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.
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.
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...
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?
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)
In the future, the people will own nothing, everything will be rented from the new state, i.e. the corporations.
What is wrong with you anti-corporation people? Do you just not know what one is? A corporation IS OWNED BY PEOPLE. That's like saying that "no one will have files in the future, only directories will have files". A corporation is just a container for holding assets, with certain legal protections for the owners of the corporation.
Unless you want to be criminally liable if you just happened to own a share of stock in a company that does something criminal, the legal protections are a good -- vital -- idea.
People REALLY need to clue in that corporations are not some magic, evil boogeyman.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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
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!
They are the Greenpeace nuts on inflatables ramming whaling ships or nuclear powered aircraft carrier off the coast of France.
I think that a lot of people posting to this have neglected the fact that the greenpeace nuts, the stallmanites, hecklers, etc., act as "Extremists" on a spectrum. There are always two most extreme sets of people in any particular debate. The farther these people are, the more extreme you can get and still appear reasonable. If you like source code availability, the Free Software movement acted as extremists, and the Open Source movement was made to appear very reasonable and thought-out. Without the FS movement, the OS movement would have looked extreme.
So yeah, they make you look bad. And they might not accomplish alot. But they're an important part of a dynamic in any debate.
-Rob
-Rob Ewaschuk
not even a suit is completely necessary. a lot of people in Declan's photos were pretty well dressed.
golf shirt + khakis will do. so would a golf shirt tucked into plain denim jeans. no shirts with statements on them (like that one guy's "got DeCSS?"). small company logo's on the left-upper portion are ok.
other suggestions: groomed hair (ie, combed). controlled beards (no jokes about RMS's - he was wearing a good example). remove odd piercings (gentlemen - this includes earrings). attempt to cover tatoos.
and yes - speak in turn, without flaming. if they interrupt you, they make themselves look bad, and you can cash in by interrupting them back (in a stern voice) "Excuse me, I have the floor. I waited for you to finish your statements, now it is my turn"
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
A corporation IS OWNED BY PEOPLE.
Usually a very few people. Even companies with a large number of shareholders, who are ostensibly "owners", are run by a select minority.
The power belongs to a few, not to "the people". The rules are made by a few, and enforced by a few. Did you ever vote for your company's next CEO? Did his/her term ever expire? Do company employees collectively decide which causes to lobby, which public official to support?
You're right that companies are not inherently evil. Neither are they inherently good. The problem is that power structure more closely resembles a feudal aristocracy than a democracy. Some time ago, and even today, there were popular uprisings, beheadings, and all manner of grisly events resulting from popular transitions to a different system.
I'm certainly not suggesting that the state of multi-national corporatism is such that this kind of reponse is called for. All that's happening here in this forum is that people are *talking* about the issue. And you're getting upset about it.
As for the legal protections corporations provide, you're right, they are a good idea. But that doesn't necessarily argue a need for the status quo.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Most people don't want to be associated with a pack of fanatics, certainly not loudmouth boorish geek fanatics. There is nothing that the RIAA and the MPAA would like more than convincing most people that the fair use movement consists of nothing but a rag tag bunch of loudmouth louts looking to steal music, movies and software.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
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
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.
I find your comparison to "Greenpeace Nuts" humorous. Contrary to what many on this thread claim I and most of the contigent from nyfairuse.org
were dressed in suits, or at worst sportcoats.
The "type_G_geeks" as you mention were from many places. We are fortunant that many local DC people who care about personal freedom and defending the constitution also turned out. Our group planned this venture, and overcame much to
bring the dangerous secret proceedings out into the open.
When I first arrived at the DOC (parent agency of
my alma mater) at 1130 hours a local DC activist in red tee shirt had just been told that the hearing was now a closed hearing and no public would be admitted. I was able by force of logic and some rhetoric I never new I had in me to convince the powers that were in charge that the public must be admitted to a 'public hearing". We were then told to come back at 1240 and we would be admitted.
When the procedings started and we were asked to take seats I waited patiently until a point came up that I wanted to comment on and could comment on without disrupting the meeting as the speakers were being asked to give reports on what they had done since the last meeting. Mr. Bond called on me and I stated my point, which Mr. Bond tried to interupt. Those that know me know that I have a natural projection that can fill most auditoriums without the aid of amplification. Needless to say I finished my point. The crew from nyfairuse.org only began to shout out rebuttals to the pannel
after Mr. Bond said he would no longer call on me or any other person not on the pre-arranged speakers list. He instead directed all comment to the lame web site with a postage stamp size textbox that almost defies use. Only when it became apparent that the goverment did not care about hearing from the people did our members become publicaly vocal. Our members acted in the greatest traditions of the founders of this country and of those that wish to preserve "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Acta non verba!
Brett Wynkoop
USMMA 1981
co-founder New Yorkers For Fair Use