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.
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.
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.
DON'T download their music. find independents. DON'T rip their DVDs. That's just advertising for them. It's one thing to "vote with your pocketbook", it's another thing altogether to then turn around and quietly support the crap that they put out.
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.
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.
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.
Besides the fact that another poster brought up something I don't know about that could potentially defeat my entire position, I will continue to defend my position. :) (haven't looked up what he said yet)
The purpose of copyright is to balance an "artist's" ability to capitalize on his work (and I use the term artist loosely) and the public's right to use his work. That's where "fair use" comes into play.
On EVERY CD that you purchase, it says "Unauthorized duplication, lending, public performance..." etc. HOWEVER, you ARE allowed to lend it to your friend, and he can listen to it. Same with books, vhs and dvds, etc. Once upon a time, it was the same with software even!
The thing is, now people are accepting the idea that copyright provides a monopoly for the holder, and that it's his and only his right to say what can and can't be done with the material. While the more people accept this idea the more it becomes law (regardless of how it's legislated), it's complete and utter bullshit.
The reason it's bullshit is for all the reasons the EFF has been fighting to restore the balance to copyright law. It stifles innovation and competition in the marketplace.
Now, IMHO (which wasn't asked for :) ) I'd like to do away with intellectual property law completely for awhile and see how that works. I don't claim it'll work better or worse, but then I'd like to introduce a law that says "You can't use someone else's material and claim it's yours" and see how well that works.
Also, with the advent of digital filesharing, the concept of lending isn't nearly as black and white as it used to be. I could load you a CD, but while you had it I couldn't listen to it (except that I probably would have a copy on tape, because back in the days I had a tape copy of all of my CDs that was usually made before I bought the CD). Nowadays, I can give you the whole CD, or at least the content of the CD, without any loss to me personally.
But I digress. The point is, copyright law was never intended to provide a monopoly for anybody, it was only intended to protect for a time the creator's right to make money off his own work.
Like what I said? You might like my music
No, you're right, that the topic deserves some careful consideration.
I tend to believe that intellectual commodities are fairly tenuous constructions and that the current legal protections err on the side of generosity to the "holders of IP" rather than on the side of the general public. If my patent (I actually do have one) were to generate a lot of revenue perhaps my attitude might change, but as it stands, 17 years seems appropriate to the 17th century.
The Digital Bill of Rights is a nice start towards defining some of what might make a good society, but it avoids the touchy issue of your right to share your right to listen to a song with friends, acquaintences, or people you don't even know.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
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