Results of the Commerce Dept's DRM Workshop

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.

Comments

Fair use?

[sjwt]

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..

Look the part

[WPIDalamar]

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.

Re:Look the part

[NixterAg]

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.

That's because they see that the group doesn't want to listen to them. If you want someone to take you seriously then you have to take them seriously.

Re:Look the part

[SWroclawski]

I agree with you for the most part.

I'm in the pics (left of) Vin (the rather large fellow who actually got the roundtable to respond to him directly and have our position heard.

By biggest complaint in the way the situation was handled was that by going SO overboard, the New Yorkers hurt the point. It was important for us to interupt them, to "correct" thier "mistakes" and catch them on thier lies, but often it became less of that and more heckling as well as just making a spectacle of oneself.

That *hurts* the cause. Why? It lets them give the idea that we're just a bunch of kooks.

I think that the way things happened did help- but I certainly would have felt better if some of the attendees on our side had been a bit more low key.

- Serge Wroclawski

Re:Look the part

[lunenburg]

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.

I'll second that. At the VERY least, place a phone call to your US Senators and US Representative. This is a 30-second (literally) process, and is the bare minimum that anyone concerned by this issue should do. It at least gets another tick-mark in the "no" column for DRM issues.

By all means, if you're more motivated, write, fax , email, or even set up a meeting with your rep's local staffer. I did that - it's not bad, and you can usually get a meeting with them within a day or so.

If you need to brush up on talking points, Digital Consumer has a lot of great references, FAQs, etc. Make your points in a calm, logical manner, pointing out that DRM A) won't stop piracy, B) will retard the technological innovation that has pushed our economy in the past 50 years, and C) only serves the interests of a few fat-cat media cartels.

But, please, do something to help stop this. We as a community dropped the ball on the DMCA, and look where it's gotten us. We can't afford to do the same on DRM.

Re:Look the part

[rot26]

If every slashdot reader were to write a simple letter to their senators & congressmen about fair use, there'd be no stopping us

I'll second that. It only takes a few minutes and the potential payoff is HUGE. Here is some good info on the protocols involved, and this will let you find out who to contact.

Re:Look the part

[Reality Master 101]

That *hurts* the cause. Why? It lets them give the idea that we're just a bunch of kooks.

The biggest problem with the "cause" is that a lot (dare I say "most") of the activists ARE kooks who think that Intellectual Property should be completely thrown out, and they should be able to steal anything they want.

The solution isn't to "dress up the kooks", but for the more reasonable voices to rise up and be heard. Unfortunately, the reasonable voices (such as myself) don't care about the issue to rise up, except perhaps if they start talking about mandating hardware solutions. That's the level that I start to care.

Re:Look the part

[SWroclawski]

I think there's value in re-examining the ideas of "Intellectual Property". I suggest that if you haven't- you read Richard Stallman's discussions of the history and purpose of copyright.

But let's ignore that issue for a moment and focus on the DRM issue. The question, even for the most fundamental believers in "Intellectual Property" (a term I have serious problems with), isn't what they will want and not want, but with what methods (technological but more importantly legal) they will use to achieve thier goals.

And we, the members of the concerned public (including those in the Free Software Movement) have intelligent, well spoken people who can represent our views. Even, dare I say, Richard Stallman, and Eben Moglen.

We musn't equate good speakers with being moderates. Otherwise we'd have to concede that the roundtable members (including our friend Jack) was a "moderate" on the side of big buisness interests.

- Serge Wroclawski

Re:Look the part

[setmajer]

I wasn't there, and so cannot say whether the NYC faction was over the line or not, but there was a point to be made by utterly disrupting the roundtable: there were no voices for the consumer there. Why should we allow them to discuss our future without our participation?

No, tech industry reps do not count. They're going to follow the money, pure and simple. If they can make more money by screwing us, they will. That's their responsibility to their shareholders, after all: make money, not good social policy.

Dressing in a suit and playing The Game isn't always effective. It is stacked against the public at large.

While it's important that we all work within the system as well, it is equally important that when the process is completely stacked against consumers (i.e., no voice for consumers at the roundtable) we go ahead and change the rules.

Re:Look the part

[MadAhab]

The biggest problem with the "issue" is that a lot of the industry types ARE jackbooted fascist clowns and mafiosos in disguise who think nothing should be though or spoken without paying them a tribute and they should get royalties if you dream about mickey mouse and that you are a thief if you go to the bathroom too often during commercials.

I say the solution is to have the industry dress up like clowns in jackboots. That way we can see Valenti et al for what they really are. Unfortunately, the reasonable voices (such as myself) are unlikely to be heard until these enemies of freedom push society within an inch of permanent intellectual servitude.

Re:Look the part

[Reality Master 101]

I suggest that if you haven't- you read Richard Stallman's discussions of the history and purpose of copyright.

Stallman is a kook's kook who severely damages anything he touches. I'm not saying he hasn't also made contributions (obviously), but the last person I would want representing me is Stallman.

Stallman reminds me a lot of Libertarians, not in philosophy but in attitude. He tunnel visions around simplistic philosophical theories while ignoring the bigger picture that the real world doesn't fit his little theories. Instead of working with the real, messy world, he insists that reality change to suit his theory.

Some would call that madness, and I wouldn't disagree.

Re:Look the part

[SWroclawski]

The idea that only one tactic is appropriate is countrer-productive to the end goal of Freedom.

The idea that if one does not follow your methodologies (not even your philosophy but the methods!) is somehow against your movement is, I'll say again, counter-productive.

If you keep the noise/signal ratio such that no one can hear when you have something reasonable to say, then your message, valid as it may be, will never be heard. Those who hear many messages will tune you out.

The message is on the mark- but the way to deliver that message is with pointed skill rather than a blunt instrument.

I stand by what I've said. You may have the right message, but the presentation is what counts in front of that crowd.

- Serge Wroclawski

Re:Look the part

[0x0d0a]

...there were no voices for the consumer there. Why shoudl we allow them to discuss our future without our participation?

They want a tax on blank media?

I seem to remember a famous phrase: "No taxation without representation..."

AYBABTU

[r_j_prahad]

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.

Re:AYBABTU

[lavaforge]

How is this different than the feudal system? Just face it, we're the new surfs.

That being said. I just put out a letter to Senator Rick Santorum about this. I doubt that he'll listen, but it's worth a shot.

Re:AYBABTU

[Reality Master 101]

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.

Re:AYBABTU

[thales]

An excellant example of "double plus duckspeak" from a poster with Orwell in his sig line.

Was there a point hidden among all the slogans? I saw was a lot of loaded words aimed at stirring up prejudace against corparations, a few wild accusations, and allmost no content. The fact that you hate and fear corparations is apparant, but if you have a logical reason for feeling this way, it was lost in the emotionalisic tone of your post.

Re:AYBABTU

[wfrp01]

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.

Re:AYBABTU

[Tackhead]

> Of course a corporation is owned by people. That doesn't mean those people have any say in what the corporation as a whole does.

When was the last time you looked at a shareholder proxy?

The owners of the corporation elect the Board. If the Board is sucking ass, the owners of the corporation can withhold their vote for a nominated director, or - if a shareholder has an alternate slate of directors that he or she would prefer, and can convince a majority of other shareholders that this new board would be preferable to the current board - elect a new board.

I'll grant that this doesn't happen often. But whose fault is that? The fault of the board, or the fault of the shareholders who re-elect it?

Re:AYBABTU

[MrResistor]

I'm certainly not suggesting that the state of multi-national corporatism is such that this kind of reponse is called for.

I am. ;-P

Seriously, though, the lack of responsibility for decisions created by the protections offered by the corporate legal structure is a real problem for our society as a whole. Corporations have all the rights of a person with none of the consequences. You can't put a corporation in jail. What needs to happen is for those protections to be reduced for the decision makers (meaning the board members and top executives). This does make sense in our legal structure, since a key part of our body of law is based on intent. The people in charge, the people responsible, need to be held accountable for the decisions they make, and not just financially, but criminally. I think this would bring a serious change, and I sincerely beleive that it would be for the better.

I would love to believe that our system will work, since I much prefer to do things that way. It may not be fast, but it is usually right in the end. If it comes down to it, though, I'll be right there on the front lines decapitating execs and their government puppets. If the system no longer responds to the people, than the people need to dismantle it.

Re:AYBABTU

[wfrp01]

I should have said that I think /some/ of the systems legal protections are warranted. E.G. - someone responsible for a workplace accident should suffer some liability, but not to the extent that they lose their home and everything they own. But that's not the same as saying everything has to be structured the way it is now.

Re:AYBABTU

[Christopher Whitt]

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.

So, then, just who is liable when a corporation does something criminal?

People REALLY need to clue in that corporations are not some magic, evil boogeyman.

People will probably find less reason to be cynical when corporate executives making the decisions in cases of criminal corporate actions get punishments comparable to the average person who commits theft, fraud or assault.

I'll be the first to say I know little about the subject, but I sure don't get the impression that corporate crimes get adequately punished these days. It seems that nobody is responsible for the criminal actions. Wierd.

Re:AYBABTU

[j7953]

A corporation IS OWNED BY PEOPLE.

Yes. But that doesn't make them a democratic institution that should be in charge of changing the laws.

Re:AYBABTU

[Moofie]

No.

The purpose of a corporation is to protect its members from the consequences of their actions. Therefore, they are able to take risks and do things that they would not do were they acting independently. Corporations are chartered to do one thing, and one thing only: Make money for stockholders. The fact that the corporation has only this goal, and no responsibility to the society it inhabits, makes them very dangerous entities.

If they were just containers for assets, it wouldn't be a problem, but calling a corporation (particularly a large one) a "container for assets" is like calling an M1A2 Abrams main battle tank a "container for soldiers".

Re:AYBABTU

[MrResistor]

Actually, my nic comes from the fact that I measure over 17MOhms across my tongue.

But, no, I haven't read "A Tale of Two Cities" yet. I plan to, though. I really enjoyed "Great Expectations".

Fending Off the Deluge of Angry Geektivists...

[al3x]

A bunch of the comments y'all are about to make have already been made at Kuro5shin (sorry for double-posting, I didn't think Slashdot would pick this up!). I've already responded to a bunch of them, defending my questioning of what has been the geek party line, one that I've towed vehemently for a long, long time.

I'm happy, however, to at least offer my views and any clarifications readers want. Thanks!

Re:Fending Off the Deluge of Angry Geektivists...

[soloport]

I hope some artist (I'm not an artist), someday, tries the following model on for size:
* Post all music on-line, as free, high-quality MP3 and Ogg formats
* Offer a concert signup (w/CCV) page -- "Coming to your city on [date] (based on demand)"
* Offer refunds for cancelled concerts (for dates that fail, due to a lack of interest)
* Upon crossing the right signup/cost threshold, rent concert space and go to town!

I would think this business model would make the right band a killing and incur no strings attached from any label!

Let the music (downloads) drive people into the concert hall; Let the concert-take be the real source of income.

Could be far more work, but... Isn't this sort of what the Grateful Dead did much of the time?

Re:Fending Off the Deluge of Angry Geektivists...

[AugstWest]

Just for future reference, it's "toed," not "towed."

It's a matter of dragging your foot along the line, or standing on the line with your toes touching it or extending over it.

Re:Fending Off the Deluge of Angry Geektivists...

[MO!]

The problem with your model is that there's no mention of marketing. That is what prevents un-signed artists from being hugely successful. With the high barrier to entry in the music and movie industry (your independant recording or film can't be sold or advertised in mainstream store/theatres without at minimum a distribution agreement with an MPAA/RIAA member), you have no way of garnering interest in your works beyond a local area.

This is the primary problem with the "content" industry as it exists now. The idea that only members of that industry are qualified to create content is a fundamental aspect of the current business model. Any unaffiliated, truly independant artist is shut out of the game. Please don't tell me a website is equivalent to radio, TV, magazine, billboard, etc advertisements.

The truly fair business model would leave the artist to directly schedule and manage promotional matters, and the Label/Studio would become simple manufacturing and distribution agents. No long term contracts assigning your rights over to someone else, simple non-exclusive contracts that allow multiple Label/Studio's to compete by each preparing and delivering the artist's content in the most cost-effective and appealing manner they can. This would open up the retail and broadcast channels and allow a much greater diversity in available content.

The problem with this is that revenues of existing industry members would dramatically fall. Although they could still make money, it wouldn't be as much as they make now - hence no interest in changing (but tremendous interest in preserving the status quo).

Re:Fending Off the Deluge of Angry Geektivists...

[Tackhead]

> Just for future reference, it's "toed," not "towed."

And as long as we're starting a spelling thread - for anyone reading, here's my pet peeve:

"Populous" was a cool game.

"Populace" is the noun that means "the population".

"Populous" is an adjective meaning "Having a population".

To wit: "PopCon 2001 was held in East Buttfsck, Montana. Nobody showed up. The gaming populace decided to hold next year's PopCon in a more populous region."

Re:Fending Off the Deluge of Angry Geektivists...

[soloport]

I think you're primarily looking at things from a status quo perspective, in the first place. So of course a thinking-out-of-the-box idea will not work in the context of how money is made, in today's market. Therefore, you're half right.

However, wherein labels use traditional channels of promotion to help move their product, including advertising (costly), commercial exposure (costly TV concerts and tie-ins), I would suggest a non-traditional approach to promotion (having suggested a non-traditional approach to distribution).

Word of mouth is a rather powerful tool -- and is free. Also, there seem to be many "independent" on-line radio stations cropping up which pride themselves in playing the obscure. (I'm listening to one now: KGNU. There's also KPIG, RadioParadise.com, etc.) If it's popular, they may play it. If it's good, they *will* play it. The DJs decide what's good, not a programming "consultant".

These means of promotion fit the rest of my model. Therefore, they should work. Save the CD selling for the concert. Charge $5 for a "cheap" run. Mass CD-R burners are relatively inexpensive. Paper cases are, as well. Don't depend on CD sales for much. Don't depend on publishers for much, either.

Why does making money have to conform in any way to yesterday's methods? This is like saying, farmers should stick to selling their goods locally, because selling to a broker that has a railway at his disposal isn't how it's ever been done, before.

We have new means of distribution (the web); We *could* use new means of marketing. I don't see why we need any part of the old edifice.

Re:Fending Off the Deluge of Angry Geektivists...

[MO!]

Yes, however the Sherman Act prevents a single company from abusing monopoly power. It doesn't work so well with an ogilopoly of several companies since theoretically they "compete" with each other.

To make any progress on this front you'd have to bring charges of racketeering against the group of companies for conspiring together to prevent additional competitors from coming to the table. There have already been racketeering and collusion allegations against the MPAA/RIAA members, but so far no convictions which would actually prompt a change.

Extremists in the circle of life--

[DeltaSigma]

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.

Re:Extremists in the circle of life--

[thales]

I Disagree. The extremists are a convient strawman that the RIAA and the MPAA can point at, claiming that is the kind of nuts that oppose this reasonable legislation. All we are asking for is protection from those people.

the geeks need a good rep

[e40]

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?

Re:the geeks need a good rep

[RailGunner]

Wow, I'm getting mentioned by name now?

For the record, I'm a "he", in case that wasn't glaringly obvious.

As far as running for the U.S. House, I'm old enough, but I'm not nearly rich enough to be able to fund a campaign like that. Also, I'd have to move to a district where they have a liberal goof in office before it would even be worth my while. That, and I refuse to cut my hair.

Though.. it would be kind of fun to go to the house floor and totally go off on some of the absolute stupidity in DC. Like making every day a freaking holiday. Actually, that gives me an idea. For the liberals: National Bedwetters Day. :)

Re:the geeks need a good rep

[handorf]

Though.. it would be kind of fun to go to the house floor and totally go off on some of the absolute stupidity in DC. Like making every day a freaking holiday

Doesn't work. Or at least it doesn't work if you've got RICO violations in your past. See... Trafficant. No fun in Congress. (At least not if you're a felon).

regarding GPL'ing music

[unformed]

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.

Re:regarding GPL'ing music

[flacco]

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.

Actually, Richard Stallman agrees with you. He differentiates between "functional" works (e.g. software) and "non-functional" works (e.g. music, literature, etc).

Re:regarding GPL'ing music

[SirSlud]

>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.

Holy shit. What do you think writers do? They read, they hear, they interpret, they remix, they write. Your writings are not original. Neither are my songs. Artists _inherently_ feed on each others' emotions. Thats practically the freaking definition of culture.

This "I made it, so I own it" thing makes sense in the physical world - fixed supply of building blocks. It simply does not hold up in art. Every artist/writer you love is not 10% as original as you probably think they are. Hell, Beethoven used to steal 2 or 3 bars, verbatim, from other musicians.

If everyone has food, shelter and water and the means to make music at the end of the day, any impliciation that you should be free to set all the terms in which your creative works are used is simple greed, and is counterproductive to the system which produced you, the writer. Its 100% hypocritical to suggest that others should not be able to take your work and modify it - I agree that plagerism can be taken too far, but for the most part, start thinking about where you are getting your ideas from ... hopefully from other artists and people ... sources you might not have if everyone took your stance on the supposed ownership of your creative works. Plagerism itself is not some plague that will spread - artsits always want to be creative and to add, so the danger of 'stealing' ideas spiralling out of control runs counter to the very values that makes one an artist. If you were simply taking others work, changing a few lines here and there, would _you_ call it yours and take all the credit? If you are a true artist, I highly doubt it.

my music is not GPL'd per se, but go ahead and steal a few bars here and there. So long as you give credit where credit is due (thats just a simple case of respect, a trend which is waning thanks to the fact that artists are looking more and more greedy by the moment with every 'I own the work' stake we drive into our own coffin, so people are less likely place any importance on simple noted credit), steal it, remix it, change it, have fun with it.

Thats what culture is. If you dont like it, make sure you lock your poems up in a drawer and never publish them. If you make the ideas available, you're killing art if you think nobody should be able to take something and reinterpret it or rework it. So long as they respectfully note the influece they got from your fine work.

And again, anyone is free to take, rework, use, retinterpret my music. Go ahead. If my music is good enough, there is no way that I won't be payed in some form for my contribution to the state of the art. I refuse to contribute to scarcity in culture - why do you think TV and movies blow so badly? Because artists are simply not allowed to create first or second generation remixes without going through 20 legal forms first. Artsits are being forced to create in a vacuum, and its our own damn faults. This is why, increasingly, people are not giving credit where credit is due - think about it, there may be a kind soul out there whos dying to rework your art in a form that will launch your writing career .. somebody to fill that 'last mile' in your work that connects it to the people. Many artists have gotten famous simply because other artists connected them to the last mile of accessibility to the public at large. Lets not kill the one sure thing in culture.

I am not afraid .... artists who are scared of greed or stealing are forgetting the very axioms that make something art. So long as we can eke out a living, why must we be holding our creations increasingly tigher against our chests? Why make our own state of the art harder to advance?

Re:regarding GPL'ing music

[Dr. Awktagon]

Well, as Stallman has expressed on occasion, the best thing is to see what's natural and useful to people. Seems that changing music around is not something people like to do. Few are demanding an artist's Pro Tools files or other "source code". They like to keep it prestine and self-contained, though occasionally people like to make parodies or "collages" out of other people's music. People like to share music with each other, not because it solves some kind of problem, but because it makes them feel like they are part of something (emotions, as you said).

So it seems to me the best way to distribute music is to ask 1) don't change the music or the artist's name, and 2) don't profit from it without the artist's permission. This would match the usual way people consume and share music. When I was young, I thought copyright law meant that you couldn't make money from someone else's work, but you could share copies with your friends. I think a lot of people think this myth is true.

So basically, music and art can exist with a more restrictive "license" than software.

Re:regarding GPL'ing music

[Computer!]

I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, I think an artist's definition of "work" is inherently flawed. Before there was recorded music, there was music. Somehow, artists and the industry are convinced that if piracy isn't stopped, there won't be anything creative. Bullshit! All the pirates are doing is creating a distribution channel for your artwork, be it literary, visual, or musical. Your "work" is done the moment you leave the studio. Why should you be entitled to money for doing nothing? None of us are paid "royalties" by the companies we work for. We get paid for the time we show up and work. Why should it be any different for so-called creatives? Do they really expect to be paid for something that the recipient didn't?

Re:regarding GPL'ing music

[Doomdark]

here'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.

Oh man, you have apparently never been exposed to big-egoed programmers that think every single line of code they have written is pure gold, product of blood, sweat and tears, coming straight from their heart. :-)

I think that you are slightly mistaken in assuming programmers don't feel attached to what they have created. However, I think your main point is valid (if I understood you correctly),that even though you wouldn't mind free copying, you'd prefer it to be verbatim, unchanged. So that it would still be YOUR piece of art, instead of someone else's derivative work. This can be done with software (via licensing); some people love the idea of derivative work, some not. Many would prefer having a chance to choose who can do what.

Note however that this is not how things work with (music, literature) copyrights. Anyone can actually freely create their own versions of your writings (songs, paintings); AS LONG AS THEY DO MODIFY IT or pay royalties. Creating parodies is fair use, and doing cover songs is common in music industry (not so with books etc). I would bet that many (music) artists would do pretty much anything to prevent parodies and sometimes bad cover versions... even sacrificing copyright income. But that can not be done.

Isn't it weird that current copyright laws, then, enforce the exact opposite of your (and many others artits') ideals?

Re:regarding GPL'ing music

[(void*)]

You are right, but consider what GPLing your music means. This means that other people can change the nuances of opinion that you worked to get in there, and publish it under your name, with the same title. Perhaps just to apeease you, they could add their name too.

This is a scenario of confusion and disaster. Artistic integrity distinction is a very important aspect of artistic works. This is something that you should not erode the artist of. Of course, that the artist borrowed from others, and plain to see.

Re:regarding GPL'ing music

[SirSlud]

Fair nuff. I can see why that might be bad, but since its highly unlikely that there is any motivation to do this, I dont see that as a problem.

Who would want to change my music, and republish it under my name? For it to considerably damage my reputation, I'd have to assume they'd have lots of money, lots of time, and lots of effort to do such a thing maliciously or to dilute my public image. It doesn't make sense that anyone would try and do this. And if they did, I'd rather fight it through more normal channels than black-and-white licence that forbids people from doing so?

It's an interesting point, I'd actually really be curious if anyone could come up with a situation in which this would be significantly detrimental to me.

Re:regarding GPL'ing music

[SCHecklerX]

Damn. Where are my moderator points when I need them? +10, absolutely correct. Especially the part about being able to create art after the basics are taken care of. I've always loved the 'artists' who write crap belittling folks who labor so that moron actually has the ability to write. If not for those who are 'stealing' your work, you would not have the time to create it simply surviving (or you'd be extinct).

This is why paid lobbyists exist.

[fmaxwell]

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...

Re:This is why paid lobbyists exist.

[fmaxwell]

On the contrary, these are EXACTLY the type of people I want representing our views.

The MPAA, RIAA, and content providers have paid, personable, intelligent, engaging speakers at these hearings. If our side consists of boorish, rude, unkempt, socially dysfunctional buffoons, you might as well scrap your CD-R/W drive right now.

Jack Valenti "consumer friendly"?!?

[burgburgburg]

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?

Too many camps

[macdaddy]

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?

screaming geeks:

[Maeryk]

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

a thoughts...

[jeffy124]

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.

Re:a thoughts...

[Maeryk]

This is a truly great idea. Anyone know the rules regarding PSA's and whether or not they are available for free/low cost? What type of organization might we need to put together to get one? I know the political/big business has a *lot* of advertising clout in this area, we need some too.

Better than having Mickey step on a house, or an orwellian future portrayed might just be a simple ad stating that your rights are under assault, that, for instance, you no longer have the right to make a backup copy of your latest CD purchase due to the DMCA. I think that it had suge huge support merely because NO ONE CARED.

Getting people to notice something (even joe six pack) is tough.. but once you do it, it carries a lot of force behind it. Look at the marijuana referendum out in the midwest. That happened because joe six-pack is fed up with ridiculous arrests and silly court cases. It certainly must have had a LOT of groundswell support, simply because the official government line is "war on drugs". People are slowly getting fed up with the government, to the point where (I think it was louisiana?) told the government to go pound sand and keep their federal highway funding, rather then order the state around. That only happened due to concerned citizens as well.

Remember.. even if they "dont get it" doesnt mean that the proper rhetoric wont make them believe they are moving for something good. (See Clinton election for more info)

Maeryk

Re:a thoughts...

[MarvinMouse]

The big problem remains though. Can't the media just say no to these commercials because it makes them look bad?

Most of the recording companies are just part of larger media conglomerates, and there is no way you'll convince NBC/CBS/Whatever to put on an advert saying that they are taking away people's rights. They don't have to play the commercial, no matter how much money you offer them.

That's the big catch-22 and conflict of interest.

Re:a thoughts...

[MarvinMouse]

That's highly impressive that he was able to even do a story about it without being dismissed or reprimanded.

I hear so many stories about journalists who publish articles that are contrary to the owner or corporate sponsors viewpoints and then are subsequently sacked.

I believe if a journalist can do it, and is willing to do it, feel free. But, in today society where big media rule. it's quite hard for those journalists to get the nerve to do it and then afterwards remain working for the big media.

I didn't know that PPAs had to be displayed, I thought the TV station could refuse any advertisement it was given. Therefore, it would be able to refuse any advertisement contrary to it's goals, or that would be bad for business. Like an advertisement denouncing something that will help them make more money.

Re:The exact same thing is at Kuro5hin.org

[al3x]

Yeah, sorry. As I say in a comment above, I didn't expect Slashdot to post this so I submitted it to k5 as well. But different communities will have different reactions, so I hope this proves useful here, too.

Damn Activists

[Havokmon]

Get those guys the hell out of there. We don't WANT them representing us. They put a bad face on the Linux/Open Source movement, and people don't want to be associated with 'those people'.

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.

Re:Damn Activists

[Havokmon]

Though I agree with your basic principle that we are often better served by moderation and less by screaming, I still hold that without radical groups to push the boundaries, nothing changes.

IMHO, that only applies when there is also an EQUAL AND OPPOSITE radical force. Else, the majority be misrepresented by 'the squeaky wheel'. This is how I see the courts as working. Say you steal a gumball. Your defense lawyer says you're living on the street, starving, stomach ballooned, and the prosecution says you're putting the storekeeper out of business, and his 6 kids will starve. Neither is right, but with equal and opposite forces 'pushing towards the middle' (and some common sence among the jury), we have balance.

defining those you with whom you disagree as "wackos" serves as little as the manic behavior which you so disdain; this level of argument is pure ad hominem; it's a logical fallacy, worthy of types such as Rush Limbaugh, but reduces the level of discussion.

You got me. They're just radicals, not wackos. ;)

Sometimes there is a need for someone to yell, just to be heard at all, especially if their views are completely being ignored; this is the true point of a democracy...

This is true, and I have been punished for such things. My whole point is that, according to the report, the median IS being represented by those on the panel, and those radicals in the audience are doing nothing but hurting the campaign.

Re:Damn Activists

[0x0d0a]

Err...one of them was Stallman. I think you're stuck with him.

Heckling is a horrible strategy in most cases

[Vicegrip]

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.

Re:Heckling is a horrible strategy in most cases

[Vicegrip]

I don't disagree that one might very well be justified in disrupting a meeting that unfairly is excluding a position from being stated-- this, however, is not a good strategy in this situation.

What I am saying is that I believe that most of these DRM issues escape the public's understanding. Since we are precluded from having the public's immeadiate empathy of why we are angry about exclusion, heckling a meeting makes it just too easy for the organizers to say "see why they aren't invited?".
Our problem is convincing legislators who quite rightly perceive that there isn't a lot of public momemtum against DRM.
Getting the message out is the most important job here. Thus I continue to believe sanguine well thought out commentary and action is the best attack. It is imperative our legislators be made to understand the very important issues of balance and public interest involved here.
Simply hooting at a public discussion will not accomplish this I think.

Excellent article

[tenzig_112]

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.

'Don't Test Me, Young Fella'

[idonotexist]

"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.

We are our own worst enemies....

[wowbagger]

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.

Re:We are our own worst enemies....

[jeffy124]

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"

Re:We are our own worst enemies....

[DunbarTheInept]

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.

In the alternate parallel universe where the geeks were actually given official time to speak, that advice would have been applicable. But in the real world peanut-gallery heckling was the only avenue open to them.

Re:We are our own worst enemies....

[al3x]

Sorry. In the Real World of Washington, DC, these geektavists had the opportunity to formally request a presence on the panel. Only the EFF did, and they were likely denied their seat due to conflict with the MPAA. While this sucks, it leaves ample opportunity for motivated activists willing to play the game, lobby hard, and get heard. Nobody opens their ears automatically in Washington, but they will if you work for it.

That's the Real World.

Re:We are our own worst enemies....

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

"Excuse me, I have the floor. I waited for you to finish your statements, now it is my turn"

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but did the protestors ever get the floor? If not, the civilty you call for here is unnecessary and counter-productive--if someone in power wants to ignore you there is no reason to make it easy for them.

Re:We are our own worst enemies....

[DunbarTheInept]

So you cite an example of "geektavists" being denied access to the panel (the EFF) as an example of why geeks weren't denied access to the panel??? Huh? The EFF was specificly what I had in mind, by the way, when I implied the geeks didn't have access to speak in the normal ways.

Re:The exact same thing is at Kuro5hin.org

[Real World Stuff]

Did you add your report to the original submission /.? BTW, I agree with observations. Thanks for the info!

I love DRM

[Dr. Awktagon]

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.

I couldn't agree with you more

[evilempireinc]

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.

Looks like a debacle...

[malakai]

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

Re:Looks like a debacle...

[sylvester]

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

Re:Looks like a debacle...

[thales]

During the Viet Nam war the peace movement was set back by the tatics of the wackos. People who were close to deciding that the war wasn't a good idea were so turned off by things like burning American Flags, waving Viet Cong flags, foul language, and Attacks on US Servicemen that they recoiled from being associated with that pack of losers and returned to a public sentiment of "Support our boys in Viet Nam" and kept their concerns about the war private. The extreamists actually prolonged the war.

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.

Re:Looks like a debacle...

[thales]

ROFLMAO,
Ever hear of the Chopper shortage early in the War? McNamera came up with the lame brain idea that the Army didn't need them and ordered a halt in orders. So the crafty LBJ lets his Sec Def halt production of the resource he's waging the war to make $$$$ off of?

LBJ was one of the biggest liars that ever set foot in the White House, but America's Far Leftists make him look like a pillar of honesty. Is the far Left shameless liars, amazingly gulible, or perhaps a mixture of the two?

Yeah go ahead and mark it flamebait, lib Modarators, I have karma to burn, and modding it down has no effect on the truthfulness of the statements.

P2P file sharing a problem?

[Enigma23]

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.

Writing your congressman

[Webmoth]

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.

Re:Writing your congressman

[namespan]

I can only of anecdotal evidence, but I know that several of my letters -- mostly emailed, a few typed -- have come to the attention of one of my Senators. I found this out when I later became acquainted with one of his staffers and he recognized my name from the correspondence (and if there's anything I've learned from that, it's to tone down any incensed fervor you have -- you're writing to human beings, remember, despite how easy it is to believe the contrary).

The other senator... well, he responds with a form letters, of course. Terribly appropriate. : )

Screw reasonable

[Anarchofascist]

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.

Re:Screw reasonable

[al3x]

I was there, I'm the author, and a ruckus got the offending audience members reprimanded for their outburst, and alternately ignored and disdained by the people who actually have the power to make a difference.

The ruckus basically ruined the chance of their view getting across. Fortunately, the tech industry folks are competent and eloquent enough to get it across for them.

Prediction [wise up sucker!]
Next roundtable discussion, like this one, will be intellgient, reasonable, and civilised, and there's only going to be a rep from the OSS community if they get off thier asses and lobby with the big boys.

Re:Screw reasonable

[Reziac]

But you need to differentiate between panel member and audience.

It's okay for the audience, as a representative of the general public, to show their outrage (tho appropriately-timed applause, or the lack of it, is much more effective than booing and catcalls, which just make the audience seem like unfairly biased and ill-bred hicks).

It is NOT okay for panel members to engage in NOR to endorse such behaviour. Panel members need to be seen as reasonable at all times. Otherwise, the end result will be the DRM equivalent of "we don't cut deals with terrorists" and there will be no further opportunity to make our side heard.

As someone above pointed out, and as I've said here many times before, there are reasons why professional lobbyists exist. When the game already has rules, you have to play by those rules, or you won't get to play at all.

Re:Screw reasonable

[Anarchofascist]

It's okay for the audience, as a representative of the general public, to show their outrage...
It is NOT okay for panel members to engage in NOR to endorse such behaviour.

Absolutely, if i gave the impression that i feel its ok for panelists to cause a ruckus, i'm sorry. I only meant that a ruckus is the best way to be heard when nobody wants to listen. If you are an invited panelist, that's different, you are given time to clearly and politely state your views.

(sorry, cant type a long coherent followup - i'm on a handheld)

Re:Screw reasonable

[Reziac]

I'm amazed anyone can type on handhelds at all :)

Anyway, thanks for clarifying what you meant, and you're right, when NO ONE will listen, AND you're being *excluded* from a decision-making process, sometimes all you can do is yell until you're heard. But so long as anyone has a foot in the door (such as being a member of a panel like this one) it's better to be believed a gentleman -- gets you better listened to in the long run.

The real problem is that geeks generally don't get how the political machine operates, and try to apply geek behaviour, such as coding logic, which politics doesn't speak. The political machine ignores any input it doesn't understand. So our protests have to be made in a language that they already speak. Or do like I've been saying all along -- hire an experienced lobbyist. They do this for a living, and they know how it all works. You wouldn't hire a lobbyist to write code, would you? So why assume a coder knows how to be an effective lobbyist??

This time, it's the geeks who need to RTFM and learn the language the manual is written in, if they want to gain any respect in the political process.

That's because

[wiredog]

It appeared at kuro5hin first.

I know I've seen this exact article before...

[wiredog]

somewhere else...

I'm on the NY Fair Use mailing list.....

[kikensei]

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.

Suits and Politeness

[Anarchofascist]

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?

Re:Corporations ARE people according to our gov't

[Mad Quacker]

"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.

Re:The exact same thing is at Kuro5hin.org

[MrResistor]

OH MY GOD!!! THE SAME ARTICLE WAS POSTED ON 2 DIFFERENT SITES!!! THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!!

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but slashdot and kuro5hin are two different sites, with different readership. I personally only read k5 for a short time; it simply didn't hold my interest. In contrast, I've been reading /. for years, and have yet to get bored with it. I very much doubt that I'm the only one who feels this way.

The NYers and Stallman

[I_redwolf]

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..

Re:The NYers and Stallman

[al3x]

Sorry, it's the reasonable and informed folks who work hard to involve themselves in the decision making process and gain a position of authority and respect in their field who eventually allow a compromise. Not the "pain in the ass" who trapses in when it's convienient, makes a scene, and takes off to fume about how oppressed they are.

Re:The NYers and Stallman

[I_redwolf]

"Sorry, it's the reasonable and informed folks who work hard to involve themselves in the decision making process and gain a position of authority and respect in their field who eventually allow a compromise."

Those are the same people who are the pains in the asses. MLK, Ghandi etc etc all were reasonable and informed folks who worked hard to involve themselves in the decision making process and gain a position of authority and respect and they did this by being pains in the ass, by consistently disregarding the other side. By holding protests, by being disobedient, basically doing whatever it took to get their point across.

1. It's convienient, and if these people are loyal to their cause there is always a convienient time to get the point across.

2. Make a scene, thats what you want otherwise people don't notice you. Once they notice you they'll want to know why exactly you are behaving the way you are

3. If you get those same people who are now wondering why your are pissed off to think you are oppressed then they feel slightly oppressed because they can sympathize with you. Thus bringing them a little bit closer to understanding what you are trying to say and understanding your argument, plus the sympathy and you've got a supporter.

It sucks to know that most people would rather sit on their hands than to show any emotion or passion for a cause they feel is worthy nowadays. Being disrespectful is one thing and the pain in the ass you describe above wouldn't be loyal to their cause but I'd still have to disagree with you on your sentiment that these people are not reasonable and informed.

Nothing ever worth fighting for, or worth changing was gained without these type of people. Without people like Richard Stallman and the NYCers there would probably be no public forum of discussion to begin with and if there was there surely wouldn't have been coverage of it like this. Sometimes they can go over the top, sometimes you might disagree; that's ok so long as you understand their position. The other side does the same thing as you could tell from a quote of the Aol/TW representative.

Valenti at wrong conference

[n3bulous]

From the pictures, Valenti looks like he should be attending an anger management conference...

No Fair Use == No Legitimate Criticism Allowed

[Nightspore]

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

It takes all kinds

[A nonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It takes all kinds

[al3x]

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.

Re:It takes all kinds

[A nonymous Coward]

You are short sighted if you can't see the harm in DRM. One of the fundamentals of a free citizenry is an informed citizenry. That's the point of freedom of speech, freedom of the press. Without them, the civil rights and anti-war movements would have gotten nowhere. With DRM, the ability to pass along knowledge is severaly limited. The powers that were would have drooled at the possibility of controlling info about civil rights and the Vietnam War. If you can't see the harm in DRM, then you are only insulting yourself.

You missed my point entirely about having all sorts of people pushing the case. Irritants like the Black Panthers certainly were cretins, but they also made sure the media paid attention. Who did the media pay more attention to in nightly news broadcasts -- the reasonable people working the halls of power, or the riots? Maybe you would understand it better as good cop bad cop -- people could safely ignore the halls working suits, but they couldn't ignore riots.

Consider the American Revolution, 1775-1783. Certainly Adams and Franklin working the halls of power were necessary. So was Washington's army. So were the militia, who were considered despicable cowardly guerrilas by the British.

Sniping militia alone couldn't have won the independence. Neither could Franklin and Adams in Paris.

Ditto for suits in DC and Black Panthers. Neither alone could do it. Both together (and all degrees between) did.

It takes all kinds.

Re:The exact same thing is at Kuro5hin.org

[A_Non_Moose]

Note to commander taco:

If the same article is going to be posted on two sites, does this mean that moderators should mod K5 up as informative and /. down as redundant?

First submitted article moderation, now "site" moderation.

I can see it now in the logs while grepping for "moderation" instead of default.ida.

Re:AYBABTU (crap)

[gosand]

Depressing glimpses of a bleak future. Corporatism... worse than any previous manifestation of socialism, comm....

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.

I was there

[dcgaber]

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!!!!

DRM AND FREE SPEECH: TWO RULES TO PRESERVE

[vkg]

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.

What free copies really do to sales

[wurp]

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.

Re: Re:Jack Valenti "consumer friendly"?!? (contex

[al3x]

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.

Re:waaaaay too long...

[al3x]

I'm the author. I'd be happy to.

1. The industry was cool in the meeting. Guys from Intel, Philips, Listen.com, etc. They're anti-DRM, and they totally rock.

2. We hate, as usual, the media companies: RIAA, MPAA, AOL/TW, etc. But we're also not thrilled about the geek-activists who interrupting, being obnoxious, and generally doing more harm than good.

3. There was something of a fight between tech industry and media, and I'd say the techies won. Media wants DRM legislated now, and the techs know that's bullshit.

Easy enough for ya?

Re:I can see it now

[al3x]

I think you might wanna think about your paranoid vision above. It's not that they "didn't let the good guys speak," it's that the good guys didn't push hard enough to get to speak. We're talking Washington, where you have to lobby, make some calls, you know: work for what you want. Don't blame the evil empire, blame your rebel heros who were sitting around bitching about the evil MPAA on IRC or something.

Call it "raucous" or "obnoxious" if you will....

[SwedishChef]

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.

Re:This is "News for Nerds" not "Fashion Tips Inc.

[elmegil]

You're also turning into the same reason why nobody listened to the hippies saying "stop the war in viet nam".

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.

What bullshit.

[twitter]

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.

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.

Re:What bullshit.

[Maeryk]

Despite timid al3x's embarasment, I'm happy that someone spoke up and represented freedom

Remind me to show up and represent freedom at your wedding. Dude.. its not that they had points to make, but as Alex put it, they were more distracting and annoying than informative. Thats a black mark. It looks bad. And when you are dealing with the type of people on the offensive that we are now, that is not-affordable.

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.

Who is using a smear tactic? I was merely pointing out that running into congress and screaming is not the way to get a bill passed. Yelling and interrupting people (not just snickering) is not the way to be viewed as an intelligent person looking for discourse. It is how to be viewed as a heckler. And no-one cares what a heckler has to say.

as all that "evil shit" is concerned, no amount of acting like a jackass at a roundtable discussion is going to help. Getting RMS to speak clearly, concisely, and make sense might help. Getting him not to contradict himself in five sentences might help too. If he cant do it, get someone else in there who can, but we need a slick polished able-to-talk-and-be-heard person just as much as they do. We just dont have one right now.

You are not a revolutionary, neither are these people who are disrupting the round-table. (At least, you may be in your own mind, but others view those antics as childish and boorish.. much like telling people to fuck off is viewed).

As far as recording the text, its much easier to get your point across using a point-counterpoint than with one railing flailing article that doesnt give concise instances of what you are arguing *against*

Maeryk

Re:What bullshit.

[al3x]

That's the first I've ever been called timid, but I was a damn signt embarassed, though on the behalf of those making fools of themselves.

Get a clue. The folks participating legitimately in the discussion made some jokes, even Jack Valenti grinned when he was called out on his old VCR comments by a rep from Philips. Even though there were some greedy shits in the group, they were the exception. The "aim of the group," which you're obviously uninformed on, having neither been near this event nor availed yourself of transcript (which may or may not yet be available), was to come to a balance between all the sides represented.

The majority opposed DRM. Think about it: the tech industry can sell more machines at a lower cost if they don't have to integrate DRM, and they know DRM will stifle the commodity hardware market. So they were on your side. Just because the meeting is going on in a big, spooky government office doesn't mean it was a conspiritorial gestapo session.

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.

Is it important enough?

[Queuetue]

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?

Re:Is it important enough?

[al3x]

The very idea that we're so utterly oppressed and outnumbered in this situation is disgusting. A little hard work, and we could have had another table full of consumer representatives. But nobody but DigitalConsumer.org bothered to do that work, opting instead for the "Merry Prankster" approach.

You'll excuse me if I'm sick at the idea spawning yet another protest generation. Protesting is an easy, ego-boosting, self-indulgent and lazy activity. It takes years of hard work to get to a position of legitimacy where people take your views serious, and you have experiences to back them up. The representatives of the tech industry there had that legitimacy, and the protesters came no where close to it.

Good causes are undermined by bad representatives. Take the anti-globalization, anti-corporate folks: a great cause, undermined at every protest by goddamn puppets, hipster fashionistas with no coherent politics, and kids drinking Cokes while telling reporters about corporate evils. And don't get me started on how far the privledged, drugged-out, self-styled revolutionaries of the 1960s set back left wing causes for decades to come.

Boycotts, letter writing campaigns, protests, television commercials: cram 'em all. What we need are experts, professionals, and trained lobbiests who can beat the "opposition" at their own game. Period. I live in Washington, I've grown up around the people who make the decisions that affect the world. That's how things get done, like it or not.

Best hopes

[Ogerman]

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.

Re:Best hopes

[al3x]

AGGH! I never agreed with DRM, look at the damn text of the article! I'm vehemently opposed to it, just like the tech industry people! The people who were calmly and logically fighting for our rights!

Re:Best hopes

[Ogerman]

My apologies if that's what you meant. After reading several articles on this topic, I had gotten the impression that the tech industry was essentially pushing for 'limited' forms of DRM. (which actually, I believe they may still be, considering M$ et al.) If that's the case and both sides are the enemy, the motley geeks were right to boo and hiss if that's the only way their dissent would be made known. The problem is there are a significant number of folks that are dumb enough to believe that there could exist a "reasonable" DRM solution that would allow officially-specified 'fair use' capacity. If you're not one of them, congrats. (:

Re: Re:Jack Valenti "consumer friendly"?!? (contex

[al3x]

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.

Re:let's clarify some legal stuff, please

[raresilk]

This thread has gotten a little confused, probably because the phrase "criminally liable" doesn't make sense. Just like a wetware person, a corporation can be sued by a private party, held liable if a legal wrong has been proved, and made to pay monetary compensation and possibly punitive damages. This is called "civil liability." The corporation pays the damages out of its funds, and this will impact the bottom line of its financial statements, and thus the value of its shares. In this way, the shareholders as owners of the corporation collectively bear responsibility for the corporation's misconduct, but only to the extent of their monetary investment. And investors cannot be sued personally for what the corporation has done. Despite the recent abuses and the need to correct them, most people who think about it for more than a second realize that without this key protection afforded by the corporate structure, the free flow of investment capital would largely dry up.

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.

Re:Stallman Anti-GPL???

[FurryFeet]

I'm no RMS fan, but he's clearly innocet of your charges. He's not at all confused about IP.
RMS wishes intellectual property did not exist; yet, he is not stupid and has to acknowledge that, as of now, it does exist by law. The GPL is a way to turn the whole notion of copyright around and make it work against itself (hence, its alias, "copyleft").
In other words, the GPL is a way to use copyright law to ensure information is free. If there was no copyright law, the GPL wouldn't be needed and RMS would be much happier.
BTW, what I just said is hardly insider's information, it can be easily learned. Next time, I suggest you do some reading before ranting on a subject. A good place to start is here .

Re:Stallman Anti-GPL???

[al3x]

I'm not "charging" Stallman with anything. I'm a fan of the man's life work, the GPL first and foremost. You are correct on his take on intellectual property. I asked him explicitly if anything less than a total redefinition, or perhaps abolition, of intellectual property into his terms would be acceptable to him. He said "No."

I charge him with nothing. He's an opionated and provactive man, and a brilliant one at that. What I question is the worth of such militant opinions to the cause of reaching a solution that benefits consumers. That's all.

Re:Call it "raucous" or "obnoxious" if you will...

[al3x]

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.

Exactly: the free market...

[vanyel]

However, if the content industry gets its way, we're looking at legislation mandating DRM [...]. Our best hope, I'm surprised at myself to say, is in a Free Market

...will win in the end: when content is issued with unreasonable restrictions on it don't buy it! DRM will go the way of the dodo bird if people don't put up with it, regardless of legislation.

Re:This is "News for Nerds" not "Fashion Tips Inc.

[elmegil]

Um...last time I checked, I'm in that same group of "backslappers" I was talking about. We're all geeks here. We of course discuss things in the geek way here. A congressional or governmental hearing is not a gathering or forum of geeks, and other standards apply.

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.

Re:DigitalConsumer's perspective

[al3x]

Heh, I debated a bit about my choice of words, but no offense was meant. Your comments were perfectly apt, I think some of us were just hoping for something more poignant while remaining reasonable, along the lines of Mr. Reid.

I would like to say that I support your organization's stances on these issues, and I do not disagree with your tactics. More power to you!

Re:Call it "raucous" or "obnoxious" if you will...

[SwedishChef]

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.

I change minds one at a time.

[twitter]

Get a clue. The folks participating legitimately in the discussion made some jokes, even Jack Valenti grinned when he was called out on his old VCR comments by a rep from Philips. Even though there were some greedy shits in the group, they were the exception. The "aim of the group," which you're obviously uninformed on, having neither been near this event nor availed yourself of transcript (which may or may not yet be available), was to come to a balance between all the sides represented.

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.

Re:I change minds one at a time.

[Maeryk]

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.

Its a lot different. A printing press requires hundreds of thousand or millions of dollars to purchase and operate. A computer doesnt. A computer can produce thousand of copies almost instantly.

Whats completely unamerican about it? Thats like saying bank guards are unamerican, because anyone should be able to walk in and take money, and assuming someone is going to try is going against your freedoms!

You dont get it, do you? Copying copyrighted material on your PC is ILLEGAL. By having it you are BREAKING THE LAW. I would be a lot more pissed if they were actually doing something to limit legal activities. But if you choose to intentionally flout the law, expect to be nailed for it.

Maeryk

Re:Valenti

[0x0d0a]

Wow, you thought he looks evil too?

It must not just be me.

You don't HAVE to work within "the system"

[ahfoo]

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."

Re:Be UNREASONABLE BECAUSE

[thales]

If you were logical you would notice a self serving site that practices scare tatics to gain funds from the people it frightens.

The UFO's are comming to INVADE Earth!!!! Send your contribution to me so I can develop my Photon Torpedo defense system that will save the planet from destruction !!!!!

See it isn't hard to come up with a similar scam.

Re:Stallman Anti-GPL???

[FurryFeet]

Actually, I wasn't replying to you, but to the parent of my post (which has rightfully been sent to -1 Troll Hell).
I in fact enjoyed your article a lot, and agree in all your posts. And as much as I admire RMS's work, I'm also repelled by his fanaticism and inflexibility in most topics.
Now, excuse me while I go write 100 times in the blackboard "I will not feed the trolls" :S

All I get is a poor impression of Al3x

[ahfoo]

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.