Slashdot Mirror

cnet-declan writes "The Bush administration's copyright czar says the RIAA's $222,000 recent jury verdict against a Minnesota woman shows copyright law is 'effective' and working as planned. C|Net's coverage has comments from Chris Israel, the U.S. Coordinator for International Intellectual Property Enforcement. Israel is formerly a senior Commerce Department official appointed by President Bush in July 2005 who previously worked for Time Warner's public policy arm (Warner Bros. Records is one of the plaintiffs in the RIAA case). The site also features an interview with Rep. Rick Boucher, no fan of the RIAA, on whether Congress will change the law, an analysis of why U.S. copyright law is broken, and four reasons why the RIAA won."

cnet-declan writes "There have been rumors for years about the FBI remotely installing spyware via e-mail or by exploiting an operating system vulnerability from afar — and now there's confirmation. Last month, the FBI obtained a federal court order to remotely install spyware called CIPAV (Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier) to find out who was behind a MySpace account linked to bomb threats sent to a high school near Olympia, Wash. News.com has posted a PDF of the FBI affidavit, which makes for interesting reading, and a summary of the CIPAV results that the FBI submitted to a magistrate judge. It seems as though CIPAV was installed via e-mail, as an article back in 2004 hinted was the case. In addition to reporting the computer's IP address, MAC address, and registry information, it also gave the FBI updates on which IP addresses the user(s) visited. But how did the FBI get the spyware activated and past anti-virus defenses? Two obvious ways are for the Feds to find and exploit their own operating system backdoors, or to compromise security vendors..."

cnet-declan writes "A recent appeals court case dealt with Drug Enforcement Administration agents using a key logger to investigate a suspect using PGP and Hushmail. That invites the obvious question: Will security companies ever intentionally overlook police spyware? There were somewhat-muddled reports in 2001 that Symantec and McAfee would do just that, so over at News.com we figured we'd do a survey of the top 13 security firms. We asked them if it is their policy to detect policeware. Notably, Check Point said it would 'afford law enforcement' the courtesy of whitelisting if requested. We've also posted the full results, with the companies' complete answers. Another question we asked is if they have ever received a court order requiring them to overlook police key loggers or spyware. Symantec, IBM, Kaspersky, and others said no. Only Microsoft and McAfee refused to answer."

cnet-declan writes "State and local governments in Washington this week began an all-out lobbying push for the power to tax the Internet, according to our article at News.com. A new Senate bill would usher in Internet sales taxes, and the Federation of Tax Administrators (representing state tax collectors) advised senators at a hearing on Wednesday not to renew a temporary moratorium limiting broadband taxes that expires in November. One irked Republican senator warned that unless the moratorium is renewed, we could start seeing email taxes by the end of the year. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey blames it on the Democrats taking over, as do Yahoo and eBay lobbyists. Is this a non-hoax version of bill 602P?"

cnet-declan writes "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is asking Congress to make 'attempted' copyright infringement a federal crime. The text of the legislation as well as the official press-release is available online. Rep. Lamar Smith, a key House Republican, said he 'applauds' the idea, and his Democratic counterpart is probably on board too. In addition, the so-called Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007 would create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software in some circumstances, expand the DMCA with civil asset forfeiture, and authorize wiretaps in investigations of Americans who are 'attempting' to infringe copyrights. Does this go too far?"

declan writes "My News.com colleague Evan Hansen just got his hands on an internal email thread revealing that Google is planning to embrace RSS. Evan's co-authored News.com article quotes from the email (sent to Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and Eric Schmidt) confirming that Google is rethinking only supporting Atom. Slashdot covered Google's purchase of Pyra Labs and Blogger.com/Blogspot.com last year that made it a fan of the Atom standard. Does this news mean that RSS is now viewed as out of Dave Winer's control? Will RSS and Atom finally converge?"

declan writes "My CNET News colleague Ina Fried has written an interesting article today about how the U.S. Army has told Microsoft to stop sending free CD-ROMs of Office 2003 to government employees. In what's effectively a cease and desist order, the Army said: 'Your offer of free software places our employees and soldiers in jeopardy of unknowingly committing a violation of the ethics rules and regulations to which they have taken an oath to uphold.' Whoops! Perhaps this is Microsoft's latest way to fight free software at the Pentagon. Remember that just 8 months ago, the Army paid $471 million for Microsoft licenses."

blamanj writes "As reporters and researchers depend more and more heavily on the Internet as a research tool, manipulation of the net becomes a serious problem. A recent Slashdot article discussed this in regard to the White House. Now, The Memory Hole has noticed that Time magazine has pulled an article by Bush, Sr. on why it was a bad idea to try and overthrow Saddam. How can we keep corporate America honest?" Update: 11/11 22:16 GMT by T : Declan McCullagh (former Time, Inc. employee, among other things) writes in with the non-conspiracy explanation for the change, below.

Declan writes "It is silly to claim that Bush Sr. and Scowcroft would strong-arm Time Inc. into removing an article from time.com -- when that article was an excerpt from their book that you can buy today from Amazon.com for $21.

Another explanation is more likely. And, yes, a quick search turns up a May 2003 article from Slate that debunks this rumor. It turns out that Time Inc. only had permission from the publisher to post the content for a limited time."

Slashback tonight with word on the (groan) fate of Iridium, more Speak n' Spell modding, examples of Serial ATA oozing to market, the RIAA versus mandatory DRM, and more. Read on for the updates.

In this household, we obey the laws of physics! Tuesday before last, we mentioned that two scientists had announced what they claim is the first accurate measure of the speed of gravity.

Now, Emperor_Alikar writes "In an article on Space.com, many physicists have criticized the current work on the speed of gravity, calling it 'nonsense' and 'simply incorrect.' Many of them still doubt the claims made by Fomalont and Kopeikin even before the results were even announced. Many of the physicists still hold on to the idea that gravity works instantaneously no matter what the distance, an idea that originated by Newton, but that was argued against by Einstein."

Back from the back from the back from the dead. Checkers writes "Spacedaily.com posted the following two stories about Iridium today. The first story is about the DoD committing the first of three renewal options that will use Iridium through 2005. The second story related story is about an agreement inked between Iridium and Harris Corp. that allows Iridium the right to use Harris' OS/COMET satellite command and control system for the life of the Iridium satellite network."

E.T. was also into this scene. In re: matt simpson writes "Another fantastic Speak & Spell modder is Dave Wright of the band "not breathing". You can check his work out, among other modifications to toys, at www.carrionsound.com Dave has made speak & spell/math/read for Nine Inch Nails, Meat Beat Manifesto, and many other bands. Figured you might be interested in other neat synth hackers :)"

Further evidence, never a good time to buy. SpinnerBait writes "It's seems like Serial ATA Controllers have been on the market forever but where have all the Serial ATA Hard Drives been? The wait seems to finally be over, as HotHardware shows with this review and showcase on a pair of new Seagate Barracuda V Serial ATA drives. This article covers benchmarks with the product in single drive configurations, as well as RAID 0. In addition, they show performance on two different SATA controllers, from Promise and Silicon Image. And oh, those nice thin neat little SATA cables! Gotta love 'em."

We've had a few articles about Serial ATA; I hope it lives up to its reputation.

Just to add to the confusion ... probejockey writes "A current article in the Globe and Mail claims SCO will start collecting licensing fees from some Linux users, not all Linux vendors as previously reported here."

Birds of a feather, separate rooms. Finally, Declan McCullagh sent in a few interesting links yesterday regarding the RIAA and its announced opposition to mandated DRM technologies:

"First, here are the photos from today's press conference.

Second, the supposed news of today's announcement was that the RIAA would no longer pursue mandatory-DRM technologies like the Hollings bill. But it was the MPAA that was behind Hollings from the beginning (September 2001). And when Hollings finally introduced his bill in March 2002, it was the MPAA that endorsed it, while the RIAA pointedly did not."

Thanks to Declan for the links.

Wasn't smart enough to get in, either ... Finally, thanks to the several readers who alerted me by email and in comments that the school variously rendered Cal Tech, CalTech and other things even worse is in fact properly spelled "Caltech."

Slashback's updates and corrections tonight include Declan McCullagh's photos from the Eldred / Lessig Supreme Court appearance, a denial from Microsoft that the company is planning to charge customers extra for security features, a reminder about your chance (well, if you're an American) to tell your elected representatives what you think about mandated DRM technology, and more. Read on.

Looking sharp in their suits. Declan McCullagh writes: "Here are some photos from after the arguments, including activists who slept on the courthouse steps, an exhausted but optimistic Larry Lessig, and the Internet Archive bookmobile, which visited Washington DC for the event."

A new meaning for 'decimation.' Martin writes "Here is a good write-up on what happened with the whole sendmail hack a week or so back. Apparently every 10th copy of the source that was downloaded from sendmail.org received the trojan'd version. Nice to see a linux hack getting some attention for a change, instead of the usual MS bashing. Here is the write-up."

I won't be charging entrance fees to Shangri La, either. After a report posted the other day indicating that Microsoft was considering charging customers more for certain security features, Software writes "According to a little snippet from Yahoo News (look towards the bottom), Microsoft won't be charging for security updates after all. As Yahoo puts it, 'Microsoft, however, said Mundie was referring to an internal proposal to begin offering stand-alone security software in the future.' No confirmation of this on Microsoft's site for the press"

As denials go, that seems like a weak one.

Where is Deep Fritz's deep game? screenbert writes "In an exciting best-of-eight chess match-up, the human is leading the computer 2 1/2 to 1/2. I find the fractions of winning amusing, almost as amusing as seeing that the best-of-eight series will take at least nine games since one of those games was a draw. For a general overview there is a good review here(1) or here(2) or here(3). And to save the 38 mandatory karma whoring comments I'll say it: Imagine if Deep Fritz ran on a beowolf cluster."

So it's back to BYOB. gnarly writes "An earlier report of detection of water masers on extrasolar planets has been debunked."

Workaround: Get your congresspuppet hooked on Free software. Several readers wondered why (complained that) the post offering a link to the place where you can submit your comments on DRM technology to the Senate Judiciary Committee was posted section-only. So here's a reminder; if you live near D.C. (or get a chance to stop by a local office), perhaps you'll be able to stop to chat a bit about how you determine who gets your vote. (Maybe you should check out the sections, too.)

Slashback's updates and corrections tonight include Declan McCullagh's photos from the Eldred / Lessig Supreme Court appearance, a denial from Microsoft that the company is planning to charge customers extra for security features, a reminder about your chance (well, if you're an American) to tell your elected representatives what you think about mandated DRM technology, and more. Read on.

Looking sharp in their suits. Declan McCullagh writes: "Here are some photos from after the arguments, including activists who slept on the courthouse steps, an exhausted but optimistic Larry Lessig, and the Internet Archive bookmobile, which visited Washington DC for the event."

A new meaning for 'decimation.' Martin writes "Here is a good write-up on what happened with the whole sendmail hack a week or so back. Apparently every 10th copy of the source that was downloaded from sendmail.org received the trojan'd version. Nice to see a linux hack getting some attention for a change, instead of the usual MS bashing. Here is the write-up."

I won't be charging entrance fees to Shangri La, either. After a report posted the other day indicating that Microsoft was considering charging customers more for certain security features, Software writes "According to a little snippet from Yahoo News (look towards the bottom), Microsoft won't be charging for security updates after all. As Yahoo puts it, 'Microsoft, however, said Mundie was referring to an internal proposal to begin offering stand-alone security software in the future.' No confirmation of this on Microsoft's site for the press"

As denials go, that seems like a weak one.

Where is Deep Fritz's deep game? screenbert writes "In an exciting best-of-eight chess match-up, the human is leading the computer 2 1/2 to 1/2. I find the fractions of winning amusing, almost as amusing as seeing that the best-of-eight series will take at least nine games since one of those games was a draw. For a general overview there is a good review here(1) or here(2) or here(3). And to save the 38 mandatory karma whoring comments I'll say it: Imagine if Deep Fritz ran on a beowolf cluster."

So it's back to BYOB. gnarly writes "An earlier report of detection of water masers on extrasolar planets has been debunked."

Workaround: Get your congresspuppet hooked on Free software. Several readers wondered why (complained that) the post offering a link to the place where you can submit your comments on DRM technology to the Senate Judiciary Committee was posted section-only. So here's a reminder; if you live near D.C. (or get a chance to stop by a local office), perhaps you'll be able to stop to chat a bit about how you determine who gets your vote. (Maybe you should check out the sections, too.)

Slashback's updates and corrections tonight include Declan McCullagh's photos from the Eldred / Lessig Supreme Court appearance, a denial from Microsoft that the company is planning to charge customers extra for security features, a reminder about your chance (well, if you're an American) to tell your elected representatives what you think about mandated DRM technology, and more. Read on.

Looking sharp in their suits. Declan McCullagh writes: "Here are some photos from after the arguments, including activists who slept on the courthouse steps, an exhausted but optimistic Larry Lessig, and the Internet Archive bookmobile, which visited Washington DC for the event."

A new meaning for 'decimation.' Martin writes "Here is a good write-up on what happened with the whole sendmail hack a week or so back. Apparently every 10th copy of the source that was downloaded from sendmail.org received the trojan'd version. Nice to see a linux hack getting some attention for a change, instead of the usual MS bashing. Here is the write-up."

I won't be charging entrance fees to Shangri La, either. After a report posted the other day indicating that Microsoft was considering charging customers more for certain security features, Software writes "According to a little snippet from Yahoo News (look towards the bottom), Microsoft won't be charging for security updates after all. As Yahoo puts it, 'Microsoft, however, said Mundie was referring to an internal proposal to begin offering stand-alone security software in the future.' No confirmation of this on Microsoft's site for the press"

As denials go, that seems like a weak one.

Where is Deep Fritz's deep game? screenbert writes "In an exciting best-of-eight chess match-up, the human is leading the computer 2 1/2 to 1/2. I find the fractions of winning amusing, almost as amusing as seeing that the best-of-eight series will take at least nine games since one of those games was a draw. For a general overview there is a good review here(1) or here(2) or here(3). And to save the 38 mandatory karma whoring comments I'll say it: Imagine if Deep Fritz ran on a beowolf cluster."

So it's back to BYOB. gnarly writes "An earlier report of detection of water masers on extrasolar planets has been debunked."

Workaround: Get your congresspuppet hooked on Free software. Several readers wondered why (complained that) the post offering a link to the place where you can submit your comments on DRM technology to the Senate Judiciary Committee was posted section-only. So here's a reminder; if you live near D.C. (or get a chance to stop by a local office), perhaps you'll be able to stop to chat a bit about how you determine who gets your vote. (Maybe you should check out the sections, too.)

Eric Blossom is an electrical engineer with a history of working with radio and communications security. He gave a presentation at the recent H2K2 conference about his work with GNU Radio, which is, bar none, the single most exciting software project in existence today. (Imagine computing devices that communicate seamlessly across the entire electromagnetic spectrum.) As usual, we'll forward some of the best questions to Eric and post his responses when we receive them.

al3x writes "I attended the Digital Rights Management Workshop held this afternoon at the Dept. of Commerce in my home town of Washington, DC. Though there were a number of professional journalists present, some of whom have already gotten their story on the event out, I want to offer a view less constrained by the need for journalistic objectivity, and share the eye-opening experience I wasn't expecting." al3x's story follows; Grant Gross of Newsforge attended and wrote up his experiences; and besides the News.com story, Declan also took a bunch of photographs. However, he has misidentified Jay Sulzberger in the photographs and story - this is Jay Sulzberger, not the guy kneeling at the table. Update: 07/18 15:07 GMT by M : The kneeler is now identified as Brett Wynkoop.

al3x's report:

I arrived early, heeding the warnings of first-come, first-served seating. With the small room packed to standing room only, this paid off. In addition to the panelists, listed on the Workshop's site above, notable included Robin Gross, attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, and journalist and Politech list-founder Declan McCullagh. Lobbying groups distributing materials to the audience included New Yorkers for Fair Use and the American Library Association. Several interns from NIST and a couple of other young folks like myself showed up unaffiliated with any group, and the remainder of the crowd appeared to be typical Washington: lawyers, politicos, journos (professional and college), and think-tankers. A proper press kit was noticeably (and notedly, by said journos) absent.

As the talks began, I was brimming with the enthusiasm and anger of an "activist," overjoyed at shaking hands with the legendary Richard Stallman, thrilled with the turnout of the New Yorkers for Fair Use. My enthusiasm and solidarity, however, was to be short lived. The Workshop's effective chairman and moderator, Chief of Staff and Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology Phillip Bond, offered some opening remarks touching on their previous meeting, held this past December, including noting that piracy has risen, particularly in the music industry. After further welcomes from James Rogan, Under Secretary for Intellectual Property, who acknowledged having worked with many members of the "roundtable." Rogan suggested that there were "no villains present," which drew the first of a number of chortles from the NY Fair Use crowd and their sympathizers. First on the table was a discussion of progress towards standards for Digital Rights Management (DRM henceforth).

This rather dry topic, upon which there appeared to be little consensus or definite progress, was dealt with relatively quickly, sparking only a handful of interesting and notable concerns. Here the clear divide between the tech industry and "content" industry (the movie studios , record industry, etc.) became apparent. Andy Setos of the Fox Entertainment Group called for attention to the "analog hole" in DRM standards, stating "from [the point content reaches analog televisions] it's a freeforall." The sentiment was echoed by several of the other content providers, and reiterated throughout the discussions. Oddly, with a number of opinions bounced around and no coherent conclusion, moderator Bond moved on, blessing the segment of discussion as having been productive.

Moving to discussions of business models, technological viability, and the government's role, the panelists took the gloves off and came out swinging. And as the discussion started to get juicier, so the "activists" got noisier. Comments from the RIAA's Mitch Glazier that there is "balance in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA), drew cries and disgusted laughter from the peanut gallery, who at that point had already been informed that any public comments could be submitted online. Even those in support of Fair Use and similar ideas began to be frustrated with the constant background commentary and ill-conceived outbursts of the New Yorkers for Fair Use and, to my dismay, Richard Stallman, who proved to be as socially awkward as his critics and fans alike report. Perhaps such behavior is entertaining in a Linux User Group meeting or academic debate, but fellow activists hissed at Stallman and the New Yorkers, suggesting that their constant interjections weren't helping.

And indeed, as discussion progressed, I felt that my representatives were not Stallman and NY Fair Use crowd, nor Graham Spencer from DigitalConsumer.org, whose three comments were timid and without impact. No, I found my voice through Rob Reid, Founder and Chairman of Listen.com, whose realistic thinking and positive suggestions were echoed by Johnathan Potter, Executive Director of DiMA, and backed up on the technical front by Tom Patton of Phillips. Reid argued that piracy was simply a reality of the content industry landscape, and that it was the job of content producers and the tech industry to offer consumers something "better than free." "We charge $10 a month for our service, and the competition is beating us by $10 a month. We've got to give customers a better experience than the P2P file-sharing networks," Reid suggested. As the rare individual who gave up piracy when I gave up RIAA music and MPAA movies, opting instead for a legal and consumer-friendly Emusic.com account, I found myself clapping in approval.

Though Jack Valenti proved he could stump with the best good ol' southern gentleman, deriding his intelligence before offering sweeping proclamations, the majority of the discussion was surprisingly consumer-friendly. All in the room, even Valenti, agreed that P2P technology was not inherently bad, but could merely be put to bad uses. Geeks should be happy to know that their voice is being heard by the tech industry: folks from Intel and IBM really seemed to "get it" along with Reid and the aforementioned crowd. There was clear animosity, however, between content providers and the techies. Elizabeth Frazee of AOL Time Warner, for example, was quick to say that "the content industry is looking for government help," and tech industry reps were quick to suggest that we're nowhere near even agreeing on standards or what needs to be enforced, much less imposing legislation. The general sentiment of the tech crowd appeared to be that piracy was a social issue and an everpresent one, and no amount of legislation or technological blocks (your Palladiums and whatnot) would stop it. The solution, the techs seemed to suggest, was competing well in the marketplace and offering consumers a good reason not to pirate content.

The session drew to a close, and a large bearded man in an ill-fitting suit quickly jumped up to say the NY Fair Use people would be giving a press conference of their own out front at 4:30. I followed a reporter from NewsForge to the motley band of activists, who preached largely to their own choir, with the exception of a few youths like myself and the remaining reporters. I confronted Richard Stallman for his thoughts on the "better than free" proposal that Reid had offered, to which he was happy to sermonize on the false construct of intellectual property. I suggested that perhaps artists could, if they so chose, license their music under a GPL-inspired copyleft like the Open Music License, and strike out an independent path, as he did in the software industry. I was informed that musicians needed the record industry for wide exposure, and of the record industry's various artist-related evils. I then inquired about how Stallman felt about downloadable music services like Emusic.com, which place no restrictions on how you use the music you've bought from them, though the music is copyrighted and the artists and labels are compensated. Stallman agreed, after having informed me minutes ago that intellectual property as a concept was bunk, that this sounded pretty reasonable.

I walked away from the afternoon's experiences feeling much more represented by the tech industry, though sympathetic to the activists' desire for more consumer representation in future Workshops. Notably, the EFF was explicitly shut out of this discussion, which is unfortunate; the NY Fair Use crowd, however, never bothered to request a representative, preferring to show up and disrupt the debate on their own terms, and for nobody's good but their egos, it seems. If the tenor of this discussion remains focused towards the marketplace, as the tech industry wants it to, then we as geeks and concerned consumers have little to worry about. However, if the content industry gets its way, we're looking at legislation mandating DRM, which is essentially subsidizing the slowly-failing record and movie industries like we've done with airlines and big steel. Our best hope, I'm surprised at myself to say, is in a Free Market, and not screaming, indignant geeks passing out buttons and shouting down Jack Valenti.

al3x writes "I attended the Digital Rights Management Workshop held this afternoon at the Dept. of Commerce in my home town of Washington, DC. Though there were a number of professional journalists present, some of whom have already gotten their story on the event out, I want to offer a view less constrained by the need for journalistic objectivity, and share the eye-opening experience I wasn't expecting." al3x's story follows; Grant Gross of Newsforge attended and wrote up his experiences; and besides the News.com story, Declan also took a bunch of photographs. However, he has misidentified Jay Sulzberger in the photographs and story - this is Jay Sulzberger, not the guy kneeling at the table. Update: 07/18 15:07 GMT by M : The kneeler is now identified as Brett Wynkoop.

al3x's report:

I arrived early, heeding the warnings of first-come, first-served seating. With the small room packed to standing room only, this paid off. In addition to the panelists, listed on the Workshop's site above, notable included Robin Gross, attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, and journalist and Politech list-founder Declan McCullagh. Lobbying groups distributing materials to the audience included New Yorkers for Fair Use and the American Library Association. Several interns from NIST and a couple of other young folks like myself showed up unaffiliated with any group, and the remainder of the crowd appeared to be typical Washington: lawyers, politicos, journos (professional and college), and think-tankers. A proper press kit was noticeably (and notedly, by said journos) absent.

As the talks began, I was brimming with the enthusiasm and anger of an "activist," overjoyed at shaking hands with the legendary Richard Stallman, thrilled with the turnout of the New Yorkers for Fair Use. My enthusiasm and solidarity, however, was to be short lived. The Workshop's effective chairman and moderator, Chief of Staff and Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology Phillip Bond, offered some opening remarks touching on their previous meeting, held this past December, including noting that piracy has risen, particularly in the music industry. After further welcomes from James Rogan, Under Secretary for Intellectual Property, who acknowledged having worked with many members of the "roundtable." Rogan suggested that there were "no villains present," which drew the first of a number of chortles from the NY Fair Use crowd and their sympathizers. First on the table was a discussion of progress towards standards for Digital Rights Management (DRM henceforth).

This rather dry topic, upon which there appeared to be little consensus or definite progress, was dealt with relatively quickly, sparking only a handful of interesting and notable concerns. Here the clear divide between the tech industry and "content" industry (the movie studios , record industry, etc.) became apparent. Andy Setos of the Fox Entertainment Group called for attention to the "analog hole" in DRM standards, stating "from [the point content reaches analog televisions] it's a freeforall." The sentiment was echoed by several of the other content providers, and reiterated throughout the discussions. Oddly, with a number of opinions bounced around and no coherent conclusion, moderator Bond moved on, blessing the segment of discussion as having been productive.

Moving to discussions of business models, technological viability, and the government's role, the panelists took the gloves off and came out swinging. And as the discussion started to get juicier, so the "activists" got noisier. Comments from the RIAA's Mitch Glazier that there is "balance in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA), drew cries and disgusted laughter from the peanut gallery, who at that point had already been informed that any public comments could be submitted online. Even those in support of Fair Use and similar ideas began to be frustrated with the constant background commentary and ill-conceived outbursts of the New Yorkers for Fair Use and, to my dismay, Richard Stallman, who proved to be as socially awkward as his critics and fans alike report. Perhaps such behavior is entertaining in a Linux User Group meeting or academic debate, but fellow activists hissed at Stallman and the New Yorkers, suggesting that their constant interjections weren't helping.

And indeed, as discussion progressed, I felt that my representatives were not Stallman and NY Fair Use crowd, nor Graham Spencer from DigitalConsumer.org, whose three comments were timid and without impact. No, I found my voice through Rob Reid, Founder and Chairman of Listen.com, whose realistic thinking and positive suggestions were echoed by Johnathan Potter, Executive Director of DiMA, and backed up on the technical front by Tom Patton of Phillips. Reid argued that piracy was simply a reality of the content industry landscape, and that it was the job of content producers and the tech industry to offer consumers something "better than free." "We charge $10 a month for our service, and the competition is beating us by $10 a month. We've got to give customers a better experience than the P2P file-sharing networks," Reid suggested. As the rare individual who gave up piracy when I gave up RIAA music and MPAA movies, opting instead for a legal and consumer-friendly Emusic.com account, I found myself clapping in approval.

Though Jack Valenti proved he could stump with the best good ol' southern gentleman, deriding his intelligence before offering sweeping proclamations, the majority of the discussion was surprisingly consumer-friendly. All in the room, even Valenti, agreed that P2P technology was not inherently bad, but could merely be put to bad uses. Geeks should be happy to know that their voice is being heard by the tech industry: folks from Intel and IBM really seemed to "get it" along with Reid and the aforementioned crowd. There was clear animosity, however, between content providers and the techies. Elizabeth Frazee of AOL Time Warner, for example, was quick to say that "the content industry is looking for government help," and tech industry reps were quick to suggest that we're nowhere near even agreeing on standards or what needs to be enforced, much less imposing legislation. The general sentiment of the tech crowd appeared to be that piracy was a social issue and an everpresent one, and no amount of legislation or technological blocks (your Palladiums and whatnot) would stop it. The solution, the techs seemed to suggest, was competing well in the marketplace and offering consumers a good reason not to pirate content.

The session drew to a close, and a large bearded man in an ill-fitting suit quickly jumped up to say the NY Fair Use people would be giving a press conference of their own out front at 4:30. I followed a reporter from NewsForge to the motley band of activists, who preached largely to their own choir, with the exception of a few youths like myself and the remaining reporters. I confronted Richard Stallman for his thoughts on the "better than free" proposal that Reid had offered, to which he was happy to sermonize on the false construct of intellectual property. I suggested that perhaps artists could, if they so chose, license their music under a GPL-inspired copyleft like the Open Music License, and strike out an independent path, as he did in the software industry. I was informed that musicians needed the record industry for wide exposure, and of the record industry's various artist-related evils. I then inquired about how Stallman felt about downloadable music services like Emusic.com, which place no restrictions on how you use the music you've bought from them, though the music is copyrighted and the artists and labels are compensated. Stallman agreed, after having informed me minutes ago that intellectual property as a concept was bunk, that this sounded pretty reasonable.

I walked away from the afternoon's experiences feeling much more represented by the tech industry, though sympathetic to the activists' desire for more consumer representation in future Workshops. Notably, the EFF was explicitly shut out of this discussion, which is unfortunate; the NY Fair Use crowd, however, never bothered to request a representative, preferring to show up and disrupt the debate on their own terms, and for nobody's good but their egos, it seems. If the tenor of this discussion remains focused towards the marketplace, as the tech industry wants it to, then we as geeks and concerned consumers have little to worry about. However, if the content industry gets its way, we're looking at legislation mandating DRM, which is essentially subsidizing the slowly-failing record and movie industries like we've done with airlines and big steel. Our best hope, I'm surprised at myself to say, is in a Free Market, and not screaming, indignant geeks passing out buttons and shouting down Jack Valenti.

Imagine Slashdot closing its Your Rights Online section because you no longer have any rights online, and find many of your other rights severely curtailed, too. Saturday a small group of people, including U.S. Representative Lynn Rivers, from Michigan's 13th Congressional District, met in the University of Maryland Baltimore County [UMBC] library to discuss ways to maintain Americans' civil liberties despite major pressure to curtail them in the name of "fighting terrorism." The government does listen, you know, if you speak to the right people in the right way. So here's a guide, a HOWTO, if you will, that will teach you how to lobby effectively for your Constitutional rights.

Let's start with one simple and rather sad truth: You are going to be less free next week than you were last week.

We are already seeing what several newspapers have called "the biggest criminal investigation in history." Sure, a lot of this investigation's energy is being focused on Islamic countries, but it is also going on in Europe and, more than anywhere else, the United States itself. Landlords who have rented to young men with Arab-sounding names are being interrogated. Topless-bar patrons are being asked about conversations they allegedly heard, boasting about upcoming mass destruction.

And then there's email and the World Wide Web. Imagine a technically unhip Senator or Member of Congress who has read about Osama bin Laden allegedly using encrypted email and secret messages hidden in online porn to communicate with his followers and allies. Put the words "Osama bin Laden" in the same sentence as "pornography" and "the Internet," and you had better get out of the way of the avalanche of anti-online privacy laws coming your way -- or get crushed by them, even if people like bin Laden can switch to other means of communication at the drop of a hat.

Worse, disagreeing with the U.S. government right now may almost be viewed as treason in some quarters. "My Country, Right or Wrong" was a popular bumper sticker among the gunrack-and-confederate-flag pickup truck crowd in the late 60s, and this attitude, if not yet the bumper sticker itself, has been making a major comeback

But Dissent We Must
The problem with the "My Country, Right or Wrong" attitude is that it allows our government to go terribly wrong in many ways that may not be made right again for a long time, if ever. As Rep. Rivers pointed out Saturday, once laws are made that are supposed to help law enforcement in some way, they are almost never repealed because Members of Congress don't want to be seen as "soft on terrorism, soft on crime, soft on drugs."

Carry this a little farther. What about treason charges? At what point does it become illegal to speak out against a planned US government action that, on its face, is being taken to fight against the Terrorist Enemy, whoever he or she may be, even though that action may have very bad, long-term consequences for ordinary American citizens who want nothing more that to live their own lives quietly without being afraid of their own government?

Rep. Rivers said half the people in her district's gut reaction to the idea of legislation allowing government to read their email without getting a warrant first was along the lines of, "So what? I don't break any laws, so I have nothing to hide."

Long-time EPIC activist Kathleen Ellis told Rep. Rivers she believed questions about privacy should not be asked in the context of email. "Ask people if they should have the right to keep a secret and almost all of them will answer 'Of course,'" she said. Ellis also mentioned that cryptography is the email equivalent of an envelope on a letter sent by postal mail. "Unencrypted email is like a postcard," she said, "open for anyone to read. Ask people if they want all mail to be as open as a postcard and they're going to say no."

From that point on, the meeting focused on tactics. The question in the room wasn't, "Are privacy and freedom of speech good?" but "What can we do to protect our privacy and freedom of speech?"

Background on the Meeting Itself
The forum in which all this discussion took place was decidedly unofficial. It was an informal meeting thrown together hastily by local Linux user and ham radio afficianado Rob Carlson. Carlson sent a meeting notice to several email lists and posted it at cluebot.com. 13 people showed up at Saturday's gathering, most of whom were Baltimore and Washington D.C. area privacy advocates and/or Linux users. I was there myself for that reason. Wired News reporter Declan McCullagh is another "local" who hangs in the same circles, which explained his presence.

Rep. Rivers was there because her husband, William Simpson, is a computer consultant involved with the Internet Engineering Task Force [IETF] who spotted Carlson's notice on one of the cryptography-oriented email lists he's on. He had driven Rivers' chief of staff, who needed to get back to Washington but was marooned in Michigan by the airlines shutdown, to D.C., and was taking his Congresswoman wife back to her district for a little rest and some scheduled meetings (Congress had adjourned until Friday, Sept. 21), and they noticed that UMBC was on their way. So there they were, not dressed in "mover and shaker" clothing but looking like anyone else taking a 1000+ mile car trip.

One doesn't usually think of a Member of Congress fitting in with a group of downdressed geeks, but this one sure did. We only knew what she did for a living because Carlson asked everyone in the little circle to identify themselves by name and job, and when it was her turn Rep. Rivers gave her name as "Lynn," then added "Rivers," and softly, sort of as an aside, mentioned that she was "in Congress." Her husband had already mentioned that they were "from Michigan," which was curious enough in itself for a meeting with a decidedly local orientation. But Linux folks are friendly, and Rep. Rivers was as welcome as anyone else even though she was from out of town -- and freely admitted she used Mac OS, not Linux, both at home and in her office.

When he organized the meeting, Carlson said, "I didn't know whether no one or 100 people would show up." 13 did. And revolutions have started with as few as 13 people, so why shouldn't a strong pro-Constitution lobbying movement? The next step is to get 13 more, and another 13, and so on. This means calling and emailing friends until there are 13X13X13X13.... people talking to their elected representatives about privacy issues in terms they can understand, that will help them change their minds.

How You Can Lobby Against Anti-Privacy Laws
Start with this line Rep. Rivers laid on us, which is not new but needs to be said over and over: "Democracy is not a spectator sport."

Those Americans who don't vote, no matter how they excuse this failure, have no right to criticize their government. And those who don't bother to tell their elected representatives what they want and don't want their government to do should not act shocked when the government passes laws they don't like. It gets sickening, going to hearing after hearing about proposed laws like UCITA, DMCA, and SSSCA and always seeing a whole bunch of industry lobbyists wearing expensive suits, but hardly ever anyone who could be classified as an "ordinary citizen."

You need to make some noise instead of letting "them" talk while you sit around and let "them" get their way. Pump up the volume. Take some of the time you spend posting on Slashdot and register to vote. Write email and snail mail letters, send faxes, and make phone calls to Congresspeople and Senators and other representatives, and tell other people (13X13X13X13.... voices, remember) to do the same. This, not just complaining, is what this whole representative government thing is all about.

Rep. Rivers says phone calls "...have a sense of personal contact to them," and this makes them the most effective grassroots lobbying tool. "Stick to one issue," she advises. "Don't come up with a laundry list."

Also send email and write letters, even though they probably won't have as much impact as calls. And don't forget the fax machine; reps who are too technically unhip to read email read faxes. The ACLU and NRA have both famously used fax as a means of rapid communication with legislators for many years.

Now comes the matter of what to say. A letter, call or email that starts with something like, "I has nevir voted for you I am not registered to vote but you got to lisen to me," will go nowhere, says Rivers, pointing out that many pro-Napster messages she got were along those lines -- and got ignored. Better, she says, is something that tells your representative you are a computer professional (or manager or student or business owner or whatever) whose business, occupation or future will be hurt by whatever legislation you are working against. In this case (this week), privacy and online crypto are under attack. Next week, who knows?

So you're not a business owner? Know any? Know anyone who depends on privacy to transact their business? How about your doctor? Doesn't he or she want to keep patient records confidential? Ditto any lawyer you know. If a lawyer is serious about maintaining client trust, he or she certainly doesn't want the government snooping on email through Carnivore or a similar system with a less aggressive name. Other businesses have client information they want to private, along with trade secrets and other information they would rather not share with competitors. These are all points to bring up rationally, in an orderly debate format, when communicating with an elected rep, and they are ones you should ask others to bring up, too.

Stay calm, in other words. Assume your representative is sane and really wants to do what's right and what most people want, based on the input he or she gets. Your trick is to become part of that input, and right now the input you need to give must be strong and focused because Congress is caught up in post-attack hysteria and, like the rest of us, is saying, "We need to do something to help those poor victims and their families and make sure nothing this awful ever happens again."

The only problem here is that what Congress does is make laws, not post on Slashdot, and a law made in the same emotional heat as a flame post on Slashdot can't be moderated down to -1 after it is passed. Once that law is on the books, if you break it you can be arrested, tried, and fined or sent to jail. You've heard the saying, "If [guns/crypto/brains] are outlawed, only outlaws will have [guns/crypto/brains]." It's true, you know.

Right now, legitimate Americans are in danger of having many of their Constitutional freedoms revoked by a government that is doing its best, possibly in a misguided way, to protect its citizens. This is not about Disney's copyrights or the freedom to play DVDs on computers running Linux. The current debate is about much more basic issues than those, issues I will not repeat here because they have been written about so extensively elsewhere.

An Aside: How Congress Works
Rep. Rivers said it this way: "The House [of Representatives] is ruled by brute force."

Since she was talking to geeks who follow such things, she used the DMCA as an example. She told us that the "unanimous" vote that got DMCA through the House was not really unanimous at all; that the bill got through a committee dominated by a powerful chairman (which is how bills generally get to the floor for a vote) and that the Speaker called for a voice vote. "Most yelled 'Aye,'" Rivers said, and some yelled 'Nay.'"

The voices yelling "Aye" were the loudest, so DMCA passed by acclamation. Brute Force. People yelling at the top of their lungs. If 50 loud voices had yelled "Nay" instead of "Aye," perhaps we wouldn't have the DMCA as law today, and the EFF wouldn't be begging for money to get it overturned in the courts.

Now think about a Member of Congress who is hearing, right now, from all the "Kill-the-Arab-bastards-and-stamp-out-Internet-porn" crowd loudly and repeatedly by phone, fax, mail and email, but isn't hearing from you. Who is shouting the loudest? Which wheel is so squeaky that it is going to get the grease? So far, it's not the voices of reason and Constitutionality. They are getting drowned out. Heck, they are hardly there at all. At least Rep. Rivers isn't hearing them, and if she isn't hearing them -- with her ear attuned to Internet privacy matters and a totally Net-hip husband at her side -- you can bet the rest of Congress don't even know those voices (yours) exist.

Don't Delay! Do It Today!
Congress reconvenes Friday, September 21. The anti-privacy bills and anti-privacy amendments to various anti-terrorist bills are being written now, not someday. This means you must act immediately. If you put off those calls and emails to friends asking them to help support their right to communicate with each other in private, and to live without fear of police breaking down their doors or seizing their computer hard drives without warrants for even a few days, it is going to be too late. We are in the grip of national hysteria. A $40 billion appropriations bill to support the war on terrorism was passed a few days ago, with bipartisan support, almost without debate.

I'm going to admit that I am as ready to kick terrorist butt as anyone else, so I can't really blame Congress for being so gung-ho that it will pass all kinds of measures that will make America a less free country for decades to come in response to the current emergency. All I'm really asking Congress to do -- and asking you to join me in asking Congress to do, and to convince 13X13X13.... others to ask your Representative and your Senator to do -- is remember that the freedoms that make this country great must not be forgotten in our rush to avenge our fallen fellow Americans and our attempts to keep ourselves safe from future terrorist attacks.

Specifically (concentrate on one issue, remember), as a Net user I am concerned about watching our online privacy and freedoms evaporate if the government makes strong cryptography illegal or tries to have it controlled by agencies like the NSA, CIA, and FBI, or starts reading all of our private email without due cause and legitimate judicial warrants.

The deadline is Friday. That's when the legislative fur will start to fly. So let's get to work now!

• How to find your representative
• How to contact your senator

I spent yesterday morning in Washington D.C., observing (and taking part in -- no claims of objective journalism here!) a protest of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act signed last year and now partially in effect. Here's what I saw. [Updated with pictures 29 Mar 2000 by timothy.]

It began in David Niemi's head early this year.

Niemi is a Washington D.C. system administrator who decided he didn't want the restrictions embodied in last year's Digitial Millennium Copyright Act to sweep into effect unnoticed, and organized a protest demonstration that took place this morning outside the U.S. Capitol building. Speaking a few days before today's event, he explained that the idea took hold of him "[a]bout two months ago. It started when I had just read the DMCA, and realized what exactly the problems were, and gave a short talk to DC LUG and later to NovaLUG, after which I enjoined people to take a day off of work and help protest. If we have even half of those people [who said they would come], it'll be great."

The chance to show up in person to show dissatisfction with the law and start spreading the news of its dangers ended up attracting an interesting cross section of the software community -- between 20 and 25 people -- and one observer for the Copyright Control Association. Members of the DC, Virginia and Maryland LUGs which helped publicize the event, and others who heard about the event (here on Slashdot, or through mailing lists and forums which were forwarded the information) showed up to create and hold signs with messages like "Restore Fair Use -- Repair the copyright law" and a banner reading "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act Promotes Digital Monopolies." Most of the demonstrators were professional programmers or sysadmins, students, or both.

Why spend so much time and energy fighting a law that was passed last year? In part, because not all of the provisions of the law have yet been enacted, and their implementation can still be altered. And, as Niemi points out, "[t]he DMCA is actually fairly readable -- it's quite easy to see why it's unreasonable. UCITA is quite a bit harder [to understand], especially as amended by Virginia, which was done as edits to a long piece of code." Efforts to curtail DMCA's effects will be good practice in fighting the other laws which no doubt will follow, starting with UCITA and stretching into the forseeable future.

University of Maryland researcher and some-time instructor Peter Teuben was the only representative today from the University of Marlyand's LUG. "Probably because the others have classes to go to," said Teuben with a smile. "I just took off because I didn't have to teach. The software that I write is open source, so I have been been an active participant for at least 15 years in the whole idea of open source. I come from an academic background where that's normal." But there is another reason he was in Washington today "This is near to my heart. The simplest reason is the fact that I bought a DVD player, and now that I've bought it, suddenly I 've learned that I can't play the DVDs that I buy in Holland. I was totally shocked -- I didn't know that. It makes no it makes no sense to me, because it's digital, just like CDs -- even the same size." Something as simple as watching a movie purchased or shipped from abroad is made complicated by the restrictions the DVD license holders have attached to the medium. "The funny thing is that software allows you to do that [switch region settings] five times, but that's still limited. There's ways around that, but they're illegal."

Economist Doug Galbi also took time off work to show up on the street west of the Capitol building. Galbi said his interest was mostly philosophical. "I don't do that much programming, but I have a sense that this [isuue] is huge." Galbi said that for consumers, "The fear is that reasonable, common-sense fair use would be outlawed ... that their actions would be vulnerable as a felony act under the law. What if I'm going down the street singing a Beatles song, are they going to arrest me because I don't have the rights to it?"

Marsha Wilbur, studying at Connecticut's Three Rivers College and about to continue her computer science studies at Arizona State, hopped on a train when she heard about the demonstration on a mailing list from the Open Law project at Harvard's Berkman Center. "I said 'Oh, I'm there!' Also, there's a guy in Connecticut who's being sued, and they're using this -- " She gestured at a copy of the law -- "to harrass him. That's my feeling. And I don't think it's right. That's why I'm here."

Because seniors at his school graduate in 3 1/2 years instead of four, Lenny Grover spent the morning in Washington, while he waits for responses to both job and college applications. "I'm always interested in things that affect the technological community. And I think the provision that products with, I believe it says, limited commercial potential which circumvent copy protection, would also have prevented the VCR. And that turned into billions of dollars a year! These people are so shortsighted -- they don't even see the benefit it could bring." Pointing out that programs like Napster/Wrapster and Gnutella are essentially content-neutral distributed file systems, Grover said, "The question is, where do you draw the line between innovation and breaking copyright?"

Discussions among the participants about the nature of software and the best ways to balance individual, public and corporate rights simmered throughout the protest, which ended at noon with a walk that took us from the Capitol past the Supreme Court. During the hike network engineer Rama Kant voiced a thought about the perceived lack of tolerance among copyright holders for what has traditionally been called fair use: "I feel that it impinges on your ability to watch or listen to what you paid for. I sort of disagree with that. If I buy a CD, I want to be able to listen to it at whatever time I want, whatever conditions I want." Kant, who does contract work for various organizations in the area, heard about the event through his membership in NoVaLUG. "I've been a Linux user for a while, and that's how I got into this. I use Linux, and Unix also. I use a lot of Linux boxes in my work."

Perhaps the least-expected person to show up this morning was Penny Kozakos, an employee of public relations firm Burson-Marsteller who came to observe and collect literature from the protesters. Kozakos seemed puzzled by the demonstration, and listened curiously to an explanation of what computer operating systems have to do with watching the movies her agency's client keeps encrypted, and why the DCMA was poised to drastically change the scope of what consumers and computer scientists could do legally and without asking industry permission. "This is all new to me," she said, explaining that she was merely doing a favor for the Los Angeles branch of the company by showing up to make a report. "This isn't what I deal with normally at all."

Was today's demonstration a success? Perhaps not in any spectacular way; fewer people showed up than Niemi initially hoped for. However, the flyers and DMCA summaries handed out today were mostly to passers-by who expressed no knowledge of the DMCA at all, and most of whom seemed shocked by its brazen assertion of control over purchased entertainment media. Cultivating public knowledge that there even is such a thing as the DMCA seems like a minor success to me. And if more than 20 Linux users can collect themselves at short notice for three hours on a Washington weekday, it bodes well for similar actions in the future.

See pictures of the event taken by Sally Lynch, by Peter Teuben, and by Declan McCullagh.