Slashdot Mirror
Lobbying For Linux
Telex4 writes "Slashdot has heard a lot lately about why software patents are bad, and the passage of the legislation in the EU. But other than the online demo and a few pictures of the demonstration outside the European Parliament, Slashdotters hear little about the real behind-the-scenes lobbying. I've just put an article up on Newsforge describing and discussing my experiences lobbying inside the Parliament that might shed a little light on what we mortal geeks can do to save ourselves. There are some accompanying photos on my web site for those who like visual aids." (NewsForge and Slashdot are both part of OSDN.)
does this lobbying group run Linux?
I just want to say congratulations for what you have done. Many of us bitch and complain about these issues, but you took time out of your life to do something about it. I just wanted to thank you for that.
Why was this moderated down?
Its a valid criticism and opinion.
Another example of pathetic slashdot censorship.
What about the BSD family?
The cluelessness amoung MEPs is interesting. I am a firm believer that organizational incompetence is the one unifying factor amoung all political systems. Yet these MEPs are the ones will make the decision on this matter affecting everyone. It makes you wonder how many people in government actually know what is going on even a small percentage of the time.
"I never think of the future. It comes soon enough."
It's that simple.
I'm on to you. Everytime an opinion gets posted that sheds light on how you guys are such hypocrites, it gets modded down.
Guess what? I'm NOT going away.
Keep on modding me down. I'll just reply again.
What about the PES (social democrats)?
Don't lobby for Linux. Besides being a FreeBSD user hating to see EU nations ban everything but Linux, it also doesn't do anything to correct the pervasion monoculture in governments. While 100% use of Linux is better than 100% use of Windows, 100% use of anything is still bad.
So lobby for Open Source instead. Lobby for Open Standards. Those will also be much easier to get acceptance.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
"Mortal geeks to save ourselves"?? Jesus Christ, man, get a grip. The world is not out to get you, and nobody gives a shit about Operating Systems, and especially not Linux.
Time is running out. We will not stop this directive but we can support important amendments filed by some MEPs in order to get a sufficient directive.
p ar tition?ipid=0&ilg=EN&iorig=home&imsg=
l en 0309/index.en.html/ eubsa-swpat0202/plen 0309/kond/index.en.html
a t0202/tech /index.en.html
a t0202/prog /index.en.html
p at0202/itop /index.en.html
Adresses of EU - representatives
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep5/owa/p_meps2.re
personal > telephone call > Fax > letter > email
The directive is called COM(02)92, it will be voted on Wednesday.
Info about Amendments (please directly refer to these, no general texts, the first link is a must read):
http://swpat.ffii.org/papiere/eubsa-swpat0202/p
http://swpat.ffii.org/papiere
It is especially useful to support Mrs. Kauppi against patent radical Wurmling in the conservative group
http://swpat.ffii.org/#wuermeling-pr030919
Background
General:
http://swpat.ffii.org/analyse/index.de.html
Technical contribution (what is really meant, we want a definition in the directive based on the "natural forces" theory):
http://swpat.ffii.org/papiere/eubsa-swp
Program claims (dangerous for web site owners):
http://swpat.ffii.org/papiere/eubsa-swp
Interoperability (support ITRE against Juri proposal)
http://swpat.ffii.org/papiere/eubsa-sw
Don't write to Green party members or EFA as they are convinced yet, focus on Liberals, Conservative(Finnish MEP Kauppi has made good amendments)
and Social democrats
One of the funniest arguments was Wurmling's text who stated that Eolas vs. Microsoft showed best practise for SME. Incompetence and lies rule within the EU parliament. We shall not let patent lawyer interest groups win this battle.
The debate over the use of open-source software is underway, with the ALP adopting a strong pro open-source policy.
It will be interesting to see if they actually do anything about it when the conservatives finally get dumped.
Apparently the OP didn't RTFA. Those two guys were there to lobby _against_ _software_ _patents_.
Please RTFA before you let escape your mental diarrhea.
Thanks
anonymous troll
Isnt it great that at the beggining of an article like "Lobbying for Linux" you get a nice flashy Microsoft ad? :-)
"The "Free Software Alliance" (FSA) is an imaginary organisation, created by Arlene McCarthy (MEP, UK Labour) in August 2003 for the purpose of press briefings. The FSA is a mirror of the BSA: it fights aggressively and intrusively for the right of its members to free-ride on other people's intellectual property. The FSA supports a caricature of the positions of the FFII (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure) and the Eurolinux Alliance. Unlike FFII, Eurolinux and BSA, the FSA consists only of computer rights campaigners, and enjoys no support among commercial software producers."
http://swpat.ffii.org/players/fsa/
Of all of my local MEPs that I've emailed, Caroline Lucas (Green) has been both the most responsive, and the most supportive of our position. If they were only pro-Euro, they'd get my vote every time...
(Christopher Hume (LibDem) has sent me a number of letters, the most recent of which (16/09/2003) says that "software should not be patentable simply because it is running on generic computer equipment", and goes on to say that they want a Directive to "enforce the original EPC, rather than codifying what has become common practice - and illegal practice - of allowing the patenting of computer-implemented inventions".)
Being unemployed (hence having lots of free time), living in western germany (hence being able to travel to Brussels easily) and being a free software supporter, even with some experience in political work (from being a students representative of various kinds back when life rocked), I'd like to contribute to effective lobbying in the EU. However, the only really serious EU-wide organization seems to be the FSF Europe, and I happen to disagree with the FSF on some major points. (And there's Attac, which I happen to disagree on more points with.) There doesn't seem to be any organized forums for european FLOSS supporters outside the FSF Europe right now, or is there? Maybe something more "Open Source"-related? Is there a way for someone who's experience ranges from writing code over writing press releases to organizing demonstations and legal help for demonstrators to throwing yoghurt at malevolent policemen to effectively contribute, without having to adopt the FFS mantra?
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
Organizations that lobby to pass free-software-unfriendly legislation will be shut down immediately after they begin lobbying.
Companies that write software that produces unpublicized data formats will be shut down.
People who review free software and compare it to commercial software, and who point out any sort of disadvantage to using the free software, or any advantage to using the commercial software, will be shot immediately.
I didn't vote for Britain to join the EU, my parents generation did. I have never had the chance to vote for a European member of parliament - or indeed the chance to spoil my ballot paper. When are these elections held? I'm on the electoral register and have been for years - I've voted in two general elections and a number of local elections, I may have moved a couple of times but I've never had any notice or ballot cards through for European elections, not once.
Britain seems to be the only country that plays by all the 'collective' rules - much, it seems, to our disadvantage. But if they don't even attempt to represent my views, I want out. Now.
# init 5
Connection closed.
Oh...
I know, some BSD funs may dislike it. But in many cases it's really easier to approve "Linux in general" and later specify that sometime it can be BSD :)
Well, historically Linux was stealing a lot open source applications from BSD world. And that time for many managers Linux was one of BSD kinds. Now time is changed.
Less is more !
In these times of wars and famine and poverty, I just can't help but being disgusted by the smugness of people who treat something as trivial as software so seriously. If you want to spend time lobbying, try working on important issues.
Before you troll, just compare with a typical big business/RIAA mode "lobbying" and what this guy has done. He has followed a plain and transperant way and has tried to convince the leaders in a perfectly democratic way for a genuine purpose. On the contray, big business "lobbying" is often non-transperant and undemocratic .They shower millions in to the party fund(and often personal pockets of leaders) and then manage to have totally stupid laws like DMCA.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
I don't think you could make that statement any more hyperbolic.
Oh yeah?
And you believe that the world really works like that? You just show a plain, transparent and a democratic way? Let me play the devil's advocate: where's the profit in that?
The only way you opne source/anti-patent people can outlobby the lobbyists it to use the "typical big business/RIAA mode": show where the maximal profit lies.
You are smart people. I don't understand why it is so hard to comprehend!
BOO! TERRO
In a free, democractic society that's perfectly acceptable.
Your point is?
BOO! TERRO
>The only way you opne source/anti-patent people can outlobby the lobbyists it to use the "typical big business/RIAA mode"
Wrong! Even without following "typical big business/RIAA mode", they were successful so far. Thats why the voting was postponed more than once.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
It was postponed so that more political capital could be gained from its acceptance.
Do you really think it would not have been accepted now?
The postponement had nothing to do with your "pitiful rebellion".
BOO! TERRO
Its because using their methods is an inherent evil. To do so would be to lessen ourselves more than simply losing the fight will do. That is why many people fight so hard yet still have difficulty winning.
the only way to fight big money is to spend big money. how do you suppose you do that with open source - a business plan according to which you give away your property?
fuck you. i have some sympathy for your software development model, but i'd rather be with the winners.
Maybe this is old news, but funny nonetheless in this context: Resources for competing with Linux
Ok.
I've got nothing more to say except that if you believe that, you are too naive for your own good.
BOO! TERRO
>It was postponed so that more political capital could be gained from its acceptance
Honestly, I dont think this is the reason and I have not found any article/report poiting to that. On the contray many reports were poiting to the other way.If you have any link to substantiate it , I would appreciate.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
I did not say that they were evil in their entirety or avoidable, just that they are inherently evil, as are very many things.
The method of lobbying by money using corporate power exploits flaws in the political system which cannot be repaired by any political models proposed to date.
That does not mean that using those holes is not wrong, just a stealing from someone who cannot stop it (such as the RIAA) is wrong.
Mostly because BSD doesn't need lobbying.
BSD doesn't have a license that gets it into all sorts of legal scuffles.
BSD users don't care what everyone else is using.
BSD users don't see what they're doing as competing against microsoft. If microsoft went away, they would still be trying to make the best operating systems available.
We're not looking to take over the world, it's more fun to compute.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Idiot. ;-) He did not say a word about lobying for software patents. He said t lobby for free standards.
The next EU election will be on June 13th, 2004
Depends where you live. June 10th in the UK, we don't do Sunday elections. What's more, the government has moved the UK local elections from May to 10th June in an attempt to increase turnout at the European elections, on the grounds that people will go out to vote for their local councils and might as well vote for the European parliament at the same time.
The other theory, the one I believe, is that people will think "oh, it's the European election today, how boring" and stay at home, so the net result will be a decrease in turnout for the local elections.
News flash: Career politicians, like every other human, are not experts in everything.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
This may be slightly offtopic, but it relates, I believe, so here it is.
..(code)... Then: (code)" A real If statement can be more complex than this, of course, since it can take any set of arguments that can be reduced to a boolean true or false. (alternatively, the 'EAX' and 'EBX' may be the reduced values created by C and dropped into the function call.) At this, it may be obvious to anyone who has coded assembly that you can make the same statement basically by replacing JZ (jump on zero) with JNZ (jump on not zero), and switching the two blocks of code. This would not count as patentable, in my opinion.
Software (code) is a lot like music. Its really complicated in the end, but the pieces that it is made up of (chords, phrases, arpeggios, melody lines, etc) can be very simple. In fact, basic chord progressions are reused so many times it borders on the ridiculous. In the same way, certain pieces of code are re-used in a similar form many times. If someone can get a software patent on smallish pieces of code, like getting a copyright on a phrase of music, you could skewer a lot of people for royalties.
Similarly, if you could copyright a general form of music, whose parts are somewhat understood, but nonetheless vague enough that someone could write it without trying to, you could again swim in royalties.
There is, fortunately, in music, a rule against this. But in software it seems that the line may be fuzzy. What we really need is a length-of code range for copyrights.
For instance (As mentioned in one of the articles linked to) it would have been unreasonable for Mozart to say, patent the Symphony. Not to say that some musician might want to try to. Likewise, it would be unreasonable to patent something as wide-reaching and ambiguous as 'one-click shopping'. Patents, to my experience, are usually rather complex, so that people will know if they are using it or not. A detailed description is given, so that there is NO confusion. This rule MUST apply to code as well.
In like terms, it would stupid for Mozart to patent, say, the first phrase from '10 Variations' (the melody is identical to 'Twinkle, Twinkle, little Star'.) how many written pieces of music have used the note progression 'C C G G A A G'? Well, I'm not going to look it up. But as a musician should know, the notes Db Db Ab Ab Bb Bb Ab' are analogous to the original progression. So, then, if you consider that as well to be the same melody (it is) and thus under the patent, you can get the idea of what kind of ridiculousness would ensue.
In software, you likewise should not be able to patent significantly minor parts of code. Heck, the size of the patentable pieces should probably relate to how complex they are a combination of the basic parts of a programming language. I mean, eveyone can see that you can't patent an 'if' statement in C. After all, you aren't the first person to make up the If statement and how it is implemented in machine code. If, however, you created a new 'If' function in assembly, could you patent that? I would think that would depend on how complex a combination of machine instructions you need to produce your statement.
Why is that? Well, generally, you would have to consider the chances that someone else writing an 'If' statement would produce the exact same pieces of code you have by accident. If there were, for instance, 1000 machine instructions required to create an If statement (obviously not, but stay with me) and there were a large number of different combinations of commands that would produce the effect (there could be, in fact, but more later..) then your more efficient If statement would be patentable.
But say, for instance, that there are about 5 lines of assembly required to make this 'If'. Basically something to the effect of "Test EAX EBX
JZ Then
So, I think that software patents should be:
1. Clear and unambiguous. A patent's viability should be judged on whether someone could be under the umbrella of the patent eas
This isn't a redundant post; I just set my threshold to 6.
Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personas?
The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
Out finde more about the EU IPR Enforcement directive here or here.
Timothy!
Looked at the photos...
Good God man, sit up straight!
Tuck your shirt in!
Comb your hair!
Eat somethin, for the love of God, you look like your going to blow away in the wind!
I hope the trip didn't include a hunger strike.
At least you didn't mention one.
Other than that, good job!
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
In a free, democractic society that's perfectly acceptable.
You confuse freedom of speech with the freedom to tell lies. The latter is not acceptable because it infringes the freedom of other people.
Software patents are bad, mmmmkaaay??
Id you know a European language it is very helpful if you could translate part of the thing on Sunday. (Erik needs this by monday morning. There are persons working on it, help is needed help for it, subscribe to the translations mailing list and the info page for more info).
Once doing that whetted your appetite for coming to Strasbourg (there is a demo), help is also appreciated of distributing this inside the parliament (write to europarl ATt ffii DOtT org or call +49-174-7313590, sleeping between 1 am and 9 am CET).
Also note that before there are some supporting events in Greece, Stuttgart and Berlin.
Has no commonality of experience? Are you mad?
Five minutes of genealogical research should enlighten that misconception. Europe such as it is drawn today is as artificial as it has been at any point in time. "Germany" and "Italy," for example, are complete fabrications of the barely more than the last century. For the past 1200 years at least, the countries and people of Europe have been highly interrelated.
The Czars of Russia you mention were hardly Russian at all. Czarina Dagmar was a Danish princess, sister of King George of Greece and Queen Alexandra of England. Czarina Alexandra was a Hessen princess and granddaughter of Queen Victoria. Catherine the Great was a German of nordic descent (Danish, Swedish and Norwegian).
The Holy Roman Empire, neither Holy nor Roman, discuss, is full of these relations like King Philip II of Spain (actually he was Portugeuse) marrying Queen Mary of England only to have her drop dead, cutting him off from England, but then having Charles V (his father), a Belgian who was raised by his Austrian aunt (actually she was Flemmish), hand him the Netherlands and Sicily, leading eventually to his marriage to Elizabeth de Valois, giving him interest in France, which isn't so surprising since his Grandmother was French.
Those ruling family common interests date back
over a thousand years of European history and have had more than a small effect on commonality between nations, good or bad. It is nearly impossible to speak of Europe without speaking of interrelation.
forgot the translation info page url (asking for your cooperation):h eAnalysis
wiki.ael.be/index.php/TranslatingT
By making it about free software you weaken the argument, it isn't just about Linux, FreeBSD, or Apache - it is about all software developers that can't afford a large patent portfolio, and it is about all software consumers.
You usually win an election by winning on differential turnout - getting your people to turn out and the opposition to stay at home. Usually you don't win by persuading people to change their vote.
In Brent East the four hundred activists were told "go out and get 20 votes each and we've won". They succeeded. But the opposition didn't; hence result.
Nonsense.
Freedom of speech is speech without limits.
Nothing about FoS says you're required to tell the truth. There's no freedom being infringed upon when someone is told a lie. They're not required or forced to believe. You're nutty.
This is the world, not kindergarten.
There's no freedom being infringed upon when someone is told a lie.
You don't seem to have much trust in your right of free speech, anonymous. Why the fear, coward? Why don't you attach your name to your words and stand upright when you proclaim them? You are entitled to say them, you know.
is this what they are teaching the new breed of economists now? back in my day, we actually had to learn things and not just make up cute names while saying nothing.
yes, i am an economist by trade.
patents have not lead to stagnating drug research. the us flew past europe in pharma over the 90s to such an extent that major european companies such as gsk have moved their headquarters or major r&d labs to america. it has been reported that of the top 10 drug sellers in 2002, 7 of them were made in the us (not all by us companies, but their research and trials were done here).
very little evidence suggests that tech countries are moving overseas to dodge copyright and patent laws. many countries already have basic trademark, copyright, and patent laws from wto (and other multi- and bi-lateral) negotiations. i have yet to see any survey of executives that say they are changing development to avoid copyrights and patents. any answer of "of course they wouldn't say it" is simply unjustified alligation. you can be sure that if this was an issue, companies would be pressing for ip laws in these other locations. remember that companies are both helped and hurt. mostly the large companies are helped the most and they are the ones moving across the ocean. every piece of evidence points to a single area (either directly or indirectly): a prohibitively slice of their profits and employees salaries that gets cuts away from taxation.
people have been proclaiming that china (and india, vietnam, malaysia, etc.) will be the next economic grounds for more than 20 years. it has never happened because asia still doesn't know how to grow without the us dragging the global economy along, almost kicking and screaming at times. the average salary for a city worker in china was 10,000 yuan (in 2001) which comes in at $12,000. now please explain when they will be able to afford a computer in enough mass to make them such a massive market (especially considering that only a third of citizens live in an urdan area). even yao ming couldn't see a computer over there (and he's been trying too). you can talk all you want, blaming it on various government laws and people, but these often draconian proposals get shot down easily. they do not have much of a market effect yet.
clinton and his advisors (based on garten's ideas) tried to select a group of countries that they saw as the next markets for american products. they were called the big emerging markets - BEM - and they, unsurprisingly, contained, asian countries. they, like they have been for 50 years, failed to live up to that promise. they always do. maybe we should actually wait to see some substantial change in their policy ideas before claiming then the next market. so far there has been little encouraging. go check usn&wr/economists/etc's report on big markets that they put out every few years. the have always had india and china among them. we are still waiting.
please spare us your economic worldview based on the google black box.
Just to echo what others have said, you are an inspiration to us all - even those of us not directly involved with the European Union (from Texas here - :)
Bravo - well done!
I am afraid it will take the man in the street getting hit by a two-by-four in the forehead before real grass roots pressure can be brought to bear on these issues. Unfortunately, by then, the internet and software development as we have known it may have gone the way of the Dodo...
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
It's simple marketing: See the penguin. He is happy. Use Linux, and you will be happy.
Happy penguins to all, and to all a good night.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
not more hackers playing politics.
I have seen so many arguments alleging cluelessness on the parts of politicians, simply because you disagree with their positions and where in the end they might come out. This is naive and arrogant in the extreme. And the more we do this, the more we actually help those seeking stronger technology regulation. What fools we can be sometimes.
In the ongoing debates, I have pointed out the hopelessness and fallacy of taking extreme and unprovable positions in opposition to a bil, even though you may well believe deeply in the righteousness and correctness of your position. Politics doesn't work that way -- and neither does logic.
There is a fundamental difference between offering strong and nonfalsifiable rhethoric and making a strong and provable case. The problem is that a single plausible potential counterexample can shatter the credibility of the former. If you overreach with your rhetoric, you will simply talk yourself out of the debate -- as soon as someone begins to doubt the certainty of an extreme position, they wilt and start counting votes.
There is also a fundamental difference between making a strong and provable case that something might happen, and making a strong political case that it matters whether it happens. Even if you can demonstrate that bill A might cause effect B, you have to go much further, and show that the costs of B outweigh the benefits of passing A.
Finally, there are times to realize that something will happen, because a constiuency feels a need for something to happen, and that it is more important to have the bill that WILL be passed, not be the worst it can be.
ACM and academic groups made this mistake during DMCA debates in the US, missing many opportunities to slow down the train in the foolish hope of stopping it altogether. The end result is that it was almost the worst of all possible bills. The few gracious benefits derived from the efforts of those who fought for crypto and reverse engineering exceptions. Much more could have been done, but for the arrogance of those who thought they could kill it dead with raw rhetoric.
We don't just need more individual effort, we need better advice. We need lobbyists who can tell us effectively and impassively when we are simply going to lose, and it is time to salvage what we can, and when we are going to lose unless we temper our rhetoric. Sometimes (like last years Stupid Hollings Bills), we can kill a bad bill -- because the bill on its face is unneeded and is demonstrably dangerous. Othertimes we cannot.
Politics is a different system to hack, requiring significantly different skills. We need better political hackers, not more hackers trying to play politics.
Please pay your $699
Thank you
Of course, the main factor here that helped is that the positions of the MEPs were not formulated to win campaign contributions from lobbyists.
In the "land of democracy", the chances that a handful of people can actually get people to listen without massive campaign budgets are a lot smaller.
As I've said, though the EU has done some very wrongheaded things with respect to legislation and technology, the odds on getting them to stop doing them may be considerably better than in the USA if individuals will organize and put in their time and individual-scale money to . . . do something. The war isn't lost there yet. Perhaps it won't be.
The one point that I think based on the article didn't get made as strongly as it should be is that NOT passing software patent bills gives the EU an advantage the USA with respect to individual and small business contributions to technology of the sort that leads to businesses that provides jobs and that the EU can tax.
Remember that the committments of legislators to follow the lead of the US aren't as strong as that of US legislators who got campaign contribution from interested multinationals, i.e. except for a few, I'd guess that a great many are willing to listen to reason if the reason is put in terms that they can understand.
Props to the people who lobbied on behalf of us all.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I'm better qualified to speak about the US situation.
Money talks, bullshit walks.
In a real sense, how "extreme" the concerns of the community in favor of freedom for computer users and developers are completely irrelevant.
Whether the positions are moderated or made even more extreme means absolutely nothing.
Given a decently funded PAC along the lines of the NRA or AARP funded by individual $5 and $20 and $100 contributions aggregated into contributions big enough to match what Hollywood is handing out and tons of faxes (NOT e-mails!) the politicians will not only treat our positions with respect, but frequently act on them, especially if we concentrate on politicians the *AA and MS hasn't seen fit to hand campaign money to.
Unfortunately, none of the high-tech millionaires and billionaires who made their pile largely off our work as well as their own have seen fit to provide the leadership required, i.e. the willingness to spend a few megabucks of their own money in order to build a political organization capable of hiring the top-bracket political lobbyistss with checkbooks needed to keep our situation from going into the crapper. What they have done when they've done anything at all is spend just enough money in DC to protect their own narrow and selfish interests. So instead of stopping DMCA, they bought extension of H1B instead. As computer security research is forced to move out of the US, they'll simply outsource it to where it can be done, in the cases where they decide to fix their product line security problems instead of depending on the ability to use the DMCA and computer anti-hacking legislation to suppress computer security research publication. The vulns will still be out there, we just will have to sit there and take them because we aren't able to legally publically share the info required so we can handle response to attacks as a community.
The multimillionaires and frequently, billionaires of the Hollywood cartel have shown no such reluctance, and MS learned from the antitrust case that buying politicians to represent their interests is a good investment.
While you are actually correct about our community's need for representation, it has demonstrated that nobody in a position to pay the price of freedom while it still can be paid in dollars gives a flying fuck. And so, soon, the freedom to use the computers we paid for as we see fit instead of the way our corporate masters want them to be used is going to vanish. History will say that our freedom vanished without a fight. Correctly.
Our "geek-activism" as represented by the EFF and Public Knowledge is basically meaningless in this context. This kind of fight is one that non-profit organizations can not effectively participate in regardless of funding level simply because it is illegal for non-profit organizations to contribute to political campaigns. This kind of fight can not be won without our community buying its own politicians.
It's already too late for the US high-tech community to win this kind of fight, even if the money became available now, it's unlikely that the FEC and state election committee filing deadlines can be complied with in order to allow a high-tech community PAC to raise and spend money on/for/against candidates in time for Election Day 2004.
So, if you want freedom of computing. . . time to start shopping for a new country to live in.
"People always get the kind of local government they deserve"
E.E."Doc"Smith
The only people in our community in a position to act chose to do nothing.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Evidence, please. That you have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about or that your lobbying has had any effect will do. Has the DMCA disappeared before your eyes or something?
Tech Public Policy stuff
Mostly fine rant about Chinese & Linux -- prolly Europe (like Munich?) will be following. Sell MS shares. Maybe sell them short? (or is it too late?) BUT ...
The Chinese are learning English; more are studying English in China (2nd lang) than in the USA (only lang).
Freedom with responsibility
Id you know a European language it is very helpful if you could translate part of the thing on Sunday.
I know English, does that help?
(Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.