Slashdot Mirror

Second: EFF legal victories since its founding - from the Steve Jackson Games Secret Service raid to the Diebold memos. Has EFF won every case? No. Few advocacy groups do. But you don't get to throw around statements like "[a]ll their cases have failed miserably" without some facts to back you up. You don't have them.

"All file sharing programs are subject to this decision, as are all technologies that can be used to infringe copyrights. Whether any of them would be found to be liable under the 'inducement' standard set out by the Supreme Court is another matter entirely. In fact, we don't even know whether Grokster will be held legally liable under that standard. That is for the lower court to decide in the next phase of this case."

And . . .

"Well, anyone can be sued, but you wouldn't win a case against a software manufacturer just because it can be used for infringement. What the Supreme Court said is that a technology manufacturer who 'distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement' can be held legally responsible for the copyright infringment of others. So there has to be some affirmative activity to promote infringement."

Now all we have to do is get Congress to reign in the REAL problem, the ridiculous copyright laws that constitute primary infringement. Crank it down to 10 or 20 years, not life plus 70! And make it so that everything written on a napkin is not automatically copyrighted. Make someone at least go to a copyright office website to get their copyright protection initially, and for a reneweal after a year.

So, the Broadcast flag wasn't smuggled into law within the CJS appropriations bill, as threatened earlier.
The question now is: why not?

• Did the massive phone campaign advocated by Public Knowledge manage to dissuade the senators?
  
• Did the senators decide against this course of action on their own?
  
• Or was this just an unfounded rumor to begin with?
  

So, the Broadcast flag wasn't smuggled into law within the CJS appropriations bill, as threatened earlier.
The question now is: why not?

• Did the massive phone campaign advocated by Public Knowledge manage to dissuade the senators?
  
• Did the senators decide against this course of action on their own?
  
• Or was this just an unfounded rumor to begin with?
  

List of Senator's phone numbers here.

Nope, slashdotted to hell. But you can get them from the source.

Public Knowledge has coverage of the case here , as well.

Public Knowledge has coverage of the case here , as well.

"you can always copy code using a pen and paper"

That's the "analog hole" - another good reason why DRM and the like will ultimately fail.

Sitting around and doing essentially nothing is one option.

Another option is to actually get involved and start fighting for what you believe in:

http://www.freeculture.org/

http://www.eff.org/

http://www.publicknowledge.org/

Stop debating about it here. DO SOMETHING. Write your congressman. NOW.

Public Knowledge has a really nice summary and position page here: http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr2391

Here is a link that may help:

http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr2391

They appear to be contradicting themselves. On the page announcing the project they wrote:

The lawsuits aren't enough. The major record labels are literally trying to send people to prison for sharing music, and a new bill in Congress right now would let them.

Makes sense - but on the response page you linked to, they write:

Above all, and this is something we mention on our description page, it is crucial to support and protect filesharing against the current onslaught of the RIAA and MPAA-- not because we want people to get Hollywood's stuff for free, but because the real promise of the technology is to let people create and share their own music and movies.

Which is it? Is this GAIM project about providing a way for people to trade copyrighted files without going to jail, or for people to create and share their own music and movies?

For what it's worth, the bill they referenced would not make it a jailable offense for sharing your own music and movies.

What is downhillbattle's intent with this project? If it's to create a platform for people to share the stuff they've created, that's great, but why lead the project description with the horrors of the latest potential threat to people who share other's copyrighted work? It should be completely irrelevant.

And -- and this has been raised before -- if I have my own movies and music, why would I need yet another platform to distribute it? The web and the existing P2P platforms work remarkably well for people to distribute their stuff. The benefit of the GAIM project seems to be a platform for protection from prying eyes... but why on earth would I worry about that if I'm distributing my own stuff?

Are you aware of the so-called "CREATE" and "PIRATE" acts currently in the Senate? They create "a civil enforcement authority" in the DOJ. This is very very scary. Tell Your Senator to Oppose H.R. 4077 and H.R. 2391. Seriously.

start here

*I* never suggested you were a kook :)

Here is what happens to your data on publicknowledge.org:

1. Address information is used to query the US Post Office's Web API in order to determine your full 9 digit zip code (yes it would be easier if we just asked for this information, but most people don't know their 9 digit zip code).
2. The 9 digit zip information is used to query the Project Vote-Smart database (which they have graciously provided to us) in order to determine who your representatives are.
3. Your list of representatives is compared to the list of representatives that are set to receive the 'action' which in this case is the phone call , though various other methods are supported by the system, such as sending faxes.
4. The union of your representatives and the representatives for the 'action' is used for the following page, which gives you a list of those representatives and their contact information. In other 'action' formats (such as the fax) the representative information is used to generate a form letter and send it to the representatives office.

None of your information is stored beyond that point. For more information you can read the Public Knowledge Privacy Policy linked at the foot of every page on the site.

The whole system is currently referred to as the Public Action Manager but will be properly released under the name Athens. All the code is Open Source (GPL) and can be found Subversion repository.

All that being said, I have no clue what problem you are experiencing but I have filed it as a bug regardless. I'm sorry that you think it is intentional and not a bug in the page or Mozilla itself.

Public Knowledge may also be willing to assist with trademark issues.

The Open Source Law Resource center also carries information regarding law and open source projects, although it is generally for information regarding Open Source licensing issues.

1. If (according to Real) companies intelectual property is free and open for all to use why has real not allowed other companies to use their 3rd rate codecs for compatability?

2. Have you considered the low carb diet fad?

3. Have you considered finalizing your contract with the devil early by killing yourself?

4. Why is it so difficult NOT to include privacy invading software with your other mostly "crappy" products?

5. Why were all the PUBLIC'S messages removed from the freedomofmusicchoice.org site?

6. How long are Real's investors willing to lose money due to the .49 cent song sales?

7. Do you REALLY think that the abusers of your .49 cent downloads will really stick around (let alone keep your software installed on their machine) once your price goes up?

REAL HATERS UNITE!

http://www.petitiononline.com/notreal/petition.htm l Petition against Real's disinformation site.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/press-relea ses/press_release.2004-08-16.4611152974 Moronic company that for some reason supports real (paid off)

Real Networks is a 3rd rate company, that makes 3rd rate software, and is ran by a 3rd rate human being.

... but just in case you did not I'll toss it up here.

Lawrence Lessing (another lawyer who has done lots of writing about the internet, and been talked about on Slashdot often) posts what IMO is some very insightful information on "cyberlaw" at his blog from time to time. If you enjoyed this interview, and have not cheked out Lessing's work.

Here are some of the groups that Lessing is working / has worked with...
creative commons
eff
puclib knowledge
fsf

Weren't people celebrating the 20th anniversary of the BETAMAX DECISION a little while back?

Tell your Representative to oppose unreasonable database protection.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/take-action/PublicA ction.2004-01-29.5078945128

Why do we have Copyright?

The Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8) reads Congress shall have the power to

"promote the progress of science...by securing for limited times to authors...the exclusive right to their respective writings..."

What does that mean? The easy answer is that scientists and artists alike, who enrich our society with their discoveries and works, are granted an additional incentive to innovate and create new works of art. It's an exchange-share the work with society and society will allow you a limited monopoly. The goal is to disseminate ideas and enrich the public, while creating an incentive for the artist. After a limited time the artist's monopoly would dissolve and the work would return completely to the public.

The concept of "returning" works to the public suggests that no new idea is truly new, that it is only built from some previous societal knowledge. Perhaps this return concept can be best understood through the words of Sir Isaac Newton, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." The Constitution specifies, "limited times" to ensure that artists to not rest on their laurels but continue to innovate.

Electronic Frontier Foundation, The Digital Speech Project and Public Knowledge (to which I found a link on GNU website recently) are certainly worth visiting, not to mention our good friend Google. The problem is that while we all know that the so called "HDTV broadcast flag" [eff.org] makes exactly as much sense as the Security Flag from RFC 3514, this is not always the case with the average drunk Joe "General Public" Sixpack, who ironically is in fact the most important target we all should make sure those papers are carefully read and understood by, because he represents the target audience of Businessweek, not Slashdot.

Electronic Frontier Foundation, The Digital Speech Project and Public Knowledge (to which I found a link on GNU website recently) are certainly worth visiting, not to mention our good friend Google. The problem is that while we all know that the so called "HDTV broadcast flag" [eff.org] makes exactly as much sense as the Security Flag from RFC 3514, this is not always the case with the average drunk Joe "General Public" Sixpack, who ironically is in fact the most important target we all should make sure those papers are carefully read and understood by, because he represents the target audience of Businessweek, not Slashdot.

If you're looking for someone to launch a counter-attack, try Public Knowledge. The EFF is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. They can not legally lobby congress. Why don't people understand this?

The EFF is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. It is illegal for them to lobby. The organization you should point people to is Public Knowledge.

Because it is bad for the country. Suppose you really agreed to a EULA or an access control that says, like Sony's EULA on the Destiny's Child "The Writing's On the Wall" CD, that you will not sell it or give it away. It might be a great deal for an individual buyer, particularly for a lower price, to agree to burn their books after reading them, or lock up their music after 30 days, or make a movie unwatchable after 48 hours, but it robs the "non-consumer" market of important access to creative works. Have you ever read a book, listened to a CD or watched a DVD you did not pay for new? Ever receive a used one as a gift? What about the kids down at the after-school tutoring program who need a better library?

The reason some rights do not belong to copyright owners is because we don't want to marginalize a huge portion of our society that will never be in a position to buy a new product, but need access to the secondary market. Let's face it, millions of people buy used cars, used clothes, used books, used CDs and used software because they can't afford the new stuff. We don't want those people to have to walk around naked and without any access to copyrighted works just because their participation could not be monetized by the original manufacturer.

We don't let employers get away with a EULA in which you waive your right to be free from discrimination even if you don't fear discrimination and they agree to pay you a higher salary in exchange. Why? Because it is bad for the masses. Against "public policy." Likewise, we can't let copyright owners get away with "waivers" of important federal rights just because someone is willing to agree to it - it's the person who is not a party to the EULA or the access conrol agreement who gets hurt, along with our culture.

Support Public Knowledge

The Consumer Project on Technology does a lot of work around patents, particularly business methods patents and patents that restrict access to medicine. They aren't well funded.

Public Knowledge is a new group that does work in the IP area. They are more focused on copyright at the moment but work on patent issues as well. They are better funded and more focused on IP issues.

Using the pharmaceutical industry as an example of "IP protection encourages innovation by promoting R&D spending" is specious, because (as you already hinted):

Pharmaceutical companies spend vastly more on marketing than they do on R&D

But I agree, that in many areas and especially in software development, patent durations need to be much shorter. The ultimate aim of IP protection is (or at least, was originally) to benefit the public and the nation through the sharing of new inventions. The monopoly granted to "innovators" is supposed to be temporary, recognising that incentives may be required to encourage lots of invention, but ultimately, IP protection is supposed to be about providing benefit to everybody, not just the few IP "owners".

cf Jonas Salk, creator of the polio vaccine, famous for answering the question "who owns this vaccine" with "The people own it. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?" (although granted, the likes of Jack Valenti probably would love to have IP ownership of everything and anything).

Funny, the Constitution says (Art. I, Sect. 8)

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Thomas Jefferson thought patents should be just for machines, but he was not the king of the U.S., and others thought differently. The Patent Act of 1793 states that the inventor of

any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new or useful improvement thereof

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

Again, not just machines, but processes were elegible according to the letter of the law to be patented. Algorithms and business plans seem to me to be processes and hence, are not automatically excluded from the wording of the historical patent laws.

For those of you who don't want to download the massive 8mb presentation here are the links at the end.

eldred.cc

creativecommons.org

publicknowledge.org

eff.org

lessig.org

What the tech community needs is a united front on the issues. Sure, there's the EFF, DigitalConsumer.org, anti-dmca.org, digitalspeech.org, publicknowledge.org, etc. etc. etc - all with varying degrees of influence, completeness, and scope. It really seems like a big duplication of effort.

Whether you like them or not, we could learn a lot from the National Rifle Association. The NRA has their "protecting our freedoms" issues, and they've managed to unite a group of fairly individualist people for a common goal. Legislators do not defy the NRA lightly in Congress, while they routinely screw over the tech industry. We need a solid lobby like the NRA to watch over our interests in Washington.

No, 4. If Hollywood had a large rock on it, SoCal would go through a moderate recession.

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY IF SILICON VALLEY GOES OUT OF BUSINESS?

The difference... the entertainment industry knows that their only hope of preserving their business model is via buttering up Congress.

Now try explaining this to Jerry Sanders of AMD, for instance.

The high-tech industries have only started to figure out that what happens in DC affects all of us, and they're hoping they can spend a little money on conventional lobbying to straighten this all out.

Perhaps, say, Apple will get the idea when they suddenly realize that the only way they can legally manufacture computers the rest of the world will buy will be to move to anywhere but the USA... as they start scouting real estate in Canada and Ireland.

What's needed is a mass movement backed by serious corporate money from the people CBDTPA will hit hardest. Though in fact, if such a mass movement is to be effective, we're going to have to match the corporate donations out of our own pockets AND actually get off our butts and participate... when the mail from the mailing lists gets to us, click the URLs and send the faxes to Congress... when we're asked to volunteer to work in campaigns of people we despise who vote right on Hollywood control of technology, get out from in front of our computers and GO.

Your choices?

• If you're a suit at a major high-tech company, figure out the implications of CBDTPA for your company and get the point across to your bosses that we need serious political action NOW... or that they might as well start scouting foriegn real estate and figuring out which employees are going. Perhaps your company should donate real money and/or facilities to the new Public Knowledge organization if they are really going to do the political action they say they plan to do. They already have $1.1M seed money, as you know, that's only a start.
• Do politics rather than talk about it.
• hope that your company or client thinks you're worth taking when they move out of the US,
• start figuring out where our companies are going and get there first
• learn to like flipping burgers.

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:40:47 -0400
From: Declan McCullagh
To: politech@politechbot.com
Subject: FC: Public Knowledge hopes to turn geeks into, well, geektivists
X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/

Bring in the geeks
By Declan McCullagh
July 15, 2002, 4:00 AM PT

WASHINGTON--Gigi Sohn hopes that geeks have become so enraged by recent anti-piracy schemes that they'll finally want to fight back.

The 40-year old lawyer, head of the Public Knowledge nonprofit group here, plans to recruit ragtag band of technophiles and train them to become a corps of effective political activists on the Internet front.

To Sohn, this means seizing on widespread discontent created by the attempts of Hollywood and the music labels to curtail file-swapping networks while promoting sweeping new anti-copying laws and standards.

E-mail campaigns are easily ignored, and transforming online ire into effective political action is hardly a trivial task.

Geek armies have always been eager to vent in online forums and clog the e-mail inboxes of errant congressional types. As far back as 1995, over 50,000 peeved Netizens signed an electronic petition slamming the Clinton administration's privacy-invasive Clipper Chip.
[...]

POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech:
http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at
http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at
http://www.mccullagh.org/
Like Politech? Make a donation here:
http://www.politechbot.com/donate/

What isn't from Declan's post to politech is that Gigi has already raised $1.1M.

At last, we have the chance to work with something with at least the possibility of success.

No, $1.1M isn't enough so we can afford to sit on her asses and let her solve the problems for us. It's only a start. We're going to have to put our own time and effort into this or we won't be making a living in high-tech in the USA.

Will she spend the money she's raised on the heavy artillery we need to back up our grassroots efforts and make them effective? (fax servers, ad purchases, campaign contributions, a top-bracket political lobbyist, political consultants, etc.) We'll see.

The good news is that if those of us trying to make a living at high-tech do get in and pitch and Public Knowledge does the right things, we might wind up with our own lobbying organization line NRA and AARP, and we'll never have to worry about politicians not listening to us again.