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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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."
"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.