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

Yep, that'll do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Yep, that'll do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, trollmeister. Sitting on our butts will solve the problem.

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.

Re:Yep, that'll do it.

[CosmeticLobotamy]

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.

We had a protest around here where a bunch of jerk-holes got together and stood on a five-lane highway during rush hour, blocking traffic for miles and miles, to protest something, I no longer remember what (a comment on the effectiveness of this crap on its own) (I think it had something to do with construction hiring or something). But I do remember it placed me squarely on the "screw those f***ers" side and by no means made me want to investigate the problem and form a reasoned opinion, and I wasn't even on that road that day.

That, of course, is a much crappier way to protest than bunny suits that don't block traffic, but they're still (in the picture, at least), handing out pamphlets to people who probably don't care and are going to be annoyed at the inconvenience.

So because I support the cause, here's a tip for aspiring protestors: Be unobtrusive (no assaulting strangers with pamphlets), be unrepetitive, be respectful, and be funny. Being liked is way more important than being right. If they like you, they'll look into your problem.

And please make sure you're actually funny if you're going for funny. Not-funny funny is worse than just standing in the commons and reading the Bible at the top of your lungs.

Re:Yep, that'll do it.

[killjoe]

"So because I support the cause, here's a tip for aspiring protestors: Be unobtrusive (no assaulting strangers with pamphlets), be unrepetitive, be respectful, and be funny. Being liked is way more important than being right. If they like you, they'll look into your problem."

So in other words don't protest at all.

All protests are inconvenient to somebody. It seems to me that you are not the type to care about any protesters. I don't think you are reachable by anybody who wants to disturb the status quo.

Re:Yep, that'll do it.

[Bob9113]

Well, so, what then?

I don't buy your "be funny and people will agree" bit. People smile and laugh and then forget. That works great if you're talking about getting 2% of people who drink Coke to buy a Pepsi - the free market has both options clearly available.

But when you are opposing a corrupt system of backscratchers that has more systemic power than you do, a dramatically tilted market, a gov't that gets paid to not care about the free market, and an apathetic/sheeplike populace, you've only got two options. There's nonviolent protest and the other kind. You just crapped all over nonviolent protest, but you can't possibly mean what that implies.

I guess there is another option - try to think about baseball and hope it's over quickly, but that doesn't sound to pleasant.

Re:Yep, that'll do it.

[dreadclown]

You must be new here.

Says ID #850877 to ID #14996

Re:Yep, that'll do it.

[CosmeticLobotamy]

All protests are inconvenient to somebody.
Yes, but let's just do our best to only make them inconvenient to whoever we're protesting against. I'm guessing we don't like them much anyway.

It seems to me that you are not the type to care about any protesters.

That is largely true, but only because they almost always preach to the choir, and by the time you get significant numbers of protestors, the choir is usually already singing pretty loudly.

So in other words don't protest at all.

A comprehensive guide to protesting was beyond the scope of my comment (as was accuracy, apparently. The picture doesn't show them handing things out, it shows them showing signs. Oops. My bad), but it should certainly not be taken as encouragement not to protest. Just protest better. Put some thought into whose mind you're trying to change and what the best way to do that might be. My personal favorite plan, to be implemented just as soon as I have a cause with co-supporters and some cash at the same time, is a protest party. Subsidize the beer, invite your supporters and those you hope to convince (with careful planning so as to ensure they're a minority), and let them mingle. Invite a reporter or two. Get the Foo Fighters to play, they'll support anything.

Kidding about the Foo Fighters. And obviously that's not a full plan, since there are some obvious (but solvable) problems in this synopsis form. But there's one suggestion.

Or do what you feel like, I'd just try real hard not to tick off any passing newspaper opinion writers is all, 'cause the ones that are there because they were sent by their press-masters will probably just scratch the surface of your issue when they're forced to report on it. The passer-by reporter might actually care.

And obviously, there are exceptions to everything I've said. Sometimes the shouting Bible guy works. I just wouldn't do it.

Thank you and congratulations

[idonthack]

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.

The are no rights

[Instine]

I'm not an anarchist But, who exactly ordains us with rights?

Re:The are no rights

[gid13]

I disagree with whoever modded you off-topic. Shrug.

Anyway, there are many answers to your question. In Canada or the US, the constitution grants us rights. Obvious further questions include "Who created it?" and "Who enforces it?" and ultimately these boil down to the writers of the constitution, elected officials (since they can change the constitution with a large enough majority) and police/armies that enforce it. At a low enough level, it's just "might makes right" since the combined force of police and army is stronger and/or more passionate than any organized resistance. Additionally, there are groups like the UN that purport to grant us rights, but the question of enforcement ability is even more obvious there.

With regard to this article specifically, copyright law originally granted the creators of content an exclusive right to profit from it for a short period of time. Recently, depending on location, this has been changed to become "an exclusive right to profit as well as the right to prevent others from copying it freely". If you disapprove of this change (and I do), then you may either blame the politicians that made the laws, the voters that elected the politicians, the media companies that financed the politicians, the consumers that financed the media companies by purchasing their product, or the founding fathers for setting up a system so easily corrupted by money. Take your pick.

Re:The are no rights

[Puff of Logic]

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

Re:The are no rights

[Wylfing]

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

No no no no no no no no. The U.S. Constitution recognizes rights that you inherently possess by dint of being a human being. It is strictly impossible in the United States to "grant rights" to the citizenry. What might happen is the citizenry grant rights to the government (theoretically, very sparingly), but never ever the other way around.

When new bits and pieces are amended onto the Constitution, it is properly viewed as an act of clarification, not fabrication.

Is this a good thing?

[crotherm]

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?

Re:Is this a good thing?

[s20451]

Which protest gets you a picture in the paper?

1. Normal-looking people wearing normal clothes, speaking politely
2. Crazy people wearing HAZMAT suits, shouting and carrying on

Face it -- politics is theater. If you don't get noticed, you don't get heard.

Slashdot FAQ

[LostCluster]

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.

Re:Slashdot FAQ

[MindStalker]

Good point for the most part I agree with the general do without idea. There are a few exception I think that should be pointed out.
1. Government should not be involved in encouraging and helping DRM.
2. One could make the argument that company in a monopolistic position such as microsoft shouldn't be activly pushing DRM (of course I'm not talking about their own protection from piracy of their own content, more the concern of them creating a platform for easy restrictions of your rights when the average user simply doesn't have a choice of operating systems)

Re:Slashdot FAQ

[TedTschopp]

I agree with this.

DRM can not only protect a musician's songs, or a film makers movies, but if it is rolled out fully it could protect your own data. 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.

I really don't get how all this Anti-DRM / anti-crypto think that is out there. DRM is just another type of technology that should be used rightly. Much of the antics pulled off by groups like this remind me of the groups which protest the genetically modified foods or the peta folks who throw paint on people. Gaining headlines doesn't equate to changing the hearts and minds of people.

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.

We do

[Opportunist]

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.

Seems to Me...

[Greyfox]

That the first thing you need to do is educate consumers as to why they should care. You need a series of nationwide TV commercials to gently introduce them to the idea. Currently average consumers only find this stuff out when they get burned by it and ask someone who reads slashdot to explain what the hell is going on.

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."

Re:Seems to Me...

[deque_alpha]

And why should they care? DRM isn't keeping them from enjoying the content they've paid for. It isn't an issue for "Joe Public".

That is true. If you ignore the people who want to make backups of their DVD's so the kids don't scratch up the originals, but can't. And if you ignore the people who want to format shift their music from CD's to some other player, but can't, or run the risk of having their computer disabled by buggy DRM software. And if you ignore all the people who buy eBooks and then want to view them on a device other than which it was orginally purchased on, but can't. And if you ignore the people who buy music online and then want to move it to another computer, but can't.

If I thought harder, the list could get longer. And if Big Media gets its way, it will get a lot longer. This isn't an issue for the majority of the Joe Publics out there, but there are some, and it will be a big issue if we stay on the course we are on now. However, most people will just accept those limitations once they are in place, forcing all of us to live to the lowest common denominator. Also, don't forget about all the interesting gadgets that may never be in an environment where media is so tightly controlled. There is a strong argument that the diversity and low prices that we now enjoy with DAPs would have never been created if the controls that Big Media propose now were in place 5 or 10 years ago.

That's why public awareness needs to be raised now, so that this trend can be stopped. It's easier to prevent negative changes than it is to reverse them. It is short-sighted to assume that just because something isn't a problem now, or isn't a problem for you that it isn't a problem. I want my kids to enjoy at least as much freedom as I do, if not more. That's why things like this are important, and that's why trends like this need to be fought.

Re:Artificial rights

[Opportunist]

Actually, yes, IP laws were created to provide people with an incentive to publish their findings and give them a reward for doing so, to spur innovation and progress. Currently, though, they're used AGAINST progress and inventions.

The law has turned upside down and NEEDS to be changed. The sooner the better.

Nope

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:Boo hoo hoo

[zoloto]

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.

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:Boo hoo hoo

[kz45]

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?

We need a new "godwin" for ghandi comparisons

[RLiegh]

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.

Re:We need a new "godwin" for ghandi comparisons

[susano_otter]

...some people also see that the current issues of DRM etc are just the very small tip of a very large iceberg.

You have no idea.

The iceberg isn't "copyright issues in the digital age", but rather how the inexorable advance of telecommunications technology will change everything in society, in ways we can't predict today, much less adapt to.

Our grandchildren will live in a world of vastly different rules and customs and attitudes regarding privacy, security, etiquette, terrorism, manufacturing, travel, etc. The rules of our world will not apply in the slightest.

Slashdot dreams of our rules, and making the **AA play by our rules in the digital age. I'm becoming more and more convinced that our rules are just as much of a dinosaur as the **AA itself. That the problems are new, but even Slashdot can't help but insist on trying to solve them in the same old way.

Re:We need a new "godwin" for ghandi comparisons

[Opportunist]

The issue is the same: freedom.

The implications are different. While Ghandi was facing imprisonment for crimes that are none, people violating DRM are ... ok, the implications are the same too.

Without trying to get cocky here, it's not about making a copy of a Slipknot album or if you want a Robby Williams one. The issue is freedom, and that this freedom is being ripped away. Not by being unable to copy a meaningless tune, but by the ability to rewrite history at will. That's what DRM is about.

Copying issues is a vessel that allows you to "sell" that issue to those who don't care about liberty but only care about getting free music.

DRM does not only prevent copies. It allows you to retroactively void information, provided you have power over the keys to that information. If an information is no longer to be viewable, it can be erased. Including the copy you have on your computer. Its key is no longer valid, you can no longer view it. No, you couldn't print it in the first place to have a hard copy that can't be erased.

DRM is, in fact, the ability to recreate and reshape statements. While it won't be as blatant as in 1984, where the announcer changes the name of the enemy mid sentence, it is going to be used, albeit more subtle. Whistleblowing will be incredibly hard, since you won't have any evidence to back up your claim. The evidence you had will vanish, since there won't be a key to unlock it anymore when you need it. Your key, the key you used when you were still allowed to view the information, will be deleted.

DRM is BY FAR more than the "threat" that we won't be able to use our CD writers anymore. The real danger is that you can commit a crime and pretty much flush any evidence, if you're in a position of power to create and delete keys to it.

Re:We need a new "godwin" for ghandi comparisons

[ewhac]

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 [sic] both between the severity of the struggle, and the sacrifices being made.

The disparity between the struggles is vast only if you look at it in the most superficial of terms. You look and see only "tools" and "pirates" [sic] looking to get stuff for free. But scratch deeper, and you'll find more similarities than even I'm comfortable admitting.

The British Empire walked into India, unwanted and uninvited, planted a flag and, without regard to what went before, proclaimed, "We will now dictate how things shall be done here," Gandhi raised the awareness of his people (and the Britons) and said, "Your authority is illegitimate, and derives solely from threat of force. It is immoral and unethical for you to be here. Please go away."

Today, we find a struggle with disquieting similarities -- an invading force is occupying territory and proclaiming that they shall now dictate how things shall be done. Except that, instead of an imperial nation, it's multinational media corporations; and instead of occupying someone else's country, they're occupying our computers.

Our computers.

You may find the comparison fatuous. But, once you finally drill down to the core issue, you must ultimately acknowledge that what's at stake is nothing less than your freedom to do with your property as you please.

My interests are not served by ceding control of my computers to a self-appointed authority -- to have another man acting as master in my house. It is an affront to my values and my personal sovereignty, and I will not stand for it.

You are, of course, free to differ, and invite unaccountable corporate control over the computer you bought and paid for. But, in such a case, one is prompted to turn the "tool" ad hominem back at the accuser and ask: Who here is the greater "tool"?

Schwab

Re:We need a new "godwin" for ghandi comparisons

[mrchaotica]

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?

They are protesting the wrong stuff

[erroneus]

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.

Rant

[rewt66]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

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.

Re:Boo hoo hoo

[Criterion]

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.

Re:Artificial rights

[TrekkieGod]

Humans do not have any intrinsic rights.

That's not how I view things. I view as humans have "every" right to "everything". Obviously, many rights will conflict in that view. My right to murder you because I don't like your opinion and your right to life conflict. In that situation, the stronger wins, case closed. Well, living afraid someone might kill you at any moment sounds bad, so we form a society and we decide that your right to life is more important, and for that reason (and that reason only) laws are enacted to remove my right to murder.

The difference between these two forms of thinking is that everytime someone wants to do something you have to justify what gives them the right to do it. If you think as I do, everyone can do whatever they want, and if the government wants to pass a law saying I can't do it, they better be able to justify why. Society has to agree that some other right is more important before any right can be removed.

In the US, that's exactly how it works. It's called the tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Basically, "if the right isn't being prohibited by society (federal constitution or the states), the people have it."

In case of copyright, it works like this. Without copyright, if you write a book and you don't want everyone to read it without compensation, you are certainly free to hide it in a safe. If you convince someone that they should pay you for it, that's fine. However, whoever paid you has the right to copy and distribute however many times they want to whoever they want for whatever price they want. Obviously, if that happens a lot, you're not going to want to write any more books. Since society values having new books to read, we agreed to give up our right to copy and distribute your work by allowing Congress "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".

Since you need an incentive, and we want your book, we'll give you a greater chance to profit for it for some time, but then we want our right to copy back, when that time expires.

The grandparent has some form of religious view to backup the copyright point above. I just have this other view which works out to about the same thing. You want to "own" an idea? Fine, keep your idea secret and don't tell anyone. You need to tell people about it in order to profit? Well, that's your problem, I have a right to appropriate and use your idea. I'll even agree to not do it for a limited time period, because I want you to have an incentive to give more good ideas to society...but after that time is up, I'm taking it.

I wore a yellow Tyvek suit today.

[Maxwell309]

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 )

Uh, yeah. Only, not.

[JimmytheGeek]

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.

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