Slashdot Mirror
An IP Environmentalism for Culture and Knowledge?
An anonymous reader writes "An article by James Boyle in the FT argues that we are (slowly) moving towards a 'cultural environmentalism' that tries to protect the public domain in the way that the environmental movement tries to protect the natural ecology. Apparently there will be a (free) conference at Stanford on the subject soon, organized by Larry Lessig's Center there."
Publish them and see who sues. Then figure out if they really own the copyright.
---Please, help support your local Bar Association. They're starving on $200K+ a year
Please understand that true conservatives are all about protecting the environment. They support short terms on copyrights and patents. Why do they support such things? Because the represent responsibility and liberty, and that's what true conservatism is all about.
In the US, those who seek to put in place legislation that allows companies to harm the environment, or extend copyright terms, and so forth, are not conservatives, libertarians, nor are they liberals. They are Republicans and Democrats. We may essentially consider the Democrats and Republicans to be one and the same, even if they project the image of being "opponents". They're both financed by the largest corporations and wealthiest few individuals in the US and the world. They have very little incentive to do what's best for the average American.
So when a self-proclaimed "conservative" rags on you about your support for limiting environmental damage or unnecessarily long copyright terms, just remember that he or she is in no way a conservative. In fact, such an individual stands firmly against conservatism.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
"Ecological environmentalism hasn't exactly been a success story.""
I think you have probably fallen into the trap of thinking that what is currently being fought for encompasses the sum total of all that has ever been fought for. If you look back over the last fifty years and see what practices have changed as a result of environmental activism you'd come to a very different conclusion. We don't continue talking about things that have changed, and naturally so. But it is a mistake to think that things were always the way they are now, or that they had to be this way.
Unsurprisingly, all the major concerns of current environmental activists haven't been resolved satisfactorily. That is precisely why they remain major concerns. Once an issue is mitigated, we move on and take it for granted.
What would the world around right now be like without recycling, emissions standards, vehicle fuel economy standards, regulation of industrial discharges into rivers and oceans, modern sewage treatment facilities, national parklands and reserves, solar wind and hydro power, Energy Star power saving technology on computers and other electronics, regulation on the use of toxic materials in all sorts of things like plastics, cookware, paint etc, and so on.
"Conservative" is a relative term, really. It more or less just means "against drastic change" or "maintain tradition." It is relative to what the particular tradition is. For example, if it is the "American Way" to damage the environment in search of profits and jobs (and in many ways it is) then such would be a conservative value. Profit takes priority over the environment. Also, you have to specify the type of conservative we're talking about. Social? Fiscal? Both? Other? A social conservative would be very much against liberty if it means violating some traditional, usually religious, value.
You have to be more clear about what this "true" conservative is that you have in mind. Because I can think of many, often condradictory, views that could all be classified as conservative.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Tree-hugging wacko is a term used to often and inappropriatly. I'm green, but there are some real nutjobs. There's an interesting book called Green Death by an author who's name escapes me right now. It explores the damage that fanatical environmentalism is doing to developing nations. There's even a quote by the co-founder of Greenpeace saying that the environmentalist movement has really gotten out of hand. All sides have nuts, know yours.
The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
Or perhaps the media has chosen to focus on the extremists, while most of us behave in a contradictory way - 'I want artists to get paid, but I like free downloads' and 'I'd like to prevent global warming, so long as it means donating to charity once a year, and not cutting down on my car / air travel'.
'Capitalists of the world, unite! Oh
Ladies, germs, and other types of keyboard users...
I appreciate folks that are willing and able to take the time to work towards reasonable means of managing Intellectual Property (we weren't talking about Internet Protocol, were we?). Without hard-working folks where the rubber meets the road, awareness would be low and reason might actually be lacking.
Do I think we should have folks chaining themselves to filing cabinets, patent office doors, and the like? Well, I don't know... If a fundamental and important issue is getting slammed by a troll or by someone who's only interested in the money - then, maybe it is important to be an activist. OTOH, if one believes that militant behavior is the only way to handle all Intellectual Property issues, then I think over-the-top behavior is not appropriate.
I don't think that burning Hummers is quite the right approach - I think being an active participant in the process to lend intelligence and reason is probably the right approach.
A Passionate Independent Musician
Do I get credited with an "assist" for that humor touch down?
Whomever explained American football to you needs to try again, slower.
Remember kids, winners don't do sports metaphors.
* IP environmentalists hurling red paint at Patent Office employees while chanting 'Patents are Murder! Patents are Murder!'.
Well, million die every day because of pharmaceutical patents, so they wouldn't be far off the mark there.
May the Maths Be with you!
Is this culture limited to a niche audience? E.g. the Slashdot crowd? Taking a look at the real world for a moment we have millions of people embracing DRM because it comes in a nice shiny iPod package, the MPAA telling us that unless you have end-to-end HDCP you won't be watching the HD content you just bought in HD, TPM for the next generation of operating systems, the RIAA telling us that ripping a CD we bought to a PMP is not fair use while suing people who can't afford to defend themselves left, right, and center, companies whose core busines model is to buy IP then do nothing more than sue alleged infringers, and congressmen who push legislation for the studios and recording industries that deteriorate our rights in the digital world with seemingly no reckoning. Is this new movement kind of like Greenpeace then? It's cool, we support it, but really nothing much is going to change?
its a human characteristic that separates us from other creatures.
The ability to advance and create upon what other humans before us have done.
Intellectual property rights (the ability to say no, you cannot use) had its purpose. But today its really losing ground on the reasons it was created it the first place.
Thats what you are seeing in the efforts to extend them further. Copyright has become a joke in that its limited length terms has in all practicality become a deception of continually extending them into infinity.
When in reality, with todays technology it is easier to create and market/distribute works within the shorter time length of the original copyright length terms. Yet the length terms are getting longer.
Where did all this IP build up come from?
A: by those who want to constrain us more and more for their benefit, and its not so often the actual creators doing it.. what some call capital-ISM...
First, the AC is incorrect. The sentence ended in a conditional, not a preposition. And, terminating with a conditional clause is "horseshit" writing.
Going on and on about a dead language and an incorrectly noted grammar violation is also horseshit.
> The corporations of-course want to release the data and then have the perpetual copyrights, well that is why I think the DRM schemas must have the time copyright time limiters built into them.
How do you time limit data? How does data know its expiration date? How does it know whether its author is alive or dead? How does it know whether 95 years have passed since death?
You may go around in circles trying to describe a mechanism, but the fact is that it cannot.
The only reasonable mechanism would be this: If I attempt to copy a piece of data, the system would ask me "is this file copyrighted or does its license permit this operation, yes or no?" I would answer the question honestly to the best of my knowledge. The process would continue or not. This is the only system that respects the sovereignty of individual freedom.
DRM (in essentially any form) violates the basic contract the constitution describes for copyright in the first place: In exchange for growing the public domain we the people grant artists and inventors time-limited monopolies. We the people agree to honor these monopolies, just like we agree to honor every other law. If we don't, we face the music, as we do whenever we commit a crime.
I don't see how anyone can expect software to enforce the law. Or at least, not until software systems can be fair and just and personally responsible. This seems like a huge distance into the future.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
The constitution of the USA says congress shall have the power to pass laws to promote the science and useful arts through monopoly on ceative works for limited times.
This is not the same as declaring inalinable rigths such as the right to free speech.
It is merely the statement which says the government is "allowed" to do it. Without said statement the bill of rights would naturally override copyright laws and make them unconstitutional in any form.
Many founding fathers remember that copyright laws in england not too long before the rise of the US were designed to do to the people what they ironically are being used to do now, hinder freedom and growth of the press(read now the internet) and freedom of speech and keep the power and money in the hands of the wealthy few (then aristocracy, now the greedy pigs at the **AA and M$FT).
As such, there was a huge debate as to weather copyright should have been allowed at all. after all, during that time england was without copyright laws at all, as i remember from lessig they were all repealed around that time (was it 1709 they were entirely abolished in britain?) and loe and behold people were still publishing works!
So no, copyright is not an "inalienable right". This kind of drek is spouted by the WIPO lobbyists and is entirely false and misleading, and I'm not buying it because I know better.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!