Slashdot Mirror
Results of the Commerce Dept's DRM Workshop
al3x's report:
I arrived early, heeding the warnings of first-come, first-served seating. With the small room packed to standing room only, this paid off. In addition to the panelists, listed on the Workshop's site above, notable included Robin Gross, attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, and journalist and Politech list-founder Declan McCullagh. Lobbying groups distributing materials to the audience included New Yorkers for Fair Use and the American Library Association. Several interns from NIST and a couple of other young folks like myself showed up unaffiliated with any group, and the remainder of the crowd appeared to be typical Washington: lawyers, politicos, journos (professional and college), and think-tankers. A proper press kit was noticeably (and notedly, by said journos) absent.
As the talks began, I was brimming with the enthusiasm and anger of an "activist," overjoyed at shaking hands with the legendary Richard Stallman, thrilled with the turnout of the New Yorkers for Fair Use. My enthusiasm and solidarity, however, was to be short lived. The Workshop's effective chairman and moderator, Chief of Staff and Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology Phillip Bond, offered some opening remarks touching on their previous meeting, held this past December, including noting that piracy has risen, particularly in the music industry. After further welcomes from James Rogan, Under Secretary for Intellectual Property, who acknowledged having worked with many members of the "roundtable." Rogan suggested that there were "no villains present," which drew the first of a number of chortles from the NY Fair Use crowd and their sympathizers. First on the table was a discussion of progress towards standards for Digital Rights Management (DRM henceforth).
This rather dry topic, upon which there appeared to be little consensus or definite progress, was dealt with relatively quickly, sparking only a handful of interesting and notable concerns. Here the clear divide between the tech industry and "content" industry (the movie studios , record industry, etc.) became apparent. Andy Setos of the Fox Entertainment Group called for attention to the "analog hole" in DRM standards, stating "from [the point content reaches analog televisions] it's a freeforall." The sentiment was echoed by several of the other content providers, and reiterated throughout the discussions. Oddly, with a number of opinions bounced around and no coherent conclusion, moderator Bond moved on, blessing the segment of discussion as having been productive.
Moving to discussions of business models, technological viability, and the government's role, the panelists took the gloves off and came out swinging. And as the discussion started to get juicier, so the "activists" got noisier. Comments from the RIAA's Mitch Glazier that there is "balance in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA), drew cries and disgusted laughter from the peanut gallery, who at that point had already been informed that any public comments could be submitted online. Even those in support of Fair Use and similar ideas began to be frustrated with the constant background commentary and ill-conceived outbursts of the New Yorkers for Fair Use and, to my dismay, Richard Stallman, who proved to be as socially awkward as his critics and fans alike report. Perhaps such behavior is entertaining in a Linux User Group meeting or academic debate, but fellow activists hissed at Stallman and the New Yorkers, suggesting that their constant interjections weren't helping.
And indeed, as discussion progressed, I felt that my representatives were not Stallman and NY Fair Use crowd, nor Graham Spencer from DigitalConsumer.org, whose three comments were timid and without impact. No, I found my voice through Rob Reid, Founder and Chairman of Listen.com, whose realistic thinking and positive suggestions were echoed by Johnathan Potter, Executive Director of DiMA, and backed up on the technical front by Tom Patton of Phillips. Reid argued that piracy was simply a reality of the content industry landscape, and that it was the job of content producers and the tech industry to offer consumers something "better than free." "We charge $10 a month for our service, and the competition is beating us by $10 a month. We've got to give customers a better experience than the P2P file-sharing networks," Reid suggested. As the rare individual who gave up piracy when I gave up RIAA music and MPAA movies, opting instead for a legal and consumer-friendly Emusic.com account, I found myself clapping in approval.
Though Jack Valenti proved he could stump with the best good ol' southern gentleman, deriding his intelligence before offering sweeping proclamations, the majority of the discussion was surprisingly consumer-friendly. All in the room, even Valenti, agreed that P2P technology was not inherently bad, but could merely be put to bad uses. Geeks should be happy to know that their voice is being heard by the tech industry: folks from Intel and IBM really seemed to "get it" along with Reid and the aforementioned crowd. There was clear animosity, however, between content providers and the techies. Elizabeth Frazee of AOL Time Warner, for example, was quick to say that "the content industry is looking for government help," and tech industry reps were quick to suggest that we're nowhere near even agreeing on standards or what needs to be enforced, much less imposing legislation. The general sentiment of the tech crowd appeared to be that piracy was a social issue and an everpresent one, and no amount of legislation or technological blocks (your Palladiums and whatnot) would stop it. The solution, the techs seemed to suggest, was competing well in the marketplace and offering consumers a good reason not to pirate content.
The session drew to a close, and a large bearded man in an ill-fitting suit quickly jumped up to say the NY Fair Use people would be giving a press conference of their own out front at 4:30. I followed a reporter from NewsForge to the motley band of activists, who preached largely to their own choir, with the exception of a few youths like myself and the remaining reporters. I confronted Richard Stallman for his thoughts on the "better than free" proposal that Reid had offered, to which he was happy to sermonize on the false construct of intellectual property. I suggested that perhaps artists could, if they so chose, license their music under a GPL-inspired copyleft like the Open Music License, and strike out an independent path, as he did in the software industry. I was informed that musicians needed the record industry for wide exposure, and of the record industry's various artist-related evils. I then inquired about how Stallman felt about downloadable music services like Emusic.com, which place no restrictions on how you use the music you've bought from them, though the music is copyrighted and the artists and labels are compensated. Stallman agreed, after having informed me minutes ago that intellectual property as a concept was bunk, that this sounded pretty reasonable.
I walked away from the afternoon's experiences feeling much more represented by the tech industry, though sympathetic to the activists' desire for more consumer representation in future Workshops. Notably, the EFF was explicitly shut out of this discussion, which is unfortunate; the NY Fair Use crowd, however, never bothered to request a representative, preferring to show up and disrupt the debate on their own terms, and for nobody's good but their egos, it seems. If the tenor of this discussion remains focused towards the marketplace, as the tech industry wants it to, then we as geeks and concerned consumers have little to worry about. However, if the content industry gets its way, we're looking at legislation mandating DRM, which is essentially subsidizing the slowly-failing record and movie industries like we've done with airlines and big steel. Our best hope, I'm surprised at myself to say, is in a Free Market, and not screaming, indignant geeks passing out buttons and shouting down Jack Valenti.
If you want to work within the system, you need to fit in. Wearing t-shirts & jeans and holding up signs during an official Commerce Department isn't going to help. When the panel memebers see even a couple people like that, they will tend to label the entire group as someone they don't want to listen to. It's no wonder that barely any of "us" got to speak up on the issues. I know it sucks, but that's how these things work.
That being said: If every slashdot reader were to write a simple letter to their senators & congressmen about fair use, there'd be no stopping us. So go... right now... and write your letter, I plan to. If you don't, don't bitch about losing your fair use rights when it does happen.
Well, this is going to be the problem in the future folks, if we ever want to get anywhere.
There is a reason there are "professional lobbyists" and "professional activists". These
people know how to play within the power structure
and know how to purport themselves at a discussion or a meeting or a hearing.
These "activists" that the author was speaking of
seem to think this is still the sixties, and that they were at a rally. When someone is on the stage, you dont boo and yell at them, you let them speak. If you must be heard, put one of your own people up there, or take a point-counterpoint
text version of their comments and get it out there.
But dont act like complete boors, lest you taint the rest of us with the view that we are *ALL* socially inept nerd-boyz (a-la the "arch nemesisis" on Buffy) rather than savvy people who may not have the money or size to work within the system *yet* but will someday.
One instance of the wrong person seeing people act like doofusi in a public setting like that can ruin the good value of a hundred positive but
thought provoking emails.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
In the future, the people will own nothing, everything will be rented from the new state, i.e. the corporations.
What is wrong with you anti-corporation people? Do you just not know what one is? A corporation IS OWNED BY PEOPLE. That's like saying that "no one will have files in the future, only directories will have files". A corporation is just a container for holding assets, with certain legal protections for the owners of the corporation.
Unless you want to be criminally liable if you just happened to own a share of stock in a company that does something criminal, the legal protections are a good -- vital -- idea.
People REALLY need to clue in that corporations are not some magic, evil boogeyman.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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.
This is why I'm against this type of Activism. It makes me cringe, and (if they do it at some conference) I sink in my seat feeling embarrassed for them (and somehow myself). I may agree with their viewpoints, but I know what they _appear_ to be, to the otherside.
They are the Greenpeace nuts on inflatables ramming whaling ships or nuclear powered aircraft carrier off the coast of France.
They may have keen insights, wonderful diatribes on slashdot, and in on-line environments, they may seem on step away from Churchill in how the words flow from their fingertips and rouse us.
But in public, they are Type _G_ geeks. Easily spotable, obviously not comfortable (with themselves or others), and get caught in a moment of passion that they would normally rectify by re-reading and rewriting a flame email/newsgroup post/ slashdot post... but in real world there is no drafts folder.
We need logic, and sound reasoning to combat these RIAA types. We need to show the Dept of Commerce, Congress, the courts, and the public, that we really are this smart, and we can logically show why all or part of DRM is a bad thing.
I give all who attended tremendous credit, and even thanks. Any representation is better than no representation (much like publicity).
And to all the uber-geeks our there, I implore any who have the opportunity again to participate in such an hearing, to think of yourself as Mr. Spock (the star trek one, not the baby doctor). Try not to show emotion, counter the enemies emotion and rants with sound logic. And make sure you have the facts, and never assume. But please, don't try any mind-meld or vulcan sleeper grips.
-malakai
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
>I 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.
... 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.
.. 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.
.... 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?
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
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
I am not afraid
"Old man yells at systemd"
OH MY GOD!!! THE SAME ARTICLE WAS POSTED ON 2 DIFFERENT SITES!!! THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!!
/. for years, and have yet to get bored with it. I very much doubt that I'm the only one who feels this way.
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
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
A corporation IS OWNED BY PEOPLE.
Usually a very few people. Even companies with a large number of shareholders, who are ostensibly "owners", are run by a select minority.
The power belongs to a few, not to "the people". The rules are made by a few, and enforced by a few. Did you ever vote for your company's next CEO? Did his/her term ever expire? Do company employees collectively decide which causes to lobby, which public official to support?
You're right that companies are not inherently evil. Neither are they inherently good. The problem is that power structure more closely resembles a feudal aristocracy than a democracy. Some time ago, and even today, there were popular uprisings, beheadings, and all manner of grisly events resulting from popular transitions to a different system.
I'm certainly not suggesting that the state of multi-national corporatism is such that this kind of reponse is called for. All that's happening here in this forum is that people are *talking* about the issue. And you're getting upset about it.
As for the legal protections corporations provide, you're right, they are a good idea. But that doesn't necessarily argue a need for the status quo.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
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!!!!