Slashdot Mirror
Ask Jamie Love, Consumer Technology Activist
Jamie Love is head of the Ralph Nader-founded Consumer Project on Technology [CPT], one of the first groups to advocate Linux use in government and corporate settings. CPT also works to loosen or remove patent restrictions that raise the end user cost of technologies ranging from computer software to AIDS medication, and against intellectual property laws and treaties that could hamper new technology development. Jamie is one of the most respected technology lobbyists in Washington, even though his entire annual budget probably wouldn't buy a month's worth of lunches for Microsoft's PR firm. What's it like in the lobbying trenches? What can you do to help? Jamie's the one to ask. One question per post, please. 10 of the highest-moderated ones will go to Jamie by email, and we'll run his answers as soon as he gets them back to us.
I bet this'll be asked a million times.
What's your take on the DMCA?
How do we get the government to see the wrongs of it??
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
From my perspective, it seems that all of the politicians in congress seem to be firmly in the grasp of big business on intellectual property issues. The arrest of Dmity Sklyarov seems to have been at best ignored, at worst praised, by these politicians. Is my perspective a correct one, or are politicians actually aware of the issues and responsive to viewpoints other than those of big business? Are there any particular politicians that seem more receptive (that could potentially campaign and convince others)?
Good follow-up question:
Has the green party failed in the election because of interference from the Illuminati (or the Trilateral Commission, whichever conspiracy theory you prefer)?
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
I beleive it was Brazil(? Please correct me) who recently ordered pharma plants to start manufacturing AIDS drugs in violation of U.S. patents. What are the consequences for countries who violate patents like this? Can we take this as a sign that violating a patent in this manner, 'for the public good' so to speak, is going to become more common and acceptable?
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Obviously, the big ticket item is getting the citizenry involved in making changes at a legislative level regarding the liberties that have been traded in the interest of corporate domination. The problem, however, is finding a way to communicate that without spending three days pointing out cases of encroaching corporate control.
Do you have any tips/suggestions on how an average technology enthusiast such as myself can best go about conveying to the every-day public the sense of urgency surrounding technology issues and the reason such issues should be addressed?
Do you find that the people you have to deal with in Washington are relatively knowledeable about issues that we care about such as Linux (and it's distribution model)?
If not, what are you doing and what do you see can be done to change this?
http://www.WinWithRealEstate.com/
We have obviously come a long way in the name of open source and public education about the need to understand the software you use. However it doesn't seem to have mutch of an effect on the people that count. It truely is a 'way of thinking' and it seem that it is quite difficult to change the way people think.
In your opinion and observations, what if any future do you see for the open source movements place in the world and its impact on societys ways of thinking?
.ph0x
---
ps -aux | grep mind
What is the technological ability of the majority of our legislatures? Do they use the computer hardware and software they make the laws for? or do they leave that mostly up to the people that work for them. How much are they themselves in touch with the technology that they affect with their decisions?
It seems that the patent office has, in the last few years, lost their collective mind. Patents are incredibly broad, or amazingly misdirected, like in the case of the patents on human genes. They currently seem to protect only litigous patent holders, not the consumers or anyone else, for that matter. What is your organization doing to change this current patent landscape? Is there anything that can be done?
As a University student currently involved with a student group called the Campus Democracy Collective, what is the best way to inform both my peers and goverenment representative that the fight for speech, liberty and freedom from oppression will be fought over bits and bytes, and not how many miles per gallon their car will get?
Fight Spammers!
What do you see as the current biggest technological threat to personal freedoms and rights?
And what most threatens the usefulness of the internet and related technologies for the general public?
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
What's the CPT's position on Microsoft's dominance in the desktop market, attempts to obtain the same in the server market, and the trial?
The entertainment industry appears able to get copyright protection extended as long as they wish. While not as directly related to technology as patent law, copyright law is becomming more of a concern, especially with the recent mess with the DMCA. Is your organization making any efforts to convice congress to return copyright duration to a sane limit, and if so, is there much hope for success?
In more concrete terms, how does your lobbying budget compare to that of other technology industry lobbyists? Twice as small or twice as big? If your budget is lower, how exactly does this impact your efforts? Do you feel that this hampers your access to elected officials?
What about requiring a publisher that uses content control/copy-protection to provide free replacement/backup media at no charge? This is if they prevent one from making a backup and their is loss.
Fight Spammers!
A good point, but not far enough.
Instead of just rolling back the life of a copyright to 25 years, as it was when this country was founded, why not also reduce the patent life to 12 or 15 years, and go back to the prior system of "public domain" patents, which used to be the majority of all patents filed, where the patent revenues revert to the US government?
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
What is the general take on further copy-control mechanisms, such as CPRM and CSS, within your lobby, and how do you explain this position to Senators, Congressmen, and the like?
main(){char I,l,O[]={'-',1-1,0,(1<<5)-1,0+'-',-10-1,-10,11-0,
For those of you who don't know him. Jamie is a wonderful character. He organized and ran a conference on "Remedies for Microsoft" that I attended about 2 and a half years ago. It was a very insightful conference (the audio is still available on his site).
What was interesting in this meeting was the talk by Visio's president; who was the most vocal proponent of Microsoft. I got the feeling that he was completely prepared by the Microsfot PR staff. He constantly asserted that Microsoft was even handed and a great business partner. He denied an acquisition was in the works when asked by one of the more pronounced anti-Microsoft people in the audience. He empathatically denied that he was "in-bed" with Microsoft and asserted that Microsoft is very good to _all_ of it's development _partners_. The buy-out, of course, occured shortly there after.
You may want to ask Jamie about this conference. It was very insightful for me to hear. But there were a suprising lack of technical people there, it was mostly lawyer suits; anti-trust experts. There were only a hand-full of "real" programmers there and we were largely in the audience.
Best,
Clark
For those who may agree with what you are trying to accomplish: What can be done to help you, and your organization, with your efforts?
Surely, the cost of life-saving medications should not be prohibitive. And dozens of ridiculous patent disputes cannot be good for any industry. But without some means of recouping the often crippling cost of development (for example, 1000s of drugs begin the development process and only a handful make it to the consumer) what incentive is there to investigate new ideas?
What will happen to the fields of medicine and information technology if the market for invention dries up?
I think it is pretty obvious to everyone here that technology and intellectual property are things which do not work well with the artificial boundaries of nation-states. What sorts of long term strategies does the CPT have for dealing with intellectual property and technology issues at a global level? I am particularly interested in the issues surrounding IP and tech in developing regions.
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
It seems to me that because copyright is intangible, that the public domain is immeasurable, and because expanding copyright takes no money out of the budget, that IP laws are the pork barrel legislation of the Digital Millennium. Senators and legislators see no problem with enlarging copyright beyond its traditional boundaries, past fair use and first sale, because there is no means of accounting for the theft. Is there a sense in Washington that wrapping new copyright restrictions with a bow and handing them to entertainment conglomerates has no downside politically or economically?
If this is the case, how can we change the climate in Washington to make our representatives accountable for diminishing the public domain and enlarging copyright?
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
Our so-called leaders continue passing laws that usurp the doctrine of fair use. What is your orghanization doing to combat laws like the DMCA and organizations like the RIAA and MPAA and to keep them from legislating away the rights we once took for granted under copyright law?
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
As a programmer who doesn't lobby, but who appreciates your efforts, I am curious to know what kinds of software we produce makes your job easier.
/.? ESR? In other words, what kinds of things can we do in the natural course of programming, which help you do what you do?
What kind of 'attitude' in programming makes it easy to lobby the open source cause? RMS? JWZ?
-Water Paradox
information is immaterial
I have noticed that there are becoming more and more politicians who are at least a little computer savvy (This is not to say that there still aren't quite a lot on the Hill). What are some of the ways that you go about educating the people on Capitol Hill about what is going on?
-Kenix
What is your stance on the inadequacies of patent law?
Do you think it would be more fair (for consumers and developers) to restructure patents so that only IP related to an existing product can be patented?
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
What do you see as being the greatest challenge for your work, and what's the one biggest thing that we can do to make that easier?
(Okay, it's really two questions...)
Can you describe what a typical day is for you - for example, do you see Congressmen, how do you influence their voting (finiacal or otherwise), and what do you do when you are NOT on Capitol Hill?
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Don't you think it would be more effective for your goals to get behind a canadate that may win?
sure, Nador is great and all, but wouldn't having the cloat of one of the 2 major parties in office be better for your cause?
and finally, please thank nador for allowing bush to be president. I like being reemed by the energy companies!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Mr. Goldstein of 2600 is a big supporter of Hackivism and being political, which is good, since it brings forth the issues which the majority of us sit around a whine about all the time (Sorry people, but I feel this is true).
I'm sure that you've worked with him from time to time, and have some good ideas about what needs to be done. So what needs to be done?
Also:
What are you doing with the political movers and shakers, in terms of the issues and education of technology? Whom do you feel are the most technically savvy politicians in the House and Senate?
And finally, what do you feel is the worst case possible in the realm of laws (DMCA not withstanding), and how close do you think we'll come to see it?
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
How do you feel fighting for such good ideas like the patent restrictions in AIDS medication, and been a lobbyist?
Wouldn't be a better idea fight against lobbyist for a more democratic government?
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
I commend your work and am impressed by your educational background. After reviewing your background and understanding successful lobbyists generally have experience as legislators or as staff to powerful legislators with the establishment of important relationships, however, I am concerned you may not be an effective lobbyist. Do you find the absence of experience as a legislator or working as a senior aide for a powerful legislator (which such experiences create relationships with elected officials) a detriment to your ability to effectively lobby for these important issues?
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Hi, Jamie. Hopefully I'm asking something that is up your alley and isn't too terribly off-topic
Do you see the possibility of a large, unified force in technology activism in the current lobbyist environment?
I have noted that, for the most part, those attempting to promote innovation and free exchange of ideas throughout all research and industry seem to have their own agenda. They often have many of the same viewpoints and would pull together if they would allow some of their views to take a backseat to a concerted, unified effort.
There are a lot of people that have been able to organize themselves into groups, but still grasp divisive issues as defining who they are. Instead they should 'gang up' and try seeing how their numbers can make an impact
A good example of this divisiveness is Slashdot. Most of the people that browse and are coherently active on this site believe that greater competition in the marketplace is a very good thing. Yet they continue to split themselves up into 'factions' (i.e. Mac, Linux, Unix, BSD, etc.) without seeing that any choice but the one that they oppose (Microsoft, for instance) should be a step in the right direction.
Rock
Mr. Love,
If you are so anti-corporation, and so anti-Microsoft, to the point of publically criticizing them and thier practices, why does the Consumer Project on Technology, and specifically you, Mr. Love, choose to use Microsoft Windows on your office and home machines?
An informed Anonymous Coward
There's been much discussion here, and there is a wealth of info on the CPT site, regarding patents. Some seemingly obvious, some so vague that they include nearly everything, some claiming "invention" of a on-line version of a long-standing business practice, etc. And it appears that the only way any of these patents can be revoked is through court action.
My question is, what level of success has there been in fighting these patents? Who has expended the effort and funds to take a shot at them? Who has succeeded, who's failed, and what's the outlook for the future?
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
Where were you when it was passed?
sulli
RTFJ.
I thought it was obvious that all was an exaggeration (which is not all that uncommon of an exaggeration--no one truly believes that "all politicians are crooked" or that "all lawyers are unethical"; it is simply a way of indicating the vast majority). However you seem to be determined that every statement must be literal. Yes I am aware of several politicians that are good (including Boucher, who is definitly on our side). However, being able to list a few politicians (I can only think of about 5 to 10 politicians) out of literally hundreds is still a pretty dismal percentage, and I think grouping all of the politicians together in that group is not an unreasonable thing to do (and to those few who are different, I do apologize).
Speaking of getting a grip on reality.... Exaggerations occur. Deal with it
Consumers do not (generally) have these resources availible. They can't buy marketing campaigns, they don't have dedicated lawyers, and they don't have large sums of money to spend on convincing people that their way is the right way. If twenty major corporations want something, they can usually get it. However, twenty consumers would have no effect whatsoever. My question is, what is the most effective way that consumers can voice their opinion in a way that they will be listened to? Obviously, if more people protested the laws, policies and other things that did not benefit the consumer, things might be changed. However, I think that most people (including myself) feel overwhelmed by the fact that their one voice makes little difference.
"Who cares if it doesn't do anything? It was made with our new Triple-Iso-Bifurcated-Krypton-Gate-MOS proccess!"
is there an effort to develop a consumer linux distribution which stresses security, privacy and last but not least simplicity? aol without the commercial implications...
What reasons are often cited for organizations continuing to use Microsoft products?
----
With much of the world moving towards nomarlized intellectual property laws it seems that the rights of the end users are being removed one by one to make each country "conform better" with trading partners. Is it likly that we may loose such things as fair use in the near future, if we haven't already. Sometimes it seems that people have forgotten the reason for Intellectual property protection (in the US atleast), was to allow the creator to make a profit before it became publicly available, not to profit eternally. If all of this really is happening, what can we do to try and change this "evolution" of law and regulation before it goes to far?
Is there anyway to make you web site more visually appealing? Gosh, it really hurts my eyes!
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
I'm not American, but in recent years I have been boycotting many American corporations due to the influence they have on the US legal system and their seemingly inexhaustable ability to gain any IP law they require. I am seriously concerned by the aparently relentless push by US based coporations to bring an American style Intellectual Property regime to the rest of the world. As a Free Software advocate I find few ideas as repellent as "Software Patents"! My question to you is how do you see the International Intellectual Property arguments going, and ultimatley will we reach a system where everyone is under the thumb of software patents or where the US is forced to give up on this terrible idea?
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
In the M$ Monitor's goodbye message, the author alluded to other news/coordination resources that were duplicating the M$ Monitor's function. What are these resources?
I miss the M$ Monitor. Of course, if I have to choose between having the Monitor back and having an effective penalty against Microsoft, I'll choose the latter. :)
The general public doesn't understand technology, thinks the third world causes all of their own problems, and thinks that people who oppose patents in any way are communists. That's tough to overcome.
How do you go about convincing the public that anything you advocate is good?
Consumerism is a simple form of a protectionist government. Doesn't protectionist government invariably lead to the infringement upon personal liberties? Doesn't it also lead to a more litigious society?
A simple scenario, in order to protect consumers, you may choose to make all cars come with airbags, and have the safety of a Camry. A) What if I'm poor, and cannot afford a Camry, but I can afford a Geo. Am I SOL, or does the goverment buy me a Camry (Socialism)? B) I'm not afraid of death and I like 1960's sports cars, with horrific safety ratings (Corvairs, e.g.). Will I be able to obtain one (keeping in mind that if I die, my family would retain the right to sue the manufacturer under many protectionist schemes)?
(One can easily draw up a similar scenario with cigarettes to see how I made up these examples).
I see that the www.cptech.org website is using Red Hat. Do you also use Red Hat on the desktop? KDE or GNOME? (or something else?) Staroffice? Abiword? MySQL? IMP or Squirrelmail?
We're obviously nerds here and we'd love to hear about the network layout at CPT.
Cheers..........
and where do we start? How can we get involved?
I mean beyond just writing letters to our congresscritters.
tune
skkkoooonnnggggkkk ptui
Unfortunately the average person really does not care about rights or free speech, since they don't think it would interfere with anything they do.
We need to communicate the effects in simple concrete examples like "you will not be able to skip commercials" in order to get the public to change their mind or even care. Is anything being done about this?
I'm part of the group that's organizing the DMCA protests in Minnesota. We're passing out fliers and staging protests, but haven't managed to get any press. We're also trying to get a face-to-face meeting with our senators...but no luck so far -- their offices haven't even called us back, despite both written and phoned requests for a meeting.
The problem is, we're technology people, not activists, and we don't know how to lobby effectively. What's your advice? How can we get the attention of our senators? How can we attract media attention (in a respectful way, that is)? Are there other activities we should be undertaking that would be more effective than what we're doing?
Ralph Nader's consumer advocacy has always been first and foremost about quality, of which safety is a subset. Given that the commercial operating systems (MacOS and Windows) are much more user-friendly than the current slate of Linux offerings, and that even many Linux advocates have now come around to admitting that fact, how does Linux advocacy benefit the consumer? Isn't it strange for a consumer advocacy organization to be advocating a lower-quality product over a higher-quality one?
Tim
Why hasn't any suggested legislation that mandates that after a period of time all published software be released into the public domain?
I do see the place for non-free software, but I think it would be benificial for software to be freely available after it's ability to generate profit is exhausted.
This would serve more than the obvious purposes, it would allow for software be kept in a repository, and not lost after it's served it's purpose. Software is part of our culture today, and unless we actively preserve it, we're going to loose pieces of our history. We certainly can't count on the companies currently responsible for this software to keep around old versions or programs that don't make money.
Wouldn't a national software library serve us well in the future, sure, there'd be a lot of junk there, but the same can be said for the Library of Congress.
It would seem that as "Intellectual Property" rights have been increased, consumer protection has declined. It's my belief that the two are inter-twined. The more consumers can know about what they're consuming, the harder it is for companies to claim innocence, or push the problem back on the consumer.
At present, the consumer has NO right to know if the program they buy will do what they expect, or that it will even work, or even that it won't simply transfer the consumer's bank account to the original company. Examining the binary code could violate the DMCA, making it illegal to even find out. If transferring the consumer's account activates the software's licence, then removing the code would also violate the DMCA.
Since most shrink-wrap licences provide no warranty and exempt the company from any liability due to any damage caused by use of the software, to use most commercial software, you have to agree that ANY malicious code in that software is entirely fair and reasonable.
Users might as well sign over their first-born child, all their worldly goods, their soul and half of anything they acquire in Heaven.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I'm not normally against corporations having input with government (somebody has to employ all of the citizens,) but in the tech arena, legislators seem to be absolutely cowed to the industry. If a gas company went to a legislator to push a "Gas EULA" at the pump, the legislator would laugh the lobbyist out of the office, but tech companies come along and legislators can't wait to get behind them.
How's the best way to get it through their thick skulls that the DMCA radically alters copyrights to the benefit of large corporations, that the UCITA steals consumer's rights, and see the budget savings by using more open software? How can you make them see that the short-sighted legislation that they're passing at the bequest of corporate interests are so damaging to the citizens?
-sk
Recently we've been seeing articles on the 'open source only, for government use' initiatives that are taking place around the world (primarily in South America). I have also heard the discussions of similar actions among some municipal governments in the U. S. Are there any agencies in the federal government considering a similar shift in policy?
-- If it weren't for the voices in my head, I'd go insane from loneliness. -Me, Myself and I
Couldn't you show to all those nice, God-Fearing, apple-pie Bible Belt Moral Majority Republicans how the DMCA helps Scientology silence its critics? Also, the Hollywood connection Scientology has (Travolta, Cruise etc.) makes a nice picture (those smut-peddling godless pornographers from California are in league with an anti-Christian sect to undermine the Constitution for their Satanic profit!!!)
Disclaimer: the above is not necessarily my opinion, but it might be an effective angle. Unless those so-called "Christians" actually value money more than God.
...when it starts affecting them personally. What are good examples of things that mainstream people enjoy doing that would be hampered by increasingly restrictive legislation? And I don't mean Napster, I mean something that most people would consider perfectly legal.
Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.
Okay, I guess you need an econ 101 lesson. If company A creates a product, company B has a few ways to compete with it. company B can make the same product for cheaper, or they can make a better product for more money (or the same price, depending on the increase in value to the consumer relative to the increase in cost). If Merck creates a drug to reduce the pain of a headache, Glaxo can make a lot of money by creating a pill that gets rid of headaches entirely. This is not to say that there will be a cure for AIDS any time soon, I just think that you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of making a profit--not just in pharmaceuticals but in any industry.
And yes, the motive of ANY business is to increase shareholder value.
The limited liability corporation is a technology which is not doing what it's supposed to do---their chartering "for the public good" is universally ignored, in the sense that no corporation has been de-chartered for violations of this condition. Not subject to death or illness as real people are, they are much more like the empathy-free, predatory, androids of P.K. Dick, or the vampires so popular in the fiction of recent decades. Free from the normal human constraints of shame and fear of imprisonment, they seem almost inevitably to end up as bad actors to the extent they can be considered to exist at all.
At the very least, these collectives shouldn't have the cloak of the civil rights proper to human beings; is there any prospect for this situation to be changed? This would go a long way to reducing the ability of the actual persons within them to escape full responsibility for their actions, to cloak their self-interest in the fulfillment of their fiduciary obligations, and to hide the contributions they direct toward the political parties.
Thanks for your time, and please tell Ralph to stay home next time.
If I was an US citizen I'd do those myself. Like in India, I think it would be most effective if done in great numbers. The final goal would be, of course, a hearing by the Supreme Court.
1) Protesting the DMCA: Purchase a CSS-encrypted DVD, preferrably of a region other than 1. Get a notebook with a DVD-ROM and make it able to play the disc, thus violating the DMCA. Go to a public place, make your speech and play the DVD for a few seconds to show it works. Distribute copies of the software (DeCSS, Linux player, crack for Windows player, whatever).
2) Protesting the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act: with the same hardware above, purchase a movie that should be public domain by now but isn't (Chaplin for instance). Go out, make your speech and distribute copies of the MOVIE itself (or announce an URL for download).
3) Protesting the DMCA II, the Sequel: Distribute copies of Elcomsoft's Advanced eBook Processor (the software that got Dmitry in jail). Public place, speech, etc, etc. Cheaper -- all it takes is diskettes (or CDs).
Who do you think will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes?[1]
A quick shout out to all my peeps in the NSA, DIA and FBI. Peace, y'all
[1] Please, no Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy mentions.
As someone who has been reading /. for the longest time, but only posting/replying for a short time, I can honestly say that the two are equivalent.
For instance: I see a post that said what I said a while back, granted it was a little more eloquent. But it comes down to "the only people who can change the laws are those with money (corps. ect) OR those that have been harmed by them irreparably.
OR
Where the judges that were being monitored I asked "who's watching the watchers".
I thought that was a damn good question.
Of course what are the congresspeople/ moderators smoking comments too.
More on topic than above:
IS the DMCA unconstitutional?
has harm been proven via the current case load in the courts with 2600, Felten, and a few other cases I can't recall.
If I recall correctly, most of the major law makers/ IVY league schools, professors said in effect "this is bad law making" and it got pushed through despite the fact.
Has there been any investigations or litigation into the MPAA/RIAA's actions against consumers by buying/pushing laws such as these. (congressional oversight, general hearing, tribuneral, something that says "woah, hold on there cowboy, this is getting out of hand"?).
What can those of us in the university environment, as techs, do to raise awareness among those "joe 6packs" average consumers of these bad laws?
Moose.
ps. In summation: "help!! help!!! I'm being opressed!!" -Montey Python
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Hey Jamie --
I'm a young technologist with a zeal for government and a few degrees in computer science and mathematics. How do I get a job doing what you do (and an entry level)? What can I do in the mean time to increase my chances? Would a degree in public policy or law help? Would experience in Washington help? Would wearing a penguin tie help?
What can I do to end up on a career path like yours?
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Indeed. But maybe this speaks more to your own ignorance then to any (perceived) reality. To say that you were just making an exaggeration is to suggest that your overall point about the 'vast majority' still holds - but I sure bet you couldn't even begin to provide the slightest sliver of evidence to document this purported "vast majority".
Jamie,
Before becoming a developer I was a law librarian, and I had the pleasure of seeing you debate a representative of West Publishing over the issue of their asserted copyright to reporter pagination. I think this is an issue that Slashdotters would be interested in, but I haven't seen it discussed much here.
Briefly: West (since bought by Thompson) publishes nearly all court reporters in the US. Courts require page citation to earlier decisions in any documents that parties submit for their consideration. Obviously West can't claim a copyright to the decisions since the courts authored them, but they do assert a copyright to the page breaks in their reporters. So directly or indirectly, each litigant must pay West a license for citing case law.
It seems to me that this issue in some ways presaged the fair use issues raised by the DMCA. The trend seems to be toward rights without remedies. Yes case law is in the public domain but you can't use it in court. Yes you have a fair use right to digital media, but you can't circumvent technology aimed at thwarting that right.
My question: do you agree that this is a trend, and do you see it continuing?
ccarr.com
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. BB
If they do, do they get the 'perks' that Washington politicians evidently get from their interns ? If so, could you provide details about 'working' with such interns ? Or provide us with JPEGs/MPEGs ? Do you have any plans to stream videos of your Christmas parties on the Net ?
Given the movie Wag the dog was concerned with esentially Political PR do You see any Irony in the name of the website Microsofts PR firm has and the nature of the technology industries influence on current politics? While I'm sure there is no link it's almost too close to the truth.
The entertainment industry appears able to get copyright protection extended as long as they wish ... Is your organization making any efforts to convice congress to return copyright duration to a sane limit, and if so, is there much hope for success?
Or as sorehands put it:
What about rolling back the life of a copyright to 25 years instead of having it be the number of years since the creation of Mickey Mouse?
Good question. I feel that an intellectual monopoly term should last just long enough for the holder to make a return on the intellectual investment. I fail to see many copyrighted works being produced that don't produce the bulk of their revenues within the first 25 years.
For more explanation of Disney's lobbying for repeated copyright term extensions, read my essay about the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. It has some useful links to other information on the topic.
Will I retire or break 10K?
There's a great, short book explaining how citizens can make themselves heard and bring about change. Don't be turned off by its title. It's an excellent read by a man who was very influential in his day. Having read it, I can imagine that someone in your position could get quite a few ideas out of it. It's not a direct answer, but I hope it helps.
Developers: We can use your help.
Protesting the DMCA: [play an out-of-region DVD or a protected eBook on a laptop in a public place and distribute the tools]. Protesting the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act: with the same hardware above, [play old Mickey Mouse films and put them on edonkey].
This is the kind of civil disobedience that the Barely Legal Project does.
Will I retire or break 10K?
But maybe this speaks more to your own ignorance then to any (perceived) reality. To say
that you were just making an exaggeration is to suggest that your overall point about the 'vast majority' still holds - but I sure bet you couldn't even begin to provide the slightest sliver of evidence to document this purported "vast majority".
Which is why I asked the inital question--to find out if my perception (and yes, I will grant you that it is all just my perception) is correct or, in fact, totally inaccurate. I will be the first to admit that preception often deviates far from reality. I do not believe that I am alone in the perception that the vast majority of politicians completely agree with big business on IP issues (I believe that the DMCA passed unanimously in congress, although I could be wrong on that), but I was curious as to what the actual facts are. If I was convinced that I am right, I would not have felt the need to ask the question.
If you read my initial post, I never stated that it was a fact that all (all being an exaggeration) politicians are on the side of big business, I stated that "From my perspective, it seems that...". I never claimed that my perspective is reality, I was only clarifying my perspective.
I'm a biochemical engineer with possible future opportunities to patent true innovation (something actually new *gasp*). The question lies in where is the line between the healthy protection of the work you've put into creating something new and the stifling of the creativity of the industry if you should patent your innovation and restrict its use in return for money.
I think anyone who creates something new and useful should receive full recognition and some payment for others' use of it, but how does one do this while letting future innovators build upon and improve your creation? If you restrict use too highly, you remove any possibility of someone else being able to improve upon what you have done. If you allow free access, you might receive some recognition, but companies will definately attempt to screw you over.
Now, insert the company or university I might be working for to further complicate the problem, and add a few lawyers to make it serious. What can an engineer do to make sure something he creates has patent restrictions that reflects his personal opinions or economic viewpoint. (It might be in the favor of the engineer to allow improvement upon the innovation.)
Salis
Favorite
Ive had the argument with my college friends, majoring in government, about corporations and thier pull in goverment via lobbying. After a bit, most of them simply say the goernment is for the corporations. When I ask them what about the ppl they just shrug. Because the free software movement and other computer user groups dont have the money to lobby does that mean all is lost?
"All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
And yes, the motive of ANY business is to increase shareholder value.
Any publicly run corporation, maybe. But there are plenty of businesses out there that are not run for shareholder profit (Co-operatives and Mutual Societies for example).
Well, while suggesting 5, 7, or 10 year copyright lives may sound keen to you young'ns, as someone who has actually published and been paid for writing, I think a 25 year lifespan is sufficient for copyright, but less is not a good idea. Little incentive to take time to craft your work.
Patents one might be able to argue as being less than 17 years, but it has taken many people up to 5 years to get it to a patent stage, so I'm not as comfortable with making it too short. That defeats the reason for patents - to ensure it becomes published and licensable, instead of hidden as a trade secret. But we do need to use "public domain" patents way more often.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
are Americans afraid to change their constitution?
Do you see more of a need for privacy protection for the individual citizen, or for openness and more access to information about government and private business organizations? Since corporations have the same rights as individuals, it seems that these two social goods are in conflict. Which do you find to be more important in your work as a lobbyist? Would you trade off one for another? It seems now as if we are going to get neither of these.
Share. Until it becomes uncomfortable. Or at least a little.
I can assure you that there is a market for most disease curing drugs (at least diseases in the West, I'll admit that ;)
Metformin cures infertility associated with polycystic ovary disease...Glivec cures a type of stomach cancer...Viagra comes damn close to curing impotence...Antibiotics cure ulcers, gonorrhea, and a host of other infectious diseases. Chances are that you would be dead right now without antibiotics.
Now it is true that there are high market barriers to becoming a drug company. A typical drug developed today has a development cost of $500-$800 million.
There are currently 402 new medicines under development for cancer, 122 for heart disease and stroke, 103 for AIDS, and 205 for childhood diseases (such as with hypertension, congestive heart failure, high cholesterol, diabetes, epilepsy, eye disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, sickle cell disease, Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, staph infections, ear infections, pneumonia, meningitis, hepatitis, cerebral palsy, Tourette's syndrome, and autism).
So you know what, I think pharmaceutical companies are doing OK. A recently developed drug (motilium) allows my wife to sleep at night, and another one (tegaserod) is on the way to further normalize her life after getting gastroparesis (if Public Citizen stops fucking with its FDA approval...)
For the short term, it might be OK.
But what happens when the "ebook" goes out of "print" - or what happens when your 1st edition dies? Do you get the upgraded second edition (and yes, sometimes second edition paper books are MASSIVE upgrades - look at the diff between Gordon McComb's '99 Inexpensive Robotics Projects', 1st edition vs. 2nd Ed. - 1st Ed was done in TAB book style, 2nd in some funky style, but had a ton more info)?
What happens when the publisher goes out of business - how do you get your backup then?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
1.) Often I hear people saying how great it is that internet access is trickling down to the impoverished masses. While that's all well and good, how do you think technology will be able to help people who can barely afford to eat, let alone surf the web. This happens not just in other countries, but in our as well. Local hunger groups in my area have been saying that families that work 40 hours a week are showing up more and more at their door.
2.) Technology companies are insanely large now, this includes, not just companies like Microsoft and AOL Time Warner, but the Biotech industry as well. How can we ensure that these companies will not abuse the power they have, exploiting people and their rights for the sake of profit?
Abso-friggin-lutely! When's the last time somebody went to their doctor and asked for a drug they'd never heard of? Can't happen, can it?
If it's good to tell people there are alternatives to M$ products, why is it bad to tell doctors and patients there are alternative drugs to treat their ailments?
120 characters?! Who do they think they are, telling me I only get 120 characters? This will never do. I must have mor
I'm sure a lot of slashdotters would like to do just that, but go ask your dot.bomb buddies who are now unemployeed about reality.
The work I'm familiar with, Love pushed a certain cause that cost many jobs, almost destroyed many more and worst of all, just about all but promised that the government's premier collection of scientific and technical research documents remain unavailable to just about everyone - we're talking trillions of dollar's worth here.
Love's response is to ignore it. Forget it. Opps.
Much research and development work in the US is subsidized directly or indirectly with public money from federal, state, or charitable sources. For example, in a June 19th, 2001 article "Corporate cash in university labs" in the Christian Science Monitor, according to the National Science Foundation, $27.5 billion was spent on US university research in 1998, broken down as:
58.2% Federal,
7.3% state and local,
7.6% Industry,
19.6% Universities, and
7.3% other (including non-profits or foundations).
So, over 65% of the money is clearly from public sources (perhaps as must as 92% might be public and charitable funds), and less than 10% is clearly from private industry sources. If all that money was spent directly on open source or free results we would have an enormous amount of freely useable software and content.
However, the thinking in Washington and likely among foundations seems to be that research and development results without owners are useless, won't be enhanced without someone having a monopoly, and the researchers won't be motivated to do a good job without proprietary ownership of the end product -- and thus it is better to have twice as much proprietary stuff than ten or a hundred times as much free content. Thus most of the results are allowed to be made proprietary and are allowed to be owned by the partner institution or company. Clearly, the success of GNU/Linux disproves the notion that software and content needs to be proprietary to be useful or to attract motivated developers. And clearly if only proprietary products were made, generic drugs out of patent (even aspirin) would not be made or sold -- yet they are.
"Cost sharing" is the smart sounding phrase in Washington. As I see it, the proprietary money introduced by "cost sharing" doesn't double the useful results; instead the proprietary money contaminates all the results. And it means that a software developer interested in working in the public interest on free software can't go to work at a university or non-profit without extreme caution, because chances are that organization will seek to control their work so it can be sold. This is leading to major conflicts of interest at public universities as research results produced using public funds are withheld to create an artificial scarcity in hopes of making more money for the university or the sponsors. Most non-profits have also jumped on this idea of raising money by selling licenses for copyrights or patents produced using tax-exempt charitable donations.
How can this situation and the accompanying mindset be changed? Essentially, how can the situation be changed so that all copyrights or patents produced by research and development funded in whole or in part by government or charitable funds are put into the public domain or under an open source or free software license allowing free use and the creation and distribution of derived works?
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
What sort of things are they most sensitive to, and what sorts of things get ignored because they hit the thickest parts of their skins?
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Are you related to Courtney?
ourpla.net is your planet
Most of the problems that CPT addresses are the result of corporate control of our government which stem from the 1886 Santa Clara v Southern Pacific Railroad decision which in fundamental ways first declared that corporations were persons. Thanks to the wonderful SF Mime Troupe I have just become aware of POCLAD (Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy) that is working to educate activists such as myself in ways to contest the authority of corporations to govern.
Are you aware of POCLAD? Do you think they can help in the creation of new ways to fight the injustices that CPT is targeting? And ultimately, how best can we help?
From the POCLAD web site:
The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
-- Molly Ivins
Okay, you got me. you are so much smarter than I. I must profess my ignorance of what a troll account is or why it is relevant to this discussion. And you are obviously proud of the fact that you can regurgitate the text of your econ book. But let me take one second of your highly important time to ask you this. Why are there cures for diseases on the market? Why are there antibiotics? Can you explain to me why the drug companies wasted their time (at least in your economic viewpoint) developing a cure for bacterial meningitis, when it would obviously (again, in your economic view of the world) be more profitable to create medicines that assuage the suffering of those afflicted with it long enough to drain their wallets?
The answer is simple, (although it may be asking a lot of you to use common sense as opposed to an edgeworth box to make economic decisions) if you create a cure for a disease, you will far outsell products that simply reduce pain and suffering.
And I fully understand the concept of an oligopoly. In fact, one in particular comes to mind. The car industry. And the American car manufacturers used to build their products to not last as long as they possibly could. The idea was similar to what you have discussed. If people are forced to buy more cars, we can increase demand. The Japanese came in and disproved this theory by building cars that last 2 to 3 times as long, and the American car manufactures (the two that are still American controlled mind you), are still paying the price in terms of market share for their short sitedness.
So I'll shut up now and let you bask in the glory of your superior achievements in econ class and your low user id, and I will stop posting ideas that are slightly different from the majority of the posts on this site, since you obviously prefer to avoid open discussion of ideas by newcomers.
And they have done so much to reduce suffering and increase human hapiness compared to the drug companies, air conditioning builders, hygiene products companies, doctors, dentists, car manufacturers, airplane manufacturers, et. al.
Are you suggesting that doctors are corporations that are run for profit?
Hospitals are right? You will also notice that most practices have LLC or LLP after their name. This stands for Limited Liability Corporation or Partnership. The difference betweeen a partnership and a corporation (or a sole proprietorship for that matter) is mainly based in where ultimate liability lies and on the way the business entity is taxed. Are you implying that a doctor is not in business for profit? Maybe some aren't, but the ones who have brought the greatest good about certainly are. And just so no one jumps on me for this, I am not implying that doctors who do pro bono work are useless or not as well meaning as for profit doctors. I just mean to point out that most of the benefits that we get from doctors come from those who are driven by a profit motive.
Ah, that's obviously different in the US. In the UK, most doctors are still employed by the NHS (National Health Service) which is run for the benefit of patient care, not profit (although the new Public Private Partnership is about to change all that).
Gotcha, sorry for the cultural ignorance....