Slashdot Mirror

found something that points to what I was saying http://www.nyfairuse.org/law_is_copyrighted.xhtml

fun reading.

Is there a place for fresh thinking and new recommendations in the infamous "network neutrality" debate?

Seth Johnson, David P Reed, Siva Vaidhyanathan, Pamela Samuelson, David Weinberger, Andy Oram and others [including me] have issued a new proposal on designed to "Preserve the Internet Standards for Net Neutrality."

The authors point out that "IP-layer neutrality is not a property of the Internet. It _is_the Internet." Then go on to say that "Providers certainly should be allowed to develop services within their own networks, treating data any way they want. But that's not the Internet."

Explanations are provided for CongressCriters, lawyers and lawmakers and human folks.

Yes, there are better conversion utilities for BB and WebCT. We don't care- we didn't move from either and have no plans to go there. Sakai migration might be a problem if we do move there, but I'm sure I can whip something up. Retraining will suck though.

I'm a sunk cost-it was part of my unofficial job description to get *something* up and running. I like to program, so I was able to do it. I'm more expensive than a Blackboard support tech anyway for a variety of reasons.

Dokeos has fewer user configuration options. On the other hand, I've integrated it with our uPortal, SCT Powercampus student information system, library e-reserve system and others. Most of these would have been high-cost options for Blackboard, some wouldn't have even been possible. (I get rid of BB and WebCT salespeople by asking about Powercampus integration details. They go away and never come back.)

Security in BB is very questionable, and they sue people who report security flaws to prevent them talking about them. The Dokeos folks are quite open when they find problems.

The basic reasons we went with Dokeos? We needed something, we had a budget crunch and BB and WebCT had just announced huge price increases. Faculty were ambivalent at best and hostile at worst to a CMS. Most of the high end features of BB and WebCT were just not needed, but integration into an unusual campus configuration was.

Dokeos did enough and did it for close to $0 up front cost. I sold this as a 3-year project. We just finished year two. I got the poll results from the faculty yesterday- 82% of faculty rate the system as excellent or good, just 4% as poor.

For us, this was an optimal solution-it's an Open Source success story. If I'd been at Penn State, I would have been (rightfully) fired, but I'm not and my job is quite secure.

If you're going to label control of information using such perjorative and inflammatory terms as oppressive, you should at least bother to pick a better example than DVDs or MP3s.

Frankly, nobody's oppressed if they can't get some "hot" song for free, and to suggest that it is screams of the dysfunctionality of consumer culture addicted to instant gratification. And as for information, well, I'm sure "The Matrix Revolutions" was *really* informative. Yippee. And damn, if it weren't for Sting singing "Fields of Gold", where would the world be?

However, perhaps you MIGHT have pointed out something worth objecting to such as the fact that laws themselves have been copyrighted. Given that this allows a situation in which the copyright holder can theoretically prevent anybody from even looking at the law unless they're obscenely wealthy, this would be far more worth starting a "revolution" over whatever passes for entertainment.

Fair use does not say you can download it from the internet nor share it with people.

The right to share your music does not fall under the fair use legislation, but it is nonetheless perfectly legal.

Read it here.

Check this page on conference day for a list of icecast servers. In the mean time you can test your player on one of the below streams.

• http://www.nyfairuse.org:8000/example.ogg - Brooklyn NY

• http://ice1.nyfairuse.org:8000/example.ogg - Hartford CT

We could use more streaming servers. Please contact us if you want to join our network of streaming servers.

Check this page on conference day for a list of icecast servers. In the mean time you can test your player on one of the below streams.

• http://www.nyfairuse.org:8000/example.ogg - Brooklyn NY

• http://ice1.nyfairuse.org:8000/example.ogg - Hartford CT

We could use more streaming servers. Please contact us if you want to join our network of streaming servers.

Check this page on conference day for a list of icecast servers. In the mean time you can test your player on one of the below streams.

• http://www.nyfairuse.org:8000/example.ogg - Brooklyn NY

• http://ice1.nyfairuse.org:8000/example.ogg - Hartford CT

We could use more streaming servers. Please contact us if you want to join our network of streaming servers.

Check this page on conference day for a list of icecast servers. In the mean time you can test your player on one of the below streams.

• http://www.nyfairuse.org:8000/example.ogg - Brooklyn NY

• http://ice1.nyfairuse.org:8000/example.ogg - Hartford CT

We could use more streaming servers. Please contact us if you want to join our network of streaming servers.

Check this page on conference day for a list of icecast servers. In the mean time you can test your player on one of the below streams.

• http://www.nyfairuse.org:8000/example.ogg - Brooklyn NY

• http://ice1.nyfairuse.org:8000/example.ogg - Hartford CT

We could use more streaming servers. Please contact us if you want to join our network of streaming servers.

Check this page on conference day for a list of icecast servers. In the mean time you can test your player on one of the below streams.

• http://www.nyfairuse.org:8000/example.ogg - Brooklyn NY

• http://ice1.nyfairuse.org:8000/example.ogg - Hartford CT

We could use more streaming servers. Please contact us if you want to join our network of streaming servers.

Check this page on conference day for a list of icecast servers. In the mean time you can test your player on one of the below streams.

• http://www.nyfairuse.org:8000/example.ogg - Brooklyn NY

• http://ice1.nyfairuse.org:8000/example.ogg - Hartford CT

We could use more streaming servers. Please contact us if you want to join our network of streaming servers.

I invite you to really take a look at the list of folks that have signed on for panels and then decide if this is really a flash event. See the press release at http://www.nyfairuse.org/icc/media1.xhtml

FYI- we are already in planning for next year and congress 2005.

-Brett Wynkoop
Working member of NYFU

I invite you to really take a look at the list of folks that have signed on for panels and then decide if this is really a flash event. See the press release at http://www.nyfairuse.org/icc/media1.xhtml

FYI- we are already in planning for next year and congress 2005.

-Brett Wynkoop
Working member of NYFU

While I applaud the increased awareness by technology professionals about the legal and regulatory environment in which we all must work, I wonder whether NYFU is perhaps confusing politics and commerce in its Call to General Assembly. After all, while there are legitimate political discussions to be had on the jurisdiction and scope of the FCC and its actions, as well as the balance between national security and personal privacy, do these key questions really deserve to be joined with a debate about Microsoft's contracting practice or SCO's IP claims? I would argue that they do not, and that joining them threatens to weaken legitimate discourse and overgeneralizes about the "Internet community" to which this Call to General Assembly is directed.

Looking at this Call to General Assembly, I find myself pondering exactly what NYFU is trying to be. Is it based upon a political view of overreaching and naive governmental officials, and if so, is this limited to Internet issues? Are they espousing a belief in the technical superiority of open source over closed source software and, if so, what relevance is the "Bio-Medical Cartel" and similar hyperbolic language? Are they objecting to the substance of SCO's IP claims, with some broader conspiracy theory involving Microsoft? If their answer is "all of the above," I think they are being counterproductive. Each of these views is certainly worth discussing, but they seem to have little relationship among them beyond the fact that some technology professionals hold them as true.

For myself, as an attorney and law professor interested in issues of technology rights and risks, I am turned off by the exaggeration and mix of issues presented in this Call. I also believe that NYFU is doing both itself and its cause(s) a profound disservice by presenting its ideas as a conspiratorialist rant filled with references to "tyrannical governments", "barratry and red-baiting" and cartels and oligopolies.

What do the rest of you think? {Professor Jonathan}

Just take a look at what happened at the NYU dental school at www.nyfairuse.org/ed.xhtml.

1) No one here seems to have a fucking clue about the music industry.

are you sure you have been reading Slashdot? You have a "low" user number....hmmmmm

2) Nearly everyone here has a hyper-inflated sense of entitlement.

Thats bullshit. Everyone here understands the arguments perfectly, from both sides. You are a typical old model industry SLAG, and youre "i implimented ogg" Johnny Ryal BS doesnt wash at all.

Everyone is entitled to fair use rights, they are entitled to copy for thier own personal, non profit use, and this has nothing to do with the scale of the copying.

3) People seem to equate feeling strongly about something with being knowledgeable about it.

That was a simple minded and pointless barb. You should be reading Slashtot very carefully so that you understand the strong feelings that are going to put you out of a job.

Its also clear that you understand nothing about what is really happening in the marketplace people are buying MORE music because of filesharing, not less.

Get a grip, stop whining and learn to READ!

Haven't there been several cases where laws were actually purchased from private organizations (building codes, etc.) and then publishers were sued for redistributing copies w/o a copyright? This isn't a rant against Lexis/Nexis, but it is possible for private orgs to own copyright to public laws, AFAIK.

What they do own-- and rightly charge for-- are enhancements they provide: case summaries, research aids, and, yes, the text in a searchable electronic database.

How about page numbers? Minor formatting changes? Rephrases? Two-word summaries at the begginings of major sections? All intended not to "enhance" the material, but to increase profitability by making it non-distributable. All of the above have been used as justification for new copyrights on public domain material.

You can still get your comments in to the
FCC. They are accepting them until 2359 6 December 2002.


http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/fcc.flag/

will take you to a form that will properly format and send your comments to the FCC.

Comments need to be in to the FCC by 2002/12/05 at the lattest.

Comments need to be in to the FCC by 2002/12/05 at the lattest.

Word processors such as Microsoft Word could use treacherous computing when they save your documents, to make sure no competing word processors can read them. Today we must figure out the secrets of Word format by laborious experiments in order to make free word processors read Word documents. If Word encrypts documents using treacherous computing when saving them, the free software community won't have a chance of developing software to read them -- and if we could, such programs might even be forbidden by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

I was there at the commerce committee roundtable hearing on 7/17 with Berman's Committee. Check the transcript. Although some of the comments were left out, all of the comments from NYFairUse, NYLXS, LXNY, Information Producers Initiative were left out, one of the leeches in favor of drm restrictions actually said that P2P users sitting at home can use P2P to upload military secrets. He compared (towards the end of the meeting when everyone was tired, getting ready to go home, and paying less attention) a kid sitting a home trading songs to Wen Ho Lee, Robert Hanssen, and Jonathan Pollard. His first or last name was Myron.(Content Guard I think?)

It should be noted that NYFairUse and NYLXS tactics at the 7/17 meeting (and our unreported by Slashdot YRO attempts to get on the invite list prior to the meeting) were severely criticized by some in a slashdot story prior to all the facts getting out. Now that time has passed, and we have seen direct results of our actions, perhaps it is time to reconsider whether those actions should have been taken or not. Especially in light of this and this, which never would have happened if we had just sat there quietly like some have suggested, and news that the drm bills (all of them, Holling, Leahy, Biden, others) are dead for the year.

We listen to online freeform radio from the USA every day. They have realtime updated playlists. Its simple to find information about the music being played, by a simple right click. We can then check out the t-shirts and CDs.

There should be no charge for streaming online from non commercial entities. Period. Anyone can start a station, and see thier trafic explode if they play good sets. This new tax will dampen down or cap the potential size of audiences, which for independent labels will be a very bad thing.

Anyway, how are they goning to police this?

Streaming is no different to file sharing; its just copying a very long number. There cannot be one law for streaming and no law for P2P filesharing; there should be the same unrestrictive constitutional guarantees for both.

Copyright is Haram. This means that you can put a server in a sharia country, securely tunnel into it and then stream from there. Unfortunately the cost of doing this wont be worth the hassle, much less the threat of having charges to a company in Iran showing up on your credit card bill!

I agree 100%!...

WE are the STAKEHOLDERS

DRM IS THEFT (The theft of our rights!)

Here is one group who's very passionate and active www.nyfairuse.org
We must focus our voices and steer our frustration into action. Every complaint must become an action. Englobulators are ramming this down our throats, like it or not. We must take action to our representatives and let them know your feelings about DRM and where your vote will go. We must take action to hardware manufacturers and let them know where we will be spending our dollars if they try to sell us products that take away our rights (not them!). Everyone can DO something whether it is writing them(Yes, snail mail. They carry a lot more weight) or even telephoning your local reps. Phone #'s and address are only clicks away these days. Most importantly, we must explain what is happening to our family and friends in terms they will understand. Corps are trying to seep it into a lazy populace. We need to educate people about the current attack on their rights. Anyone here know about the power of education???

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS!!!

And hey /., this comment only gets rated a 3??? C'mon, we've got to rally the troops! As a sister feature to YRO how about YAO (Your Actions Offline)? Action begets action, we need to see it!

On a side note, if you ever have an opportunity to take a course/workshop/etc. on copyright, I highly recommend it. I took a 2 1/2 course last summer though the U of Mich and it was fascinating -- I didn't know how much I didn't know!

Q.

Is it legal to edit movies?

A.

Yes. MyCleanFlicks is a Co-operative rental club. All subscribers to our service become members of the Co-op. The Co-op collectively purchases original, unedited DVD movies then has them edited - always maintaining a 1 to 1 ratio of edited and non-edited originals.

As owners of the original, unedited movies, the Co-op has the right to edit out content that is objectionable to its members - similar to how you might press mute to avoid hearing objectionable language today. Accordingly, you must subscribe as a member of the rental club before you can rent edited movies.

Here's the link on expiring electronic books

And Richard Stallman's take on it: The Right To Read

.

Want another relevant link on "books" and higher education? Try this interesting tidbit

NYLXS and NYFairUse! went down to Washington DC on July 17 to protest against the big hollywood and big media "roundtable" discussion on drm. The meeting being held at the Commerce Dept. was so lopsided it was a joke. At one reporter's count, it was about 22 big media/big entertainment/big tech against 1 consumer voice, and one half consumer/half tech rep voice, both of which kept their mouths shut for nearly the entire four hour discussion.

NYLXS and NYFairUse members came prepared. We had buttons that said DRM is theft, flyers, handouts, etc. We stood up, and made our voices heard at the meeting. Although the organizers at the Commerce Dept. attempted to shut us up, we persisted, and got the attention of others in the room. Some of the IT reps conceded on the record that more consumer voices needed to be heard on this issue.

As a fallout of NYLXS and NYFairUse actions, the Commerce Dept. was forced to schedule a meeting with consumer groups on the issue. They scheduled a private, off the record, meeting of two hours for 17 groups invited to attend. Do the math.

Thanks to the efforts both in the Commerce Committee hearing room, during the simultaneous demonstration held outside the Commerce Department headquarters, and at the NYLXS and NYFairUse impromptu news conference held outside the Commerce Committee headquarters after the meeting, enough publicity was generated that the Commerce Committee was forced to recognize that consumers are the real stakeholders on this issue.

Expect more action on this issue from NYLXS and NYFairUse.
The members of Congress cannot exclude the consumer when it comes to Fair Use rights, drm (is theft) restrictions, or anything else that restricts consumers from exercising their Fair Use rights. NYLXS and NYFairUse will be there to protect these important rights. From attacks on libraries and librarians (check out some of the notable quotables from Mr. Jack Valenti on the Fair Use web site), to expiring electronic books (also on the web site) for your higher education, to restrictive technologies like Palladium, drm firmware being silently placed in MPAA member hard drive manufacturers, and more, NYLXS and NYFairUse will be there to defend Fair Use, and the right to use your computer and other property that you paid for in any manner you like that helps society move forward, and not in a manner that restricts speech, allows ideas to be kept under lock and key or expire into oblivion, etc.

I'm making a list of legislator positions on Fair Use, and which side they choose, the public they represent or entertainment and media cartels, so that the public will have information to take to the polls with them this November. If NYFairUse accepts it, it will be up on the NYFairUse web site prior to the elections. If NYFairUse doesn't accept it, do a google search on the topic, with relevant key words, and you'll find it at another site.

NYLXS and NYFairUse! went down to Washington DC on July 17 to protest against the big hollywood and big media "roundtable" discussion on drm. The meeting being held at the Commerce Dept. was so lopsided it was a joke. At one reporter's count, it was about 22 big media/big entertainment/big tech against 1 consumer voice, and one half consumer/half tech rep voice, both of which kept their mouths shut for nearly the entire four hour discussion.

NYLXS and NYFairUse members came prepared. We had buttons that said DRM is theft, flyers, handouts, etc. We stood up, and made our voices heard at the meeting. Although the organizers at the Commerce Dept. attempted to shut us up, we persisted, and got the attention of others in the room. Some of the IT reps conceded on the record that more consumer voices needed to be heard on this issue.

As a fallout of NYLXS and NYFairUse actions, the Commerce Dept. was forced to schedule a meeting with consumer groups on the issue. They scheduled a private, off the record, meeting of two hours for 17 groups invited to attend. Do the math.

Thanks to the efforts both in the Commerce Committee hearing room, during the simultaneous demonstration held outside the Commerce Department headquarters, and at the NYLXS and NYFairUse impromptu news conference held outside the Commerce Committee headquarters after the meeting, enough publicity was generated that the Commerce Committee was forced to recognize that consumers are the real stakeholders on this issue.

Expect more action on this issue from NYLXS and NYFairUse.
The members of Congress cannot exclude the consumer when it comes to Fair Use rights, drm (is theft) restrictions, or anything else that restricts consumers from exercising their Fair Use rights. NYLXS and NYFairUse will be there to protect these important rights. From attacks on libraries and librarians (check out some of the notable quotables from Mr. Jack Valenti on the Fair Use web site), to expiring electronic books (also on the web site) for your higher education, to restrictive technologies like Palladium, drm firmware being silently placed in MPAA member hard drive manufacturers, and more, NYLXS and NYFairUse will be there to defend Fair Use, and the right to use your computer and other property that you paid for in any manner you like that helps society move forward, and not in a manner that restricts speech, allows ideas to be kept under lock and key or expire into oblivion, etc.

I'm making a list of legislator positions on Fair Use, and which side they choose, the public they represent or entertainment and media cartels, so that the public will have information to take to the polls with them this November. If NYFairUse accepts it, it will be up on the NYFairUse web site prior to the elections. If NYFairUse doesn't accept it, do a google search on the topic, with relevant key words, and you'll find it at another site.

NYLXS and NYFairUse! went down to Washington DC on July 17 to protest against the big hollywood and big media "roundtable" discussion on drm. The meeting being held at the Commerce Dept. was so lopsided it was a joke. At one reporter's count, it was about 22 big media/big entertainment/big tech against 1 consumer voice, and one half consumer/half tech rep voice, both of which kept their mouths shut for nearly the entire four hour discussion.

NYLXS and NYFairUse members came prepared. We had buttons that said DRM is theft, flyers, handouts, etc. We stood up, and made our voices heard at the meeting. Although the organizers at the Commerce Dept. attempted to shut us up, we persisted, and got the attention of others in the room. Some of the IT reps conceded on the record that more consumer voices needed to be heard on this issue.

As a fallout of NYLXS and NYFairUse actions, the Commerce Dept. was forced to schedule a meeting with consumer groups on the issue. They scheduled a private, off the record, meeting of two hours for 17 groups invited to attend. Do the math.

Thanks to the efforts both in the Commerce Committee hearing room, during the simultaneous demonstration held outside the Commerce Department headquarters, and at the NYLXS and NYFairUse impromptu news conference held outside the Commerce Committee headquarters after the meeting, enough publicity was generated that the Commerce Committee was forced to recognize that consumers are the real stakeholders on this issue.

Expect more action on this issue from NYLXS and NYFairUse.
The members of Congress cannot exclude the consumer when it comes to Fair Use rights, drm (is theft) restrictions, or anything else that restricts consumers from exercising their Fair Use rights. NYLXS and NYFairUse will be there to protect these important rights. From attacks on libraries and librarians (check out some of the notable quotables from Mr. Jack Valenti on the Fair Use web site), to expiring electronic books (also on the web site) for your higher education, to restrictive technologies like Palladium, drm firmware being silently placed in MPAA member hard drive manufacturers, and more, NYLXS and NYFairUse will be there to defend Fair Use, and the right to use your computer and other property that you paid for in any manner you like that helps society move forward, and not in a manner that restricts speech, allows ideas to be kept under lock and key or expire into oblivion, etc.

I'm making a list of legislator positions on Fair Use, and which side they choose, the public they represent or entertainment and media cartels, so that the public will have information to take to the polls with them this November. If NYFairUse accepts it, it will be up on the NYFairUse web site prior to the elections. If NYFairUse doesn't accept it, do a google search on the topic, with relevant key words, and you'll find it at another site.

NYLXS and NYFairUse! went down to Washington DC on July 17 to protest against the big hollywood and big media "roundtable" discussion on drm. The meeting being held at the Commerce Dept. was so lopsided it was a joke. At one reporter's count, it was about 22 big media/big entertainment/big tech against 1 consumer voice, and one half consumer/half tech rep voice, both of which kept their mouths shut for nearly the entire four hour discussion.

NYLXS and NYFairUse members came prepared. We had buttons that said DRM is theft, flyers, handouts, etc. We stood up, and made our voices heard at the meeting. Although the organizers at the Commerce Dept. attempted to shut us up, we persisted, and got the attention of others in the room. Some of the IT reps conceded on the record that more consumer voices needed to be heard on this issue.

As a fallout of NYLXS and NYFairUse actions, the Commerce Dept. was forced to schedule a meeting with consumer groups on the issue. They scheduled a private, off the record, meeting of two hours for 17 groups invited to attend. Do the math.

Thanks to the efforts both in the Commerce Committee hearing room, during the simultaneous demonstration held outside the Commerce Department headquarters, and at the NYLXS and NYFairUse impromptu news conference held outside the Commerce Committee headquarters after the meeting, enough publicity was generated that the Commerce Committee was forced to recognize that consumers are the real stakeholders on this issue.

Expect more action on this issue from NYLXS and NYFairUse.
The members of Congress cannot exclude the consumer when it comes to Fair Use rights, drm (is theft) restrictions, or anything else that restricts consumers from exercising their Fair Use rights. NYLXS and NYFairUse will be there to protect these important rights. From attacks on libraries and librarians (check out some of the notable quotables from Mr. Jack Valenti on the Fair Use web site), to expiring electronic books (also on the web site) for your higher education, to restrictive technologies like Palladium, drm firmware being silently placed in MPAA member hard drive manufacturers, and more, NYLXS and NYFairUse will be there to defend Fair Use, and the right to use your computer and other property that you paid for in any manner you like that helps society move forward, and not in a manner that restricts speech, allows ideas to be kept under lock and key or expire into oblivion, etc.

I'm making a list of legislator positions on Fair Use, and which side they choose, the public they represent or entertainment and media cartels, so that the public will have information to take to the polls with them this November. If NYFairUse accepts it, it will be up on the NYFairUse web site prior to the elections. If NYFairUse doesn't accept it, do a google search on the topic, with relevant key words, and you'll find it at another site.

NYLXS and NYFairUse! went down to Washington DC on July 17 to protest against the big hollywood and big media "roundtable" discussion on drm. The meeting being held at the Commerce Dept. was so lopsided it was a joke. At one reporter's count, it was about 22 big media/big entertainment/big tech against 1 consumer voice, and one half consumer/half tech rep voice, both of which kept their mouths shut for nearly the entire four hour discussion.

NYLXS and NYFairUse members came prepared. We had buttons that said DRM is theft, flyers, handouts, etc. We stood up, and made our voices heard at the meeting. Although the organizers at the Commerce Dept. attempted to shut us up, we persisted, and got the attention of others in the room. Some of the IT reps conceded on the record that more consumer voices needed to be heard on this issue.

As a fallout of NYLXS and NYFairUse actions, the Commerce Dept. was forced to schedule a meeting with consumer groups on the issue. They scheduled a private, off the record, meeting of two hours for 17 groups invited to attend. Do the math.

Thanks to the efforts both in the Commerce Committee hearing room, during the simultaneous demonstration held outside the Commerce Department headquarters, and at the NYLXS and NYFairUse impromptu news conference held outside the Commerce Committee headquarters after the meeting, enough publicity was generated that the Commerce Committee was forced to recognize that consumers are the real stakeholders on this issue.

Expect more action on this issue from NYLXS and NYFairUse.
The members of Congress cannot exclude the consumer when it comes to Fair Use rights, drm (is theft) restrictions, or anything else that restricts consumers from exercising their Fair Use rights. NYLXS and NYFairUse will be there to protect these important rights. From attacks on libraries and librarians (check out some of the notable quotables from Mr. Jack Valenti on the Fair Use web site), to expiring electronic books (also on the web site) for your higher education, to restrictive technologies like Palladium, drm firmware being silently placed in MPAA member hard drive manufacturers, and more, NYLXS and NYFairUse will be there to defend Fair Use, and the right to use your computer and other property that you paid for in any manner you like that helps society move forward, and not in a manner that restricts speech, allows ideas to be kept under lock and key or expire into oblivion, etc.

I'm making a list of legislator positions on Fair Use, and which side they choose, the public they represent or entertainment and media cartels, so that the public will have information to take to the polls with them this November. If NYFairUse accepts it, it will be up on the NYFairUse web site prior to the elections. If NYFairUse doesn't accept it, do a google search on the topic, with relevant key words, and you'll find it at another site.

NYLXS and NYFairUse! went down to Washington DC on July 17 to protest against the big hollywood and big media "roundtable" discussion on drm. The meeting being held at the Commerce Dept. was so lopsided it was a joke. At one reporter's count, it was about 22 big media/big entertainment/big tech against 1 consumer voice, and one half consumer/half tech rep voice, both of which kept their mouths shut for nearly the entire four hour discussion.

NYLXS and NYFairUse members came prepared. We had buttons that said DRM is theft, flyers, handouts, etc. We stood up, and made our voices heard at the meeting. Although the organizers at the Commerce Dept. attempted to shut us up, we persisted, and got the attention of others in the room. Some of the IT reps conceded on the record that more consumer voices needed to be heard on this issue.

As a fallout of NYLXS and NYFairUse actions, the Commerce Dept. was forced to schedule a meeting with consumer groups on the issue. They scheduled a private, off the record, meeting of two hours for 17 groups invited to attend. Do the math.

Thanks to the efforts both in the Commerce Committee hearing room, during the simultaneous demonstration held outside the Commerce Department headquarters, and at the NYLXS and NYFairUse impromptu news conference held outside the Commerce Committee headquarters after the meeting, enough publicity was generated that the Commerce Committee was forced to recognize that consumers are the real stakeholders on this issue.

Expect more action on this issue from NYLXS and NYFairUse.
The members of Congress cannot exclude the consumer when it comes to Fair Use rights, drm (is theft) restrictions, or anything else that restricts consumers from exercising their Fair Use rights. NYLXS and NYFairUse will be there to protect these important rights. From attacks on libraries and librarians (check out some of the notable quotables from Mr. Jack Valenti on the Fair Use web site), to expiring electronic books (also on the web site) for your higher education, to restrictive technologies like Palladium, drm firmware being silently placed in MPAA member hard drive manufacturers, and more, NYLXS and NYFairUse will be there to defend Fair Use, and the right to use your computer and other property that you paid for in any manner you like that helps society move forward, and not in a manner that restricts speech, allows ideas to be kept under lock and key or expire into oblivion, etc.

I'm making a list of legislator positions on Fair Use, and which side they choose, the public they represent or entertainment and media cartels, so that the public will have information to take to the polls with them this November. If NYFairUse accepts it, it will be up on the NYFairUse web site prior to the elections. If NYFairUse doesn't accept it, do a google search on the topic, with relevant key words, and you'll find it at another site.

NYLXS and NYFairUse! went down to Washington DC on July 17 to protest against the big hollywood and big media "roundtable" discussion on drm. The meeting being held at the Commerce Dept. was so lopsided it was a joke. At one reporter's count, it was about 22 big media/big entertainment/big tech against 1 consumer voice, and one half consumer/half tech rep voice, both of which kept their mouths shut for nearly the entire four hour discussion.

NYLXS and NYFairUse members came prepared. We had buttons that said DRM is theft, flyers, handouts, etc. We stood up, and made our voices heard at the meeting. Although the organizers at the Commerce Dept. attempted to shut us up, we persisted, and got the attention of others in the room. Some of the IT reps conceded on the record that more consumer voices needed to be heard on this issue.

As a fallout of NYLXS and NYFairUse actions, the Commerce Dept. was forced to schedule a meeting with consumer groups on the issue. They scheduled a private, off the record, meeting of two hours for 17 groups invited to attend. Do the math.

Thanks to the efforts both in the Commerce Committee hearing room, during the simultaneous demonstration held outside the Commerce Department headquarters, and at the NYLXS and NYFairUse impromptu news conference held outside the Commerce Committee headquarters after the meeting, enough publicity was generated that the Commerce Committee was forced to recognize that consumers are the real stakeholders on this issue.

Expect more action on this issue from NYLXS and NYFairUse.
The members of Congress cannot exclude the consumer when it comes to Fair Use rights, drm (is theft) restrictions, or anything else that restricts consumers from exercising their Fair Use rights. NYLXS and NYFairUse will be there to protect these important rights. From attacks on libraries and librarians (check out some of the notable quotables from Mr. Jack Valenti on the Fair Use web site), to expiring electronic books (also on the web site) for your higher education, to restrictive technologies like Palladium, drm firmware being silently placed in MPAA member hard drive manufacturers, and more, NYLXS and NYFairUse will be there to defend Fair Use, and the right to use your computer and other property that you paid for in any manner you like that helps society move forward, and not in a manner that restricts speech, allows ideas to be kept under lock and key or expire into oblivion, etc.

I'm making a list of legislator positions on Fair Use, and which side they choose, the public they represent or entertainment and media cartels, so that the public will have information to take to the polls with them this November. If NYFairUse accepts it, it will be up on the NYFairUse web site prior to the elections. If NYFairUse doesn't accept it, do a google search on the topic, with relevant key words, and you'll find it at another site.

You are correct to be worried.

There was already news out a month or three ago that Sony was caught (or someone leaked to an online news organization, maybe Cnet news?) quietly putting drm features into CD burner drives for later activation. I only saw one article on this, thought I saved it, but couldn't find it on my drive or with a google search using the following terms: Sony, quietly, including, inserting, drm, flags, CD, CD burner, CDR, CDRM etc., all words that were included in the article if I remember correctly.

If anyone read the article, or knows what I'm talking about, please post a link to story here, and if possible send to NYFairUse! mailing list. Thanks in advance for any help.

There was already news out a month or three ago that Sony was caught (or someone leaked to an online news organization, maybe Cnet news?) quietly putting drm features into CD burner drives for later activation. I only saw one article on this, thought I saved it, but couldn't find it on my drive or with a google search using the following terms: Sony, quietly, including, inserting, drm, flags, CD, CD burner, CDR, CDRM etc.

If anyone read the article, or knows what I'm talking about, please post a link to story here, and if possible send to NYFairUse! mailing list. Thanks in advance for any help.

According to news out this week, Sony has been quietly building CD-RW burners with anti-copying technology built in. Sony is also leading the push on drm legislation which will take away your fair use rights to backup that CD/DVD for protection from scratches, aging, and many other purposes, which are legal under fair use law.

It's up to you to decide whether you will support a company that is trying as hard as possible to prevent you from transfering music from your CD to your Rio or your car, or for backup purposes, etc.

It's up to you to decide whether Sony is acting in your best interest, or their own selfish interests by setting up a tollbooth on the digital highway that is becoming harder and harder to avoid.

How many of you knew that Sony was building anti-copying technology into their CD-RW burners that they are currently selling? I certainly didn't know, but since I refuse to purchase any Sony products due to their stance on "digital rights management", I am somewhat protected. By avoiding the companies that are pushing hard on drm, I am mitigating some of the damage they are doing to my ability to backup my property.

btw, have you unchecked the drm box in wmp before burning that CD? If not, you burned drm anti-copying abilities into your CDs.

See NYFairUse for more info.

"...The fruits of this ruling will be seen in the film industry within six months as studios start to put movies online and offer consumers an exciting new, high quality and legal opportunity to choose what they want to watch."

It's not just fair use rights dealing with movies or music. Schools are now expiring books and other materials at the end of your higher education training.

And slashdot just had a story on shrinkwrapped licenses for books that prohibited the spread of the information contained therein, and had to be returned if contracts ended, etc.

And the copyright crowd has no problem equating librarians with Waco terrorists for wanting to make books available for free: "They've got their radical factions, like the Ruby Ridge or Waco types," who want to share all content for free, said Judith Platt, a spokeswoman for the Association of American Publishers.
Source:

Jack Valenti and July 17th, Washington DC, Department of Commercie DRM Workshop:

"A little Demagogary Never Hurt anyone"

Jack agian in 1982: "The VCR is to Movies like the Boston Strangler to Young Women"

Ruben Safir: President of NYLXS and Co-Founder of NY Fair Use August 2002:

"Jack Valanti is to Private Ownership and Property as the Boston Strangler to the VCR"

Jack Valenti again at the DRM Workshop:

"If this body connot find a way to agree to find a way which will protect private property from Theft then we'll just have to go to Congress and get it done"

Ruben Safir at the Press Conference after the Workshop:

"I completely agree with Jack Valenti. Congress has to step in and protect our private property from theft. It's my damn disk, my damn computer. If someone breaks into my home and steals my computer and my DVD's, who calls the cops and files the police report?

Me or Universal Pictures?

DRM is Theft. Congress must pass a law which will protect the property of every owner of a computer and purchaser of Digital Information by outlawing anything which prevents the full enjoyment of their property. We don't need prior aproval of Warner Brothers, Jack Valenti, or Barry Sorkin to use our computers to augment our enjoyment of our property. There is no forced contract to a cash sale. Forcing a contract on the public which they didn't negotiate as equal partners is a form of slavery no free citizen can put up with.

That's why we propose a New Fair Use Bill, one which guarantees that Copyright is secondary to the Constitutional Right of Security in ones Home and with one's pocessions. Because Copyright is secondary to my property rights in my home and Congress has to make it clear.

If anyone should be forced into a license, then Bertleson should be forced to License to Listen.com. That's why we gave them the limited exclussive Monopoly in the first place, to make sure the material is published. If they don't want to publish, too bad, make them do it anyway or strip them of their Monopoly.

How can we can we continue to expect to maintain a free society if we can't accumulate, copy and archive on our digital systems and information. How are we expected to be able to publish from annotated facts, with references to the original works when everything on the internet can expire or disapear. We have to be able to copy to archive. It's essential to our politcal speech, or for that matter our abilty to have party music mixed to our own enjoyment on Saturday Night."

Under fair use laws, what Jack Valenti and his cronies at the entertainment cartels are trying to change through "drm" legislation, it is legal for you to copy vhs cassettes, cd-roms, dvd discs of movies and music.

For the specifics, go to NYFairUse.org and learn what right you have, and what Jack Valenti, Sony, AOL Time Warner, Microsoft, Vivendi, and many others in the entertainment cartel and digital camps promoting drm are trying to ban. And find out what your legislators position on the issue is, then call them, and let them know you'll be voting on this issue this November.

For a NYC based organization that promotes Linux use, Fair Use rights, freeing Dimitry, and many other issues important to the community, see NYLXS.com and if you are from the area, drop in at our next installfest or in-service demo, or CUNY Linux demo, or our boat cruise around Manhattan on August 24th, or join us in Washington DC at our next protest against drm, and attacks on our fair use rights.

Repost of parent that was AC(useful info at link):

Fear mongering and scare tactics?

Considering they tried to ban the VCR, and when that didn't work, institute a "modest" fee of $50 per blank tape, is this really fear mongering?

To get some accurate info on drm, go to http://www.nyfairuse.org, and to see a NY group that has been proactively fighting drm and other attacks on fair use [nylxs.com], linux and other issues, go to www.nylxs.com

Fear mongering and scare tactics?

Considering they tried to ban the VCR, and when that didn't work, institute a "modest" fee of $50 per blank tape, is this really fear mongering?

To get some accurate info on drm, go to http://www.nyfairuse.org, and to see a NY group that has been proactively fighting drm and other attacks on fair use, linux and other issues, go to www.nylxs.com

New Yorkers For Fair Use and NYLXS are two organizations here in NYC doing just that.

Can someone verify if this is AC is true?

Wildly obnoxious? Alienating people?

Let's take a look at what happened. This "second round-table discussion" started at a 15 to 1 disadvantage against the public. By one reporter's count, it ended up being at least 23 to 1.

What was this panel really about? If you understand American politics, it was about one thing. Providing cover for the asses of US Representatives for votes on pending legislation that was written by, and paid for by the Entertainment Cartel. That's it. Plain and simple.

We tried everything we could to get representatives on the panel. We tried with the panel organizer. We tried with the Commerce Committee contacts. We tried with local legislators. Nothing worked. As the EFF lawyer stated, they were told specifically not to come to the hearing. The public was specifically being shut out of that "round-table"

There was one public representative on the panel, and except for a couple of sentences, he kept his mouth shut for the duration of the hearing.

Let's examine what happened that day, July 17, 2002. Representatives from Disney, Vivendi, Intel, IBM, MPAA, ContentGuard, AOL Time Warner, News Corp, EMI, and others sat around at a table, and patted each other on the back.

But wait. Let's start just a little earlier. Prior to the start of the "public round-table discussion", we were informed that we were not going to be permitted into the room. It was a closed meeting. We had to point out to the Committee reps that it was a PUBLIC meeting, and they couldn't bar us. We even had to find a place to download and print a copy of their announcement to show to them. When they realized that we would have printed proof that it was a public meeting, they relented, and said they would allow us to enter the meeting room.

The meeting started with a statement from the Commerce Sub-Committee Chair, and went around the table, with panel members making their introductions, and then making brief statements. Jack Valenti, who apparently was alerted to our website that listed the event (along with Jack Valenti notable quotables, which included some of his outrageous past statements, such as: "The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone" Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA --
1982"") pre-empted the criticism by saying that he was known for using colorful language in the past in order to get his point across.

We were "informed" of the format of the hearing, that no statements from outside the panelists would be taken. So we could not get a seat at the panel, and we could not comment from the audience.

So Jack enlightened us on how he worked in the Johnson Administration to make the world better. And other things. And so it went. Then we were shown a ridiculously funny screen (probably a power point page) that showed the dozens of groups, and dozens of encrypting/drm/technological schemes to control content. From there, others made their introductions, and made their statements. One of Jack's early statements said something to the effect of (without actually naming the public) the public's view being noise, and a distraction, and that he puts these views, and this noise, out of his mind, as should they all, if they are to get anything done on this issue.

Up to that point, the audience was fairly quiet, but we laughed when the more outrageous statements were made. There were plenty to go around. Even the dude from Phillips, and another tech guy (Intel I believe) got into it with Jack Valenti on a number of occasions. But up to this point, there was really only laughter and occasional gasps from the audience at some of the statements.

About halfway through the proceedings, after having listened to numerous inflammatory statements made by Jack, and by others from the Entertainment Cartel, Jack started to get more intense in his statements. He compared fair use rights and file trading to a burglar using a skeleton key to rob all the houses in the neighborhood. He really said that.

I let that one slide off me. But after an exchange between Jack Valenti and Big IT where it got a little heated, Jack cooled off a bit, and then made a statement saying that the moving industry, and the IT industry needed to get together with legislators to write legislation to stop all the theft. I had enough. I stood up, and in a voice loud enough to be heard from the back of the room, I said "what about the public?" Paraphrasing myself (I don't have the transcripts yet), I said that the public was not being represented on the panel, the public is the true stakeholder on this topic, where are the public voices? I said this in a loud enough voice to be heard from the back of a large room. Was I yelling? I don't know. I know that I was speaking loud enough to be heard. That's it. Ask others.

What was Jack Valenti's reaction? He did something that shows he is a very astute individual when it comes to testifying in Congress. He continued talking. He talked right over me. He had the microphone. His voice, speaking directly into the microphone, not my voice from the back of a large meeting room, was being recorded. But the chair wouldn't have it. He interrupted me, and was telling me to sit down and be quiet. No comments were allowed. But Jack, knowing the press was there, turned an interruption of his speech into a chance to look good. He said that if I allowed him to finish his statement, he would allow me to respond. The chair tried to shut me up, but when I heard Jack say that, I sat down, and he finished his statement. Then, before I could give the chair a chance to shut me down, I stood back up, and gave my two cents. I (paraphrasing myself again, from memory) stated that the panel was not representative of the public, the public were the stakeholders, and there needed to be public representatives on the panel. As I stood up to respond, Ruben Safir, Brett Wyncoop, Seth Johnson (who held up his hand for two hours by the end of the meeting waiting to be called on to make a statement) Jay Sulzburger and others stood up, and I introduced Richard Stallman (who had just been awarded an honor by the United Nations) and we tried to get the panel chairman to recogize him to allow him to make a statement. Richard did not stand up, and said nothing. We, from New Yorkers for Fair Use , NYLXS , and several other groups, made the few statements that we were able to squeeze in.

The chair was having none of that. He said that Brett, who was mistakenly recognized earlier as a panelist (it was standing room only, with people standing, sitting on the floor, kneeling, sitting on laps, etc) when he was kneeling near one of the tables, and when he was called on, he made his statement. So the chair said that since Brett had made his short statement, the public had been heard, we had our chance. "We have a structure here!" was said repeatedly by the chair.

So we were told to shut up and sit down. Richard Stallman never said a word at this point. He wasn't given the chance.

After we sat down, Jack Valenti was clearly flustered. The press was present. They had heard the exchange. It would not be good PR for the MPAA. So he made some more astounding statements. He couldn't understand why I was saying the public was not represented on the panel. He was the public. He indicated the guy across from him (the Intel rep, I believe) and said he was the public. He said the Commerce Sub-Committee reps seated at the head of the table were the public, the public was represented.

After that exchange, the "round-table" discussion continued. More statements were made, calling for legislation. A few of the IT reps were against legislating the unknown. The Phillips rep, the Intel rep, and a couple of others were against legislation putting controls into the hardware, without a specific definition of what the controls were. The rep from Listen.com was against the drm legislation in general. He stated repeatedly that he was competing against free P2P, and his company was making money on it. And the IBM rep, the Phillips rep, and one other IT rep stated several times after my outburst/shouting/statement/activism/disruption/al ienation/obnoxiousness (insert preferred word depending on your agenda) that the public needed to be included in the discussion, and was missing from the current panel.

After some more discussion, the panel was asked by the chair to sum up their positions. This is where it got interesting. And this is where you separate the sheep from those who understand politics in America.

This "second round-table discussion" was a fraud. It was designed with one thing in mind. Provide cover for the legislators. The Commerce Committee, and this sub-committee was charged with one thing. Provide cover. This is an election year. Every House of Representatives seat is up for re-election. The US Reps are going through the motions. They are shaking the trees and raking the leaves. The Entertainment cartel already has bills written up by their lawyers. They want these bills passed. And the legislators want the Entertainment Cartel money so they can get re-elected. There is one week left before the summer break. That's this week. After the summer break, the legislators will not have time for these bills. They will be fighting over War legislation, economic legislation, senior issues, environment, and re-election items. And they will be running for re-election. This year will be a tough election. Control of the House and Senate are both up for grabs.

Getting back to the summations, this is where the horseshit started to fly. Starting with the lobbyist for AOL Time Warner (yeah, they actually sent a lobbyist) and continuing with Jack Valenti of MPAA, and Vivendi, and others, the panelists all looked at each other, or their notes, and lied straight into the microphone. They stated that a consensus had been reached. Talks between IT and Entertainment were not enough. Help from legislators, in the form of legislation was needed. They actually stated that a consensus was reached (none was, the Entertainment and IT industries remained far apart, and they admitted that the public needed to be represented), they stated that the panel was in agreement that legislation was needed, etc. This couldn't be further from the truth. But the truth didn't matter when they were making these statements. These statements were being made for one reason. They were providing sound bites for legislators to use for their justification later in voting for what will be highly anti-consumer, highly anti-fair use, and highly anti-open source legislation. That's it. They are supplying sound bites and cover for legislators.

It was at this point, when Jack Valenti was trying to sound conciliatory to the IT rep (I think it was the Intel guy again) when Jack summed up by stating that the Entertainment Industry and IT had to get together with Congress to find a solution. It had been a long day at this point, very hot outside, not enough air conditioning inside, and this one slipped by me. But luckily, Richard Stallman caught it. He said aloud (paraphrasing from memory again) "so the IT industry and the entertainment industry are conspiring again to the exclusion of the public" He was completely correct on this, and it was an important point to bring up. It repeated what we had been saying all along, and it pointed out that even after we repeatedly tried to get the public to have a voice in what was happening, that Jack Valenti, and Big IT were in agreement to exclude the public. This was an important point, and it is the only statement that Richard Stallmen made inside the committee room. Everything else that Richard Stallman said, and the rest of us said was made on the steps outside the Commerce Committee building, at our impromptu news conference after.

Upset that your electronic school books expire at the end of the semester? (see nyfairuse.org web site on this one, it's true) Too bad. Upset that you can't back up you music CD to protect against scratches? Too bad. Upset that you'll have to pay a second time for the same song if you want to transfer it from your CD to your Rio? Too bad. We held hearings, the public was represented, a consensus was reached. It's right here in the transcript. At least five people stated that a consensus was reached. Where were you? We held hearings. You should have made your voice heard then. You should have contacted my office. I have no record of you ever contacting me. How was I supposed to know this would happen, you should have told me. I was voting to protect musicians, to help keep them off of welfare...

Cover and sound bites. That's what the hearing was all about.

Toward the end of the hearing, Mike Miron, of ContentGuard, made the most outrageous statement of all. And this one slipped under the radar of the journalists. It was made as people were getting restless, as the meeting was winding up, and others on the panel were starting to pack up. In one breath, he associated kids trading files with spies and terrorists such as Wen Ho Lee, Jonathan Pollard, and Robert Hanson. He stated that P2P networks enable spies and terrorists to upload military secrets to the internet, and that in light of September 11, this must be considered. Having been personally affected by September 11, this is the most outrageous statement I have ever heard. Anyone who knows anything about the Robert Hanson case knows that he was a highly knowledgeable person on technology, and used his technical skills far beyond what a mere P2P network can provide. Many tools are available to computer users for uploading files, including ftp, sftp, putty, scp, and many others. Other tools, such as PGP, steganograpy, GnuPG, SSH, and others would accomplish much more, and would better hide the tracks of a would be spy or terrorist. Equating kids with spies and terrorists, and using September 11th to provide a sound bite for a Congressman on the DRM issue is appalling. But the Entertainment Cartel will do what it takes to get their bills through.

So the "round-table" was held on July 17, a Wednesday. I'm sure you all saw the wave of bills on DRM, on allowing the Entertainment industry to hack into your computers and destroy files with civil and criminal protections , and on various other issues regarding DRM and Fair Use attacks. These bills were out the end of the same week, or the beginning of the following week. How many of you believe that the legislators sat around on July 18 to write these bills? Or is it more believable that these bills were already written prior to the round-table meeting?

We have been in contact with the Commerce Dept. We will have representatives present during the next discussion. It naturally will be separate from the industry panel (don't wanna kill the golden goose, and don't wanna give the opposition their own sound bites from the same meeting), but it is a step forward. A step that we did not have before we opened our mouths. A step that we would not have if we would have behaved like lambs to the slaughter, as Al3x would have us do. A forum where we will try to correctly define DRM

Should we have spoke out? Or not? You tell me.

But before you do, check out http://www.nyfairuse.org as they have a more complete account of what happened, and that was written a couple of days after the "round-table", not from my memory as I am doing now. Check it out, then tell me: Should we have kept our mouths shut like Al3x wanted? Or did we do something right by taking on Jack Valenti 's poisonous fud and rhetoric?

Did you speak out? Should you have spoken out? Sent an email? Made a phone call? Sent a fax?

I can't answer for you. I can only answer for myself. And I did what I thought was right.

Vincenzo.

I can be reached through the NYFairUse Discuss mailing list

btw, this is just one member's opinion. For official positions by NYLXS or NYFairUse , go to their web sites.

Wildly obnoxious? Alienating people?

Let's take a look at what happened. This "second round-table discussion" started at a 15 to 1 disadvantage against the public. By one reporter's count, it ended up being at least 23 to 1.

What was this panel really about? If you understand American politics, it was about one thing. Providing cover for the asses of US Representatives for votes on pending legislation that was written by, and paid for by the Entertainment Cartel. That's it. Plain and simple.

We tried everything we could to get representatives on the panel. We tried with the panel organizer. We tried with the Commerce Committee contacts. We tried with local legislators. Nothing worked. As the EFF lawyer stated, they were told specifically not to come to the hearing. The public was specifically being shut out of that "round-table"

There was one public representative on the panel, and except for a couple of sentences, he kept his mouth shut for the duration of the hearing.

Let's examine what happened that day, July 17, 2002. Representatives from Disney, Vivendi, Intel, IBM, MPAA, ContentGuard, AOL Time Warner, News Corp, EMI, and others sat around at a table, and patted each other on the back.

But wait. Let's start just a little earlier. Prior to the start of the "public round-table discussion", we were informed that we were not going to be permitted into the room. It was a closed meeting. We had to point out to the Committee reps that it was a PUBLIC meeting, and they couldn't bar us. We even had to find a place to download and print a copy of their announcement to show to them. When they realized that we would have printed proof that it was a public meeting, they relented, and said they would allow us to enter the meeting room.

The meeting started with a statement from the Commerce Sub-Committee Chair, and went around the table, with panel members making their introductions, and then making brief statements. Jack Valenti, who apparently was alerted to our website that listed the event (along with Jack Valenti notable quotables, which included some of his outrageous past statements, such as: "The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone" Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA --
1982"") pre-empted the criticism by saying that he was known for using colorful language in the past in order to get his point across.

We were "informed" of the format of the hearing, that no statements from outside the panelists would be taken. So we could not get a seat at the panel, and we could not comment from the audience.

So Jack enlightened us on how he worked in the Johnson Administration to make the world better. And other things. And so it went. Then we were shown a ridiculously funny screen (probably a power point page) that showed the dozens of groups, and dozens of encrypting/drm/technological schemes to control content. From there, others made their introductions, and made their statements. One of Jack's early statements said something to the effect of (without actually naming the public) the public's view being noise, and a distraction, and that he puts these views, and this noise, out of his mind, as should they all, if they are to get anything done on this issue.

Up to that point, the audience was fairly quiet, but we laughed when the more outrageous statements were made. There were plenty to go around. Even the dude from Phillips, and another tech guy (Intel I believe) got into it with Jack Valenti on a number of occasions. But up to this point, there was really only laughter and occasional gasps from the audience at some of the statements.

About halfway through the proceedings, after having listened to numerous inflammatory statements made by Jack, and by others from the Entertainment Cartel, Jack started to get more intense in his statements. He compared fair use rights and file trading to a burglar using a skeleton key to rob all the houses in the neighborhood. He really said that.

I let that one slide off me. But after an exchange between Jack Valenti and Big IT where it got a little heated, Jack cooled off a bit, and then made a statement saying that the moving industry, and the IT industry needed to get together with legislators to write legislation to stop all the theft. I had enough. I stood up, and in a voice loud enough to be heard from the back of the room, I said "what about the public?" Paraphrasing myself (I don't have the transcripts yet), I said that the public was not being represented on the panel, the public is the true stakeholder on this topic, where are the public voices? I said this in a loud enough voice to be heard from the back of a large room. Was I yelling? I don't know. I know that I was speaking loud enough to be heard. That's it. Ask others.

What was Jack Valenti's reaction? He did something that shows he is a very astute individual when it comes to testifying in Congress. He continued talking. He talked right over me. He had the microphone. His voice, speaking directly into the microphone, not my voice from the back of a large meeting room, was being recorded. But the chair wouldn't have it. He interrupted me, and was telling me to sit down and be quiet. No comments were allowed. But Jack, knowing the press was there, turned an interruption of his speech into a chance to look good. He said that if I allowed him to finish his statement, he would allow me to respond. The chair tried to shut me up, but when I heard Jack say that, I sat down, and he finished his statement. Then, before I could give the chair a chance to shut me down, I stood back up, and gave my two cents. I (paraphrasing myself again, from memory) stated that the panel was not representative of the public, the public were the stakeholders, and there needed to be public representatives on the panel. As I stood up to respond, Ruben Safir, Brett Wyncoop, Seth Johnson (who held up his hand for two hours by the end of the meeting waiting to be called on to make a statement) Jay Sulzburger and others stood up, and I introduced Richard Stallman (who had just been awarded an honor by the United Nations) and we tried to get the panel chairman to recogize him to allow him to make a statement. Richard did not stand up, and said nothing. We, from New Yorkers for Fair Use , NYLXS , and several other groups, made the few statements that we were able to squeeze in.

The chair was having none of that. He said that Brett, who was mistakenly recognized earlier as a panelist (it was standing room only, with people standing, sitting on the floor, kneeling, sitting on laps, etc) when he was kneeling near one of the tables, and when he was called on, he made his statement. So the chair said that since Brett had made his short statement, the public had been heard, we had our chance. "We have a structure here!" was said repeatedly by the chair.

So we were told to shut up and sit down. Richard Stallman never said a word at this point. He wasn't given the chance.

After we sat down, Jack Valenti was clearly flustered. The press was present. They had heard the exchange. It would not be good PR for the MPAA. So he made some more astounding statements. He couldn't understand why I was saying the public was not represented on the panel. He was the public. He indicated the guy across from him (the Intel rep, I believe) and said he was the public. He said the Commerce Sub-Committee reps seated at the head of the table were the public, the public was represented.

After that exchange, the "round-table" discussion continued. More statements were made, calling for legislation. A few of the IT reps were against legislating the unknown. The Phillips rep, the Intel rep, and a couple of others were against legislation putting controls into the hardware, without a specific definition of what the controls were. The rep from Listen.com was against the drm legislation in general. He stated repeatedly that he was competing against free P2P, and his company was making money on it. And the IBM rep, the Phillips rep, and one other IT rep stated several times after my outburst/shouting/statement/activism/disruption/al ienation/obnoxiousness (insert preferred word depending on your agenda) that the public needed to be included in the discussion, and was missing from the current panel.

After some more discussion, the panel was asked by the chair to sum up their positions. This is where it got interesting. And this is where you separate the sheep from those who understand politics in America.

This "second round-table discussion" was a fraud. It was designed with one thing in mind. Provide cover for the legislators. The Commerce Committee, and this sub-committee was charged with one thing. Provide cover. This is an election year. Every House of Representatives seat is up for re-election. The US Reps are going through the motions. They are shaking the trees and raking the leaves. The Entertainment cartel already has bills written up by their lawyers. They want these bills passed. And the legislators want the Entertainment Cartel money so they can get re-elected. There is one week left before the summer break. That's this week. After the summer break, the legislators will not have time for these bills. They will be fighting over War legislation, economic legislation, senior issues, environment, and re-election items. And they will be running for re-election. This year will be a tough election. Control of the House and Senate are both up for grabs.

Getting back to the summations, this is where the horseshit started to fly. Starting with the lobbyist for AOL Time Warner (yeah, they actually sent a lobbyist) and continuing with Jack Valenti of MPAA, and Vivendi, and others, the panelists all looked at each other, or their notes, and lied straight into the microphone. They stated that a consensus had been reached. Talks between IT and Entertainment were not enough. Help from legislators, in the form of legislation was needed. They actually stated that a consensus was reached (none was, the Entertainment and IT industries remained far apart, and they admitted that the public needed to be represented), they stated that the panel was in agreement that legislation was needed, etc. This couldn't be further from the truth. But the truth didn't matter when they were making these statements. These statements were being made for one reason. They were providing sound bites for legislators to use for their justification later in voting for what will be highly anti-consumer, highly anti-fair use, and highly anti-open source legislation. That's it. They are supplying sound bites and cover for legislators.

It was at this point, when Jack Valenti was trying to sound conciliatory to the IT rep (I think it was the Intel guy again) when Jack summed up by stating that the Entertainment Industry and IT had to get together with Congress to find a solution. It had been a long day at this point, very hot outside, not enough air conditioning inside, and this one slipped by me. But luckily, Richard Stallman caught it. He said aloud (paraphrasing from memory again) "so the IT industry and the entertainment industry are conspiring again to the exclusion of the public" He was completely correct on this, and it was an important point to bring up. It repeated what we had been saying all along, and it pointed out that even after we repeatedly tried to get the public to have a voice in what was happening, that Jack Valenti, and Big IT were in agreement to exclude the public. This was an important point, and it is the only statement that Richard Stallmen made inside the committee room. Everything else that Richard Stallman said, and the rest of us said was made on the steps outside the Commerce Committee building, at our impromptu news conference after.

Upset that your electronic school books expire at the end of the semester? (see nyfairuse.org web site on this one, it's true) Too bad. Upset that you can't back up you music CD to protect against scratches? Too bad. Upset that you'll have to pay a second time for the same song if you want to transfer it from your CD to your Rio? Too bad. We held hearings, the public was represented, a consensus was reached. It's right here in the transcript. At least five people stated that a consensus was reached. Where were you? We held hearings. You should have made your voice heard then. You should have contacted my office. I have no record of you ever contacting me. How was I supposed to know this would happen, you should have told me. I was voting to protect musicians, to help keep them off of welfare...

Cover and sound bites. That's what the hearing was all about.

Toward the end of the hearing, Mike Miron, of ContentGuard, made the most outrageous statement of all. And this one slipped under the radar of the journalists. It was made as people were getting restless, as the meeting was winding up, and others on the panel were starting to pack up. In one breath, he associated kids trading files with spies and terrorists such as Wen Ho Lee, Jonathan Pollard, and Robert Hanson. He stated that P2P networks enable spies and terrorists to upload military secrets to the internet, and that in light of September 11, this must be considered. Having been personally affected by September 11, this is the most outrageous statement I have ever heard. Anyone who knows anything about the Robert Hanson case knows that he was a highly knowledgeable person on technology, and used his technical skills far beyond what a mere P2P network can provide. Many tools are available to computer users for uploading files, including ftp, sftp, putty, scp, and many others. Other tools, such as PGP, steganograpy, GnuPG, SSH, and others would accomplish much more, and would better hide the tracks of a would be spy or terrorist. Equating kids with spies and terrorists, and using September 11th to provide a sound bite for a Congressman on the DRM issue is appalling. But the Entertainment Cartel will do what it takes to get their bills through.

So the "round-table" was held on July 17, a Wednesday. I'm sure you all saw the wave of bills on DRM, on allowing the Entertainment industry to hack into your computers and destroy files with civil and criminal protections , and on various other issues regarding DRM and Fair Use attacks. These bills were out the end of the same week, or the beginning of the following week. How many of you believe that the legislators sat around on July 18 to write these bills? Or is it more believable that these bills were already written prior to the round-table meeting?

We have been in contact with the Commerce Dept. We will have representatives present during the next discussion. It naturally will be separate from the industry panel (don't wanna kill the golden goose, and don't wanna give the opposition their own sound bites from the same meeting), but it is a step forward. A step that we did not have before we opened our mouths. A step that we would not have if we would have behaved like lambs to the slaughter, as Al3x would have us do. A forum where we will try to correctly define DRM

Should we have spoke out? Or not? You tell me.

But before you do, check out http://www.nyfairuse.org as they have a more complete account of what happened, and that was written a couple of days after the "round-table", not from my memory as I am doing now. Check it out, then tell me: Should we have kept our mouths shut like Al3x wanted? Or did we do something right by taking on Jack Valenti 's poisonous fud and rhetoric?

Did you speak out? Should you have spoken out? Sent an email? Made a phone call? Sent a fax?

I can't answer for you. I can only answer for myself. And I did what I thought was right.

Vincenzo.

I can be reached through the NYFairUse Discuss mailing list

btw, this is just one member's opinion. For official positions by NYLXS or NYFairUse , go to their web sites.

Wildly obnoxious? Alienating people?

Let's take a look at what happened. This "second round-table discussion" started at a 15 to 1 disadvantage against the public. By one reporter's count, it ended up being 23 to 1.

What was this panel really about? If you understand American politics, it was about one thing. Providing cover for the asses of US Representatives for votes on pending legislation that was written by, and paid for by the Entertainment Cartel. That's it. Plain and simple.

We tried everything we could to get representatives on the panel. We tried with the panel organizer. We tried with the Commerce Committee contacts. We tried with local legislators. Nothing worked. As the EFF lawyer stated, they were told specifically not to come to the hearing. The public was specifically being shut out of that "round-table"

There was one public representative on the panel, and except for a couple of sentences, he kept his mouth shut for the duration of the hearing.

Let's examine what happened that day, July 17, 2002. Representatives from Disney, Vivendi, Intel, IBM, MPAA, ContentGuard, AOL Time Warner, News Corp, EMI, and others sat around at a table, and patted each other on the back.

But wait. Let's start just a little earlier. Prior to the start of the "public round-table discussion", we were informed that we were not going to be permitted into the room. It was a closed meeting. We had to point out to the Committee reps that it was a PUBLIC meeting, and they couldn't bar us. We even had to find a place to download and print a copy of their announcement to show to them. When they realized that we would have printed proof that it was a public meeting, they relented, and said they would allow us to enter the meeting room.

The meeting started with a statement from the Commerce Sub-Committee Chair, and went around the table, with panel members making their introductions, and then making brief statements. Jack Valenti, who apparently was alerted to our website that listed the event (along with Jack Valenti notable quotables, which included some of his outrageous past statements, such as: "The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone" Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA --
1982"") pre-empted the criticism by saying that he was known for using colorful language in the past in order to get his point across.

We were "informed" of the format of the hearing, that no statements from outside the panelists would be taken. So we could not get a seat at the panel, and we could not comment from the audience.

So Jack enlightened us on how he worked in the Johnson Administration to make the world better. And other things. And so it went. Then we were shown a ridiculously funny screen (probably a power point page) that showed the dozens of groups, and dozens of encrypting/drm/technological schemes to control content. From there, others made their introductions, and made their statements. One of Jack's early statements said something to the effect of (without actually naming the public) the public's view being noise, and a distraction, and that he puts these views, and this noise, out of his mind, as should they all, if they are to get anything done on this issue.

Up to that point, the audience was fairly quiet, but we laughed when the more outrageous statements were made. There were plenty to go around. Even the dude from Phillips, and another tech guy (Intel I believe) got into it with Jack Valenti on a number of occasions. But up to this point, there was really only laughter and occasional gasps from the audience at some of the statements.

About halfway through the proceedings, after having listened to numerous inflammatory statements made by Jack, and by others from the Entertainment Cartel, Jack started to get more intense in his statements. He compared fair use rights and file trading to a burglar using a skeleton key to rob all the houses in the neighborhood. He really said that.

I let that one slide off me. But after an exchange between Jack Valenti and Big IT where it got a little heated, Jack cooled off a bit, and then made a statement saying that the moving industry, and the IT industry needed to get together with legislators to write legislation to stop all the theft. I had enough. I stood up, and in a voice loud enough to be heard from the back of the room, I said "what about the public?" Paraphrasing myself (I don't have the transcripts yet), I said that the public was not being represented on the panel, the public is the true stakeholder on this topic, where are the public voices? I said this in a loud enough voice to be heard from the back of a large room. Was I yelling? I don't know. I know that I was speaking loud enough to be heard. That's it. Ask others.

What was Jack Valenti's reaction? He did something that shows he is a very astute individual when it comes to testifying in Congress. He continued talking. He talked right over me. He had the microphone. His voice, speaking directly into the microphone, not my voice from the back of a large meeting room, was being recorded. But the chair wouldn't have it. He interrupted me, and was telling me to sit down and be quiet. No comments were allowed. But Jack, knowing the press was there, turned an interruption of his speech into a chance to look good. He said that if I allowed him to finish his statement, he would allow me to respond. The chair tried to shut me up, but when I heard Jack say that, I sat down, and he finished his statement. Then, before I could give the chair a chance to shut me down, I stood back up, and gave my two cents. I (paraphrasing myself again, from memory) stated that the panel was not representative of the public, the public were the stakeholders, and there needed to be public representatives on the panel. As I stood up to respond, Ruben Safir, Brett Wyncoop, Seth Johnson (who held up his hand for two hours by the end of the meeting waiting to be called on to make a statement) Jay Sulzburger and others stood up, and I introduced Richard Stallman (who had just been awarded an honor by the United Nations) and we tried to get the panel chairman to recogize him to allow him to make a statement. Richard did not stand up, and said nothing. We, from New Yorkers for Fair Use , NYLXS , and several other groups, made the few statements that we were able to squeeze in.

The chair was having none of that. He said that Brett, who was mistakenly recognized earlier as a panelist (it was standing room only, with people standing, sitting on the floor, kneeling, sitting on laps, etc) when he was kneeling near one of the tables, and when he was called on, he made his statement. So the chair said that since Brett had made his short statement, the public had been heard, we had our chance. "We have a structure here!" was said repeatedly by the chair.

So we were told to shut up and sit down. Richard Stallman never said a word at this point. He wasn't given the chance.

After we sat down, Jack Valenti was clearly flustered. The press was present. They had heard the exchange. It would not be good PR for the MPAA. So he made some more astounding statements. He couldn't understand why I was saying the public was not represented on the panel. He was the public. He indicated the guy across from him (the Intel rep, I believe) and said he was the public. He said the Commerce Sub-Committee reps seated at the head of the table were the public, the public was represented.

After that exchange, the "round-table" discussion continued. More statements were made, calling for legislation. A few of the IT reps were against legislating the unknown. The Phillips rep, the Intel rep, and a couple of others were against legislation putting controls into the hardware, without a specific definition of what the controls were. The rep from Listen.com was against the drm legislation in general. He stated repeatedly that he was competing against free P2P, and his company was making money on it. And the IBM rep, the Phillips rep, and one other IT rep stated several times after my outburst/shouting/statement/activism/disruption/al ienation/obnoxiousness (insert preferred word depending on your agenda) that the public needed to be included in the discussion, and was missing from the current panel.

After some more discussion, the panel was asked by the chair to sum up their positions. This is where it got interesting. And this is where you separate the sheep from those who understand politics in America.

This "second round-table discussion" was a fraud. It was designed with one thing in mind. Provide cover for the legislators. The Commerce Committee, and this sub-committee was charged with one thing. Provide cover. This is an election year. Every House of Representatives seat is up for re-election. The US Reps are going through the motions. They are shaking the trees and raking the leaves. The Entertainment cartel already has bills written up by their lawyers. They want these bills passed. And the legislators want the Entertainment Cartel money so they can get re-elected. There is one week left before the summer break. That's this week. After the summer break, the legislators will not have time for these bills. They will be fighting over War legislation, economic legislation, senior issues, environment, and re-election items. And they will be running for re-election. This year will be a tough election. Control of the House and Senate are both up for grabs.

Getting back to the summations, this is where the horseshit started to fly. Starting with the lobbyist for AOL Time Warner (yeah, they actually sent a lobbyist) and continuing with Jack Valenti of MPAA, and Vivendi, and others, the panelists all looked at each other, or their notes, and lied straight into the microphone. They stated that a consensus had been reached. Talks between IT and Entertainment were not enough. Help from legislators, in the form of legislation was needed. They actually stated that a consensus was reached (none was, the Entertainment and IT industries remained far apart, and they admitted that the public needed to be represented), they stated that the panel was in agreement that legislation was needed, etc. This couldn't be further from the truth. But the truth didn't matter when they were making these statements. These statements were being made for one reason. They were providing sound bites for legislators to use for their justification later in voting for what will be highly anti-consumer, highly anti-fair use, and highly anti-open source legislation. That's it. They are supplying sound bites and cover for legislators.

It was at this point, when Jack Valenti was trying to sound conciliatory to the IT rep (I think it was the Intel guy again) when Jack summed up by stating that the Entertainment Industry and IT had to get together with Congress to find a solution. It had been a long day at this point, very hot outside, not enough air conditioning inside, and this one slipped by me. But luckily, Richard Stallman caught it. He said aloud (paraphrasing from memory again) "so the IT industry and the entertainment industry are conspiring again to the exclusion of the public" He was completely correct on this, and it was an important point to bring up. It repeated what we had been saying all along, and it pointed out that even after we repeatedly tried to get the public to have a voice in what was happening, that Jack Valenti, and Big IT were in agreement to exclude the public. This was an important point, and it is the only statement that Richard Stallmen made inside the committee room. Everything else that Richard Stallman said, and the rest of us said was made on the steps outside the Commerce Committee building, at our impromptu news conference after.

Upset that your electronic school books expire at the end of the semester? (see nyfairuse.org web site on this one, it's true) Too bad. Upset that you can't back up you music CD to protect against scratches? Too bad. Upset that you'll have to pay a second time for the same song if you want to transfer it from your CD to your Rio? Too bad. We held hearings, the public was represented, a consensus was reached. It's right here in the transcript. At least five people stated that a consensus was reached. Where were you? We held hearings. You should have made your voice heard then. You should have contacted my office. I have no record of you ever contacting me. How was I supposed to know this would happen, you should have told me. I was voting to protect musicians, to help keep them off of welfare...

Cover and sound bites. That's what the hearing was all about.

Toward the end of the hearing, Mike Miron, of ContentGuard, made the most outrageous statement of all. And this one slipped under the radar of the journalists. It was made as people were getting restless, as the meeting was winding up, and others on the panel were starting to pack up. In one breath, he associated kids trading files with spies and terrorists such as Wen Ho Lee, Jonathan Pollard, and Robert Hanson. He stated that P2P networks enable spies and terrorists to upload military secrets to the internet, and that in light of September 11, this must be considered. Having been personally affected by September 11, this is the most outrageous statement I have ever heard. Anyone who knows anything about the Robert Hanson case knows that he was a highly knowledgeable person on technology, and used his technical skills far beyond what a mere P2P network can provide. Many tools are available to computer users for uploading files, including ftp, sftp, putty, scp, and many others. Other tools, such as PGP, steganograpy, GnuPG, SSH, and others would accomplish much more, and would better hide the tracks of a would be spy or terrorist. Equating kids with spies and terrorists, and using September 11th to provide a sound bite for a Congressman on the DRM issue is appalling. But the Entertainment Cartel will do what it takes to get their bills through.

So the "round-table" was held on July 17, a Wednesday. I'm sure you all saw the wave of bills on DRM, on allowing the Entertainment industry to hack into your computers and destroy files with civil and criminal protections , and on various other issues regarding DRM and Fair Use attacks. These bills were out the end of the same week, or the beginning of the following week. How many of you believe that the legislators sat around on July 18 to write these bills? Or is it more believable that these bills were already written prior to the round-table meeting?

We have been in contact with the Commerce Dept. We will have representatives present during the next discussion. It naturally will be separate from the industry panel (don't wanna kill the golden goose, and don't wanna give the opposition their own sound bites from the same meeting), but it is a step forward. A step that we did not have before we opened our mouths. A step that we would not have if we would have behaved like lambs to the slaughter, as Al3x would have us do. A forum where we will try to correctly define DRM

Should we have spoke out? Or not? You tell me.

But before you do, check out http://www.nyfairuse.org as they have a more complete account of what happened, and that was written a couple of days after the "round-table", not from my memory as I am doing now. Check it out, then tell me: Should we have kept our mouths shut like Al3x wanted? Or did we do something right by taking on Jack Valenti 's poisonous fud and rhetoric?

Did you speak out? Should you have spoken out? Sent an email? Made a phone call? Sent a fax?

I can't answer for you. I can only answer for myself. And I did what I thought was right.

Vincenzo.

I can be reached through the NYFairUse Discuss mailing list

btw, this is just one member's opinion. For official positions by NYLXS or NYFairUse , go to their web sites.