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.

Comments

Re:Yep, that'll do it.

[eln]

The FSF gets stuck with those labels anyway. The point of a protest is to get people to pay attention to your cause. If the press coverage of a protest is such that at least some people learn more about your cause than they knew before, then it can be considered a success.

I think this type of flash protest has been shown to be effective. It has garnered press for all sorts of causes, particularly political causes. Whether or not the hazmat suits were a good idea or not depends on if you think the protest would have gotten more or less coverage without them.

Something not nothing

[styryx]

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.

Re:Slashdot FAQ

[DragonWriter]

For example using DRM to protect your personal information that is in the hands of a large corporation or government.

Yeah, because laws like DMCA that criminalize circumvention technology will be observed by and enforced against the executive branch of the government by, erm, the executive branch of the government.

I really don't get how all this Anti-DRM / anti-crypto think that is out there.

Most anti-DRM people I know are very much pro-crypto, and pro-DRM types tend to be anti-crypto in many other contexts -- particularly, they tend to be for strong controls on who can use cryptography, and what mechanisms can be publicly used.

So, AFAICT, the thing you have trouble understanding doesn't actually exists, in the first place.

DRM is just another type of technology that should be used rightly.

DRM is pretty much impossible to use "rightly" because the "rights" its "manages" often don't, and should not, exclusively belong to the controller of the DRM: particularly, while the right to copy in some manners and for some purposes is, properly speaking, an exclusive right of the copyright holder, there are plenty of existing, necessary, and publicly beneficial exceptions to that exclusivity -- including, but not limited to, fair use -- that DRM is utterly incapable, by nature, of distinguishing.

Uh, no...

[maillemaker]

"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