Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Assembly, Avoidance, Civility
Good place for a lemonade stand. The march of the gigantic temporary European computer city-state goes on: Late writes that "Assembly 2002 starts in Finland on Thursday at 12.00 EET-DST (GMT +3). With over 2800 computer places and an expected total of over 4500 visitors, Assembly is one of the largest combined demo- and lanparties in the world. Those of you who can't make it, can watch our streamed TV broadcast. We'll be broadcasting all the competitions, at least part of the seminars that include such speakers as Rob Hubbard (C64 music legend) and a whole bunch of other programs."
You are condemned to live even longer. h4mmer5tein writes: "The BBC has an update on the asteroid story from a few days ago saying that it won't, after all, hit the earth in 2019. More information is being collated but it seems that 2060 is unlikely to see an impact either."
Iron IronGorilla adds: "Much like a Microsoft crash^H^H^H^H^Hrelease date being pushed back, NASA is reporting here that we are not, in fact, all going to die on February 1st, 2019 ..."
The dangers of meeting someone who means what he says. A few weeks ago, reader Al3x wrote his account ("Results of the Commerce Dept's DRM Workshop") of the recent gathering in DC of (officially invited) representatives of the entertainment industry and the less-officially invited members of the public. Alex criticized the approach of several members of the Free software community on hand for the discussion, including Richard Stallman.
Stallman writes in response:
"Al3x went to the July 17 Washington Digital Restrictions Management panel feeling admiration for me, but left disappointed with my views and actions. I think his disappointment was partly due to a couple of misconceptions, so I hope this explanation will partly restore his good opinion of my work and methods.I cannot deny Al3x's charge that I, and the rest of us, defied the rules of the meeting by refusing to be completely silent. If it is wrong to disobey an unfair system, I stand convicted, but I am not ashamed. However, in the scale of civil disobedience, ours was very mild. Women demanding the vote sometimes chained themselves to doorways, which might have been inconvenient for some passersby. Blacks demanding an end to segregation sometimes broke rules, and even laws, by sitting in a Whites-only diner or at the front of a bus. It is up to each of you to decide your ethical approach to judging acts of disobedience to an unfair system.
Al3x criticized NY Fair Use for 'preferring to show up and disrupt the debate' rather than ask for a seat on the panel. Our occasional laughter and less frequent verbal comments did not disrupt the panel, and all the panelists were able to express their views; but because our means were so limited, we could not communicate very much. We would have much preferred to participate officially, on an equal footing with Jack Valenti, but they had refused our request, just as they refused the EFF. Our measured protest appears to have obtained for us the chance for a seat on a subsequent panel.
After the meeting, Al3x asked me for my views on intellectual property. As it happens, I think it is a grave mistake to formulate one's views in terms of 'intellectual property,' and I explained why.
I explained that the term 'intellectual property' lumps together disparate areas of law, including copyright, patent, trademark, and others, and that they are so different that it is a mistake to try to group them together. The public policy issues of these various areas of law result from the details of how they restrict the public, and those details are different; if you try to form your opinions about 'intellectual property,' you will miss all of these issues, and you will be led to propose sweeping generalizations which cannot help being foolish. I explained the problems of the term 'intellectual property' to Al3x hoping this would help him and others he communicates with avoid that pitfall in thinking.
I suspect a miscommunication took place there, because when I said that his proposed copyright system for music might be a good one, he perceived that as a contradiction. Perhaps when I said 'the term "intellectual property" is bad,' he heard me as saying 'everything people call "intellectual property" is bad.' That, however, is exactly the sort of sweeping overgeneralization that the term 'intellectual property' leads people to form; it is to discourage such simplistic views that I ask people to avoid the term. I have views on copyright, views on patent, and views on trademark, but I do not have *any* position on 'intellectual property.' As Al3x learned, I'm not 100% opposed to copyright, though I believe it should be much less restrictive to the public than it is now.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.htm for more explanation of the problems of the term 'intellectual property.' If you're interested in my views on copyright, see www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html.
After all why do I listen to their news? Whats the point in reading news if you are not even threatened by death ...
I will read BBC again in 2059 to be sure
Googlefight "Slashdot Troll" against "BSD is dying" 303:229. BSD thus cant die.
gentle response from Richard M. Stallman on appropriate behavior in absurd circumstances.
WHAT? He can't even behave appropriatly in NORMAL circumstances let alone absurd ones. I doubt he should be the one telling US what to do when things aren't right.
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
No asteroid?! Just great, and I just spent the 2% of the deferrals left in my retirement account on porn and Twinkies.
Nothing but media hype you would think that movies like Deep Impact just came out last week. Honestly what can *we* do if we do find out we are going to die in 60 years? Quit our jobs and move to the country?
dam(U but I can only live without net usage for 3 days max)
Useless sig.
quick and dirty
http://janus.astro.umd.edu/astro/impact.html
very detailedo ids.html
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Aster
Finally, a Neat Java Applet with a display of the orbit can be seen here. You can Zoom in, spin the solar system around, and animate the display. The data they are using does not currently jive with projected impact date, apparently using the updated information.
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/db?name=2002+NT7
NOTE: of course, as seen here
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/
the possible impact in 2019 has been ruled out.
and of course all the basic information on asteroids can be found here, for those who are interested.
http://spacelink.nasa.gov/Instructional.Materials/ Curriculum.Support/Space.Science/Near.Earth.Impact .Hazards/.index.html
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
He gets to re-write history whenever someone express' their understanding of what he said.
And always it is to make himself look better. Why? Because he comes across like an ass.
It isn't htat he is an ass. He just presents himself as one.
Here's some links:
Space Dailyarticle about asteroid potentially hitting earth
Pittsburh Post-Gazette article about long odds on asteroid hitting earth
BBC article on how the asteroid won't hit earh
Isn't it funny how things change so quickly? You would think the guy who originally observed this would keep his mouth shut while he finished compiling data. Any amateur astronomers out there who can explain why such a big deal was made out of something that isn't going to happen?
Christ we need to send up Bruce Willis to blow the hell out of that thing before he's 105.
I got a 1600 on my SATs. So I consider myself to be a pretty open-minded and science-accepting person. But who seriously believed the asteriod was going to crash into Earth. Simple math shows us that it would have to be going in speeds exceeding 300 MPH to crash into us in 2019. Any asteroid going 300 MPH would most definitely burn up before it reached the atmosphere.
I got a 1600 on the SATs.
All you need is a small polygon ship that shoots a small laser beam. This type of technology only costs 0.25 and even a 10 year old can run it, I don't know what NASA is worrying about.
Through "the media" I alway have gotten the impression that Stallman was steadfast to the idea that IP is always wrong, but I guess maybe his media converage is not very broad when it comes to his view.
Those comments changed my views on him quit a bit. I went from hating all his views before he even opened his mouth to not quite being sure where he stands. This at least has made me backpedle. Now I am not sure what to think. I have an open mind about him again.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
"Much like a Microsoft crash^H^H^H^H^Hrelease date being pushed back, NASA is reporting here that we are not, in fact, all going to die on February 1st, 2019 ..."
C'mon, we may all hate Microsoft, but this has nothing to do with the story. Delays happen and are bad, but I seriously doubt Microsoft is the worst offender. Adding such gratuitous "humor" to stories lessens the force of honest critisism by making Slashdot look like a bunch of immature extremists who shouldn't be taken seriously.
can we drop references to RMS from this point further? Please?
Asteroids:
Don't worry, I'm sure another unforseen Earth-path asteroid will be along shortly.
Richard Stallman:
That unfairness is rampant in our courts and in the churches...but one really cool thing is that the churches won't throw you in prison for demanding that you and the surrounding people (congregation) actually learn what of the world (because it usually is, not of God) the person up front is talking about... so if you really want to fight this unfairness, be sure to go to a church and ask questions, and insist that the person up front answers you when they ask that you let them continue... I regret to say that in the past I have let them...
A version of Slashdot only for grown-ups. Now for that I'd pay a subscription fee.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
Or before he makes another movie...No, wait, I acutally like movies with Bruce Willis in them.
Sometimes "lumping together" fields like patent and copyright can create new and useful concepts. For instance, the idea of copyright misuse is an extension of the doctrine of patent misuse. Keeping the fields sealed from one another might not have allowed such powerful cross-pollination.
al3x, if you're reading this -- you wrote
RMS says they did ask to join the panel and were turned down. Since this seems to be a more objectively verifiable question, where did you get your information?What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Nuts... Looks like I'll have to fix my code that uses 32-bit timestamps after all.
Acting like a fucking angst ridden teen at a meeting and passing it off as a form of civil disobediance is not only useless to the cause against certian forms of DRM, it's counter productive. It makes the rest of us look like the ass Stallman has made himself out to be.
Further, comparing his "civil disobediance" with that of that of the civil rights movement and women's vote, is the most asinine of comments.
Civil liberites my ass. Someone doesn't give you a seat on the pannel, so you go to the meeting and make jokes. Think you'll get one next time?
Stallman has done many great things, I'll fully admit, but this latest, and his comments are the actions of a child.
For the love of mike, comparing the Free Software movement to the civil rights movement? That takes some serious nerve...
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
[trolling for response]
The float point computations that produced the said result were done on intel Pentium...
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Do you know how to get one. It's harder than it looks, you know.
Time for a grammar check.
open-minded and science-accepting - the hyphens are wrong, big boy.
But who seriously believed the asteriod was going to crash into Earth. - really, correct punctuation is overrated.
generally people post anonymously when they act like horses asses - I applaud you!
The rules of any process, meeting, or presentation, are generally tilted to give the advantage to the incumbents. I am sure no one is surprised to hear this, and no one doubts that the Commerce Departments DRM Workshop was likely tilted to insure the implementation of some recording and movie industry friendly protection. Therefore, if we all sit back like nice sheep, act appropriately, and follow the rules, what we will get is an industry friendly DRM system.
I am sure that some of you feel that downloading MP3s while hiding behind your firewalls and anonymous hotmail accounts is all it will take to stop DRM from coming, and maybe that will be enough. But maybe some direct action is needed. Maybe the token Free Software person needs not to sit back and smile, grateful for the opportunity to be in the presence of such great people that he is not even worthy to shine their shoes, but to stand up and declare himself not a patsy, but an equal.
The reference to the US suffrage movement may or may not be accurate. Our ability to copy and download music may not be as important as a women's right to participate in our democracy. On the other hand, I do not see any DRM protesters picketing the white house, being beaten, sent to jail, and force fed because they feel that their children's right to be considered full citizens was greater than any discomfort they themselves might incur.
What Stallman and a few other brave folks did was minor. It is being blown out of proportion by a media fearful for the demisof the only livelihood they know. It being propagated in populist forums like /. by persons uncomfortable with democratic process and the messiness that is occasionally necessary to keep that process afloat. If the opposition to the DRM is not important enough to justify such messiness, we should allow it to pass, and live in whatever world is the result.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I just read this story on yahoo and suddenly feel the urge to beat the author with my stats book. The caption says that the asteroid is "apparently on a direct collision course with Earth."
/ 02 0725/161/1wvs0.html&e=6
t ory&u=/nm/ 20020729/od_nm/asteroid_dc_1
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=
My favorite story about this asteroid is here:
Scientist Touts Laser to Zap Asteroid
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s
If they do design a laser in space then please god make it look like the Death Star!
It always irritates me when Stallman makes cogent and pertinent remarks like this, which threaten my image of him as a wild-eyed ranting iconoclast.
I hate to be considered a troll, especially since I'm a new user and I'm already posting at zero due to the fact that just *one* of my comments was modded down (off-topic, sorry), but the constant spats between Linux developers and Linux developer with other people are causing bad perception of Linux itself. The general public (actually, I just surveyed my immeadiate aunts, uncles, mom, and dad) thinks of Linux being a community they cannot get involved in due to the teenage 1337 hack0rz,the "long-haired computer geek" that all those with computer interests are portrayed as, and the constant public spats involving Linux developers. I am not critizing Mr. Stallman, because he has certaintly handled this in a good way. In fact, he could be an example for many other developers. I also feel that maybe a coordianted marketing campaign by IBM (who has a pretty good advertising agency) could erase the image of pimply-faced teenage hackers and smelly soda-guzzling developers. I only hope some day it will happen.
Stallman and the other's mode of "democratic revolution" is no more effective at altering those people's perceptives who make the laws, than an Anonymous Coward's flame is at changing your opinion.
Fact is, it's likely only to cement it.
That cleared it up. I guess that's why you post at 2 and I post at 0. :-)
Well if you were successful, could you teach me... if not, then you're one to talk.
>For the love of mike, comparing the Free Software movement to the civil rights movement? That takes some serious nerve...
Actually, it is pretty accurate since what we're talking about is our rights in regard to various material - trademark, patent, copyright. If you think these are not serious issues, you need to study it all a bit more. What we're seeing is oppression of our rights in the public domain by the government, mostly due to the urgings of powerful and wealthy corporations. The success of these corporations/government in these area could easily lead to a society where we have to have the whole civil rights movement over again -- for everyone. Please remove your cranium from your posterior orifice and have a good look around.
It makes no differnce.
A lack of courtsy is not an effective measure of democratic persuasion.
So even given the worse case senario and that everyone at the meeting had already made up their minds, what kind of effects does Stallman acheive?
He certianly isn't chaning anyone's mind on DRM, is he? Or do you honestly think going into such a meeting and scoffing is an effective tool of persuasion?
So you think prehaps, Microsoft attending a Linux convention and laughing during the presentations is going to make any linux users more friendly to Microsoft? Do you think it's going to make people on the fence throw in for Microsoft, given such an amasing display of argumentive power?
Am I asking too many retorical questions?
Freedom, as Mr. Stallman so conspicuously stands for, is never granted. It must be seized. Mr. Stallman and his corpulent cohorts can sit in the back and make all the little snipes they want. At the end of the day, no one in power cares less. They might toss out a bone once in a while, but will never concede anything.
If you want your rights, take them. Don't ask. Unjust laws do exist and it is our duty to break them. I say, build the tools to violate the law and not get caught. Egregiously flount the law and it will be exposed for the mockery that it is.
lighten up and laugh at yourself, turd
I'm sure he's right to most of us (the clear thinking adults, of which you are not)
Assembly is a great event. Apart from being the most important gathering of the demo scene, where all big groups try to bring their best productions to compete, it's a dream for a lot of us to be there someday. Just imagine:
The rest of us that won't be able to attend will be melting away on AsmTV. I'm sure Assembly will rock for one more year!
Vasilis Vasaitis
Late readers: please moderate at Newest First, with a low threshold, to promote late writers.
What the person at the front of the church is talking about. They babble on about their current pet theory or whatever and expect the congregation to just sit there and say nothing. A large group of people are held captive to the opinions of one person which ought to be engaged in dialog amongst everyone present.
Hey, when this asteroid zips past in 2019, can we throw a net over it and hitch a ride to mars?
What is the sound of 1,000,000 simultaneous periods?
iVillage.
Thank you very much. I'm here all week!
If you want to have an educated opinion, you owe it to yourself to check out RMS's positions personally.
--Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
(Karma level falling...)
I disagree with much of what Stallman has said and written over the years. It wouldn't bother me so much were it not for his continued use of evocative propaganda in his writings. When I first encountered it, I was tempted to say that Stallman is just incredibly-- almost inhumanly-- arrogant. That may still be the case. But he makes such a pattern of that sort of passionate, irrational rhetoric that I have to wonder what his true agenda really is.
(...falling...)
This quote is an example of just that sort of propaganda:
I cannot deny Al3x's charge that I, and the rest of us, defied the rules of the meeting by refusing to be completely silent. If it is wrong to disobey an unfair system, I stand convicted, but I am not ashamed. However, in the scale of civil disobedience, ours was very mild. Women demanding the vote sometimes chained themselves to doorways, which might been inconvenient for some passersby. Blacks demanding an end to segregation sometimes broke rules, and even laws, by sitting in a Whites-only diner or at the front of a bus.
Here he tries to associate himself with civil rights protesters from the past, as if to say, "What we did is right because what they did was right." The association is horribly inapt, and in very poor taste. You're not a martyr, Richard. You're a political extremist. Nobody is dying for The Cause here, and I for one would appreciate it if you'd tone down your language a bit.
(...falling...)
Stallman used the same propaganda technique-- and some others-- in his writings on "free" software. I put the word free in quotes there because what he means by "free software" and what the word "free" actually means are two very different things. I won't go into detail on this here, because I don't want to get too far off topic, and also because I've already done it in depth here. If you have any opinion on this matter at all, Constant Reader, please have a look at the comment to which I linked. I'll welcome any sort of discourse on this matter, if for no other reason than to bring the debate to the attention of those who presently have no opinion at all.
Just to sum up, I think Stallman's politics are misguided and wrong, but that's not what really bothers me. What really bothers me-- what really leads me to think that he might actually be dangerous, subversive in the bad sense of the word-- is the way he presents his ideas so carefully. His message is so clearly meant to appeal to emotion at the expense of reason that it makes me wonder what it is he's trying to slip past me.
(...gone.)
and the format on Sundays is oppressive...Also in courts...Jurors should ask those giving testimony questions...but as I understand, that is not allowed.
I thought the whole asteroid thing was kind of neat, so I made a little box on my web site that grabbed the latest impact data from NASA and shows year of impact, probability of impact, and danger rating.
Here's the (php) code.
"If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
If you look carefully at the whole of the a
without the additional worries that we had
without. Viz: (from here)
"
With the processing of a few more observati
asteroid 2002 NT7 through July 28, we can n
out any Earth impact possibilities for Febr
2019. While we cannot yet completely rule o
impact possibility on February 1, 2060, it
very likely that this possibility will be s
ruled out as well as additional positional
observations are processed. Because the SEN
system tracks a multitude of test particles
effort to map the uncertainties of the aste
future positions, some of these test partic
take slightly different dynamical paths. He
there are currently two entries for 2060 in
IMPACT RISK table. The entry with the highe
(larger Palermo Technical Scale) would be t
that would then take precedence.
"
Really, the whole thing seems like it's som
lay money on it, if you know what I mean.
Robert Falker
I do feel compeled to point out that freedom of speach *is* a civil rights issue so fundamental that it is the first in the Bill of Rights, and the essential foundation of the Votes for Women movement.
In fact, the founding fathers considered protecting it, ( no taxation without representation), by armed insurection. I don't think 'curtious' was a word *ever* applied to Sam Adams, ( the orginizer of the 'Boston Tea Party).
All 'Intellectual Property' law is a very serious civil rights issue.
KFG
sieze his right to make all the little snipes he wanted. Egregiously and with all the 'flount' you could want at that.
Can't you see the exposed mockery?
KFG
Okay, you're a fuckin' AC, so nobody cares what you think anyway, but I just have to respond to this.
In this corner, we have tens of millions of people over five generations denied equal protection under law.
And in this corner, we have an upper-middle-class white kid from Great Neck, Long Island, who is still bitter about Napster's being shut down.
Nobody is trying to take away your intellectual property rights, okay?* They're trying to protect their own intellectual property rights. Nobody's oppressing anybody here. As long as you inflate the issue into more than it really is, we're not going to be able to have a reasoned discussion or come to an acceptable conclusion.
* Stallman can go straight back to the library on this one. Intellectual property has long been a part of the laws and proto-law cultural traditions of peoples around the world. The native Americans of the Pacific northwest, for example, had strong traditions of intellectual property; it was considered a crime to sing a song that belonged to another family or tribe without their permission. Intellectual property is a very mature and very useful idea. Deconstructing it just confuses the issue; it doesn't rob it of its relevance.
(In best John Cleese voice)
The BBC would like to make the following correction. When we told you in our news programme last week that an asteroid was going to strike the earth in 2019, we didn't mean this asteroid. We meant that other asteroid, over there... Definitely not this asteroid... We didn't mean that at all...... Not for a moment...... And we never said it..... We meant another asteroid... Really.... We wouldn't joke about a thing like that........ I'm wearing panties and a bra you know...
Stallman was actually comparing DRM to a woman's right to vote AND civil rights of blacks?
Stallman is an arrogant child. His usefulness is gone.
What he said: "We can now rule out any impact possibilities for 1 February 2019."
What he didn't say: "But the Tuesday after that is going to be one really bad day."
In preperation for 20xx (or could that be 21xx) just paint it white and the change in surface temperature will change its course.
EASY!!
Is that an African or European swallow?
and the damage is already done... if you let a lie be, it will do as much damage as possible. Even if the person speaking it is unaware it is not the truth, it is still a lie. The only reason that no professor wants you to continually ask questions and demand that they stop teaching to answer all of them, is because the world has reached the conclusion that it is to be that way. There is no good reason for it.
I claim to be of God...by our very existance we accuse each other where we have differences. They must be reconciled... The very nature of the one to many format, with no backfeed is oppressive to those in it...as for what you said about the courts...It makes no sense whatsoever.
Stallman is one of those guys whose great intelligence is utterly devoted to the spread of a sort of fundamentalist religion, of destroying the unbelievers, and of being worshipped by the True Disciples.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've noticed, however, that all of the times when I have personally listened to or read what he has to say, that it's pretty damn reasonable.
Did you "personally" read what he just wrote above? Do you consider his comparison of his obnoxious heckling of a panel discussion on IP to risking one's life to end human slavery to be "pretty damn reasonable"?
The audience was apparently full of people who sympathized with many of his positions. That audience was apparently trying to get him quiet down.
Why? Because of a desperate fear for his personal safety for daring to speak out against the oppressors? No, because his obnoxious "pay attention to me" behavior was both inconveniencing other listeners and reducing the credibility of their ideas where they overlapped with Stallman's.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
"The chicken little that cried asteroid"
GENERAL PROTECTION FAULT IN 0x0000BC5F YOUR ASTEROID HAS CRASHED AND IS NOT RESPONDING You may either wait for the "Close Program" dialog box to appear, or press CTRL-ALT-DELETE again to restart.
The parent is offtopic and uninteresting. Thanks.
The fight against DRM is NOT a fight to reproduce comercial music or, worse, use multiple coppies of M$ junk in your house as some might believe. The fight against DRM is a fight to maintain control of your computer. It's a fight to be able to make your own software, and other content, and share it with your friends. DRM will end your ability to do these things as surely as the DMCA made DeCSS illegal and prevents you from using a freaking cue-cat bar code reader as you see fit. DRM can not work unless someone else is root on your computer. How else can unspecified files be "protected" against copy? This is as unAmerican as any other form of censorship and must not be allowed to pass without comment.
This fight is more imprortant than any previous civil rights battle since the US Delcaration of Independence. That someone who is root on all DRM encumbered machines will wield more raw power than any previous tyrant. Those that own the filters will be able to spy and deny copy on demand. This way DRM will end your rights to free speech, press and security of your personal papers and effects. With free speech and press go truth itself. Without security of your private papers effective opposition is impossible. Of course, a society like that will not prosper, but neither will it necessarily crumple on it's own. As the US government turns it's back on the Bill of Rights, hope for freedom in this world grows dim. There's no place left to run.
Thank you RMS for doing what you do. Good luck.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
people who believe in a lie, on the other hand, not so fortunate...
Without having an opinion one way or the other on the impact of RMS's behavior at the meeting, I am one person who was active in the civil-rights movement in the early 60's who is not offended by the comparison of it to the fight to restrain IP claims. (I'm also author of several minor patents -- example.)
US-led intellectual-property laws (all mixed together, as Stallman points out) are a growing method of forcing the poorer parts of the world to send money to the richer parts. The biggest problem is not copyright, but patents such as the ones that make many needed medicines too expensive to use throughout most of the world. Taking money from impoverished sick people (or countries) just for the privilege of using an idea is as immoral as were the earlier colonial and feudal expropriations that were also justified by ownership ideas that are now discredited.
Laws that let you keep other people from using ideas need to be limited to what can be clearly shown to benefit people in general. When numerous trivial ideas are granted patents, and unjustified but ruinously-expensive infringement lawsuits are routinely used to stifle independent invention, it is clear that the correct balance has been lost. While the protests should not be limited to DRM (it won't help for people to see entertainment piracy as the only IP issue), I think that the fights on DRM are an important element in awakening people to the dangers posed by greed backed up by political power, even if the greatest such dangers are not DRM ones.
The civil-rights movement and the women's-rights movements were glad to make use of precedents from the ACLU's free-speech efforts to stop pornography prosecutions and from alliances first formed to repeal alcohol prohibition -- even if the issues were not directly related in theory, the enemies of more freedom were pretty much the same in all cases, so that all the freedom efforts reinforced each other in practice. Efforts for more IP freedom are in the same tradition.
While I hesitate to buy into the comparisons with martyrs of civil rights and women's suffrage, I understand and sympathize with RMS's views. I also agree that a miscommunication about his views on intellectual property occured, and clearly a well-written text can offer a much more cohesive explanation than five minutes of conversation on a hot DC sidewalk.
But perhaps this is exactly the point: I've recieved an outpour of sympathetic responses from red-blooded geeks from all parts, bemoaning our self-appointed representatives and their complex, often unrealistic viewpoints that can be explained only at length and implemented only in a closed system of their own design. However, the beautiful thing is: RMS, the NY Fair Use crowd, and their ilk have just as much right to their style of politicking as those of us who desire efficient and reasonable lobbying. And, as one Slashdotter enlightened me, it does take all kinds to really expose a tangled issue like this.
I am largely in agreement with RMS, with the GNU philosophy, and with the notion that 'intellectual property' is both a misnomer and a vile construct. But I've also been mired in enough DC politics from a young age to know that idealism lies well beyond the goal in sight, and as disheartening as that may be, it's the price of "majority rules" democracy. I appreciate RMS clearing up our misunderstanding, and I appreciate those of you who wrote in support of a more moderate geek political platform.
I really wanted to read your Manifesto, but I don't use OpenOffice and my web browser won't let me directly open RTF. I therefore have to save the RTF file, find it, open it, and delete it when I am finished. What a pain!
You get a D+ for accessibility. Put it in HTML (or at the very least, PDF) next time.
I decided to change the name of the thread. It looks nicer this way. The guy gave us the GNU License for Lord's sake, which begat Linux, and a million other wonderful things. Not to mention all the other "GNU/Linux" goodies, and why it so hard to even give someone a compliment for his contribution in free software.
I hug RMS. After being worked over by the low end of the Slashdot gene pool myself, my esteem for him has only increased. Fight the good fight, and remember, we are here for Freedom and History and not for what a bunch of dweebs think about us or "how we look".
Dr. Rich
>Nobody is trying to take away your intellectual >property rights, okay?* They're trying to >protect their own intellectual property rights.
Forgive me from channeling Bill Clinton for a moment, but it depends on what the meaning of "rights" is.
I'd say there are two distinct categories of rights in any IP transaction, and even if you're a consumer of IP only, you get some rights.
The seller can expect certain rights (the right to charge what he thinks the market will bear, the right to limit distribution, and the right to a monopoly for a certain time length). The buyer can also expect certain rights (the rights to time/space shift, the right to transfer the license to someone else, the right to choose their preferred means of using the content). It's a balance, and more and more, the balance has become swayed both by legal constraints and technical ones (who often rely on legal constraints to reinforce their technical flimsiness)
Remember: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins." (I think this was attributed to some Supreme Court justice, but I may be wrong) We need an analogue of this for the information age-- "your right to copy-control ends where my right to the legitimate use of products I've purchased begins"
>Intellectual property is a very mature and very >useful idea.
So is nuclear fission. Just because it's useful and mature doesn't mean it doesn't need constraints to ensure it's not abused/misused to the detriment of the whole society.
It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
Okay, you bring up good points. But I'm not sure that the "rights" (I'm not even sure that's the right word) of the buyer are self-evident. If you buy a material good, that object becomes yours, and you can do anything with it that you could do with any object of yours. That's intuitive and obvious. But when you "buy" a piece of software or media, you're actually buying certain rights to that media. Those rights determine what you can and can't do.
The way I see it, the seller is free to sell any combination of rights that he wants. A seller of media could say that the buyer is only entitled to watch the DVD on Tuesdays between two and six in months that end in "r." That would be a perfectly legal and valid license agreement.
There are those who believe that you should be able to do certain things with media irrespective of the rights you bought. These things are generally lumped together and called "fair use."
I don't have answers, only questions. I'm just not sure that "the rights of the buyer" are at all self-evident or clear. So I'm not sure that all the uproar over DRM makes sense. You don't have the right to use the media in certain ways anyway, because you didn't buy that right from the seller. A DRM technology merely enforces the restrictions that you, the buyer, have already accepted.
"A DRM technology merely enforces the restrictions that you, the buyer, have already accepted."
Except that the I have yet to see or hear (correct me if I'm wrong) of a DRM technology that doesn't in some way stop the previously understood fair use rights.
eg. The CSS on a DVD is designed to stop people from accessing the material on the DVD unless they have also purchased a CSS authorised DVD player, but the CSS also stops people being able to skip throught the ads at the beginning. But education has the specify right and in fact duty to no let students see the ads, because it is illegal to use educational material to promote a commerical products and if its not illegal then it is very very bad form and many students would complain.
So until DRM technology is capable of allowing these exceptional fair use rights (I don't think that will ever happen). I think all DRM technology needs to be opposed and the only way to protect content owners is to go back to the old system of charging people who break the law and sending them to jail. Which is why I'm opposed to DRM technology and pro IP laws, just so long has the laws don't mandate the use of a particular technology.
I'd like to add I saw RMS do a seminar at the CFP 1998 conference (Computer Freedom and Privacy)
at Austin with many people from the University's law program present, and I found his statements there more in line with what he states in his response then to what Al3x thought he had said.
At the conference he said things acknowledging the difference in the kinds of law reform that should be applied to different types of copyrights (i.e. written media, online media, and software) and also towards patent laws. He didn't ever say destroy all these types of IP law, he really just proposed changes like shorting the copyright down a couple of decades from its current obscene mickey-mouse's lobbying levels, and considered ideas of making software copyrights much shorter than other copyrights (say 15 years) since it wasn't going to be that big a deal if you gave your sister a copy of dos 2.0 to put on her spare intel 286...
I don't recall what he said in response to patents
because something kind of funny was taking place at that time so I probably didn't pay enough attention then.
Note that this was over 4 years ago.. His general ideas seem to be in line with those of 4 years ago, or even further back considering the inception of the FSF and his actions go much further back all seemingly steming from the same general philosophy.
I don't think so:
The point is to get away from the trolls (and not the kind that live under bridges which is about all we get on slashdot, when they aren't just plain old crapflooders and/or bots). That article above wasn't even remotely clever (which a troll -- by definition and at minimum -- should be). Not even close. Nice try, though.
I think I'll just keep browsing at +2 and reading K5. Hell, even Fark is better than some of the childish nonsense that comes through here...
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
It can be found here.
The construction began today, so you can check out how to build to a large demoparty. Doors will open on Thursday at 12:00 local time, and the lights will be shut down at 18:00.
BAM.. WTF?
who cares when it happens...
or if..
WTF is a proto-law? No, we really don't need to have a conversation. There isn't one to have. You are simply trying to spread FUD by using native american song references and other such BS. See, native americans didn't have ATTORNEYS, which is what you sound like. No IANAL, I see. Of course, I'm assuming that you've been misled by bottom feeders...
we are all going to die anyways.
We have to keep him around so he can argue with the asteroid in 2019.
This is what my dictionary says "free" means. The following definitions are what the "free" in free software mean:
3. Not controlled by an outside power; autonomous. 4. Not bound by restrictions or regulations: free trade. 9. Not controlled, restricted, or hampered by outside agents or influences. 12. Available to all; open: a free port.
These are some notable definitions that Stallman does not mean by free software:
1. Having personal liberty. 2. Having civil, political, or religious liberty. 15. Given or provided for without charge or cost: free seats.
So the phrase "free software" does mean what he intends it to mean, "unrestricted". Anyone who believes he means definition 1 or 2 in my dictionary, is a fool. If this is propaganda, its rather poor, don't you think?
Also, free software doesn't necessarily mean free of *all* restrictions, which seems to be your only complaint, just as free trade doesn't mean trade without *any* restriction. In both cases, it simply means you are generally not restricted in what you may do. By all accounts, the GPL is an unrestrictive license even if it doesn't allow you to relicense the work. Without the GPL, you wouldn't be able to copy the program, obtain source code, or distribute your own modifications.
Wildly obnoxious? Alienating people?
l ienation/obnoxiousness (insert preferred word depending on your agenda) that the public needed to be included in the discussion, and was missing from the current panel.
Let's take a look at what happened. This "second round-table discussion" started at a 15 to 1 disadvantage against the public. By one reporter's count, it ended up being 23 to 1.
What was this panel really about? If you understand American politics, it was about one thing. Providing cover for the asses of US Representatives for votes on pending legislation that was written by, and paid for by the Entertainment Cartel. That's it. Plain and simple.
We tried everything we could to get representatives on the panel. We tried with the panel organizer. We tried with the Commerce Committee contacts. We tried with local legislators. Nothing worked. As the EFF lawyer stated, they were told specifically not to come to the hearing. The public was specifically being shut out of that "round-table"
There was one public representative on the panel, and except for a couple of sentences, he kept his mouth shut for the duration of the hearing.
Let's examine what happened that day, July 17, 2002. Representatives from Disney, Vivendi, Intel, IBM, MPAA, ContentGuard, AOL Time Warner, News Corp, EMI, and others sat around at a table, and patted each other on the back.
But wait. Let's start just a little earlier. Prior to the start of the "public round-table discussion", we were informed that we were not going to be permitted into the room. It was a closed meeting. We had to point out to the Committee reps that it was a PUBLIC meeting, and they couldn't bar us. We even had to find a place to download and print a copy of their announcement to show to them. When they realized that we would have printed proof that it was a public meeting, they relented, and said they would allow us to enter the meeting room.
The meeting started with a statement from the Commerce Sub-Committee Chair, and went around the table, with panel members making their introductions, and then making brief statements. Jack Valenti, who apparently was alerted to our website that listed the event (along with Jack Valenti notable quotables, which included some of his outrageous past statements, such as: "The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone" Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA --
1982"") pre-empted the criticism by saying that he was known for using colorful language in the past in order to get his point across.
We were "informed" of the format of the hearing, that no statements from outside the panelists would be taken. So we could not get a seat at the panel, and we could not comment from the audience.
So Jack enlightened us on how he worked in the Johnson Administration to make the world better. And other things. And so it went. Then we were shown a ridiculously funny screen (probably a power point page) that showed the dozens of groups, and dozens of encrypting/drm/technological schemes to control content. From there, others made their introductions, and made their statements. One of Jack's early statements said something to the effect of (without actually naming the public) the public's view being noise, and a distraction, and that he puts these views, and this noise, out of his mind, as should they all, if they are to get anything done on this issue.
Up to that point, the audience was fairly quiet, but we laughed when the more outrageous statements were made. There were plenty to go around. Even the dude from Phillips, and another tech guy (Intel I believe) got into it with Jack Valenti on a number of occasions. But up to this point, there was really only laughter and occasional gasps from the audience at some of the statements.
About halfway through the proceedings, after having listened to numerous inflammatory statements made by Jack, and by others from the Entertainment Cartel, Jack started to get more intense in his statements. He compared fair use rights and file trading to a burglar using a skeleton key to rob all the houses in the neighborhood. He really said that.
I let that one slide off me. But after an exchange between Jack Valenti and Big IT where it got a little heated, Jack cooled off a bit, and then made a statement saying that the moving industry, and the IT industry needed to get together with legislators to write legislation to stop all the theft. I had enough. I stood up, and in a voice loud enough to be heard from the back of the room, I said "what about the public?" Paraphrasing myself (I don't have the transcripts yet), I said that the public was not being represented on the panel, the public is the true stakeholder on this topic, where are the public voices? I said this in a loud enough voice to be heard from the back of a large room. Was I yelling? I don't know. I know that I was speaking loud enough to be heard. That's it. Ask others.
What was Jack Valenti's reaction? He did something that shows he is a very astute individual when it comes to testifying in Congress. He continued talking. He talked right over me. He had the microphone. His voice, speaking directly into the microphone, not my voice from the back of a large meeting room, was being recorded. But the chair wouldn't have it. He interrupted me, and was telling me to sit down and be quiet. No comments were allowed. But Jack, knowing the press was there, turned an interruption of his speech into a chance to look good. He said that if I allowed him to finish his statement, he would allow me to respond. The chair tried to shut me up, but when I heard Jack say that, I sat down, and he finished his statement. Then, before I could give the chair a chance to shut me down, I stood back up, and gave my two cents. I (paraphrasing myself again, from memory) stated that the panel was not representative of the public, the public were the stakeholders, and there needed to be public representatives on the panel. As I stood up to respond, Ruben Safir, Brett Wyncoop, Seth Johnson (who held up his hand for two hours by the end of the meeting waiting to be called on to make a statement) Jay Sulzburger and others stood up, and I introduced Richard Stallman (who had just been awarded an honor by the United Nations) and we tried to get the panel chairman to recogize him to allow him to make a statement. Richard did not stand up, and said nothing. We, from New Yorkers for Fair Use , NYLXS , and several other groups, made the few statements that we were able to squeeze in.
The chair was having none of that. He said that Brett, who was mistakenly recognized earlier as a panelist (it was standing room only, with people standing, sitting on the floor, kneeling, sitting on laps, etc) when he was kneeling near one of the tables, and when he was called on, he made his statement. So the chair said that since Brett had made his short statement, the public had been heard, we had our chance. "We have a structure here!" was said repeatedly by the chair.
So we were told to shut up and sit down. Richard Stallman never said a word at this point. He wasn't given the chance.
After we sat down, Jack Valenti was clearly flustered. The press was present. They had heard the exchange. It would not be good PR for the MPAA. So he made some more astounding statements. He couldn't understand why I was saying the public was not represented on the panel. He was the public. He indicated the guy across from him (the Intel rep, I believe) and said he was the public. He said the Commerce Sub-Committee reps seated at the head of the table were the public, the public was represented.
After that exchange, the "round-table" discussion continued. More statements were made, calling for legislation. A few of the IT reps were against legislating the unknown. The Phillips rep, the Intel rep, and a couple of others were against legislation putting controls into the hardware, without a specific definition of what the controls were. The rep from Listen.com was against the drm legislation in general. He stated repeatedly that he was competing against free P2P, and his company was making money on it. And the IBM rep, the Phillips rep, and one other IT rep stated several times after my outburst/shouting/statement/activism/disruption/a
After some more discussion, the panel was asked by the chair to sum up their positions. This is where it got interesting. And this is where you separate the sheep from those who understand politics in America.
This "second round-table discussion" was a fraud. It was designed with one thing in mind. Provide cover for the legislators. The Commerce Committee, and this sub-committee was charged with one thing. Provide cover. This is an election year. Every House of Representatives seat is up for re-election. The US Reps are going through the motions. They are shaking the trees and raking the leaves. The Entertainment cartel already has bills written up by their lawyers. They want these bills passed. And the legislators want the Entertainment Cartel money so they can get re-elected. There is one week left before the summer break. That's this week. After the summer break, the legislators will not have time for these bills. They will be fighting over War legislation, economic legislation, senior issues, environment, and re-election items. And they will be running for re-election. This year will be a tough election. Control of the House and Senate are both up for grabs.
Getting back to the summations, this is where the horseshit started to fly. Starting with the lobbyist for AOL Time Warner (yeah, they actually sent a lobbyist) and continuing with Jack Valenti of MPAA, and Vivendi, and others, the panelists all looked at each other, or their notes, and lied straight into the microphone. They stated that a consensus had been reached. Talks between IT and Entertainment were not enough. Help from legislators, in the form of legislation was needed. They actually stated that a consensus was reached (none was, the Entertainment and IT industries remained far apart, and they admitted that the public needed to be represented), they stated that the panel was in agreement that legislation was needed, etc. This couldn't be further from the truth. But the truth didn't matter when they were making these statements. These statements were being made for one reason. They were providing sound bites for legislators to use for their justification later in voting for what will be highly anti-consumer, highly anti-fair use, and highly anti-open source legislation. That's it. They are supplying sound bites and cover for legislators.
It was at this point, when Jack Valenti was trying to sound conciliatory to the IT rep (I think it was the Intel guy again) when Jack summed up by stating that the Entertainment Industry and IT had to get together with Congress to find a solution. It had been a long day at this point, very hot outside, not enough air conditioning inside, and this one slipped by me. But luckily, Richard Stallman caught it. He said aloud (paraphrasing from memory again) "so the IT industry and the entertainment industry are conspiring again to the exclusion of the public" He was completely correct on this, and it was an important point to bring up. It repeated what we had been saying all along, and it pointed out that even after we repeatedly tried to get the public to have a voice in what was happening, that Jack Valenti, and Big IT were in agreement to exclude the public. This was an important point, and it is the only statement that Richard Stallmen made inside the committee room. Everything else that Richard Stallman said, and the rest of us said was made on the steps outside the Commerce Committee building, at our impromptu news conference after.
Upset that your electronic school books expire at the end of the semester? (see nyfairuse.org web site on this one, it's true) Too bad. Upset that you can't back up you music CD to protect against scratches? Too bad. Upset that you'll have to pay a second time for the same song if you want to transfer it from your CD to your Rio? Too bad. We held hearings, the public was represented, a consensus was reached. It's right here in the transcript. At least five people stated that a consensus was reached. Where were you? We held hearings. You should have made your voice heard then. You should have contacted my office. I have no record of you ever contacting me. How was I supposed to know this would happen, you should have told me. I was voting to protect musicians, to help keep them off of welfare...
Cover and sound bites. That's what the hearing was all about.
Toward the end of the hearing, Mike Miron, of ContentGuard, made the most outrageous statement of all. And this one slipped under the radar of the journalists. It was made as people were getting restless, as the meeting was winding up, and others on the panel were starting to pack up. In one breath, he associated kids trading files with spies and terrorists such as Wen Ho Lee, Jonathan Pollard, and Robert Hanson. He stated that P2P networks enable spies and terrorists to upload military secrets to the internet, and that in light of September 11, this must be considered. Having been personally affected by September 11, this is the most outrageous statement I have ever heard. Anyone who knows anything about the Robert Hanson case knows that he was a highly knowledgeable person on technology, and used his technical skills far beyond what a mere P2P network can provide. Many tools are available to computer users for uploading files, including ftp, sftp, putty, scp, and many others. Other tools, such as PGP, steganograpy, GnuPG, SSH, and others would accomplish much more, and would better hide the tracks of a would be spy or terrorist. Equating kids with spies and terrorists, and using September 11th to provide a sound bite for a Congressman on the DRM issue is appalling. But the Entertainment Cartel will do what it takes to get their bills through.
So the "round-table" was held on July 17, a Wednesday. I'm sure you all saw the wave of bills on DRM, on allowing the Entertainment industry to hack into your computers and destroy files with civil and criminal protections , and on various other issues regarding DRM and Fair Use attacks. These bills were out the end of the same week, or the beginning of the following week. How many of you believe that the legislators sat around on July 18 to write these bills? Or is it more believable that these bills were already written prior to the round-table meeting?
We have been in contact with the Commerce Dept. We will have representatives present during the next discussion. It naturally will be separate from the industry panel (don't wanna kill the golden goose, and don't wanna give the opposition their own sound bites from the same meeting), but it is a step forward. A step that we did not have before we opened our mouths. A step that we would not have if we would have behaved like lambs to the slaughter, as Al3x would have us do. A forum where we will try to correctly define DRM
Should we have spoke out? Or not? You tell me.
But before you do, check out http://www.nyfairuse.org as they have a more complete account of what happened, and that was written a couple of days after the "round-table", not from my memory as I am doing now. Check it out, then tell me: Should we have kept our mouths shut like Al3x wanted? Or did we do something right by taking on Jack Valenti 's poisonous fud and rhetoric?
Did you speak out? Should you have spoken out? Sent an email? Made a phone call? Sent a fax?
I can't answer for you. I can only answer for myself. And I did what I thought was right.
Vincenzo.
I can be reached through the NYFairUse Discuss mailing list
btw, this is just one member's opinion. For official positions by NYLXS or NYFairUse , go to their web sites.
Wildly obnoxious? Alienating people?
l ienation/obnoxiousness (insert preferred word depending on your agenda) that the public needed to be included in the discussion, and was missing from the current panel.
Let's take a look at what happened. This "second round-table discussion" started at a 15 to 1 disadvantage against the public. By one reporter's count, it ended up being at least 23 to 1.
What was this panel really about? If you understand American politics, it was about one thing. Providing cover for the asses of US Representatives for votes on pending legislation that was written by, and paid for by the Entertainment Cartel. That's it. Plain and simple.
We tried everything we could to get representatives on the panel. We tried with the panel organizer. We tried with the Commerce Committee contacts. We tried with local legislators. Nothing worked. As the EFF lawyer stated, they were told specifically not to come to the hearing. The public was specifically being shut out of that "round-table"
There was one public representative on the panel, and except for a couple of sentences, he kept his mouth shut for the duration of the hearing.
Let's examine what happened that day, July 17, 2002. Representatives from Disney, Vivendi, Intel, IBM, MPAA, ContentGuard, AOL Time Warner, News Corp, EMI, and others sat around at a table, and patted each other on the back.
But wait. Let's start just a little earlier. Prior to the start of the "public round-table discussion", we were informed that we were not going to be permitted into the room. It was a closed meeting. We had to point out to the Committee reps that it was a PUBLIC meeting, and they couldn't bar us. We even had to find a place to download and print a copy of their announcement to show to them. When they realized that we would have printed proof that it was a public meeting, they relented, and said they would allow us to enter the meeting room.
The meeting started with a statement from the Commerce Sub-Committee Chair, and went around the table, with panel members making their introductions, and then making brief statements. Jack Valenti, who apparently was alerted to our website that listed the event (along with Jack Valenti notable quotables, which included some of his outrageous past statements, such as: "The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone" Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA --
1982"") pre-empted the criticism by saying that he was known for using colorful language in the past in order to get his point across.
We were "informed" of the format of the hearing, that no statements from outside the panelists would be taken. So we could not get a seat at the panel, and we could not comment from the audience.
So Jack enlightened us on how he worked in the Johnson Administration to make the world better. And other things. And so it went. Then we were shown a ridiculously funny screen (probably a power point page) that showed the dozens of groups, and dozens of encrypting/drm/technological schemes to control content. From there, others made their introductions, and made their statements. One of Jack's early statements said something to the effect of (without actually naming the public) the public's view being noise, and a distraction, and that he puts these views, and this noise, out of his mind, as should they all, if they are to get anything done on this issue.
Up to that point, the audience was fairly quiet, but we laughed when the more outrageous statements were made. There were plenty to go around. Even the dude from Phillips, and another tech guy (Intel I believe) got into it with Jack Valenti on a number of occasions. But up to this point, there was really only laughter and occasional gasps from the audience at some of the statements.
About halfway through the proceedings, after having listened to numerous inflammatory statements made by Jack, and by others from the Entertainment Cartel, Jack started to get more intense in his statements. He compared fair use rights and file trading to a burglar using a skeleton key to rob all the houses in the neighborhood. He really said that.
I let that one slide off me. But after an exchange between Jack Valenti and Big IT where it got a little heated, Jack cooled off a bit, and then made a statement saying that the moving industry, and the IT industry needed to get together with legislators to write legislation to stop all the theft. I had enough. I stood up, and in a voice loud enough to be heard from the back of the room, I said "what about the public?" Paraphrasing myself (I don't have the transcripts yet), I said that the public was not being represented on the panel, the public is the true stakeholder on this topic, where are the public voices? I said this in a loud enough voice to be heard from the back of a large room. Was I yelling? I don't know. I know that I was speaking loud enough to be heard. That's it. Ask others.
What was Jack Valenti's reaction? He did something that shows he is a very astute individual when it comes to testifying in Congress. He continued talking. He talked right over me. He had the microphone. His voice, speaking directly into the microphone, not my voice from the back of a large meeting room, was being recorded. But the chair wouldn't have it. He interrupted me, and was telling me to sit down and be quiet. No comments were allowed. But Jack, knowing the press was there, turned an interruption of his speech into a chance to look good. He said that if I allowed him to finish his statement, he would allow me to respond. The chair tried to shut me up, but when I heard Jack say that, I sat down, and he finished his statement. Then, before I could give the chair a chance to shut me down, I stood back up, and gave my two cents. I (paraphrasing myself again, from memory) stated that the panel was not representative of the public, the public were the stakeholders, and there needed to be public representatives on the panel. As I stood up to respond, Ruben Safir, Brett Wyncoop, Seth Johnson (who held up his hand for two hours by the end of the meeting waiting to be called on to make a statement) Jay Sulzburger and others stood up, and I introduced Richard Stallman (who had just been awarded an honor by the United Nations) and we tried to get the panel chairman to recogize him to allow him to make a statement. Richard did not stand up, and said nothing. We, from New Yorkers for Fair Use , NYLXS , and several other groups, made the few statements that we were able to squeeze in.
The chair was having none of that. He said that Brett, who was mistakenly recognized earlier as a panelist (it was standing room only, with people standing, sitting on the floor, kneeling, sitting on laps, etc) when he was kneeling near one of the tables, and when he was called on, he made his statement. So the chair said that since Brett had made his short statement, the public had been heard, we had our chance. "We have a structure here!" was said repeatedly by the chair.
So we were told to shut up and sit down. Richard Stallman never said a word at this point. He wasn't given the chance.
After we sat down, Jack Valenti was clearly flustered. The press was present. They had heard the exchange. It would not be good PR for the MPAA. So he made some more astounding statements. He couldn't understand why I was saying the public was not represented on the panel. He was the public. He indicated the guy across from him (the Intel rep, I believe) and said he was the public. He said the Commerce Sub-Committee reps seated at the head of the table were the public, the public was represented.
After that exchange, the "round-table" discussion continued. More statements were made, calling for legislation. A few of the IT reps were against legislating the unknown. The Phillips rep, the Intel rep, and a couple of others were against legislation putting controls into the hardware, without a specific definition of what the controls were. The rep from Listen.com was against the drm legislation in general. He stated repeatedly that he was competing against free P2P, and his company was making money on it. And the IBM rep, the Phillips rep, and one other IT rep stated several times after my outburst/shouting/statement/activism/disruption/a
After some more discussion, the panel was asked by the chair to sum up their positions. This is where it got interesting. And this is where you separate the sheep from those who understand politics in America.
This "second round-table discussion" was a fraud. It was designed with one thing in mind. Provide cover for the legislators. The Commerce Committee, and this sub-committee was charged with one thing. Provide cover. This is an election year. Every House of Representatives seat is up for re-election. The US Reps are going through the motions. They are shaking the trees and raking the leaves. The Entertainment cartel already has bills written up by their lawyers. They want these bills passed. And the legislators want the Entertainment Cartel money so they can get re-elected. There is one week left before the summer break. That's this week. After the summer break, the legislators will not have time for these bills. They will be fighting over War legislation, economic legislation, senior issues, environment, and re-election items. And they will be running for re-election. This year will be a tough election. Control of the House and Senate are both up for grabs.
Getting back to the summations, this is where the horseshit started to fly. Starting with the lobbyist for AOL Time Warner (yeah, they actually sent a lobbyist) and continuing with Jack Valenti of MPAA, and Vivendi, and others, the panelists all looked at each other, or their notes, and lied straight into the microphone. They stated that a consensus had been reached. Talks between IT and Entertainment were not enough. Help from legislators, in the form of legislation was needed. They actually stated that a consensus was reached (none was, the Entertainment and IT industries remained far apart, and they admitted that the public needed to be represented), they stated that the panel was in agreement that legislation was needed, etc. This couldn't be further from the truth. But the truth didn't matter when they were making these statements. These statements were being made for one reason. They were providing sound bites for legislators to use for their justification later in voting for what will be highly anti-consumer, highly anti-fair use, and highly anti-open source legislation. That's it. They are supplying sound bites and cover for legislators.
It was at this point, when Jack Valenti was trying to sound conciliatory to the IT rep (I think it was the Intel guy again) when Jack summed up by stating that the Entertainment Industry and IT had to get together with Congress to find a solution. It had been a long day at this point, very hot outside, not enough air conditioning inside, and this one slipped by me. But luckily, Richard Stallman caught it. He said aloud (paraphrasing from memory again) "so the IT industry and the entertainment industry are conspiring again to the exclusion of the public" He was completely correct on this, and it was an important point to bring up. It repeated what we had been saying all along, and it pointed out that even after we repeatedly tried to get the public to have a voice in what was happening, that Jack Valenti, and Big IT were in agreement to exclude the public. This was an important point, and it is the only statement that Richard Stallmen made inside the committee room. Everything else that Richard Stallman said, and the rest of us said was made on the steps outside the Commerce Committee building, at our impromptu news conference after.
Upset that your electronic school books expire at the end of the semester? (see nyfairuse.org web site on this one, it's true) Too bad. Upset that you can't back up you music CD to protect against scratches? Too bad. Upset that you'll have to pay a second time for the same song if you want to transfer it from your CD to your Rio? Too bad. We held hearings, the public was represented, a consensus was reached. It's right here in the transcript. At least five people stated that a consensus was reached. Where were you? We held hearings. You should have made your voice heard then. You should have contacted my office. I have no record of you ever contacting me. How was I supposed to know this would happen, you should have told me. I was voting to protect musicians, to help keep them off of welfare...
Cover and sound bites. That's what the hearing was all about.
Toward the end of the hearing, Mike Miron, of ContentGuard, made the most outrageous statement of all. And this one slipped under the radar of the journalists. It was made as people were getting restless, as the meeting was winding up, and others on the panel were starting to pack up. In one breath, he associated kids trading files with spies and terrorists such as Wen Ho Lee, Jonathan Pollard, and Robert Hanson. He stated that P2P networks enable spies and terrorists to upload military secrets to the internet, and that in light of September 11, this must be considered. Having been personally affected by September 11, this is the most outrageous statement I have ever heard. Anyone who knows anything about the Robert Hanson case knows that he was a highly knowledgeable person on technology, and used his technical skills far beyond what a mere P2P network can provide. Many tools are available to computer users for uploading files, including ftp, sftp, putty, scp, and many others. Other tools, such as PGP, steganograpy, GnuPG, SSH, and others would accomplish much more, and would better hide the tracks of a would be spy or terrorist. Equating kids with spies and terrorists, and using September 11th to provide a sound bite for a Congressman on the DRM issue is appalling. But the Entertainment Cartel will do what it takes to get their bills through.
So the "round-table" was held on July 17, a Wednesday. I'm sure you all saw the wave of bills on DRM, on allowing the Entertainment industry to hack into your computers and destroy files with civil and criminal protections , and on various other issues regarding DRM and Fair Use attacks. These bills were out the end of the same week, or the beginning of the following week. How many of you believe that the legislators sat around on July 18 to write these bills? Or is it more believable that these bills were already written prior to the round-table meeting?
We have been in contact with the Commerce Dept. We will have representatives present during the next discussion. It naturally will be separate from the industry panel (don't wanna kill the golden goose, and don't wanna give the opposition their own sound bites from the same meeting), but it is a step forward. A step that we did not have before we opened our mouths. A step that we would not have if we would have behaved like lambs to the slaughter, as Al3x would have us do. A forum where we will try to correctly define DRM
Should we have spoke out? Or not? You tell me.
But before you do, check out http://www.nyfairuse.org as they have a more complete account of what happened, and that was written a couple of days after the "round-table", not from my memory as I am doing now. Check it out, then tell me: Should we have kept our mouths shut like Al3x wanted? Or did we do something right by taking on Jack Valenti 's poisonous fud and rhetoric?
Did you speak out? Should you have spoken out? Sent an email? Made a phone call? Sent a fax?
I can't answer for you. I can only answer for myself. And I did what I thought was right.
Vincenzo.
I can be reached through the NYFairUse Discuss mailing list
btw, this is just one member's opinion. For official positions by NYLXS or NYFairUse , go to their web sites.
Announce an mpeg streaming server on Slashdot? Does NOT sound like the best idea today.
I don't understand why 'we're all going to be shmushed by a wandering rock' makes the Slashdot front page, and 'thank god, we're not going to be shmushed by a wandering rock' only gets slashback. The only interesting press is the sensationalist, rather than the status-quo (i.e. we all get to live)?
Stallman comes across as an ass for the simple, yet profound, reason that he is an ass.
If you can't see the substance in what this guy has to say (and most importantly in what this guy has done and is doing) then the one with a problem is you. You should at least revisit your definition of propaganda.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Somebody moderate this up. It may be an AC-comment, but it is clearly an interesting comment from a first-hand perspective.
[Sletje] 'Al3x' is 31% lame, alextreme
nuf said...
This sig is intentionally left blank
1. CSS has nothing to do with whether or not you can skip ads. CSS is merely a form of encryption that prevents you from copying all or part of the DVD into another medium. You aren't allowed to copy the DVD, even under the pretense of "fair use."
2. Whether or not you can skip ads on a DVD depends on how that DVD was programmed. Segments can be programmed to disable the chapter skip features. This has nothing to do with DRM. It's a "feature" of the format that's unrelated to CSS.
3. Your example is weak. If you don't want kids in school to see ads, then don't show them DVDs. Teach them, instead. If you insist on showing them DVDs, do so in a properly licensed player, available for a few bucks in almost any store. If you want to skip the ads, then cue the DVD to the proper point, put it in "pause," and play it for the kids later.
4. It is-- unfortunately!-- not illegal in the US to advertise to kids. Do a google search for "Channel One" and you'll probably find some interesting-- and surprising-- information on this subject.
5. I think your definition of "fair use" is flawed. You have a DVD, and a widely available means of playing it. Once you have the DVD, you can play it at any time without having to get permission from the licensor. What fair use of that DVD is unavailable to you?
6. Finally, your point about merely enforcing existing laws is a good one, but that may not be enough. If the movie studios (for example) find that digital theft eats into too much of their profits, they may simply choose not to produce high-quality digital media. There may never be an HD-DVD product. As a home theater hobbyist, that would disappoint me very much. So I'm in favor of reasonable DRM. I find the DRM on DVDs to be entirely reasonable, except for the fact that some assholes had to break it and spoil everybody's fun. Make it stronger but basically functionally the same, and I'll be happy.
AC Said:
In the civil rights movement, it was necessary to turn to civil disobedience because the system did not provide another way for contrary opinions to be heard.
=====
Huh? Have you not heard of Uncivil disobedience? Such as bombing a federal building? The revoluionary war in North America?
the civil rights movement did have other means. It took courage to take the slower path that I'm sure may did not want to take (too slow!).
Well, if you just spent your retirement funds on twinkies, you're not going to need a retirement fund.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
I'm unusually reticent today to plunge the way I usually do into deep philosophical arguement, although I have given a lot of thought to what would be most fair regarding ownership and accessability of code for our industry, developers, users, and the public interest.
.src files. Even without any legalistic constructs or committees from hell deliberately choosing to close ftp sites and delete support newsgroups, a substantial amount of sourcecode and documentation is still lost in the normal and ongoing process of domain changes, ISP mergers or closures, and the degradation and entropy of the internet over time. It's ironic.
For the moment though, I would like to comment respectfully, if not entirely in agreement, regarding the percentage of projects on Freshmeat stuck at an early alpha stage of development - especially if they've been in that condition for a notable length of time.
I'm looking at the question from the perspective of simply being able to practically obtain working software for a particular purpose where the industry and the economy of the planet on which it's located change rapidly at the forces of all kinds of turbulence.
It's probably a good thing that barriers to entry on Freshmeat or Sourceforge aren't high at all. It really only takes a half an hour or so of wild hacking and the time to write up the mission objective, but before you get too dismissive, remember that absolutely every piece of software once existed in that form. Freshmeat just makes the avoidance of what might be real dumb ideas or implementations more public and transparent. Worth mentioning in comparison is what happened over the last two years or so in the commercial world, where over a trillion dollars was lost in dotcom and related technology ventures based on dumb or unworkable premises. Where is any of that software now?
That's an advantageous thing about opensource stagnation though: The code is still there. Any developer wishing to download it and continue is free to do that, or take part of it and use for a completely different purpose. . The world of rigidly enforced intellectual property works quite differently. Once software becomes a commercial product it's in danger of disappearing - regardless of who is using the software, or who needs to use it.
Examples that come quickly to mind are Corel Office 2000 for Linux and BeOS. If you happen to need those you're probably out of luck, unless you manage to find an individual somewhere in a position to offer a copy directly. This may be illegal on a technicality but it hardly seems worth getting excited over if it's a practical impossibility.
Going back to Freshmeat and Sourceforge though, I will end with one observation in support of your comment: The number of dead URLs - especially to
give me a
Actually, there is more hope for the Earth than that. In the original Asteroids coin-op game, each asteroid would split into two pieces when hit, not four.
Also, due to a bug/feature/oversight in the programming, the game could only keep track of 32 asteroids on the screen at once. (That number may be off a bit, but it's close if not correct...) It was actually possible to leave one of the big rocks on the screen until you had a total of 32 rocks flying around. Then, you could shoot the big rock, and it would simply disappear, since splitting it would have gone over the 32-rock limit!
Therefore, I propose that we shoot some harmless asteroids, until we have 32 of them floating around. Then, when a large Earth-threatening asteroid comes at us, one well-placed shot should do the trick.
While it is very important to be as free as possible (the "Fire!" principle) from censorship, full citizenship (for women, non-white people, the handicapped, gays and lesbians etc.) is much more important. Those who have the franchise (and historically have always had the franchise) are more easily able to overlook it. After all, when you are a second-class citizen, you have NO rights at all, never mind a curtailment of your freedom of speech!
Also, could you get a little more arrogant? That's funny. I don't see much of anything happening to my freedom...but I don't have a Bill of Rights, either (I have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms). Why don't you Americocentrists travel outside the US and see for yourselves why pronouncements like the above make us a little annoyed?
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
Someone finally says what we've all been thinking...
The idea that the US is 'the last bastion of freedom and the protector of democracy' is ludicrous. What we need here is lucid debate, not overly patriotic flag-waving nonsense.
Hell, just paint it pink, and erect an SEP on it. Takes care of that.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
I personally feel that that rock is probably a pretty good candidate for active disposition of a couple of nuclear warheads.
I'm pretty sure that we'd be capable of launching a 'sledge hammer' mission to that island-sized rock in 17 years. I'm not, however, that sure that our society won't have eaten itself out of house and home by the '60s (and even less hopeful after that). We can whack this rock now, so I say that we should do it.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
No. it's the sensationalist newspapers that blew the probability out of proportion. The original reports were of a probability cloud (based on uncertanties from the available observations) that (at the time of original reports) had a 1/6million chance that the rock would land on earth. The chances of that probability actually increasing with future observations was likely in the 1-in-a-million range.
The job of a tabloid is to sell newspapers, not report the news. 1 in 6 Million Cchance That We'll be Asteroid Sushi doesn't sell newspapers. Kiss Your Ass Goodbye -- Killer Asteroid Approaches Earth, on the other hand, does ... and they can sell a few more papers after that with Killer Asteroid Update -- Clean Your Pants. when they report that it's really just going to be a near miss (a couple million miles, or so).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
of course i am. and again the point?
That tech support that does not kill me...drives me crazier
if there are others with questions they can have the next question...With which tools do you measure the efficiency of one person imparting information to a group? Wrong information is worthless, no matter how many interruptions... Interrruptions are necessary to guarentee the quality of the information...I don't know about narrow mindedness, but self important is definitely better than worthless.
The Game Development Competition entries to the Assembly party have been released already.
Check out especially the cool game Stair Dismount.
--
out war...but as it stands, I believe I have the correct strategic solution.
Asking questions at least increases the likelihood that the questioner is better informed and may help others as well. Not only that but it legitimizes the individual.