Slashdot Mirror
Alan Cox Resigns USENIX Post Over DMCA Arrest
1millionmhz writes: "NewsForge is reporting that Alan Cox has resigned from his position on the USENIX ALS committee in protest of Dimitry Sklyarov's arrest in Las Vegas. He is also urging non-US programmers to boycott American computing conferences until the DMCA is overturned." Boy, aren't you glad that the DMCA now has nine special units to prosecute hacking and copyright violations? At least it will help keep the country safe from programmers. Update: 07/22 01:05 AM by T : Yup, it's a dupe. Mea culpa -- I missed it the first time. Worth dwelling on, though ;)
So, where is the real problem? It is in two places.
First, obviously, it is with the legislative branch (Congress) for passing this monstrosity, and with the executive branch (Mr. Clinton) for signing it. Hopefully someday the judicial branch will clean up this mess.
The other location of the problem is with US law enforcement. The FBI should have reviewed it and said, "Sorry, we have missing interns to look for, we're busy, handle it as a civil matter." The protests should be at the FBI's offices, and in front of Mr. Hatch's house.
Adobe is not the problem.
This doesn't mean that I'll be likely to everbuy any Adobe products ever again, but it would be more effective to "boycott" the FBI in some way... I'll leave that to your imagination.
SAP
StarOffice/OpenOffice
QT
KDE
...
The list goes on and on.
Welcome to the real world, boy.
including england where Alan Cox is at.
WRT being informed: Alan Cox is in Wales, not in England. There's a world outside the US, you know.
> It was the ultra-conservative Republican,... There's no need to repeat yourself. Republican will do.
Lets take a look at the history of the United States from 1776 until now with bad laws, and protections of business interests at the expense of people:
Slavery (i.e. Allowing human beings to be forced into permanent bondage, and kept as property) was not (legally) abolished until Amendment XIII in 1865. That is slavery (infinitely more horrific than DMCA) was legally accepted for 89 years.
Prohibition (i.e. The prohibition of alcohol) started with Amendment XVIII in 1919. And Prohibition was finally repealed by Amendment XXI in 1933. That is prohibition lasted 14 years.
These two cases should illustrate how long bad law stays in effect in the 'Land of the Free'. With this in mind, I believe the DMCA will be around for a very long time.
Also, DMCA is a law to protect business interest. How far do you think the government will go to protect business interests? The California territorial government (prior to statehood) in 1851 reimbursed settlers $1,000,000 (what is that in today's dollars?) for 'Indian scalps'. This is not a miss read. White settlers were paid by the government up to $5.00 per adult male scalp. With lesser prices for the scalps of women and children. This government paid genocide was to protect the Gold trade.
DMCA protects the 'intellectual' trade of some very major global business interest. And DeCSS, and Dmitri Skyarov, and (insert next victims here) are paying the price.
I do not make the comparison between slavery, prohibition, and the genocide of the indigenous peoples as a comparison of 'equal' atrocities. But rather as a comparison of BAD LAW in the United States of America. And how long those laws remain, and how long the effects of those bad laws remain.
And to that end, I say DMCA will be here for a very long time. And there will be many many more victims.
Mr Cox, stay away! Stay very far away! For your own safety, please stay away.
To all scientists, programmers, mathmatitions, engineers... The United States of America must be off limits. Your LEAGALLY PROTECTED actions in your own countries are prosecutable once you set foot in the USA.
http://www.airwindows.com/dithering/MasteringTools Pro.hqx
http://www.airwindows.com/dithering/MasteringTools Screenshot.jpg
http://www.airwindows.com/dithering/MasteringTools ProSource.txt
Interestingly, it turns out that the declicker's real interesting to use _inverted_: you set it up to kick in on just the harder transients, and have it hop them up a bit. It sounds like a sort of expansion, but rather than broadly expanding everything it just opens out the top of snare hits etc. Dynamite subtle effect...
And hell yes, will it ever clean up Macrovision garbage. I wrote a routine to put in full crank samples every thousand samples... initially I thought it wasn't working, until I remembered to take the 'test file evil noise' generator back _out_ again. Then, it was clear as a bell without the tiniest trace of the junk that I'd put there at roughly twice the amplitude of most of the music...
This normal, useful audio signal processing tool works brilliantly as an access control circumventor. Cuff me :P
OK, so did he or did he not violate the DMCA? If he did by giving the talk then what is the problem? The law is the law. Don't bitch at Adobe about this, contact your congressman and tell them how you feel. We can't just arbitrarily decide which laws we want to obey from day to day. The proper way to deal with idiotic laws is to get Congress to repeal them.
I don't know, after some Bush is to blame for this posts like (#255, #230,) and the ones that would conflict with this post (#44, #142) I don't know who to believe. After all, you state cold provable facts that are straight forward and devoid of emotional agenda. They leave no room for the political bigotry we crave on slashdot!
Could you just rephrase your facts as vague accusations like theirs? Add more sensationalism too while your at it.
Okay that was sarcasm and now I'm serious, I wish more people would state facts so plainly. They are easily proven or disproven and a very welcome change to the armchair intellectual accusations slammed about in this forum. I thank you. Now I'm going to go check it out.
~^~~^~^^~~^
Alright. I'm Canadian. I'm interested in letting people in power know that I take strong issue. What is the most effective way to go about this?
\\\ SLUDGE
While the efficacy of Alan Cox's resignation as a symbolic protest may be debatable, the immediate practical ramifications need to be highlighted: Alan Cox will not be arrested while attending a Usenix conference in the U.S.. The DMCA is real and in our faces right now.
Don't scoff: he hacks closed hardware, and, judging from his diary, with great relish. All it takes in one disgruntled hw manu to have him arrested when he is in the U.S. because he circumvented "encryption" in one of their products in order to get to work or be supported by the Linux kernel.
How many programmers own guns? Besides they already have their dangerous computers.
Most people I know don't go out to a shooting range or hunt _that_ regularly, and I really don't know that many people that are actively into guns, most of them are hardly the business or techie type.
Hatch is also the Senator that verbally abused Metallica and the RIAA for abusing the DMCA, particularly for prosecuting electronic music distribution but not having a legit alternative.
The same guy also used Napster to download Metallica songs and say that they need a better songwriter.
He also quized the RIAA leader on what counts as fair use and pointed out that fair use has a larger scope than what the RIAA claims. The lady heading the RIAA simply did not know the rules.
Hatch also threatened that if they don't quit being an ass about fair use he'll codify a law explicitly laying down what fair use is and what rights consumers have, and promised that the RIAA et al. won't like it.
But let's not disclose facts inconvenient to our arguments, right?
Great reporting, guys.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
While you're correct in some respects, you need to learn more about the history of corporate law. The original poster is correct--the idea of what corporations entailed was, at the start of America, very limited. They could only be assembled for specific purposes, corporations had no "rights," could not own other corporations, and the charter could be revoked very easily.
If you learn your history, you'll see this was done precisely because of the power of royally-chartered corporations like the Hudson Bay Company you cited. These chartered companies had a great deal of political and legal power, to the point of acting as agents for the king. America's founders didn't want corporations to be able to have that scope and power initially.
As for "America's economic greatness," this is quite the red herring. Our economic greatness comes primarily from the vast resources we collectively have at our disposal; no other country has both the range of resources and the ease of access to and distribution of those resources. Our 'mixed capitalism' economic system is a primary factor in the latter (distribution and access), but that system doesn't intrinsically require nation-spanning multi-industry corporations; single-industry local and regional firms could do (and indeed, for most of our history, have done) just as well.
Well, here in the states at any rate, the crown corporations that ran the colonies (e.g. the Massachusetts Bay Company) were transformed into actual representative governments. Between approximately the founding of the nation through the Gilded Age, Americans who knew what corporations were capable of kept them on a short leash.
Offhand I remember the North River Sugar Refining Corporation was dechartered in New York state in the late 19th century, and was one of the last decharterings, though the laws remain on the books. Previously, particularly prior to the Civil War, decharterings tended to be reserved for things like bridge, ferry and turnpike corporations, banks, liquor trusts, etc. More or less natural monopolies. (which is why the Santa Clara case that the SCOTUS screwed us over with involved railroads)
More often corporations just faded out of existance through planned decharterings. That is, they were regulated as to the amount of money that they were allowed to make, what they could own, how long they could last, what their specific purpose was, etc.
The idea is basically grounded in hierarchies of authority - a judicial doctrine known as quo warrento. The thought goes like so:
First, you have this master authority. It used to be the King, these days its the citizenry. They mete out some portion of authority to another body, in this case the state government. Given that corporations do not exist in nature, they're obviously, as you point out, artificial. The group gathering together to form the corporation is incapable of granting to themselves the limited liability, etc. that they crave. The best they can do are various types of partnerships.
So when the state issues a charter, it must do so pursuant to the will of the people who are permitting it (if they are at all) in the first place. So it goes from God to the people to the state to the corporation.
*But* it would be a truly odd state which was empowered by its people to undertake actions which were illegal or harmful to the populace. If the state cannot take such actions itself - and although I don't sit around reading state constitutions for fun, I bet they generally can't - then it has no authority to permit the corporations that it charters to do so either.
Thus, when a corporation does act in such a manner, the state has the option to simply dissolve it, or make its chartering conditional on the kinds of limits mentioned earlier, so that it can fulfill its purpose which is to the people.
I'm not saying that amoral entities don't have their value, just that when they're governed by moral entities, as we want our states to be, they can't be permitted to run amok without such a contradiction and authority being passed without permission.
The business environment of early America was quite different from today's... but there's no real reason for it to have changed. It's pretty likely that even back in the 1800's businesses were corrupting governments from their duties to their citizenry. Today, there are efforts to decharter Unocal, Philip Morris, and other corporations. People haven't realized this is possible for so long that it'll take a long time to bring it back to the forefront of memory, but hopefully it'll be doable.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
What's meant by corporations' rightful place is as a servant to society. Until comparatively recently, corporations were not very common, and were formed for specific purposes, generally for short periods of time. A number of states were founded by colonists that had had a corporation chartered to assist them. Or if a community needed a bridge built that was outside of their means, they might permit a corporation to be chartered to build it, recoup their expenses for a little while with tolls, and then be dissolved.
Corporations were intended to last only as long as necessary, and only created when there weren't any other particularly viable methods of doing something, often due to economies of scale or natural monopolies. They absolutely had to act in the public interest. On occassions where a corporation did not, it was dissolved by the government, which is what had chartered it in the first place.
Most businesses however, were ordinary sole proprietorships or partnerships. It would've been nuts to want to incorporate a shop or a farm; it doesn't serve community interests.
Even today, these requirements have not lessened, though enforcement has just gone out the window. We definately need to bring it back.
(as for your opinion of torts, they still apply no matter what the nature of the organization, it's good that they do, and they're not a replacement for governmental oversight of business.)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." --Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)
Here! Here!
I figure no one will actually read this cuz I am posting it late, but here is my RANT...
Most of the feeble-minded "pro-business" crowd fail to recongnize this fact: 2/3 of the U.S. economy is small to medium sized businesses. There are government definitions of what this is, but basically they are less than 1000 employees and under a $100million in revenue. Consistantly the growth in the US economy comes from these buisnesses. They employ the majority of americans.
I'd argue (with ample agreement of economists) that this is THE single distinguishing feature of the US economy versus the European and Japanese economies. Japan is really the best case example of large corperations stiffling their economy. It isn't so much that large corperations are dumb and slow by nature, it is just that the aggragate behavior of many players in the market creates the pressure for efficiency gain and inovation thru a variety of mechanisms.
This all means that "monopoly-abuse-isn't-bad" and "big-companies-aren't-a-threat" ideas are wrong. These ideas are just ignorant and inaccurate.
My nit pick of the day is that the term "Capitalism" refers to the specific use of publicly traded stock and securities to fund investment in corperation building. The term that should be used is "Free Markets". Free Markets require reliable and liberal contract and regulatory law and the ability of most/all individuals in the society to participate in the market at any level.
Pro-big-buisness laws actually hurt Free Markets, because they typically create barriers to entry for smaller players.
This in a nutshell is why we have Anti-Trust laws. This is why I support campaign finance reforms (they favor big businesses over small-medium businesses; look at the "sponsers" of the Democratic and Republican Conventions).
If you want a stong economy, support small and medium buisnesses. To this end support:
BTW, I am a self professed liberal, but I strongly believe in democratic free markets. Free Markets are the best way to help the most people; Free Markets require strong (but minimal) democratic regulatory environments to flourish (despite Anne Rand spouting Libertarian fairy-tales)
-- I am not a fanatic, I am a true believer.
Actually, I am a registered Democrat. I think there is a sufficiantly large contingent of Democrats that aggree with pro-free market policies, that the Democrats are not to far gone. Unfortunately, the "Blue Dog Democrates" are being decimated by the southern states' shift away from conservative Democrats in favor of Christian-Right Republicans who are whole heartedly in favor of government involvement social and religious affairs.
Republicans really aren't very good on these issues either. Bush's tax plan is basically lame as an economic policy. There was no effort to get capital gains tax reductions. The Republican attitude towards regulatory reform is basically pro-big-business. They fought long and hard against the Clean Air Act, (Yes Bush Sr. signed it, but as a comprimise) which is a model of Free Market based regulation. The Clean Air Act established a market for "carbon credits" and let market forces deal with how, when, and where the Carbon emmissions were reduced; in less then a decade the last half century of carbon pollution was rolled back. At the same time the US went thru amazing economic growth. Regulation, the environment, and economic growth are NOT incompatable. It is a matter of "How".
Further Republicans have shifted away from Free Market economic policies. The Barry Goldwater, John McCain (Goldwater's hand picked successor for his Senate seat), Gramm Rudman, etcetra branch of the Republican party are getting pushed out of the GOP in favor of the Social Conservatives (who have a very harsh all or nothnig attitude towards members of their own party).
Dashelle is not a freaky liberal, however he does seem to be to far to the "traditional" Democratic side of the Party than I care for. He is one sly bastard that is going to kick the GOP's ass; and I am not sure if that is good or bad.
-- I am not a fanatic, I am a true believer.
This is the kind of all-regulation-is-bad thinking that I wanted to distance myself from. It isn't the existance of regulations that is bad. It is the kind of regulation AND how much responsibility people think the FEDERAL government should take. I pointed to the Clean Air Act as an example of good regulations. resource/environmental management is a federal responsibility. Regulations which take advantage of markets are a good kind of regulation; as opposed to obviating markets by creating one-size-fits-all autocratic mandates.
See big companies wanted no limits on their ability to pollute. Pollution has real costs on our economy (health care, loss of economically usable forests/land, etc) and quality of life. But the companies that create the pollution are not the companies paying for the pollution (insurance companies, forresters, and farmers pay the costs of pollution). Federal government regulation is the ONLY way to push the costs back to the companies who are otherwise being subsidized by the ability to pollute.
About John McCain's legislative initiatives:
His proposed regulation of campaign finances are not going to be "useless regulations". They may not be a complete solution to the disparity in VOLUME of speech and influence by wealthy parties (big companies not little ones), but they are a good try.
His advocacy for health care reform is most certainly pro-free-market. HMOs are specifically excempt from law suits. Non-HMO health insurance companies are NOT excempt. This is not fair to the traditional insurance companies.
This disparity is not pro-free-market. Further, law suits are a nessesary part of contract law. Contract law is abso-fucking-lutely nessesary to Free Markets. This doesn't means that we don't need Tort reform. I believe we do. Companies can be blown away by a single lawsuit on an issue where they were trying to bahave in good faith (example: Dow-Corning and Silicone brest implants). This isn't healthy for a free market. On the other had I do think companies should be killed by law suits when they bahave in grevious bad faith. For instance selling a product they know will and is killing people while constantly lieing and commiting fraud to deny what they have already proven to themselves; Tabbaco and certain car design issues come to mind (not the Firestone tires; I'm thinking the Gremlin issue). Lawsuits allow the share holders to suffer, because they are the source of authority in companies.
Don't be such a simple minded partisan.
BTW, I am registered Democrat so I can improve the breed, because I think they are better stock to work from. However, in my home state, the Free Socialist Republic of Maryland, I am looking forward the opportunity to vote for a Republican governor that doesn't snarl and drool. And I vote against the stealth senator Sarbanes even if the Republican candidate were to snarl and drool.
-- I am not a fanatic, I am a true believer.
Well, who do you think is padding their campaign coffers?
It was the ultra-conservative Republican, Orin Hatch (representing ultra-conservative Utah) that wrote the DMCA.
Hatch is a moderate. He's one of the few Republicans who is in favor of the antitrust prosecution of Microsoft (the fact that Novell is in his state is only a coincidence I'm sure), and he's as clueless about techonology as you would expect.
Besides, the DMCA was a bipartisan bill, cowritten by Democrat Senator Leahy, who Senator Hatch praises here:
"Finally, I would like to particularly pay tribute to the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy. I don't know of anyone who has more interest in the Internet, more interest in computers, more interest in copyright matters than Senator Leahy, unless it is myself, and I don't think I have more. He has done a great job on this committee. It is a pleasure to work with him."
The bill passed 99-0, the nonvoting senator being absent. Can't get any more bipartisan than that.
You're asking "Will It Help ?" as if commenting that what Mr. Cox is doing is but a meaningless gesture.
Practically, there won't be ANY immediate change of heart or anything, based on what Mr. Cox has done, but AT LEAST, the action of Mr. Cox BY ITSELF HAS GARNERED ENOUGH MEDIA REPORT and _THAT_, my friend, in one way or another, WILL DEFINITELY HELP to ensure that NOBODY CAN GET AWAY BY SCREWING WITH THE PEOPLE !
More power to Mr. Cox !
More power to ALL WHO JOIN MR. COX IN BOYCOTTING US-BASED Tech Convention !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Ok I can't keep up with who is pissed at us or who we are pissed at now. But Allen seems to state we hate russia. I didn't know we did. I thought we considered them partners now. Well I just live here. My government is obviously out of control. Then again so are most others. But thats the way it is I guess. I am american but I say take his advice and go ahead with the boycott. There are many brilliant programmers from overseas and America will feel the hurt. Or maybe they will try to euthanize the programmer they just arrested with some douche.
IRNI
If I remember correctly, the DMCA passed by a voice vote, so there's no record of who supported it and who didn't. This was probably intentional. And if they did this, it's unlikely that they listened to any of their constituents (save the corporations, who seem to have drafted it) no matter how vocal. After all, they can "plausibly" deny that they voted for it...must have been the other reps that did, right?
Sigh...
--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
It won't. Understandably, Alan is concerned about his personal security in a State which seems to have incorporated kidnap of alien nationals by its Police Apparatus as a law enforcement tool.
The question which should be asked is simply:-
"Why do the US State Security organs want to kidnap a Russian citizen"?
Can someone please explain how Cox's resignation will help the cause? Whouldn't it be more effective if he remained in his position and used it to promote the cause?
His resignation has nothing to do with his ability to "help the cause."
His resignation is based on his personal belief that he would share the blame if another programmer was arrested, in a situation similar to Skylarov's, while attending a conference he helped organize and/or promote.
Jay (=
check www.boycottadobe.com
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Hatch also threatened that if they don't quit being an ass about fair use he'll codify a law explicitly laying down what fair use is and what rights consumers have, and promised that the RIAA et al. won't like it.
But let's not disclose facts inconvenient to our arguments, right?
It is very, very counterproductive to cast the DMCA fiasco in terms of Republican's vs. Democrats. I do not like Republicans and will never forgive them the twelve Reagan-Bush years that gave us such treasures as an ongoing war on drugs (which is in fact a war on our youth and our civili liberties), Iran-Contra, Desert Storm, and so forth, but Jeff DeMaagd is absolutely right in pointing out that Orin Hatch, who may deserve our contempt for many of his stances and policies, is AFAIK the only congressman to come forward and publically admit that the DMCA was a mistake. For that he wins some respect from me.
Of course, talk is cheap. Until Hatch actually translates his regret into action and works to repeal the law he will remain nothing more than Yet Another Political Windbag.
However, I reiterate, this isn't about Conservatives vs. Liberals (a conservative congress wrote and passed the law, and a relatively liberal president signed it), this is about Corporatism vs. Individualism and the rights of the common man vs. the raw might of those synthetic capitalist beings we call corporations. Until we set aside our differences on other agendas and unite to lobby and effect change on those issues we do agree on, such as individual liberty, the civil rights of the common man, and the need to overturn the DMCA, those who benefit from such draconian laws will continue to ride roughshod over the rest of us.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Because he believes that conventions in the US are putting people at risk, and that having more programmers go to jail isn't going to help the cause.
Perhaps he thinks there is a better way to get information about the issue out there.
Firstly, this is not what you said before. Secondly, there already are penalties for corporate misbehavior. Few shareholders care what the technical status of the corporation is if they stand to lose the majority of their investment. The real problem, like with actual humans, is enforcement, not the laws themselves. Thirdly, revoking the chartership of a corporation is an odd and essentially meaningless punishment, since investors already stand to lose their investment and management their jobs.
I agree and disagree with these sentiments. Yes, i agree with you in the sense that we should have controls on corporate misbehavior. However, it is foolish to act as if the only acceptable deterrent is the revocation of corporate charter. Financial damages (e.g., RICO action) alone are enough to effectively destroy a corporation, never mind the thousand of other ways that shareholder wealth can be diminished, these are all deterrents.
Furthermore, I submit to you that revocation of charter is too drastic and too sudden to be an effective deterrent. A great many of these corporate "crimes" happen outside the scope of the investors knowledge. Even when the investor only owns but a few stocks, the information that they have is so high level, relative to the charges that are typically levied. Whether it be price gouging, malpractice, monopolistic practices, or what have you. For instance, it would not be reasonable to expect the shareholder to know of a flaw in a medical device, since understanding that flaw would require a degree in engineering, not to mention internal knowledge and a great deal of time. If the shareholder is incapable of knowing about the act, why penalize them? Why not penalize those that actually have the ability to control that kind of company behavior, like the CEO, and only do it where they are directly responsible.
Though this can be done currently, it is a very tough wall to climb. Certainly I would demand the same level of evidence that is seen in criminal trials, but it could be made easier, without hurting legitimate business. It would be far more effective.
and therein lies the problem. It is not that society wants to make the investor richer, but rather that we need their investment. If we make certain classes of investment (or all investment) so risky that it becomes unpalatable for any investor, then we lose that source of investment. Thus, society as a whole suffers.
In other words, investments that once offered a sufficient return for the previous level of risk would become impossible given a drastic rise in risk. Some investments are very sensitive to even the slightest increase in risk.
Anyways, gambling and investing are quite different (even though investing may technically be called a gamble, depending on who you ask). Gambling strongly implies a game of negative or equal expected returns. The players play for the thrill (otherwise they're quite certainly stupid). Investment is almost always done with expected returns significantly exceeding the investment. For instance, the US stock markets as a whole have returned more than 10% a year on average (over the past 80 years or so). Riskier investments, like those in startup companies, offer multiplies higher returns. In other words, if you could invest in enough of them, you would expect to make a great deal of money over time, even though the returns on a few (or even the whole market) is uncertain and may result in the complete loss of the investment. Whereas if you walk into your average casino and stay for long enough, the law of averages says that you'll eventually walk out pennyless.
No, just like people their wealthy varies all over the map, in fact, most corporations are quite small and unheard of.
Yes, they are afford some protections that humans are not. However, it is clear that you are confusing this with the limited liability that the shareholders have. Just because the shareholder cannot be held personally liable, does not mean that the corporation is immune, nor does it mean that the investor bears no risk; it just means that the investor can only lose what the investor invested.
Corporations are dissolved quite often. Shareholders can, and do, lose ALL of their investment. For some shareholders, this can be pretty traumatic. Anyways, the proof is in the pudding, investors are clearly risk averse. Baring all but the most fly by night corporations, the threat of criminal and civil lawsuits is taken very seriously indeed.
You totally fail to consider WHY corporations exist in the first place, or why they're founded. The shareholders of corporations bear a significantly increased task burden, it generally far exceeds that of sole proprietorships or partnerships. Essentially, they pay taxes twice. The corporations pay taxes on their earnings and the shareholders pay taxes on both capital gains and dividend checks (the two ways that investors get a return on their investment). They are willing to accept the diminishment of earnings because it is quite necessary.
Without corporate status, each and every one of the investors takes a great deal of personal risk (baring some notable and hardly relevant exceptions). What this means is that if you own even the tinniest number of shares, you stand lose your house, your car, and all of your savings. Consider investing in a well diversified portfolio. You could very expose yourself to MORE risk, not less risk, since just one company need default on a loan, run affoul of the law, get sued by some ambulance chaser, get struck down by some overzealous bureaocrat, or what have you. Many many businesses would simply become impalatable for the reasonable investor, not just "evil" corporations like tabacco companies, but medical devices companies, medical technology companies, drug companies, car companies, you name it. Without investment, those industries would eventually die.
DCMA := Disney Corporation Manufactured Amendment. :-)
Alan Cox has legitmate concerns about his safety if he enters the USA. He is also pointing out to other software authors that they should be concerned. This isn't a political game... the USA is arresting people for giving lectures on software design and security!
I work in the area of network security and I just turned down a contract in the USA. I won't touch foot on US soil until the DCMA is struck down.
Waitaminute are we talking about the guy who's appointing a "marriage czar" with the goal of change certain elements of American society? Are we talking about the guy who wanted to give taxpayer money to "faith-based organizations"? The only hints I've seen that they guy is conservative, is that he wants to lower taxes and privatize Social Security. In other respects, he strikes me as pretty lefty.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
You are very confused if you think republicans are conservative.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Top Gun and NRA Life Member John Ashcroft called today for the virtually immediate destruction of all records of approved purchasers retained for the audit log of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) -- a death certificate for the Brady law. 6/28/2001
FWIW, he was just doing the job -- the instant background checks were a comprimise reached by the stipulation that all the records at the federal level would be destroyed. The FBI never destroyed ANY of them, claiming it was simply keeping an "audit" trail. Whether you agree with the law or not, the FBI was clearly keeping an extensive list of legal handgun purchasers, in direct contradiction to the very federal law that implemented the background checks.
Nothing would kill the Brady bill and similar measures faster than things like this, where the FBI and fed proves it is unwilling to live up to their own comprimises with gun rights advocates. Now it will be MUCH harder to convince the NRA the fed is working in good faith.
So NRA aside, Ashcroft was just enforcing the federal law (and his FBI oversight responsibilities)...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Staying out of jail leaves him free to program and work on software.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Because it was passed on a voice vote of those present. There is no record of either who was present at the vote (other than "a quorum"), or who voted for it (other than "a majority of the quorum").
Yes, this sucks.
After a little clicking around I did find the following:
The House Journal records the deed thusly:
For the Senate I have not even found that much. Thomas (the Library of Congress) simply says, "Senate agreed to conference report by Unanimous Consent".
I guess we have to hold them all responsible for voting it into law since we can't single them out. (This would have been the 105th Congress BTW.)
The sponsor of the bill is listed as Howard Coble. Co-sponsors are Howard L Berman, Sonny Bono, Barney Frank, Bill McCollum, Charles Pickering, Mary Bono, John Conyers Jr., Henry J. Hyde, and Bill Paxton. Needless to say, if any of these are running for office in your jurisdiction I urge you to not vote for them.
Look around, and choose your own ground. -PF
Anybody else notice that their website was done with Adobe GoLive? Kind of takes the wind out of their sail, methinks.
The Bush administration is following the law, pretty much like they promised. It's not the Bush administration that this turd of a law ever passed. I don't want to start a left wing/right wing debate here, but you can thank the Clinton Administration for this blessing.
As for their thoughts about the law, I honestly don't know. I do know there are some higher ups in the republican party who are definitely NOT liking how the DCMA is being used, however, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch. I am hoping their sentiments can reach the Whitehouse...It's hard to believe that thing ever became a law.
There is no continent called 'America' anymore; it ceased to exist with the creation of the Panama canal; the correct term would be 'North America' and 'South America'
And as for what you are insinuating, that, what, Canada and Mexico will follow the US in it's laws.. what do you base that on? Contrary to popular belief, us Canucks and the Mexicans do NOT base all our laws on what the us does; and, in fact, in Canada anyway, our legislative system is small enough we can actually prevent rediculous laws from coming in to play; there isn't as much corporate power.
You would prefer that all news sources always provide the exact same news?
Don't suppose you've ever heard of "civil disobedience", have you? I'd argue that it is my civic duty to not obey immoral and unjust laws...just as it would be my honor-bound duty not to obey illegal orders if I was in the military.
Just because it's the law, doesn't mean it's right.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
As long as the majority of people don't understand the issue (and there is almost no issue the majority of the people understand well), Congress will pass laws that _seem_ to do good from a casual and/or ignorant perspective. They will seldom do anything better.
Think of the children!
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Don't fool yourself -
There is such little actual difference between the republicans and the democrats these days. I voted republican until I realized they were no longer the party of smaller government, open markets, and general freedoms.
Vote libertarian.
www.lp.org
Less money will be made outside of the U.S. Less folks will go, it will be more expensive. Only stodgy "computer professionals" will show up. It might be kind of nice to weed out the script kiddies though.
It could be held in Mexico, only a few hundred miles difference between Vegas and Tijuana, you know.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
What will help, quite simply, is donating money. I support the EFF through my donations and most recently, I've donated money directly to Dmitry's fund (dmitry@shmoo.com). I encourage you to do the same, as this is quite simply the only thing that will have an effect. Money talks - if its important to you (I don't rightly see how it couldn't be) - put your money where your mouth is.
Therefore, it is illegal in the USA to try to read the following text.
He hated what was going on so much that he resigned twice. Let's see how many times he resigns.
The next Defcon conference should be outside the US... and other conferences should think twice before having a US based
Not an uninteresting idea, but, don't hold your breath. The main point of the conference is to make money after all. Less money will be made outside of the U.S. Less folks will go, it will be more expensive. Only stodgy "computer professionals" will show up. It might be kind of nice to weed out the script kiddies though.
It was the ultra-conservative Republican, Orin Hatch (representing ultra-conservative Utah) that wrote the DMCA. Strange that these republicans say they want to "open markets", then pass laws to protect wealthy capitalists instead.
This all happened in a hugely Democratic administration. The powerful are protecting themselves. Democrats are just too busy killing interns at the moment to take bribes. Both parties are culpable here.
I would like to know where you think conferences should be held. The only reason this arrest is a big deal is because it happened here. There would be dozens of arrests anywhere else in the world. If you want to boycott the Olymics start with China, your Russian friend would already be dead had he been arrested there.
DefCON has become a flabby media whore event where most of the audience are wannabe script kiddies.
Yep. That is not going to change, no matter where the event is held. Of course I am well aware that conferences are held outside of the U.S. How does Anguilla or where ever feel about strippers, porn and public drunkenness again? Yeah, that's what I thought. No, Vegas is a good place for DefCON the DMCA is just horrible law. DefCON is a big party, and Vegas is used to dealing with that crap. Aren't very many other places that will not only put up with the hijinks, but, provide the oppertunity for same.
The judiciary was hardly in the hands of the Republicans so I'm not really sure what you are talking about. Can't locate a list of who supported the DMCA in the House and Senate (why isn't this on the front page of eff.org BTW).
So China and Russia's acts are good excuse for bad laws in the US. Great logic.
Pay attention d00d, not what I said. Merely pointing out that it is ridiculous to pretend that this conference could take place in its current form in other countries unfettered. The DMCA is on its face unconstitutional and painful to those in the security business. Doesn't mean other countries are automatically less abusive.
There are plenty of border towns in Canada and Mexico that would attract US programmers and would be safe for foriegn programmers.
Sorry, forgot to point this out the first time. Mexico and Canada have stupid gun laws, this would mean lots of folks who enjoy the shoot would not show up. This thins the pool of quality people even further.
Not really. The child online protection act, or whatever it was called was struck down. The Dems. were drooling they wanted that one so bad, so were the Repubs. Don't forget the Feinstein and some of the other bigtime enemies of freedom from California and New Jersey etc. are all Democrats. Don't be lulled in by the mass media telling you democrats respect the 1st amendment, they don't.
In the past year I've worked for 3 companies. One, which I had worked at for five years, has 3 employees and revenue below 300K a year. The next has 6 employees and revenue at about 600K a year. The last has one employee and revenue at around 100K a year.
Becoming incorporated does not magically make a business big, successful, or evil. It merely changes its standing in the eyes of taxes and law.
Raven
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
We can't just arbitrarily decide which laws we want to obey from day to day.
Arbitrarily deciding which laws to obey, or arbitrarily doing anything important for that matter, is a bad idea. I suggest you apply reason and judgment in choosing which laws you obey.
The proper way to deal with idiotic laws is to get Congress to repeal them
And the proper way to deal with immoral laws is to break them.
"... interested in receiving and publishing the following kinds of information:
Technical descriptions of the access control and encryption mechanisms associated with PDF files and/or eBooks.
Technical descriptions of remedies for these mechanisms, e.g., patches, key recovery algorithms, modified plug-ins, etc.
Source code for implementing these remedies.
[visit his website before submitting to see what he is already aware of. His website Gallery of Adobe Remedies already lists ElcomSoft, Xpdf, Ghostscript, but no Haiku ... yet]
Dr. Dave Touretzky notes that his web site is for "discussion of purely technical information of interest to computer scientists and lawful content users".
Dr. Dave Touretzky further notes that he is "not interested in receiving rants about Adobe or the DMCA" suggesting that said rants be submitted to Boycott Adobe wishing to keep his site focused on "Adobe's access control mechanisms and the remedies people have devised [i.e. 'lawful ways a purchaser desires'] to deal with them."
Tangential Editorial Comment by RM3 Frisker FTN
I believe Juanita
the alternative tentacles label carries alot of spoken word stuff from noam chomsky. they even have some sample mp3's you can download to see what he has to say.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
it's not so much hero worship, but exposure. dont you know noone reads these days :). however almost everyone has a cdplayer, and most people reading /. know what to do with an mp3.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
The bit about sending a senior programmer to Alabama is absurd. That would only happen if software producers were liable for their products' failures. The DMCA reinforces the licenses which prevent this!
What needs to happen is for users to WISE UP and start to care about the quality of the software they use. Then maybe we'd see a truly independent software quality assessment group be created, akin to Underwriter Laboratories or Consumer Reports. Of course this wouldn't be possible under the DMCA, so maybe a consumer advocacy group would lobby to repeal it.
As long as the public will still buy them, companies will continue to release half-finished software and trivial obfuscation schemes, and we will be prohibited from demonstrating their worthlessness.
No, they can't vote. But many large corporations have enough money to sponsor election campaigns, which is even more effective.Or to lobby politicans full time. Which is not only more effective than voting it also works even when an election isn't pending.
Copyright law has actually been in the control of various industry groups that have hammered out compromises that has grown into the current mess. Fascinating reading:
http://www.digital-copyright.com/
Ask for an appointment to talk with the Senator...
that will get attention but not the meeting.
Corporations do not have all the rights of a flesh and blood person, for example corps cannot vote. They do have certain legal rights and responsibilities however, they pay taxes, they can sue and can be sued and they are protected by the first amendment just like you and me. Corporations exist in order to protect their owners from liability, that is in fact the entire reason they exist right now.
Oh and the US has always had corporations, back to the earliest colonial days. Nearly all of the original colonies were founded by corporations, and much of America was opened up and explored by corporations (Hudson Bay Company ring a bell?) Do you know corporations where so popular for starting a colony? Because starting a colony was a very very risky operation, so investors back in England hit on the idea that if they pooled their money they could a) raise far more capital b) by sharing ownership they shared the risk, making it more reasonable. In a LLC (limited liability corporation) you as an owner (investor) are only liable for assests you put in, so if you toss $200 into a venture that goes tits-up you are only out that $200, the companies creditors can't after each investors personal assests only the money already paid up is at stake. This also opens up the door for the middle class to begin investing and playing an active role in big time business ventures, something they were unable to do previously. This inclusion of the middle class also makes vastly more capital available to businesses seeking to grow and further reduces the risk to individual owners, thus spurring more innovation and risk taking.
Now, armed with this knowledge do you see how corporations are in fact the cause for America's economic greatness?
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
So you propose that all news sources not cover any topic that's already been covered by another news source? Now, I would have prefered to have both news items, but the point is that Slashdot didn't cover a topic that many people find important.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
As much as I hate the retarded CD-R tax, it doesn't make it illegal for me to perform my duties as a network security professional.
------
The internet is not as free a media as you would think. It only takes a few firewall rules...
------
Send registered paper mail. See how much they ignore you then!
------
"Solid engineering" dictates that crypto-based copy protection is impossible ("Let me get this straight. You've giving me the ciphertext AND the key??") So, rather than recognising "piracy" as a cost of doing business in the software world, they try to litigate everyone out of existence.
------
Becoming incorporated does not magically make a business big, successful, or evil.
No, it doesn't. My tiny corporation, for instance, is hardly a threat to either the republic or my personal debt.
But I fail to see what that has to so with the subject -- which is large, rich and politically active corporations.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
No. Expect Ashcroft to make a statement about how America will be a safer place! Hackers are already getting the message that America is not a good place for them to be!
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
No, just like people their wealthy varies all over the map, in fact, most corporations are quite small and unheard of.
Most corporations consist of more than one person, and have more resources to draw upon than a single person. Even very small corporations have annual revenues in the millions. However, it's large corporations that are the bulk of the problem. Small business is, in general, better for the country than large business.
it is clear that you are confusing this with the limited liability that the shareholders have
No, it's not. It's clear that you're engaging in hubris and armchair psychoanalysis.
Corporations are dissolved quite often
They go bankrupt and are dissolved quite often. They go unmaintained and are dissolved quite often. But active corporations are almost never dissolved punitively. Don't cloud the issue. And point out the last few corporate dissolutions that were not the result of bankruptcy or neglect.
You totally fail to consider WHY corporations exist in the first place, or why they're founded.
There's that armchair head-shrinking again. I completely understand why they are formed, and why they exist. I happen to own a corporation. Thanks for the little "lesson," though, Professor Lugnut.
Furthermore, you are ignorant in many aspects of business law.
Are you one of those call-in radio show advice dispensers? Of course the corporate veil can be pierced. It's not easy, but it can and is done.
I'm not even talking about criminal behavior on the part of corporations! I'm talking about things that they do which are legal, but probably shouldn't be. Like owning other corporations. Lobbying. Owning patents and copyrights.
I wouldn't even say, as you did, that lowering the amount of effort required to pierce the corporate veil is a good idea. That does not diminish the power that can be wielded by corporations, it simply creates a new class of potential criminals. And the executive officers are not always in control of or aware of everything that goes on in their companies. It's a stupid idea to hold them accountable for everything, except their own personal wrongdoing.
Punishing the corporation and restricting its activities, however, gets to the root of the problem, where there is one.
(*hubris n : overbearing pride or presumption)
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Corporations are not some alien entities competing with us for receptive ear in Washington. They consist of millions of people like you and me working and waging war on them is like waging war on ourselves.
Corporations are legal persons and are afforded all the rights of a flesh and blood person. They just happen to also be very rich, and able to do more than one thing at a time (unlike flesh and blood persons). They also operate under a different set of law; law that sheilds them from the consequences of their actions.
So yes waging war on employers is shooting ourselves in the foot, because we need jobs to make moeny to buy food, etc.
So instead of smashing up a Starbucks like a hopped-up retard, do something positive like lobby the government to abolish corporations. Or at least take away their "human rights." The U.S. didn't always have corporations far and wide, you know. Once upon a time corporations were a very few select organizations, chartered by the government for some official purpose. Such as the Postal Service and the Internal Revenue Service. And not at all like Adobe, Microsoft, the RIAA, etc. Companies were just companies. And people were people (and small furry creatures from...)
Corporations are not the cause of America's economic greatness; they are its mummy.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
OK, dude, tend to your kiddies and job. Hopefully you will be able to send them to schools that teach them to THINK, so that they will be able to understand the value of the freedoms that we are now losing, and then perhaps they might make up for your disgusting apathy.
Hell. Scratch that. Losing freedoms is _exactly_ what 9-to-5-tend-to-the-kids types want. They never really _do_ anything too extreme (what would the neighbors think!), so the fact that some extremist gets nailed for pushing against the limits is of no particular issue at all. In fact, if everyone was really predictable and stayed well within the predetermined lines of normalacy, life would be less irritating wouldn't it? Fast forward a few years, you wouldn't have to listen annoying opinions that don't agree with what you've been taught, because, well, such activity is...ahhh...discouraged. And never mind that you once seemed to be able to own things, and do what you wanted with them. Leasing isn't so bad, and besides, other things are so much simpler now. After DCMA-III bill passed a few years ago, and the media companies get their income guaranteed by the obvious (why didn't they think of this sooner?) route of income tax--you can watch movies, read books and listen to audio absolutely free! Your dad says the tax rates are higher now, but it's pretty hard to dig up those old facts for some reason, so it's hard to argue... And besides, everything is so child friendly, it's never been easier to raise a family! Why, you probably are starting to forget what a cuss word is! And things are so much easier to understand and predicable. The movie plots are so clean and simple you don't have to worry about your five year old seeing or hearing something he won't understand. Funny how it seems like there are less ...other... words in use then when you were growing up, but never mind that, things change. Besides, you've got to keep working hard to pay the leases. You don't want to fall behind. Remember poor Jimmy Mimbleton? I wonder what happened to him after they took him away....
Ashcroft opposed the DMCA originally. I haven't heard anything in support of it from him since (that doesn't mean much, I havn't followed US politics closely since I left the US in January), though he is obliged to enforce it.
VHS tapes are still $17 while a dvd movie is $35.
I've bought dozens of DVDs, and have never seen one on sale for $35. Most can be had for $18-$22 at online discounters line buy.com
No big deal, but in a post that complains about bad and misleading information of others, it's pretty damning.
DVD discs are actually cheaper to make then a VHS tape.
Which is completely irrelevant, since you're not paying for the blank medium, but for the content. And the content on the DVD is far superior, thus naturally commanding a higher price.
July 21, 2001
The Honorable Brad Sherman
1524 Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20515-0524
Dear Congressman Sherman,
Several months ago, I had the opportunity to talk with you after you spoke at Temple Judea in West Hills. At that time, I attempted to convey to you my concern about some of the more onerous provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). Recent events have deepened my concern, and as one of your voting constituents, I ask you to work towards the repeal of the DMCA.
While I am fully in favor of creators retaining control over distribution of their works, the DMCA goes several steps further. The "anti-circumvention" provision restricts time-honored Fair Use rights of consumers, and essentially also destroys the First Sale doctrine. These, in and of themselves, could be considered a reason to work towards its repeal. However, the actual situation is much worse.
(Any references given in this letter are World Wide Web links, I don't have access to the necessary hard copy.)
The DMCA has had a chilling effect on academic research. Professor Edward Felten, a distinguished professor, who was also one of the lead witnesses for the Department of Justice in the Microsoft anti-trust trial, was recently prevented from delivering an academic paper on information hiding and watermarks (see http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/Felten_v_RIAA). This sort of chilling effect is precisely what the First Amendment is designed to prevent.
Again, that would be sufficient to work towards overturning. Even worse, however, the criminal provisions of the DMCA have been invoked against a Russian national, Dmitry Sklyarov, who performed "anti-circumvention" work in Russia for his employer, where he broke no Russian law. He came to the US to deliver a speech about his work, and was arrested subsequent to that speech. This sets a dangerous precedent. What would the US government do, if a US citizen was arrested for violating foreign law, while the act was performed in the US where it was perfectly legal? Needless to say, the irony of this occuring to a Russian citizen is immense, and embarrassing to the United States.
Here are some references to the Sklyarov case:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,45298, 00 .html (Wired)
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archiv es /2001/jul/18/512096646.html (Las Vegas Sun)
http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/010718/n17166094_2.html (Reuters)
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nyt/20010718/tc/u_s _a rrests_russian_cryptographer_as_copyright_violator _1.html (New York Times)
Congressman Sherman, please help ordinary people by working to repeal this draconian law.
Sincerely,
etc...
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
IP owners got the power to trample over people's freedom from our money and the help of an increasingly Big-Brotherish government with which to enact and enforce their Orwellian laws. Did the poeple vote on those laws? I don't think so.
Hit them where it hurts the most, their pocketbook. Don't buy music. Don't buy software. Download it all and copy it all! And if the government refuses to obey the people's wishes, it will be our duty and right to refuse to pay our taxes also. It's our money after all.
Demand liberty! Nothing less!
I've written this before but it's worth repeating.
Intellectual property laws exist only because we have a slavery system. Our livelihood depends on working for others so we can pay our taxes. The reason that we have to work for others is that 99% of people have been deprived of an inheritance in the wealth of the land. Income property is owned by a few and the state. The others are slaves. Artists, programmers and inventors depend on their work to make a living. Can we blame them? We all depend on our labor because we are all slaves. So now we are swimming in a ocean of laws and rules that take away our remaining liberties, one by one.
Let's face it, if you cannot put a fence around it or put chains on it, it does not belong to you. Makes no difference whether it is ideas, writings, software, music or what have you. Once you've released it, like the air, it belongs to nobody and everybody.
Intellectual property owners (such as Microsoft, Adobe, and the music industry) will fight freedom with everything they've got. Right now they have two formidable weapons: IP laws and powerful police states to enforce them. But those who yearn to be free also have a formidable weapon, the internet.
The internet and other communication technologies (e.g., file sharing systems) are the first major kinks in the armor of a sick system. As technology progresses, the system will eventually collapse. What will happen to a slave-based economy when robots and advanced artificial intelligences replace everybody, i. e., when human labor, knowledge and expertise become worthless?
And don't think for a minute this won't happen in your lifetime. The internet is the latest giant leap in human communication. Before that came mass telecommunication technologies and before that was the movable press. If history is any indication, we can expect a giant leap in technological progress and scientific knowledge. In fact, it is happening before our very eyes.
We should all demand a system where everybody is guaranteed income property, a piece of the pie, an estate if you will. There is plenty for everybody.
Communism confiscates all property and enslaves everybody. Capitalism gives property to a few and enslaves the rest. It's sad. The land should not be divided for a price. It should be an inheritance for us and our children and their children. It's the only way to guarantee freedom and a truly free market in a world where human labor is about to go the way of the dinosaurs.
Demand liberty! Nothing less.
I can't see why this particular action is a worthwhile response to this case or the threat. Alan Cox says it is not the fault of Usenix. So why this action rather than one more to the point?
Assuming you're an U.S. citizen and the law is the law, please apply for an British citizenship.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Naw, that would just piss the French off. Weren't they trying to grow their own meridian out of trees that could be seen from space?
"The area of penetration will no doubt be sensitive." ~ Spock
I feel "shock" over the many posters, boycotters etc.
I guess Adobe was considered as a "company like us" since they made Acrobat Reader available to *nix.
The real reason for them to make it available was not to break "multiplatform" spec of Acrobat.
Adobe just another huge closed source software company with an army of lawyers. I wanted to point this fact since it seems some of us thinks like above.
The Chicago protest is still on!!!
g o/2001-July/thread.html
Details at http://ufo.chicago.il.us/pipermail/sklyarov-chica
See you at the Dirksen Building Plaza, Monday at 11:00 AM!!!
Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
LBH UNIR WHFG IVBYNGRQ GUR QZPN Here is a secret message!!!!
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
Less than half of registered voters actually vote. When the president isn't on the ballot, its a lot (A LOT!) less. Registered voters are a majority, but not by so much. Even with motor-voter programs, people are turned down. Not just in Florida. Oh yeah, you don't really have any say in who you get to vote for either. Sure, vote for Nader or Perot.
can someone please explain this apparent contradiction?
>Less folks will go, it will be more expensive.
There are plenty of border towns in Canada and Mexico that would attract US programmers and would be safe for foriegn programmers.
>This all happened in a hugely Democratic administration.
Whoa. What planet were you living on. Two of the three government branches were safely in the hands of the Republicans -- the democrats had to pick their fights carefully. The DMCA was the brainchild of Borin' Orin, and was pushed heavily by the Republicans. I'll agree Democrats are as slimey, but this was Hatch's work. Ask him -- he takes credit, and finds nothing wrong with his baby. This is a bold line-item on his resume to get on the Supremes.
>There would be dozens of arrests anywhere else in the world
So China and Russia's acts are good excuse for bad laws in the US. Great logic.
As Franklin said: those who would trade their freedom for security deserve neither.
The US needs to be made aware of what Hatch has created, and understand the problems with this law. Any good boycott you can think of is a good start. Non-techie awareness must be raised.
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
I'd think the folks in Las Vegas who promote conventions would be a little pissed at Adobe & the DMCA too.
The next Defcon conference should be outside the US... and other conferences should think twice before having a US based conference attended by programmers from outside the US.
Since the DMCA is protecting wealthy capitalists by disallowing any programs that compete with their popular programs, it is only prudent to avoid putting your programmers in harms way.
It was the ultra-conservative Republican, Orin Hatch (representing ultra-conservative Utah) that wrote the DMCA. Strange that these republicans say they want to "open markets", then pass laws to protect wealthy capitalists instead.
Maybe this is cause to boycott the 2002 Winter Olympic games in Utah too (it's worth boycotting since they won't let outsiders bring in their own booze, and must purchase booze from the limited variety offerred by the state store).
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
IANAMSE (I am not a Microsoft Employee) but I've heard (which makes it absolute fact) that MS now has major programmer plants (yes, you're all rooted) in India, if not other countries. WHat makes you think they're not going anywhere?
toeslikefingers.com - because
Whilst your point is noted, this is certainly not a game. I take issue that this *IS* political.
Information Freedom is a Libertarian view point, indeed a defining difference between Libertarianism and nearly any other political position.
Dimitry has been jailed for exercising his political belief of Sharing information.
Sharing information is a crime in the US under the DMCA.
Therefore he is a political prisoner.
I always though freedom of politics was protected under the US constitution. Apparently not.
Whilst in the past I would have been v. *happy* to visit or work in the states. I don't believe I shall anytime soon.
Linux: Born Free; IE: No such thing as a free lunch.
It will help in a publicity way. The US government is trying to extend their laws abroad, perhaps we in Europe should use our own skills and the internet to tresspass those laws (DMCA for example). This looks like the arrest of John Johansson who published the crach 'DeCSS'. Because there is no such thing as DMC in Europe, we can just as well publish any code we want. Perhaps something like that would be effective - give the US access to prohibited code.
--
Bizar technology?
If we boycot US, and people are stop coding new stuff in US, the it is gonna be a dead-lock for the US. No coders, no money :)
me hope :)
I suggest GMT, just to make everyone feel comfortable.
Going on means going far, going far means returning. Tao te Ching
I read the story and all the posts in this forum but I still don't see what Dimitry Sklyarov did. According to Alan Cox, he did nothing.
Can somebody give me a hint of why he was arrested? What's the US government's side of the story?
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
What's meant by corporations' rightful place is as a servant to society. Until comparatively recently, corporations were not very common, and were formed for specific purposes, generally for short periods of time. A number of states were founded by colonists that had had a corporation chartered to assist them. Or if a community needed a bridge built that was outside of their means, they might permit a corporation to be chartered to build it, recoup their expenses for a little while with tolls, and then be dissolved.
... their shareholders ... a body which, to a large degree, now consists of other corporation, in the form of insurance companies, pension funds, etc, etc. These shareholders are only interested in TWO things ... capital growth and dividends ... period ... end of discussion.
... they are not immoral and they are not moral. They are artificial entities that exist for ONE reason, to allow the accumulation of sufficient capital to start a business and to shield the shareholders from liability in excess of their investment.
Very idealistic outlook on the history of corporations. Unfortunately it is also very incorrect. The corporate business form came into being for reasons something like this some 300 years ago because, basically, the King needed funding to fight his wars and build his public works. None of the financiers of the time would lend the money unless they were given immunity from liability. So the reason the corporation came into being is because the wealthy were able to extort what they wanted, even out of the King.
The truth of the matter is that corporations serve one master
Corporations were intended to last only as long as necessary, and only created when there weren't any other particularly viable methods of doing something, often due to economies of scale or natural monopolies. They absolutely had to act in the public interest. On occassions where a corporation did not, it was dissolved by the government, which is what had chartered it in the first place.
How many cases do you know of where corporations were dissolved for acting against the public interest? I know of not a single one. Hell, Ford Motor Corporation wasn't dissolved even after it was convicted of criminal acts in the exploding Pinto cases (the first time in history that a corporation, itself, was convisted of a crime), and the evidence there was equivalent to convicting someone of murder for hire.
Corporations are amoral
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins,
utter rubbish
We could be like the Teamsters, informationally speaking. You don't get your information unless we are happy, and right now we aren't happy. What do you think would happen in a large corporation if for example suddenly all their mail servers went offline? What if it happened to every major corporation? Sure they could fire us but then what? Who are they going to replace us with? Another geek who's pissed off at the system? There'd have to be no breaking of ranks though, no matter what threats or dollar figures were bandied about.
You're using her as bait, Master!
maybe it's not even such a bad idea when a group of slashdot users will trie to do this. It definitely shows the stupidity of the consequences of the DMCA. But we'll need the inventor of ASCII then and i think he had to give away all his rights when it became a standard.
Fuck :(
my bad
Ok. Let's say there's a company out there who makes locks for doors. They release a new lock to the public with the statement that this lock will keep your door closed no matter what somebody tries.
Then some lockpick figures out how to pick the lock, and instead of using his knowledge to open doors, he tells everybody how to do it in the hope that the company will release a better lock.
Does the lockpick get arrested? Of course not. He's performed a public service, showing that these locks are, in fact, not undefeatable and forces the company to produce a better lock.
The DMCA is retarded because it targets the very people who are pushing for better products. DeCSS, for example, was SHIT. Say it with me, security through obscurity DOESN'T WORK. You know it and I know it.
Our recently arrested Russian friend figured out a way to crack Adobe's protection. What did he do? He wrote papers, did presentations. All in hope that Adobe would get a better protection scheme. What did he get?
Arrested.
Man, I'm fucking glad I live in Canada.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/07/20/133222 7&mode=thread
What's up with all the idiots who apparently do nothing all day but reload slashdot and bitch about what a sucky site it is?
I mean, if you're going to bitch about slashdot, at least take the time to do a little research into what you're complaining about.
Did you submit it?
_O_
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
As other slashdotters have pointed out, mere compaining is not likely to do anything in particular. An organized show of support against adobe, and against the DMCA is much more likely to be effective.
What is the best approach to organizing against adobe and the DMCA? Letter writing? Boycott? Something else?
What about flooding local editorial pages of newspapers with well written letters describing the dangers of the DMCA so that our non-linux guru friends (and the media) can understand and support the cause?
What's the DCMA?
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
If there were any man in this entire world that can uphold the law, it is John Ashcroft.
Even if he doesn't agree with the law he will abide by it.
Shut your pie hole!
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Corporations are helpless without their programmers.
Companies that go out of their way to comply with the DMCA (dick munch cocksucker association) should lose their best people to companies that understand why the DMCA is a Very Bad Thing.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Don Henley of the Eagles? This Don Henley? He cries fowl (sic) claiming that big business will trample our rights? Shock! Horror!
What a crock of shit
one better than mcleodeight
While this is a good gesture to make, I fear it will do little to resolve the fundamental issue at hand.
The cold fact is this - the US lawmakers could not care less about what the non-corporate computer world thinks of their laws. Our opinions don't matter to them.
Consider! There are at last count a few hundred MILLION americans. Most of them can vote, a major percentage of them DO vote. There are also thousands of issues waiting to be addressed, most of which are more emotionally relevant to people than computers. Most people in the world use computers only to get specific jobs done - they have no need to appreciate the whole picture. Consider how small the percentage of voters who are worried about this are relative to the rest of the population. Probably about the same number who stand to profit from the DMCA. The net result, when you throw money into the mix, is that we are irrelevant.
So our vote doesn't scare them. What about what Cox tried, encouraging people to move their operations elsewhere. From the government's point of view, that's probably just what they are looking for! They have Microsoft in the US, and lawsuits or no it isn't going anywhere. And Microsoft controls probably between fifty and seventy percent of all computing, depending on how you count. On desktops considerably more than that. The Microserfs both within and out of the company aren't going anywhere, and neither is their economic clout or control of personal computing. So what do they care if they lose a few independant thinkers? From their standpoint it makes security through obscurity easier. The fact that this isn't secure at all apparently doesn't mean much to them.
Consider how much damage things like the Love virus do, and yet no action is taken to fix the fundamental problem (Microsoft's security). If that didn't teach them that unknown security problems are a danger, nothing will. They (and the companies) just want the visible problems gone. They are both monopolies - they don't have to care about a small buch of techno-geeks. We are bad. We wave problems in the face of everyone and teach people how to destroy the system! We should be stopped!
All the people who wrote the DMCA are interested in is money and public image. They've got the crap beat out of us on both. We insist that people THINK about the problem and find real solutions. The people are lazy. Most think a login prompt is a major hassle. They don't want to have to think about whether they are really secure. They just want to get buy. Anyone shooting their mouth off about problems makes that impossible, and people have to work more. Ohh, we can't have that.
That battle, at least in the US, is hopeless. It's money and votes people are interested in, and we don't have either. Therefore, our opinions don't matter to the powers that be.
The once chance that things will improve might be if all the best computer people go somewhere else to work because of the stupid US legislation. Enough dumb rules, and it might just happen.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Partly, I would guess that it is to protect himself against being arrested and tried by a foreign power at the behest of private corporate entities. Foreign nationals have few, if any, actual rights in the United States. They can be detained for years without bail or trial or even charges.
The other reason is my own personal thought, which is that by refusing to participate in conventions in the US, he (and others of a like mind) will be responsible for either:
A loss of mindshare at these conventions.
A shift from US-centric conventioning, causing a further loss of mindshare.
Think about it, if most of these programmers do not come into the United States for any reason, but are willing to go to Canada or Amsterdam for conventions, the focus will eventually shift from the US to other countries. Names like Alan Cox are what draws lots of people to these conventions, it is a reason for businesses to think they will get return on investment for either sending people or for paying to exhibit there. This can only punish the US in the long run.
mrgoat
'Hail Eris, baby, hail Eris...pfffffffttt.' *cough* 'Yeah.'
I mean really, geez. Do the editors even read the site anymore? Or are they too busy doing whatever else they do. TimmyTaWa! "Thanks for your help, thank you very much."
--And sektor spoke and said unto the people. Hey, buttwipe hand me the cheezeos.
Someone tell Timothy that "Dupe" is a poor word to use here, as it is to easy to think he means hoax. I looked around for a while looking for other reports of the 'hoax' before I finally figured out he was too lazy to type 'duplicate post' out in it's entirety. It's really not that hard, Timothy
(and yes
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
The American mass media is a huge propoganda machine and its contents have been bought and sold without the consent or even the consulatation of the people. Americans will NOT get any objective news from the mass media in any form. The mass media (including, television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and books) are dominated by the same multi-national corporations that bring lazy (let's have it fast and easy ) Americans their nightly news flashes on the boob tube.
Right! There's only one source for truly objective and completely factual news:
Slashdot.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
If you didn't ntoice like the rest of us DCMA as it appears in the title is... well... a bit off (okay 2 bytes in ascii). The DMCA is what it should have appeared as.... but everyone makes msitakes Tim. In the future though you may wnat to look at what you write before psoting it to the whole wrold.
Remove *your pants* to send me email.
North & South America are geographical designations that were created by scientists & politicians looking to better describe location than just to say "America". Also, remember that outside the USA (of which many people out there don't know what the 'A' is for) America really does mean the _pair_ of continents, North & South. The Panama Canal no more created the designation between North & South America (which is some 50 miles south of the cananl anyway) than the Erie canal made upstate and downstate NY two separate continents.....
Agreed. As soon as you forget what your freedoms are for someone will try to take them away. Can you say WWII? Try to tell me that Corporate Greed wasn't part of that. Don't ever take your freedoms for granted-- PEOPLE DIED so that you can sit at home in peace with your kids and decide for them yourself what is best.
What, you think that somebody would oppose his nomination for helping to enforce the law (no matter how corrupt it is)?
You should also note that this is not the original act, but the ammended version.
If you can come up with the $$$ to get this case to the Supreme Court then more power to you. The fact of the matter is that the Government of the USA has never, ever been really interested in protecting the rights of anyone who wasn't very downright dirty rich. People died for the rights that we have (had) so that the rich can decide that those who died didn't deserve them anyway.The truth is ugly, but it is the truth.
You arbitrarily decide which laws you want to obey every day, and you tell me that I shouldn't? I am a man, not a sheep.
No, they can't vote. But many large corporations have enough money to sponsor election campaigns, which is even more effective.
The real problem with corporations is, however, that everything is based on the so-called shareholder value. Whatever they do, they only do it to increase the corporations revenues, even if it eventually hurts society at a whole.
Claus
Jefferson was dictating his ideas for the American Constitution to his secretary.
He was concerned about guaranteeing the freedom of American Citizens. He wanted them to be able to make their own choices about their lives.
I'm sorry, but your protest does more harm than it ever could do good.
You're telling everyone to demand liberty and to hurt the companies. But then, you don't realize, or maybe you don't care, that you're breaking the law by copying and redistributing software that does not allow itself to be copied and redistributed. It's not going to hurt the company since they can just stick you and others in jail. And you'll be hurting the progress anyone could make to battle them that they're evil, because they'll help the media in painting the protestors as evil little thieves.
Plus, not paying taxes, that's just stupid. Why? You'll be thrown in jail quickly, and for what? Just not paying the government. No one will even notice you're not paying.
No, the best way to battle this, write your congressmen, or vote them out if they won't listen. If all else fails, run yourself!
Dragon Magic
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
sources: many weeks of WSJ articles :)
The perception of reality is more important than reality itself.
In space, no one can hear you moo.
The Alan Cox resignation adds a Free Software angle to this sorry case.
Another might well be potential liability by Ghostview and other Free Software PDF viewers. According to some sources, gv "bypasses" the Adobe Security API model and allows a user to read a PDF file with permissions the original publishers did not grant. For example, to print the file.
Could some of the Ghostview, Ghostscript, or other PDF developers comment?
Specifically, if ElcomSoft and/or Dmitry Sklyarov is liable under the DMCA for creating or "trafficking" in a "device" that "bypasses" an "effective" security API that is imposed by "authority" of the copyright owner--then could Ghostview, Red Hat, and other Free Software people be also harrassed by Adobe?
I got the response that Ghostview is not a "commercial" product. But I don't believe that is enough to excuse a piece of software under the DMCA--the "access" part of the DMCA doesn't require that the software be sold. Certainly Adobe will claim damages in lost sales.
<flame> So what makes US Attorney General John Ashcroft so sure that America is in a "position of priority"?
OK, it's got Microsoft. Now, I quite like some Microsoft stuff - Flight Sim 2000 has me hooked. But it's hardly cutting edge stuff...
</flame>
I don't get it, how come the Russian government isn't protesting this guys arrest? They complain about lots of stuff that the US does, isn't this matter important enough?
Well the problem is that it effectively ammends the constitution (negating our right to free speech) without having gone through the required process of an amendment.
funny munging
This week I wrote a letter to Sens. Gramm and Hutchison and Rep. Bentsen. Who did you write to?
funny munging
True, you can cast an economic vote with your dollar, but that only holds if your have choices. If all the corporations who make that product behave similarly and you really need the product, you end up having to vote for someone you don't want to! Kind of reminds me of the 1988 Bush vs Dukakis presidential election. Tim Burnett
Did you know George W Bush spent more money in the republican primaries then his fathers spent during his WHOLE 1992 campaign?
Infact the whole 1992 election cost less then a hundred million but in 2000 the cost was close to a billion with corporations paying for the vast majority of it.
Why such an increase?
Because Americans do not read the newspapers or get politically involved anymore. The vast majority of Americans prefer to get their information from blittzy hollywood produced 15 second commercials on television paid by lobbiets and corporate executives. The ad's are all bent on half truths because Americans are too lazy or ignorant to look up the facts. Less then %25 of Americans under 30 even read a newspaper on a weekly basis so the corporations pay more and more on television to produce an artificial image of a candidate to serve their interests. Anyone remember how Bush claimed he was extremely moderate on televsion? Or how NBC claimed he would be the most liberal republican since Nixon? Well after the blittzy "I want to be your friend " ads, George Bush actually was extremely conservative but ignorant televion watching Americans didn't know this untill the California gas crises. What can we do?
We need to educate Americans to read more newspapers and magazines and encourage others to be politically involved. In 1992 americans spent ore time researching and reading the newspaper to make their political deciscions. This is why money had less influence then in today. Counter lobbying is not the answer. We can not outspend corporate america with counter lobbying. They hold %95 of the worlds wealth. Its a hopeless battle. If people will learn from news oriented media like newspapers and doing their own research rather then from ads on entertainment sources like TV, we can make a difference. Also Corporations are buying their way into being international citizens and not only american ones by buying international trade laws to put the DMCA everywhere including england where Alan Cox is at. It will not stop. They need to grow at %50 every 4 years to make wall street happy and buyuing some laws to help them make secretive deals or brake laws is a great way to accomplish this. GE only had to pay to clean up half the hudson river thanks to some lobbying wich saved them money.
With regards to the DMCA, Americans do not even know how much money they are losing per dvd disc bought due to price gouging that the dmca was made to help enforce. VHS tapes are still $17 while a dvd movie is $35. DVD discs are actually cheaper to make then a VHS tape. After seeing all those glittz dvd movie ads they all of the suden forget about the price tage and even cmd-Taco himself must have his japanese animated dvd's.
Hmm that isn't right.
In the 1950's something like the dmca would not be tollerated. Americans who read back then would know about it and be outraged. Lets hit corporate america right where it hurts and make campaign ad's less effective by promoting people to read the new York times or some other news media which is not written by a lobbiest.
http://saveie6.com/
An update on 7/22 at 1:05 AM? (Yes, I know about timezones, but that's my point... Slashdot should run off some form of centralized time.)
It passed the senate 99-0, so it's gonna be tough...
The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company were in Utah. We need a new building.
Duh. What else is new? This is the way it works right now. Individuals have next to NO rights compared to the big, "evil" Corperations(tm).
All we can do is keep fighting to reclaim those rights lost in Corporate America(tm)...
That's my toughts on the subject, anyways...
You may be forgetting that capitalism is a relatively new concept in Western Civilization. It took a long time for us to figure out that feudalism was flawed. Had Slashdot been around back then I'm sure most serfs would respond to criticism of the system with a cliche like "If you don't like it, become a noble and start your own fief!"
Historically, "Father of the free market" Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations wasn't published until 1776. There was organized trade before that (e.g. Dutch East India Company), but the world's economic landscape looked nothing like it does today.
I just pulled Peter Lynch's book "Learn to Earn" off of the shelf, I wish I had a better reference.. Anyway, consider this sentence:
"By 1800, there were 295 corporations formed in the United States, but most of these remained in private hands so the general public couldn't own them."
In the early 1800s, there were various stock market panics and bubbles that didn't do much to encourage Americans to invest in the stock market. But during the later half of the 1800s, the corporation in the United States really took off. That's when we saw the proliferation of inventions like the steamboat, the cotton gin, fancy pistols, Edison's inventions, etc. Getting these new products out there took a lot of investment, and that's when the stock market became very active.
Since then we've incurred incredible societal changes with a move from agrarian life to urban and suburban life, various ethnic groups have more representation in government and less discrimination. The industrial revolution and factories have made mass production of prpducts possible. Corporations are a lot more VISIBLE now. Brand names weren't well known until the early 20th century thanks to A&P being the first popular chain store, making mass produced items like Nabisco crackers and Heinz ketchup ubiquitously known in American towns. Chain stores have now made our cities (particularly the suburbs) look like carbon copies of one another (read The Geography of Nowhere.) Advertising has gone from Burma Shave billboards along Route 66 to huge screens on buildings displaying brightly lit, flashing animated ads that distract drivers on the road.
Historically, you don't really have a CLUE what the answer is to the question "Which is better: GOVERNMENT or CORPORATION?" because the impact of the corporation on our culture has changed so much in only the past 150 years.
Henry Fool
FYI and slightly off-topic but:
I am fom Missouri and can say with certainty that he got elected of his own accord. Mel Carnahan, who was elected governer after Ashcroft went to the Senate, served 2 terms as our gov, 'kinging' upon us the largest tax increase we ever got, after promising no taxes without a vote of the people. He then was running for senate, died in a plane crash, and on the virtual eve of the election, after it was legally FAR too late to put a replacement name on the ballot, they conned his widow (who never served in any elected role before) into saying she would serve as he would have. This netted her a ton of sympathy votes, and on election day a corpse on the ballot box beat a live person. Now Missouri has a DNC robot trolling the senate halls.
(Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm
Did you notice that Cox misspelled Sklyarov in the subject of the e-mail? It actually says "Skylarov" ;)
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
Actually, if you look back over the last several Presidencies, you'll notice that if a President didn't like certain laws, those laws either soon ceased to exist or weren't prosecuted as heavily unless the defendant was being charged with other things. Also, if a President "liked" certain laws the opposite was true. Look at how much got swept under the rug with eight years of Clinton.
It's all about currying favour with the current administration.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Now, when your teacher catches you passing a note to your girlfriend in a high school class in the U.S., you can have him arrested for decoding it.
Bush's education improvements were
Hey let's march on Adobe headquarters and slashdot them. No justice no peace.
Does /. count?
Actually I don't read most newspapers because they are garbage and marketing exclusively. I glance at the headlines, skim certain articles, etc. There are few good newspapers in America, and they do include the NYT, Christian Science Monitor, Wall Street Journal, etc. but they are few and far between. Some of the alternative ones are slightly better than your agverage paper, but not much more so.
Simple reason: news is being sold as an entertainment product for the most part (though NYT and WSJ sell News as Business Information Commodity which is better, and the Christian Science Monitor seems to try to sell balanced informed coverage for its own sake but whether that is possible is a question I still entertain...
When will people actually do their own research instead?
Sig: Tell all your friends NOT to download the Advanced Ebook Processor:
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
This link between risk and return applies to patent law, drug companies, and other subjects that slashdot often gets all up in arms about too.
Again you are right here too, but I also think that one has to look at the whole system and ask two things: What are we trying to accomplish and how well are we succeeding? (I think that one could misunderstand your position as completely upholding draconian policies for publishers, biotech companies, etc).
What are we trying to accomplish thought IP law? We are trying to give an incentive to innovate both with practical and expressive innovations.
Patents are suppose to increase the resources everyone has access to in the research and development of their products because without them, inventors would have incentive to keep things secret. For this reason, the life of a patent used to be 14 years maximum after two extensions (US law here). After 14 years, the knowledge was avaiable for everyone to use.
Copyrights are designed to give authors incentive to write books, etc. However, beginning in the late 1960's in America, copyright law began to shift from the interest of the author to the interest of the publishing houses. The DMCA is a further example of this shift.
How well are we succeeding?
Miserably. The current patent system is actually preventing innovation in many areas because the lifetime has been increased radically (I think they are now at 70 years in the US) and the pase of technological innovation has increased, thereby ensuring that any technology will be useless when its patent expires. Patents were designed to give a slight market edge, not Intellectual Real Estate... Patents are now used to proprietize commodity crop markets and post frivolous lawsuits, etc.
And in copyright law, how are artist's interests being furthered when they get something like 5% of the recording industry (and those numbers are probably discounting the debt that they usually are given by record labels)? Why is a record deal today as financially profitable as being a coalminer at the beginning of the 20th century? (Yes I know several musicians who were screwed out of a lot of money by the recording industy.)
What we are atcually doing is damaging ourselves severely. The DMCA places the rights of large publishing houses above the rights of network administrators and above the rights of consumers. No amount of cost/benefit analysis can show that this act is not fundamentally a Bad Idea.
Sklyarov's arrest and Cox's resignation are clear signs of the danger that this act poses. I will certainly do my part to make the message heard.
Sig: Tell all your friends NOT to download the Advanced Ebook Processor:
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Cox's actions illustrate the danger that the DMCA poses to associations of computer security professionals.
There are 2 things that will kill the DMCA-- one of them is that the restrictions will eventually annoy the everage person, but the second it is that it will permanantly damage the ability of academics and other security professionals to do their work. (Well, maybe not permanantly...) Without the ability to freely work on cryptoanalysis projects, as a network administrator, I have no way of knowing how secure my networks are. The DMCA threatens to dampen the speech which goes on among security professionals, giving a greater edge to those who would maliciously attack my networks, and this is the primary reason I fight it. (Maybe when the whitehouse's web site actually goes down from a DDOS worm, then they will listen and realize the damage they have done.)
This is a serious issue, and if it continues, I will have to seriously rethink whether I want to remain in the States.
Nor is the actual letter of the law the worst though. YOu can expect major corporations to hide behind it, protecting themselves from the expense of investing in real security. So no one in the states will have any idea that that super-duper new encryption scheme is really the old spycode cypher or maybe rot-13. Their threatening letters (ala Felden) will become more important than their actual words, and could destroy the Amercian community of computer security professionals.
So yes, I hope Cox's move is effectual in making the security community aware of the grave threat that the DMCA poses. I think it just might be.
Sig: Tell all your friends NOT to download the Advanced Ebook Processor:
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Maybe if they were to spend a little less time worrying about people who write code, they'd find Chandra Levy. It's odd, traditionally in our country, violent crimes are investigated more then white collar crimes, in the case of the DMCA, victimless crimes ... what makes a DMCA violation so awful? There is the potential for harm, but me running with a pair of scissors poses much more of a threat.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
yep, and I quickly make legal back up copys of all that I buy, course, the MPAA and RIAA would claim what I am doing is illegal, oh well, let em come.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Skylarov's case needs to go to court. The supreme court.
-
If more people have been hurt by Governements, that's just b/c they've had a few centuries more than Corps to develop their resume. I suggest you search google for the words Oil+murder+Africa and see if you still are more afraid of your government. Or Banana+Central+America+murder.
The facts of the 20th Century seem to indicate that Governments have acted in a violent and colonistic manner for the sole benifit of Corporations. Point being, if you are dark-skinned and poor, and live somewhere a Corporation would rather you didn't...well, may God have mercy on your soul.
- Dan I.
This isn't so much about war, as it is returning Corporations to their rightful place. And that is to serve the people. When they stop serving our interests, they get their charters revoked. They have no authority that the Gov't (and by extension, us) didn't give them. The balance of power has been shifted (through nefarious means) from The People, to the Corporations. It's high-time we shifted it back.
- Dan I.
That notwithstanding, there are a great many things a People can do to limit the ability of those with Power to exercise it. Term Limits (insure the same individuals arent' in Power very long), the Power to recall an elected official, and Laws written (as ours in the US orginally were) to protect the Freedoms of the citizenry, and the means to effectively defend yourself (both with a weapon, and a ballot.)
That Corps are considered to have all the same rights, yet little of the personal responsibility, of a Citizen is an abomination; legally, historically, and ethically.
- Dan I.
One Bourbon
One Scotch
and One Beer
Not only that but the DMCA provision was attached as a "rider" to a bill. Attached by a aide without authorization . Any guesses who that page was? That's right, the very same idiot that Bush has nominated.
---Most Definitely not a Karma Whore---
Whats your point? It doesnt take much time to post a story so I really doubt that post a story about the break up (pretty much) of a game production company delayed this much.
Remove the Spam to email me.
While I commend Alan on taking a stand, you have to wonder what effect it will have. How much power do the conference organizers have? Even if programmers boycotted conferences en masse, would it have any effect and would there be a receptive ear in Washington? I sincerely doubt it. Not until we elect representatives that a) aren't beholden to corporate America and b) understand technology, the DMCA will remain the law of the land unfortunately. And the likelyhood of A & B happening are slim and none so its likely the only way the DMCA will go down is in the courts and even that is iffy. Not trying to be depressing, but our representatives don't know squat about the Internet and buy into the media hysteria hook line and sinker. And good luck finding main stream media that portrays hackers (NOT crackers) in anything but a bad light.
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
If decss backers had the ability &/or could afford to apply this level of debug they would not have this problem. Instead they try and ruin the life of someone who did it for them and better yet for free. What is happening here is the wrong people are getting caught with their collective heads up their big greedy asses.
You see they still just don't get it . Fearful greed fueled by the bravado of secured political favor dominates nearly ALL large business entity's, NOT just US businesses. The ONLY ways to effectively de nut political or business types are A:-$$$ B:-$$$ C:-$$$ and so on. Boycott the products, bring public focus on the weakness of the product and distasteful practices. Then hit the political end with endless very public queries and argument.
Hey that's kinda what we are doing here, just spread it around some. FWIW I personally despise Adobe products. I find a PDF document to be a beast from hell. And I'll take 'da GIMP, Colorworks or Impos/2 over Photoshop any day. As for these Media barons, well I'm at Slashdot NOT at Amazon buying a CD, and I'm not using M$ or M$ crony software anyway, until they all get it .
A few more pertinent observations on these matters:
"Liberty is the great parent of science and of virtue, and a nation will be great in both in proportion as it is free." Thomas Jefferson
"The equal rights of man and the happiness of every individual are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government." Thomas Jefferson
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." Thomas Jefferson
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Benjamin Franklin
"We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." Abraham Lincoln
"There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly" Henry David Thoreau
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." Plato (427-347 B.C.)
"It's not what folks don't know that get's them in the most trouble. It's the things they know that ain't so." Will Rodgers
"It has to fit. I measured it myself!" Unknown
"Those who look for problems find problems, those who look for nothing find nothing, those who look for solutions find solutions, and those who hide their heads in the sand get bit in the ass when the problems find them." Me
The Bush Administration and Katherine Harris burried "We The People" in Florida, anyone who thought that the first ammendment was safe in their hands is a fool.
Ashcroft is a racist bigott and anti-gay bigott. He lost his Senate seat because he failed to conceal the fact sufficiently. However the circumstances of his appointment make it hard for him to discriminate against either group. Going after Russian hackers probably looks like a good substitute, a minority that can easily be made the subject of widespread public hatred and fear.
Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
It is somewhat interesting that the first ammendment allows the Anti-Abortion fanatics to run a site advocating the murder of their opponents with a hit list annotated with home addresses while the same first ammendment does not appear to protect someone who is merely reporting the poor security technique of a corporation.
Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
It seems as the government is being favorable to Businesses, rather than individuals...
Pity, pity
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
That makes sense, but that doesn't explain to me how his resignation prevents USENIX conventions from being run in the US. On the other hand, if he remained in his position as the US rep, could he not still urge programmers not to attend events in the US, and additionally operate within the organization to urge that no events be held in the US? Maybe I don't understand how USENIX works?
I am not being sarcastic; I really don't understand--can anyone clear it up?
You know Kierthos, this is one of the few times I have ever agreed with you.
"If there is nothing you are willing to die for, then you are not really alive." Myself
Reporting Suspected Privacy
If you know of, or believe you know of, an organization or an individual who is committing software piracy, please let us know. Reporting piracy is a good thing because:
Adobe will work with the person or organization to help it become compliant.
If the information you provide turns into a corporate lead and if we get the company to legalize (by buying genuine Adobe software), Adobe will donate a portion of the proceeds as software to underprivileged schools and nonprofits in North America and the rest of the world.
Oh the irony. I suppose this only applies to people who are actually pirating Adobe products, and not just showing the world how worthless they are?
Source: http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/antipiracy/report. html
There's no $$$ in 'team'...
There's no $$$ in 'team'...
www..--..net - for incisive, w
..is that some countries in america (continent, of course) will be stupid enough to follow the US steps with their internet related laws...
It is our responsibility, from a global perspective, to protest by actively spreading the code...
Let alone that, this kind of law is threatening the Free Software movement directly, its obvious that all this cases (decss included) put jurisprudence on behalf of code being locked... when the big case of O.S. comes, all the prosecuttor (or defendant) will have to say is: "As was clarified on X versus Y, open, publicly available code is dangerous and destroys the very fabric of society, letting those ruskies hurt our american companies...."
Im gonna be sick.... Alex
NO SIG
Yes it is illegal for anybody in america to decrypt my post. If you do the fbi will arrest you.
MYY YOUR NMFR MER BELONG GB US
Now do you see?
Or just a dyslexic editing staff?
Is your company running tools written by ma
What better way to discourage and drive out the malcontents who might resist?
Is this post genuine?
..."
If I were to make such a grandiose gesture, I would be tempted to check what I had written. Makes me suspcious when I see:
"While he was undoubtedly chosen for political reasons as a Russian is a good example for the US public the risk extends arbitarily further"
It makes no sense, but was perhaps intended to be:
"...Russian, it is a good example for the US public that the risk extends arbitarily further.
and
"Usenix by its choice of a US location is encouraging other programmers, many from eastern european states hated by the US government to take the same risks."
may be:
"...is encouraging other programmers, many from eastern european states hated by the US government, to take the same risks."
To me, the level of literacy makes me suspicous that this was not posted by someone who had deeply considered their message.
<-- You are here.
How come nobody's mentioned writing their politicians about this? Try telling THEM how much you don't like sections 1201 and 1202 of Chapter 12 of Title 17 of the U. S. Code. It might be helpful to quote passages from it that you find particularly damning.
Tell them about Sklyarov and Felten v. RIAA and Universal v. Reimerdes and any other of the big cases I missed. Talk about how the law is being abused and violates the First Amendment. Mention that it could harm business. Keep in mind that neither they nor anybody they know actually read Slashdot (as hard as that may be to grasp).
Here's the President's address:
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500-0001
Here's the address for the Supreme Court:
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
Supreme Court of the United States
1 1st St. NE
Washington, DC 20543-0002
Your representative? The House maintains a site here where it will tell you who your rep is after you tell them what your state and ZIP code are. Don't know your ZIP+4 code is? Go to the USPS site and put your address in here to find out. After you find out who it is, their address is on their website.
Senators? The Senate's web site maintains a list of the addresses (and phone numbers) of all current Senators organized by state here
Too cheap to pay the $1.70 in postage to write all these people? E-mail them. I was amazed last week when Tauzin acknowledged an e-mail I sent him with a snail-mail response. Sure, it was a blanket form letter on the topic, but it's a sign that it got read. (I still reccomend paper mail, though, since it's harder to ignore).
At the absolute least, you should realize that bitching and moaning to Slashdot about all this is about as effective as bitching and moaning to a brick wall.
Oh, and one last note: If you DO write them, don't flame them (unless you want another note added to your FBI file and possible surveilance/wiretaps/etc.).
Boycott those who lobbied for and benefit from the DMCA, not those of us who have always opposed it.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Besides that, even if you do vote here, sometimes your vote does not get counted. Particularly in states where your brother is governor. Come on Americans, don't waste time. You country is rapidly being overhauled into a dictatorship. Don't get defensive about that observation, but DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Revolutions are part of the growth cycle of a country, it's your chance to create culture instead of always advertising 'european this' and 'european that' in commercials on TV.
As a result of the actions against Dmitry, it would be interesting to see if there will be opposition to Mueller during his confirmation hearings which begin July 30.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
If you have not yet contacted Adobe with your concerns, perhaps it is best to do so. Adobe likely does not read forums such as this (that's their problem I guess), and the only likely means Adobe can understand this public relations flop is their receipt of email from concerned individuals.
Boycott Adobe has the following email contacts at Adobe to send a message to.
Also, Adobe's own forums apparently have discussions related to this matter. I think this forums are located under Adobe support.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
The story of the new nine special units to prosecute/pursue such crimes is a new /. story, I think. Also, I understand that the U.S. Attorney for the U.S. Attorney's Office prosecuting Sklyarov (Robert Mueller) has been nominated by President Bush to be the next head of the FBI.
I have a feeling that the Bush Administration isn't opposed to DMCA?
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Didn't we already cover this:2 7
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/07/20/13322
I KNOW I'm right. And if I'm not, I'm STILL right...
Doesnt the US have an amendment or something to do with the right to bear arms? And isnt it specifically so that the citizens of the US will never be enslaved by a corrupt or totalitarian government? And isnt decryption software exactly the same thing in the modern age? (guns werent just about protecting your life, but also about protecting your lively hood, your property, your money. try doing that if one side has technology which is illegal for the other).
So, why isnt anyone challinging DMCA on 2nd (is it 2nd?) amendment grounds?
IANAL.
The first sale doctrine is codified in section 109(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 109(a)
Your idea is a good one and a poster above even prepared a draft for you and I. However, it will fall on deaf ears as corporate-backed governemnts agree with and support such draconian legislation. Even a massive letter-writing campaign will only produce political lip to no avail. The best route IMHO are boycotts. Nothing will get the corporate ear faster than a boycott from the world's largest market.
... it will not make the shareholders happy.
The RIAA, Microsoft and Adobe have laid their cards out on the table and it's our turn to call their bluff or fold. I suggest that if their last public market releases were their very last in a long time, they will be more willing to lend us an ear and withdraw. Word of mouth and organized grass roots boycotts are very powerful weapons
I'm amazed that Americans put up with so much crap from all angles. Is this what our country was born upon? Each of us have choices as human beings. We can question everything and not settle for doublespeak, or we can make small (seemingly insignificant jestures at first) that create mountains in the long term.
A seemingly frivolous example follows: when I was shopping for a major appliance a while back I asked the salesperson how many of these appliances were returned. He was stunned and said nobody had ever asked him that question before (he wasn't a kid but an experienced salesman for a large retail store). He checked his records which allowed me to make an intelligent decision about what purchase to make. I decided that it was in MY best interests to have my older appliance repaired because its quality was far superior to any new product I saw.
A significant boycott of products that are devoid of quality and of corporations that have little or no regard for the harm their enforced policies do to us (their customers) would have a long term and lasting effect on their bottom line. Let corporations and governments alike know that we will not tolerate unfair business practices and draconian oligarchial legislation.
Where was everyone before the DMCA got through congress? Isn't it funny how people get riled up about something after it's an active law? And, no, whining on Slashdot doesn't count as "doing something about it."
--
Aaron J. Shaver
http://aaronshaver.com/
Scary thought.
Hardware, software, and blinking lights!
Dude, I got a lots of things to do.
What ?
Well, like work, kids and similar stuff.
That is assuming I would be even complaining about this whole issue, which I am not.
To the contrary, I think this guy deserved what he got.
Hehe. Nice little rant. I bet you will roll back right into your daily routine and forget about most of it. Not much different than what you accusing me of, is there ? At least I have a decency to admit, I don't give a shit because I don't think there is a problem ( that's a crucial difference here, ponder on it a bit).
Hell yeah but one has to decide which fights to pick. Some of them are stupid and insignificant issues raised by people who have nothing better to do and others are real problems. ./ community seems to center on small issues while ignoring huge and progressing problems.
Again, you people fail to realize the simple fact that I do not see anything wrong with what happened to that Russian guy. To put it another way, I do not have a problem with DMCA laws. Why would I bother to "take an action" ?
While the idea behind government can be traced back (tens of?) thousands of years, and democracy (sort of) to the Greeks, the key idea behind a corporation is not something that there are a lot of historical precedents for in history. So, when your frame of reference is the history of all Western Civilization, corporations are relatively new.
A corporation is like a psuedo-person in the eyes of the law: it can own property, it can sue and be sued, and has to file and pay taxes, among other things. This key idea, that something other than a living, breathing person can have rights and can do stuff, is something new to our epoch of history.
The question "Which is better: government or corporations?" is a moot point, or at least a purely academic one. You need to have both: a government because, without it, people would kill each other and society would descend into chaos; and corporations because they don't die and allow institutions to continue beyond the generation which gave birth to them.
The DMCA is a stupid, shortsighted law. In today's world, the effect it has is to disarm the citizenry (us) of the weapons we might use against an oppressive corporation. The things that the DMCA prohibits are the 'ultimate equalizers' between corporations and the citizenry; things to use when a corporation is outside the pale and there is no other recourse--very much like weapons are between the government and the people. Unfortunately, there's no 'digital Second Amendment' protecting a citizen's rights to hacking tools.
In short, in today's world, a citizen should be worried about both governmental and corporate oppression, and have something in his closet to keep the government in check, and something on his hard drive for corporate Big Brother.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."