I have about 5 gmail addresses that I check regularly. They're not really gmail though, they're actually just imap forwarders set up so that I can check them in gmail more conveniently than the webmail provided by my different web hosts - if I lost gmail I'd only lose some organization and convenience, the email is still back at the original host.
Your argument is sound, but your conclusion sort of counters it. It's still true though, it's just the way it is.
I compare it to my motorcycle. I can ride it, but I'm not a mechanic. However, every time I take the time to learn something new about it's operation or repair I find my whole riding experience improves.
This is the problem with the different flavours of Linux in my mind - you are encouraged/forced to learn about how it works - it isn't simply provided as a tool that will work. It's the reason I want my mom to have a Mac. I'd rather she get a "sad mac face" when there's an important problem and she can take it to get it fixed, rather than call me every day wondering how she edits such and such file to make something work.
I'm hoping you don't mind, I used your explanation of copyright on my latest blog post, attributed to you of course. I've been having a long running discussion of copyright with my family, esp. concerning our Canadian Copyright reform, and this was an awesome explanation of something I haven't been able to convey very well.
The Berserker series doesn't quite fit - well, maybe it's picking nits, but the Berserkers aren't another race, they're a weapon left over from an extinct race right?
The Killing Star is still notable - perhaps not as widely circulated as the novels you mentioned, but more dead on target to the topic at hand.
That being simple extermination because of signals being sent from Earth, rather than multiple alien culture power plays, or extinct civilization's "landmines".
My apologies if this posted twice, once ugly. I'm a bit of a/. noob. I used the letter creator linked from Geists's website. This is what I sent (CC'd to Verner and Prentice):
November 28, 2007
Mr. Richard Harris House of Commons Parliament Buildings Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Dear Sir,
I am a constituent who cares about Canada's cultural policy, and I am writing in regard to legislative proposals for "copyright reform." During the last Parliament, Bill C-60 provided some very sensible approaches to this complicated topic, but it also left room for improvement. As you consider the issue of copyright reform, I hope that you will work to ensure that any new legislation is not a regression from the sensible policies set out in Bill C-60.
In particular, I do not believe that "digital rights management" (DRM) technologies should stop the public from making lawful uses of their legitimately acquired media. Publishers using DRM push aside the delicate balance between copyright and the rights of the public - a balance set according to an assessment of the public interest by legislators - and replace it with one-sided rules that reflect publishers' private interests. Even artists disagree with publishers'anti-consumer use of DRM, as evidenced by the recently formed Canadian Music Creators Coalition. Therefore, as in Bill C-60, new copyright reform legislation should not make it illegal to circumvent DRM for lawful purposes.
I am also concerned that the use of DRM can threaten computer security and consumer privacy, as in the recent Sony-BMG "Rootkit" fiasco. When content companies routinely use technological measures to control how people enjoy entertainment in the privacy of their own homes, I think we need protection *from* DRM more than we need protection *for* it.
I am also concerned with rumours of new copyright reform not including strong enough language protecting flexible fair dealing, parody exception, time shifting/device shifting exception and expanded backup provision.
It would be unfortunate to see the government seemingly choose locks over learning, property over privacy, enforcement over education, (law)suits over security, lobbyists over librarians, and U.S. policy over a "Canadian-made" solution.
These concerns are shared by a substantial and growing number of informed Canadian citizens. I hope that you will take them into account when considering any changes to Canadian copyright law. Thanks very much for your time.\r\n
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Closs
I received a response 2 days later:
Dear Jeffrey,
Thank you for writing regarding concerns about copyright protections against the circumvention of technological protection measures (digital locks that prevent accessing copyrighted content on certain devices, and/or copying of this content, or "TPMs"), particularly when applied to legitimately acquired music CDs or DVDs.
The Copyright Act must continue to support innovation and research while reflecting current technological realities. The Act must also provide adequate protection for copyright holders while promoting access to copyrighted material.
Please be assured that the Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry, and the Honourable Josée Verner, Minister of Canadian Heritage, are working closely to determine the appropriate next steps with respect to copyright reform, and technological protection measures.
Jeffrey, thank you again for taking the time to write,
Sincerely,
Richard M. (Dick) Harris, M.P.
I followed up with:
Sir,
I appreciate your timely response on this issue. I would like to ask for clarification however, of your position on copyright reform.
I understand that a balance must always be maintained between technology and protection of intellectual property - I am an author myself, and copyright is very important to me.
That being said - would you say you are for TPM's (technological
I used the letter creator linked from Geists's website. This is what I sent (CC'd to Verner and Prentice):
November 28, 2007
Mr. Richard Harris
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Dear Sir,
I am a constituent who cares about Canada's cultural policy, and I am writing in regard to legislative proposals for "copyright reform."
During the last Parliament, Bill C-60 provided some very sensible approaches to this complicated topic, but it also left room for improvement. As you consider the issue of copyright reform, I hope that you will work to ensure that any new legislation is not a regression from the sensible policies set out in Bill C-60.
In particular, I do not believe that "digital rights management"
(DRM) technologies should stop the public from making lawful uses of their legitimately acquired media. Publishers using DRM push aside the delicate balance between copyright and the rights of the public - a balance set according to an assessment of the public interest by legislators - and replace it with one-sided rules that reflect publishers' private interests. Even artists disagree with publishers'
anti-consumer use of DRM, as evidenced by the recently formed Canadian Music Creators Coalition. Therefore, as in Bill C-60, new copyright reform legislation should not make it illegal to circumvent DRM for lawful purposes.
I am also concerned that the use of DRM can threaten computer security and consumer privacy, as in the recent Sony-BMG "Rootkit"
fiasco. When content companies routinely use technological measures to control how people enjoy entertainment in the privacy of their own homes, I think we need protection *from* DRM more than we need protection *for* it.
I am also concerned with rumours of new copyright reform not including strong enough language protecting flexible fair dealing, parody exception, time shifting/device shifting exception and expanded backup provision.
It would be unfortunate to see the government seemingly choose locks over learning, property over privacy, enforcement over education, (law)suits over security, lobbyists over librarians, and U.S. policy over a "Canadian-made" solution.
These concerns are shared by a substantial and growing number of informed Canadian citizens. I hope that you will take them into account when considering any changes to Canadian copyright law.
Thanks very much for your time.\r\n
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Closs
I received a response 2 days later:
Dear Jeffrey,
Thank you for writing regarding concerns about copyright protections against the circumvention of technological protection measures (digital locks that prevent accessing copyrighted content on certain devices, and/or copying of this content, or "TPMs"), particularly when applied to legitimately acquired music CDs or DVDs.
The Copyright Act must continue to support innovation and research while reflecting current technological realities. The Act must also provide adequate protection for copyright holders while promoting access to copyrighted material.
Please be assured that the Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry, and the Honourable Josée Verner, Minister of Canadian Heritage, are working closely to determine the appropriate next steps with respect to copyright reform, and technological protection measures.
Jeffrey, thank you again for taking the time to write,
Sincerely,
Richard M. (Dick) Harris, M.P.
I followed up with:
Sir,
I appreciate your timely response on this issue. I would like to ask for clarification however, of your position on copyright reform.
I understand that a balance must always be maintained between technology and protection of intellectual property - I am an author myself, and copyright is very important to me.
That being said - would you say you are for TPM's (technological preventative measures), or against them? Do you believe that a copyright holder, whether person or corporation, has a the right to keep consumers of their work from exercising their fair use rights by locking the work in such a way that unlocking it would
Slashdot Mirror
I have about 5 gmail addresses that I check regularly. They're not really gmail though, they're actually just imap forwarders set up so that I can check them in gmail more conveniently than the webmail provided by my different web hosts - if I lost gmail I'd only lose some organization and convenience, the email is still back at the original host.
Your argument is sound, but your conclusion sort of counters it. It's still true though, it's just the way it is. I compare it to my motorcycle. I can ride it, but I'm not a mechanic. However, every time I take the time to learn something new about it's operation or repair I find my whole riding experience improves. This is the problem with the different flavours of Linux in my mind - you are encouraged/forced to learn about how it works - it isn't simply provided as a tool that will work. It's the reason I want my mom to have a Mac. I'd rather she get a "sad mac face" when there's an important problem and she can take it to get it fixed, rather than call me every day wondering how she edits such and such file to make something work.
Curunir,
;)
I'm hoping you don't mind, I used your explanation of copyright on my latest blog post, attributed to you of course. I've been having a long running discussion of copyright with my family, esp. concerning our Canadian Copyright reform, and this was an awesome explanation of something I haven't been able to convey very well.
Link is http://jeffandsamplus2.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/as-seen-on-slashdot-2/ in case you want to read it and tell me to nuke it, cause your comment is copyrighted.
Bear's The Forge of God makes sense.
The Berserker series doesn't quite fit - well, maybe it's picking nits, but the Berserkers aren't another race, they're a weapon left over from an extinct race right?
The Killing Star is still notable - perhaps not as widely circulated as the novels you mentioned, but more dead on target to the topic at hand.
That being simple extermination because of signals being sent from Earth, rather than multiple alien culture power plays, or extinct civilization's "landmines".
My apologies if this posted twice, once ugly. I'm a bit of a /. noob.
I used the letter creator linked from Geists's website. This is what I sent (CC'd to Verner and Prentice):
November 28, 2007
Mr. Richard Harris
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Dear Sir,
I am a constituent who cares about Canada's cultural policy, and I am writing in regard to legislative proposals for "copyright reform."
During the last Parliament, Bill C-60 provided some very sensible approaches to this complicated topic, but it also left room for improvement. As you consider the issue of copyright reform, I hope that you will work to ensure that any new legislation is not a regression from the sensible policies set out in Bill C-60.
In particular, I do not believe that "digital rights management"
(DRM) technologies should stop the public from making lawful uses of their legitimately acquired media. Publishers using DRM push aside the delicate balance between copyright and the rights of the public - a balance set according to an assessment of the public interest by legislators - and replace it with one-sided rules that reflect publishers' private interests. Even artists disagree with publishers'anti-consumer use of DRM, as evidenced by the recently formed Canadian Music Creators Coalition. Therefore, as in Bill C-60, new copyright reform legislation should not make it illegal to circumvent DRM for lawful purposes.
I am also concerned that the use of DRM can threaten computer security and consumer privacy, as in the recent Sony-BMG "Rootkit"
fiasco. When content companies routinely use technological measures to control how people enjoy entertainment in the privacy of their own homes, I think we need protection *from* DRM more than we need protection *for* it.
I am also concerned with rumours of new copyright reform not including strong enough language protecting flexible fair dealing, parody exception, time shifting/device shifting exception and expanded backup provision.
It would be unfortunate to see the government seemingly choose locks over learning, property over privacy, enforcement over education, (law)suits over security, lobbyists over librarians, and U.S. policy over a "Canadian-made" solution.
These concerns are shared by a substantial and growing number of informed Canadian citizens. I hope that you will take them into account when considering any changes to Canadian copyright law.
Thanks very much for your time.\r\n
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Closs
I received a response 2 days later:
Dear Jeffrey,
Thank you for writing regarding concerns about copyright protections against the circumvention of technological protection measures (digital locks that prevent accessing copyrighted content on certain devices, and/or copying of this content, or "TPMs"), particularly when applied to legitimately acquired music CDs or DVDs.
The Copyright Act must continue to support innovation and research while reflecting current technological realities. The Act must also provide adequate protection for copyright holders while promoting access to copyrighted material.
Please be assured that the Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry, and the Honourable Josée Verner, Minister of Canadian Heritage, are working closely to determine the appropriate next steps with respect to copyright reform, and technological protection measures.
Jeffrey, thank you again for taking the time to write,
Sincerely,
Richard M. (Dick) Harris, M.P.
I followed up with:
Sir,
I appreciate your timely response on this issue. I would like to ask for clarification however, of your position on copyright reform.
I understand that a balance must always be maintained between technology and protection of intellectual property - I am an author myself, and copyright is very important to me.
That being said - would you say you are for TPM's (technological
I used the letter creator linked from Geists's website. This is what I sent (CC'd to Verner and Prentice): November 28, 2007 Mr. Richard Harris House of Commons Parliament Buildings Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 Dear Sir, I am a constituent who cares about Canada's cultural policy, and I am writing in regard to legislative proposals for "copyright reform." During the last Parliament, Bill C-60 provided some very sensible approaches to this complicated topic, but it also left room for improvement. As you consider the issue of copyright reform, I hope that you will work to ensure that any new legislation is not a regression from the sensible policies set out in Bill C-60. In particular, I do not believe that "digital rights management" (DRM) technologies should stop the public from making lawful uses of their legitimately acquired media. Publishers using DRM push aside the delicate balance between copyright and the rights of the public - a balance set according to an assessment of the public interest by legislators - and replace it with one-sided rules that reflect publishers' private interests. Even artists disagree with publishers' anti-consumer use of DRM, as evidenced by the recently formed Canadian Music Creators Coalition. Therefore, as in Bill C-60, new copyright reform legislation should not make it illegal to circumvent DRM for lawful purposes. I am also concerned that the use of DRM can threaten computer security and consumer privacy, as in the recent Sony-BMG "Rootkit" fiasco. When content companies routinely use technological measures to control how people enjoy entertainment in the privacy of their own homes, I think we need protection *from* DRM more than we need protection *for* it. I am also concerned with rumours of new copyright reform not including strong enough language protecting flexible fair dealing, parody exception, time shifting/device shifting exception and expanded backup provision. It would be unfortunate to see the government seemingly choose locks over learning, property over privacy, enforcement over education, (law)suits over security, lobbyists over librarians, and U.S. policy over a "Canadian-made" solution. These concerns are shared by a substantial and growing number of informed Canadian citizens. I hope that you will take them into account when considering any changes to Canadian copyright law. Thanks very much for your time.\r\n Sincerely, Jeffrey Closs I received a response 2 days later: Dear Jeffrey, Thank you for writing regarding concerns about copyright protections against the circumvention of technological protection measures (digital locks that prevent accessing copyrighted content on certain devices, and/or copying of this content, or "TPMs"), particularly when applied to legitimately acquired music CDs or DVDs. The Copyright Act must continue to support innovation and research while reflecting current technological realities. The Act must also provide adequate protection for copyright holders while promoting access to copyrighted material. Please be assured that the Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry, and the Honourable Josée Verner, Minister of Canadian Heritage, are working closely to determine the appropriate next steps with respect to copyright reform, and technological protection measures. Jeffrey, thank you again for taking the time to write, Sincerely, Richard M. (Dick) Harris, M.P. I followed up with: Sir, I appreciate your timely response on this issue. I would like to ask for clarification however, of your position on copyright reform. I understand that a balance must always be maintained between technology and protection of intellectual property - I am an author myself, and copyright is very important to me. That being said - would you say you are for TPM's (technological preventative measures), or against them? Do you believe that a copyright holder, whether person or corporation, has a the right to keep consumers of their work from exercising their fair use rights by locking the work in such a way that unlocking it would