laws that hold public officials accountable for abuses of power, consumer protection laws, enviornmental protection laws, and so forth.

The US government derives it's legitimate authority to govern from the Constitution. The Constitution limits the Federal government's authority to only those powers explictly granted to it (per the 10th amendment). Unfortunately, Congress frequently oversteps it's Constitutional authority (How many times have they ignored the phrase "Congress shall pass no law..."?). Unfortunately, the Constitution has a bug: any law that Congress passes and the President signs are automatically presumed to be Constitutional until they are challanged in the courts. The president is supposed to Veto any unconstitutional legislation; unfortunately most Presidents seem to shirk this duty in favor of advancing their own political agendas. The whole situation is enought to make you sick.

"We need fewer laws, not more."

Depends on the law. We need fewer laws that restrict our freedoms. What we need is more laws that limit the power of Government and wealthy corporations: campaign finance reform, "sunshine" laws, laws that hold public officials accountable for abuses of power, consumer protection laws, enviornmental protection laws, and so forth.

The US government derives it's legitimate authority to govern from the Constitution. The Constitution limits the Federal government's authority to only those powers explictly granted to it (per the 10th amendment). Unfortunately, Congress frequently oversteps it's Constitutional authority (How many times have they ignored the phrase "Congress shall pass no law..."?). Unfortunately, the Constitution has a bug: any law that Congress passes and the President signs are automatically presumed to be Constitutional until they are challanged in the courts. The president is supposed to Veto any unconstitutional legislation; unfortunately most Presidents seem to shirk this duty in favor of advancing their own political agendas. The whole situation is enought to make you sick.

Except that there are two classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition on circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. The second is

Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage or obsolescence.

If they are sold as audio CDs with the logo but are not Red Book compliant, then this exemption clearly applies, since the technological measure is clearly addressing a mechanism that fails to permit access due to malfunction.

As a side note, once you get to know the system a bit, looking through the congressional record, etc. can be quite interesting. For quick access to roll call votes on some of the more well-known bills, Project Vote Smart and the C-Span Vote Library can be useful.

That's a bad interpretation. Copyright protection is described by the Library of Congress as:
...subsist[ing] from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work.
Seems pretty unequivocal to me. The author owns the work, not the people. It's all spelled out in Copyright Basics produced by the Copyright Office.

That's a bad interpretation. Copyright protection is described by the Library of Congress as:
...subsist[ing] from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work.
Seems pretty unequivocal to me. The author owns the work, not the people. It's all spelled out in Copyright Basics produced by the Copyright Office.

Also, what was the DMCA bill number?
--
Lord Nimon

Indeed, the proponents of DMCA made precisely this argument: "we can't put a fair use provision into this statute because if we did, it would be treated under the Copyright Clause."

• Title I is called the "WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act of 1998"?
• Title II is called the "Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act"?
• Title III "creates an exemption for making a copy of a computer program by activating a computer for purposes of maintenance or repair", according to the report and summary of the Office of Copyright in the Library of Congress?
• "Title IV contains six miscellaneous provisions, relating to the functions of the Copyright Office, distance education, the exceptions in the Copyright Act for libraries and for making ephemeral recordings, "webcasting" of sound recordings on the Internet, and the applicability of collective bargaining agreement obligations in the case of transfers of rights in motion pictures."? (same source)

Do you really think any competent, impartial judge is going to buy an argument that the DMCA is not a copyright law and therefore authorized by the Copyright Clause?

I don't live in the U.S so I don't really have a problem doing this:

I just hope you have no plans to visit...or if so, that you add in a few extra years to your schedule...

• censorship-resistant publishing systems, why they are important
• Freenet, vs. Publius
• Gnutella, vs. Publius
• HTTP, Publius implemented over protocol
• Publius, documents, deleting/updating
• Publius, implemented over HTTP
• Publius, vs. Freenet
• Publius, vs. Gnutella
• Publius, why it is important
• Publius URL, tamper-check mechanism
• tamper-check mechanism (Publius URL)

There has been some recent public criticism of Gnutella because it might give child pornography a place to thrive. I am happy to report, however, that those who traffic in child porn will be no safer using Gnutella than they are anywhere else. That's because the users are not anonymous.

Gnutella requires IP addresses in order to make a connection between a site with a file and a site that wants a file. The host IP address is shown as part of the search results in Gnubile, and probably in other clones as well. Ergo, anyone offering files with names that identify the files as child porn is bound to attract the attention of the authorities

Adobe's a member of the BSA.

The BSA has an interesting statement on the DMCA here. This is a response to a Library of Congress rule available here.

Members of the BSA include Adobe, Apple Computer, Autodesk, Bentley Systems, CNC Software/Mastercam, Compaq, Corel Corporation, IBM, Intel, Intuit, Lotus Development, Macromedia, Microsoft, Network Associates, Novell, Sybase, Symantec, and Walker Digital; i.e. most of /.'s favourite hate companies, plus some extras.

These are the guys to line up against. They've been around since the '80s. I suspect that Adobe's lawyers are all BSA stooges. Certainly Adobe's PR department doesn't seem to be toeing the BSA line.

How about this for bad PR
I did a google search for DMCA.
The first result, was linked to a paper outlining the ligislature that makes up the DMCA ...in PDF format!!!

Because it was passed on a voice vote of those present. There is no record of either who was present at the vote (other than "a quorum"), or who voted for it (other than "a majority of the quorum").

Yes, this sucks.

After a little clicking around I did find the following:

The House Journal records the deed thusly:

para.109.22 wpo copyright treaties implementation

[...]

The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mrs. EMERSON, recognized Mr. COBLE and Ms. JACKSON-LEE, each for 20 minutes.

After debate,

The question being put, viva voce,

Will the House suspend the rules and agree to said conference report?

The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mrs. EMERSON, announced that two-thirds of the Members present had voted in the affirmative.

So, two-thirds of the Members present having voted in favor thereof, the rules were suspended and said conference report was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider the vote whereby the rules were suspended and said conference report was agreed to was passed was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.

Ordered, That the Clerk notify the Senate thereof.

For the Senate I have not even found that much. Thomas (the Library of Congress) simply says, "Senate agreed to conference report by Unanimous Consent".

I guess we have to hold them all responsible for voting it into law since we can't single them out. (This would have been the 105th Congress BTW.)

The sponsor of the bill is listed as Howard Coble. Co-sponsors are Howard L Berman, Sonny Bono, Barney Frank, Bill McCollum, Charles Pickering, Mary Bono, John Conyers Jr., Henry J. Hyde, and Bill Paxton. Needless to say, if any of these are running for office in your jurisdiction I urge you to not vote for them.

Because it was passed on a voice vote of those present. There is no record of either who was present at the vote (other than "a quorum"), or who voted for it (other than "a majority of the quorum").

Yes, this sucks.

After a little clicking around I did find the following:

The House Journal records the deed thusly:

para.109.22 wpo copyright treaties implementation

[...]

The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mrs. EMERSON, recognized Mr. COBLE and Ms. JACKSON-LEE, each for 20 minutes.

After debate,

The question being put, viva voce,

Will the House suspend the rules and agree to said conference report?

The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mrs. EMERSON, announced that two-thirds of the Members present had voted in the affirmative.

So, two-thirds of the Members present having voted in favor thereof, the rules were suspended and said conference report was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider the vote whereby the rules were suspended and said conference report was agreed to was passed was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.

Ordered, That the Clerk notify the Senate thereof.

For the Senate I have not even found that much. Thomas (the Library of Congress) simply says, "Senate agreed to conference report by Unanimous Consent".

I guess we have to hold them all responsible for voting it into law since we can't single them out. (This would have been the 105th Congress BTW.)

The sponsor of the bill is listed as Howard Coble. Co-sponsors are Howard L Berman, Sonny Bono, Barney Frank, Bill McCollum, Charles Pickering, Mary Bono, John Conyers Jr., Henry J. Hyde, and Bill Paxton. Needless to say, if any of these are running for office in your jurisdiction I urge you to not vote for them.

Which may work well for broad issues, but would be an unmitigated disaster for the details. What percentage of the population is truly politically active? Even among them, how many follow the issues closely enough to cast an informed vote on every issue?

The vast majority would simply vote the way their media source of choice would tell them to (though of course, not be "told" in so many words), because they don't have the time or experience to folow the legislative minutia.

Direct democracy is dangerous in that regard, especially as we continue to complicate our everyday lives more and more through technology. The reason representative governments were created in the first place may have been for simplicity, but the fact is that given the amount and level of detail of modern legislation, very few except those whose full-time jobs are to deal with it can keep up with it all. And probably not even then -- that's one of the main reasons why Congressmen have staffers: to help them understand what they're voting on.

To illustrate, go to Thomas and look up 10 random bills and see how long it takes you to not only be able to summarize them, but to be able to answer any question about them.

--

Please understand that I'm not defending the DMCA, however, all it is doing is defining what constitutes 'burgulary tools' with respect to software. This doesn't make it any more legal or fair or just, however, there is prescident for these kinds of definitions.

Many states have laws against posession of burgulary tools however, most states require that these tools are posesses with intent to commit a superceding crime (usually the top count of an engeightment). It is NOT illegal to sell or distribute burgulary tools.

This is the difference between all the burgulatry tools laws and the DMCA. The DMCA makes it illegal to distribute (software) burgulary tools. In my reading of the DMCA(pdf there is no requirement to prove intent, and distribution itself is the crime. The question then becomes, how is it that the DMCA has been violated if the software in question was never distributed inside the United states?

--CTH

--

There is a clause (section 1201d) in the DMCA that allows for research. However, this company is profitting from their research by selling software that circumvents the security on PDF files. This is not allowed under the DMCA and a criminal penalty exists for wilfully violating section 1201 or 1202 for financial gain. The penalties range from up to $500,000 in fines or 5 years in prison for the first offense and up to $1,000,000 or 10 years in prison for the subsequent offenses. Unfortunately, I can't copy and paste the statues here because they're in PDF format on the Library of Congress website but here is the link.

Under Title 17 of the U.S. Code, libraries are permitted to lend materials - books, magazines, videotapes, DVDs, CDs, cassettes, CD-ROMs, etc, with certain restrictions. IANAL, but from everything I've seen and everything my local public library's lawyer has said (I'm an employee), the publishers don't really have much of a leg to stand on shy of changing U.S. Copyright law outright.

Kind of like copying a tape for a friend.

No, copying a tape for a friend is legal under the Audio Home Recording Act.

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

well, it doesnt appear to be a blatant troll. The last section is absolutely correct (being that is copied directly from here and the lawyer actually exists.

Others have pointed out that the hole doesn't cover most material from the past five years (due to appropriately revised agreements). It's also worth noting that the memory hole for stuff prior to that won't be permanent. Copyright protection lasts a long time, but it does expire. The details are slightly involved:

Fine; but what you think and what is actually true are two different things. The poster you responded to is correct. Titles, like instructions and recipes, cannot themselves be copyrighted.

Next time, please at least bother to look it up before you post erroneous information.

--

Representative Ron Wyden's number is 503-326-7525. I called his office and expressed my views.

The legislation is called the CAN SPAM Act of 2001.

If that link doesn't work, try Thomas, put "spam" in the search field and click on "Can SPAM act of 2001".

The bill suggests that "Opt-Out" is a remedy. This is extreme social ignorance of the type that is common among politicians. For support for this view, see the comment #128 above, "Opt-Out is a game like Whack-a-Mole." Or, possibly the bill was actually written by lobbyists for spam-friendly ISPs. As John McCain says, the U.S. government is quite corrupt.

However, be careful when you think about this issue. The First Amendment has pulled us out of a lot of big messes in the past. It is possible that it would be difficult to write anti-spam legislation that does not interfere with the First Amendment. If it is not possible to outlaw spam without abridging the first amendment, then it is actually better to have spam.

Representative Ron Wyden's number is 503-326-7525. I called his office and expressed my views.

The legislation is called the CAN SPAM Act of 2001.

If that link doesn't work, try Thomas, put "spam" in the search field and click on "Can SPAM act of 2001".

The bill suggests that "Opt-Out" is a remedy. This is extreme social ignorance of the type that is common among politicians. For support for this view, see the comment #128 above, "Opt-Out is a game like Whack-a-Mole." Or, possibly the bill was actually written by lobbyists for spam-friendly ISPs. As John McCain says, the U.S. government is quite corrupt.

However, be careful when you think about this issue. The First Amendment has pulled us out of a lot of big messes in the past. It is possible that it would be difficult to write anti-spam legislation that does not interfere with the First Amendment. If it is not possible to outlaw spam without abridging the first amendment, then it is actually better to have spam.

Well, they requested public comment on the DMCA also, more than once, and did it work? We are dealing with too strong lobbies. Anyhow, if you are American, you better shout. Loud. This is a battle fought in every country. It only happens to be your time of action this time.

Well, they requested public comment on the DMCA also, more than once, and did it work? We are dealing with too strong lobbies. Anyhow, if you are American, you better shout. Loud. This is a battle fought in every country. It only happens to be your time of action this time.

[Congress shall have the power] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

The current "life of the author (mind you, this now include corporations) plus 100+ years" for copyrights needs serious curtailing as this is not "limited" but for any human's life... eternity. And it's been extended AND EXTENDED RETROACTIVELY every time the first Mickey Mouse cartoons were about to expire copyright and become public domain.

My solution?

(1) Copyright is 20 years from the date of creation.
(2) Copyright must belong to a person, not a corp. and must not be sellable or in any way transferrable.
(3) Copyrights may be relinquished voluntarily.
(4) Death of the author == instant relinquishment.

the Congress is currently concidering simular legislation in the form of H.R. 1017 and S.630

the Congress is currently concidering simular legislation in the form of H.R. 1017 and S.630

For the definitive discussion of the right to privacy, see Hanna Arendt's The Human Condition and her distinction between public and private life.

Greatly simplifying her argument, she says that the essence of totalitarianism is the intrusion of the state into the private life of the citizen, in effect abolishing the distinction between public and private. Without a private sphere, there can be no freedom.

Until recently, privacy was protected by mechanical considerations. Aside from outright intrusions by the state, the effort to collect and distribute private information was so expensive that it was impractical.

The digital nature of data now reduces those mechanical barriers that protected privacy so that things in the past that were de facto private now are de facto public. The main threat to privacy is not the state but the irresponsible use of technology. To take just one example, tapping a telephone line was once a complicated process. Now, using readily available scanners, tapping a cell phone or a cordless phone is cheap and easy.

One solution is a new, more precise legal definition of what is private with specified legal sanctions. The effect of this law would permit someone whose private information was revealed or used without his permission to sue for damages. It would also open those who used private information without explicit permission open to criminal charges.

In effect, personal information becomes private property and people can post "No Trespassing" signs on their lives, enforceable by law.

Unfortunately you're very very wrong. The DMCA law (US) was based on an international copyright treaty (the World Copyright Treaty) that has already been ratified by the EU and a handful of other nations. And more are on the way. Check some of the provisions (PDF, sorry) coming soon to an industrialized nation near you. Further developments such as the FTAA will certainly bring these IP protections to other countries that currently ignore them.

You are of course correct that a large percentage of the world's population doesn't have such laws. BUT a) the countries that are affected are the richest in the world, and therefore the most significant for the content-production industry. And b) they're us: I could care less if Chinese have the right to watch movies as they please, if I (and neighboring countries, for that matter) don't.

There are plenty of REGION-FREE DVD players on the market, available NOW

Those that exist are expensive, or not available for import to this country. The CSS folks still have control of the license. If you produce a region-free commercial DVD player for sale in the US (or other nations where and when applicable laws are in place), you'd better have a CSS license or you will be sued. Having a CSS license means you agree to a long list of conditions which the CSS folks will enforce upon you.

In any case, region coding is not the end-all example of player control. The movie studios aren't going to foam at the mouth if a few people are using such players. If everyone began using them, they'd probably have something to say about it, and the DMCA would give them the right to go after unlicensed CSS-enabled player manufacturers.

CSS is just a first step, a sort of trial balloon. It doesn't really prevent copying as we all know. It's purpose right now seems largely to test the laws in the courts. If they stand up, we will be seeing much more aggressive use of "encryption" used to permit legal shenanigans.

So, as long as the yankees will be stupid, they will have the DCMCA, and region-locked DVD players.

Hell yes. We are stupid. I only wish the rest of the democratic world were showing signs of brain life. Unfortunately, it looks like they're as bad as us.

...it is clear that, at present, most works available in DVD format are also available in analog format (VHS tape) as well. ... When distributed in analog formats--formats in which distribution is likely to continue for the foreseeable future-- these works are not protected by any technological measures controlling access. ... Therefore, any harm caused by the existence of access control measures used in DVDs can be avoided by obtaining a copy of the work in analog format.

They essentially said "don't worry about lack of fair use for DVDs, you can always rely on VHS." Imagine if the law had been passed 10 years earlier and CDs had similar content protection measures. The Librarian of Congress would be saying, "Don't worry, you still have LPs and cassettes."

New LPs are extremely rare, and it looks like cassettes are going the same way. THIS IS THE FUTURE FOR VIDEO. I have no doubt that the studios will start phasing out VHS tapes in the near future. As they go so shall the VHS player.

We already see differental treatment of DVDs and VHS. Let's say that you want to buy a copy of that hit movie Antitrust (starring Ryan Phillippe as a hacker -- realistic...). The DVD version can be yours for the low, low price of $19.99 at Amazon.com. But wait, you want to be able to make fair use of the video, so you take heart in the fact that the VHS version is available as well. Boy are you in for a surprise. The VHS version can be had for a mere $106.99 from our pals at Amazon.com.

Why do I feel like I've been mugged?

This is a mild spam bill. It's "opt-out", not "opt-in". It doesn't require the "ADV:" marker that California law requires, although there's a vaguer marking requirement. It has a "limited private right of action", and doesn't allow class action suits. The enforcement organization is the FTC, which rarely brings criminal prosecutions even where the law allows it.

It's mostly a relief bill for ISPs. Spammers are required to avoid spending spam to ISPs that don't want to take it. This sounds like something AOL is pushing.

One particular nice feature covers anti-spam policies expressed during SMTP negotiation:
(ii) NOTIFICATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH TECHNOLOGICAL STANDARD- Such policy is made publicly available by the provider of Internet access service in accordance with a technological standard adopted by an appropriate Internet standards setting body (such as the Internet Engineering Task Force) and recognized by the Commission by rule as a fair standard.

Switching from red to green to blue makes the image almost like an animated GIF... you can see the trees sway and the clouds go by....

Not only are these photos in color, they also give you a sort of moving picture of nature in the scene.

This stuff is amazing...

In fact, the color saturation reminds me of my digital camara, which may be an artifact of the camera used to digitize the original plates.

Or maybe they just applied too much S in Photoshop.

-B

"What is copyright" describes the exclusive rights of you the copyright holder, such as "to prepare derivative works based upon the work", which you can do yourself and can authorize others to do (or not authorize, as you see fit). By authorizing you're not giving up anything other than, of course, the ability to whine when someone does something that you actually authorized them to do. :-)

"Transfer of copyright" describes what you have to do in order to transfer some or all of your exclusive rights to another entity. Seems that it has to be in writing and signed by you in order for you to "lose" your rights and for the other entity to gain the "exclusiveness" of them, otherwise you still have those rights too (and they get non-exclusive rights, I guess, which is maybe the same as being authorized).

If you write some source code and don't put it in the public domain and don't sign a piece of paper that says that your code belongs to someone else now, well, it seems to me that you still have the original full set of rights, and not whatever limited/restricted set you may have authorized for other people. You may freely decide to only use the restricted set, but that is your decision, and I cannot see anything that binds you to it.

Anyone got an idea of what the parallel lines are in this pic are?

The blades of grass are out of focus probably because he wasn't shooting at F64 and the grass is outside the depth of field. Since the grass is often green, it would show less fringing even if there were a breeze.

If you *still* think it's polarization, explain which polarization effect would explain this. The little girl on the far left has a full ghost image of herself consistent with what you'd expect to see if these images were taken in succession and she did, as children tend to do, a pitch forward to get herself up after she got bored of staying in one place for so long.

If you look at this picture you'll see that the little girl on the far left was in motion during the photo and you can see her different positions as a color separation. All the images with motion in them (water, smoke, people in the background) show this same effect.

A church that's 800 years old looks like the day it was built to my eyes, and that most of the wear and tear that I'm used to has occurred just within the past century.

No kidding! Just look at this picture of the Church of St. Dmitrii from the exhibit, and compare it to this one, taken in the early 1990s. The recent one is filthy.

That the deterioration to these buildings occurred largely in the last century is correct, but do not place the blame solely on the industrialization. The Soviet state had a much greater effect on the current poor condition of Russian Orthodox churches.

During the rule of Lenin and Stalin, thousands of churches were completely destroyed, most famously, The Church of Christ the Saviour, in Moscow. Many more were damaged and looted, others were used as clubs or wharehouses, like the magnificent Church of the Savior on the Blood in St. Petersburg (picture here). It has only been relatively recently that major restorations have been undertaken to return some of these architectural landmarks to their former glory. Furthermore, a state obsessed with military parity with the West had few resources left to perform even simple maintenance to clean the facades of many buildings.

Something else that is interesting is how, in some respects, so little has changed from the time these pictures were taken. Aside from the clothing, this picture could have been taken in any Russian town this very day. And a train ride through the Russian countryside reveals many villages that look similar to this even today.

Prokudin-Gorskii's photographs are simply amazing, though, a real treasure. I agree with many of the other posters who said that these pictures place one's black and white mental image of the past in a whole new light. Kudos to the Library of Congress for this exhibit. I am sure it will be of immense value to scholars and students world wide.

A church that's 800 years old looks like the day it was built to my eyes, and that most of the wear and tear that I'm used to has occurred just within the past century.

No kidding! Just look at this picture of the Church of St. Dmitrii from the exhibit, and compare it to this one, taken in the early 1990s. The recent one is filthy.

That the deterioration to these buildings occurred largely in the last century is correct, but do not place the blame solely on the industrialization. The Soviet state had a much greater effect on the current poor condition of Russian Orthodox churches.

During the rule of Lenin and Stalin, thousands of churches were completely destroyed, most famously, The Church of Christ the Saviour, in Moscow. Many more were damaged and looted, others were used as clubs or wharehouses, like the magnificent Church of the Savior on the Blood in St. Petersburg (picture here). It has only been relatively recently that major restorations have been undertaken to return some of these architectural landmarks to their former glory. Furthermore, a state obsessed with military parity with the West had few resources left to perform even simple maintenance to clean the facades of many buildings.

Something else that is interesting is how, in some respects, so little has changed from the time these pictures were taken. Aside from the clothing, this picture could have been taken in any Russian town this very day. And a train ride through the Russian countryside reveals many villages that look similar to this even today.

Prokudin-Gorskii's photographs are simply amazing, though, a real treasure. I agree with many of the other posters who said that these pictures place one's black and white mental image of the past in a whole new light. Kudos to the Library of Congress for this exhibit. I am sure it will be of immense value to scholars and students world wide.

A church that's 800 years old looks like the day it was built to my eyes, and that most of the wear and tear that I'm used to has occurred just within the past century.

No kidding! Just look at this picture of the Church of St. Dmitrii from the exhibit, and compare it to this one, taken in the early 1990s. The recent one is filthy.

That the deterioration to these buildings occurred largely in the last century is correct, but do not place the blame solely on the industrialization. The Soviet state had a much greater effect on the current poor condition of Russian Orthodox churches.

During the rule of Lenin and Stalin, thousands of churches were completely destroyed, most famously, The Church of Christ the Saviour, in Moscow. Many more were damaged and looted, others were used as clubs or wharehouses, like the magnificent Church of the Savior on the Blood in St. Petersburg (picture here). It has only been relatively recently that major restorations have been undertaken to return some of these architectural landmarks to their former glory. Furthermore, a state obsessed with military parity with the West had few resources left to perform even simple maintenance to clean the facades of many buildings.

Something else that is interesting is how, in some respects, so little has changed from the time these pictures were taken. Aside from the clothing, this picture could have been taken in any Russian town this very day. And a train ride through the Russian countryside reveals many villages that look similar to this even today.

Prokudin-Gorskii's photographs are simply amazing, though, a real treasure. I agree with many of the other posters who said that these pictures place one's black and white mental image of the past in a whole new light. Kudos to the Library of Congress for this exhibit. I am sure it will be of immense value to scholars and students world wide.

Try sperating the channels on this picture. This shows a 'ghost' in the left doorway. Judging by these pictures I would gues that the clarity of the pictures was achieved by exposing each shot for a significant period of time.

A painting really only portrays the artist's stylized view of the world- and with a limited palette. This could have certainly been a painting- but a photograph gives such striking detail of EXACTLY how the scene was at that exact moment. An artist can only hope to capture every possible nuance- the expression on his face, every intricate detail of his coat. Besides- even if it was a very good painting- it's still not the same. It goes from "a pretty good idea" to an EXACT representation of what was there.

I would like to see a painting of this that could capture all the details there. It's just not possible to freeze an instant in time like this- where the lighting is JUST perfect, and the reflection is just right. It would take an artist days or weeks to reproduce that- and days or weeks is NOT freezing an instant in time.

The realism of all these photos is what is so amazing. Black and white photographs and paintings give you a somewhat removed idea of what was actually happening. Looking at a picture like this you can actually envision the scene there as though it was yesterday- but it wasn't yesterday, it was 100 years ago.

Computers have gone a long way towards being able to create realistic scenes- but even the untrained eye can pick out sophisticated computer generated imagery. It doesn't take a fraction of a second for your brain to go "that's fake." The same can be said for just about every painting I've seen- and I've seen a lot of paintings. There's something that can't be synthezised by human hand or computer that a photograph can capture. I for one completely understand what the original poster meant. It truly is a shift in the way that I see the world "before color".

Paintings and other art forms have their place. Whoever it was that said "a picture is worth a thousand words" is right- both in the sense of a photograph and a painting. They just say different things. A photograph can be the most unbiased eye, and a painting could never hope to be this way.

A painting really only portrays the artist's stylized view of the world- and with a limited palette. This could have certainly been a painting- but a photograph gives such striking detail of EXACTLY how the scene was at that exact moment. An artist can only hope to capture every possible nuance- the expression on his face, every intricate detail of his coat. Besides- even if it was a very good painting- it's still not the same. It goes from "a pretty good idea" to an EXACT representation of what was there.

I would like to see a painting of this that could capture all the details there. It's just not possible to freeze an instant in time like this- where the lighting is JUST perfect, and the reflection is just right. It would take an artist days or weeks to reproduce that- and days or weeks is NOT freezing an instant in time.

The realism of all these photos is what is so amazing. Black and white photographs and paintings give you a somewhat removed idea of what was actually happening. Looking at a picture like this you can actually envision the scene there as though it was yesterday- but it wasn't yesterday, it was 100 years ago.

Computers have gone a long way towards being able to create realistic scenes- but even the untrained eye can pick out sophisticated computer generated imagery. It doesn't take a fraction of a second for your brain to go "that's fake." The same can be said for just about every painting I've seen- and I've seen a lot of paintings. There's something that can't be synthezised by human hand or computer that a photograph can capture. I for one completely understand what the original poster meant. It truly is a shift in the way that I see the world "before color".

Paintings and other art forms have their place. Whoever it was that said "a picture is worth a thousand words" is right- both in the sense of a photograph and a painting. They just say different things. A photograph can be the most unbiased eye, and a painting could never hope to be this way.

A painting really only portrays the artist's stylized view of the world- and with a limited palette. This could have certainly been a painting- but a photograph gives such striking detail of EXACTLY how the scene was at that exact moment. An artist can only hope to capture every possible nuance- the expression on his face, every intricate detail of his coat. Besides- even if it was a very good painting- it's still not the same. It goes from "a pretty good idea" to an EXACT representation of what was there.

I would like to see a painting of this that could capture all the details there. It's just not possible to freeze an instant in time like this- where the lighting is JUST perfect, and the reflection is just right. It would take an artist days or weeks to reproduce that- and days or weeks is NOT freezing an instant in time.

The realism of all these photos is what is so amazing. Black and white photographs and paintings give you a somewhat removed idea of what was actually happening. Looking at a picture like this you can actually envision the scene there as though it was yesterday- but it wasn't yesterday, it was 100 years ago.

Computers have gone a long way towards being able to create realistic scenes- but even the untrained eye can pick out sophisticated computer generated imagery. It doesn't take a fraction of a second for your brain to go "that's fake." The same can be said for just about every painting I've seen- and I've seen a lot of paintings. There's something that can't be synthezised by human hand or computer that a photograph can capture. I for one completely understand what the original poster meant. It truly is a shift in the way that I see the world "before color".

Paintings and other art forms have their place. Whoever it was that said "a picture is worth a thousand words" is right- both in the sense of a photograph and a painting. They just say different things. A photograph can be the most unbiased eye, and a painting could never hope to be this way.

I know exactly what you mean. My personal favourite is the old floodgate supervisor identified as being 84 years old in 1909. This is a great color photo of a man who was born when the American Revolution was still in the realm of living memory. It's the kind of thing that gives me a real sense of the continuity of history. These photos are some of the coolest things I've seen on the net in ages.

All these images are cool, the effect of the image slightly changing between frames
add some nice effects, like the water and the forest.
The forest one is scary, almost like there are Predators in there =:0

All these images are cool, the effect of the image slightly changing between frames
add some nice effects, like the water and the forest.
The forest one is scary, almost like there are Predators in there =:0