I also read the article, and concur with your call for more info.
Was there anyhting in the Telecommunications Act of 96 re dark fiber?
It's interesting that the cable companies, who have no fiber to speak of, are pitching broadband and creating the market for dark fiber. They're probably just trying to cash in before the photons swamp them.
There are some natural conflicts between geekdom and lawyerdom that are at work here: squishy human law versus sharp natural science, individual versus corporate/government interest, slow lawmaking versus fast technological change, experimentation versus caution, etc.
However, I suggest that there is one specific issue at the root of most of the troubles that geeks are having with today's legal climate: technology has made the creation, distribution, and access to information much easier for everyone, but the law still recognizes certain forms of control of information as legitimate (copyright, patent, etc.).
And, of course, some institutions (Microsoft, media conglomerates, cable co's, phone co's) control particularly vital information: the patents and copyright to the technology infrastructure itself.
This creates a situation where the information-privileged can use the law and technology together to create information "tollbooths", while the powerless settle for breaking the law as a matter of course and/or relinquishing rights to information to those who can do something with it.
Slashdot geeks are special here in that they see a better way. The free software movement has demonstrated that keeping control over information may decrease, rather than increase, its value to the creator, and definitely decreases its value to the consumer.
It is immensely frustrating to know that technologically, I have the means to improve government, business, education, science, medicine, or culture, and to reap those benefits from millions of others, but laws that are only helping the most powerful are preventing it.
Now do you see why geeks have trouble with the current legal situation?
But the Twin Cities is already experiencing what the poster says is happening in Pittsburgh. The departure of newer companies like Allaire and Cray, and the substantial withdrawal of old companies like Unisys, Control Data, IBM, and Honeywell, all speak to the fact that the Twin Cities is disappearing as a center of computer innovation. In addition, there are simply not enough startups to keep up with the pace of change.
I blame it all on one fact: there is only one place to get an advanced engineering degree in the whole region: the University of Minnesota, and it has hardly shined in that area lately.
What the Twin Cities needs to keep and create geeks like us is a good, private, focused engineering school!
Particularly disappointing is the fact that the fastest-growing college in the area (St. Thomas) has decided that we need another law school, when we already have 3 of national prominence! Yuk!
My car needs gas and an oil change, I have 4 dollars in my pocket and I'm $450 into my $500 overdraft protection, There's probably nothing in the fridge to make dinner with, My home machine's lame Win95 install hasn't been upgraded...
I'm thinking I'll have to scramble to make it through the weekend even if nothing happens!
The game was made by MECC (Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium), which is still in business making educational software (although may have been acquired?), including a CD called Oregon Trail, which I'm sure is a souped-up version.
However, it would seem likely that they could instruct you in finding a port or binary.
Doesn't this mean it's time for Free (as in speech) Art? Anyone who needs to use alternate means (MP3, internet) to distribute their work should consider the GPL.
Why? Because, like software, it is possible for the proprietary work to become a barrier to work done that is not in the immediate interest of the copyright hoarders. What if you want to make a remix? Or just include a reference? Or make a parody? Or a commentary? Today, you can do this, but only by the largesse of the copyright hoarders and some fortuitous court rulings.
The long-term solution to creating a level playing field, and guaranteed free expression, for artists is Free Art.
And, as this poster points out so eloquently, it's not like the current copyright scheme is serving the unknown artist, anyway.
Might this have some bearing on defense arguments? Something like "So you're saying that someone *stole* the money you left in the street?" Isn't there a burden of due care in protecting a trade secret?
The Chinese version (if there is one), which would demonstrate the liberated ability to watch non-local versions, and be an apt reminder of the dangers of loss of free speech.
Of course, the defense team ought to properly introduce the clip...
P.S. What's all this about trouble getting Brazil distributed? I hadn't heard that story.
All we have to do is get the musicians and indy filmmakers to buy into GPL'ing their work, which shouldn't be hard, since they're currently having their work stolen by the studios anyway, or working under contracts that give them little or no control. And most of them certainly aren't making money.
Congress rolled over and gave Reagan everything he wanted (which certainly doesn't make them blameless), including massive increases in defense spending that dwarfed the cuts to social services (so it wasn't Reagan being "forced" into deficit spending by any means).
I've been waiting to spring this idea on an unsuspecting public:
Campaign finance reform should consist of stripping/shattering the current owners' rights to broadcast channels, and handing out the rights, in smaller, time-limited pieces, with a (low-priced, but not too low-priced) one-chance-to-a-customer lottery.
This will keep candidates from scrambling for money to buy time from the broadcast monopolies, it will broaden the range of viewpoints being broadcast (I'm sure if you raffle off enough slices of spectrum, you'll get everything from Neo-Nazis to Communists to paranoids on the tube), and it will probably mean that the way to get air time is to cozy up to some set of your favorite local broadcasters, and if the broadcasters are a more representative sample, is that really that bad?
And best of all, it actually promotes, rather than restricting, freedom of speech.
Of course, it will never happen; meanwhile, the Internet (which already does all the good things I mention above) will make broadcast irrelevant.
Sorry to say, it may be as bad as you say. Just the passing of the DMCA, the allowance of software patents, and the auctioning of the wireless spectrum speak to that.
But...
Actually, I think there's a race going on, and it's quite an interesting one, between the free and nimble and the big and powerful:
Access to global communications has made it possible to disseminate information, evade censorship, and achieve impressive results with decentralized orgnizations, but...
That same technology has made it possible to send a unified message to everyone in the world, to wield power with greater reach, to consolidate power more thoroughly, to deliver the resources of power to tackle greater obstacles and enemies, and it has allowed the well-situated providers and enablers of the technology to become the most powerful.
Access to capital markets and market information has empowered individuals to hold greater sway over corporations, and has made it possible to directly translate damage to a company's reputation into financial damage. Also, concerns over profitability and growth potential has caused large companies to shatter themselves into networks of independent, competitive suppliers. But...
The leveling of barriers to foreign ownership and investment have made creation of worldwide conglomerates possible, and the capital market's demand for market share has driven unprecedented acquisition. And the development of the virtual corporation has made intellectual property the most vital, all-powerful, asset of large corporations.
Global trade provides unprecedented access to markets by the smallest companies, but it allows unprecedented abuses by the largest.
It's an odd paradox: the awesome potential unleashed by decentralized cooperation and communication is making powerful central institutions even more powerful and centralized.
The question is: will the most powerful use their power to change the rules in the middle of the game, or will they refrain from killing the goose that lays the golden egg long enough to become powerless?
There is effectively no test for being a member of the press or not. The only test in a situation like this is the intent of distributing information:
If I organize a community meeting in my house to inform everyone of the horrible crack dealing on the corner that must be stopped, or even of the wonderful crack dealing on the corner that should be legal, I am acting legally.
If I organize a meeting of junkies in my house to tell them where to get the best crack, I am potentially committing a crime. If, however, my statements can in any way be construed as legitimate expression, I am still acting legally.
Let's see if we can wrap up the essential arguments.
Here's what the DVD CCA claims:
The DeCSS writers used Xing drivers, thus agreeing to a license agreement that specifically forbids reverse engineering, to illegally break into the encryption scheme, thus making DVDs copyable. Since the only reasonable use of DeCSS would be to copy DVDs, they have acted against the DMCA prohibition on devices that circumvent copyright protection. Further, the defendants that provided sites and links were providing those sites and links for the sole purpose of encouraging the circumvention of copyright protection, also in violation of the DMCA.
Did I miss anything? Does the DMCA also stipulate situations under which TROs must be issued on *suspicion* of violation?
Here's the defense argument:
1. The Xing license agreement is not enforceable, as it asks every member of the general public to effectively participate in a non-disclosure agreement, as it was not explicitly negotiated during the purchase, and as it consigns rights one-sidedly to Xing. This license should thus not prohibit reverse engineering.
2. The action of cracking the encryption scheme is reverse engineering, not theft of trade secrets, as the DeCSS writers were not privy to any information not available to any consumer of the DVD player. Reverse engineering has been repeatedly upheld as a fundamental means of ensuring competition, and as inducement to patent.
3. Once the reverse engineering had been accomplished, the trade secret had been revealed, and any claim to ownership of that secret forfeited, so no one who disseminates DeCSS is guilty of industrial espionage, either.
4. Although DeCSS itself was written for copying DVDs in Windows, the secrets obtained (the cracked encryption scheme) and disseminated (as source?) by the DeCSS writers, makes it possible for the first time to *use* DVDs under Linux, which is a legitimate, non-copying use of the technology. Thus, any TRO should not prohibit use of the encryption scheme for driving DVD players in Linux.
5. Most of the defendants were largely interested in the legitimate Linux-player use of the technology, as the logistics of storing, trading, and "printing" DVD images currently makes it inconvenient for a casual copier, and unprofitable for any would-be pirate. Thus, these defendants should not be punished or restrained from disseminating the technology.
6. The untested DMCA prohibition on creation of a copyright-circumvention device is a breach of the precedents of fair use, which allow copying for purposes of backup and convenient use, and should not be enforced.
7. Some defendants only reported on these technologies and the means to obtain them. As these defendants' acts were in keeping with their broader editorial goals, any restrictions on their actions would constitute undue restraint on press activity.
8. Some defendants only provided an unedited public forum for discussion of these technologies, and cannot be held accountable for the expressions of participants in the forum.
In short, the DeCSS authors had the right to reverse engineer, the right to make a copying device, the right to make it possible to create a Linux-based player, and the other defendants had the right to disseminate these technologies, derive other technologies from them, provide infomation about them, and harbor discussions of them.
You're absolutely correct. The reason we say it is that lawyers have established for themselves the monopoly on getting paid to give legal advice, so IANAL means "I am not trying to give legal advice".
But, as you eloquently point out, what it REALLY means is "I'm going to let this elite determine the way in which I can express myself, and let them badger me into being timid about discussing fundamental freedoms."
So, as a previous offender, I hereby promise to stand up for my right to speak, and never use IANAL again.
That has indeed been suggested by those who see the ice ages as the result of convergence (IIRC) of the precession of the Earth on its axis and the precession about the sun -- something along the lines of when both mean cold, it's double cold or something. However, I don't think the timing of ice ages is as well-agreed-upon as, say, the fact that we're altering the climate.
Assuming that we're not staving off an ice age, the damage we're doing to the planet is reprehensible.
Assuming that we are staving off another ice age, I would rather we were taking deliberate action fully knowing the result. As it stands now, it's "Gee, maybe that stranger I gunned down would have killed me!" Hardly defensible, and dangerous as a practical matter, too.
Just reading the bullets in Earth Sciences makes it hard to deny global warming any longer:
The carbon dioxide buildup in the air has stunted coral reef growth (April 3, vol. 155: p. 214).
Research linked ancient climatic chaos to the release of carbon-rich gas (Oct. 23, vol. 156: p. 260).
Global temperatures in 1998 proved the highest in 140 years (Jan. 2, vol. 155: p. 6).
Signs of climatic warming appeared in the Arctic Ocean (Feb. 13, vol. 155: p. 104).
Meteorologists predicted that La Niña will skew U.S. winter weather (Oct. 30, vol. 156: p. 278) and started factoring global warming into extended forecasts (March 20, vol. 155: p. 188).
Scientists studied ways to adapt to climate change (Aug. 28, vol. 156: p. 136).
But don't, like, panic or anything.
Now you've done it (cf: First Post)
on
Science in 1999
·
· Score: 1
Here I was, expecting to just click in and browse the list, then post the standard "they missed this one" or "yeah, that one was cool", but WHOOOOMPH! here's this monster list, with links to fabulously long articles...
I'll get back to you in February.
Meanwhile, I've got a new bookmark to sciencenews.org. It's like when I first saw slashdot.
I'm not sure, but I think the breakthrough this year may have been demonstrating that different populations have different cultural traditions, thus conclusively demonstrating that certain behaviors were neither the result of "instinct" nor the repeated insights of individual chimpanzees.
Also, don't forget that some folks (see Kansas school board) need more convincing on these things than others.
Slashdot Mirror
I also read the article, and concur with your call for more info.
Was there anyhting in the Telecommunications Act of 96 re dark fiber?
It's interesting that the cable companies, who have no fiber to speak of, are pitching broadband and creating the market for dark fiber. They're probably just trying to cash in before the photons swamp them.
Maybe, but Scalia and Rehnquist haven't heard of the fourth amendment (see civil forfeiture info above).
There are some natural conflicts between geekdom and lawyerdom that are at work here: squishy human law versus sharp natural science, individual versus corporate/government interest, slow lawmaking versus fast technological change, experimentation versus caution, etc.
However, I suggest that there is one specific issue at the root of most of the troubles that geeks are having with today's legal climate: technology has made the creation, distribution, and access to information much easier for everyone, but the law still recognizes certain forms of control of information as legitimate (copyright, patent, etc.).
And, of course, some institutions (Microsoft, media conglomerates, cable co's, phone co's) control particularly vital information: the patents and copyright to the technology infrastructure itself.
This creates a situation where the information-privileged can use the law and technology together to create information "tollbooths", while the powerless settle for breaking the law as a matter of course and/or relinquishing rights to information to those who can do something with it.
Slashdot geeks are special here in that they see a better way. The free software movement has demonstrated that keeping control over information may decrease, rather than increase, its value to the creator, and definitely decreases its value to the consumer.
It is immensely frustrating to know that technologically, I have the means to improve government, business, education, science, medicine, or culture, and to reap those benefits from millions of others, but laws that are only helping the most powerful are preventing it.
Now do you see why geeks have trouble with the current legal situation?
But the Twin Cities is already experiencing what the poster says is happening in Pittsburgh. The departure of newer companies like Allaire and Cray, and the substantial withdrawal of old companies like Unisys, Control Data, IBM, and Honeywell, all speak to the fact that the Twin Cities is disappearing as a center of computer innovation. In addition, there are simply not enough startups to keep up with the pace of change.
I blame it all on one fact: there is only one place to get an advanced engineering degree in the whole region: the University of Minnesota, and it has hardly shined in that area lately.
What the Twin Cities needs to keep and create geeks like us is a good, private, focused engineering school!
Particularly disappointing is the fact that the fastest-growing college in the area (St. Thomas) has decided that we need another law school, when we already have 3 of national prominence! Yuk!
Let's see:
My car needs gas and an oil change,
I have 4 dollars in my pocket and I'm $450 into my $500 overdraft protection,
There's probably nothing in the fridge to make dinner with,
My home machine's lame Win95 install hasn't been upgraded...
I'm thinking I'll have to scramble to make it through the weekend even if nothing happens!
Happy end of Y2K hysteria!
The game was made by MECC (Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium), which is still in business making educational software (although may have been acquired?), including a CD called Oregon Trail, which I'm sure is a souped-up version.
However, it would seem likely that they could instruct you in finding a port or binary.
A spectacular comment, to which I can only add:
Doesn't this mean it's time for Free (as in speech) Art? Anyone who needs to use alternate means (MP3, internet) to distribute their work should consider the GPL.
Why? Because, like software, it is possible for the proprietary work to become a barrier to work done that is not in the immediate interest of the copyright hoarders. What if you want to make a remix? Or just include a reference? Or make a parody? Or a commentary? Today, you can do this, but only by the largesse of the copyright hoarders and some fortuitous court rulings.
The long-term solution to creating a level playing field, and guaranteed free expression, for artists is Free Art.
And, as this poster points out so eloquently, it's not like the current copyright scheme is serving the unknown artist, anyway.
Might this have some bearing on defense arguments? Something like "So you're saying that someone *stole* the money you left in the street?" Isn't there a burden of due care in protecting a trade secret?
The Chinese version (if there is one), which would demonstrate the liberated ability to watch non-local versions, and be an apt reminder of the dangers of loss of free speech.
Of course, the defense team ought to properly introduce the clip...
P.S. What's all this about trouble getting Brazil distributed? I hadn't heard that story.
All we have to do is get the musicians and indy filmmakers to buy into GPL'ing their work, which shouldn't be hard, since they're currently having their work stolen by the studios anyway, or working under contracts that give them little or no control. And most of them certainly aren't making money.
Time for free art...
is having your post cause a string of Dr. Strangelove references.
"You can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"
Why is it that we can never find more than 15 to 20 guys like this to vote for?
Congress rolled over and gave Reagan everything he wanted (which certainly doesn't make them blameless), including massive increases in defense spending that dwarfed the cuts to social services (so it wasn't Reagan being "forced" into deficit spending by any means).
After voting for Nader in '96, I could happily lambaste both sides in the Monica debacle, having no responsibility for either.
A Sunday strip of "Citizen Dog" a while back has always stuck with me:
Hero puts coins in big vending machine marked "Vote".
Hero makes his selection.
Hero gets no response.
Hero kicks and shakes and cusses. Still nothing.
Hero shrugs and walks away.
I've been waiting to spring this idea on an unsuspecting public:
Campaign finance reform should consist of stripping/shattering the current owners' rights to broadcast channels, and handing out the rights, in smaller, time-limited pieces, with a (low-priced, but not too low-priced) one-chance-to-a-customer lottery.
This will keep candidates from scrambling for money to buy time from the broadcast monopolies, it will broaden the range of viewpoints being broadcast (I'm sure if you raffle off enough slices of spectrum, you'll get everything from Neo-Nazis to Communists to paranoids on the tube), and it will probably mean that the way to get air time is to cozy up to some set of your favorite local broadcasters, and if the broadcasters are a more representative sample, is that really that bad?
And best of all, it actually promotes, rather than restricting, freedom of speech.
Of course, it will never happen; meanwhile, the Internet (which already does all the good things I mention above) will make broadcast irrelevant.
Sorry to say, it may be as bad as you say. Just the passing of the DMCA, the allowance of software patents, and the auctioning of the wireless spectrum speak to that.
But...
Actually, I think there's a race going on, and it's quite an interesting one, between the free and nimble and the big and powerful:
Access to global communications has made it possible to disseminate information, evade censorship, and achieve impressive results with decentralized orgnizations, but...
That same technology has made it possible to send a unified message to everyone in the world, to wield power with greater reach, to consolidate power more thoroughly, to deliver the resources of power to tackle greater obstacles and enemies, and it has allowed the well-situated providers and enablers of the technology to become the most powerful.
Access to capital markets and market information has empowered individuals to hold greater sway over corporations, and has made it possible to directly translate damage to a company's reputation into financial damage. Also, concerns over profitability and growth potential has caused large companies to shatter themselves into networks of independent, competitive suppliers. But...
The leveling of barriers to foreign ownership and investment have made creation of worldwide conglomerates possible, and the capital market's demand for market share has driven unprecedented acquisition. And the development of the virtual corporation has made intellectual property the most vital, all-powerful, asset of large corporations.
Global trade provides unprecedented access to markets by the smallest companies, but it allows unprecedented abuses by the largest.
It's an odd paradox: the awesome potential unleashed by decentralized cooperation and communication is making powerful central institutions even more powerful and centralized.
The question is: will the most powerful use their power to change the rules in the middle of the game, or will they refrain from killing the goose that lays the golden egg long enough to become powerless?
There is effectively no test for being a member of the press or not. The only test in a situation like this is the intent of distributing information:
If I organize a community meeting in my house to inform everyone of the horrible crack dealing on the corner that must be stopped, or even of the wonderful crack dealing on the corner that should be legal, I am acting legally.
If I organize a meeting of junkies in my house to tell them where to get the best crack, I am potentially committing a crime. If, however, my statements can in any way be construed as legitimate expression, I am still acting legally.
That's to the best of my understanding...
This was supposed to save all our crops, AND protect us against disease! Some folks were even advocating adding it to drinking water, IIRC.
This one was so bad, it almost single-handedly started the environmental movement, as its evils were rooted out in Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring".
Let's see if we can wrap up the essential arguments.
Here's what the DVD CCA claims:
The DeCSS writers used Xing drivers, thus agreeing to a license agreement that specifically forbids reverse engineering, to illegally break into the encryption scheme, thus making DVDs copyable. Since the only reasonable use of DeCSS would be to copy DVDs, they have acted against the DMCA prohibition on devices that circumvent copyright protection. Further, the defendants that provided sites and links were providing those sites and links for the sole purpose of encouraging the circumvention of copyright protection, also in violation of the DMCA.
Did I miss anything? Does the DMCA also stipulate situations under which TROs must be issued on *suspicion* of violation?
Here's the defense argument:
1. The Xing license agreement is not enforceable, as it asks every member of the general public to effectively participate in a non-disclosure agreement, as it was not explicitly negotiated during the purchase, and as it consigns rights one-sidedly to Xing. This license should thus not prohibit reverse engineering.
2. The action of cracking the encryption scheme is reverse engineering, not theft of trade secrets, as the DeCSS writers were not privy to any information not available to any consumer of the DVD player. Reverse engineering has been repeatedly upheld as a fundamental means of ensuring competition, and as inducement to patent.
3. Once the reverse engineering had been accomplished, the trade secret had been revealed, and any claim to ownership of that secret forfeited, so no one who disseminates DeCSS is guilty of industrial espionage, either.
4. Although DeCSS itself was written for copying DVDs in Windows, the secrets obtained (the cracked encryption scheme) and disseminated (as source?) by the DeCSS writers, makes it possible for the first time to *use* DVDs under Linux, which is a legitimate, non-copying use of the technology. Thus, any TRO should not prohibit use of the encryption scheme for driving DVD players in Linux.
5. Most of the defendants were largely interested in the legitimate Linux-player use of the technology, as the logistics of storing, trading, and "printing" DVD images currently makes it inconvenient for a casual copier, and unprofitable for any would-be pirate. Thus, these defendants should not be punished or restrained from disseminating the technology.
6. The untested DMCA prohibition on creation of a copyright-circumvention device is a breach of the precedents of fair use, which allow copying for purposes of backup and convenient use, and should not be enforced.
7. Some defendants only reported on these technologies and the means to obtain them. As these defendants' acts were in keeping with their broader editorial goals, any restrictions on their actions would constitute undue restraint on press activity.
8. Some defendants only provided an unedited public forum for discussion of these technologies, and cannot be held accountable for the expressions of participants in the forum.
In short, the DeCSS authors had the right to reverse engineer, the right to make a copying device, the right to make it possible to create a Linux-based player, and the other defendants had the right to disseminate these technologies, derive other technologies from them, provide infomation about them, and harbor discussions of them.
Did I miss any arguments here?
You're absolutely correct. The reason we say it is that lawyers have established for themselves the monopoly on getting paid to give legal advice, so IANAL means "I am not trying to give legal advice".
But, as you eloquently point out, what it REALLY means is "I'm going to let this elite determine the way in which I can express myself, and let them badger me into being timid about discussing fundamental freedoms."
So, as a previous offender, I hereby promise to stand up for my right to speak, and never use IANAL again.
That has indeed been suggested by those who see the ice ages as the result of convergence (IIRC) of the precession of the Earth on its axis and the precession about the sun -- something along the lines of when both mean cold, it's double cold or something. However, I don't think the timing of ice ages is as well-agreed-upon as, say, the fact that we're altering the climate.
Assuming that we're not staving off an ice age, the damage we're doing to the planet is reprehensible.
Assuming that we are staving off another ice age, I would rather we were taking deliberate action fully knowing the result. As it stands now, it's "Gee, maybe that stranger I gunned down would have killed me!" Hardly defensible, and dangerous as a practical matter, too.
Just reading the bullets in Earth Sciences makes it hard to deny global warming any longer:
The carbon dioxide buildup in the air has stunted coral reef growth (April 3, vol. 155: p. 214).
Research linked ancient climatic chaos to the release of carbon-rich gas (Oct. 23, vol. 156: p. 260).
Global temperatures in 1998 proved the highest in 140 years (Jan. 2, vol. 155: p. 6).
Signs of climatic warming appeared in the Arctic Ocean (Feb. 13, vol. 155: p. 104).
Meteorologists predicted that La Niña will skew U.S. winter weather (Oct. 30, vol. 156: p. 278) and started factoring global warming into extended forecasts (March 20, vol. 155: p. 188).
Scientists studied ways to adapt to climate change (Aug. 28, vol. 156: p. 136).
But don't, like, panic or anything.
Here I was, expecting to just click in and browse the list, then post the standard "they missed this one" or "yeah, that one was cool", but WHOOOOMPH! here's this monster list, with links to fabulously long articles...
I'll get back to you in February.
Meanwhile, I've got a new bookmark to sciencenews.org. It's like when I first saw slashdot.
I'm not sure, but I think the breakthrough this year may have been demonstrating that different populations have different cultural traditions, thus conclusively demonstrating that certain behaviors were neither the result of "instinct" nor the repeated insights of individual chimpanzees.
Also, don't forget that some folks (see Kansas school board) need more convincing on these things than others.