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.

3 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Boo hoo hoo by zoloto · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  2. Re:The are no rights by Puff+of+Logic · · Score: 5, Informative

    In Canada or the US, the constitution grants us rights.

    I've always understood that the Constitution enumerated our rights, but that the rights themselves were considered God-given or innate (depending on how you prefer to phrase it). Similarly, the Bill of Rights is not the source of Freedom of Speech etc., but rather is just a specific enumeration of the rights the Founding Fathers thought deserved specific mention against possible incursions by future governments. -PoL

    --
    P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
  3. Re:We need a new "godwin" for ghandi comparisons by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Informative
    If by "property" you mean that Slipknot album I downloaded from the iTMS, it's still the intellectual property of Slipknot (they own the copyright on the words and music) and the record company (they own the copyright on that particular recording thereof).
    Except that it's not.

    Bear with me for a moment, and consider this: Real property and "Intellectual Property" are two completely different things.

    • Real property is scarce; "IP" is not. In other words, real property is inherently owned by one person. "IP" is inherently owned by everyone collectively. For example, if I'm holding a rock, nobody else can physically hold it at the same time. It's my property. On the other hand, if I'm holding an idea any number of other people -- or indeed, everyone can also be holding it at the same time. It's not property.
    • If person A takes real property from person B, person A gains and person B loses. If person A takes "IP" form person B, person A gains, person B stays the same, and all of society benefits from subsequent synthesis of ideas based on the communication.
    • A founding principle of the United States is the "Right to Property." "Intellectual Property" expires at the end of the copyright or patent term; if it were property it would be perpetual.

    Now that I've explained what "Intellectual Property" isn't, I'll explain what it is: it's a lease.

    If someone comes up with an idea (i.e., creates a work of intellect) it is by default owned by society as a whole, or in other words, is Public Domain. This is the natural state of things in the absence of any law, and it's a good thing. In fact the Founding Fathers realized that it's a good thing, and wanted to encourage the creation of ideas for the purpose of enriching the Public Domain. That's what the "To Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts" means; it's not just for show.

    So, they wanted to come up with a mechanism to encourage creation of ideas. What they decided to do was to basically give the creator an opportunity to lease a "copyright" or "patent" from the government. The government would agree to enforce certain privilages for the creator over the term of the lease, and would take as payment the creation of idea itself. Note that that's not the idea, which is already inherently public property, but the act of creation of the idea.

    Make sense?
    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz