Slashdot Mirror
Results of the Commerce Dept's DRM Workshop
al3x's report:
I arrived early, heeding the warnings of first-come, first-served seating. With the small room packed to standing room only, this paid off. In addition to the panelists, listed on the Workshop's site above, notable included Robin Gross, attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, and journalist and Politech list-founder Declan McCullagh. Lobbying groups distributing materials to the audience included New Yorkers for Fair Use and the American Library Association. Several interns from NIST and a couple of other young folks like myself showed up unaffiliated with any group, and the remainder of the crowd appeared to be typical Washington: lawyers, politicos, journos (professional and college), and think-tankers. A proper press kit was noticeably (and notedly, by said journos) absent.
As the talks began, I was brimming with the enthusiasm and anger of an "activist," overjoyed at shaking hands with the legendary Richard Stallman, thrilled with the turnout of the New Yorkers for Fair Use. My enthusiasm and solidarity, however, was to be short lived. The Workshop's effective chairman and moderator, Chief of Staff and Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology Phillip Bond, offered some opening remarks touching on their previous meeting, held this past December, including noting that piracy has risen, particularly in the music industry. After further welcomes from James Rogan, Under Secretary for Intellectual Property, who acknowledged having worked with many members of the "roundtable." Rogan suggested that there were "no villains present," which drew the first of a number of chortles from the NY Fair Use crowd and their sympathizers. First on the table was a discussion of progress towards standards for Digital Rights Management (DRM henceforth).
This rather dry topic, upon which there appeared to be little consensus or definite progress, was dealt with relatively quickly, sparking only a handful of interesting and notable concerns. Here the clear divide between the tech industry and "content" industry (the movie studios , record industry, etc.) became apparent. Andy Setos of the Fox Entertainment Group called for attention to the "analog hole" in DRM standards, stating "from [the point content reaches analog televisions] it's a freeforall." The sentiment was echoed by several of the other content providers, and reiterated throughout the discussions. Oddly, with a number of opinions bounced around and no coherent conclusion, moderator Bond moved on, blessing the segment of discussion as having been productive.
Moving to discussions of business models, technological viability, and the government's role, the panelists took the gloves off and came out swinging. And as the discussion started to get juicier, so the "activists" got noisier. Comments from the RIAA's Mitch Glazier that there is "balance in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA), drew cries and disgusted laughter from the peanut gallery, who at that point had already been informed that any public comments could be submitted online. Even those in support of Fair Use and similar ideas began to be frustrated with the constant background commentary and ill-conceived outbursts of the New Yorkers for Fair Use and, to my dismay, Richard Stallman, who proved to be as socially awkward as his critics and fans alike report. Perhaps such behavior is entertaining in a Linux User Group meeting or academic debate, but fellow activists hissed at Stallman and the New Yorkers, suggesting that their constant interjections weren't helping.
And indeed, as discussion progressed, I felt that my representatives were not Stallman and NY Fair Use crowd, nor Graham Spencer from DigitalConsumer.org, whose three comments were timid and without impact. No, I found my voice through Rob Reid, Founder and Chairman of Listen.com, whose realistic thinking and positive suggestions were echoed by Johnathan Potter, Executive Director of DiMA, and backed up on the technical front by Tom Patton of Phillips. Reid argued that piracy was simply a reality of the content industry landscape, and that it was the job of content producers and the tech industry to offer consumers something "better than free." "We charge $10 a month for our service, and the competition is beating us by $10 a month. We've got to give customers a better experience than the P2P file-sharing networks," Reid suggested. As the rare individual who gave up piracy when I gave up RIAA music and MPAA movies, opting instead for a legal and consumer-friendly Emusic.com account, I found myself clapping in approval.
Though Jack Valenti proved he could stump with the best good ol' southern gentleman, deriding his intelligence before offering sweeping proclamations, the majority of the discussion was surprisingly consumer-friendly. All in the room, even Valenti, agreed that P2P technology was not inherently bad, but could merely be put to bad uses. Geeks should be happy to know that their voice is being heard by the tech industry: folks from Intel and IBM really seemed to "get it" along with Reid and the aforementioned crowd. There was clear animosity, however, between content providers and the techies. Elizabeth Frazee of AOL Time Warner, for example, was quick to say that "the content industry is looking for government help," and tech industry reps were quick to suggest that we're nowhere near even agreeing on standards or what needs to be enforced, much less imposing legislation. The general sentiment of the tech crowd appeared to be that piracy was a social issue and an everpresent one, and no amount of legislation or technological blocks (your Palladiums and whatnot) would stop it. The solution, the techs seemed to suggest, was competing well in the marketplace and offering consumers a good reason not to pirate content.
The session drew to a close, and a large bearded man in an ill-fitting suit quickly jumped up to say the NY Fair Use people would be giving a press conference of their own out front at 4:30. I followed a reporter from NewsForge to the motley band of activists, who preached largely to their own choir, with the exception of a few youths like myself and the remaining reporters. I confronted Richard Stallman for his thoughts on the "better than free" proposal that Reid had offered, to which he was happy to sermonize on the false construct of intellectual property. I suggested that perhaps artists could, if they so chose, license their music under a GPL-inspired copyleft like the Open Music License, and strike out an independent path, as he did in the software industry. I was informed that musicians needed the record industry for wide exposure, and of the record industry's various artist-related evils. I then inquired about how Stallman felt about downloadable music services like Emusic.com, which place no restrictions on how you use the music you've bought from them, though the music is copyrighted and the artists and labels are compensated. Stallman agreed, after having informed me minutes ago that intellectual property as a concept was bunk, that this sounded pretty reasonable.
I walked away from the afternoon's experiences feeling much more represented by the tech industry, though sympathetic to the activists' desire for more consumer representation in future Workshops. Notably, the EFF was explicitly shut out of this discussion, which is unfortunate; the NY Fair Use crowd, however, never bothered to request a representative, preferring to show up and disrupt the debate on their own terms, and for nobody's good but their egos, it seems. If the tenor of this discussion remains focused towards the marketplace, as the tech industry wants it to, then we as geeks and concerned consumers have little to worry about. However, if the content industry gets its way, we're looking at legislation mandating DRM, which is essentially subsidizing the slowly-failing record and movie industries like we've done with airlines and big steel. Our best hope, I'm surprised at myself to say, is in a Free Market, and not screaming, indignant geeks passing out buttons and shouting down Jack Valenti.
How about fair supply??
every tiem hear hear fair copying as a topic
I jsut feal sick..
Fair copying shouldnt be an issue, im all for it..
But i wish tehse guys would focuse on fair supply
for once..
try living in a DVD region such as 4..
bugger all..
we have somethign like 400 dvds..
a hopeless afair..
woudl these guys if they got the copy
protection they where after solve that problem?
I own one moive (the Dark Crystal) on 4 differnt
coppys on VHS.. all of them appernlty widescrean..
not one of them is.. this is a 1982 movie by Jim
Henson.. and when it was realsied in dvd.. you
got it.. region 1 only..
how cna they clame the regions are only to help
movie theathers when things that havent been in
the thearters for almost 20 years are still being
encoded into specific regions..
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
This report was already entered by al3x at 4:16 am this morning on Kuro5hin.org.
If you want to work within the system, you need to fit in. Wearing t-shirts & jeans and holding up signs during an official Commerce Department isn't going to help. When the panel memebers see even a couple people like that, they will tend to label the entire group as someone they don't want to listen to. It's no wonder that barely any of "us" got to speak up on the issues. I know it sucks, but that's how these things work.
That being said: If every slashdot reader were to write a simple letter to their senators & congressmen about fair use, there'd be no stopping us. So go... right now... and write your letter, I plan to. If you don't, don't bitch about losing your fair use rights when it does happen.
Depressing glimpses of a bleak future. Corporatism... worse than any previous manifestation of socialism, communism, capitalism, or imperialism. In the future, the people will own nothing, everything will be rented from the new state, i.e. the corporations. The rental agreement terms will only be favorable to the corporation, and you will be prohibited by law from negotiating better terms. The terms can be unilaterally altered at any time by the corporation, however. Violating the rental terms will be the new capital crime, harming the corporation's profits will be the next generation's equivalent to murder.
George Orwell was one helluva an optimist.
So when did Ron Jeremy change his name to Vincenzo? And he sure has put on some more weight! ;)
I'm happy, however, to at least offer my views and any clarifications readers want. Thanks!
One easy fix for all of this retarded IP debating is to simply outlaw entertainer as a profession. This would weed out all of the greedy SOBs in music, movies, AND sports. The ones left in the game would do it as a hobby and earn no income. Those who sing or play ball for the love of the activity are the ones we want to experience anyway.
It's imperative that we always remember the importance of the extremists. They broaden our options and force the opposition to reconsider their approach. While I agree that the vocalism of the activists was a poor representation of many reasonable consumers' true concerns, taking a "all or nothing" approach makes sense in light of something as controversial as the DRM. No, I don't think content should be uncopyrighted. Afterall, what comes with free in relation to the internet and television? Advertisements, many of them. We save with our pocketbooks and pay with a decrease in entertainment value. Businesses have to make money, and they will find a way. So why not pay for what entertains you? Whether or not the extremists agree with this reasoning is beside the point. The items on their agenda that they're most likely to acquire ( such as the fair use/single backup copy guarantee to consumers being upheld ) is in-line with what the majority wants. I guess my point, in summary, is that in the face of large companies attempting to create unfair legislation, it helps to have people directly opposing them loudly and rudely.
The geeks need someone that can represent them in public, perhaps sit on this panel. The establishment are made up of people, just like you and me. Sure, they views are different. Their life experiences are different. However, they are just like you and me in one regard: when they are shouted at, the react in the negative.
We do not want our (anti-DRM) message to be delivered by bozos and idiots. We need someone that can be articulate and persuasive. Will that person please step forward?
Perhaps they are at the EFF (or are the EFF). The trip report didn't give many details as to why the EFF was locked out. Can anyone elaborate?
I'm not sure that many would be willing to do that. I'm not a musician, but I am a writer/poet, and also a programmer.
While I have no problem whatsoever GPL'ing my software (even a BSD-type license would be sufficient in most cases), I would never GPL my stories or poems. The reason: there's a lot more intrinsic value in my writings, and itmeans a lot more to me emotionally, whereas software is purely intellectual nad hard work.
I believe that most musicians would feel the same way, as their best works are often written out of heart and feeling, and I don't think they'd be too keen on someone else taking it (or parts of it) and changing it to meet their motives.
Granted, there are some that are produced for purely commercial purposes, and that's a different story altogether.
Those that would GPL, however, I have a lot of respect for you. Maybe it's just a little different for you; or maybe it's because I'm not a musician, so it's not exactly just an intellectual production on my end.
The childish laughing, interruptions, and catcalls are doing our cause no good. It is time for us to start looking into paying professional lobbyists to represent our views. Lobbyists, whether you love or loathe them, have the connections, understanding of Congressional procedures, and the charm that we so desperately need if we want to win this one. Weird looking guys with unkempt hair, open collar shirts, and no public speaking skills are not who we want giving press conferences or representing our views to Congress. When in Rome...
It's nice to know that you're so easily snowed by Jack Valenti. This "consumer friendly" individual you seem so impressed by is the same man who is Congressional testimony in 1982 declared about the VCR: "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." (1, 2) I'm confused; when exactly was the last serial murder conviction for a VCR? Or a PVR? DVD burner?
The newsforge article and the comments above are from two very different camps. Which one is in the right? Is there a right? Many at my job dislike my youthful ambition and tendency to move quickly on jobs while I dislike the lathargic movements of those that have been here a while, those same people that end up making PHBs and believe that all decisions must be funneled through a committee or 3. Is the difference between these two camps possibly age related? I guess what I'm think is that in my experience age usually dictates temperment. Is that what we're looking at?
Well, this is going to be the problem in the future folks, if we ever want to get anywhere.
There is a reason there are "professional lobbyists" and "professional activists". These
people know how to play within the power structure
and know how to purport themselves at a discussion or a meeting or a hearing.
These "activists" that the author was speaking of
seem to think this is still the sixties, and that they were at a rally. When someone is on the stage, you dont boo and yell at them, you let them speak. If you must be heard, put one of your own people up there, or take a point-counterpoint
text version of their comments and get it out there.
But dont act like complete boors, lest you taint the rest of us with the view that we are *ALL* socially inept nerd-boyz (a-la the "arch nemesisis" on Buffy) rather than savvy people who may not have the money or size to work within the system *yet* but will someday.
One instance of the wrong person seeing people act like doofusi in a public setting like that can ruin the good value of a hundred positive but
thought provoking emails.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
The conflict, as I see it, is one of perspective. The studios and entertainment industry makes its money from distributing entertainment. If that entertainment is distributed freely, or much more inexpensively, than they lose money. While the media and many others focus on the mega stars worth millions, you should also remember that there are hundreds of un-sung support folks who do need that pay-check, and they are the ones who are going to take any loss in the shorts first. The other perspective is that of the people who want information to remain free. If you do pay for the distibution of a particular entertainment, than you should be able to copy it all you like for yourself, and if you want to share that with your friends, then you should be able to do that as well. I think the real solution is for the studios to finally understand that the average folk just are not interested in piracy. And that those who are will continue to do so regardless of what encryption the studios attempt to wrap their wares in. Remember those underpaid un-sung support types? There's always a way.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
i had an idea enter my head this morning. campaigns to educate the public on what the entertainment industry wants, and what rights are slowly being eaten away, are not reaching the general public, as it's mostly people online using P2P and the like who are aware of it.
I think groups like the EFF, Digital Consumer, etc. need to pool their resources and start a TV commercial campaign (eg, "paid political announcements") showing the typical American family (eg, mom, dad, 1-4 kids) who downloads maybe 10 songs/day or simply wants to listen to Internet radio.
Have the setting be one where the entertainment industry has full control, and how miserable the life is for this family. eg, getting a knock from police at the door after downloading an mp3.
Maybe not even miserable. Have a little girl that's maybe 4 years old try to do something on a computer, then ask her dad why it's not working. "Sorry sweetie, NSync doesnt want their music played on a computer."
Yes, it's only a 30 second commercial, but it should get the point across of the entertainment industry making the average consumer a criminal. One also needs to target such a campaign. During local evening news shows is good, as are spots on MTV and similar channels.
Dont directly portray Hollywood as evil though (like having Mickey Mouse step on a house, like he did in that recent EFF video), as most people will see that as a turn-off for getting the point across.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
It's like Republicans and Democrats. There are TWO REAL political parties in the U.S., though most people are moderate, one side detests the other for a few far flung individual views.
Or "Earth First" or PETA. Sure we're all in basic support of what these guys stand for. (don't pollute / don't be creul to animals) But they're RADICAL groups.
Don't let those wacko geeks represent the majority of us.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Aside from giving the obvious impression you don't have anything intelligent to say, it strongly conveys the notion that you are actually trying to block public discussion on a matter.
The best way to get the Media's attention is often to simply do their job for them. Write up insightful, well summarized and brief positions explaining a matter and distribute it to the reporters. Doing so goes a long distance towards guaranteeing that your position will be accurately reflected by a reporter's statements.
In these kinds of dicussions, the first person to get mad and upset is very often the one who appears to be on the losing side.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
every once in a while, I get fed up with the sometimes simplistic arguments presented at /. but a well-reasoned, in-depth take on an issue like this reminds me why it's still relevant.
Thanks.
"I'm getting very, very angry. Go back to the sandbox and play with the other kiddies and leave me to the operations of the system. I'm in charge. You SOB.".
A parody, of course.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
We geeks are our own worst enemies on this matter. When we show up at meetings like this and are disruptive, we reduce our credibility. It is far too easy for the other side to catch us at our worst, and then show that time and time again to discredit us. "They are hooligans and evil hackers, and nothing they say has merit."
Look at what happened with the DeCSS case - because of the tenor of 2600, it was far too easy to attack the man, not the case.
When you show up for these sorts of events, WEAR A SUIT! Yes, it it ananthema to our kind. Yes, many of us don't have to wear suits on a regular basis. BUT THAT'S HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED!
Be polite - let the other side have their say, no matter how BS it may be. Then, when you get a chance to speak, shred them, point by point, politely.
We already have enough minuses on our side - don't act like 3 Charisma morons.
www.eFax.com are spammers
is another session of corporate diarrhea down our throats. Bumper stickes, hatred, interrupting speakers and having millions of blind fans will not solve the problem. The only way to solve the problem would be to clean up the House, corportate executives and people in charge of making decisions. What we need is people who are able to think without a dollar bill being waved in front of them. Dirty capitalizm is a banana peel that our country is stepping on and unless we find something that can blance it out, it is going to fall. Unfortunately money makes the world go round and unless we have some financial power there is nothing we can do. Something gives me a feeling that having a bunch of geeks protesting gives those bastards more pleasure than fear.
Everytime a DRM scheme is cracked (DeCSS, ebook thingy, satellite cards, the HDTV thing, watermarks) I enjoy reading the papers that come out, describing in gory detail what the companies thought was "hacker proof". They have been quite educational.
Though if any representatives from the content industry are here, I would kindly request, please, no more schemes based on linear feedback shift registers, or XORing with constant keys. I really have those mastered at this point, and am looking forward to some more challenging material. Also, I'm pretty comfortable with frequency-domain watermarking based on pseudorandom sequences. Even Dr. Dobbs wrote about a more sophisticated scheme once.
So in short, keep the DRM coming, and I'll avoid the products religiously of course (or get my own copy out of the "analog hole" [is that like the "digital divide" heh heh]). But I love those DMCA-chilled papers.
All in all, I think it should have been planned a little bit better. From the reports in this article it sounds like the underdogs didn't have a clear plan of action or a clear idea of what they wanted to say. Those on the panel presenting, however, should have given the open source and fair use crowds a chance, though.
Proteus' Child
Doko ni datte; hito wa, tsunagette iru.
Could there be a more appropriate representative of the MPAA than Jack Valenti!? The guy LOOKS like an oppressive tyrant.
Really! Would you buy a used car from this man?
Having Valenti as the chairman puts a surprisingly appropriate face on the MPAA, and serves as a symbol of the type of men with whom their interests really lie. I'm surprised they haven't erected a facade instead: some doe-eyed guy or gal to whine about how much money they lose and how they can't feed their families, as opposed to the crazy authoritarian who offers "sweeping proclamations" about how little freedom consumers deserve.
Yes, the guy is right. Unelss we start presenting ourselves like professionals nobody will look at us and/or count our opinion. Why? Sorry pals, but the book is being judged by its cover in this country.
As someone else who was there, they really hurt any chance they had of being heard with their juvenial outbursts. On the flip side, I was pleasently suprised to find that the workshop was much more balanced that I had thought. Its good to that the discussion on DRM includes persons working for a solution that does not place far more power in the hands of copyright holders than they deserve. However, the effects of DRM infrastructure on open source and 3rd party developers were not represented at all. It seems that the open source community would do much better to have the CEO or Red Hat or some other industry figure attend these types of meetings, somebody who would actually participate in the discussion rather than interject with random outbursts.
we can rebuild this sig. we have the technology
This is why I'm against this type of Activism. It makes me cringe, and (if they do it at some conference) I sink in my seat feeling embarrassed for them (and somehow myself). I may agree with their viewpoints, but I know what they _appear_ to be, to the otherside.
They are the Greenpeace nuts on inflatables ramming whaling ships or nuclear powered aircraft carrier off the coast of France.
They may have keen insights, wonderful diatribes on slashdot, and in on-line environments, they may seem on step away from Churchill in how the words flow from their fingertips and rouse us.
But in public, they are Type _G_ geeks. Easily spotable, obviously not comfortable (with themselves or others), and get caught in a moment of passion that they would normally rectify by re-reading and rewriting a flame email/newsgroup post/ slashdot post... but in real world there is no drafts folder.
We need logic, and sound reasoning to combat these RIAA types. We need to show the Dept of Commerce, Congress, the courts, and the public, that we really are this smart, and we can logically show why all or part of DRM is a bad thing.
I give all who attended tremendous credit, and even thanks. Any representation is better than no representation (much like publicity).
And to all the uber-geeks our there, I implore any who have the opportunity again to participate in such an hearing, to think of yourself as Mr. Spock (the star trek one, not the baby doctor). Try not to show emotion, counter the enemies emotion and rants with sound logic. And make sure you have the facts, and never assume. But please, don't try any mind-meld or vulcan sleeper grips.
-malakai
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
I really don't think it ever was a problem. The only people who dowloaded stuff off of Napster when it was up without buying the actual single/album were in the minority. If you enjoyed the artist enough to download their whole back calalogue in MP3 format, you were more than likely to go out and buy at least one or two of that artists releases on CD. As an aside, the music quality of a CD is far superior to that of MP3 format (lossy compression does nasty things to music tracks).
I really think that the music industy is trying to whip up a hurricane in a teacup over this issue.
Ceci n'est pas une
Congressmen don't read form letters. As unfamiliar with the concept as you may be, handwrite it. It will be more believable to them and shows that you care enough to have spent some time on the subject.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
These people aren't interested in reasonable.
Reasonable is for usenet discussion, weblogs, email, and pamphlets. Reasonable is for individual representations, newspaper articles, editorials, and letters. Reasonable works when you have someone listening to you.
In this forum, a ruckus gets results. Not breaking chairs, smashing faces and petrol bombs ruckus, but angry, frustrated displays of feeling, which the people on the panel probably did not expect. They may not agree, but the message probably got through to the government that this difference of views is not between the tech companies and the hollywood companies, but is a three-way conflict between tech companies, hollywood companies, and the public interest.
Prediction [bookmark this space!]
Next round-table discussion will either have a representative of the OSS community, or will be held behind locked doors. Either way, the meeting will be an intelligent, reasonable, and civilised discussion.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
1) you wear a suit or other appropriate attire to a proceeding
2) you speak politely rather than rudely shouting over the voices of others
3) you realize that POPULAR SUPPORT is necessary before the content companies submit to your point of view
4) you accept that POPULAR SUPPORT usually means having the general public, not the RMS cognoscenti, behind you
5) you build a bridge to the people that matter in the long run in the discussion (artists and others) to make an end-run around the content distribution companies
My, oh my. Shouting and laughing during the proceedings. That will really make a difference. We all want to scream in Valenti's face. We'd all like to throttle Rosen and say "we know you're lying!" But, it doesn't help the case.
I don't want to be overly-critical of the good folk (RMS included) who took time from their busy days to put in the appearance. They are all good people, I'm sure, who just want to be heard. I want to be heard. But, we've got to be more adult about this discourse. We have to do the hard work of writing letters, informning friends and communicating to elected officials. That's how this works.
Amateurs discuss tactics. Professionals discuss logistics.
It appeared at kuro5hin first.
Best Slashdot Co
Called "Attack of the Cyber Pirates" it was shown last night (17th) in the UK. I thought it to be an intelligent documentary. Views from the recording industry, hardware industry (I never thought I'd cheer Intel, you live and learn), people who downloaded anything and everything, middle ground people who download stuff but also spend lots on music, people mixing their own music, some outfit using walls of computers (Shuttle SV24) to find sharing sites. If it's repeated, syndicated, whatever, try to catch it.
somewhere else...
Best Slashdot Co
Do you think Free Market can handle the big guys? I really hope so, but the rethoric and the actions are somewhat different when the big developed countries enter the game.
...
Just to exemplify: I live in Brazil and USA are imposing us ALCA as a form of "Free Market" alternative, as long as we drop all our (supposed) barriers. But then USA comes with some iron barriers, orange jucie barries, shoes barriers, all sort of barriers. Free Market? Come on, "do what a say, not what I do" is the big guys motto.
This introduces my real argument: wherever faced with competition, the big companies, like the big countries, always get the protectionism path. They say they are 100% on capitalism, but when faced with competition from better technologically equiped guys, they go crying to get laws to ban competition! But competition IS the essence of capitalism. Monopolies/Oligopolies are the essence of COMMUNISM. Aren't the american (just for example, apply the same to any big developed country) companies strong enough to compete? If they're not, DIE. The americans were the first to say it, they throw it down our throats all the time but when they face their own evils then it's time to lock competition, protect fading industries and put americans to pay for it (and the rest of the world too). Apply the same to the internal american market and look at the same picture: fading industries trying to withold their claws even on the same americans that believe on the capitalist rethoric spelled by their own leaders.
Strange time it is
and I've been reading about the plans to make it to this DRM round table for the last 2 weeks. While it seems like proper "decorum" was substituted with awkward extremism, what was the alternative? Sitting quietly with a raised hand to speak within the context of the panel? Didn't seem to work for Seth Johnson, of the Information Producers Initiative (see newsforge article). Could all of the "corrections" made by the thoughtful, respectful geeks in the crowd have been made if not for the raucous interruptions of the loud NY Fair Use crowd? Staying within the system usually does not work. Which fair use rep actually got the mic at the round table? Brett Wynkoop who knelt at the table IMPERSONATING a panel member. Although I wasn't there, I don't doubt there was some awkward, extreme heckling taking place. However, NY Fair Use had a single objective on this trip. Get the phrases "We are the Stakeholders!" and "DRM is Theft!" into the public lexicon. The public at large will never know or care about the obnoxious geeks in the crowd, but if those 2 phrases get picked up by the media, they're short, sweet and to the point, then it was a job well done.
When you show up for these sorts of events, WEAR A SUIT! Yes, it it ananthema to our kind. Yes, many of us don't have to wear suits on a regular basis. BUT THAT'S HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED!
Absolutely! Very good point!
Suits, people. They're badges that the little brains inside business leaders and politicians use to signal to each other "Hey! I'm one of you! Listen to what I have to say!" One Brett Wynkoop worked that one out for himself.
Be polite - let the other side have their say, no matter how BS it may be. Then, when you get a chance to speak...
I think the point was that the geeks were not given a proper chance to speak at the table. They had to interject from the gallery, and so vented their frustration emotionally. The points they made were not the Gettysburg Address or the Sermon on the Mount, but who can blame them?
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
good thing I know how to program because I sure as hell can't sing.
"1886 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Without any explanation for its position, the high court created "corporate personhood," declaring that the 14th Amendment, and hence the Bill of Rights, applied to corporations -- years before most human beings enjoyed its full protection."
This is why people are mad, corporations in effect have more rights than the people.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
Wrong. Corporations have the SAME rights as the people. Personally though I would prefer to see the CEO go to prison if the corporation caused a fatality. It would improve their shit.
Press: Mr. Valenti, how come you didn't include Fair Use Groups in your discussion? Valenti: We wanted to but they just disrupt things, I mean look at what happened today. Press: They didn't get a chance to speak. Valenti: Sure they did, they could take their piracy haboring computers online and post comments on the Department of Commerce web site. Press: But doesn't that deprive of them of the chance to speak at the conference? Valenti: And your point is..?
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
It's called Content Control bozo. And this isn't a particularly insightful writeup. Nice dupe from k5 though.
I'm gonna have to say that their behavior sounds like it was needed. I wish all debates could go without anyone scoffing and the other but it shows some people with the power of change in the room that there are people like this not just there but outside the walls of the debate. It's the ever present pain in the ass that eventually allows compromise..
From the pictures, Valenti looks like he should be attending an anger management conference...
"The area of penetration will no doubt be sensitive." ~ Spock
Moderation is the course to productive change. Extremism can get the issues in the limelight, but extremists are rarely able to compromise enough to make negotiations productive.
This doesn't have to be another Revolutionary War. We may feel like we have taxation without representation, but that's not true. We have advocates in the tech industry, and even sympathy from within the content industry itself. We need to build upon what we have, not bite the hand that feeds us.
Have we forgotten about the law of infinite supply?
Quick crash course:
If a product can be found anywhere, and can be used by anyone (ex. Oxygen). If you charged a lot for the product, someone else will sell it cheaper until the price of the product is slightly more then the cost to acquire the product. Well, if the cost was free then the price will also be free.
If we follow this ideal to it's fruition we will determine. Two facts:
1. It costs money to make a record, movie, etc.
2. The price should be set to a point where people will buy it, and a profit can be made. HOWEVER SMALL THAT MAYBE!
If RIAA, MPAA, and IT groups cannot make billions of dollars in profits at those prices. They need to reorganize there companies to turn a profit that they can live with.
The Constitution offers the right to the pursuit of happiness, but does not guarantee it.
But, due to copyright laws, it is illegal to copy copyrighted material. It is also illegal to exceed the speed limit, but most people do so. The police most times will not stop someone going less then 10 over the speed limit. Some laws are not easy to enforce, so usually the "big time" offenders are prosecuted. Copyright violations are another example of these hard to enforce crimes.
Therefore, even with DRM laws in place, or even DRM software, or even DRM watermarks. Someone is going to find a way to break the system (i.e. the magic marker). It's too hard to track the criminal, and costs more money. My suggestion reorganize before you loose.
Most of you seem confused about why the content industries are so desperate to get rid of fair use. Let me explain. First of all, it is /not/ about backup copies. Right now, you are legally able to distribute clips -- on the net and anywhere else -- of "The Fellowship of the Ring", "Star Wars", "Minority Report" and every other pompous piece of Hollywood flotsam _provided you do so to aid in your critical discussion of the work_. Notice how scary this is for Hollywood.
1) You can put pristine segments their precious garbage on the net legally.
2) You can make fun of it and point out how stupid and crappy it is.
Once your ability to actually capture clips legally (hello DMCA, DVD and Macrovision) has been destroyed what are you going to do? Draw stick figures? Go ahead! All of the fawning coverage people will see on Entertainment Tonight will have glorious, full motion, full color clips of the film and you, the guy shouting that the Emperor has no clothes, will have no way to illustrate your point.
That is what is really at stake with this threat to fair use.
- Night
And for those of you who read the NewsForge article and feel the need to sound your voice to the moderator of these "discussions", who seemed intent on barring public participation, his email addy is as follows: PBond@DOC.GOV.
What really get's me is that this argument keeps getting framed as "protection of Intelectual property rights" when I am convinced it is really about protecting a distribution network that has become outdated almost overnight. Let's face it, when you pay for a CD, most of what you pay for is not the content, it's the packaging and the expense of getting it to you. And everyone along the chain get's a little piece. In my opinion, piracy is a red herring. I firmly believe that what the RIAA is really afraid of is a model where distribution is cheap and efficient. After all, that is their biggest value add....they have the capital and the relationships to PACKAGE and DISTRIBUTE what artists produce. What happens when that ability to package and distribute becomes irrelevant? The artists start demanding a bigger peice of the pie,consumers start demanding a lower price for the product, and the big entertainment distributors become less and less relavent.
Mike Hartley (too lazy to register today)
The reason nerds are cool is that it doesn't matter what they look like. It matters what they say.
n t substance. I guess to the extent that the goal is to reach TV Land, yeah, get some models, or at least but some Armani.
If you want to fit in, or convince others to, go hang out at a high-school dance.
If you want a political voice, spend your time on facts and figures. Looking in the mirror once on the way out the door is optional.
Richard Stallman is known for being rude, but guess what, people who go to political meetings and walk away complaining about rudeness weren't paying attention to the issues. Jack Vallenti looked very dapper, but guess what, he's THE MAN, with THE $$$.
On the other hand, there are modelling agencies.. THE MAN uses them to put pretty pictures on the TV screen so that people obsess over appearances instead of the using-this-drug-may-cause-every-known-human-ailme
But the people in those pictures had a different goal. Please don't taint the work of the people who actually showed up and butted in their opinions, right or wrong, to a bunch of see-no-evil hear-no-evil speak-no-evil government trade assoc. flunkies.
Damn.. I'm turning into a stinking slashdot ranter.
I went to similar meetings (government consultation sessions on digital copyright issues) in Toronto and Ottawa, and the situation was totally different. My reports from the two meetings are both online (Toronto, Ottawa).
It was a totally different scene from what you describe. The geek activists were well-dressed and polite; we chose our best speakers to represent our views in a clear and sensible way; and as a result, we were listened to. It's a strategy that even USAns should consider.
Check out my radio station (don't /. it please):
www.freality.com/music.html
it's all free music, each song released under 1 of 3 licenses currently in use for "open" music. This guy, Tompox, a performance artist in France, even releases his under the GPL.. not surprisingly, he's a big Stallman nut.
Check out:
http://www.openmusicregistry.org/
to find artists using this. Also, if I'm lucky, I'll be getting a lot of independent artists singed up soon, esp. older underground music. Check the site for updates.
If anyone has music under these licenses, write me at pablo@reeltwo.com.. I'll play it on that station.
If Larry Flint can go to court and win (in the Surpreme Court, no less), why can't we?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Lots of complaints about unruly spectators, wise nodding of heads that spectators need to be polite, wear suits, work the system.
BULLSHIT.
It takes all kinds to get things done. Back in the 50s and 60s, the heyday of civil rights activism, the people who got things done ranged from Rose Parks (sp?) keeping her seat to Black Panthers. Martin Luther King Jr. rousing the rabble, black politicians working the system, ordinary marchers facing up to Lester Maddox and his ax. It took all of them to change the system.
How far do you think they would have gotten if they had all been polite and worn suits and worked the system? Hint: they didn't get anywhere until the more rambunctious ones drew people's attention to the crap going on.
How long do you think the Vietnam War would have gone on if it had not been for street protests?
The people in control would love to have opponents wasting time quietly working the system.
Sometimes you gotta shake the tree to get any fruit.
Infuriate left and right
Results of the Commerce Dept's DRM Workshop
Posted by michael on Thursday July 18, @11:15AM
from the modern-rashomon dept.
al3x writes "I attended the Digital Rights Management Workshop held this afternoon at the Dept. of Commerce in my home town of Washington, DC. Though there were a number of professional journalists present, some of whom have already gotten their story on the event out, I want to offer a view less constrained by the need for journalistic objectivity, and share the eye-opening experience I wasn't expecting." al3x's story follows; Grant Gross of Newsforge attended and wrote up his experiences; and besides the News.com story, Declan also took a bunch of photographs. However, he has misidentified Jay Sulzberger in the photographs and story - this is Jay Sulzberger, not the guy kneeling at the table. Update: 07/18 15:07 GMT by M: The kneeler is now identified as Brett Wynkoop.
al3x's report:
I arrived early, heeding the warnings of first-come, first-served seating. With the small room packed to standing room only, this paid off. In addition to the panelists, listed on the Workshop's site above, notable included Robin Gross, attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, and journalist and Politech list-founder Declan McCullagh. Lobbying groups distributing materials to the audience included New Yorkers for Fair Use and the American Library Association. Several interns from NIST and a couple of other young folks like myself showed up unaffiliated with any group, and the remainder of the crowd appeared to be typical Washington: lawyers, politicos, journos (professional and college), and think-tankers. A proper press kit was noticeably (and notedly, by said journos) absent.
As the talks began, I was brimming with the enthusiasm and anger of an "activist," overjoyed at shaking hands with the legendary Richard Stallman, thrilled with the turnout of the New Yorkers for Fair Use. My enthusiasm and solidarity, however, was to be short lived. The Workshop's effective chairman and moderator, Chief of Staff and Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology Phillip Bond, offered some opening remarks touching on their previous meeting, held this past December, including noting that piracy has risen, particularly in the music industry. After further welcomes from James Rogan, Under Secretary for Intellectual Property, who acknowledged having worked with many members of the "roundtable." Rogan suggested that there were "no villains present," which drew the first of a number of chortles from the NY Fair Use crowd and their sympathizers. First on the table was a discussion of progress towards standards for Digital Rights Management (DRM henceforth).
This rather dry topic, upon which there appeared to be little consensus or definite progress, was dealt with relatively quickly, sparking only a handful of interesting and notable concerns. Here the clear divide between the tech industry and "content" industry (the movie studios , record industry, etc.) became apparent. Andy Setos of the Fox Entertainment Group called for attention to the "analog hole" in DRM standards, stating "from [the point content reaches analog televisions] it's a freeforall." The sentiment was echoed by several of the other content providers, and reiterated throughout the discussions. Oddly, with a number of opinions bounced around and no coherent conclusion, moderator Bond moved on, blessing the segment of discussion as having been productive.
Moving to discussions of business models, technological viability, and the government's role, the panelists took the gloves off and came out swinging. And as the discussion started to get juicier, so the "activists" got noisier. Comments from the RIAA's Mitch Glazier that there is "balance in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA), drew cries and disgusted laughter from the peanut gallery, who at that point had already been informed that any public comments could be submitted online. Even those in support of Fair Use and similar ideas began to be frustrated with the constant background commentary and ill-conceived outbursts of the New Yorkers for Fair Use and, to my dismay, Richard Stallman, who proved to be as socially awkward as his critics and fans alike report. Perhaps such behavior is entertaining in a Linux User Group meeting or academic debate, but fellow activists hissed at Stallman and the New Yorkers, suggesting that their constant interjections weren't helping.
And indeed, as discussion progressed, I felt that my representatives were not Stallman and NY Fair Use crowd, nor Graham Spencer from DigitalConsumer.org, whose three comments were timid and without impact. No, I found my voice through Rob Reid, Founder and Chairman of Listen.com, whose realistic thinking and positive suggestions were echoed by Johnathan Potter, Executive Director of DiMA, and backed up on the technical front by Tom Patton of Phillips. Reid argued that piracy was simply a reality of the content industry landscape, and that it was the job of content producers and the tech industry to offer consumers something "better than free." "We charge $10 a month for our service, and the competition is beating us by $10 a month. We've got to give customers a better experience than the P2P file-sharing networks," Reid suggested. As the rare individual who gave up piracy when I gave up RIAA music and MPAA movies, opting instead for a legal and consumer-friendly Emusic.com account, I found myself clapping in approval.
Though Jack Valenti proved he could stump with the best good ol' southern gentleman, deriding his intelligence before offering sweeping proclamations, the majority of the discussion was surprisingly consumer-friendly. All in the room, even Valenti, agreed that P2P technology was not inherently bad, but could merely be put to bad uses. Geeks should be happy to know that their voice is being heard by the tech industry: folks from Intel and IBM really seemed to "get it" along with Reid and the aforementioned crowd. There was clear animosity, however, between content providers and the techies. Elizabeth Frazee of AOL Time Warner, for example, was quick to say that "the content industry is looking for government help," and tech industry reps were quick to suggest that we're nowhere near even agreeing on standards or what needs to be enforced, much less imposing legislation. The general sentiment of the tech crowd appeared to be that piracy was a social issue and an everpresent one, and no amount of legislation or technological blocks (your Palladiums and whatnot) would stop it. The solution, the techs seemed to suggest, was competing well in the marketplace and offering consumers a good reason not to pirate content.
The session drew to a close, and a large bearded man in an ill-fitting suit quickly jumped up to say the NY Fair Use people would be giving a press conference of their own out front at 4:30. I followed a reporter from NewsForge to the motley band of activists, who preached largely to their own choir, with the exception of a few youths like myself and the remaining reporters. I confronted Richard Stallman for his thoughts on the "better than free" proposal that Reid had offered, to which he was happy to sermonize on the false construct of intellectual property. I suggested that perhaps artists could, if they so chose, license their music under a GPL-inspired copyleft like the Open Music License, and strike out an independent path, as he did in the software industry. I was informed that musicians needed the record industry for wide exposure, and of the record industry's various artist-related evils. I then inquired about how Stallman felt about downloadable music services like Emusic.com, which place no restrictions on how you use the music you've bought from them, though the music is copyrighted and the artists and labels are compensated. Stallman agreed, after having informed me minutes ago that intellectual property as a concept was bunk, that this sounded pretty reasonable.
I walked away from the afternoon's experiences feeling much more represented by the tech industry, though sympathetic to the activists' desire for more consumer representation in future Workshops. Notably, the EFF was explicitly shut out of this discussion, which is unfortunate; the NY Fair Use crowd, however, never bothered to request a representative, preferring to show up and disrupt the debate on their own terms, and for nobody's good but their egos, it seems. If the tenor of this discussion remains focused towards the marketplace, as the tech industry wants it to, then we as geeks and concerned consumers have little to worry about. However, if the content industry gets its way, we're looking at legislation mandating DRM, which is essentially subsidizing the slowly-failing record and movie industries like we've done with airlines and big steel. Our best hope, I'm surprised at myself to say, is in a Free Market, and not screaming, indignant geeks passing out buttons and shouting down Jack Valenti.
So, tell me, loyal slashdot reading
.. its gonna have to all melt
brainwashees,when was the last time big
business or government paid any attention
to the interests of the consumer? I'm sorry,
but your little voices don't make even the
smallest dent in the mass consumer marketplace.
You can't get the populace to exercise their
right to consume or not to consume - it has
gone far, far beyond that.
The Consumer Is Not Responsible
For Their Own
Actions
and has not been for some time. the hooks are
in to the people, and it will take some
cataclysmic tearing to remove them.
sorry folks
down before anything is right again.
ojnk
at&t - you Will
*8D-{
Man, I never realize that Jack Valenti was such a scary looking guy. His words always scared me, but I never realized such a devilish face could be attached to all that filth that comes out of his mouth. Amazing...
I suppose it just proves that corruption and greed really rot people from the inside, but eventually, it shows on the outside, as well...
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
THIS is exactly is what isn't needed. You sound like some sci-fi dork who is role-playing. This is exactly the perception that doesn't need to be propagated about people who care about this stuff. Stop with the diatribes, the real world is not an online chat-room, where flaming is cool. Why not deal in reality for once? That is where these issues are going to be decided.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
When you write congress, do you see your representatives change their position to something you can support? Do you see any discernable change in their position at all? Do you get back a reasoned reply, even if it's only a form letter?
I ask because what I usually get back is a form letter that says something like:
Dont' get me wrong, I don't expect these people to send me a personal reply. Nor do I expect them to agree with me all the time. It's just that in the last decade I've gotten a similar reply from my Senators and Representatives, on all kinds of subjects: The CDA, the Clipper Chip and Key Escrow, encryption being classified as a munition, the DMCA and Fair Use, corporate abuse, treatment of Afghani prisoners-of-war/"enemy combatants", "homeland" security, et cetera.
Frankly, it's enough to drive me to dispair.
Then again, perhaps it's just me, or just my representatives. Anyone have similar/different experiences?
I balk at the notion that any discussion with Jack Valenti could ever constitute something referrable as consumer friendly. He works assiduously against the interests of consumers: it is the thing that drives him. If the author believed that there was anything consumer friendly about the conversation, then he was snowed, pure and simple.
I found the whole event to actually be better than expected, with some notable exceptions.
1) Really, this is not the way to get the message out. Yelling is counter-productive and makes those who do it look bad. I was quite suprised that no one got kicked out, and did not enjoy having a security guard standing next to me because people in front of me could not control themselves! I understand the frustration--hearing inane comments from Valenti et. al. and not being able to respond--but you do yourselves no favors by interuppting and acting like children in a sandbox.
2) Valenti's comments were just plain stupid. Defending his stupid comments circa 1981 of the VCR being like the boston strangler by saying "a little demoguagery never hurt anyone." Man, I need to get that transcript, but here he admits that is what he did best (and should we be suprised, he was a Presidential speechwriter after all). This came on the heels of him saying that it is time to get the inflamed rhetoric out of the debate and the best line of, "well I am the public" (which was reported by the record company execs as well.
He said that VCR piracy was a problem (on the order or $3.5B) and that it could have been fixed originally, though he never wanted to stop the VCR, only have modest copyright royalties. He was quickly corrected by Bob Schwartz, General Counsel for Home Recording Rights Coalition, who said, "I recall the word 'injunction' being used in the lawsuit and the modest royalty of $25-50 per VCR tape. GREAT STUFF!!!
But Valenti did say they want to give the consumer what they want at a price they will pay. When Bond interjected, well it is clear they want P2P, Valenti replied, well I may want a skeleton key that opens every door--bizarre stuff.
3) Rob Ried of Listen.com ROCKED!! Go on, very good stuff. Aside from his unwavering conviction to talk about a safe harbor for all out of print work, that can be rebutted by a take down notice of the original artist (which is a good idea, but he spent too much time on it), he has a great model and presented it clearly. It was what I have always thought, there is a way to beat free, offer something compelling. Once you reach a certain age time == $$ and if I can get my music with little time and portable, I will take that and pay for it. If I do not have that luxery, I will use what is available. He made a great analagy to all the "designer" water out there (although this is a little false, because DC tap water really does suck--then again so does most current music, so maybe I am wrong here).
4) A great argument from Intel to Valenti. "Looks like the only way we can clean up ponrongraphy and violence and drugs in the movies is through a government mandate." That's right, throw it in their face that our industry does not want to be mandated just like theirs doesn't.
5) Again, I reiterate, chose the messenger better. Flame me if you will, but 10 guys looking like the comic book salesman from the simpsons, disrupting a government meeting, does not help. You guys can bitch and moan about secret back room dealings (and I do too), but when you are given the opportunity to attend public meetings, do not show why they prefer to do things in private. It is embarrasing, counter-productive, and will likely lead to the reduction of these meetings (which I did think was highly productive in showing that differing industries come at it differently). Standing up and yelling, "the time for civility has now come to an end" (true quote) does no good!!!!
If Richard Stallmand is "happy to sermonize on the false construct of intellectual property."
Then I have to wonder what the point of the GPL is. After all, the GPL is a LICENSE for INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. If Stallman doesn't believe in IP, then what does he need a license to control his IP for?
Why not release everything into the public domain?
My point is NOT to bash the GPL. While I'd never use it, I recognize that it is a construct clearly on the side of Good.
But the GPL does not destroy IP rights, it ENFORCES THEM, by layind down very strictly, what you can and can't do with the software that is GPLed.
I think Stallmans' confusion on what Intellectual property is -- And the inherant anti-corporate, anti-human rights position-- leads to a conflicted, ineffective message.
Dont' repeat this message. IF you support human rights-- one of which is the freedom to run the software you choose on your own computer without government intervention-- then your only ideological choice is Libertariansim.
Communism is complete control over the individual and the elimination of private property (that includes your rights to your computer)
Liberalism is the control over anything you might want to do economically, but not socialy. Meaning if you sell computers, Liberals will require DRM to be built in.
Conservativsm is the control over anything you do socialy, but not economically. Meaning that if you have a computer DRM et. al. are a requirement to keep you from looking at gay or child porn.
Libertarianism-- is the notion that individuals can make their own decisions regarding their own property. That the initiation of force is immoral, and that should it not hurt anyone else, do what you will.
I think too many Geeks fall into the liberal category, and unintentionally adovcate an ideology that requires DRM. Look at the history of Liberals in this country-- Clinton removed gay rights after getting elected on that platform. He didn't do a great job opposing the Clipper chip, etc.
Think about it.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
1> Content must be considered "innocent until proven guilty" with regard to DRM - a file should pass unless it has been tagged in some way.
2> Anonymous speech must be possible.
Otherwise, along with DRM, you get to kiss a bunch of your first amendment rights away too.
DRM systems, perhaps like Palladium, may require a digital certificate to be able to create content: you sign that the work is yours and does not infringe copyright, then post.
That system kills anonymity.
Similarly, systems which require a work is signed before allowing it to be used kill the public domain, and could certainly be used to censor the internet by simply pulling the certificates for any work that people in power do not want to be seen.
Remember: 90+% of the fiber is owned by five companies: content filtering on the wire is possible.
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
Writers tend to be more prickly about it, but it still happens. It's just that the division of labor is stricter - editors specialize.
that article was so long its unreadable, can anyone summarize it for me like this:
1) who was cool in the meeting ?
2) who did we hate in the meeting ?
3) was there a fight, and who won ?
Who is this Karma guy and why is he bad ??
The various **AAs spend a lot of time bitching about how free copies are hurting their sales. They never produce any data to defend their position. If you want to see what free copies really do to sales, see http://www.baen.com/library/palaver6.htm for someone's actual experience.
I'd like to thank the post a couple parents up for questioning reading comprehension. I said the majority of the discussion, not "the majority of what Jack Valenti had to say." I was juxtaposing his unreasonable and laughable attitudes with the otherwise reasonable folks. Do I need to spell it out? I don't like Jack Valenti! But neither does the tech industry, and in that I feel we've got a voice.
In preparation for this workshop, the Technology Administration invites public comment on our website at: http://www.ta.doc.gov/comments/comments.htm.
man rtfm
The impression given is that with his "good ol' southern gentleman" manner and self-deprication, Valenti can be agreeable and reasonable.
He can't. In his core, he has an anti-consumer agenda and if he's acting nice and agreeable, it's because he feels he already has the votes he needs to screw over the consumer. When Valenti agrees, something is wrong.
I'd look out the window thrice if Valenti said the sky was blue, and then I'd check the dictionary to make sure what the word meant.
but sometimes impolite behavior is necessary. During the Vietnam War the protesters were continually asked to work within the system. Civil rights activists in the 60s were told to work within the system. In 1770 the founding fathers of the United States of America were told to work within the system. That's because, boys and girls, they control the system.
Throughout history people demanding their rights have had to do just that: DEMAND THEIR RIGHTS! Sometimes being polite just isn't enough.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
The fact is you have to KNOW HOW TO ADDRESS YOUR AUDIENCE. It has been proven time and again, that being right is absolutely not enough. It would be nice to live in a world where that wasn't true, but we don't. Get over it. If you want to effect change, make your change effective, don't just pretend that your rants mean anything outside your circle of backslappers.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Despite timid al3x's embarasment, I'm happy that someone spoke up and represented freedom. You know that no one was really disruptive because they would have been removed by armed gaurds, duh. Laughs and other expresions of human emotions are appropriate. Remember that the aim of the group is to end individual ownership of general purpose computing devices. This is the only way to enforce "digital security", and its a fundamental violation of the first amendment and much of what the United States stands for. Enforcement of existing laws is all that is needed. Good work New Yorkers for fair use. Good work RMS! Keep it up.
Now, I'm going to get back to my job, knowing that reasonable people are expressing my oppinion where it needs to show. Yeah, back to work in the "power structure", a nuclear power plant.
Those of you who would represent the crowd as "hippies" who "think this is still the sixties and that they were at a rally", can fuck off. Silly smear tactics like that won't wash of the facts of Paladium, Carnivore, Passport, CSS "zones" and all that other evil shit aimed at making pay per play, no fair use, and complete editorial control of all digital media. The real ugglies are those who would make laws to force perverse technology that no one wants.
No one needs to record the text, except by tape, because all proceedings are a matter of public record.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
How important is this fight? In the 60's, people got involved and forced real change. And I'm sure when that process was warming up, many activist group newsletters had articles just like this one: Outlining the fear that "Those embarrassing nuts are going to ruin our only chance at making a difference."
Of course those issues were much more obviously central to human need and survival than these are. It's not (quite) as hard to stand your ground and take a beating to keep your peers from dying. Or to give up personal liberties and face jail time to prevent the oppression of your society.
If people believed in the OSS/DMCA/Fair Use causes enough to step in front of harpoons, to march in force and risk beatings or jail time, I suspect they could force some significant change. There is a limit, after all, to the power of money - even the almost limitless amount that "the other camp" can muster against the causes of liberty...
The only question is: Is this fight important enough? Will it spawn an Abby Hoffman or a group like the Black Panthers? Is it enough to wake up the sheep that are most affected by it?
What's really being taken away from us? What are the chances that we won't be able to take it back?
What are we really fighting here? Is it corporate greed? Covernment control? Public laziness? Is there even a front line to hold here?
If the goal is to turn the MPAA/RIAA from thier current course, there's only one way to do it - get the public to see what they're losing, and make them care.
If the goal is to convince the government to support our freedoms in this issue, again - the decisions will fall to the largest group - get the public, the voters to side with you.
If it's to make the general public aware of what big media and the technology companies are doing to them, and get them to take action - That's what you need a real leader for. RMS is strong on ideals, and that's laudable, but he has no public presence, and without the charisma and drive to back up his ideals, he's only a footsoldier looking for a general. The EFF is stretching thier own wings lately, trying to use subversion as a tool to educate. A fantastic tactic, but once again, thier efforts lack charisma, and as a result, are ineffectual.
History has proven that "Merry Pranksters" are capable of bringing the message to the people, through public ridicule, shocking honesty, and downright ground-trembling spectacle. But they need organization, focus, control, and everyone needs to push behind the same arrowhead.
When unorganized efforts attempt this, they come off as purile whining, which is how the events detailled in this current article sound.
What if we had gotten 5 or 6 hundred people to arrive at this workshop - 400 of them lined up outside, chanting during the proceedings?
What if we had convinced educated, like-minded musicians, actors and directors to show up - would they dare to disallow the very people they claim to be trying to protect the right to speak?
What if we could get enough public awareness to get a 2-day boycott of cds, dvds, tv and movie theaters? Something heavy enough to show on the charts - to make advertisers and broadcasters take notice, and to make people everywhere wake up to the fact that they can take 100% control of this country anytime they really want to, no matter how long they've given thier power to the proxies in office... And then get those newly-empowered masses involved in a two-week boycott. During sweeps, the Superbowl, or the start of July.
How do these things happen? Once, there were people who could produce events like these - where are those people during this situation? Is it impossible for the 2000s to spawn a Martin Luther (King or t'other one), a Thomas Jefferson, or am Abey Hoffman?
Are they all dead, strangled by corporate greed, or are the problems we now face just not important enough to bring them to the forefront?
Our best hope, I'm surprised at myself to say, is in a Free Market, and not screaming, indignant geeks passing out buttons and shouting down Jack Valenti.
You're absolutely right about free markets being the solution. Where you're wrong is that any form of DRM would be precisely anti-free-market. There is no optimum compromise here. Those "screaming, indignant geeks" are fighting for our basic freedoms of speech and expression in an open society. Those freedoms die if we lose control of our tools of expression.
The same goes for privacy rights. What would the world be like if everything we read, listened to, and watched was tracked by media giants for the purpose of pay-per-usage? And it wouldn't even have to be for extracting micro-payments. Any official DRM-enabled viewer device would have some sort of unique identifier. And any DRM-enforced information source would be able to get than info during authentication.
We all need to take a firm stance on this issue. If any of the crap being proposed makes it way into legislation, mass boycotts are in order. And I don't mean using the latest Napster clone to warez pop music. I mean spreading pamphlets throughout our neighborhoods, organizing peaceful demonstrations, refusing to buy any product of the offending parties--yes, that means stop going to / renting movies, cancelling your cable TV, not buying your favorite artist's CD's, ignoring record-label organized concerts, etc. Freedom is more important than a few minor pleasures for the time being.
Thanks, al3x, for the summary of the DRM workshop. Of course I would prefer to characterize my comments as "moderate" rather than "timid". I believe our moderate stance is what has given us the opportunity to present the case for fair use in face-to-face meetings with a number of Senators and Representatives; to testify in front of both the House and the Senate; and to participate in policy discussions like the DRM roundtable and Tauzin's digital television workshop on Monday.
You might have other opinions about how to best effect political change, and we certainly welcome all efforts towards the goal of protecting fair use, even if we disagree on tactics. Hopefully we can at least agree to support each other so that we can be that much more likely to win this fight.
We should not wear suits and conform to them. Let them conform to us. The only reason you want to wear a suit is because you are attracted to power figures.
Don't ask other people to wear suits; suits are stupid. A tie is a sign that says "Herd instincts more powerful than desire to function --- don't worry, you can predict my actions." Some of us have more self-respect than that.
I'll just say that you're the first person to interpret those lines that way. So take what I'm saying at face value: I don't like Jack Valenti, I don't think he's a good guy, and I don't think he's reasonable, nor was I trying to convey any of that. I was just goddamn surprised that he nodded in approval, with the rest of the group, that P2P wasn't inherently a bad thing.
Sheesh. Sometimes your allies take the most persuading.
You're typecasting. Not surprising. You'd be surprised to see me in person.
And I do know how to address my audience.. I drew you out of the wordwork, didn't I?
It looks like Stallman knows how to address his audience.. Jack Valenti didn't look all too happy to have him there. In fact, I'm sure it further angered him that Stallman didn't have Armani on. If there was any fashion insight that should have been modded up, that was it.
What people in this thread don't get is that the goal is not to convince corporate/government of th e need to protect consumers, because indeed, they do not care. The goal is to scare them.
Corporate/Government thinks it can get away with whatever it wants these days. Did you see their call for public comment? I posted there (did you?). It was a 2x2 box on a web-page, and according to the article that was posted, they shutdown the EFF and the public that did show up.
Why would the EFF lawyer still show up if she knew she couldn't say anything to them? Because it wasn't a debate, it was a show of force.
Something else that's been proven time and time again, if you're interested, is that when people put down their daily work to show up at boring corp/gov meetings, you're going to have a tough fight... and for what it's worth, cheers to Stallman for this minor victory... got IBM and Intel to speak up apparently (they know that geeks need to be appeased, whether the geeks have Armani or not).
But it is important to recognize that the protection of the "corporate veil," as it's known to lawyers, is not absolute. The mere fact that you are an executive or director of a corporation does not constitute a license to commit crimes. If you do commit fraud, or any other criminal act, while serving in that capacity, the government can prosecute you just as it could any other citizen. My feeling, echoed by many at this juncture, is that far too few criminal prosecutions have been brought, and far too little attention given to ferreting out fraud and other criminal conduct by corporate officers. This systemic failure probably is in large part responsible for the wholesale breakdown in ethics among corporate officers that is now being exposed. But since the corporate structure does not protect individuals from criminal prosecution in the first place, eliminating it would not affect the degree of oversight or the rate of prosecution.
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
I'll post this comment in response to those who equate the actions of the sneering New Yorkers for Fair Use and ESR with the civil rights heros of the 1960s: it's time to return to Earth, you've been on another planet too long.
You might notice that you rarely see Martin Luther King in anything but a three piece suit, even in the heat of summer. You might notice that he was educated, eloquent, and able to converse with anyone from the working class to wealthy politicians.
The Black Panthers where the militant end of a civil rights fight that many claim they did more harm than good for with their unreasonable stances (freeing all black prisoners, regardless of their crimes, for example). And it was the media's coverage of the atrocities in Alabama that ultimately swayed the American public; what system is bigger than the media? They were working it.
And let's get real: as potentially chilling the effects of DRM are, they pale in comparison to the fights of the 1960s, and it's insulting to equate the two. Even more insulting, had you seen the behaviour of these "rambunctious ones." They were no Martin Luther Kings. They were no heros.
Witnessing (and having been on the receiving end) of a whole lot of vitriol on your part in various mailing lists and USENET groups, I find you telling people to be more 'low key' an amazing piece of chutzpah. Perhaps you're an entirely different human being in person, but judging from the enormous amount of screed I've seen from you in various linux and DC groups, well, let's just say that the first time I ever meet you, I'm going to punch you directly in the face. I've left various groups just because I could no longer stand any of your constant whining and bitching and 'advocacy'.
Perhaps you've changed in the last few years, but I remember you with nothing but loathing and hate. You are everything that's wrong with Linux advocacy. You've been my poster child for everything that's bad about online communication. I could go on about this, but I have work to do.
If you ever introduce yourself at a gathering and out of nowhere somebody hits you, that will most likely have been me. I'm going to post anonymously because I have no desire to revisit past diatribes, nor do I want to be identified as the culprit if someone else hits you. I know of at least two other people who have found your online rantings to be equally offensive. I'm sure there's more.
Telling people to be more low-key. Really, Serge. Next thing you know you'll stop distributing child pornography. And I know you'd never give that up.
One of your ex-rantee's
P.S. Two clues: You berated me once about using Star Office (not free enough, if I remember your vitriol correctly) and my slashdot number is lower than yours. That should narrow it down for you. Cheers, rage-boy.
Nope. Reality is the place where these issues have already been decided. The only option for freedom-minded people is to go elsewhere and start again.
I'm all for Mars. Who's with me?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Is there a audio recording of this meeting? I am sure a lot of use would like to hear it. I would like to find out if those representing use were or were not as disruptive as the writer claims.
Newsflash: You are not as brilliant as you think you are. Get over yourself.
I tend to agree with the general sentiment that looking eccentric, or behaving raucously, is not mandatory for change. If you think of ALL the changes that have come about socially in this country, some occured without much struggle at all. After a certain point, things just *happen*, like to some degree the DRM debate. I think the real anger began when the record companies saw how many people began quietly but defiantly downloading music over Napster - and then when the record companies started complaining, people started asking why the hell music was so much different from a dozen other forms of artistic expression/media.
However I do take issue with the comparison to the Civil Rights movement, albeit only slightly. I don't think it's insulting to compare the two...these are the battles we have to fight in this generation. We don't always get to pick our fights. Likewise, there are always people out there telling you that various issues aren't all THAT important. But what are the eventual consequences of "hard-line" DRM legislation? Why is it that the "big fight" of the 60s has to overshadow the battles of this generation? Civil Rights was the big topic of that day, and consumer rights are one of the big ones today. Besides, draconian control over consumer habits could lead to a social situation not entirely unlike an equally pernicious governmental situation.
And no, I don't think the word "heros" applies to those gentlemen at the previous event. However I'm not sure anyone there is going to stop these measures (DRM) from advancing without some serious weight on his side.
No, corporations have more rights. As you pointed out yourself, corporations have limited liability. We do not.
I can guarantee you that you do not want to scare the government. Look at what they're doing to muslim-americans in the name of terrorism, when that scared them. You think that your rights are being trampled now, you ain't seen nothing on what will happen when you "scare them".
Finally, I really am skeptical that any of the geeks "scared" anyone so much as they annoyed them with their rudeness. That leads to the dismiss them because their crackpots reaction, not listen to them because they're right/know what they're talking about.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Once you consent to become a pawn, you lose the ability to make your own decisions. That may seem alright when your cause has good leadership, but it doesn't ever stay that way for ever.
"they're" not "their". Damn spellchecker. :-)
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
It bothers me that this was a meeting hosted by the US Dept. of Commerce and invited parties were almost exclusively industry reps. This reflects the Bush Administration's bias toward business and the consumer be damned. It seems to me that a 'roundtable' hosted by our gov't should try to represent ALL interested parties. We need to make our voices heard as it painfully obvious who Washington DC is choosing to listen to.
I thought that this was one of the better articles I have seen on /. in a long time. Kudos to al3x.
It irritates me endlessly to see American corporations trying to push their way of thinking not only onto America, but onto the rest of the world too.
Sometimes, it seems like a lot of you yanks forget the rest of us. Changes to laws in America are reflected in changes to the American industry; which then effects the rest of the world's consumers. For example - if/when (*shudder*) Palladium comes into being, do you _really_ think the hardware manufacturing industry will continue to create non-Palladiumised systems to send to nations where such systems might be deemed illegal or undesirable? I doubts it greatly. We all get stuck with exactly the same crap; and we don't get a chance to get a word in edgewise.
It seems to be such a typical refrain from the heights of the American feudalism (Government/Corporations). "America is the greatest nation on God's green Earth; therefore, we'll decide what we want and shovel it down everyone else's throat."
Perhaps you can use this argument to further your point(s), somehow? If America wants to position itself as a global leader, then (IMO) it should consider the effects of things globally. You can say, "Well, if Australia (for example) doesn't like it, they can start their own manufacturing industry." And I guess, when all is said and done, that's an entirely valid point.
But it would be nice, oh so very nice, if once in a while, America didn't run roughshod over the rest of us. There's only so much people can take.
Believe you me. We can't take much more. Ah well - worst case scenario, we'll just do what we always do, and buy cheap-ass dodgy parts frmo Taiwan, and hope like hell we can make 'em work. =)
-Andy White
"America might call itself the greatest nation on God's green Earth, but last time I checked, the Earth is more a blue sort of colour."
All the same comments were made against the civil rights and the Vietnam war protestors as are being made in this forum except that in place of "nerds" and "geeks" it was "students" and "hippies". Labeling someone by the way they look is practically traditional. And, even though there are always some (on both sides) who overreact I still think it's important to get "in their faces" when it comes to standing up for ourselves.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
New Yorkers for Fair Use and NYLXS, two sister orgnaization which have worked very hard on this issue, feels the need to correct many of the errors mentioned in these news articles and reports.
First, I'd like to say that I want to thank the some 20 members of the New York constituency which left NYC at 4AM to be in Washington by 10AM to meet with the press prior to the meetings.
Prior to going to Washington, NYLXS and NYFAIRUSE
tried through the efforts of Seth Johnson and Ruben Safir to be represented on the panel. We tried by getting into contact with Chris Israel, the liason for the department of commerce, and by trying to call in politicians, such as the offices of Anthony Weiner, who sits on the house IP subcommittee, All these consideralbe efforts failed.
Our presense within the hearing prevented noone from presenting their case, but it assured that everyone heard the publics point of view. NYFairuse no more prevented any activities of this panel than the crowd at Yankee stadium prevents the oppoisition from coming to bat. We absolutely were contrained and the leader of the event, Ruben Safir, was very careful in quieting and controlling the crowd, to prevent the panel from breaking down into a disruptive crowd.
The fact is, that NYLXS and NYFairuse was everywhere at this meeting. It was serendipity that one of our members, who just by chance was sitting near the panel table, was called on by chance, by the chair. Brett Wynkoop, who was called on, indeed presented an interesting arguement which was taken up by the panel for nearly 20 minutes.
NYFairuse in no way disrupted anything at this panel. We did, however, represent the public interest in a polite but persistant way, by allowing the public to be felt in the presentation. We did this largely by clapping, and interjecting some comments. The only time we actually became involved in the official discorse was when called upon by the chair, or Jack Valenti.
It's really beyond my grasp to understand how anyone could complain about out tactics, unless they work with Jack Valenti. The forum was NOT going to take in any public opinion. Seth Johnson sat with his hand up for 3 hours, quitely, never being called upon or to be heard.
It's hard for us to understand why people who claim to represent freedom and the public interest could point a waving finger at NYLXS and NYFAIRUSE, but simply accept the straight out lieing and misinformation being stated from the panel. Panel members had the audacity to say things like like Musician really love their record lables but claim otherwise because they need to keep their image, or that the movie industry really didn't try to end the VCR, they just wanted to help it a little.
Or even worse, everyone freely lied about who the stakeholders are in this important public issue, or that all the DRM schemes essential provide a legal basic for theft from the stakeholders to the motion picture industry. If you can believe that we didn't help bring this issue productively to the public, then choose indeed to instead beleive that this panel is reasonable and represents your interest and that the internet is simply a deliver system.
As our Presdent Ruben Safir says..
We are the stakeholders
DRM is Theft.
Anyone else notice that their acronym would be NYFU?
`/\/\
(^.^)
(")(")
not quite an analog pussy, just a cat that plays with vinyl
The impact of the protestors is a tough question, and the answer probably isn't a simple shorter/longer.
During the late Johnson period, protests might well have helped create second thoughts among the Democratic elite. Remember, at first the war was supported by people like Robert Kennedy, the NY Times editorial page, most elected Democrats. Middle-aged liberal reporters, professors, politicians and policy-makers started to wonder why these kids (smart kids, too -- the early protests were concentrated at top schools) who claimed to have the same liberal values were so opposed to the war. Bob McNamara, very much wanting to fit into the Cambridge/Berkeley set, was troubled by his own kids and their friends protesting outside his Pentagon. Made them pay attention to the issue, at least. And even if they didn't agree with the kids about the war, those "liberal Establishment" types hated to see great universities in turmoil and "the country tearing itself apart". Not a huge effect, but some.
In terms of the general population though, the protests probably didn't help much. They never made much headway with the broader public, and as the protests got bigger, more violent, more grungy into 1968 and after, they really turned people off. Nixon was more popular than the protestors. More people were in favor of hosing 'em down and locking 'em up than listening to them, and that did make it easy to paint all the war opponents as if they were Abbie Hoffman or Jane Fonda. Plus, Nixon and Agnew wouldn't have minded a bit if Columbia and Yale burned down, and believed that if the country was tearing itself apart, the way to calm it down was with a nightstick, not negotiating with the "punks". Most people agreed with them.
Dear Mr. Bond
I do not know how you can say that you hosted a "Public Workshop on Digital Entertainment and Rights Management." that would "bring together leaders from the information technology and content industries;" when you would not listen to Richard Stallman. Richard Stallman is a god. He has forgotten more about computers than everyone in the room ever knew or will ever know.
Yet you are willing to let that superannuated, drunken bagman Jack Valenti speak at length. The only thing you are convincing the public of is that you and the rest of the vicious curs in Washington (a/k/a politicians) have already been paid for and delivered. The only thing you can do now to convince us that this process has any legitimacy is to drop it altogether.
He interpretted the lines the way you wrote them, al3x. You can come out that closet. Being paid by the MPAA & RIAA to spread their lies only makes you a whore in one way. Please, please try and pretend otherwise.
Yes, I too can make claims about other individuals and make them seem contradictory. It is unbelievable easy to take things out of context. You are just sooo skilled.
How do these restricted reading technologies make the material available to everyone when copyright expires?
GO TO HELL ASSHOLE!
Who said evil men have no sense of humor?
There is no balance to be had. There is no difference between a computer and any other publishing machine. It is illegal to use a printing press to publish someone else's book or cash, but no one feels the need to gaurd each and every one of them. Why is it that someone is thinking of tacking a dongle onto my motherboard to "protect" music and other rapciously copyrighted garbage? Anything that acomplishes their goals makes someone else the owner of my machine, as they will have files I can not erase that will decide what I can and can not coppy. It's completely unAmerican.
Just because the meeting is going on in a big, spooky government office doesn't mean it was a conspiritorial gestapo session.
That's right, it's an in your face attack on computing freedom and the bill of rights.
Stop watching so many movies and get involved. These processes are open to the public and people with an under-represented viewpoint. You just gotta work for it.
I change one mind at a time. I compare the insanity of DRM, Carnivore, etc, to ordinary things we take for granted: Libraries, the US Post Office, what not that respect the constitution. Think about the stated goals and how they can be can be accomplishe without violating your rights. Think about why you have to be treated like a criminal. The choices offered are all unreasonable and I no more want to work with them than I want to watch movies. Freedom is what this country is supposed to stand for. The whole DRM conversation is a nightmare.
I have a clue, and it comes from RMS. It's a shame that you make him out to be a poor public speeker, and it may be so. There are fewer contradictions in his writing, however, than most men's. I suggest you read some more of it, after all that's where I got the printing press analogy. He refered to the old Soviet Union's practice of placing gaurds at all copy machines. DRM is worse than that, and should be seen that way. Having a real job makes it hard to go to Washington DC, so I too filled out the feedback form, and I post here, and I tell the people around me the dangers of DRM.
RMS is correct, please support him as he fights for your rights. Superficial problems like poor manners are entirely subjective. I don't believe you when you say that he was outright disruptive, as he would have been removed. Order is well maintained in US government hearings.
As for the Fair use crowd, have you ever considered that they are agent provocetures in their midst? Their whole point misses the mark: It's not about "fair use" of prolefeed, it's about freedom.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
years or so there will be
nothing left on this planet
Don't believe that report, don't believe the
next one, be reasonable.
This kind of attitude would be like, if you want a new OS, you need to build it using Visual Basic because that's the standard that the authorities have told us to follow and if we don't comply they won't take us seriously.
The answer is fuck "their" standards. Draw the line. Stand up and be a real person not a goddam actor playing a freakin' part (note, that's the word you use in the title of your post). Keep it real homie. You don't have to bow to some conservative asswipes in order to be taken seriously. In fact, if you bow down, they'll kick you in the teeth. This is the oldest trick in the book. You have to put your face on the curb there so I won't kick you in the head bitch, come on do it NOW!
I think the fact that this character that posted the story thinks ten bucks a month to listen to music is a good deal is in line with this pathetic begging for mercy mentality. You don't beg with these assholes, you instruct them that they are on the wrong the side of the fence with all clarity possible using distinct visual cues including clothing, hairstyles, slogans anything that can differentiate you from the existing "standards."
This character acts so concerned about minding Ps and Qs when it comes to fancy dress, but you notice that in the course of this thread he re-posts his same fashion sense diatribes verbatim to different threads ingnoring Slashdot's etiquette. Re-posting is simply trolling, is it not?
Clothes are a very personal form of expression and a publicly stated fascination with garmentry and uniforms in particular is usually suggestive of a desire to express some aspect of one's personal life in public.
That's fine and many people like to use Slashdot to expose themselves in public in this manner --or to use the clothing related metaphor, to come out of the closet. But basically I think he needs some cheese and crackers because it sounds like he has an excess of whine.
I see your point, and at times it is in effect, but I think you may underestimate peoples' reactions to activists.
The "other standards" that apply are usually what activists are questioning by their activity. If things normal processes were OK, you could really just send in your enlightened opinions, and they would receive their due review.
However, it seems that's exactly what isn't happening. That was supposed to be a closed, under-the-radar meeting.. now that it has exposure, those corp/gov people can't be happy. And to know that they can't just slime their way into the pockets of the activists is one of the key reasons why.
I dunno, I was just concerned that the main reaction to those people showing up at a basically hostile conference was "you guys weren't representing us well". I thought they did a fine job.
Describing the parties as media companies, tech companies, and consumers is part of the problem!
We are: people, citizens, individuals, readers, and so on. We are not merely "consumers". The word has several unjustified associations that help media companies define the terms of the debate.
"Consumer" implies that people passively and mindlessly eat what they're given. Even in the status quo this is not true: people criticize, filter, and converse with media; in the internet age it is even less true.
"Consumer" implies that people only consume and do not produce; in fact there is no sharp boundary, and the web blurs it even more.
"Consumer" implies that the party has no rights or
responsibilities other than to consume.
You should reject description of yourself as a "consumer", and use "citizen", "person", "individual" or something similar instead.