Slashdot Mirror

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.

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.

there is a great group in NYC that advocates Free software on the desktop it is NYLXS . I am participant in the group. We are trying to create a desktop for Accountants.

The show will demonstrate how small-mid sized businesses can save money and take advantage of the latest technology showing off such goodies as Bayonne, LTSP, X Terminal services, OpenOffice.org, and Evolution

If you are interested in what GNU/Linux solutions are out there for your small to mid sized office, come over to Segal Theater at CUNY Graduate Center, 34th St. and 5th Ave from 10am-5pm next Friday the 24th. [Free and Open to the Public]

This is a volunteer demonstration. With work like this, we are changing the face of New York. If you are interested in coming or helping, contact paulr at nylxs.com.

And let the PEOPLE do the PEOPLE's business, which is passing laws. We need a Tammany Hall like operation

What we need to do is capitilize on this opportunity and expose the radical enemies of the public for the political radicals that they are. In addition, the MPAA is showing us exactly how to take the steps necessary to defend our fourth amemndment rights under the US Constitution in regard to digital media and privately owned digital devices.

NY Fairuse is willing, with the help of it's sister organization, NYLXS, and with broad co-operation, it begin in Manhattan in May to gather together a broad coalition of IT Industry members, Librarians, Educators, Free Software Advocates, musicians, artisits, actors, and Internet Information Providers the Digital Property Protection Discussion Group.

The purpose of forming this group is to draft and pass legislation which protects individuals 4th amendment rights with regard to their digital devices and media.

The legislation to be drafted will accomplsih the following main stream objectives which all reasonable people can expect:

All copyrights to individual scores, writings, and recordings will be returned to the original artist after a period of 10 years.

No technology can be deployed which spies on, wiretaps or descloses privately owned information which is stored on digital devices by any government agency or private 3rd party without the issuance of a publically pronounced annd disclosed warrant l limited to a specific criminal investigation.

All copyright cases must prove, prior to a judgement of guilt, proof that the actions in question did not infringe on Fair Use, and the individuals rights under the 4th and 1st ammendment of the Bill of rights US Constition.

Ownership of all physical media and devices to read such media, is the sole property of the purchaser of the media, without an expressely negotiated and signed contract between both the copyright holder and the purchaser.

No technological software or hardware method can be deployed in a digital product available for normal retail sale which inhibits in any way the full enjoyment of the property by the purchasers, regardless of any agreement between the designer of the hardware or software products. Such agreements are null, and not contractable.

Copyright is an exception to Fair Use as it limited the ability for individuals to enjoy their private property and express themselves with the use of such copyrighted materials. Fair Use is a doctrin to be based on the 4th and 1st amendments of the Constitutions.

Individuals have the right to express themselves to others about the means, mechanism and workings of all digital devices, including but not limited to discussion on how to make fair use of media, how to improve such devices, or to reverse engineer all such devices and the allgorithims which are used to help them display, copy or run media.

We need to get as many big guns on this as possible and then relentlessly campaign, actively working to elect supporters and unelect opposition. In fact, we should look to defeat, not just the proposed spyware legistlation, but also defeat Senator Hollings

WE CAN force him from office, because he's a radical.

Ruben

In the case of the Federal Government, the Website http://www.fedbizops.gov/ is an archiac maze of half understandable requests for bids, which require a decent project manager to target and follow up on. It might take 2 people nearly full time to navigate this sites IT requests and to follow these up. Is it possible for Free Software groups to actually work through this process? Why yes. But it's a lot of work, and it must be initially done without pay. LUGS would need to organize to hammer on this. And that's the rub, Free Software users are essentially lazy unless a project stimulates them.

In addition, Free Software leadership seems to be uninterested in the economic interests of Free Software users. They seem to believe that if anything other than 'Freedom' is motivation to work with software that it undermines the movement. I hope that someone can begin the process of showing the FSF, and other groups that you must look after the economic interests of Free Software users if you are to protect and guarantee the 'Freedom' that Free Software is to guarantee. If people are to be enabled and Free to use Free Software, then they MUST have REASONABLE choices and opportunity to opt for using Free Software, and that means the WORK MUST BE DONE, and the economic benefits must be properly doled out to supporters in the trenches of the Free Software movement.

With NYLXS in New York, we are desperately trying to address these issues, and in fact, the paper, "The Path from Here" is written to largely address this issue and rally the troops. Let's all hope that we NYLXS and tohers succeed in their efforts, and that Free Software can become truly unshackled and the economic engine it's founders envisioned

Ruben

A short history of the continual upgrade elevator of systems with proprietary software, and the litter of useless "hot technologies" from Fox Pro to Java Applets reinforce the absolute need for real professionals to focus on technologies which can not only withstand the test of time, but can have the freedom to be extended rationally and to evolve into a reusable body knowable over decades rather than months.

We do everything we can to emphasis the enabling capability of Free Software, and our whole program is designed to teach empowerment through digital systems, the kind of empowerment ONLY possible when the systems that you use respect the political freedoms needed to guarantee the freedom to innovate. This freedom to innovate is only possible through extenssive use and training in Free Software systems. And this is where you have to focus.

In order to drive home this point, you need to make them feel empowered through the use of Free Software. They must be encouraged to become involved and to take pocession of their systems. For this reason, we require our Linux 1 class to learn to install their own computers, to set up networks, experiement and make choices. Each student buys a machine, which in the end they fully own, software and hardware. Once they feel the power of real ownership of their systems, they become extreamly enthusiatic about Free Software and naturally develope into advocates for use of Free Software in their work and living environment.

In the end, the key to teaching this group of students is no different than teaching grade school students math. You have to focus on your mission to empower the student, and to develope their confidence to be a creative participants in their own futures, in this case, through these marvelous devices which we call digital computers. The stark differnce between systems designed to ensnarl and exploit, as opposed to free software systems which are designed to empower, is best taught through hands on participation where they come to feel a sense of private pocession of their systems.

Ruben

Rebuttal of Editorial on www.overclockers.com by New Yorkers for Fair Use:

by Ruben Safir

Founder of NY Fairuse and President of NYLXS

http://www.nyfairuse.org

http://www.nylxs.com

The recent article on Overclockers, also featured on Slashdot, on Saturday April 6th, 2002, is a well thought out representation of the case that copying is not a constitutional right. While the case is presented nicely, and with sound logic, it has a number of fatal flaws within it which causes the author to draw the wrong conclusion. Since this article is gaining decent notoriety, we at New Yorkers Fair Use (http://wwwnyfairuse.org) felt it necessary to fix the mistakes within this article and to present the correct opposing legal and human rights premise for the correct analysis of not only copyright law, but also basic civil rights at this of the dawning digital age.

Recently, the Free Software group, NYLXS (http://www.nylxs.com) and New Yorkers for Fair Use joined together and made a special lobbying trip to Washington DC for the purposes of educating the New York City Congressional delegation, and specifically, Congressman Anthony Weiner, who sits on the Intellectual Property sub-committee in the House Judicial committee, about the increasing dangers to Fair Use and private property being presented by Congress in the interest of the music, publishing and movie industry. The issues outlined in both the Overclockrs article and by Laws like the DMCA, or the proposed SCSS bill coming out of Senator Hollings Chair in the U.S. Senate are the same ones that the NYLXS group tried to present to the Congressman. And these points are remunerated here for the benefit of the wider community so that they are better informed about your individual rights under the Constitution and statutory law with regards to your property and security in your home.

In the article at Overclockers it was stated:

Fair use is never mentioned in the Constitution (not even mentioned in any copyright law until 1976). Rather, it originated in the courts during the nineteenth century as a means by which producers of intellectual property could make limited use of the work of others (and allow somewhat freer use for nonprofit educational purposes).