Slashdot Mirror

ContinuousPark writes: "We've talked about hacking the Tivo and, more recently, about ReplayTV boxes being controlled over the Web. Now, the New York Times is taking it a bit further. The interesting point is that while everyone is raving about the new gadgets or complaining about how useless these devices are, the reality is that they are eventually going to disturb the TV industry just as Napster is doing with the music industry. It's just that ReplayTV and Tivo have been very discreet about this, even playing along with the networks. But it will happen and it's going to be a major disruption. I can't wait. Read why." Tivo changed the way I handle TV, but its relatively steep price prevents it from becoming as common as Napster, which is, well, free. Both will alter their industries (and then the industries will converge, but that's another story ;)

griffjon writes: "This NYT article details a new patent on getting spam to offline e-mail readers with popup ads and banners more annoying than your average spam. Fantastic. Also contains a funny patent about e-mailing stolen computers to retrieve them." I love the system that would let a predetermined e-mail subject line "initiate a predetermined security response, either locking the display screen so nothing would appear, showing only the name and contact information of the owner or erasing the laptop's hard drive." That one sounds foolproof, eh? (freeregistrationrequiredofcourse.)

doranb writes: "Carl Kaplan has a good article this week in his CyberLaw Journal. It seems U.S. users who access the Internet via cable modems may enjoy greater privacy protections. About halfway through the article he says: 'That's because the laws governing the cable television industry, the Cable Act of 1984 and the related sections of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 have privacy protections for cable subscribers that make the telephone wiretap laws seem positively pallid. Take a case where an FBI. agent wants to intercept real-time e-mail generated by a cable-modem user. Under section 551(h) of the Cable Act, the government has to secure a court order based on "clear and convincing evidence" that the target may be involved in a crime. That's a higher standard that the "probable cause&quot" required for a phone tap.' The question becomes: Should the U.S. 'dumb down' these protections to be equivalent to telecom, or should they beef up telecom's protections to be equal to the cable industry?"

If you're looking for a political issue that will advance freedom, support the growth and innovation of technology, support younger geeks (and adults) who depend on libraries for access to the Net and Web, and also strike a blow against the Luddites who dominate Congress and media, there's a great cause for you: your local library needs some help. Enlightened educators and librarians are seeking help in blocking imminent federal legislation that would require the installation of filtering software on all school and library computers connected to the Net.

This provision ought to be called "The Local Net Censorship Act" -- and it's close to becoming law. Lawmakers in both the House and the Senate approved a final version late last week, agreeing on a compromise approach containing elements of separate plans passed in the two chambers earlier this year. It would require all schools and libraries to install filtering software regulating the content available to any computers purchased with Federal money, blocking child pornography, obscenity and materials deemed harmful to minors. Schools and libraries would also be required to develop Net use policies that address minors' online access to "inappropriate" materials.

Much of the tech culture was asleep at the switch when the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was passed, giving corporations unprecedented control of American intellectual property, and is now paying for its apathy. This law could increase liability for schools and libraries, give local politicians and religious crazies a significant new weapon to ban access in public institutions to material they consider offensive or inappropriate.

Representatives are already lining up to lengthen the list of sites and subjects considered "inappropriate." Sen. John McCain of Arizona is pushing his own filtering provision in the Senate, where an amendment by Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has just added the further requirement that communities be able to provide input about blocking other "inappropriate" Web sites that mention bomb-making, drugs or other topics.

As most of the people reading this know, blocking and filtering programs are arbitrary and wildly ineffective. While savvy users can easily bypass them, these filters hide from most users vast amounts of legitimate information along with so-called "offensive" content. This law is a license for every political interest group to keep subjects they don't like out of local libraries and schools. The victims would be kids with nowhere but libraries to go for Net access. Most filtering programs are censorship technology, pure and simple, but at the same time less effective than simple adult or parental supervision. They are not justified by any meaningful statistics regarding children and the Internet -- perhaps because there really aren't any.

Instead of tying the hands of educators and librarians, government should be doing everything possible to ensure that as many kids as possible have free access to the Net and the Web, because it will be vital to their social, educational and economic opportunities. Laws like this demonstrate how profoundly and dangerously ignorant of technology most of our elected leaders are, and how vulnerable to their ignorance the tech culture is.

The National Education Association is fighting the law -- the still nameless legislation is attached to legislation funding the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education departments. The American Library Association is in on the fight, too, since the bill would for the first time force public libraries to follow the same access policies as schools. But hardly anyone in Congress will dare defend "pornography" and "offensive" material.

"For a library, it's a different ball game," a spokeswoman for the ALA told The New York Times. "If you have to filter any machine a child may use, in a library, you'd have to filter every computer. It disregards age-appropriate levels." This means older children, teenagers and adults would be arbitrarily censored by any local community that didn't like a particular kind of Web site or subject matter, from abortion information to anything resembling sexual imagery. And kids in schools would be subject to even more controlled than they already are.

Libraries -- and local communities -- already have the freedom to establish controls ranging from increased supervision to some kinds of filtering if they wish. Most libraries and schools also have the ability to block sites if they are deemed dangerous and offensive. There is absolutely no reason for Congress to make censorship technology universal and required by law. The federal provision would further complicate Net access issues for libraries, since their environments are less controlled than a public school. Libraries are open to all ages, including adults -- who have a First Amendment right to access a broader range of materials on the Net than the proposed congressional filtering arrangement would allow. Libraries also fear that the law would expose libraries to a wave of new lawsuits demanding they filter -- in accordance with federal law -- any site that could be considered "inappropriate" or "offensive" by any elements of any local community. Passage of this law would force local libraries to radically increase filtering of the Net.

Most of us don't need to go to the library for Net access, but millions of people -- mostly kids -- do. They are entitled to some kinds of First Amendment protection as well as we are. This is a dangerous law, one which injects federal moral guardians directly into the issue of Net access. History tell us this is an awful idea. If you're in the mood to contact your local congressman or woman, this is a great reason to do it. For further information, you can also contact the National Education Association and the American Library Association.

Note: If you're looking for factual evidence to help bolster your arguments against the encroachment of filters, jamie also suggests checking out The Censorware Project, Peacefire and the GLAAD report on filter discrimination.

Ever more information for you, the loyal photographic memory-blessed reader. That is to say, more on Linux on Macs -- and not just the sexy new ones. Evolving attitudes in Kansas. Misinformation about Survivor. And cheap, cheap boxes for your node-in-every-room home network.

Pardon me sir, are you going to finish that Apple? Marco van de Voort writes: "MkLinux now has official support for these much sold first Nubus based PowerMac generation, that is rotting away in basements. These machines make excellent X-Terms." And the same models can naturally run NetBSD, too. [Updated 6:26GMT by timothy] Reader vkulkarn corrects me here. Mea culpa, you're right -- only some of the old Nubus PowerMac models actually run NetBSD. But I bet someone, somewhere is plotting to change that.

Garage sales can now support Linux.GigsVT writes "Coollogic has released a new set-top box, this one with Linux already installed. Sounds like ripe hacking material to me. Blurb: The Internet Ready 7200 uses a National Semiconductor MediaGX processor, 16MB of flash memory instead of a hard disk, 32MB of RAM and has the ability to connect to the Internet via DSL, Ethernet or a modem. It uses a TV instead of a monitor and comes with Netscape's Web browser." And MrRobahtsu writes "Want a 64MB diskless 200MHz Linux box cheap? Try egghead. With IDE, USB, 10/100 ethernet, and Linux and Netscape in flash ram, it looks pretty cool. Even says "can be upgraded to a pc." Not bad for $129."

Toto, I don't think we're in the Pleistocene anymore! Claudius writes: "This cnn.com article reports that Kansas voters now support the teaching of evolution in their public schools, as evidenced by recent election results. They have voted to remove two incumbents to the Kansas Board of Education who have supported standards diminishing the importance of evolution, and a third, anti-evolution candidate was unable to defeat an opponent who opposes the current standards. The issue is still far from settled, however, since five of the ten seats on the board remain to be filled in November." For a refresher on the sticky state of evolution in Kansas education, see Hemos' story on it from a while ago.

Ha ha fooled ya good. TeacherReviews.com writes "Gervase just got voted off the Survivor island, meaning that RealWorldBlows discussed in a past story produced a false result and the actual winner of Survivor is still unknown." True enough. What was going through the collective CBS head when they failed to follow the directive of their own Web site?!

Still horrifying after all these days. chaidawg writes: "According to this article in the New York Times (free registration req.), author Stephen King's experiment with payment for e-publishing seems to be working. After the first of three promised chapters he has made back all but $10,000 of the more than $100,000 he spent on advertising." This still doesn't mean Jamie is wrong -- yet.

We got word last night that Copyleft has joined the ranks of the named defendants in the DeCSS suit - they received their subpoena yesterday, because they "distribute" the DeCSS source code - on t-shirts.

Carnegie Mellon Professor David Touretzky testified before the court on this very issue. (See his Gallery of CSS Descramblers.)

Here's Touretzky being questioned:

19 Q. The next item, the DeCSS T-shirt, why did you post this on
20 the website on the gallery?

21 A. Well, this is a photograph of a T-shirt that's offered for
22 sale by an outfit called CopyLeft, and I purchased one of
23 those shirts myself. And the point of including it here is it
24 seems to me that there is some confusion among all the parties
25 in this case about whether something is speech or not.
1 And my reaction is if you can put it on a T-shirt,
2 it's speech. And so the point of showing the T-shirt was to
3 illustrate that and, also, to raise the question if this
4 T-shirt, itself, would have to be prohibited, then I wonder
5 what would happen to me if I wore the shirt in public.
6 Wearing the shirt in public could, perhaps, be interpreted as
7 engaging in trafficking a circumvention device.
8 So if one really wants to afford the plaintiffs the
9 protection that they seek, I think I would only be able to
10 wear my shirt in the privacy of my own home and must not go
11 outdoors with it.

Touretzky drew up a lengthy argument showing that if the DeCSS source code were banned, the only way to prevent that knowledge from being transmitted would be to ban it in all its forms - image file, various perturbations of the code into forms similar to plain English, annotated commentary, even on t-shirts and hidden in image files - all of these would have to be banned because the source code is easily retrievable from all of them. The Technical Term for this is "opening up a can of worms". Touretzky was trying to show the court that the issue was hardly open-and-shut - if you look at it one way, it's a device which can perform a task, but if you look at it another, it's speech that's expressive and communicative. If you're a programmer who's never taken much of a look at the legal issues surrounding computer programs, it may be patently obvious to you that code is speech, but to the judicial system, it is not so clear.

The judge was apparently much impressed, and started seriously thinking about the free-speech implications of banning DeCSS, possibly for the first time in the case. He seemed to take Touretzky's argument to heart - either all would have to be banned, or none. Apparently the MPAA took Touretzky's argument to heart as well, and they're therefore doing what is necessary to remain consistent with their argument: going after the T-shirts.

Maybe they'll go after the New York Times as well. Perhaps if the Times gets dragged into the case for posting an image of the illegal shirt, it might finally become clear to all and sundry that this case is about much more than copyright infringement.

Subject: [CAFE-News] EFF DeCSS Trial Summary

DVD Update: July 31, 2000
Universal City Studios et al v. 2600 Magazine

EFF DeCSS Trial Summary:
Facts in EFF's Favor as MPAA Claims Collapse Under Scrutiny

EFF defense team established a solid record at trial that the major film studios are attempting to use the DMCA to ban DeCSS so it can monopolize the DVD player market. Despite its immense investigative resources and months of effort, the MPAA was forced to concede at trial that it could not find a single instance of piracy related to the software. The First Amendment rights of all citizens have been endangered because of the studios' panic and over reaction.

Norwegian teenager Jon Johansen testified for the defense that he was working to build a DVD player for the Linux operating system when he posted the program to the LiVid list that he and two others authored. LiVid Project Leader Matthew Pavlovich testified that his development group used DeCSS to create a Linux DVD player that can compete with the studios' and DVD-CCA's current monopoly on DVD players. The studios were hoping to ban the software before a competing DVD player could be created that is not required by a CSS license to restrict features which allow people to exercise their legal rights. Journalist Emmanuel Goldstein, the editor of 2600 Magazine testified that he published the code in his reporting of Hollywood's crazed reaction to the software's existence, when the studios launched this legal attack against him.

The high point of trial was the electrifying testimony of Professor David Touretzky of Carnegie Mellon University's Computer Science Department, EFF's final witness before resting its case. Touretzky explained to the court how computer programmers use computer code to communicate to one another with precision. He showed the court how an injunction against DeCSS chills his ability to express himself. Judge Lewis Kaplan stated Touretzky's testimony was "persuasive" and "educational" and would likely change his First Amendment analysis of the case. The judge did not indicate that he intends to rule in favor of defendants however, and EFF is prepared to take an immediate appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Trial briefs are due August 8 and a short turn-around is expected for a ruling.

After the close of trial, DVD-CCA filed a motion to intervene in the NY litigation to fight EFF's challenge to unseal the Xing CSS license entered into evidence. DVD-CCA has requested to keep its CSS license out of the public record and Judge Kaplan will accept papers opposing DVD-CCA's intervention and secrecy request until August 2 at 5p.m.

You can subscribe to EFF's mailing list to receive the regular DVD updates. To subscribe, email majordomo@eff.org and put this in the text: subscribe cafe-news

EFF's archive of MPAA v 2600 litigation:
http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/

---------------------------------------------------------------
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org) is the leading global nonprofit organization linking technical architectures with legal frameworks to support the rights of individuals in an open society. Founded in 1990, EFF actively encourages and challenges industry and government to support free expression, privacy, and openness in the information society. EFF is a member-supported organization and maintains one of the most-linked-to Web sites in the world.

The New York Times has a nice summary of the DeCSS case and the issues at stake with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Reporter Amy Harmon managed to put together the facts correctly, probably because she didn't spend too much time talking to the plaintiff's lawyers. There's a nice picture of Emmanuel Goldstein and Macki from 2600.com (mislabeled as Jon Johansen). See our last story for transcripts and other info from the trial. (Last day to sign up to vote in the ICANN elections!) Update: 07/31 15:32 by michael : The NYT has changed out the single picture of Macki and Goldstein to two separate pictures of Johansen and Goldstein. It's good to know they read slashdot. :)

sdodson writes: ""Researchers at the Bell Laboratories of Lucent Technologies have created the first solid laser from organic materials... which have been dubbed 'plastic lasers'... " and "can be relatively easily manipulated to emit light ranging from ultraviolet to infrared." These new lasers will require less power, and will have many applications in communications as well as medicine. The New York Times has the article." This will be big. Of course, it's still a long way down the road.

sdodson writes: ""Researchers at the Bell Laboratories of Lucent Technologies have created the first solid laser from organic materials... which have been dubbed 'plastic lasers'... " and "can be relatively easily manipulated to emit light ranging from ultraviolet to infrared." These new lasers will require less power, and will have many applications in communications as well as medicine. The New York Times has the article." This will be big. Of course, it's still a long way down the road.

jlj writes: "According to this New York Times (reg. required) article, the MPAA v. 2600 trial in New York has ended. Judge Kaplan indicated that he was likely to declare the DeCSS code as a form of expressive content, "a distinction that may help bring it First Amendment protection." No matter who wins, this case is likely to end up in the Supreme Court. Hopefully 2600 will win this round because I can only imagine the very truthful press releases the MPAA will be pouring out if they win. From the article: The judge said he was impressed by David Touretzky, a computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, who testified that the case raises ``very serious concerns about the future of computer science and my ability to function as a computer scientist.''." No ruling has been issued yet, as you can tell from the article - we'll keep you updated.

Stephen King is conducting a fiendish experiment. He - not his publisher - is putting the first installment of a novel online today, and then waiting to see how many people will pay a dollar for the download. The second part goes online next month, and then when it comes time to upload the third part, King will only release it if enough people have paid for the first two. This is the first high-profile test of a promising artistic compensation algorithm in the post-copyright world -- and when it fails, don't give up on it.

"The average writer is really more interested in writing than the transaction part of the process."
-- Jack Romanos, President/COO of Simon & Schuster, quoted in NYT

"We're confident that publishers add enough value to the process that authors are still going to want to use them."
-- Carolyn Reidy, CEO of Simon & Schuster, quoted by AP

"My friends, we have a chance to become Big Publishing's worst nightmare."
-- Stephen King

"Looks like the future of publishing to me."
-- Bruce Schneier

We've had a few people submit this news item, describing it as "shareware." It's not. This is shareware with a bite attached, something else entirely. What King is doing is a real-world test of the Street Performer's Protocol.

The SPP is a proposal for artists to make money without retaining any control over their work (since, on the net, copyright is rapidly being rendered irrelevant). Here's the paper by Kelsey and Schneier if you'd like to get all the technical details.

But the bottom line is that Stephen King is never going to have to publish the end of his novel.

Readers aren't going to send in a flood of cash and money orders (!) -- that's a given -- envelopes and addresses are a hassle. Luckily for him, he's brokered a deal with Amazon to accept credit cards, which is pretty sweet considering that most places won't even look at $1 credit card charges -- too much overhead. (My guess would be that Amazon is doing this as a loss leader to get the attention and signups. That won't work forever. Amazon PR didn't return my phone call by press time.)

But the real problem is that King demands that 75% of his readers be honest. That'll never happen.

Kelsey and Schneier's original SPP proposed thoughtfully that authors ask for a flat fee: say, $100,000 for a novel. If the majority of an author's readers never pay, that's fine: as long as the remaining minority is large enough (or rich enough) to collectively make the payment. (If not enough pay, the money stays in escrow and then reverts to its owners.)

King's terms make the question one of relative loyalty, not absolute popularity. He's not offering a transaction with his readers -- he's testing them. And the test is guaranteed to fail.

What he's proposing is a Prisoner's Dilemma played between thousands of people. Because of the large nature of the game, the actual statistical "profit" returned by sending in your dollar is a tiny fraction of the enjoyment you'd get from reading the third installment that King would post. Your payoff matrix looks like:

Novel Released Novel Not Released Cooperate
(pay $1) Get $10 reading enjoyment for $1, profit: $9 $-1 Defect
(pay $0) Get $10 reading enjoyment for free, profit: $10 $0

No matter what happens, you do better by not sending in your dollar. (It's fair to ignore the infinitesimal chance that your single dollar will be the one to hit the 75% mark.)

Of course there are other considerations (can you sleep at night knowing you cheated Stephen King out of a dollar?) but for the most part, people will weigh these options and decide they're not going to pay.

And once you start thinking that you're not going to pay, you realize that many others won't either, and it starts to look even more like throwing money down a drain. Vicious cycle.

The Prisoner's Dilemma is only interesting if the same players play together over and over. What we have here is a "one-shot" game, and in such a game the only rational strategy is to defect. Unfortunately, if everyone behaves rationally, we all merely break even (and the novel never comes out); if only we were a little more irrational we'd all make a profit of nine dollars - or however much King's story was worth to us.

Douglas Hofstadter ran an experiment for Scientific American in June 1983, asking twenty friends to play a similar one-shot Dilemma. Even though Hofstadter's was profit-only, no chance of losing money, and even though participants knew their choices would be reported in a national magazine, his cooperation rate was only 30%.

I predict King's return rate will be something like 15%. Maybe it will go as much as twice as high, thanks to his deal with Amazon to let people use credit cards -- much more convenient.

The disappointing thing is that two months from now he's going to announce that the experiment has failed and then either drop the novel, or keep writing it out of the kindness of his heart. Either way, the press is going to report that this new distribution method is a crock. Which is a shame because it only needs to be done right.

First of all, the percentage thing needs to go. King doesn't write for the satisfaction of knowing that he has honest readers. He writes to make money.

I suspect King is too used to thinking in terms of royalties, hoping for a good-sized slice of those unpredictably large pies he bakes. He might not know which novel will be the runaway best-seller that will make ten times the money he'd hoped for.

My advice to him would be to relax; don't try to look for the gravy train. You're on the internet now, that won't work. Set a price for your time -- an obscenely high price, to be sure, you're one of the world's most popular writers -- and be content with what you get. When contributions hit that number, release the book.

Second, invite readers to contribute as much as they like toward the novel. For some, a dollar; for real fans, ten dollars or more. Let us decide how much it's worth to us.

Third, hold contributions in escrow until the novel is released, and if the limit is not reached by a certain time, give us our money back. As a contributor, this makes my cost negligible, and changes my payoff matrix to, let's say...

Price Reached Price Not Reached Cooperate
(pay $3) Get $10 reading enjoyment for $3, profit: $7 Get my $3 back: $0 Defect
(pay $0) Get $10 reading enjoyment for free, profit: $10 $0

This way, there's no risk; the worst-case scenario is that I lose some time and energy at the mailbox. It's a win-win situation, and I'm much more likely to play.

If Stephen King wants to craft a real nightmare for Big Publishing, that's the plot he needs to use.

(P.S. If you're interested in reading more about the Prisoner's Dilemma, I've assembled a few references -- and thoughts -- at thedilemma.org. See in particular Hofstadter, pp. 740ff., re the one-shot PD.)

(P.P.S. Updated 90 minutes later. I had this link to "the download" up in the top paragraph, but took it out because some people didn't realize it led straight to the pay-me-a-dollar PDF file. Sorry; that's why the link is down here now. If you read it and want to pay your dollar, you can probably figure out to visit stephenking.com, eh?)

The DVD trial has been underway in New York City since last Monday, testing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and it's expected to run through Wednesday or Thursday this week. It's not looking good for the forces of light. See below for more reading material than you could possibly take in.

The EFF has put out a series of Updates covering the case day-by-day as it progresses. The most recent one or two aren't on the website yet, but should be soon.

2600 is keeping a complete archive of case-related documents, including transcripts. The transcripts are serious time-killers - it takes a long time to read 7 hours of testimony. But if you've got some time on your hands, they make good reading. Nothing beats first-generation source materials.

The New York Times has a nice summary in their Cyber Law section. Concentrates on the surprise testimony of Jon Johansen on Thursday, but touches on other issues as well.

The people at Harvard's Openlaw project have been scrutinizing the trial as it unfolds. They've collected a bunch of links to press coverage of the trial, and it's frankly pretty interesting to see the substantial differences between publications - almost as if they were watching different trials, one about the freedom to view DVD's as you choose, and a completely different trial about pirates, freebooters, and buccaneers. Their DVD-discuss mailing list often has insightful commentary.

So now that you've had a chance to read up on the trial, let's cut to the chase: the defendants are going to lose. (Note that the decision in the case may not come for a few weeks yet.) No doubt Monday-morning quarterbacks are already primed for action, and the MPAA's PR people have already prepared their after-action press releases calling 2600 a bunch of pirates, thieves, and baby-stealers. Some people will claim it was due to Judge Kaplan's evident bias (which has now degenerated into the lawyerly equivalent of a flame-war between the defense lead attorney Martin Garbus and the Judge); some will point out that any judge could have interpreted the statute as rigidly as Kaplan, with or without bias. Regardless of who wins, the case will be appealed, so this matter will be finally settled in the Court of Appeals or perhaps even the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, I'm going to take the liberty of reposting an email from John Perry Barlow. I don't think he'll mind.

Dave,

Thanks for the LA Times link. I like best the delicious irony of the following:

"This is a very profound moment historically," Time Warner President Richard Parsons says. "This isn't just about a bunch of kids stealing music. It's about an assault on everything that constitutes the cultural expression of our society. If we fail to protect and preserve our intellectual property system, the culture will atrophy. And corporations won't be the only ones hurt. Artists will have no incentive to create. Worst-case scenario: The country will end up in a sort of cultural Dark Ages."

A profound moment, indeed. Indeed, it is an assault on everything that has stifled the cultural expression of our society. It's an assault on the system that stole every dime The Chambers Brothers ever made while grotesquely enriching Brittany Spears.

There is certainly the potential for a cultural Dark Age here, by which I don't simply mean what would follow the death of Time-Warner. Rather, I refer to the very real possibility that Time-Warner and the rest of its loathsome kind will die with most of the expressive genius of the 20th Century buried with them, embedded in their corpses by their last success: using copyright to prevent the digitization and, hence, perpetuation of all that creation.

Only massive civil disobedience will prevent this ugly future. Speaking as someone who has created a lot of "intellectual property," I can assure you that my primary incentive was the possibility that what passed through my heart would be heard. I want it to be available to my great grandchildren. But they will never hear it unless it's stored in some other medium than the material objects the record industry manufactured, all of which will be as mute as stones by then.

Of course, I wanted to be paid for it, and I was. Just as Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and countless others were paid, despite the absence of copyright protection.

The only people who are likely to lose the lesser incentive of wealth will be the likes of Richard Parsons. His loss will be our gain. Unless, of course, he wins.

Mad as hell,

Barlow

The DVD trial has been underway in New York City since last Monday, testing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and it's expected to run through Wednesday or Thursday this week. It's not looking good for the forces of light. See below for more reading material than you could possibly take in.

The EFF has put out a series of Updates covering the case day-by-day as it progresses. The most recent one or two aren't on the website yet, but should be soon.

2600 is keeping a complete archive of case-related documents, including transcripts. The transcripts are serious time-killers - it takes a long time to read 7 hours of testimony. But if you've got some time on your hands, they make good reading. Nothing beats first-generation source materials.

The New York Times has a nice summary in their Cyber Law section. Concentrates on the surprise testimony of Jon Johansen on Thursday, but touches on other issues as well.

The people at Harvard's Openlaw project have been scrutinizing the trial as it unfolds. They've collected a bunch of links to press coverage of the trial, and it's frankly pretty interesting to see the substantial differences between publications - almost as if they were watching different trials, one about the freedom to view DVD's as you choose, and a completely different trial about pirates, freebooters, and buccaneers. Their DVD-discuss mailing list often has insightful commentary.

So now that you've had a chance to read up on the trial, let's cut to the chase: the defendants are going to lose. (Note that the decision in the case may not come for a few weeks yet.) No doubt Monday-morning quarterbacks are already primed for action, and the MPAA's PR people have already prepared their after-action press releases calling 2600 a bunch of pirates, thieves, and baby-stealers. Some people will claim it was due to Judge Kaplan's evident bias (which has now degenerated into the lawyerly equivalent of a flame-war between the defense lead attorney Martin Garbus and the Judge); some will point out that any judge could have interpreted the statute as rigidly as Kaplan, with or without bias. Regardless of who wins, the case will be appealed, so this matter will be finally settled in the Court of Appeals or perhaps even the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, I'm going to take the liberty of reposting an email from John Perry Barlow. I don't think he'll mind.

Dave,

Thanks for the LA Times link. I like best the delicious irony of the following:

"This is a very profound moment historically," Time Warner President Richard Parsons says. "This isn't just about a bunch of kids stealing music. It's about an assault on everything that constitutes the cultural expression of our society. If we fail to protect and preserve our intellectual property system, the culture will atrophy. And corporations won't be the only ones hurt. Artists will have no incentive to create. Worst-case scenario: The country will end up in a sort of cultural Dark Ages."

A profound moment, indeed. Indeed, it is an assault on everything that has stifled the cultural expression of our society. It's an assault on the system that stole every dime The Chambers Brothers ever made while grotesquely enriching Brittany Spears.

There is certainly the potential for a cultural Dark Age here, by which I don't simply mean what would follow the death of Time-Warner. Rather, I refer to the very real possibility that Time-Warner and the rest of its loathsome kind will die with most of the expressive genius of the 20th Century buried with them, embedded in their corpses by their last success: using copyright to prevent the digitization and, hence, perpetuation of all that creation.

Only massive civil disobedience will prevent this ugly future. Speaking as someone who has created a lot of "intellectual property," I can assure you that my primary incentive was the possibility that what passed through my heart would be heard. I want it to be available to my great grandchildren. But they will never hear it unless it's stored in some other medium than the material objects the record industry manufactured, all of which will be as mute as stones by then.

Of course, I wanted to be paid for it, and I was. Just as Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and countless others were paid, despite the absence of copyright protection.

The only people who are likely to lose the lesser incentive of wealth will be the likes of Richard Parsons. His loss will be our gain. Unless, of course, he wins.

Mad as hell,

Barlow

RobM writes: "I've found on the New York Times (registration required) that Fox Animation has been shut down after Titan A.E. flopped. What do you think of this film and the reasoning in the article '2D sucks, 3DCGI is the way to go'?"

ebh asks: "The New York Times (free registration required) has an article today that talks about the push for legalization in the US of low-power radio. Small potential broadcasters want it. Large broadcasters don't, claiming that adding hundreds of new stations will interfere with their existing signals, even though the low-power stations will only have a broadcast range of approximately 3.5 miles (5.6 km). This seems to me like a moot battle. Why fight for the right to buy expensive gear and to consume lots of electricity to broadcast over a small geographic area, when you could reach the whole world by setting up a station on the Internet?" True, a website might be easier to set up, but what if the target audience isn't the rest of the world, but the area right outside your front door? Low powered radio sounds perfect for this.

jeffsenter writes "The NYTimes (free regis. req.) has an article on a new law being passed in the U.K., which 'goes further than the American plan unveiled on Monday in Washington, would make Britain the only Western democracy where the government could require anyone using the Internet to turn over the keys to decoding e-mails messages and other data.'" The RIP bill controversy has been going on for some months now, but it looks like the snoops are going to win.

jeffsenter writes "The NYTimes (free regis. req.) has an article on a new law being passed in the U.K., which 'goes further than the American plan unveiled on Monday in Washington, would make Britain the only Western democracy where the government could require anyone using the Internet to turn over the keys to decoding e-mails messages and other data.'" The RIP bill controversy has been going on for some months now, but it looks like the snoops are going to win.

griffjon writes "The NYT (lame free reg blah blah) is running an article on Microsoft research into an attention-oriented UI that will use cameras and mics as well as software to monitor where a user's attention is focused and query other software (like e-mail notification, IM, etc.) to keep it from interrupting their chain of thought." This strikes me as being a really cool idea if properly implemented. Even simple things like not letting your biff update until you change focus out of a word processor. (mind you the anti-MS block on Slashdot will of course equate Microsoft's involvement with the project to mean that this is really about mind control or the corporately financed return of the plague, but what are ya gonna do?)

kootch writes "After the hearing last week concerning digital music, I think these two links from the NYTimes should be interesting. One is on Sen Leahy showing he's much saavier than most think, and the second is on how one of the founders of Napster isn't always against copyrights... and is starting a company to distribute movies with Hollywood." Leahy has been on the "right side" of most internet-related issues in Congress for many years now. A few more like him, and a lot of the need for a YRO section would disappear.

kootch writes "After the hearing last week concerning digital music, I think these two links from the NYTimes should be interesting. One is on Sen Leahy showing he's much saavier than most think, and the second is on how one of the founders of Napster isn't always against copyrights... and is starting a company to distribute movies with Hollywood." Leahy has been on the "right side" of most internet-related issues in Congress for many years now. A few more like him, and a lot of the need for a YRO section would disappear.

kootch writes "After the hearing last week concerning digital music, I think these two links from the NYTimes should be interesting. One is on Sen Leahy showing he's much saavier than most think, and the second is on how one of the founders of Napster isn't always against copyrights... and is starting a company to distribute movies with Hollywood." Leahy has been on the "right side" of most internet-related issues in Congress for many years now. A few more like him, and a lot of the need for a YRO section would disappear.

Scott_Marks writes "The New York Times today has an article on a newly-patented device which may make it practical to perform DNA testing (or drug testing, or explosives testing) on anyone walking underneath. This "portal" sucks up some of the millions of skin flakes each of us sheds each day and whips them into your choice of privacy-invading analysis equipment "for detecting the presence of molecules of interest"."

Scott_Marks writes "The New York Times today has an article on a newly-patented device which may make it practical to perform DNA testing (or drug testing, or explosives testing) on anyone walking underneath. This "portal" sucks up some of the millions of skin flakes each of us sheds each day and whips them into your choice of privacy-invading analysis equipment "for detecting the presence of molecules of interest"."

Headed by an unnamed correspondent, many people have written about this story: "The China Red Flag Linux has surfaced again, this time in the New York Times. Turns out there may be some truth to the story that Linux is being pushed by the Chinese government." I do like this tidbit, even though it demonstrates the article's overall superficial tone: "Nonetheless, Great Wall Computer, one of China's biggest PC makers, has already shipped 200,000 desktop computers loaded with the Linux operating system, which looks much like Windows though it cannot yet match all of Microsoft's features." I can think of some features we can do without ...

Logic Bomb writes: "The New York Times has an article [Free reg. req.] about how "texting" -- the sending of short text messages via cell phone -- is taking over life in the Phillipines. I mean really taking over. People are texting while they drive, at funerals, instead of conversing over dinner, during tests in school, even to avoid the potential embarassment of asking someone for a date in person. This is an interesting contrast to, say, Finland (home of cellular giants like Nokia), where cell phones are everywhere but people actually use them to talk. The article gives some economic reasons for this difference, and mentions that this may be a good way to start bringing some of the poorer but developed countries into the digital age. Any thoughts from the Slashdot community? Is this a good thing, or is it an unfortunate imposition of the depersonalizing aspects of technology onto an unsuspecting culture?"

Logic Bomb writes: "The New York Times has an article [Free reg. req.] about how "texting" -- the sending of short text messages via cell phone -- is taking over life in the Phillipines. I mean really taking over. People are texting while they drive, at funerals, instead of conversing over dinner, during tests in school, even to avoid the potential embarassment of asking someone for a date in person. This is an interesting contrast to, say, Finland (home of cellular giants like Nokia), where cell phones are everywhere but people actually use them to talk. The article gives some economic reasons for this difference, and mentions that this may be a good way to start bringing some of the poorer but developed countries into the digital age. Any thoughts from the Slashdot community? Is this a good thing, or is it an unfortunate imposition of the depersonalizing aspects of technology onto an unsuspecting culture?"

Orne writes: "The New York Times has an article about mathematicians at Brown who have patented a new music encryption system that is based on cycling encryption keys. '... a typical three-minute song could be scrambled into 180 different codes; anyone taking the time to break a single code would be rewarded with only one second of music.'" I'm not going to try to parse the math behind it, but advances like this are why I advocate laws to protect fair use of copyrighted materials -- sooner or later a successful crypto-system to prevent all non-permitted use of materials will be developed, complete with tamper-proof hardware in your PC, and then where will we be?

Orne writes: "The New York Times has an article about mathematicians at Brown who have patented a new music encryption system that is based on cycling encryption keys. '... a typical three-minute song could be scrambled into 180 different codes; anyone taking the time to break a single code would be rewarded with only one second of music.'" I'm not going to try to parse the math behind it, but advances like this are why I advocate laws to protect fair use of copyrighted materials -- sooner or later a successful crypto-system to prevent all non-permitted use of materials will be developed, complete with tamper-proof hardware in your PC, and then where will we be?

Mike Bouma writes: "Recently it began raining news coverages about Amiga`s new OS in the mainstream press like CNN`s Digital Jam, The New York Times and Gamersdepot. The first impressions of the new SDK have been very positive. Lars Thomas Denstad has written a small article about his experiences with the new SDK so far."

Schnedt McWapt writes: "Oracle Says It Investigated Microsoft Allies. From the article: 'Oracle Corporation acknowledged today that it had hired a prominent Washington detective firm to investigate groups sympathetic to its archrival, the Microsoft Corporation, an effort that yielded documents embarrassing to Microsoft in the midst of its antitrust battle with the government.'" Myriad adds: "This apparently ties in with an earlier [CNN] report involving IGI and the failed purchase of Association for Competitive Technology office trash -- a group with ties to Microsoft. You can find the article on CNNfn here. I hate to say it, but would reactions be different if it was Microsoft who hired IGI against another company?"

gfoyle writes: "The NY Times is reporting (free registratration required) that the cash strapped Icann is being sued by Afternic for being denied entrance into the domain registration market. This is believed to be the first suit challenging Icann's authority over domain registrations." The NYT article points out that both Network Solutions and Register.com now offer domain resale services -- services on which basis Afternic says ICANN rejcted their application to be a top-tier registrar.

gfoyle writes: "The NY Times is reporting (free registratration required) that the cash strapped Icann is being sued by Afternic for being denied entrance into the domain registration market. This is believed to be the first suit challenging Icann's authority over domain registrations." The NYT article points out that both Network Solutions and Register.com now offer domain resale services -- services on which basis Afternic says ICANN rejcted their application to be a top-tier registrar.

We're persuaded to post this... Anonymous points out some minor discrepencies between Jack-Valenti-during-a-deposition and Jack-Valenti-in-the-New-York-Times... "There he goes again. Jack Valenti, President of the Motion Picture Asociation of America, has yet another Op-Ed in Wednesday's New York Times putting forth the MPAA's particularly twisted notion of the purpose of U.S. Copyright law. We've seen it all before: the vitriolic name-calling ("casual thieves," "Internet marauders,"), the equating of infringement with theft (which it isn't, see Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207), the demands for the transfer of even more rights from users to publishers/distributors, etc.

"What makes Valenti's piece interesting this time, though, it that it so closely follows his deposition in MPAA v. 2600 (the DeCSS case in NY). Compare this claim by Valenti in the NYT:

"A number of new movies, the ones now in theaters, have already been put on the Internet by pilfering zealots eager to enfold films in the same embrace now choking the music world, even though few computer users yet have ways to download them."

with these excerpts from the deposition:

Q Has anyone ever told you that they had ever seen on the internet a DVD de-encrypted by DECSS?
A I don't recall.
[...]
Q Do you know how many copies of films or
how many films have been copied through the
use of camcorders?
A A lot.
Q Do you know if any of those films have
been shown on the internet?
A I don't know.

Q Do you know whether the MPA has ever
checked into whether or not you can take a rented
movie and put that on the internet?
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
[...]
Q Do you know whether or not you can take
a video that you make, a duplicate, and then put
it on the internet?
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
[...]
Q You don't know whether it's possible or
whether or not it's legal. Is that right?
THE WITNESS: Don't know. I don't know
whether it's possible. I don't know whether it's
legal.
[...]
Q Do you know whether there have been any
instances where people have gone in with
camcorders and then taken the material from the
camcorder and translated it to the internet?
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
Q Do you know of instances where movies
have been shown on the internet where they have --
very shortly after the release of the film and
before DVDs or videos of that film have made
available to the public?
A I don't know.

If Jack Valenti knows so much about new movies appearing on the Internet that he can justify the claims made in his NYT Op-Ed, how come he couldn't remember any information about a single instance during his deposition?

"

A number of people wrote in about the New York Times article regarding IBM's new storage breakthrough. They've been working on their microdrives for some time now, and it appears to be paying off. 1 gig in something the size of a pack of matches. Cool.Update: 06/20 04:58 by H :Check out the press release from IBM, thanks to Asbestosrush.

Logic Bomb writes "There is a short editorial [free reg. req.] over at the New York Times that talks about how the Digital Revolution really hasn't made as much of a difference in people's lives as some other developments in recent history - electricity, hot running water, medical progress, and others. The author, noted (and humorous!) economist Paul Krugman, thinks it's just not that much of a revolution yet. Does the Slashdot community agree? What possible future developments do people think must be made a reality before the Digital Revolution transforms human life as much as the Industrial Revolution?"

Logic Bomb writes "There is a short editorial [free reg. req.] over at the New York Times that talks about how the Digital Revolution really hasn't made as much of a difference in people's lives as some other developments in recent history - electricity, hot running water, medical progress, and others. The author, noted (and humorous!) economist Paul Krugman, thinks it's just not that much of a revolution yet. Does the Slashdot community agree? What possible future developments do people think must be made a reality before the Digital Revolution transforms human life as much as the Industrial Revolution?"

LightSaber writes: "Here we go again. This time it is computers and hard disks with nuclear weapons data that are missing from the lab vaults. This is really becoming pretty much a regular feature by now." Similarly, bapya writes: "CNN reports a secret nuclear information leak from Los Alamos lab. Apparently, the disappearance of the records was reported on June 1. One official said part of the problem in tracking down the missing data is that the record keeping is so unorganized it is difficult to tell who had access to the lab and who could have legitimately signed out the material. How can we manage our critical information???" Oscarfish points out coverage of same on Excite News.

Lotek writes: "The NYT is running a cool 'Special section' from the NYT magazine [free reg. req. tl] this weekend showing off stuff they say we will be using in 2010. They discuss stuff like digital books, Nanotech anti-heart attack prevention, and regeneration. Way cool stuff." The article lists a total of 32 items, and talks about the current state-of-the art as well as potential applications. Pretty cool, but 10 years seems awfully optimistic for some of them.

Roger writes: "The New York Times is reporting that MP3.com and Warner Music have reached a settlement, after a few weeks of rumors that a settlement with the RIAA was near. My.mp3.com should come back soon. NYT; free registration required."

When you "purchase" software, what do you get? Increasingly, the answer is: nothing. Nothing tangible; no rights; and no resale value. This rant is spurred by Microsoft's changes to its distribution policy for all future editions of Windows. No longer will you receive a CD which is capable of installing the operating system with your new computer - Original Equipment Manufacturers are forbidden to ship you one, even though you just paid ~$100 for the software, and even though the change makes customers less than happy. Meanwhile, Adobe's chairman has the gall to tell us it's our own fault. I take a look at the future of software licensing.

MS's most recent abuses of its customers are just the latest in a series of increasing restrictions. OEM's are no longer permitted to include full-capability Windows disks with new machines - instead, what you'll get is either a disk image on your hard drive or an image on a "recovery CD". The "recovery CD" must be crippled so that it won't run on any hardware except that specific machine.

So what you bought is either some extra bits on your hard drive (sure hope you didn't want to use the full capacity of the drive; sure hope your disk doesn't fail) or a nearly-useless CD which is solely capable of restoring your PC to its original state - you'll have to backup and restore all of your data, reinstall all other software, re-change all settings you've customized, etc., if you ever use that CD. But you're a Microsoft customer [motto: "Your time isn't worth a bucket of warm spit to us"], so get used to it.

If you did something foolish, like swap in a new hard drive, or a new motherboard, well, I'm sorry, but you've lost any ability to restore your Microsoft operating system. And naturally, of course, you won't be able to copy it to another computer - even if you delete it from the first one. You can't sell it, you can't lend it, hell, you can barely use it yourself. Office 2000 with its forced registration procedure is much the same, and we're now getting submissions about this from people who didn't catch stories last year about it. Office 2000 binds itself to your system with the registration in exactly the same way as the "Recovery" CDs must be bound by the OEM to the system they ship.

The main effect of this will be to eliminate the concept of "used software". Software vendors like this; they can sell more retail copies if there's no aftermarket.

Generally, copyrighted works are governed by what is known as the "first sale" doctrine. This means that once the copyright owner has sold the item the first time, they lose all control over it - it can be resold without limitation. This matter originally came up when a book publisher was trying to prevent Macy's from selling books at a discount price. Essentially, the publisher (Scribner and Sons, still in business today) had a nice scheme going where it set "minimum" prices for its books. In fact, the scheme is practically identical to the scheme that music publishers have going today, and that software publishers like Microsoft are now moving to.

A brief quote from one of the cases:

The appellant is the owner of the copyright upon 'The Castaway,' obtained on the 18th day of May, 1904, in conformity to the copyright statutes of the United States. Printed immediately below the copyright notice, on the page in the book following the title page, is inserted the following notice:

The price of this book at retail is $1 net. No dealer is licensed to sell it at a less price, and a sale at a less price will be treated as an infringement of the copyright.

The Bobbs-Merrill Company.

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "That sounds just like a shrinkwrap license on software! Or it sounds like what the giants of the music industry [Sony, Time-Warner, MCA, Polygram, Bertelsmann and EMI Music] do with their 'Minimum Advertised Price' policies, which has resulted in a class-action suit and an ongoing FTC investigation!" Am I right?

So how did the Court look at this particular issue?

What does the statute mean in granting 'the sole right of vending the same?' Was it intended to create a right which would permit the holder of the copyright to fasten, by notice [210 U.S. 339, 350] in a book or upon one of the articles mentioned within the statute, a restriction upon the subsequent alienation [transfer of property] of the subject-matter of copyright after the owner had parted with the title to one who had acquired full dominion over it and had given a satisfactory price for it? It is not denied that one who has sold a copyrighted article, without restriction, has parted with all right to control the sale of it. The purchaser of a book, once sold by authority of the owner of the copyright, may sell it again, although he could not publish a new edition of it.

Software publishers have this in mind. So they don't actually "sell" anything at all. If you make a contract to license something, the terms can be anything that a court doesn't regard as "unconscionable" - whatever the other party demands. So in fact copyright has almost nothing to do with the "sale" of commercial software products - companies could just as easily license to you software written by, say, the Federal Government (which would be in the public domain) They don't need copyright at all, since the contract alone is sufficient to bind your permitted activities, if the courts say a binding contract has been created.

The idea here is to get away from copyright, because copyright has all those nasty exceptions carved out by the legal system such as the "first sale" doctrine. But if you license something rather than sell it... and if you can cripple it with technology so that regardless of what the law says, the product can't be resold... ahhh, then you're in business!

Why have courts permitted software licensing to usurp copyright? Why do book-title-page-licenses not bind you but back-of-a-software-box-licenses do? Why doesn't the purchase of a copyrighted piece of software entitle you to do just about anything with it except sell copies, just like the purchase of a book does? It's a long story, but basically, I think it's because the first cases to hit the court system looked a lot like standard corporate contract disputes rather than mass-market sales. Individuals have only started purchasing software at retail within the last ten years or so. And now that people have caught on that this is a Bad Thing, we get laws like UCITA, designed to expressly legitimize these sorts of licenses. Remember that UCITA applies to software-hardware combinations as well, so your next PC might have a license agreement applying to the hardware.

But back to what started this rant. Microsoft's licensing. Microsoft has wanted for some years to move to a rental system, where not only do you not actually purchase anything for them, you get to pay for nothing every year. (In fact, they delayed the announcement of it so it wouldn't overlap with the anti-trust decision - might look bad to be simultaneously losing an anti-trust suit and announcing how you were going to get millions of people to rent software from you.) That way they can extract truly maximal profits from their operating system - raise the rents when it seems appropriate, cut sweetheart rental deals with some companies and viciously expensive ones with others, depending on whether or not you testified for the DOJ...

Microsoft has a couple of goals here, you see. Getting shrinkwrap licenses validated by the legal system allows them to control pricing in much the same manner as Scribner and Sons' attempt at book-wrap licensing. And building protective technological measures into their software, such as the OEM system-lock for the operating system or Office 2000's single-system registration procedure, allows them to get around the first sale doctrine - you could sell the item, copyright law says you can, but you can't sell it, because the software won't work for anyone else.

At a minimum, you could donate it to a charity or school when you're no longer using it and get a tax break. But that Windows 2000 Recovery CD or an already-registered Office 2000 CD are just coasters. Microsoft, of course, can cheerfully continue to donate software licenses and take tax write-offs for the full retail price of the software, a strategy which saves them hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes every year at a cost to them of approximately zero. And don't you dare to try to circumvent those controls in order to exercise your legal right to resell the software - that's a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, I doubt you want to spend five years in prison.

In a non-monopoly marketplace, the fact these two products are worth a lot less to you than their predecessors would force a reduction in price. Instead, Microsoft raised the prices on both. Lawyers have considered the interplay of contract, copyright, and technological restrictions - here's a paper, here's another - but the time is long past for this issue to be considered by the public.

And that's why the threats of Adobe chairman Warnock are the last straw. Microsoft and all the other familiar names in commercial software have been increasing their restrictions for years. It doesn't have anything to do with piracy; we're

"...going to have a piece of music that will only play on one Walkman. [We're] going to have a piece of software that will only work on one machine. It will provide enormous inconvenience."

regardless of what the fictitious figures of the Business Software Alliance say about copyright infringement. Listen to what Warnock is saying: if only we evil customers didn't make copies of software, Microsoft wouldn't force computer manufacturers to cripple the Windows installed on their machines. Yeah, right. Tell me another one, John.

But Warnock is absolutely right: it's a failure of the general population that is responsible for this licensing mess we're in. The failure is: insufficient regulation of the software industry.

If you buy a car, you are almost certainly protected by state "lemon laws". They were enacted to prevent the abuses that were extremely common, and so you acquired certain minimum rights in the purchase transaction which cannot be waived: if the car breaks down all the time, you can return it and get a refund plus your expenses paid. No matter what the sales contract says. Similarly there are restrictions on just how small the fine print can be, how egregious the interest rate can be, etc. The laws have had a salutory effect on auto sales - dealers are much less likely to try to cheat customers, and manufacturers have incentives to build better-quality cars. It is, in fact, a win-win situation - even though auto manufacturers screamed that laws like these would put them out of business in a week.

We haven't got anything of the sort with software purchases. And like Adobe's chairman just told us, the race to the bottom - who can have the most restrictive licensing, who can gouge the customer the most - is in full swing. It took a long time to get lemon laws enacted across the country, many years of abuses and horror stories, many years of opposition by the automobile manufacturers doing exactly what the software manufacturers are doing now: dumping buckets of cash into Congress. Are we going to learn from our experiences of the past and put some restraints on these abusive restrictions? Are we going to makes software sales into sales, and make software companies stand behind their products? We are, no doubt about it; abuses like these will only be stood for so long. The question is only this: How long will we stand for it?

What do you mean I don't own my software?
Adobe software is owned by Adobe. When you purchase software, you purchase a license to use the application. The use of the software must be in compliance with the End User License Agreement that is included with the software. Misuse of software is punishable by Federal Copyright Law.

-- from http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/antipiracy/main.html

We can fix that, Adobe.

When you "purchase" software, what do you get? Increasingly, the answer is: nothing. Nothing tangible; no rights; and no resale value. This rant is spurred by Microsoft's changes to its distribution policy for all future editions of Windows. No longer will you receive a CD which is capable of installing the operating system with your new computer - Original Equipment Manufacturers are forbidden to ship you one, even though you just paid ~$100 for the software, and even though the change makes customers less than happy. Meanwhile, Adobe's chairman has the gall to tell us it's our own fault. I take a look at the future of software licensing.

MS's most recent abuses of its customers are just the latest in a series of increasing restrictions. OEM's are no longer permitted to include full-capability Windows disks with new machines - instead, what you'll get is either a disk image on your hard drive or an image on a "recovery CD". The "recovery CD" must be crippled so that it won't run on any hardware except that specific machine.

So what you bought is either some extra bits on your hard drive (sure hope you didn't want to use the full capacity of the drive; sure hope your disk doesn't fail) or a nearly-useless CD which is solely capable of restoring your PC to its original state - you'll have to backup and restore all of your data, reinstall all other software, re-change all settings you've customized, etc., if you ever use that CD. But you're a Microsoft customer [motto: "Your time isn't worth a bucket of warm spit to us"], so get used to it.

If you did something foolish, like swap in a new hard drive, or a new motherboard, well, I'm sorry, but you've lost any ability to restore your Microsoft operating system. And naturally, of course, you won't be able to copy it to another computer - even if you delete it from the first one. You can't sell it, you can't lend it, hell, you can barely use it yourself. Office 2000 with its forced registration procedure is much the same, and we're now getting submissions about this from people who didn't catch stories last year about it. Office 2000 binds itself to your system with the registration in exactly the same way as the "Recovery" CDs must be bound by the OEM to the system they ship.

The main effect of this will be to eliminate the concept of "used software". Software vendors like this; they can sell more retail copies if there's no aftermarket.

Generally, copyrighted works are governed by what is known as the "first sale" doctrine. This means that once the copyright owner has sold the item the first time, they lose all control over it - it can be resold without limitation. This matter originally came up when a book publisher was trying to prevent Macy's from selling books at a discount price. Essentially, the publisher (Scribner and Sons, still in business today) had a nice scheme going where it set "minimum" prices for its books. In fact, the scheme is practically identical to the scheme that music publishers have going today, and that software publishers like Microsoft are now moving to.

A brief quote from one of the cases:

The appellant is the owner of the copyright upon 'The Castaway,' obtained on the 18th day of May, 1904, in conformity to the copyright statutes of the United States. Printed immediately below the copyright notice, on the page in the book following the title page, is inserted the following notice:

The price of this book at retail is $1 net. No dealer is licensed to sell it at a less price, and a sale at a less price will be treated as an infringement of the copyright.

The Bobbs-Merrill Company.

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "That sounds just like a shrinkwrap license on software! Or it sounds like what the giants of the music industry [Sony, Time-Warner, MCA, Polygram, Bertelsmann and EMI Music] do with their 'Minimum Advertised Price' policies, which has resulted in a class-action suit and an ongoing FTC investigation!" Am I right?

So how did the Court look at this particular issue?

What does the statute mean in granting 'the sole right of vending the same?' Was it intended to create a right which would permit the holder of the copyright to fasten, by notice [210 U.S. 339, 350] in a book or upon one of the articles mentioned within the statute, a restriction upon the subsequent alienation [transfer of property] of the subject-matter of copyright after the owner had parted with the title to one who had acquired full dominion over it and had given a satisfactory price for it? It is not denied that one who has sold a copyrighted article, without restriction, has parted with all right to control the sale of it. The purchaser of a book, once sold by authority of the owner of the copyright, may sell it again, although he could not publish a new edition of it.

Software publishers have this in mind. So they don't actually "sell" anything at all. If you make a contract to license something, the terms can be anything that a court doesn't regard as "unconscionable" - whatever the other party demands. So in fact copyright has almost nothing to do with the "sale" of commercial software products - companies could just as easily license to you software written by, say, the Federal Government (which would be in the public domain) They don't need copyright at all, since the contract alone is sufficient to bind your permitted activities, if the courts say a binding contract has been created.

The idea here is to get away from copyright, because copyright has all those nasty exceptions carved out by the legal system such as the "first sale" doctrine. But if you license something rather than sell it... and if you can cripple it with technology so that regardless of what the law says, the product can't be resold... ahhh, then you're in business!

Why have courts permitted software licensing to usurp copyright? Why do book-title-page-licenses not bind you but back-of-a-software-box-licenses do? Why doesn't the purchase of a copyrighted piece of software entitle you to do just about anything with it except sell copies, just like the purchase of a book does? It's a long story, but basically, I think it's because the first cases to hit the court system looked a lot like standard corporate contract disputes rather than mass-market sales. Individuals have only started purchasing software at retail within the last ten years or so. And now that people have caught on that this is a Bad Thing, we get laws like UCITA, designed to expressly legitimize these sorts of licenses. Remember that UCITA applies to software-hardware combinations as well, so your next PC might have a license agreement applying to the hardware.

But back to what started this rant. Microsoft's licensing. Microsoft has wanted for some years to move to a rental system, where not only do you not actually purchase anything for them, you get to pay for nothing every year. (In fact, they delayed the announcement of it so it wouldn't overlap with the anti-trust decision - might look bad to be simultaneously losing an anti-trust suit and announcing how you were going to get millions of people to rent software from you.) That way they can extract truly maximal profits from their operating system - raise the rents when it seems appropriate, cut sweetheart rental deals with some companies and viciously expensive ones with others, depending on whether or not you testified for the DOJ...

Microsoft has a couple of goals here, you see. Getting shrinkwrap licenses validated by the legal system allows them to control pricing in much the same manner as Scribner and Sons' attempt at book-wrap licensing. And building protective technological measures into their software, such as the OEM system-lock for the operating system or Office 2000's single-system registration procedure, allows them to get around the first sale doctrine - you could sell the item, copyright law says you can, but you can't sell it, because the software won't work for anyone else.

At a minimum, you could donate it to a charity or school when you're no longer using it and get a tax break. But that Windows 2000 Recovery CD or an already-registered Office 2000 CD are just coasters. Microsoft, of course, can cheerfully continue to donate software licenses and take tax write-offs for the full retail price of the software, a strategy which saves them hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes every year at a cost to them of approximately zero. And don't you dare to try to circumvent those controls in order to exercise your legal right to resell the software - that's a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, I doubt you want to spend five years in prison.

In a non-monopoly marketplace, the fact these two products are worth a lot less to you than their predecessors would force a reduction in price. Instead, Microsoft raised the prices on both. Lawyers have considered the interplay of contract, copyright, and technological restrictions - here's a paper, here's another - but the time is long past for this issue to be considered by the public.

And that's why the threats of Adobe chairman Warnock are the last straw. Microsoft and all the other familiar names in commercial software have been increasing their restrictions for years. It doesn't have anything to do with piracy; we're

"...going to have a piece of music that will only play on one Walkman. [We're] going to have a piece of software that will only work on one machine. It will provide enormous inconvenience."

regardless of what the fictitious figures of the Business Software Alliance say about copyright infringement. Listen to what Warnock is saying: if only we evil customers didn't make copies of software, Microsoft wouldn't force computer manufacturers to cripple the Windows installed on their machines. Yeah, right. Tell me another one, John.

But Warnock is absolutely right: it's a failure of the general population that is responsible for this licensing mess we're in. The failure is: insufficient regulation of the software industry.

If you buy a car, you are almost certainly protected by state "lemon laws". They were enacted to prevent the abuses that were extremely common, and so you acquired certain minimum rights in the purchase transaction which cannot be waived: if the car breaks down all the time, you can return it and get a refund plus your expenses paid. No matter what the sales contract says. Similarly there are restrictions on just how small the fine print can be, how egregious the interest rate can be, etc. The laws have had a salutory effect on auto sales - dealers are much less likely to try to cheat customers, and manufacturers have incentives to build better-quality cars. It is, in fact, a win-win situation - even though auto manufacturers screamed that laws like these would put them out of business in a week.

We haven't got anything of the sort with software purchases. And like Adobe's chairman just told us, the race to the bottom - who can have the most restrictive licensing, who can gouge the customer the most - is in full swing. It took a long time to get lemon laws enacted across the country, many years of abuses and horror stories, many years of opposition by the automobile manufacturers doing exactly what the software manufacturers are doing now: dumping buckets of cash into Congress. Are we going to learn from our experiences of the past and put some restraints on these abusive restrictions? Are we going to makes software sales into sales, and make software companies stand behind their products? We are, no doubt about it; abuses like these will only be stood for so long. The question is only this: How long will we stand for it?

What do you mean I don't own my software?
Adobe software is owned by Adobe. When you purchase software, you purchase a license to use the application. The use of the software must be in compliance with the End User License Agreement that is included with the software. Misuse of software is punishable by Federal Copyright Law.

-- from http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/antipiracy/main.html

We can fix that, Adobe.

Thirty European country-code Top Level Domain operators have gotten together and told ICANN they won't pay the full amount of dues that ICANN says they owe. (NYT article, free reg. req.) Not good news for ICANN -- when you owe someone $100, you have a problem, but when you owe someone $1,000,000, they have a problem. The domain-name operators see ICANN as a U.S., not international, organization, and worry that their "tenuous and largely undefined" relationship with ICANN allows the latter to reassign curatorship of their domain-name databases -- as has already once been attempted.

Last week you asked online activist Scott Reents about his organization The Democracy Project, about online political action, about the worth of political involvement in general. He's obliged with some lengthy, thoughtful answers. If nothing else, his words should give you pause when you vote -- or don't.

Query
by Modern_Celt

Considering the speed of internet communication is this going to make it even more difficult for those in the Western states to care about the election? After all, most of the networks already predict a winner LONG before the poles out west close.

Scott Reents: Internet or no Internet, your individual vote is mathematically meaningless in determining the outcome of an election anyway, and exit polls already exist to remind you of this fact.

Still, the speed of the Internet is an important factor in our overall participation in politics. For example, MoveOn was able to organize and channel millions of people opposed to Clinton's impeachment in a matter of weeks. Normally, organizations can't mobilize their membership around pending legislation or regulations, because the window of opportunity before they are enacted is too small. This makes a truly grassroots organization an impossibility without the Internet, because there must always be organizational management to serve as proxies to (hopefully) represent their members interests.

How does the medium change the message?
by Squirrel Killer

I think most of us have a pretty good understanding of the ways in which the Internet affects the method of political communications. Instead of phone banking and lit drops, you can use e-mail lists and Web sites, to cite just two examples.

However, the more interesting question, in my mind, is how the Internet, as a medium, affects the message. How do you view political content changing as a response to the new methods available? Will political content move more to the extremes, since politicians can target more effectively, or will it move more mainstream, since more people are brought into the political arena.

Beyond the message, how will the internet affect political outcomes? Are there any potential policy options that become possible with the new methods available?

Scott: Will the Internet affect the "message" of political communication? Absolutely.

The medium is the message, which is to say that the characteristics of the Internet imply that certain messages work and certain messages do not work. The fact that there is so much choice on the Internet means that messages that are pure rhetoric and are not informative do not work; users can and will click elsewhere. The fact that hyperlinking is so common means that messages that don't link to supporting material are assumed to be hiding something. The fact that online publishing is so inexpensive means that users won't accept superficial explanations of positions and values.

Politicians CAN continue to make Web sites that are nothing more than glorified brochures, but who will visit them? Right now, I think that people visit them for the novelty, and because they don't really know what to expect, but that will not last if they continue to treat their users like fools.

Now, you raise an interesting point about the impact of politicians being able to "target" more effectively. To talk to most Internet marketers/campaigners these days, you'd think that "targeted" communication was the essence of the Internet, and was the highest form of interactivite communication. Wrong. Targeted communication is not of the Internet. It is of direct mail. It's a method used to improve response rates (like, from 3% to 4%, a 33% improvement!), to save money on postage, to hit the right hot buttons, blah, blah, blah. And it's not interactive; the communication is essentially as one way as broadcast television -- just more accurate.

Which is to say that I agree with your suggestion that targeting results in more extreme messages and a more stratified electorate, and I think that's dangerous.

It's also the way that the Internet politics space will move if left to develop by itself. In the last 12 months, sites like Grassroots.com ("Your political action network"), Voter.com ("Delivering democracy to your desktop"), Speakout.com ("Speak Out. Be Heard."), Vote.com ("Your vote will always be sent where it counts"), have all started with the premise of being able to aggregate site users and then sell targeted access (via e-mail, banner ads, etc.) to political campaigns, a prospect that I think is unhealthy for democracy.

That's why I wrote the essay -- to describe the way that political campaigns SHOULD be using the Internet for communication, and to try to set a higher standard for what people expect online. I don't think that an Internet of primarily targeted political messages is an inevitability, but it certainly is a possibility.

Will candidates ever really do this?
by El Volio

Interesting article. As a fairly neutral U.S. citizen, it occurs to me that, to many, the ideas expressed here are applied versions of general democratic ideals. Most voters would like to see more information about what candidates actually are proposing, and many want objective comparisons from unbiased sources.

But that's not politics. Never has been, and probably never will be.

So here's the question: Do you think that candidate sites are ever actually likely to provide objective data? Or do you think there will ever be a truly unbiased, trusted source (perhaps like the way the media should be) where specific information about tax cut proposals and so forth will be located?

Scott: You've exposed the dirty little secret of my essay, which is that I expect that 90% (at least) of politicians currently running would ignore my advice, should they read and understand it. So you're right in once sense; there are very few candidate sites today that remotely do what I prescribe, and most political advisers would consider such steps suicide because they violate the most important rule in their book: don't give up control.

But I don't think that means that it won't happen, any more than the fact that Microsoft hasn't supported open software means that open software isn't happening. My argument is simply that the traditional mode of campaigning doesn't work very well on the Internet, and so those that continue in the traditional mode will have to do so somewhere other than the Internet. And as important as this medium is becoming, that is a more and more unsustainable strategy.

And there are examples of candidates who are doing the right things. Ventura took some baby steps in the right direction with his e-mail lists. This Congressional candidate in Idaho is doing a very good job of running a citizen-centric campaign on the Internet, and so far succeeding. I'm sure there are others, though they are still few and far between. You will see more and more of them, and if you don't, you should consider starting your own. There are also 6,700 unofficial candidate sites put up by individuals that could potentially do things that the candidate would never allow his official site to do.

Let me also clarify one point, which is that I'm not suggesting that candidates build sites that are purely unbiased presentations of information. No, there is clearly still a role for opinion and leadership and values, but the best sites will present these in the context of information that people are looking for.

Candidates would be smart to try to emerge as reliable framers of issues -- the ones that attempt to set the scope of the problem, identify relevant evidence, outline competing values, etc. This is one of the most powerful positions to be in, but you can only do this if respect opposing viewpoints and treat them fairly. Frames are never the Congressional and state level, that people will be able to demonstrably say that the Internet had a measurable impact on the outcome of elections.

More importantly, the 2000 elections are key because they will begin to set the standard for political communication on the Internet. Millions of dollars is being invested in building online political resources -- campaign-oriented, commercial, nonprofit, government, etc. -- and the way that that is invested will have a tremendous impact over the way the political Internet develops over the next 20 years.

Will it be a commercial Yahoo model of aggregating lots of users and then auctioning off access to them to the highest bidders? Will it be a broadcast model, trying to attract as many eyeballs without giving up any real control? Or will it be a civic model, empowering citizens to take a more meaningful role in the running of the government?

If it is the latter, I believe that it could have far-reaching impacts on many facets of politics, from the two-party system to the role of soft money and PACs to the types of legislation that gets enacted.

detailed content
by geekpress

One reason, in my opinion, that politicians don't provide detailed content on their Web sites about policy proposals is the concern that what they say will come back to bite them, a la "No New Taxes." Concrete policy proposals can be used against them once in office, for it is easier to measure someone's actions against written statements than soundbytes and speeches.

So, given this strong incentive to keep proposals vague, what other incentives can we offer politicians to pony up the details of their plans for us?

Scott: You're absolutely right, that politicians are wary of detailed proposals coming back to bite them, although I'd say "no new taxes," was missing some of the elements of a detailed proposal (like, detail).

Getting politicians to offer more detail requires that citizens have a way of demanding more. Imagine if there were a forum open to all candidates who agreed to abide by the rules of the forum -- citizens ask the questions, are allowed follow-up questions, and candidates can answer or not, but the entire forum is aware of what you answer and don't. Well, no candidates would come, because candidates insist on control over the information they have to give up. What if, however, the forum contained 10%, 20%, or even 50% of the likely voters. I bet you'd see a lot more interest. There would be the credible threat that at least one candidate (particularly the one who was trailing in the polls) would show up, and then all candidates would be forced to show up. I propose that that forum can be built on the Internet, and I bet some of you are smart enough to come up with a way to figure out which questions to ask.

Politicians are opportunistic; they will do what they need to do to win. So, the answer to getting them to pony up more information is to make it a necessary component of winning.

The truth is, there is a subtle collusion between politicians and traditional media. Traditional media want to make money from politicians showing up on their talk shows, buying ads, granting interviews, participating in debates, and they don't care deeply about making these things particularly meaningful. Thus, politicians hold the upper hand -- as long as they can deliver entertainment (ala sound bytes, debate one-liners, etc.) -- they do not have to give up any real control. Politicians give media what they want; media gives politicians what they want.

Is Internet driving a societal shift?
by Noel

In your essay you say, "the expectations of people on the Internet are different and more demanding than citizens' expectations in general."

Are these higher expectations a result of being on the Internet, or does Internet access self-select people that have higher expectations?

Will the influx of people onto the Internet raise the expectations of the general populace, or will it dilute the expectations of the Internet community?

Scott: It's a little bit of both. However, I believe that higher expectations is more a result of the medium than of the particular people who have chosen to use the medium. I'm not saying that the Internet improves people -- makes them more critical, more involved, more interested in learning, better judges of argument -- but I am saying that on the Internet a message transplanted from "traditional media" doesn't look right to most Internet users.

In my research into Internet behavior, I've found that there is about am 18-month period of acclimitazation online, after which people are much more likely to do more "sophisticated" activities (e.g., personalizing information, registering, purchasing, changing default start-up pages, etc.), and this observation holds true as much for the people who first went online in 1996 as it does for the people who just went online last year.

This suggests to me that people's expectations and use of the medium is not set when they come online, but rather evolves over time. I believe that this increased sophistication comes with an increasing degree of impatience: people understand what types of sites work and what type don't, and they leave sites that don't.

Why are libertarians better represented on the net?
by Russ Nelson

So why do Internet political polls always generate results which are more skewed towards the libertarian philosophy? Is it because they don't "count" and so people feel more free to vote how they feel? Or is it because people who are drawn to the net value freedom more than security?

Scott: Most Internet polls do a very poor job of being scientific, so I would be very wary of concluding that Harry Browne's apparent popularity among Internet users is real. The most important factor, in my opinion, is that non-mainstream parties like the Libertarians do better in Internet polls because these marginilized groups feel a greater desire to participate in these polls, as a way of generating awareness for their movements.

Still, there is certainly a more libertarian ethic on the Internet, and in the same way that I think that people become more sophisticated with time, I think that people begin to value the freedom of the Internet with time. In my experience, the strongest advocates of regulating speech on the Internet are those who have the least amount of experience with it. However, if you look at party affiliations, voting behavior, etc. of Internet users, it's what you'd expect from a group of people with above average education and income (Pew Research has done some nice, though a bit dated research on the subject).

Realistically, does the net matter?
by neowintermute

Can we realistically say that the Internet is making a difference in the political process? Can a basically unknown candidate like Ralph Nader get a resonable number of votes thanks to just his web site? Or are people really just going to the Web sites of the candidates they hear about on television? In the closed capitalist mind space we inhabit, big monetary interests determine the range of possibilities people think are viable.

According to a recent IBM/Altavista study, even on the net the big money sites like Yahoo "basically control the flow of information". So can we really think that the net is going to suddenly bring us democracy despite the nondemocratic nature of our entire economy/political system?

Scott: I wouldn't go so far as to say that our economic-political system is nondemocratic. I'd be the first to say that there are aspects that don't work as well as we'd like, but these are easily outweighed by the institutions and processes that are democratic.

Still, the degree to which information is controlled by corporate interests is disturbing. Ralph Nader is unlikely to get many votes just because of his Web site, and he's someone with actually quite a bit of promotional muscle behind him. One of the main reasons is that the traditional method of finding information on the Net, the search engine, tends to reinforce the hierarchies of offline power structures

To me, this says that the Net will not matter if left to develop in its "natural" commercial fashion. Because this is an election year, there is a unique opportunity for efforts that define the political Internet outside of this commercial environment. Millions are for the first time looking for political information and interaction, which means that it's not nearly as difficult (ie, expensive) as it has been/will be to get a site that captures a fair amount of this traffic. And if done correctly, ie, in a citizen-centric fashion, such a site should be able to use this jump-start to create a community that endures and matters. Anyway, that's the bet I've taken in leaving my .com job (and stock options) to start the Democracy Project.

I'm sure most of you are cognizant of the power -- commercial, political, spiritual, whatever -- that slashdot has. In pitching the Democracy Project to foundations and other "civicly-minded" folks, I almost always point to slashdot as an example of the potential power of the Internet.

Slashdot gives the average person the ability to address a forum of hundreds of thousands of people. I contend that that is unique in the history of the world, and that development is revolutionary in the way that Gutenberg's printing press was revolutionary.

What about a Slashdot for politics? Is there a space for something like this? Absolutely. In fact there is probably room for many Slashdots for politics. In its own way, Slashdot is arguably already a Slashdot for politics, with the discussions about Columbine, digital copyright, CDA, etc. Now, I know that the idea of Slashdot as a political forum is a controversial one, so I'm not saying that Slashdot should be more political. I'm just saying that the model has already shown that the Internet has the potential to effect meaningful change on the way our political system works.

noted
by jbarnett

It has been noted that Al Gore is popular among geeks for many reaons, for example he invented the Internet, runs Linux on his Web site and hides cool little things in his HTML source. What do you think other Presidential candidates have to do or are doing to "compete" with Al Gore for the Geek vote?

Bill Clinton raised a lot of votes by "reaching out" to the Youth of America, do you think Al Gore will continue to "reach out" to the Geeks of America in the same aspect as Clinton did a few years back?

In your personal opinon who is the more 31337 hAx0r: Gore or Bush? And Finally the question everyone is dying to know the answer to: If pited against each other in a roman style caged deathmatch, who would win, Gore or Bush?

Scott: I certainly hope that geeks will base their voting decisions on more than what operating system a candidate's Web site is running. In all likelihood, Al Gore had nothing to do with that decision, and the fact that his Webmaster hides cool things in his HTML will not have any impact on what Gore might or might not do as president. These things are almost entirely symbolic, which isn't surprising since the majority of discourse among the presidential candidates is symbolic rather than substantive.

Of course, Al Gore will "reach out" to the youth of America, but the question is, will he do it in a way that matters or will it be mostly about posting pictures of Al in front of a computer on his Web site? Bush, too. I see them in a dead heat for last in truly reaching out to the YOA.

Now, as for the roman-style caged deathmatch, do you mean Catharginian or Syracusean rules?

'Ender's Game'
by ZetaPotential

A system very similar to what you advocate has been described in some detail in Orson Scott Card's book Ender's Game. In that book, Card describes online bulletin boards where people "share information, organize and build consensus around issues," to quote your essay. A central part of this book is that two genius pre-teens write intelligent posts and counterposts in a way that manipulates public opinion on crucial political issues, for their own advancement.

So, my question is this: If someday the majority of people formulate their political opinions based on what they read in forums similar to Slashdot, will it be possible for individuals or organizations to manipulate the "public discourse" in such a way that advances their own agendas? If so, what type of steps would you advocate to reduce this type of "political trolling"?

Scott: A friend showed me Ender's Game, and I agree that what I'm advocating has a lot in common with that vision of political discourse. Clearly, there are some very difficult questions about how you preserve the sanctity of an online "townhall," and I'd be lying if I said I knew all the answers, but I do have some thoughts.

One thing they didn't do in Ender's Game was to verify that each participant on the boards was unique. There should have been a way to verify that people were unique individuals in such a way that still allowed them their right to anonymity. This would have kept Peter and Valentine from using fake identities to serve as foils and practice posters. This kind of anonymous authentication would be an important feature of an online townhall.

Ultimately, however, the real threat they posed is was a result of their geniuses and proclivity to manipulate. There will always be demogogues, and keeping them from masquerading won't keep them from manipulating. Caveat emptor.

There are lots of other vulnerabilities in an online townhall, but I think the most dangerous is the power that the "management" has to use the rules of the townhall to serve their own interests. Absolute vodka, er power, corrupts absolutely, as they say. There need to be safeguards to ensure that the people who set the rules are ultimately accountable to the people who use the site. For example, at the Democracy Project we are designing our site to have as little management involvement as possible. There are certain management powers that exist on Slashdot (e.g., bitchslapping) that we don't think belong in an online townhall. We have also organized ourselves legally in such a way that we will allow registrants on our site (after it has critical mass) to remove the management in a vote of no-confidence. We don't expect this to be a regular event, but it's a safeguard that provides a last resort of accountability.

Candidates and their records
by Remus Shepherd

You talk about what the political parties should do to improve their Web sites, but don't mention what people outside political circles can accomplish. The Web sites you list in your article do *not* have what everyone says they want: An unbiased checklist of issues referenced to the candidates and their voting record.

Forget the political parties for a moment, as I don't believe they'll ever report unbiased information. That leaves us, the people.

Do you think there is room for a grassroots organization to collect the voting histories of candidates and publicize their records? If so, why doesn't such an organization already exist? Could such an organization thrive, or would it be besieged by political candidates who don't want their true voting histories known?

Scott: First, there are already sites that collect and report the candidate's records. I recommend USA Democracy, Project Vote-Smart, and THOMAS as excellent sources of info on candidate positions, voting records, and public statements.

But your broader question is important, because I think that as valuable as these and other political information sites are, they leave a gap that could (should) be filled by a grassroots effort.

The unbiased checklist of positions is a good, but incomplete way to make voting decisions. It's unlikely to include references to the most current, relevant issues. It overly reduces the complexity of how legislators make voting decisions (the best policy makers are generally not dogmatic and are good compromisers). And the list of issues is defined and arbitrary, which makes you wonder who got to decide which issues to include on the list.

So, the gap to me is the open, online townhall, an alternative source of information and political deliberation, an example of which we've described at our Web site, and are currently developing. This would allow everyone the opportunity to offer their own checklists, or point to others who have developed checklists that they agree with. But in addition, it would allow discussion of the most current events, and more importantly, the competing values that underlie policy proposals, neither of which will ever be adequately addressed by a position checklist.

Can such an organization thrive? I believe so. Grassroots organizations draw their strength from their membership, and so are not dependent on the approval of candidates in order to exist. So long as such an organization could provide a valuable service to its membership, it could endure. In fact, I'd say that such an organization would HAVE to be grassroots, because it must be independent of the political players in order to be effective. Lack of grassroots support is one of the reasons why it's unlikely that USA Democracy, Vote-Smart, THOMAS, and the commercial sites discussed above will realize the full vision of the Citizen-centric Internet.

Thanks all. If you want to be alerted when we launch our site, sign up here

Scott

www.democracyproject.org

pq writes: "The real world catches up with Neal Stephenson's 'Cryptonomicon' on Monday, June 5th, when a data haven opens on a WWII military fortress six miles off England's coast. Read the (nologin) NYT article here about the strange case of HavenCo and the independent principality of Sealand: yes, they'll host DeCSS, Metallica songs, even pictures of Natalie, all for a price." (More below.)

And reader JazFresh writes: " ... I went to Monkeybagel.com to find out what was new, and the site owner said he's stopped work on Monkeybagel to work on this new site instead. From the Web page:

'HavenCo will soon be offering the world's most secure managed colocation facility based in the world's smallest sovereign territory, the Principality of Sealand. As the security of sensitive data over public networks grows in importance, businesses, governments and organizations worldwide are realizing the need for a suitable facility from which to host their financial transaction, B2B and e-mail servers as well as sensitive data backups. A large part of a server's physical security is dependent upon the political system of the country in which the server is located. We will be providing the business structure in the world's first free-market location.'"

These were just some of the many submissions about this company. The story of Sealand is almost too bizarre for comprehension; read this April 3rd Sunday Telegraph piece for an eyebrow-wrinkling summary. All I know is, I'd like one of these passports, too, please.

Update: 06/05 13:53 by michael : Thought I'd update this with some pictures and diagrams. Nifty.

ContinuousPark writes: "According to this NY Times piece, Lijun Wang of the NEC Research Institute in Princeton has reported an experiment where "a pulse of light that enters a transparent chamber filled with specially prepared cesium gas is pushed to speeds of 300 times the normal speed of light". A second experiment by three scientists for the Italian National Research Council is reporting also superluminal speeds. And yet, this seems to be consistent with Einstein's theories. "

OK, so now it seems almost official. According to this story in the New York Times (free registration required) - AOL/Gateway will announce their Transmeta/Linux based Web appliances today. The article is particularly interesting since it details the motive behind AOLs going counter Wintel, And Transmeta's Ditzel says it best: "The truth is that the phrase Internet appliance has become a code word in the industry meaning 'no Windows.'" And dare I say: no Intel too... But only time can tell if this is going to be as big as AOL/Transmeta hope. Thanks Eitan for the Link.

nilrake writes "A bit on NY Times talks about new homes are that being built Internet-Ready. " Hmm...I always figured a good drill, several hundred feet of cable and I had an Internet-ready house *grin*.

"Suddenly, the free exchange of plant resources is in question as discoveries representing millions of dollars in profits are patented, potentially keeping poor farmers from using them." uncadonna writes "Here's a story (NYT; free reg. req.) about genetic scientists who want to maintain natural genetic diversity in food crops, resorting to defensive patents. Sounds like kindred spirits to me. Wonder if they've ever heard of copyleft."

Ventilator writes: "The New York Times (free login required) features an interesting story about out-of-print games and the copyright issues for dedicated Web sites. It also discusses the benefits for game developers if they would make those old games available to the public. "

Ventilator writes: "The New York Times (free login required) features an interesting story about out-of-print games and the copyright issues for dedicated Web sites. It also discusses the benefits for game developers if they would make those old games available to the public. "