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."
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.
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
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.
> 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!!