Slashdot Mirror
Interview with EFF's Fred Von Lohmann
scubacuda writes "Tech Focus has an --> interview with EFF's Fred Von Lohmann, Senior Intellectual Property Attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Covered in the interview: Kazaa, commercial skipping, DMCA, 802.11b networks, congressmen friendly to the idea of "fair use", and how to "make a difference"." Update: 01/08 17:42 GMT by M : Link changed to reduce the load on Techfocus.
How come nobody ever asks him who cuts his hair?
Oh, wait. That joke is so 2002.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Ah, I can smell the smoke from their server from here. If it's not down yet, it will be soon.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you...
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it looks like it's a story about an interview, not a 'usuall rule apply' /. interview.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I think Lindows kind of sounds like Windows. You might want to read what Fred says about it in the article tho... ;)
"Warning: mysql_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Too many connections in /home/virtual/site23/fst/var/www/html/pnadodb/driv ers/adodb-mysql.inc.php on line 170
mysql://dietcoke:@localhost/techfocus_org failed to connectToo many connections"
It's one thing to not read the article, but now we have people who aren't even reading the post about the article. ;)
/. interviewed someone from EFF?
actually though, why hasn't
my pet machine
We all agree that piracy isn't a good thing, but I'd like to think the P2P is viable even without copyright infringement. There was that innovative mechanism a while ago where you could download a file and other people could share the pieces they've already downloaded with you, distributing the load on-the-fly. And there's the unique streaming audio solution that works similarly. Just because some folks throw away the tags on their pillows doesn't mean we don't need a place to rest our heads, right?
There's a lot of interesting stuff coming out that's dual-use, and no doubt that'd be the motif of the interview if it didn't die before the second frigging comment was posted. Why aren't the links cached on here, again?
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
In addition to the speed of Gravity being measured and defined, the infamous Slashdot Effect has also been measured and defined.
Researchers at Cal Tech measured the speed at which a server went down when linked from a slashdot post as, "Damn near the speed of light."
When asked for clarification on that speed. The researcher said, "We've observed it in 10 replies or less. That's shorter than a New York Minute for Gosh sakes."
Wow.
Warning: mysql_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Too many connections in /home/virtual/site23/fst/var/www/html/pnadodb/driv ers/adodb-mysql.inc.php on line 170
mysql://dietcoke:@localhost/techfocus_org failed to connectToo many connections
http://use.perl.org
What's your position on weenies who don't even give an article that says "Interview" a cursory reading before assuming that it's a Slashdot interview question solicitation?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Intellectual property: an interview with the EFF's Fred Von Lohmann
Posted by: Bill_Royle on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 12:09 PM
Interviews "Noone has ever suggested that Ford should be liable for every bank robbery committed with one of its cars..."
We've conducted an interview with Fred Von Lohmann, Senior Intellectual Property Attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an membership organization that has spearheaded many technology-related causes and legal battles, with civil liberties being on the forefront. In cases such as the halt of US encryption method publishing, the 2600/DeCSS case, Morpheus, ReplayTV and constant clashes with the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has been one of the most active organizations representing technology.
We fielded questions from visitors along with some of our own, and Fred Von Lohmann took the time to discuss the issues with us. Some of his work with the EFF includes his work on the MGM vs. Grokster case, which threatens to set legal precedent on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing. He is also involved in the Newmark vs. Turner Broadcasting case, which involves the use of ReplayTV to skip commercials, record content and share the content with others.
We appreciate the questions from our visitors, and would particularly like to thank Fred Von Lohmann and the Electronic Frontier Foundation for taking the time to discuss important issues in the industry, and for consumers!
"In the Metro-Goldwyn Mayer v. Grokster case, the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that US courts hold no jurisdiction over regulation of the Kazaa product, as it is located in the island-nation of Vanuatu. The EFF contends that as there are no contacts of substantial value within the US, and as such the courts do not have the authority to regulate or impose fines upon Kazaa. Therefore, does this claim indicate a trend developing in which software companies under legal fire move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to avoid financial liability or injunction?"
First, EFF does not represent Kazaa and has taken no position on the jurisdiction questions regarding Sharman Networks, which now controls the Kazaa software. Sharman's position is that they have no business contacts with the United States, and therefore should not be dragged into court here. Their chief place of business is in Australia, and they have plainly stated that they would submit to jurisdiction in Australia (not exactly a copyright rogue state).
I think too much has been made of the Vanuatu angle regarding Kazaa. Although the various Kazaa entities are off-shore, they have been located in the Netherlands and Australia. There's no difficulty in litigating in their home countries. In fact, copyright owners have sued (and so far have lost) in the Netherlands. The increase in off-shore developers in P2P is simply a function of the very expensive, hostile environment in the US, where entertainment companies have made it clear that they will sue any company that enters offers general-purpose P2P tools. In the Napster case, moreover, the entertainment companies dropped hints that they might actually sue Napster's investors (Hummer Winblad), a development that has chilled investment in the entire P2P industry sector.
Is it any surprise that US innovators have given up the mantle to other countries? So Blubster is apparently located in Spain, Xolox in the Netherlands, Kazaa in Australia.
"In the case of Newmark v. Turner, EFF argues that the SendShow feature and commercial-skipping using the ReplayTV DVR (Digital Video Recorder) are features which in themselves do not constitute infringement or engage in piracy. If this is true and a user does utilize the commercial skipping technology, then distributes the DVR'd content over the internet using Kazaa somehow, who should be prosecuted for the action if it is found to be an illegal use of copyrighted content?"
The Copyright Act, like most of our laws, has been built on the premise that you go after the guy who actually breaks the law. Sure, sometimes we extend the reach of the law to get the wheel-man, too. But no one has ever suggested that Ford should be liable for every bank robbery committed with one of its cars. Yet the entertainment industries appear to want to let all the bank robbers run free and *only* punish the car makers.
It makes you wonder whether the fight is actually about piracy, or if it's instead about asserting control over new technologies.
If someone uses a PVR (or computer, or crow bar, or car, for that matter) to break the law, then by all means go after them. Find the guys who are distributing "the Sopranos" to their friends who don't pay for HBO. Once you've rounded those couple dozen PVR owners up, then leave the hundreds of thousand other, innocent American PVR owners alone. Stop calling them thieves, stop trying to cripple their cool gadgets, and stop threatening innovative companies like SonicBlue.
Oh, and by the way, once you've busted all the "Sopranos" sharers, don't be surprised if you see a drop in new HBO subscriptions, as you've ended up killing off a free, viral marketing channel that most consumer-products companies would have given their right arm for. But hey, it always pays to ignore your marketing staff and let the lawyers run the show, doesn't it?
"Recently HP threatened legal action under the guise of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in order to subvert the disclosure of flaws within it's Tru64 operating system. This was also the methodology behind Adobe's initial complaint against Elcomsoft employee Dmitry Skylarov, done in order to squelch disclosure of flaws in their eBook software. What effect overall does the DMCA realistically have over the disclosure of bugs and security holes, and is it positive or negative for the consumer?"
The DMCA is having a very negative impact on computer security research. Don't take my word for it -- Richard Clark, the Bush Administration's Cyber-Security Czar, recently called for DMCA reform for this very reason. For more examples of the chill imposed on legitimate activities by the DMCA, see EFF's white paper, "Unintended Consequences: Four Years Under the DMCA" (google: "DMCA unintended consequences"). To take only the most recent example, Lexmark just filed a DMCA lawsuit against a company that makes chips that permit third-party toner cartridges to be used in their laser printers. I don't think that, when it passed the DMCA, Congress intended to help Lexmark shut out legitimate competition in the toner market.
"Internet Service Providers have begun warning and enforcing portions of their user agreements which forbid subscribers from sharing their wireless internet access with others. In response specifically to Time-Warner Cable's specific warning to customers not to do so, the Electronic Frontier Foundation compiled a list of ISP's who it deemed unlikely to enforce or encroach on this networking method. What methods of discovery and enforcement can ISP's legally take to insure that customers are not using their bandwidth via wireless networking?"
Well, it's not easy to predict what kinds of enforcement options ISPs may undertake to prevent community 802.11 networks. Whatever measures they undertake, however, the right answer is to abandon ISPs that don't provide you the service you want. Choose an ISP that gives you the real Internet, not their port-blocked, bandwidth-shaped, you-can't-run-a-server version of the Internet. We at EFF have compiled a list of ISPs that do not forbid connection sharing. We hope it will help consumers vote with their pocketbooks to support ISPs that are not interested in limiting your Internet options.
"Which US Senator would you consider to be the strongest voice for consumers in regards to the "Fair Use" doctrine? Which US Congressman?"
As a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization, EFF cannot endorse particular politicians or engage in direct campaigning. But we certainly do take positions on legislation. For two of the worst pieces of legislation in the last Congress, you might want to check the Hollings Bill (aka CBDTPA, S. 2048), the Berman Bill (aka P2P Vigilante Bill, H.R. 5211). For examples of legislation heading the right direction on copyright, you might want to check out the Boucher-Doolittle DMCRA (H.R. 5544), Zoe Logren's Bill (H.R. 5522) and the Cox-Wyden Fair Use Bill of Rights (H. J. Res. 116). I expect many of these measures to be reintroduced in the new Congress.
"Most of my letters to legislators and organizations about intellectual property go unanswered or I receive formletters. What are the most effective ways I can make a difference in intellectual property policy and law?"
Keep writing. We at EFF have even set up an Action Center to make it easy to write and fax your members of Congress.
Just because you get a form letter doesn't mean you're not making a difference. I used to work for a Senator handling constituent mail, and it can make a big difference. When only a few letters come in, they get a generic "thanks for writing" note. Once it's a steady stream, a staffer looks into the issue, brief his boss, and composes an issue-specific form letter. Once it's a torrent, them members of Congress start calling each other and asking whether there's any legislation they can sign onto to take credit for fixing the problem.
So keep writing.
"What kind of support or help can the average user provide which is most helpful, in assisting the EFF in their efforts, monetarily or otherwise?"
Become a member, make a steady donation. Set up a $10 monthly recurring payment on your credit card. We're a membership-supported organization, with no fat endowment or corporate support. Without our members, we simply cease to exist.
Second, tell 5 of your non-technical family, friends or acquaintances about EFF issues and about why they matter. Holding the interest of the mainstream is critical to making real change. In 10 years, I want every elementary school child to have as much sympathy for digital freedom issues as they do today for environmentalism.
Third, drop us a note if you're able to volunteer. We need all kinds of help -- sometimes we need office furniture, sometimes envelope stuffing, sometimes web design, sometimes strong crypto programming. If you're prepared to devote some real time and make a commitment, we'd love to hear from you.
And keep writing to your representatives, where ever you may live.
"If you were to write one piece of legislation, what would it be, and why?"
Surprisingly enough, it's already been written, and not by me. It's called the DMCRA, H.R. 5544 in the last Congress, sponsored by Rep. Boucher and Rep. Doolittle, and it would reform the DMCA. It fixes the most egregious aspects of the DMCA, making sure that our traditional copyright law balance is restored. If it were law, it would ensure that there were no more Sklyarov cases, no more Felten cases, no more DeCSS cases. That'd be a fine start.
"What do you think is the single most compelling reason why the average person should support the EFF's intellectual property fight?"
If you care about culture, radio, television, literature, music, art, information or knowledge, then you should be supporting our fight on intellectual property. EFF is not against intellectual property. We are fighting for a return to a balanced form of copyright, one that respects the owners and the public equally. After all, copyright law is made, ostensibly, for the benefit of the public. If you, as a member of the public, think that our culture should not be regulated exclusively by high-priced lobbyists working for the entertainment industry, and if you don't believe our copyright law system today is working in the best interests of the public, you should be supporting EFF.
"If you were king for a day and could make one single change to anything concerning intellectual property in the United States, what would you change?"
Striking the right balance in intellectual property is not a matter of making a single change. It's a matter of making lots of changes to adjust to new technologies on an ongoing basis. Today, reform of the DMCA, reduction of copyright term, and fighting to preserve a healthy fair use doctrine are at the top of my list.
"Has there been a court case where more than any other, you think that the "good guys" have lost? What was the reason for their loss?"
The biggest defeats for the public interest in the last decade came not in court cases, but rather in the legislative arena, with the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the DMCA.
But, in the long run, the Napster decision may well end up being the biggest courtroom defeat. Not because it put down Napster, but rather because it did so in a way that created a dangerous precedent for all technology companies. In the name of stopping P2P file sharing, lots of bad copyright law is being made in the courts right now, law that effectively puts entertainment companies in charge of technological innovation. If the precedents being made today were on the books 20 years ago, we would never have seen the photocopier, the VCR, or the CD recorder. I'm afraid, the bad copyright precedents will be with us long after Napster is a dim memory.
"What is your stand on the concept of intellectual property? Eg, should it be abolished altogether or is there a way to make it work?"
I'm a copyright lawyer. I like copyright, and I think it is plenty flexible enough to see us through the transition to a digital media world. The basic challenge hasn't changed -- we need to strike a fair balance between an author's need to get paid and the public's right to have access to its cultural and media heritage. In order to make it work, we may need to let go of the obsession with perfectly counting and controlling "reproductions" of copyrighted works. Fortunately, there are historical precedents for that. After all, in response to the last revolution in distribution, namely broadcast radio and television, copyright owners learned to let go of the need to control and count every single listener and viewer. And it turned out to work pretty well for all concerned.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
Copy and pasted, sorry if the format comes out screwy.
We've conducted an interview with Fred Von Lohmann, Senior Intellectual Property Attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an membership organization that has spearheaded many technology-related causes and legal battles, with civil liberties being on the forefront. In cases such as the halt of US encryption method publishing, the 2600/DeCSS case, Morpheus, ReplayTV and constant clashes with the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has been one of the most active organizations representing technology.
We fielded questions from visitors along with some of our own, and Fred Von Lohmann took the time to discuss the issues with us. Some of his work with the EFF includes his work on the MGM vs. Grokster case, which threatens to set legal precedent on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing. He is also involved in the Newmark vs. Turner Broadcasting case, which involves the use of ReplayTV to skip commercials, record content and share the content with others.
We appreciate the questions from our visitors, and would particularly like to thank Fred Von Lohmann and the Electronic Frontier Foundation for taking the time to discuss important issues in the industry, and for consumers!
"In the Metro-Goldwyn Mayer v. Grokster case, the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that US courts hold no jurisdiction over regulation of the Kazaa product, as it is located in the island-nation of Vanuatu. The EFF contends that as there are no contacts of substantial value within the US, and as such the courts do not have the authority to regulate or impose fines upon Kazaa. Therefore, does this claim indicate a trend developing in which software companies under legal fire move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to avoid financial liability or injunction?"
First, EFF does not represent Kazaa and has taken no position on the jurisdiction questions regarding Sharman Networks, which now controls the Kazaa software. Sharman's position is that they have no business contacts with the United States, and therefore should not be dragged into court here. Their chief place of business is in Australia, and they have plainly stated that they would submit to jurisdiction in Australia (not exactly a copyright rogue state).
I think too much has been made of the Vanuatu angle regarding Kazaa. Although the various Kazaa entities are off-shore, they have been located in the Netherlands and Australia. There's no difficulty in litigating in their home countries. In fact, copyright owners have sued (and so far have lost) in the Netherlands. The increase in off-shore developers in P2P is simply a function of the very expensive, hostile environment in the US, where entertainment companies have made it clear that they will sue any company that enters offers general-purpose P2P tools. In the Napster case, moreover, the entertainment companies dropped hints that they might actually sue Napster's investors (Hummer Winblad), a development that has chilled investment in the entire P2P industry sector.
Is it any surprise that US innovators have given up the mantle to other countries? So Blubster is apparently located in Spain, Xolox in the Netherlands, Kazaa in Australia.
"In the case of Newmark v. Turner, EFF argues that the SendShow feature and commercial-skipping using the ReplayTV DVR (Digital Video Recorder) are features which in themselves do not constitute infringement or engage in piracy. If this is true and a user does utilize the commercial skipping technology, then distributes the DVR'd content over the internet using Kazaa somehow, who should be prosecuted for the action if it is found to be an illegal use of copyrighted content?"
The Copyright Act, like most of our laws, has been built on the premise that you go after the guy who actually breaks the law. Sure, sometimes we extend the reach of the law to get the wheel-man, too. But no one has ever suggested that Ford should be liable for every bank robbery committed with one of its cars. Yet the entertainment industries appear to want to let all the bank robbers run free and *only* punish the car makers.
It makes you wonder whether the fight is actually about piracy, or if it's instead about asserting control over new technologies.
If someone uses a PVR (or computer, or crow bar, or car, for that matter) to break the law, then by all means go after them. Find the guys who are distributing "the Sopranos" to their friends who don't pay for HBO. Once you've rounded those couple dozen PVR owners up, then leave the hundreds of thousand other, innocent American PVR owners alone. Stop calling them thieves, stop trying to cripple their cool gadgets, and stop threatening innovative companies like SonicBlue.
Oh, and by the way, once you've busted all the "Sopranos" sharers, don't be surprised if you see a drop in new HBO subscriptions, as you've ended up killing off a free, viral marketing channel that most consumer-products companies would have given their right arm for. But hey, it always pays to ignore your marketing staff and let the lawyers run the show, doesn't it?
"Recently HP threatened legal action under the guise of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in order to subvert the disclosure of flaws within it's Tru64 operating system. This was also the methodology behind Adobe's initial complaint against Elcomsoft employee Dmitry Skylarov, done in order to squelch disclosure of flaws in their eBook software. What effect overall does the DMCA realistically have over the disclosure of bugs and security holes, and is it positive or negative for the consumer?"
The DMCA is having a very negative impact on computer security research. Don't take my word for it -- Richard Clark, the Bush Administration's Cyber-Security Czar, recently called for DMCA reform for this very reason. For more examples of the chill imposed on legitimate activities by the DMCA, see EFF's white paper, "Unintended Consequences: Four Years Under the DMCA" (google: "DMCA unintended consequences"). To take only the most recent example, Lexmark just filed a DMCA lawsuit against a company that makes chips that permit third-party toner cartridges to be used in their laser printers. I don't think that, when it passed the DMCA, Congress intended to help Lexmark shut out legitimate competition in the toner market.
"Internet Service Providers have begun warning and enforcing portions of their user agreements which forbid subscribers from sharing their wireless internet access with others. In response specifically to Time-Warner Cable's specific warning to customers not to do so, the Electronic Frontier Foundation compiled a list of ISP's who it deemed unlikely to enforce or encroach on this networking method. What methods of discovery and enforcement can ISP's legally take to insure that customers are not using their bandwidth via wireless networking?"
Well, it's not easy to predict what kinds of enforcement options ISPs may undertake to prevent community 802.11 networks. Whatever measures they undertake, however, the right answer is to abandon ISPs that don't provide you the service you want. Choose an ISP that gives you the real Internet, not their port-blocked, bandwidth-shaped, you-can't-run-a-server version of the Internet. We at EFF have compiled a list of ISPs that do not forbid connection sharing. We hope it will help consumers vote with their pocketbooks to support ISPs that are not interested in limiting your Internet options.
"Which US Senator would you consider to be the strongest voice for consumers in regards to the "Fair Use" doctrine? Which US Congressman?"
As a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization, EFF cannot endorse particular politicians or engage in direct campaigning. But we certainly do take positions on legislation. For two of the worst pieces of legislation in the last Congress, you might want to check the Hollings Bill (aka CBDTPA, S. 2048), the Berman Bill (aka P2P Vigilante Bill, H.R. 5211). For examples of legislation heading the right direction on copyright, you might want to check out the Boucher-Doolittle DMCRA (H.R. 5544), Zoe Logren's Bill (H.R. 5522) and the Cox-Wyden Fair Use Bill of Rights (H. J. Res. 116). I expect many of these measures to be reintroduced in the new Congress.
"Most of my letters to legislators and organizations about intellectual property go unanswered or I receive formletters. What are the most effective ways I can make a difference in intellectual property policy and law?"
Keep writing. We at EFF have even set up an Action Center to make it easy to write and fax your members of Congress.
Just because you get a form letter doesn't mean you're not making a difference. I used to work for a Senator handling constituent mail, and it can make a big difference. When only a few letters come in, they get a generic "thanks for writing" note. Once it's a steady stream, a staffer looks into the issue, brief his boss, and composes an issue-specific form letter. Once it's a torrent, them members of Congress start calling each other and asking whether there's any legislation they can sign onto to take credit for fixing the problem.
So keep writing.
"What kind of support or help can the average user provide which is most helpful, in assisting the EFF in their efforts, monetarily or otherwise?"
Become a member, make a steady donation. Set up a $10 monthly recurring payment on your credit card. We're a membership-supported organization, with no fat endowment or corporate support. Without our members, we simply cease to exist.
Second, tell 5 of your non-technical family, friends or acquaintances about EFF issues and about why they matter. Holding the interest of the mainstream is critical to making real change. In 10 years, I want every elementary school child to have as much sympathy for digital freedom issues as they do today for environmentalism.
Third, drop us a note if you're able to volunteer. We need all kinds of help -- sometimes we need office furniture, sometimes envelope stuffing, sometimes web design, sometimes strong crypto programming. If you're prepared to devote some real time and make a commitment, we'd love to hear from you.
And keep writing to your representatives, where ever you may live.
"If you were to write one piece of legislation, what would it be, and why?"
Surprisingly enough, it's already been written, and not by me. It's called the DMCRA, H.R. 5544 in the last Congress, sponsored by Rep. Boucher and Rep. Doolittle, and it would reform the DMCA. It fixes the most egregious aspects of the DMCA, making sure that our traditional copyright law balance is restored. If it were law, it would ensure that there were no more Sklyarov cases, no more Felten cases, no more DeCSS cases. That'd be a fine start.
"What do you think is the single most compelling reason why the average person should support the EFF's intellectual property fight?"
If you care about culture, radio, television, literature, music, art, information or knowledge, then you should be supporting our fight on intellectual property. EFF is not against intellectual property. We are fighting for a return to a balanced form of copyright, one that respects the owners and the public equally. After all, copyright law is made, ostensibly, for the benefit of the public. If you, as a member of the public, think that our culture should not be regulated exclusively by high-priced lobbyists working for the entertainment industry, and if you don't believe our copyright law system today is working in the best interests of the public, you should be supporting EFF.
"If you were king for a day and could make one single change to anything concerning intellectual property in the United States, what would you change?"
Striking the right balance in intellectual property is not a matter of making a single change. It's a matter of making lots of changes to adjust to new technologies on an ongoing basis. Today, reform of the DMCA, reduction of copyright term, and fighting to preserve a healthy fair use doctrine are at the top of my list.
"Has there been a court case where more than any other, you think that the "good guys" have lost? What was the reason for their loss?"
The biggest defeats for the public interest in the last decade came not in court cases, but rather in the legislative arena, with the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the DMCA.
But, in the long run, the Napster decision may well end up being the biggest courtroom defeat. Not because it put down Napster, but rather because it did so in a way that created a dangerous precedent for all technology companies. In the name of stopping P2P file sharing, lots of bad copyright law is being made in the courts right now, law that effectively puts entertainment companies in charge of technological innovation. If the precedents being made today were on the books 20 years ago, we would never have seen the photocopier, the VCR, or the CD recorder. I'm afraid, the bad copyright precedents will be with us long after Napster is a dim memory.
"What is your stand on the concept of intellectual property? Eg, should it be abolished altogether or is there a way to make it work?"
I'm a copyright lawyer. I like copyright, and I think it is plenty flexible enough to see us through the transition to a digital media world. The basic challenge hasn't changed -- we need to strike a fair balance between an author's need to get paid and the public's right to have access to its cultural and media heritage. In order to make it work, we may need to let go of the obsession with perfectly counting and controlling "reproductions" of copyrighted works. Fortunately, there are historical precedents for that. After all, in response to the last revolution in distribution, namely broadcast radio and television, copyright owners learned to let go of the need to control and count every single listener and viewer. And it turned out to work pretty well for all concerned.
Our thanks to Fred Von Lohmann and the Electronic Frontier Foundation for their time!
Warning: mysql_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Too many connections in /home/virtual/site23/fst/var/www/html/pnadodb/driv ers/adodb-mysql.inc.php on line 170
mysql://dietcoke:@localhost/techfocus_org failed to connectToo many connections
They should have asked him wheter slashdotting should be made illegal. Or is it covered by free speech as a form of expression?
"Non-cooperation with evil is a sacred duty."
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
"Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man"
- Mohandas Karamachand Gandhi
Nonviolent disobedience people. Download the music, rip the DVD's, skip the commericials, encrypt the email. Don't buy the X-Box or the PS2. Don't go to see Disney movies. Don't give in. Don't give up.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Bollocks.
Nonviolence and pacifism is fundamentally highly immoral. Refusing to kill even if one's own life or loved ones' lives are at stake is an atrocity.
I hate to play the role of Grammar Police, but it's discouraging to see that TechFocus writers haven't even grasped the basics of proper English grammar.
It's supposed to be "a membership organization", not "an membership"!!
In the Real World, such poor use of the English language reflects very poorly on the organization.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
The point of #5040124 was adequately made in #5040091.
http://slashcache.sourceforge.net/cache/1042042566 1/techfocus.org/index.html
To top it off, the same thing posted 3 or 4 posts down has NOT been marked redundant. :-)
Pickering, a friend of former Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott, a fellow Mississippian, was voted down by the Senate Judiciary Committee because of concerns about his civil rights record.
Oh, and by the way, once you've busted all the "Sopranos" sharers, don't be surprised if you see a drop in new HBO subscriptions, as you've ended up killing off a free, viral marketing channel that most consumer-products companies would have given their right arm for. But hey, it always pays to ignore your marketing staff and let the lawyers run the show, doesn't it?
That about nails it right on the nose, doesn't it. If one doesn't hear/see/notice a product, then a sale is lost. If somebody notices the product, even if it's pirated, but then gets a legal copy or related merchandise, then the company benefits.
It makes me wonder about the attempted increase on taxation of recordable media in Canada. If the media becomes too expensive, what happens to companies like Sony who not only sell the original discs but also recordable media and the devices which use them (mp3-disc players, etc). Killing one's customer base off is rarely a smart move. Of course, how a private industry gains a tax is beyond me anyways
Pretty soon, people are going to stop using hyperlinks all together and just use google keywords. Maybe there should be a google:// .. I know if I'm in a conversation and someone wants a hyperlink, I say "google for (keyword) instead of using a url.
BTW, here is a link to the paper.
The changes by the majority Republican leadership caught Democrats by surprise and ignored the House ethics committee's warnings against skirting the spirit of ethical conduct.
The change in the perishable food provision -- dubbed the "pizza rule" by protesting Democrats -- legalized the very type of scheme in the ethics panel's warning last November.
The rules changes, which apply only to House members and their staffs, passed on a party-line vote 221-203. A Democratic effort to kill the resolution was defeated, 225-200.
Republicans had imposed a series of strict ethics rules after taking over the House in 1995, following 40 years of Democratic control and numerous ethics investigations.
"Republicans believe they have such a safe and security majority they want to undo some of the significant strides," said Rep. Martin Frost, D-Texas.
The new food rule applies, for example, when lobbyists want to have dinner delivered to a committee office when lawmakers and their staffs are working late on legislation.
Before the change, the value of the food would have counted against a $49.99 ceiling for a single gift to a member and a $99.99 annual limit for gifts from the same source.
The change allocates the value of the food against the gift limits of all those who eat it. It was unclear how House officials will keep track of everyone who grabbed a slice of pizza from a table full of food.
The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the ethics committee's formal name, distributed gift-rule guidance to lawmakers last November that said the $49.99 limit "cannot be evaded by ... averaging the expense of gifts given to more than one member or staff person."
The charity rule allows any organization certified as a charity by the Internal Revenue Service to pay for travel and lodging for events sponsored by the group. Currently, a House member must pay for his own transportation and hotel.
The prohibition was adopted to discourage lawmakers from attending charitable events at resorts, amounting to a free vacation.
Don Simon, acting president of Common Cause, said the perishable food rule would create "an easy avenue around the gift rule. It's really a proposal that's in bad faith. To surface this on the day Congress opens gets the House off on a very bad foot."
Simon said the charity provision "re-creates the abuse of the sham vacation for members in the guise of charitable events."
"There's a long record of abuse, which led to adoption of the rule in the first place," he said.
The ethics committee last November, in its gift-rule guidance, warned that regardless of value, a gift must be refused "if the person offering it has a direct interest in the particular legislation on which staff is working at the time."
"Acceptance of the food in that circumstance may implicate the illegal gratuities statute, which prohibits the acceptance of any gift for or because of an official act," the committee said.
Lobbyists normally provide meals to the committees working on their clients' issues.
Because the topic is noit a Slashdot interview. Although, the mod is a little pointless in this case. Moderators should mod up, not down, except in exceptional cases.
But lately the more I've thought about it, the more I've realized the media monsters are fighting a losing battle. They just can't win (in the long run.) Here are reasons why I think this:
So overall I think we, the people, will win in the long run. But it won't happen overnight and in the meantime we may be in for some rough times.
in Opera you can mark the text, right click for the menu, and then click "search" and you are sent to google. :)
simple matters of P2P and copyright.
It really amounts to the beginning of the Decline of Western Civilization.
Go back to around the tenth century, for a moment. Islamic civilization was supreme. Science was seen as learning about God and his works, rather than being in conflict with religion. Eventually the Islamic dominance came under seige for other reasons, but they lost that attitude toward science. European civilization picked it up, and the era of Western dominance began.
Nor do I mean to hold up Science as a religion. For my working definition, Science is the mindset that we can study and attempt to understand the Universe and its contents. For the religious, this really is learning about God and his works, essentially the old Muslim belief.
But now for the decline of the West... We have apparently decided that the current business models of the entertainment industry are more important than digital innovation. Both the legislation *and the attitude under which we crafted that legislation* are significant. Recently there was a blurb about the Bush Administration wanting science to have a "conservative tilt." Science has always been used and tilted, but AFAIK never as a piece of public policy. New Age pseudoscience is on the rise - creation "science", crystals, magnets, copper bracelets, etc.
Essentially, the West is beginning to turn its collective back on science and progress - to remain comfortable in what is known or at least doesn't require really hard work. (like math) Most of what I mention happens in the US, but those same things have analogs around the rest of the Western world, so don't pretend non-US shouldn't worry.
Obviously this isn't universal. There are people fighting these trends, there are people still studying science, math, etc. Presumably the trend is still reversible, I hope. But it's there, it's growing, and it lends another chunk of urgency to the FSF's fight.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
non-violence really worked wonders for all the dead jews in nazi germany.
There's an .html page that's been placed on there as well, accessible at http://techfocus.org/index.html
:)
Looks like mysql isn't too happy,
Was anyone else disturbed by the first photo?
I felt like some pseudo-asian Obe Wan was staring at me saying, "These aren't the copyright lawsuits you're looking for."
I find this interesting. In my experience, it's often those who are comfortable with technology that have attitudes which, IMHO, are counter-productive to intellectual property and copyright concerns. For example, I was recently talking with a friend (who happens to be in a very technical graduate program), and mentioned some CD that I was thinking of buying, but that I wasn't sure if I was going to have the cash. And my friend says, "Why not just download it?" I didn't want to get into an argument, so I made an excuse about wanting the better sound quality of the CD, knowing that it was ripped to MP3 by me and my standards, wanting the liner notes, etc. But I was taken aback that downloading the album seemed to be the default to my friend, and that paying for the album was more of a last resort option. And despite my views on record labels and price-fixing and DRM legislation and such, I don't think that violating current copyright law by downloading an album instead of buying it is the way to go.
So what's the point in all of this? I'm wondering how much the technical people need "told about EFF issues and why they matter" vs. non-technical people. My non-tech mom would be outraged if she suddenly couldn't record an episode of Babylon 5 from the TV -- as well she should be. But if this happened, I'm sure she would switch cable companies, buy a non-DRM recording device, or whatever would be required that would send a message to those who want unfair controls on intellectual property. But my tech friends would just find a way to download the material from somewhere. Perhaps technical and non-technical people alike need told about why these issues matter, and how the actions they take (for those who choose to download CDs, or share TV shows, or whatever) or don't take (like my mom not being concerned about the issues because so far, they haven't affected her) have an impact on all of us.
Food for thought. Hopefully I won't be marked as a troll or start a flamewar.
Why not? Isn't the purpose of copyright to create a (monopoly) market for the holder? What does it matter to him whether you charged or not? You still used his own work to "compete" with him.
Noone has ever suggested that Ford should be liable for every bank robbery committed with one of its cars...
We've conducted an interview with Fred Von Lohmann, Senior Intellectual Property Attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an membership organization that has spearheaded many technology-related causes and legal battles, with civil liberties being on the forefront. In cases such as the halt of US encryption method publishing, the 2600/DeCSS case, Morpheus, ReplayTV and constant clashes with the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Artists Association of America, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has been one of the most active organizations representing technology.
We fielded questions from visitors along with some of our own, and Fred Von Lohmann took the time to discuss the issues with us. Some of his work with the EFF includes his work on the MGM vs. Grokster case, which threatens to set legal precedent on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing. He is also involved in the Newmark vs. Turner Broadcasting case, which involves the use of ReplayTV to skip commercials, record content and share the content with others.
We appreciate the questions from our visitors, and would particularly like to thank Fred Von Lohmann and the Electronic Frontier Foundation for taking the time to discuss important issues in the industry, and for consumers!
In the Metro-Goldwyn Mayer v. Grokster case, the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that US courts hold no jurisdiction over regulation of the Kazaa product, as it is located in the island-nation of Vanuatu. The EFF contends that as there are no contacts of substantial value within the US, and as such the courts do not have the authority to regulate or impose fines upon Kazaa. Therefore, does this claim indicate a trend developing in which software companies under legal fire move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to avoid financial liability or injunction?
First, EFF does not represent Kazaa and has taken no position on the jurisdiction questions regarding Sharman Networks, which now controls the Kazaa software. Sharman's position is that they have no business contacts with the United States, and therefore should not be dragged into court here. Their chief place of business is in Australia, and they have plainly stated that they would submit to jurisdiction in Australia (not exactly a copyright rogue state).
I think too much has been made of the Vanuatu angle regarding Kazaa. Although the various Kazaa entities are off-shore, they have been located in the Netherlands and Australia. There's no difficulty in litigating in their home countries. In fact, copyright owners have sued (and so far have lost) in the Netherlands. The increase in off-shore developers in P2P is simply a function of the very expensive, hostileenvironment in the US, where entertainment companies have made it clear that they will sue any company that enters offers general-purpose P2Ptools. In the Napster case, moreover, the entertainment companies dropped hints that they might actually sue Napster's investors (Hummer Winblad), a development that has chilled investment in the entire P2P industry sector.
Is it any surprise that US innovators have given up the mantle to other countries? So Blubster is apparently located in Spain, Xolox in the Netherlands, Kazaa in Australia.
In the case of Newmark v.Turner, EFF argues that the SendShow feature and commercial-skipping using the ReplayTV DVR (Digital Video Recorder) are features which in themselves do not constitute infringement or engage in piracy. If this is true and a user does utilize the commercial skipping technology, then distributes the DVR'd content over the internet using Kazaa somehow, who should be prosecuted for the action if it is found to be an illegal use of copyrighted content?
The Copyright Act, like most of our laws, has been built on the premise that you go after the guy who actually breaks the law. Sure, sometimes we extend the reach of the law to get the wheel-man, too. But no one has ever suggested that Ford should be liable for every bank robbery committed with one of its cars. Yet the entertainment industries appear to want to let all the bank robbers run free and *only* punish the car makers.
It makes you wonder whether the fight is actually about piracy, or if it's instead about asserting control over new technologies.
If someone uses a PVR (or computer, or crow bar, or car, for that matter) to break the law, then by all means go after them. Find the guys who are distributing "the Sopranos" to their friends who don't pay for HBO. Once you've rounded those couple dozen PVR owners up, then leave the hundreds of thousand other, innocent American PVR owners alone. Stop calling them thieves, stop trying to cripple their cool gadgets, and stop threatening innovative companies like SonicBlue.
Oh, and by the way, once you've busted all the "Sopranos" sharers, don't be surprised if you see a drop in new HBO subscriptions, as you've ended up killing off a free, viral marketing channel that most consumer-products companies would have given their right arm for. But hey, it always pays to ignore your marketing staff and let the lawyers run the show, doesn't it?
Recently HP threatened legal action under the guise of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in order to subvert the disclosure of flaws within it's Tru64 operating system. This was also the methodology behind Adobe's initial complaint against Elcomsoft employee Dmitry Skylarov, done in order to squelch disclosure of flaws in their eBook software. What effect overall does the DMCA realistically have over the disclosure of bugs and security holes, and is it positive or negative for the consumer?
The DMCA is having a very negative impact on computer security research. Don't take my word for it -- Richard Clark, the Bush Administration's Cyber-Security Czar, recently called for DMCA reform for this very reason. For more examples of the chill imposed on legitimate activities by the DMCA, see EFF's white paper, "Unintended Consequences: Four Years Under the DMCA" (google: "DMCA unintended consequences"). To take only the most recent example, Lexmark just filed a DMCA lawsuit against a company that makes chips that permit third-party toner cartridges to be used in their laser printers. I don't think that, when it passed the DMCA, Congress intended to help Lexmark shut out legitimate competition in the toner market.
Internet Service Providers have begun warning and enforcing portions of their user agreements which forbid subscribers from sharing their wireless internet access with others. In response specifically to Time-Warner Cable's specific warning to customers not to do so, the Electronic Frontier Foundation compiled a list of ISP's who it deemed unlikely to enforce or encroach on this networking method. What methods of discovery and enforcement can ISP's legally take to insure that customers are not using their bandwidth via wireless networking?
Well, it's not easy to predict what kinds of enforcement options ISPs may undertake to prevent community 802.11 networks. Whatever measures they undertake, however, the right answer is to abandon ISPs that don't provide you the service you want. Choose an ISP that gives you the real Internet, not their port-blocked, bandwidth-shaped, you-can't-run-a-server version of the Internet. We at EFF have compiled a list of ISPs that do not forbid connection sharing. We hope it will help consumers vote with their pocketbooks to support ISPs that are not interested in limiting your Internet options.
Which US Senator would you consider to be the strongest voice for consumers in regards to the "Fair Use" doctrine? Which US Congressman?
As a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization, EFF cannot endorse particular politicians or engage in direct campaigning. But we certainly do take positions on legislation. For two of the worst pieces of legislation in the last Congress, you might want to check the Hollings Bill (aka CBDTPA, S. 2048), the Berman Bill (aka P2P Vigilante Bill, H.R. 5211). For examples of legislation heading the right direction on copyright, you might want to check out the Boucher-Doolittle DMCRA (H.R. 5544), Zoe Logren's Bill (H.R. 5522) and the Cox-Wyden Fair Use Bill of Rights (H. J. Res. 116). I expect many of these measures to be reintroduced in the new Congress.
Most of my letters to legislators and organizations about intellectual property go unanswered or I receive formletters. What are the most effective ways I can make a difference in intellectual property policy and law?
Keep writing. We at EFF have even set up an Action Center to make it easy to write and fax your members of Congress.
Just because you get a form letter doesn't mean you're not making a difference. I used to work for a Senator handling constituent mail, and it can make a big difference. When only a few letters come in, they get a generic "thanks for writing" note. Once it's a steady stream, a staffer looks into the issue, brief his boss, and composes an issue-specific form letter. Once it's a torrent, them members of Congress start calling each other and asking whether there's any legislation they can sign onto to take credit for fixing the problem.
So keep writing.
What kind of support or help can the average user provide which is most helpful, in assisting the EFF in their efforts, monetarily or otherwise?
Become a member, make a steady donation. Set up a $10 monthly recurring payment on your credit card. We're a membership-supported organization, with no fat endowment or corporate support. Without our members, we simply cease to exist.
Second, tell 5 of your non-technical family, friends or acquaintances about EFF issues and about why they matter. Holding the interest of the mainstream is critical to making real change. In 10 years, I want every elementary school child to have as much sympathy for digital freedom issues as they do today for environmentalism.
Third, drop us a note if you're able to volunteer. We need all kinds of help -- sometimes we need office furniture, sometimes envelope stuffing, sometimes web design, sometimes strong crypto programming. If you're prepared to devote some real time and make a commitment, we'd love to hear from you.
And keep writing to your representatives, where ever you may live.
If you were to write one piece of legislation, what would it be, and why?
Surprisingly enough, it's already been written, and not by me. It's called the DMCRA, H.R. 5544 in the last Congress, sponsored by Rep. Boucher and Rep. Doolittle, and it would reform the DMCA. It fixes the most egregious aspects of the DMCA, making sure that our traditional copyright law balance is restored. If it were law, it would ensure that there were no more Sklyarov cases, no more Felten cases, no more DeCSS cases. That'd be a fine start.
What do you think is the single most compelling reason why the average person should support the EFF's intellectual property fight?
If you care about culture, radio, television, literature, music, art, information or knowledge, then you should be supporting our fight on intellectual property. EFF is not against intellectual property. We are fighting for a return to a balanced form of copyright, one that respects the owners and the public equally. After all, copyright law is made, ostensibly, for the benefit of the public. If you, as a member of the public, think that our culture should not be regulated exclusively by high-priced lobbyists working for the entertainment industry, and if you don't believe our copyright law system today is working in the best interests of the public, you should be supporting EFF.
If you were king for a day and could make one single change to anything concerning intellectual property in the United States, what would you change?
Striking the right balance in intellectual property is not a matter of making a single change. It's a matter of making lots of changes to adjust to new technologies on an ongoing basis. Today, reform of the DMCA, reduction of copyright term, and fighting to preserve a healthy fair use doctrine are at the top of my list.
Has there been a court case where more than any other, you think that the good guys have lost? What was the reason for their loss?
The biggest defeats for the public interest in the last decade came not in court cases, but rather in the legislative arena, with the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the DMCA.
But, in the long run, the Napster decision may well end up being the biggest courtroom defeat. Not because it put down Napster, but rather because it did so in a way that created a dangerous precedent for all technology companies. In the name of stopping P2P file sharing, lots of bad copyright law is being made in the courts right now, law that effectively puts entertainment companies in charge of technological innovation. If the precedents being made today were on the books 20 years ago, we would never have seen the photocopier, the VCR, or the CD recorder. I'm afraid, the bad copyright precedents will be with us long after Napster is a dim memory.
What is your stand on the concept of intellectual property? Eg, should it be abolished altogether or is there a way to make it work?
I'm a copyright lawyer. I like copyright, and I think it is plenty flexible enough to see us through the transition to a digital media world. The basic challenge hasn't changed -- we need to strike a fair balance between an author's need to get paid and the public's right to have access to its cultural and media heritage. In order to make it work, we may need to let go of the obsession with perfectly counting and controlling "reproductions" of copyrighted works. Fortunately, there are historical precedents for that. After all, in response to the last revolution in distribution, namely broadcast radio and television, copyright owners learned to let go of the need to control and count every single listener and viewer. And it turned out to work pretty well for all concerned.
The more I learn about the EFF more the more i realize how lame they are.
Civil disobedience does not just mean doing what is most convenient for you (e.g. downloading illegal copies of music or videos), it also means being willing to accept the consequences: go to jail (or at least to trial), get in trouble with your school, your employer. If you can't accept this possibility, then you have another alternative in this case: don't use products by companies that want to restrict your rights in ways you cannot abide.
Precisely! I wonder how many of our vociferous defenders of digital liberty will be willing to go to jail for their illicit copies of The Eminem Show or Enterprise?
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
We bitch about /.'ed sites but then once in a while you guys do The Right Thing. Kudos.
Had Japan won WWII India would have been a province of the Japanese Empire. The parent post accurately describes what Ghandi's fate would have been.
Any creativity out of Islamic civilization was due to the creativity of the conquered peoples, not anything within Islam. After the conquered peoples were completely crushed/blended in, it all went to pieces.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Replace "Islamic" with "American" and "conquered" with "imigrants", and you have the story of the USA down to a tee.
They need to be doing that all the time - it's getting out of hand. Slashdot is about as irresponsible as it can get.
If you guys want to link hundreds of thousands of viewers to a site simultaneously, you should damn well be prepared to host the bandwidth for it.
Mozilla does this as well.
In Soviet Russia, EFF interviews YOU!
The first thing I did after reading this article, and realizing that there were Representatives interested in tilting the balance of copyright slightly in favor of citizens again, was to write my representative Rob Bishop. Here's the text of the letter. Let me encourage you to do likewise: look up the name of your representative at http://www.house.gov and write!
Unfortunately, I felt that in a half-page letter I couldn't get all the details in. And I should have included a referral to a URL for him to get more information. Oh well, it's already in the mail, I'll do better next letter.
----
Dear Representative Bishop,
I don't often write my Congressional representatives, but I feel the need to do so in this case. I'm writing to encourage your support of HR 5544, "The Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2002", introduced by Reps. Boucher and Doolittle.
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), while well-intentioned, has resulted in a massive power grab by the entertainment and media cartels. The grant of copyright by the citizens of this country to copyright holders was never intended by our founding fathers to be a bludgeon with which large corporations can force citizens and non-citizens into only writing software or publications of which they approve. It was granted as a measure to encourage new works, for limited times, by the author(s) who created an original work. Now it is being abused in an attempt to control not only the copying of works, but when, where, and how a legal purchaser of a copyrighted work can use it.
The DMCA has been appropriated by many companies now to prevent the publication of material which is not in their best interest, to prosecute competitors into oblivion with court cases rather than competing on product merit, and to silence would-be critics and whistle-blowers. We're now in a situation where a law is being abused by organizations to limit the free political and economic speech of individuals, and those individuals have insufficient resources to defend themselves from deep-pockets corporations in court.
HR 5544, while principally focussed on requiring media companies to label intentionally defective compact discs designed to prevent playback on non-approved devices, also includes a brief amendment to the DMCA which would be a valuable step towards preventing the egregious abuses of power currently trampling the first amendment landscape. Please support this bill, particularly the "Sec. 5. Fair Use Amendment", and restore the rights of scientific research, fair use, and free speech to the copyright landscape.
With kind regards,
Matthew P. Barnson
P.S. See also the Electronic Frontier Foundation's information regarding the unintended consequences of the DMCA by searching Google for "DMCA unintended consequences"
Matthew P. Barnson
I learn what I think when I read what I write
Read more history.
I'll keep this short.
Does the name Galileo Galilei ring a bell? You remember, the guy that was branded a heretic for saying the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. Who branded him a heretic? Why, the Catholic church, which just happened to control most European governments at the time, one way or another.
Science as a tool of public policy is standard practice for *any* long-standing established govenment.
And "intellecutal property" problems? Look into how many English people came to the Colonies in the 1700s so they could use patened machines without paying patent fees. It's amazing how much industry came here for that reason. Lots of textiles, for example.
What is the quote from Plato? "The youth these days, they have no respect for their elders." There are no new problems, only people with a poor knowledge of history. (And I count myself in that group.)
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
Not true at all! If you had heard same the why my project missed its deadline' excuses that I had, you would know that creativity is alive and well in America.
In general, I agree with the EFF's positions, and think they're quite clueful. However, their position on spam is, to put it mildly, just flat wrong. They concentrate on free speech, while ignoring that spam itself is destroying the usefulness of electronic mail. As long as they oppose blocklists and other such anti-spam measures, I will not support them.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
I hate spam as much as the next guy, but I have to agree with the EFF on this one.
Spam is crippling the usefulness of email, and measures should be taken to curb spam, but we don't need to completely stop all unsolicited commercial email. All we need to do is go after the perpetrators of fraudulent spam for fraud, not spam... A movement in this direction is beginning in the us government. One of the most important things to recognize is that a bogus link for getting removed from a mailing list, is fraud. If opting out actually worked, instead of bringing more spam, I don't think spam would be such a hassle. So I say, let the legitimate (non-fraudulent, even if they are assholes) ones continue doing business, and bust the ones that are criminals, because they are the ones really crippling email.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Thanks a lot. Now I have to type one-handed while I wipe *my* monitor.
Seriously, that was majorly fscking funny!
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Internet Explorer can be set to shortcut quickly to google by going into Tweak UI (for NT based OS's) and setting an internet keyword to googles search engine. I set mine simply as "g" so if I want to search a query, for example, I would type "g fast cars". This is nice because it saves screen space from having to install the google toolbar.
I am going to moderate your post as "Interesting" even though everyone else is moderating it as "Funny." My reason for doing this is because I am a strong supporter of the EFF (have 'em in my sig when I'm not forced to be an AC), and I would LOVE to see more interviews with EFF people. You have made a good point.
*Ahem*. AFAIK there are no other western countries seriously considering teaching "creationism" in schools alongside or instead of evolution and natural selection. I think the US has more or less cornered the market on falling ass-backwards back into the dark ages. Read any book by Stephen Baxter, but in particular Titan, for a dark view of where this might lead.
And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
I wasn't thinking of creationism, there. I was more thinking of our stupid copyright and DRM polices. There has been noise that through WIPO and such, things like the DMCA are going abroad. There has been some pleasant noise recently about second thoughts on this direction.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Actually, I'll agree with everything you say.
When I rail against "science as a tool of public policy," it's precisely against slanting of results of basic research according to a political agenda. Again, enough slanting gets done already without making it a part of official policy.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The point of my post was that most (99%+) spam is fraudulent. If the executive brach of our government decided to go after the fraudulent spammers, the spam burden would shrink to a point where if is almost meaningless, and them we don't have to rob people of their freedom of speech.
If I am wrong, and the elimination of fraudulent spam doesn't reduce the mail server load, maybe then it is time to consider legislation, but even them I would favor national opt-out lists like we will (hopefully) have for telemarketing.
one more thing, don't try the any spam burden is unacceptable because it is not their equipment argument. There are many situations in which you are recuired to use your own resources to benifit the comunity (shoveling snow off your sidewalk comes to mind).
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...