Slashdot Mirror
Eavesblogging the Internet Law Program
Last week the Berkman Center held their second annual Internet Law Program, an intensive course in (surprise) internet law and developments. You probably didn't spend the time/money to attend, but the topics covered are interesting enough (to me anyway) to check it out even second-hand. Dan Gillmor attended and posted his notes: Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4, Day 5 part 1 and Day 5 part 2. Donna Wentworth was there, trying to record the seminar in real-time; hopefully she's learned her lesson. There is tons of interesting stuff in there - it's worth your time to read through if you have any interest in the subject matter at all.
Is it me or do the AC's seem more entertaining than the content today?
On second thought, I'll put the crack away and read about Internet Law since Micheal doesn't seemed too convienced that anyone cares. =P
======
Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. - Euripides
What a waste of money, you must have failed "english 010"(several times), and passed "bullshit 304" with flying rainbow colors... STFU
Could someone shed some light on this one. I don't understand how they are possibly going to be able to prosecute people since the internet doesn't really have political boundaries. I am guessing they may do it based on where the server or client was located, but wouldn't that border on unreasonable search and seziure (at least in the US)?
"in the beginning, there was ARPANET"
-haha! pretty "back-to-the-basics", and all, but I think the third chapter really starts to get into the meat of internet law.
nice link.
Silicon Valley has more info, check it out:
b us iness/columnists/3612625.htm
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/
Have you hugged your Karma Whore today?
Internet Law according to the RIAA:
1. Mp3s are bad, they are all illegal.
2. We have the right to hack your computers and delete whatever we want.
3. Even though our artists get one dollar per album sold and it costs 2 dollars to make the album, we will still charge 17.99 for each album with only one good song.
*ahem* Thankyou and good day.
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
the trolls can have this one.
however, this is becoming a hot topic with all the intellectual property issues that are coming up today. Still though, not very exciting unless you're an intellectual property executive like my father is. personally, I could care less, I'll just let him deal with it. It's another facet for the legal profession to study and litigate over.
just my (hopefully) troll-free two cents.
(keep those AC posts coming!)
This is wonderful information. I'm sure I'll be modded as redundant, but this is great for those of us with our heads buried in code and no time to grep the rest of the world.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
"First thing to point out about free software is that it's very hard to ignore. Not about free as costless, but a lot of enterprises with money running on question of whether server is running, and what they're using is free software."
It is very interesting (to me anyway) that so much money is spent on making sure that free software works.
It tends to make it much more obvious how much better free (as in open source) software is, as compared to the competition. See, if it were just free, and companies used it, you could say, "Cheap companies!" However, the fact that companies sink a lot of money into a server running free software shows that there is a serious lack of competitive comercial packages for the job.
For instance, I know my company would rather pay $5,000 for a good comercial package, rather than go with a more complex free software, that requires someone who knows someting to run it.
Of course, the fact that there aren't a lot of good comercial server platforms is good for me. If there were, I would not have my job....
I keep hearing you people repeate this tried and tired line over and over again.
I don't know what albums you are buying, but the albums I buy have much more than "one good song" on them. Beyond that, I like to HEAR what else a band has in their musical collection. Finally, I'm more than willing to shell out money to support the artist.
This BS "one good song" argument is used over and over again to justify "sharing" (aka stealing) music.
Can we do something to eliminate this stupid net-born "word"?
Now how many Judges out there should take this?
Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
Too bad the trolls have come out in force for this. Speaking as an attendee, it was a great conference for anyone interested in the direction of the Internet. Sadly, those posters who seem baffled by the notion that the law matters in this area are probably those who fail to understand that the law evolves in response to social needs - and the extent to which the Internet is something that you use means that the law will emerge to shape that environment. You can either participate in that shaping, or you can stick your head in the sand (or put your fingers in your ears and yell LA-LA-LA). If you choose the latter, don't complain when you suddenly find that
Do I sound paranoid? Maybe, but the fact is, these things are part of the debate - today! Hollings, Berman and others are working on it, and there is already enough legislation (DMCA, PATRIOT) to get you. And it's not just a US thing - international treaties are being signed and revised.
So, wake up! This stuff matters! And it's beyond parties - this is going to hit you where you live!
In the Day 2 notes, DG writes this in his notes. It's actually an important point for the Eldred v. Ashcroft (formerly Eldred v. Reno) case.
...
Because the term extension under the Sonny Bono act is "not severable", the extension for future works needs to be stricken if the extension for existing works is stricken.
The reason is that Judges may not rewrite a law to make it constitutional. They may strike part of a law but only if that which remains is still meaningful. The term extension was written (and I'm paraphrasing here)
the term of copyright for all works is to be
If they had written this in two sections, then the extension for existing works could have been severable:
Sec 1. The term for works created after [effective date] shall be...
Sec 2. The term for existing works shall be the same as in Sec 1.
Then Sec 2. could be stricken leaving us with term extensions for future works, but the old terms for existing works. But it didn't happen that way, so it's either all or nothing when the SC eventually rules.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Well I read it from cover to cover and found it interesting, stimulating and all that.
But short on practical advice.
I've been to a few of these legal seminars and the trouble is that virtually every legal topic of interest is still in flux. The common feature seems to be, if you think you have an Internet problem then you must consult a lawyer. The law is still so uncertain that you cannot possibly be sure that you are applying best practice. Or even that last quarter's advice is still valid.
Mind you, a lot of e-commerce companies know this and aren't too worried.
The UK has a reasonable Data Protection act that should allow some redress if a UK site does bad things with your personal details. It was passed a few years ago now and to date there have been approximately ZERO prosecutions.
ok that's it.. I've seen enough blog thing blog that.. guess I've been too busy hitting the blong to have catched it. Soo.. what's blog? Google what? Too lazy.
All of the professors, and most of the attendees, were extremely clueful. Though Larry Lessig painted a very convincing and very dire picture of the future of the internet, I was given hope by the fact that many of the attendees both "get it" and are in the position to influence the powerful towards the implementation of good policy.
One of my favorite moments was during a discussion of deep linking, when the recent NPR linking policy issue came up as an example of how some large organizations, even those ostensibly seeking wide dissemination of quality news and information, really didn't understand how central linking is to the way the web works. At this point, the deputy general counsel of NPR, who happened to be in attendance, introduced herself and gave an excellent description of why the NPR policy was wrong-headed. She'd always thought it was a bad policy (I believe her word was "stupid"), and was glad it had come to light.
Once my hosting provider overcomes some technical problems, I'll post my notes from the conference.
Any other attendees have good stories to share? I know a significant portion of the crowd there reads slashdot.
Joe Gratz
Next.
Invoicing, Time Tracking, Reporting
Action: Big Meating of Corporate, Legal, Techie, etc.. types discuss matters of internet design, property, blah blah. Lots of Ideas shared, lots of information made avilable to those that did not understand...
Reaction: They all go home and make $200,000 a year and feed the dog. Internet gets runover by government.
I am guessing that eavesblogging is a play on eavesdropping?
When you're a blockhead, wordplay hurts. Y'know?
Hello,
The last few months you have posted this same message several times. Or maybe 'twas was somebody else...you obviously copy and pasted it hence all the [slashdot.org]'s that don't follow anchors.
Using that little 'threshold' box above all the comments to demonstrate that you are wrong in saying there are more +5's than +3 or +4's. Except in the comments for this story maybe, which has been overrun by trolls such as yourself.
Logged in people probably seem to get modded down faster because more moderators are viewing at a '1' threshold than at a '0' threshold.
It's usually pretty ineffective for moderators to mod down posts which have a score of -1.
Thanks,
die...
This ILAW seminar seems surprisingly similar (almost identical) to a HLS class taught by Zittrain I took this past spring as a cross-registered MIT student. See http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is02/ for class notes, links, etc.
Agreed. New words are useful only if they add something to the language and "log" works just fine for me. What's next? Rlog for paper log, klog for notebook log and olog for audio log?
I expect blog to die of its own accord as it suffers from being just a little too cute and techno-insider to survive.
And please remember -- the opposite of "reactive" is "active" and not "proactive". Whenever someone in my office uses the word proactive, we fine them a quarter!