Slashdot Mirror


Lessig on the World Social Forum

Raindance writes "Lawrence Lessig has a great article up on Technology Review about the World Social Forum held this past January in Brazil. In addition to telling an engaging story, it covers topics ranging from GNU and DRM to Brazil's interesting stance on the rights of foreign copyright holders, and is a good introduction to the permission culture/remix culture debate. It also makes me want to live in Brazil."

17 of 209 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Interesting stance? by lakeland · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm tempted to mod you down for this, but I'll reply instead. The article you linked to shows that Brazil disregards patents on AIDS.

    Good on them! There is no way that drug companies factor profits from Brazil into their feasibility studies for the simple reason that Brazil cannot afford AIDS drugs. Since drug companies are making AIDS drugs, we know they are making a profit without support from Brazil. I'm glad that Brazil has enough guts to stand up to the US, Germany and France over drug patents.

    As for respecting the GPL in kiddie porn, would it really make it that much better if they did respect the GPL? All they would have to do is provide the source code along with their kiddie porn program. The GPL permits anybody to do anything with the software, including run spam sites, distribute kiddie porn or program the guantanamo bay gas chambers.

    If Brazil was taking my GPLed software, turning it into a commercial product, and then selling it around the world then yes I would be pissed at them ignoring the GPL. But guess what? Even in that hypothetical scenario I don't have to worry about Brazil not respecting copyright because I can just go to a local court to have their actions banned and a fine imposed.

    Or, for the shorter story, your analogy is useless.

  2. heh, just like a nerd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "It also makes me want to live in Brazil."

    here is a real reason to live in Brazil

  3. Something intangible... by ankhcraft · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I read the article. A very different socio-political environment indeed. And I think it sounds wonderful.

    I honestly like what I'm hearing from Brazil though. This sounds beautiful. We all know that free software is a good thing. I don't think there's anything wrong w/ someone retaining rights to their intellectual property. The right thing to do if you don't agree w/ how they want to license the rights to use their product, is to *not* buy it. But I *do* think there's something strange w/ someone trying to tell me how many times I can read the e-Book I've purchased, or listen to the MP3 I've downloaded, until I have to buy a new one. One could of course, liken this to renting a movie, but it's still a bit different.

    I think that what we're grasping at here all comes from the folly of trying to set up of a system of rules to govern the consumption of intangibles so that they can fit our existing econonmic model built largely around the consumption of tangibles.

    --
    ...
    1. Re:Something intangible... by pcgabe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It might be more accurate to liken it to the DIVX rental system (not the coincidentally named unrelated codec).

      In the original DIVX system, you would buy DIVX-DVDs for, say $5. This would give you one 48-hour window to watch the movie, at some point in the future (of your choosing). Then, if you wished to watch it again, you purchase another window.

      After several (seven, IIRC) uses, the movie became permanently free, and you could unlock it whenever you wanted to watch it.

      Theoretically, it was akin to renting-to-buy the movie. You could pick it up for $5 and watch it once (a bit more than renting, but no late fees). If you wanted to 'rent' it again later, well, you already had the disc, you just needed to unlock it again. Again, similar to renting, except you do it from home, immediately. Eventually it's permanently unlocked, and if you liked it enough to unlock it so many times, you've purchased it.

      Perfectly logical idea.

      The best part of the analogy, though, is how DIVX ended.

      There was so little popular support for the idea (because people couldn't get over the idea of purchasing a physical disc without the right to watch it whenever they wanted), that the company eventually went bankrupt, and all the people that actually HAD purchased DIVX discs then had no way to unlock them. And of course the same sort of thing has happened to people with large iTunes collections that have had a hardware failure. Their legitimate purchase suddenly has no value.

      This is the real fear of Digital Restrictions Management. Despite assurances, if permission is required to use the product, it is by it's very nature, unreliable.

      Would you buy a car if you had to get permission each time you wanted to drive it? Maybe (if the car was cheap), but the first time you needed to be somewhere, and the guy who holds the keys for you cannot be found, you'll start looking for a new permission-free car.

      --
      Don't put advice in your sig.
    2. Re:Something intangible... by Lisandro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      See, that's what bothers me. When you buy DRMed content, you're leasing. Not buying. Why leasing? Because you loose control of what you can or can't do with your purchase, insidelegal boundaries.

      If i buy a book, i want to read it whenever i feel like. I buy music, i want to be able to listen it in my device of choice. Hell, i want to be able to sell it if i need it, or feel like doing so. Try that with iTunes.
      Remember the Steam issue with HL2? Another example. Why do i need to validate online my hard copy purchase of the game in order to play it? Why if Valve dissapears tomorrow and they never provide a way arround it? Suddenly your purchase is worthless; effectively locking you out.

      What blows my mind about this line of thinking, is not that companies try to push it, but consumers are gradually accepting it. DIVX failed before, but less restrictive types of DRM are working comercially. The only thought that comforts me is that, eventually, all forms of DRM are cracked in one way or another (CSS, anyone?), and the ones that are too restrictive fail commercialy. The USA has the DMCA, but the rest of the world is safe for now...

    3. Re:Something intangible... by mangu · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Despite assurances, if permission is required to use the product, it is by it's very nature, unreliable.


      That's exactly my idea of why current copyright laws in the USA are unconstitutional. The US Constitution describes exactly why the concept of "intellectual" property is needed: to create an incentive for publishing. If you have DRM, the idea itself is not published, it's protected by a trade secret. The same is true for software that's sold in executable form only. Copyright should apply to the source code alone, not to the executable binary file.


      After the copyright expires, what does the public have? If it is a binary file, then no ideas enter the public domain, even after the ridiculously long copyright terms we have today. The same is true for an encoded DVD or anything with DRM in it.


      So let's keep each set of rules separate. Patents and copyrights are intended for ideas that will enter public domain after a certain time. Trade secrets are with you forever, until someone rediscovers that secret. If you want to keep your ideas secret, it's your right. But you shouldn't benefit from laws intended to assure that new ideas will enter the public domain if you do everything in your power to keep those ideas forever secret.


      Legislation such as the DMCA goes totally against the spirit embodied in the COnstitution.

  4. Ironic... by heatdeath · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This article is vaguely reminiscent of articles published by hippies in the 60s about the wonders of the perfection of simplistic primitive cultures. Probably, ironically enough, in Brazil. And how all of our problems as a society would be erased if we'd just follow the simple principles of the __insert name of tribe here__ people.

    And, of course, we merely giggle at them 4 decades later.

    I suspect the same will be said 40 years from now. =P

    --
    I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
  5. Re:Interesting stance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well, other than being one of the most bizarre straw men I've ever seen, this post demonstrates a stunning ignorance of the GPL.

    This may seem good in the short term, but when your beloved GPL application turns up in a Brazilian program designed to create and share child pornography you won't exactly be laughing.

    The GPL offers no means whatsoever for the programmer to limit how people choose to use or adapt their software. That is the entire point, and this applies just the same in Brazil as out of it.

  6. YMMV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I spent two years living in Brazil, in large cities (Porto Alegre, Santa Maria, others) and small towns (Sao Luis Ganzaga, Erichim, others) and experienced NONE of the bad events you describe.

    It is dangerous for any one person to claim that their experience is representative of everyone's, including those that have not expericed it yet.

  7. Re:Interesting stance? by erveek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This may seem good in the short term, but when your beloved GPL application turns up in a Brazilian program designed to create and share child pornography you won't exactly be laughing.

    You may as well say "This may seem good in the short term, but when your beloved printing press is used to create and share child pornography you won't exactly be laughing."

    The GPL doesn't differentiate with regard to what code is used for; it just mandates that derivitave code be released under the GPL.

    The parent is using child pornography for shock value exclusively.

    I submit that kiddie porn may be poised to replace Hitler as the new Godwinesque indefensible extreme.

    --
    -- This void intentionally left null.
  8. Re:Want to move to Brazil, huh? by Lisandro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The woman like Americans because Brazilian men are notoriously unfaithful, cruel and not around much. One town I was in the ratio of women to men was 8:1!

    You've got to be shitting me. THIS is modded insightful?!

    I'm Argentinian - that's right, we're Brazils' next door neighbours. Been there myself a lot of times. How the fuck can you tell that Brazilians are "cruel and unfaitfhul" to their women? How many couples have you met? Because i've meet a lot, and they were quite happy. Where were you visiting anyway? If anything, they're mostly great people, which is more than i can say of other countries i've visited. And yes, Brazilian women are usually fun and sexy. Not bimbos.

    These bullshit generalizations drive me mad. So, all Americans treat their women like shit, dress like fucking idiots and shoot each other? Because they surely seem to do in those nifty rap videos!

    And yes, electronics are expensive (not insanely expensive though), mainly because of the dollar-real ratio and import taxes. Deal with it. And you can have a decent salary as well - just stop thinking in dollars for two seconds.

  9. Uh... yeah by mcc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because living in dirt huts without electronics,

    and focusing on developing your nation's IT infrastructure with an emphasis on software which is or can be locally developed while allowing your people access to AIDS medication,

    are really fucking similar.

  10. good point! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No company should make anything that could possibly have evil uses. For example, Microsoft Word could easily be used to write a pamphlet promoting child pornography. Outlook Express could be used by terrorists trying to overthrow the government. Too bad the folks in the marketing department didn't thing of these dangers before wildly releasing them into the public.

  11. Re:The plague is spreading by brainhum · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It is too simplistic to solely blame a people for their government corruption. Ideally, they would rise up in some peaceful revolution and kick the bastards out, but in many cases, there is simply not enough support even if there is a popular will.

    Often, there are foreign influences that either depose one set of thugs for another, or else prop up clearly illegitimate governments. They'll supply weapons, military advisors, training, secure loans, add an air of international legitimacy or help cover-up atrocities.

    Integrity is an important part of the equation to be sure, but also add generous amounts of money, popular support, transparency, accountability, a free press...
  12. No IP laws in a free market. by the_raptor · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What we are seeing here is a convergence between those movements and free software. From the standpoint of leftists, it is quite natural: If you are interested in alternative forms of social organization (to unrestricted free-market capitalism)
    Except for the fact that IP laws wouldn't exist in an unrestricted free-market captialist system. Patents are monopolies which are anathema to the free market. Copyrights that last "forever less a day" are no better. Would US Airlines and Australian Insurance companies be bailed out with governement money in the free market?

    We have corporate socialism. In the end its really no better then medieval systems of governance. Its just wrapped up in platitudes about democracy and the market.
    --

    ========
    CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    1. Re:No IP laws in a free market. by the_raptor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No you can allow an airline to go down in flames when it has become unprofitable. The problem was to many airlines (supply) and not enough passengers (demand). The solution to that problem is for some companies to go out of business or for them to all cut back services (and jobs). Using taxpayer money to keep unprofitable business around only fixes the problem long enough for the next election. And puts zero onus on the incompetent management of those companies to shape up.

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
  13. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually yes you can. The numbers are a central point to abstaining since so very few people are capable of living their lives without sex. Keeping in mind that many people who claim to be chaste are simply lying, the small number of people who manage to make it to marriage without any sexual encounters are not just ineffectual they're also not normal.

    So why advocate a type of behavior that most people cannot adhere to considering the stakes which are disease? Its much more logical to give people who are sexually active the information and tools they need to protect themselves then to expect them to live up to some ridiculous conflicted fundamentalist standard of sexuality.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.