Slashdot Mirror
DRM Protest in Hazmat Suits
johnsu01 writes "The Free Software Foundation launched a new anti-DRM initiative today with a flash protest at Bill Gates's keynote speech to Microsoft developers in Seattle. They're calling the new campaign 'Defective by Design' and have named Big Media, device manufacturers and proprietary software companies as targets. CivicActions is participating as a coalition partner in the campaign. Protesters donned HazMat suits, apparently to emphasize the hazard Digital Restrictions Management poses to their rights." There are also a few pictures available over at Defectivebydesign.org.
Our concerns will definitely be taken seriously if we protest against copyright and fair use restrictions by parading around in bunny suits. Way to go.
Few people have the resources or even the courage to do something like this. Thank you, protestors, for getting peoples' attention and informing them of the issue.
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
I'm not an anarchist But, who exactly ordains us with rights?
Because you can - or because you should?
Do these type of protests help or hinder? Sure, wearing a hazmat suit will get you noticed, but will they remember you because of your voice, or your suit? Will they agree with you, or think you are a kook?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
Because nothing says, "Let me explain the complex ramifications of this very, very complicated issue..." like a shrill, costume-oriented protest by people who clearly don't have a job to be doing. Honestly, I wonder sometimes what professional protesters really think about who they're reaching with stuff like this. It completely trivializes the discussion to trot out the amateur theatrics. Now, if they started smashing their iPods with Open Source Sledgehammers, that would be fun. But, like, dude, we'd have no tunes to listen to inside our bunny suits... and plus, I'd have to go back to my day job to afford another one.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Microsoft, Disney, and big corporations are the pirates here. They are stripping us of our rights to fair use, to our privacy, and they have the nerve to claim it's for the artists. They've been ripping off artists and consumers for years. They are the real pirates.
The Slashdot FAQ explains exactly what is going on here:
From The last question in the Slashmeta section:
"I thought everyone on Slashdot hated the RIAA, the MPAA, and Microsoft. Why do you keep hyping CDs, movies, and Windows games?
Big corporations are what they are. They sell us cool stuff with one hand and tighten the screws on our freedoms with the other. We hate them every morning and love them every afternoon, and vice versa. This is part of living in the modern world: you take your yin with your yang and try to figure out how to do what's right the best you can. If you think it has to be all one way or the other, that's cool, share your opinions, but don't expect everyone else to think the same."
We hate that "Big Media" is using ever "improving"/"tightening" DRM restrictions, but we have to accept them if we want the latest music, video, and computer content. These people deserve to get paid, and this is their way of blocking the free providers of their content. If you don't like what they're doing, do without their content.
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
Before Microsoft liberated me, I was having nightmares about awful, awful freedom. But I'm all better now.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
Remember? "We, the people..."
We grant our governments the right to administer the country for us. They're our employees. Now, it ain't always easy to make it right for everyone. But the idea of democracy is that government creates a balance that first of all does what is beneficial to the majority, without getting the interests of minorities out of sight.
Currently, more and more it seems that our governments only work in the interest of a minority and ignore the majority. And this is, by its very nature, not democratic in any way.
So it is our right and our obligation to tell our employees that they're doing a bad job. Think of it as their personnel review.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So the default is for ideas and information to be "free". It's up to those who would lock them away to prove, in each case, why a bit of information should NOT be free.
When was the right to copy music from the Internet granted by the US Government?
Because you're exactly right. Shouldn't we be copying a winning stratety, rather than a losing one? Because PETA hasn't had much success pulling stunts like this. Unless you believe there is no such thing as bad press, anyways.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
That we have been graced with not one but TWO corrupt politicians by the name of William Jefferson in the span of a decade?
None of my LP's have DRM. If people don't care for restrictive license, just stop buying items with the license. Eventually things will change. No one needs a copy of the latest block buster DVD to live. Apparently DRM hasn't stopped most from buying.
Remember the MAP Settlement - Five of the largest U.S. distributors of pre-recorded music CDs and three large retailers agreed to pay millions of dollars in cash and free CDs as part of an agreement on price-fixing allegations.
The companies will pay $67,375,000 in cash, provide $75,500,000 worth of music CDs, and not engage in sales practices that allegedly led to artificially high retail prices for music CDs and reduced retail competition as part of the agreement. Tennessee's share is an estimated $993,948 in cash and $1,507,852 in CDs.
I have the right to use my music in certain ways that DRM prohibits.(For example, American Edit is fair use that, if all copies of the music used were DRMed, would be impossible without breaking the DRM) Fair use is fully protected. Go back to kissing Overly Critical Guy's feet.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Might be worthwhile at this point to recall the part of "Fahrenheit 9/11" that covers a trade-show type conference of Federal contractors intent on cashing in on the War on Terror. Mike's narration stated that the conference was sponsored by Microsoft.
What big business wants, big business gets. They own (or 'pwn'; both apply) the judiciary, they own the legislators, they've split the two political parties between themselves and shut out regular citizens.
Having the right to speak is not the same as being heard.
The people who make the decisions are not going to care one whit about this, and the people doing the protesting pose no danger what so ever to the establishment (hell, what are they going to do, vote for the other corporate party?)
This shit is stupid, and it's a waste of fucking time.
In the words of one of the roman emperors, what will it take for you people to realise you've been conquered?
Unfortunately Joe Average Consumer doesn't have the foggiest idea about Copyright in general, much less the new mechanims being put in place to "protect" it. There's a pretty solid volume of information that the average consumer needs to know that they can only discover by talking to someone who's been dealing with this sort of thing for a while. Actually that's been the case for quite a while now -- I doubt the general public would have stood for Sonny Bono's Copyright Extension Act if they really knew the score. Much less the DMCA.
It seems to me that Copyright issues should be taught in public schools at a fairly early grade level. The course should include history, fair use, recent events (The Sonny Bono act and the DMCA,) and the Walt Disney Corporation. Perhaps if we did that we'd have a consumer who is both more likely to respect copyrights and who would be a lot less tolerant of extending the scope of the copyright well beyond what anyone (other than a big corporation) would consider "fair."
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
FSF used to be about "creating" free software, not stealing original "content". This is a fairly significant, but relatively subtle evolution.
And I definitely think the hazmat costumes detract from their message. You'd think they would've learned from PETA and brought some naked folks to protest instead of dressing up like idiots to make their point.
There is no more important cause for freedom than the call for action to stop DRM from crippling our digital future. The time is now. Join us.
Uhhh, WTF?
I thought I had the most alarmist views on DRM around.
Jesus guys, this doesn't help.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It's not like it "supports" them, unless you believe in voodoo.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/0 5/1432203
RAY McGOVERN: Well, talk about that disingenuity. I mean, sure, they wore chemical [suits], because Rumsfeld and his generals ordered them to. This proves nothing, other than they went through with this charade. The Australian troops wore no such protective covering, because they knew there were no weapons there. The Australians knew these weapons were a figment of the propaganda put out by our Defense Department, so they blithely went in there without any protective covering. So it was all a charade.
He witness first hand that there are people more eccentric than he is. He is beside himself in grief! Hazmat costumes? Were they trying to bluff the attendees into believing the building had a hazardous leak and thus not attend? Oh yes, they were making a statement! Well, at least, they left their Star Trek costumes at home.
Oh yeah, I know you are ready mod me troll or flamebait. But wait, "DRM is evil!!!" Now you have a conundrum on your hands. Good luck sorting that out
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
We already see what happens when people refuse to buy crippled media. The industries behind it will claim it's because of "pirating" (which, I thought, was impossible... but logic and politics mix as well as water and oil), their lobby will press for stricter laws and they'll get them.
Don't believe me? Look it up in your law books, it's already there.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You poor lost soul.
Rights are not granted to us by the government.
We grant rights to the government.
Any attempt to reverse this will, in effect, start a bloodbath that I would be happy to participate in to preserve what is rightfully ours. Even if some of those rights are things I do not agree with. They are ours and ours alone. The government is merely a keeper for the majority and it's sole obligation is for our collective protection and our collective benefit, long and short term.
That is all.
At least they did go out there and protest. Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics....
/.
It doesn't matter what the protestors are wearing, it's the point they're protesting and it's the number of them.
If you are against DRM then you shouldn't criticise these people if the only protesting you have done is posting on
I do not exclude myself from this rant, fair play to those people. It's something, not nothing.
Dunno exactly about the US government (despite its claims and bloatedness, it's still spelled with a lowercase g), but we do have "fair use" laws.
Unfortunately they're being undermined completely with copyright laws, leaving them as an empty shell sitting in the books, being completely irrelevant.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
so thats what it looks like when old white dudes protest
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Am I a bad person because I bought a monitor that has builtin HDCP?
Microsoft, Disney, and big corporations are the pirates here. They are stripping us of our rights to fair use, to our privacy, and they have the nerve to claim it's for the artists. They've been ripping off artists and consumers for years. They are the real pirates.
you aren't forced to use the products of Microsoft, Disney, or any large corporation. Fair use is not a right. If you don't agree with their tactics, STOP FUCKING USING THEIR PRODUCTS!
on the other hand, people sharing their software illegally are pirates. The large companies have no choice in the matter, unlike you.
Why not use open source alternatives?
http://www.ideensindetwaswert.at/ (German page)
Unfortunately, it's heavily biased and guess to what side of the balance it's tipping.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Maybe they parade around in those outfits AND sell/give-away stickers and tee shirts. I'd buy one if they sold 'em.
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
To nit pick, it's not a keeper for the majority. As you say in your final sentence, the purpose of the government is to protect everyone, and this includes the minority. The majority usually does not require protection.
You mean, the right to freely move music YOU OWN AND HAVE PURCHASED (from, say, iTunes) from one device to another? That's part of US law, y'know. You're also allowed to transfer things like music between medias - so you can make a tape copy of a CD if your car doesn't have a CD player. DRM IS PREVENTING THIS. DRM prevents you copying music for _legitimate_ purposes.
The question is: Do the legitimate purposes outweigh the illigitimate purposes? These people believe so. That is why they are protesting.
Microsoft, Disney, and big corporations are the pirates here. They are stripping us of our rights to fair use, to our privacy, and they have the nerve to claim it's for the artists. They've been ripping off artists and consumers for years. They are the real pirates.
you aren't forced to use the products of Microsoft, Disney, or any large corporation. Fair use is not a right. If you don't agree with their tactics, STOP FUCKING USING THEIR PRODUCTS!
on the other hand, people sharing their software illegally are pirates. The large companies have no choice in the matter, unlike you.
Why not use open source alternatives?
Don't be stupid. They are enforcing their rules on everyone just to protect their profits and their control of the artists.
Try buying a piece of hardware from intel in a year and tell me you'll be able to run free software. Try fixing the machine so that you can run your remixed piece of code. You'll be breaking the law courtesy of the DMCA. Disney's police will come get you.
These guys are criminals and they are changing the laws to suit their bottom line. They are using their power to create images to coerce equipment manufacturers into thinking that they won't have a future without them.
Control/Alt/Delete is on the vista for our home television...
FSF should have arrived, with supporters, all dressed as Microsoft exhibitors. The more knowledgable they are about Microsoft technology, would be the more untrollish their arguments could be. Just by arriving at an event to protest is an absolute example of what will be avoided. After all, the people that attent such events are there because their minds were already convinced and the expensive preparations were completed for their appearance.
The recent deploy of IMPROVEEVERYWHERE was at Best Buy (woof).
without prejudice
Because normally, wearing such suits out in public would be like yelling "fire" in a theater. I mean, what's the first thing that goes through your mind when you see a bunch of people in hazmat suits? Well, I sure as hell wouldn't think I'm standing in a bio or radioactive free zone at first glance.
I'm suprised homeland security angents haven't dropped-kicked their ass already.
Life is not for the lazy.
There's no real comparison; Ghandi was fighting for the right for he and his people to live in their own country, free of occupiers -and he was demonstrating that he was willing to put his life on the line for that cause.
These people are bitching because they can't make copies of the latest slipknot tune, and they're looking like shrill tools at best.
A reasonable person can see the vast devide both between the severity of the struggle, and the sacrifices being made.
The constant comparison to ghandi serves only to cheapen the sacrifice and the very dire struggle he had to go through in order to liberate his country. Whining about not being able to do something with something you don't even have to live with in the first place isn't even in the same league; it's not even close.
You are preaching to the chior... They will never listen.
You're correct. Bad choice of words and a lack of using the "preview" button were my fault. I should have more clearly stated:
"The government is merely a keeper for it's citizens, soon to be or otherwise protected by natural inalienable human rights and its sole obligation is for our collective protection and benefit, long and short term"
As another /. member pointed out an error, I am making a formal correction to my previous statement and this is what my final sentence should have read:
"The government is merely a keeper for it's citizens, soon to be or otherwise protected by natural inalienable human rights and its sole obligation is for our collective protection and benefit for the long and short term"
Protesting like this won't mean anything to most people, especially since the majority will only remember the hazard suits. It distracts from the message people are attempting to convey. Personally, I agree with what is being said, but this is not the way of going about changing the situation in my opinion.
Those wishing to change things should do so in a much more constructive way. I mean, what use are hazard suits other than making a rather bizzare distraction for the locals?
>you aren't forced to use the products of Microsoft
Been to work or school lately?
Protest the LAWS that allow these measures to be more than a nuissance. It's all well and good for media publishers to make playback annoying to the end user. So long as it can be played back, it can be media-shifted for any and all consumer use. However, since there are laws like the DMCA which make certain aspects media-shifting and other fair uses criminal or otherwise in violation of the law, we have a problem with the existance of the law.
No one can expect media publishers to respect their consumers any more than their consumers demand. The consumer at large doesn't care about any of this and doesn't yet feel damaged enough to protest. But when they finally do, they will find that it's the LAW that is the offender and not the publishers.
Microsoft and others are simply doing what is considered to be in their best insterests. It is to their advantage that their stuff be able to access the media from these publishers. If it couldn't, the consumers would dislike it. So if it means creating and sustaining DRM per publisher demands, then so be it as far as they are concerned. It is very rare when issues like "right and wrong" or "good and bad" actually play a role in corporate decision making. Slave labor isn't cheap enough for them and I doubt there is a point that isn't too low for them so long as their products and services continue to make a profit.
Protesting people who don't care while trying to gain the attention of people who don't care is a complete waste of time and resources.
Finding ways to get people to care isn't.
... and put it in the form of a common media/format? What if all the players for that type of media/format impose DRM and won't play what I've just created? I'll put up with big companies acting like jerks, I'm one of the few people I know that just won't give them my money (and I don't steal from them). But when they start creating a future where they are the only ones with the ability to approve what everyone hears/sees/etc; then it becomes a much bigger issue. hmmmm maybe I should start stealing from them before they get any further.
The large companies have no choice in the matter, unlike you.
So you believe that Microsoft didn't choose to engage in predatory pricing, didn't choose to add intentional incompatibilities to its software, didn't choose to bully and intimidate other companies, didn't choose to break anti-trust consent decrees, and didn't choose to unlawfully abuse its market power to create and maintain a virtually unchallenged monopoly?
Fascinating.
Would you also believe Bill Gates if he walked up to you and punched you in the stomach, but then claimed that he didn't choose to punch you, market forces compelled him to swing his fist in an arc that coincidentally happened to intersect your torso?
They are? News to me.
Sure, we don't have to use those products. It's pretty hard not to, Windows, Disney, EMI etc. are all hardwired into mainstream culture. I can explain why too, if you like.
Microsoft encouraged very few measures against software piracy until the last 2 years or so. Disney still release VHS versions of their God-awful bile. The availability of tools to crack primitive 10 year old CD copy protection in music is widespread. The result of this, propagation of their works to the population at large in return for very little effort.
In other words, corporations have been using this method to get everyone using their products and get everyone using them before finally cashing in. It's like letting someone test drive a car then legally binding them into buying it when they return. It's all a dirty trick, and don't tell me that they don't know it too. In effect, if we're stealing the software.. they're stealing our ability to do so in return. They've encouraged people to 'steal' their software for years. If people realised this and fought legal campaigns in the same vein as smokers sue tabacco companies there'd be a lot of compromise from the corporations. Kick the fuckers in the wallet, in other words. The only things they understand is money and liability.
Piracy is legal in the same way speeding is. In a closed society where all crimes are commited between closed doors, the only crime is getting caught.
I'm glad I'm not that fucked up. These guys look like a bunch of fags. I bet they run Linux too!
How was this a troll? It's much more insightful than most of the other ridiculous posts about how evil the MAN is for trying to protect legally protected content.
Maybe DRM isn't the best implementation (and it certainly isn't), but free SOFTWARE is very different than free CONTENT. It's one thing when FSF argues you can't patent ideas and algorithms, it's quite different when they say you can't protect anything digital.
So you believe that Microsoft didn't choose to engage in predatory pricing, didn't choose to add intentional incompatibilities to its software, didn't choose to bully and intimidate other companies, didn't choose to break anti-trust consent decrees, and didn't choose to unlawfully abuse its market power to create and maintain a virtually unchallenged monopoly?
I believe that dwelling on the past will assure you of no future. Instead of dwelling on the fact that Microsoft is a monopoly (in fact, It's not that truthful these days..You can get Linux Distros in many computer stores) why not figure out a way to destroy them at their own game? it's thinking like this that will keep open source and linux in the minority.
Fascinating.
indeed. It is.
Unfortunately, there's no such thing as "fair use laws". Fair use is a concept of rights that the courts uphold repeatedly through the holes in the existing copyright laws. See, sometimes "activist judges" rule in our favor.
Nobody forces people to use DRM. For example if some company or person has legal rights to a song they have the right to distribute that song as they like it, give it for free or sell it for 1 million, sell it as an mp3 or packed with a heavily restrictive DRM solution.
If you don't like the DRM just don't buy stuff that is protected with it. I don't see people protesting that their cell phone is locked to one network or that the cable/satellite companies are protecting the TV signal from being watched for free or that the game that they play on their PlayStation or XBox can't be easily copied. They don't protest that Louvre is closed at night with a lock and they have to pay and come during the day to see Mona Lisa. If you don't like it don't buy it.
Also I hate when people cry about Vista "having DRM integrated". How is that going to affect them? Will it affect their photos, home videos or personal collection of mp3s? Do they realize that XP has DRM too?
DRM is not restricting anything, the content providers are restricting usage of their content and I really belive they have the right to do it.
My advice to these guys: Dudes, wake up, get a life and if you really care start worrying about important things in this world. Go protest against war, pollution, global warming or poverty.
This wasn't just a political idea. It was a theological statement. God gave us these rights, and nobody - not a judge, not Congress, not the President, not the King of England - has the authority to take them away from us.
Now take away the creator. What are you left with?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are equal, that they have certain rights..." Along with "creator", another word disappeared - "inalienable". Because once we don't believe in God, and that He gave us these rights, then we just have them because... well, because we decided that we have them. And that means that we (or the majority of "we") can decide that we don't have them. The rights aren't inalienable any more.
When our country lost its collective faith in God, it had political consequences. All our rights are up for grabs now.
"Few people have the resources or even the courage to do something like this. Thank you, protestors, for getting peoples' attention and informing them of the issue."
I agree, and in a form of solidarity. I'll stop downloading RIAA/MPAA/Game content for one day.
Don't be stupid. They are enforcing their rules on everyone just to protect their profits and their control of the artists.
really? I can choose not to follow their rules by not playing to begin with. You should try it sometime.
and controlling the artists? I feel no sympathy for the artists. They sign a contract which puts them in the position to be controlled. It's not at gunpoint, and now, with lots of info on the Internet, they should be very aware of such agreements.
Try buying a piece of hardware from intel in a year and tell me you'll be able to run free software. Try fixing the machine so that you can run your remixed piece of code. You'll be breaking the law courtesy of the DMCA. Disney's police will come get you.
Intel lost the hardware game. You should have started the sentence with "try buying a piece of hardware from AMD". I just went to a Microsoft Vista Seminar and they were all over the fact that they had a new partnership with AMD.
Wake up and smell the roses bub. It's not the *pirates* having problems with DRM, it's legitimate users. Pirates don't buy music, nor any other protected media, therefore they are the ones who have the least trouble with it. You sound like the nags going around saying that people who are pirating XP are the ones whining about Genuine advantage, when they are the ones that don't even see it. All this is causing the *legitimate users* problems, not the pirates. Pirates really couldn't care less, because they know the ways and means to get whatever they want, in an unencumbered format.
We have enough youth, how about a fountain of SMART?
What method do you approve of to get the point across? We know damn well that big money buys politicians, and they have big money. What do we have? Of course the people who don't want this will call it all sorts of things. I hereby nominate you to find an effective, yet difficult to rebut, method. If not, well, didn't your wife who works for the CIA arrange that trip for you?
Gee, I hope the flash presentation will render correctly in Gnash. I'm not too optimistic since "not all movies play sucessfully" in it.
//ducks!
"Persistence is annoying success." - ghee22 11:28:1999 - 10:53:PM
You have got to be kidding!?!
"you aren't forced to use their products"
Actually, I am. To start with, microsoft is on every computer in the company I work for. (nearly) And I'm expected to be capable of using it in order to do my job. The better I know microsoft windows and networking and office the better I get paid. Or haven't you worked in an office in the past 8 years?
No one here is saying that the media companies and software companies and artists should not get payed for their work. Those of us with more than a few months since we started shaving and a bit of rational thought will tell you that they should absolutely be payed for their work. What we don't want is their work to be completely locked into the "prefered" format that the industry decided on in a closed door meeting where the profit margins and ability to maintain unyeilding control of the media were the deciding factors.
All we ask is that when we purchase music, it be in a format that is usable. One that doesn't infect my computer with virus(viri?) And one that is changable.
Afterall, wouldn't it help spur future media like HD-DVD if you could easily transfer your current VHS or DVD or laserdisc media to the new format? You bet it would. But then, you wouldn't be tempted to buy the holly trillogy for the fith time, or that greatest hits album on the newest format (remasted I'm sure). And that is unacceptable to the media industry.
Bottom line. I don't, and haven't purchased any music in the last 10 years. Nor do I buy disney movies (although, this may be attributed to my lack of children) And I can't remember ever paying microsoft any money either. At home I use *nix and other open source alternatives, and when they don't work or aren't avble, I simply break the dominate copy protection and copy what I want. I feel sorry for those not so capable.
At the end of the day, the only people truly hurt by strong DRM are the plain old joe consumers. And it still won't fix the RIAA and MPAA sales slumps. Because the product they "make" simply isn't worth what they ask for it. Doubly so when it only works on a limited platform.
Pretty pathetic when you are too lazy to type out "first post", let alone the fact you think anyone cares.
Barring the issue that the founding fathers fought bitterly over whether or not copy right should be in the constitution. (Copyright was a leading factor the lead to our independance.But that is a very lengthy bit of history. One a recommend reading.)
The constitution does not gaurantee copyright at all, it leaves it up to congress(i.e. the people) to decide if it should exist. It does say if congress does inact copyright it is to be a limited time. Based on my reading of the fore fathers, limted time was certianly meant to be less then 20 years. So it's intent has been twisted as has it's limits, it is likely that it will continue to be abused.
DRM also conviently makes it so the defacto copyright length is forever.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
copyright is not a right either.
Considering tghe size of many corporations it could be IMPSSOBLE not to buy those products they own? CAn you name all the disney companies? how about all the companies owned by the tobacco industry?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This should serve as a wakeup call everyone. Americans are selling their souls to the devil for temporary pleasure. They have not heeded the warning of what already happenned in much of europe where human rights are at the whim of the leaders.
>These people deserve to get paid
The creators deserve to get paid if they choose. They put in the sweat and the talent.
The middlemen deserve to get paid, to the extent they provide value above and beyond moving bits from a studio to a store, and assuming they don't try to cheat the creators.
The middlemen we've actually got deserve to get paid, perhaps at the rate of one cent for every license plate they make.
Practically every other morning last year my commute was slowed considerably by each of these following groups that repeatedly protested on the overpass of the freeway:
1) Support our troops
2) Out of Iraq
3) Union vs Darigold (milk producer)
4) Can't remember the other one
I was so annoyed by it that I purposely:
Did not support our troops
But I didn't want them out of Iraq either
And I made sure I purchased Darigold Milk at the grocery store!
I'm filing theese wackos right up there with the people wearing tinfoil hats.
I think whoever mentioned that "politics is theatre" has it spot on.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Rights are termed 'inalienable' for a reason. Someone please mod this reply up because IT IS CORRECT. And for God's sake will people please M2 as 'unfair' nonfactual posts modded up '+informative'!?!?!?!
I have no problem with restricted media per se. I WOULD appreciate a little more truth in advertising (they shouldn't be allowed to say they're "selling" this stuff to you), but there should be some incentive to create this stuff and until a viable business model is developed it's something I'll live with. Sure, there are plenty of things that piss me off - only playing on certain devices, not being able to make a backup, never passing to the public domain, licensing fees preventing development of free software players, being treated like a criminal even though I paid for it, the knowledge that the man has you by the short hairs, ...
But while this stuff is galling, and pretty annoying, at the end of the day most of the stuff being turned out now is crap. What SCARES THE SHIT OUT OF ME is Trusted Computing, which is ultimately going to have to be a part of DRM.
A correction to a typo in my parent post:
Software, my friend, is just the beginning of a much larger problem and these people are attacking artificial restriction on turf they are familiar with.
That now reads "turf" not "turn".
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
"On May 5, 1970, over 1,000 protestors came together on I-5, blocking southbound lanes, to speak out against the US's invasion of Cambodia, and the death of four Kent State antiwar protestors, shot by members of the National Guard." - http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_ id=2271
March 2, 2003: Peace activists took to the streets by the thousands yesterday in cities from Olympia to Bellingham as well as several locations in Seattle. Spurred by the first salvos in Iraq that pierced the uncertainty about what for months has been a potential war, yesterday's rallies had a decidedly more aggressive tenor than those just a few days earlier. ... In Bellingham, 300 to 500 peace activists made their way onto Interstate 5, temporarily blocking freeway traffic for two miles in either direction. - http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/113604_wpeace2 1.shtml
November 30, 1999: WTO - http://www.urban75.com/Action/seattle.html
April 30, 2004: LOS ANGELES -- Independent truckers protested mounting diesel fuel prices Friday by abandoning trucks in rush-hour traffic on one of the region's busiest freeways and staging rallies at two of the largest ports on the West Coast. - http://www.nbc4.tv/traffic/3255276/detail.html
March 27, 2006: LOS ANGELES -- More than 36,000 students from throughout Los Angeles County skipped classes and marched through streets and on various freeways Monday to protest an immigration bill being debated in Congress. - http://www.nbc4.tv/news/8289535/detail.html
Find more here: http://www.google.com/search?q=freeway+protest
Now which issue was it that you deem unworthy? Was it one of these? Your advice to protestors to be forgettable seems unlikely to bring attention to their cause -- something that was achieved by the disruptive, dangerous and memorable protests above. With the exception of the truckers opposed to $2.50/gal gas, the protesters seem to achieved both national attention and lasting results: Seattle is certainly never going to host the WTO again. Congress is working on the immigration law as I type this. We all know how Cambodia worked out (a sad story, that. By getting their way the nonviolent protestors indirectly killed about 1/4th of all Cambodian men, women and children. A heavy burden for people of conscience. *). Perhaps you could offer something more helpful. Are you by chance a protest organizer? Do you have a history of success in nonviolent promotion of social change? If so, the organization is almost certainly eager to have your contribution.
* - The Khmer Rouge regime is remembered mainly for the deaths of an estimated 1.7 million people (from an estimated 1972 population of 7.1 million), through execution, starvation and forced labor. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
I think my point is that protestors should be tolerated as much as possible, but they should be reminded be careful which causes they take up.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Until something like this makes the major network news, nothing will happen. Could you imagine a network anchor trying to interview someone from defctive by design? It would be hilarious becuse the talking head wouldn't have a clue what was going on. When it comes to computing few reporters either TV or print know anything about computers or the web, beyond basic use.
Of course we will not see this because the media companies control the networks.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Really? Just... stop buying their products and they'll go away? Right let's start.
What decent quality movies can I watch that aren't controlled by the MPAA?
Where can I buy chewing gum not made by Wrigley's?
Where can I buy baked beans not made by Heinz?
Where can I find a keyboard not made in China?
Hell where can I find frickin' orange juice not made by Coca-Cola or Pepsi?
Where is the free market there? And I don't even live in the states!
Capitalism, in its current form, just doesn't work. Big companies just get bigger by swallowing up the little ones, government can be bought and the companies end up being able to do close to whatever they want.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
I am proud to say that I participated in today's FSF event.
I believe the combination of Digital Rights Management technology and the Trusted Computing initiative are the single greatest threat to a free software desktop. I believe the danger is not just that we will be pushed into a desktop ghetto where we will not be allowed to enjoy the newest movies and music.
RMS' Right to Read might seem far out for most folks I believe he is point on. DRM will tie media to an user or possibly an user and a specific machine. DRM will allow corporations to gather unprecedented amounts of information about us. If we are not vigilant we are headed into an Orwellian dystopia where all of our digital habits are carefully monitored and controlled.
The really interesting thing is that it WILL NOT STOP PIRACY! As long as we enjoy books and movies with our eyes and music with our ears there will be an analog hole and there will be piracy. DRM is not about stopping piracy it is about destroying competition. Competition from small developers, competition from start ups and competition from free software...
For almost the whole of human history culture has been shared. Imagine if Shakespeare had been controlled by DRM and copyright law so that no was able to sample his plays. What would modern literature be like. I imagine it would be worse. We stand at a moment in history where we have an unprecedented ability to create and share. Do we want to hand the keys of our shared culture to those least likely to allow us to use it in meaningful ways?
I agree with those who say the problem are the laws such as the DMCA and as well as perpetual copyright. These things should be overturned. However it is my opinion that a motivated group of individuals could raise awareness within the public to create a backlash and prevent a DRM nightmare from fully forming.
If I did not stand up at this moment in time and let the world know that DRM is wrong I would be complicit in the effort of corporations to steal our shared culture.
Do I believe that I can stop the DRM juggernaut of Microsoft/Apple/Intel/Etc? I don't know but I don't believe I can just let it happen.
One note on RMS, you may not agree with him but he serves an extremely important role in both the free software and open source movements. He is the logical extreme of freedom while others serve as the logical extreme of pragmatism. He helps define the spectrum of opinion on all issues related to software freedom and for that (and more) I appreciate him. If we did not have him and the FSF we would not be where we are today.
I will be posting about my experience at http://psfk.blogspot.com/ (nothing to see there just yet 5/23/2006 @ 6:20 PM )
"DRM is like violence: if it doesn't work, use more."
The grandparent poster is COMPLETELY 100% ABSOLUTELY wrong. The constitution does not grant us rights. It grants rights to the government, and enumerates a few rights that we already had.
The parent has this right. Please mod him up. I'm even giving up the mod points I already spent elsewhere in this article to stress this.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
If something is inalienable, it's not because something/someone flagged it as such. In fact, you have it backwards - if something has been granted, it can be revoked. You just want to tie your particular superstition to my rights, which have no need of your theological support.
And whose the biggest threat to liberty right now? Theocrats in the U.S. and the arab world.
This would be much more effective if the protesters had like level 5 HAZMAT suits rather than outfits that make them look like commercial fishermen.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are equal, that they have certain rights..." Along with "creator",
>another word disappeared - "inalienable". Because once we don't believe in God, and that He gave us these rights, then
>we just have them because... well, because we decided that we have them. And that means that we (or the majority of "we")
>can decide that we don't have them. The rights aren't inalienable any more.
>
>When our country lost its collective faith in God, it had political consequences. All our rights are up for grabs now.
I believe in God, but I don't buy it.
First of all, the only reason the word "inalienable" disappeared with the word "God" is because you chose to omit it. One could just as easily argue that right is right (and rights are rights) regardless of whether or not there is a god. I bet you there are a hundred different religions that are radically different in their interpretaton of god and religion and yet are consistent in what is considered moral behavior. Since they can't all be right, how would it be that all of the wrong practioners have secured the idea of "right" and "rights"?
Also, let's face it - no matter what god was in vogue at any point in history, MEN, with agendas, and NOT a god, have constantly been trying to tell other men what rights they think their god conveys unto other men. With the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, it's clear that in many cases the dictation has merely been to further an agenda, and not to secure rights for others.
Rights erode because of apathy, nothing more.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Do you think you would have ever heard about these protesters if they weren't wearing hazmat suits?
Protesting is nothing but advertising. Advertising is about getting and holding attention long enough for a message to stick. Sensationalism sells. About the only thing that sells better is sex.
Next time they should try naked chicks.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Now which issue was it that you deem unworthy? Was it one of these?
No, because, as I mentioned, I'm pretty sure it had something to do with construction. Though I could be wrong. It definitely wasn't any of those, though, since I've never been to any of those places.
Your advice to protestors to be forgettable seems unlikely to bring attention to their cause
I'm going to request as politely as possible that you learn to read before you respond. I never said anything like that.
That's an excellent list of examples of what can happen when jerks with a good cause get together to say with a unified, asshole voice what everyone was already else was already saying politely and constructively. I particularly like the one where they got together to protest gas prices by making people use more gas. That was swell of them.
Are you by chance a protest organizer?
That does sound like a good idea.
If so, the organization is almost certainly eager to have your contribution.
Same organization that creates dangerous situations for innocent people and costs thousands of dollars in lost productivity for people who had nothing to do with anything? 'Cause thanks, but no thanks.
Actually, I am. To start with, microsoft is on every computer in the company I work for. (nearly) And I'm expected to be capable of using it in order to do my job. The better I know microsoft windows and networking and office the better I get paid. Or haven't you worked in an office in the past 8 years?
yeah, I have. But that doesn't mean you are forced. You need to dress nicely at an interview (or you most likely won't get the job. Does this mean you are forced?).
If everyone was using linux, you might be "forced" to use it as well in the workplace.
At the end of the day, the only people truly hurt by strong DRM are the plain old joe consumers. And it still won't fix the RIAA and MPAA sales slumps. Because the product they "make" simply isn't worth what they ask for it. Doubly so when it only works on a limited platform.
hmm..so a product not worth watching or listening to is the most heavily copied and downloaded across the Internet. I fail to see the reasoning here.
If it wasn't worth it. People wouldn't buy or download it.
They run GNU/Linux.
Where is the free market there? And I don't even live in the states!
Capitalism, in its current form, just doesn't work. Big companies just get bigger by swallowing up the little ones, government can be bought and the companies end up being able to do close to whatever they want.
What you don't understand, is that that is what the free market is all about. If the US had a truly free market, there would be even less restrictions than there are now.
If DRM is truely infringing on our rights to make private copies of media (that right has been held up in court, right?), then why not sue the manufacturers of the devices that make it impossible to do that?
The concept described by the word "GOD" does not make any sense. You cannot "believe" in things that do not make sense. Therefore, a "god" cannot exist.
Why does "GOD" not make sense?
1. What is a superior being?
2. If a being created the universe it need not be superior.
3. Needing/requiring worship is a form of insecurity.
4. Ruling anything would be superfluous for a god.
5. Emotions are a human trait and are superfluous for a god.
6. All knowledge is impossible in a universe that is continuous.
7. In a non-continuous universe all knowledge would neccessarily be finite, therefore any god would be superfluous.
Etc, etc, etc...
The concept of god does not make sense and is superfluous.
It's spelled Gandhi. I don't know why it *always* gets mis-spelled as Ghandi. Sigh!
You say "When our country lost its collective faith in God..."
... and 95% is a lot of people out of more than 300 million.
When, exactly, did that happen? Poll after poll shows that something like 95% of Americans believe in God. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_poll3.htm This is almost EVERYBODY
Oh, we're a pluralistic country, yes, with Muslims and Buddhists and Jews and God knows what else, yes.
And oh, many of us vehemently reject the hateful un-American religion called "Christianity," or even all religions in their entirety, yes.
But we still believe in God. The good kindhearted kind of God who smiles when he watches a "Girls Gone Wild" DVD, instead of shooting lightning bolts at people or shoving airplanes into buildings.
Fair use is a legal right, though that depends on where you live, just like copyright.
However, there is a big difference between protests and strikes. Train station or construction workers can hold up tracks or the highway and it will directly and adversely affect their employers, which (supposedly or hopefully) garners them leverage. If train workers stop the trains for a whole day, their bosses lose a bunch of money, and the workers are in potentially total control of that money. Strikers are specifically trying to get the attention of their bosses or bosses' bosses. Creating awareness of their plight in the public is mostly irrelevant except to get lots of press.
Activism and protests are carried out specifically to increase public awareness, often with inconveniencing a specific business a pleasurable side-effect. They don't want to unnecessarily inconvenience the general public because they NEED them on their side. They should be as loud and attention getting as possible. Maybe 1 in 100-1000 people are going to give a shit based off their protest or their flyers, so they need to spam the HELL out of everyone without actively turning too many people against them.
Being handed a flyer is absolutely not comparable to being stuck at a train station for a day or stuck on the highway. Protesters holding up a highway to raise awareness of Cambodian occupation are definately making a lot of noise, but they're potentially losing a significant amount of signal by being so irritating.
But a strike is a different story: A lot of people in New York were (rightfully) pissed the hell off by not being able to use the subways for almost a week, and many many many people vehemently disagreed with the MTA, but the MTA employees aren't trying to win or lose the public, they're trying to effect a change with their management. The workers could not (in principal) care less about what the public thinks of them, especially in a city where everyone will go back to using the trains no matter how pissed off they once were. (And for the record, a lot of MTA employees were very resistant to the strikes and very regretful.)
Limina.Log
For example using DRM to protect your personal information that is in the hands of a large corporation or government. Just think about the ability to turn on and turn off the access to your ID and personal info, based on who looks at it, not just based on who copied it out of one database and into another. Think about moving from one cell phone company to another, and when they get down to your record in the database all they see is random noise, because they no longer have the DRM to your phone number and can't call you.
It won't ever happen. Ever. All the phone companies (and every other company and government) will require you to provide your information in a non-restricted format.
An entity can only roll out data restrictions if it has a power relationship over the data's consumers. For example, an RIAA label can force you to accept a restricted song, because it is the only "legal" provider of that song. On the other hand, you the individual consumer mean nothing to a corporation, as there are millions of others like you.
In theory, companies could be forced to accept a restricted format if a large percentage of their customers cooperated in a boycott unless and until the restriction was accepted. (Good luck dealing with governments.) Experience has shown that average people don't care about privacy issues enough to go through the inconvenience of a boycott.
One thing that the current situation has taught us is that if there is a legitimate way for an entity to get non-restricted data, the non-restricted data will proliferate at the expense of the restricted data. DRM only works if there is no non-restricted equivalent. As so many corporations and governments will force you to give away your non-restricted data, that data will proliferate through the society, just as it does now.
DRM is ultimately infeasible for the average individual. Each person would need to have a server online at all times, permitting or denying access requests. High security would be needed, otherwise entities would just break in and give themselves whatever permissions they want. Uptime and connectivity would also be strict requirements, otherwise legitimate uses of data would be blocked pending approval. (Or imagine the malicious failure mode here: your adversary DDOSes your server, thus blocking legitimate uses of your data.) Complex rule sets would have to be created and maintained to allow "good" uses of information and prohibit "bad" uses. Most individuals could not handle this themselves, so they would have to settle for third party hosting and maintenance. A whole complicated new industry of data brokers, investigators, and lawyers would be formed. (Of course, their contracts with individuals would include exceptions for themselves.) This industry would be expensive and annoying for average people to deal with, and there would be so many forced exceptions (see above discussion of power relationships) that it still wouldn't help much. All in all, the average consumer would not benefit significantly, if at all, from DRM.
Also, the fact that cryptography and DRM have been falsely conflated is of particular annoyance to those of us who care about the issue. Cryptography is the technology with good and bad uses. DRM is one of those uses, and because it overwhelmingly favors governments and large corporations over individuals, it is a bad use.
The preceding comments reflect the author's personal opinion and are public domain, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Beliefs not based on logic cannot be swayed by logic
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Its spelled 'spelling'.
And I think you have the "it's" wrong.
Also, I suspect that the name "Gandi" is a transliteration, hence,
as far as I know, multiple spellings are possible.
Or were you trying to be funny?
emt 377 emt 4
the user could have inherited it from a parent.
No, hang on, this is slasdot.
"Make sense?"
You forgot to include the standard disclaimer. "I am not a lawyer, but I play one on slashdot."
That pretty much covers all of Microsoft products, not just DRM.
I agree that DRM is a potential menace for a number of different forms of data, (music, software, and others) and I think it will ultimately be beaten by people making their opposition known to it on an individual basis.
RMS is right to protest some things, but don't wait for him alone to save you...This is something which is in nobody's best interests, and is also going to take a truly collective fight to bring down. I might have issues with the behaviour of Stallman and his followers regarding some issues, but there are others where differences need to be put aside.
I disagree with the "stop using their products" line. In relation to media companies, what it boils down to is saying is "stop participating in the shared culture of your contemporaries". It is by and large an unreasonable request to make of a fellow human. Like it or not, culture is different to generic product X.
Here's one thing that really boggles my mind.
Take a song on CD. That's a stream of binary numbers that represent a song when played back through the appropriate hardware - but that's really just by convention. If you take the entire bytestream, and ignore the word boundaries, that song is really just one great big binary number.
A single number.
Take any random number of a similar order, break it up into chunks typical of a CD bitstream, and play it back through the proper hardware, and you will get sound. Odds are that it will just be static, but there is a nonzero probability that you might just hit a number that resolves into actual music.
So at the end of the day, all this RIAA and MPAA stuff really works out to protecting NUMBERS.
How crazy is that?
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Why do they think protesting at a MS-Dev conference for it? Personally, If were leading something like this it would have been last week in New York. Protesting DRM at the opening of the new Apple Store would have been more effective. Huge media coverage, Lots of every day people there, and a perfect example of DRM that is anti-consumer in the form of ITMS. At the very least it would help bring attention of the problems of DRM to the general public rather than to windows developers and tech media who already the situation backwards and forwards.
Mmmm... yeah. As if the stuff pumped out by "media companies" could actually be considered culture in any meaningful sense of the word.
Reverse engineering of software is illegal, but I bought the software. If I want to go in and alter the way it works in a minor way, why can't I? I own a home and want to use my backyard as a hazardous waste disposal site, but I can't can I.
The idea of people owning the music they purchase is wrong. WE DO NOT OWN THE MUSIC. We are basically leasing the music to listen to. Just as you would lease a car, lease a house, lease an apartment. They are not yours and you cannot do what you want to them. I lease an apartment right now and I painted our new baby's room bright green. I know that when I move out that a) I will have to repaint the room white or b) pay a fine to have the apartment owners repaint the room white for me.
Ownership is 9/10's of the law as the old saying goes. The RIAA (though as evil as they are) owns the music you are listening to, not you.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
LOSTCLUSTER you MASSIVE FAGGOT I'm going to rape your entire family with an Ice Pick, then I'm coming for you motherfucker! Tell Leon Trotsky I said hi.