Slashdot Mirror
Million-Dollar Donation To Fight Abusive Copyrights
WeekendKruzr writes: "There is a story on C|Net detailing how Duke University's law school received an anonymous gift of $1 million for the express purpose of funding '...advocacy and research aimed at curtailing the recent expansion of copyright law.' It's good to know that we have some well-funded idealists on our side, even if they are 'Anonymous Cowards.' ;^) This, combined with the recent rash of even large corporations running afoul of intellectual property law, could precipitate some tangible results in the next couple of years."
While starry-eyed /. folk get uptight for a few minutes when they read about new technologies, the people who make the laws don't care about our complaints - we're not a big enough lobby or voting block.
Even more important, stricter copyright laws help the media corps sell more product, and GWB is in favor of anything that helps US corps sell more stuff.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Do people not understand that the law is there to protect them ?
I am an information consumer. Please explain how the DMCA protects me.
Anyone know how the anonymous transfer of a million dollars happens?
Especially these days, when big secretive money moves are watched more carefully.
A bunch of 50s in some briefcases?
Some kind of anonymous bank check?
Or does the University probably know, but part of the deal is that they don't tell anyone?
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
The university knows. There is probably a contract that states the benefactor shall remain anonymous.
Dude, I bet you could purchase at least four Senators with $1,000,000. If not, then I'm sure there's a rent-to-own plan out there...
"I am an information consumer. Please explain how the DMCA protects me."
It protects your wallet from getting heavy.
It's good to know that we have some well-funded idealists on our side, even if they are 'Anonymous Cowards.' ;^)
." You will be hearing from my lawyers.
Interesting article submission, yet it violates my patent on "a method for using ASCII test to simulate a pointy nosed person winking and smiling
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball(TM)
While abuse of copyright and dwindling fair use law is bad, fundamentally those things which are copyrighted are created by the authors, and they should have the ability to control them. If they control them in an anti-consumer way, consumers can always boycott them. This isn't going to change the world tomorrow or the day after, but what's at stake? Movies, music, TV, books -- mostly entertainment.
The patent problem is horrid. Unlike copyright, where at least people might claim some rights based on creation, patent law is clearly corrupted. People patent things that are not inventions -- they patent "business methods" of dubious originality, they patent software methods which have been in use long before the patent filing ("oh, no documentation that you used it? no prior art, then"), and moreover, patents screw the little guys, because patents cost a metric fuckton of money to get, especially en masse. If I write a book, copyright protects me automatically, and filing a copyright is cheap. If I didn't want to file a copyright, nowadays technology gives me other irrefutable options -- like publishing MD5 checksums in the paper -- that are even cheaper. If patents are truly for novel inventions, then why are developers in the software industry constantly afraid of stepping on patents? If all that many people are coming up with something independantly, doesn't that imply that the patent holder was just the first to file on something obvious that followed from existing technology, instead of the inventor of something novel?
Moreover, with patents, we affect all of technology, from CS to biotech, and we stop innovation. Having to pay $10 more than you should for a Britney Spears CD isn't going to hurt the economy -- but having to pay too much for inferior technology for 25 years that no one can legally improve upon, well, that's going to hurt the economy. Patents on obvious inventions slow innovation, hurt growth, damage industries, restrict R&D -- and this effect cuts across industries.
I'm sorry, but this is a lot more damaging that whether or not you can legally rip and/or trade mp3s.
The latest buzz seems to be that the Telcoms and tech manufacturers are getting peeved with the MPAA and RIAA push to legislate thier industry (Hollings Bill, DMCA liability). The 20 billion dollar entertainment industry is trying to push around a 600 billion dollar tech industry.
Simply put: Piracy is the killer app for Telcoms and consumer electronics industries, unless it's in the Telcoms and consumer electronics.
My theory: I think the Telcoms and friends want to devalue the entertainment industry. They want the same exclusive content that AOL/Time Warner enjoys, but rather aquiring the content via an expensive merger, our friends would much rather buy all that content at commidity prices, or sign exclusive deals to act as the conduit to deliver music and entertainment at competitive prices.
If you really want to figure out who's conspiring what. (1) You have to be realistic (2) You have to determine how it pays off
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
I disagree, a million dollars is a good amount for some research.
It isn't enough to fight anyone, but it is a good amount to pay a small staff to research the actual cost and benefits of copyrights.
We really don't have clear data on how much work is impeded by copyright patent length, and how much worse it would be if it was lengthened.
Nor do we know what effect shorter periods would have.
So little is really known that we can't intelligently argue all that fairly about the cost and benefit to society.
Actually, alot of the public does care, once made to understand.
Personally, I'm furious that I can't legally make a copy of Steamboat Willie to show to my kids. It's a piece of culture. It's history. It's not a commodity anymore. I should be able to say "look kids, here's the very first Mickey Mouse cartoon". But I can't do so unless Disney both decides to sell it, and I can afford it.
Just this weekend I explained this to an untechnical friend of mine. As soon as I explained that Steamboat Willie (and countless other pieces of culture) should belong to EVERYONE, not do Disney, he was confused. He truly did not understand the concept of 'Public Domain'.
His response was 'they can profit off Mickey Mouse, so they should keep it'
To which I replied, "Mark Twain's ancestors could profit off of Huckleberry Finn, but it's public domain. Profit isn't an issue. Copyright is a favor we grant creators. We own it. They stole it. This was exactly the same situation the founders of this country set up the law to prevent: a handful of corporations owning and controlling what we see, read and hear."
I actually watched as the hamster turned the wheels in his head. In an instant he was as pissed about the situation as I was.
This is our culture. This is our history. Whether any one person thinks any one piece of film, text, or music is trivial is irrelevant.
Fact is, in 100 years, when some kid needs to write a book report on 20th century culture, he'll be paying royalties.
So, in the end, we just need to increase public awareness, be it one person at a time. Your average Johnny Lunchpail doesn't realise what Public Domain is. They think copyright is forever.
That said, 1 million dollars to pay a bunch of future lobbyists isn't, IMO, the answer. 1 million dollars for a TV or radio campaign would be much better spent.
People are pissed when they understand the problem. We've all been taken advantage of.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Basically, you have a donor who "anonymously" threw $1 million at Duke to fund "advocacy and research" of battling copyright law expansion. Why this is good is hopefully apparent. It's basic economics of the new millenium.
Basically, corporations believe that public knowledge of technology and processes is bad, because it's hard to make money off of something everyone can reproduce. This country is founded on democracy (good) but also has strong roots in free-market capitalism (mostly good). Making money is why we as a country are so well off, and people seek to maximize their money making. Public domain knowledge of technology and processes reduces the chance to make money because people will pay you more for something that only *you* can make, hence putting a premium on innovative AND proprietary information.
Lawmakers in a capitalist society are easily swayed by the corporations with their lobbying and donations, making it possible to influence law in their favor. In this case, copyright law, when expanded, better protects the information of corporations, making it harder for technology and processes to come into the public domain. In a society where money is so valued, any chance to make money by the corporations is often countered by ways to save money by the consumers.
We as consumers would love to see copyright law weakened rather than expanded because it increases the potential to save money. Also, there is a certain ideology in promoting the free sharing of thought, ideas, and technology for the betterment of society. So when someone donates money to the cause of actively opposing copyright law expansion, it serves to benefit us (the consumers).
But the real question is this: Why would someone do this? Certainly someone with a cool million lying around did something to make that money. What is to be gained by an individual donating that much money to a cause that has its roots in opposing the big corporation and "the man"? Likely, it isn't because it was just philosophically the "right thing to do".
-AAAWalrus
In a surprise announcement, the Republican National Committee has revealed it is bankrupt! A spokesman for the party said they had plenty of money in their accounts last week, but today they just don't know where the money has gone. But not everybody's going begging. Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and the United Negro College Fund announced record earnings this week, due mostly to large, anonymous donations.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Usually the benefactor pays a legal firm with a cashier's check and the legal firm pays the university. The university to be sure that all is legitimate can ask who the benefactor is, but will need to sign non-disclosure agreements before they can find out. These agreements give the law firm the ability to sue the school if they leak the information (usually for more than the initial investment).
Click here or here.
I think the purpose is being missed.
This isn't being used to fight of lobby bad laws.
It is to try and find out what is good and bad about the existing laws.
We don't know the cost benefit curve for copyright length, they are going to try and define it.
(yes, that is a simplification)
Many "content creators" want infinite copyrights, to milk out as much as possible.
Many "content consumers" want short copyrights to copy and create derivative works for little or no cost. (that isn't the only reason)
At some point the time is long enough to have benefit for "creators" and short enough for "consumers" that both sides can be "happy". They are trying to find out what that point is.
For anyone who's interested, the law school's website has a press release with a little bit more information than was mentioned in the C|Net article. It is great to see that some people (esp. the lawyers!) can see the harm that is being done by our outdated system of intellectual property laws.
Even at the undergrad level, it seems that Duke has taken an interest in the subject. This year, for the first time ever, the CS department is offering a course that I'm currently enrolled in whose primary focus is intellectual property issues. It's panning out to be a pretty cool course, and is actually the only CS course I've taken thus far that doesn't involve any coding.
I think more CS departments should offer curriculum like this, since we (the techies) have a unique perspective on the issues, because we are the ones opening the public's eyes to the fact that our system of intellectual property law needs to be completely revamped.
If anyone out there has an interest in the topic, I'd highly reccommend reading John Barlow's The Economy of Ideas as a starting point.
-Matt
Duke '05
In what way is limiting the scope of a government-granted monopoly "legislating altruism"?
Wasn't that the price of a 30-second commercial during the last couple years of Seinfeld?
As nice as this is, a million dollars just isn't going to cut it against Big Media. Until we make this a national policy issue, one where actual numbers of voters are involved, we're pretty much screwed. Until then though, I suppose a million bucks can fund some studies and research to strengthen our position from a logical standpoint once the public realizes that they're being screwed.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Now with some big money in play, maybe the anti-copyright forces have a chance after all. I just love American government -- of the people, by the people, for the people.
Of course, Duke Law is THE best place to give such a donation, given that their most famous alumnus is ... Richard Nixon.
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to grant creators exclusive rights for "a limited time." Since when did life plus 75 years become "a limited time"?
If someone is sent to prison for life, is that "a limited time"? If you purchase a product which is advertised with a warranty that lasts ten years longer than you shall live, would you think the warranty is limited in time?
If I am awarded something or restricted from something for the rest of my life no matter how long I shall live, that is an unlimited time as far as I am concerned. If my ISP offered me $5/month Internet access for the rest of my life regardless of how long I live, I would consider that to be cheap internet service for an unlimited time. If my driver's license was suspended for life, that would be a complete revocation, not a suspension for a limited time. So I wonder what in the world the lawmakers were smoking when they thought that "a limited time" for anything granted to a person could be defined as a time period that is guaranteed to extend beyond their lifetime. Apparently "a limited time" to them is anything less than infinity.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
The ironic thing about all this is that by perpetually extending copyrights, corporations are hurting their own profits. If copyrights were capped with a time period of 50 years or less, like they used to be over a century ago, the content creators would have now become able to make money from derivative works based on other people's stories and music from the mid and early 1900s, just as Disney made a fortune by creating derivatives of works from the 1800s.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.