Reading all these posts is like reading war vs. peace, they're all right.
I suppose a good analogy would be like the old 17th century "pistol duels" where two 'gentlemen' could disagree as gentlemen and then settle the matter out in the field with a couple of single shot muskets at ten paces......
That's the really scary thought - that he is just "the mouth". I mean if it was just Jack, ok then. But it's not. It's that Sony VP saying they're going to stop at nothing to protect their copyrights (whatever that means to them now). It's like they got there own 'little cult' of thou shall not use unless we say so when. It's their hired engineers who are not thinking about just "40 bit encryption" but "128 bit encryption" for the next generation of HDTV players.
That's the one big impression that I got from the debate. How utterly intransigent Valenti's position is (thus the MPAA's too). It is apparent that there is no 'room' for negotiating. He couldn't bring himself to concede any point. The best he did was "talk around" debate points.
"If you want to change the law, you have to go to congress to do that" Jack Valenti said, almost in a smug way that was like he finally had bought the copyright law he always wanted.
Just too bad that we don't have the thousands of dollars to buy off congress like he does.
2000-09-27 01:59:24 Jack Valenti vs. Lessig: the debate (articles,internet) (rejected)
I know that they can only post a certain number of stories a day, but they could have squeezed this off the main and put in "YRO you rights online" I forgive the guys on this though. I'm sure that there are some who are tired of the whole DeCSS thing, and think that slashdot has become "all MPAA all the time". What I can't understand is why this wasn't on CSPAN2. This is far more interesting than some of the drone book authors they have on there (in my very biased opinion:) )
Still, it was fun seeing ol' Jack pull out the 'occam's razor' and call us all thieves, and us ranting about his funny looking hair behind his back on the chat channel.....
Sure. When I was trying to "opt-out" of the order I know I didn't give a rat's ass to what they had patented!
All the points you raise are good though. It would be interesting to know what the terms given to Apple were. Amazon could have even made it a "sweetheart deal" in order to validate the use of their patent, increase it's acceptance, and improve their image.
But it really does make you wonder if they really want to stay in business. Case in point: their privacy policy. What were they thinking here??? Compare their privacy policy to that of Barnes and Nobles and they are light years apart. B&N goes out of their way to say that your info is safe with them.
Amazon on the other hand should have known (or even cared) that privacy groups would jump all over the changing of their privacy policy, which they did.
If they are so smarty-pants about "One-Click shopping (TM)", why don't they have a "One-Click we-protect-your-information-everywhere" idea??
Both the "One-Click Shopping" and "Privacy Policy" could have been broached in entirely different ways that would't have given their image a kick in the pants. Top that with the "we experiment with customer's pricing" fiasco and you really have to wonder if the aren't trying to run their store into the ground.
I didn't give up Amazon for their "One-Click Shopping". I still did business with them. I did give them up with when they did the customers with the "Privacy Policy". It really is incredibly easy to walk from them as everything they offer can be found somewhere else. The pricing scam only affirms that they are only interested in abusing the customer to make a profit.
Where the patent office probably went off track is when they started patenting "business methods". At least with software patents people were saying "yeah, yeah, it's bad but you can get around it". But with "business methods" somebody may already have been doing business a certain way and somebody else could be patenting it. There is not going to be a "public repository" in place for "business methods" like thre is for "algorithms".
The patent office is no longer patenting "novelty" but they seem to be patenting "use". Copyright is the same way. They are not protecting "the right to copy" but "how you use the material".
Just because an idea is "subtly different" does not make it "novel". What you have then is a developer that is afraid to use his own ideas because they might already be patented!
The patent term of 25 years (or even 20?) does seem to be a bit long for some of these ideas. You get the feeling that if "business methods" patents had a term of say "ten years" people might would think twice if it was worth really worth patenting a "bussiness method".
I personally feel like a lot of the software patents could be busted by prior art. It's just unfortunate that their is not anybody willing to do the leg work (e.g. patent office) unless you're on the receiving end of a lawsuit for infringement.
Yeah, maybe you're right, but I don't know I got snagged up though. I was reading all over the place to undo my one click!!!! I must have read the equivalent of a cheap Harlequin Romance to undo the deal!
Maybe they did the same thing that they have been doing with prices. Meaning, as they charge one user one price for an item, and then they charge another user an entirely different price for the exact same item. They say that this was an "experiment". Maybe they were "experimenting" on me. I know that I did make this order as they were just starting 1-click, so maybe enough people complained that the put a 90 minute "back out" in there.
I do know one thing, I would have liked to have found it when I was ordering. Maybe I didn't find it because I was frantic and my eyes could have blurred over!
It was a small order though, so it wasn't too bad. You know, when they first came out with 1-click and I wasn't able to back out, I should have patented the "90 minute back-out"!!!!
I've used Amazon's one click before (once), not fully realizing that it truly is a "done deal". No amount of clicking let's you change your mind, or preview an order. So let it be known that I am proud to announce my
Two Click Shopping (TM)
U.S. and foreign patents pending.
With this revolutionary technology you will now be able to "check" an order, or "preview" it before we ship to you. If you want to back out for any reason whatsoever, or change the order, you can do that with a "second click".
But Two Click Shopping is even more versatile now, as you can use the "second click" to "affirm" the order. It will henceforth be processed in a prompt manner and you can expect speedy shipment.
If you have any problems with the above, or disagree with it in any manner, or want to use any "multiple click" technology, this will be in violation of the EULA of this post. Moderating this post "down" as "troll" or "flamebait" will be considered as circumvention of the original intention of this post. Please consider this as your Cease and Desist Notice. If you do not bring youself into compliance immediately, I will be forced to contact Dutch l33t h4x0r Nohican who will change your password and email it to the penis bird troll.
Thank you for your attention, and I hope we can come to a satisfactory
resolution to this matter.
It's true. The main page gets 1 - 2 million hits a day, and these other pages get like five, maybe 10 on a busy day.
But whose fault is this??? Everybody knows that these "secondary" pages exist. What's more, the're one (1) mouse click away. I mean, how much effort does it take to click your mouse once???
People bitch and moan about the shortcomings of slashdot incessantly. Some of their gripes are justified, but it isn't "their" site anyway. There are lot of secondary sites out there, and you can create your own. It's true, nobody hangs out on these other pages (just like they don't hang out on slashdot's secondary pages!).
The thing is, if you are complaining about slashdot, then you are not "in the spirit" of slashdot. You have to take it for what it is. Reactionary, biased, contentious, and often off the cuff in its' presentation. That's just what "it is". The warts are part of its appeal.
So, if you want unbiased, marketdroid canned news, there's always CNN. I often will clickaround if I want to get another "unbiased" view on a news story. I try not to be too judgemental about the zealots around on slashdot (especially if I disagree with them), because I'm probably one too.
Normally it's not too good to feed an offtopic troll like yourself, but this one is particularly cute.
This one references the above patents mentioned in parent post. We know this patent by that cable you can plug from your TV to your computer.
What is interesting is this little blurb in the patent;
This application is related to copending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/151,471, entitled, "METHOD FOR INTERFACING SCANNED PRODUCT INFORMATION WITH A SOURCE FOR THE PRODUCT OVER A GLOBAL NETWORK" filed of even date herewith.
But this patent has yet to be granted, and is probably the one that they think is going to (or already does in their minds) protect their IP.
Call me a nit picker, but isn't "global network" the same as "the internet"???
isn't that the same as "clent/server"????
So if they manage to get this patent (I wouldn't put it beyond the patent office), they would essentially be patenting location.
But this raises a deeper question (like from an outhouse:)), Isn't "Global Network" the same as "Web Browser". Parsing "Web Browser" (I know, it's sinking lower, but it's not my fault), it is intended to mean (or is a shorter version of) "World Wide Web Browser".
So, isn't "World Wide Web" or "Global Network" or "Internet" interchangable??
Maybe this is one of those "Business Methods" patents. If it is, then it might be infringing on this patent;
patent #5,918,214 System and method for finding product and service related information on the internet. IPF inc - filed Oct 25, 1996 - granted June 29, 1999 Classification 705/27:DATA PROCESSING: FINANCIAL, BUSINESS PRACTICE, MANAGEMENT, OR COST/PRICE DETERMINATION:Electronic shopping (e.g., remote ordering) - Presentation of image or description of sales item (e.g., electronic catalog browsing).
First, let me state that IANAL before I make these observations;
Clearly, what is been patented here is "use" more than anything. The claims on some of these patents are so utterly specific that half a turn on a screw would make them a different patent. One could cogently argue that novelty is lost in the patent office. The IBM patent while filed later than Neomedia one seems to cover the actual working setup, in which case Digital Convergence may need a license from them (if they don't have one already). What's left is "The doing business this way" patents.
Second; this is valid if and only if all these patents are valid (Hold up in court). So, if you are hauled into court remember that chances are quite high that the judge will be technically illiterate and judgement may rest on who dresses the nicest.
Third; No business practice should interfere with freedom of speech. I am positive that allot of IP holders are assuming now that they are empowered to control what you say. Again, depending on which judge they may be able to buy, they might be right.
Fourth; I just covered scanning "objects". There's a whole slew of Metrologic patents that cover scannning "printed" barcodes and going to the internet and variations thereof. I wonder if Digital Convergence has licensed those?? Maybe they think that they can use "slanted line barcodes" like in the radioshack catalog and that makes it different. Knowing the patent office, that could be the case. But if I were Metrologic I'd be looking for a piece of DC's butt.
Fifth; IBM might be reasonable on licensing their patent to GPL applications. This would benifit IBM as it would help validate the use of their patent and find other possible applications for this technology. And as long you don't use your barcode scanner to go to a catalog or show where you can buy something or show it's price (i.e. commercial applications, because there are probably countless variations on a theme here, and other hostile companies like Digital Convergence) you wouldn't be infringing on other patents. They probably will be easier to work with than Digital Convergence in any event.
Most importantly, if I were on the receiving end of one of these letters by Digital Convergence I would find a smart lawyer and have him write a letter back asking for specific information as to what patents/IP (as the DMCA could come into play) you are violating. Without them presenting this information, they really don't have a right to crow. If the patent that they quote is one that they don't own, then they may not have standing. But again, let your lawyer decide that.
As citizens, we really do need to take back our "fair use" rights.
Yeah. it makes you wonder. You're right about artists willing to swallow anything to get in the business. So you can't help but wonder when half the crowd walked out when Napster's inventor showed up on stage at the music awards was because the RIAA "told them to". Probably a lot of arm twisting/blackmail/lying. An organized effort like that among artists just doesn't "happen" spontaneously.
It's just too bad that the majority of the music traded on napster is copyrighted/pirated. Napster does have potential and the technology could be used (legally) for dozens of other purposes besides music. But napster has set themselves up to be the sacrificial lamb of the old guard that can't stand the thought of losing a single nickel (which by recent numbers of CD sales shows that it just is not happenning - ironically napster is probably helping sales). But you know, it's about "principal" (translation: greed).
Napster is not "the" problen though. Napster is "a symptom" of the problem. The real problem is a overly restrictive and bad copyright law (thanks to special interests buying congress), and the internet that could largely render copyright law irrelevant - but not without copyright holders giving a fight.
It really is amazing how restrictive the DMCA is, and how utterly useless also. Take a look at this link that makes the case that the DMCA won't work (besides it being unconstitutional).
I digress. I would hope that this will be an opportunity for unknown artists (and I am quite sure that there are alot of high caliber ones) can bubble up to the surface when the big labels put all their music into proprietary encrypted formats. They will be "independent", and thus free from RIAAs iron grip. And maybe people will listen to them more than major labels. That would give the labels a cut into their revenue stream that they so richly deserve.
The CDs that these "indies" will produce will be cheaper too (so that they will compete against the outrageous $20 CD - not hard to do). And artists would earn more money even with these lower price CDs. That's why the RIAA is fighting napster so hard. Not because people swap a lot of "copyrighted music". But because they want to keep the artificial price of CDs high, and their grubby hands in artists pockes.
So in the end, the RIAA and fellow cronies will only give up their monopoly business when it is pried from their cold dead hands.
All you have to do is scratch the surface to see the puss ooze. For instance;
Actually, it was Linda Daschle, wife of Democratic Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle who lobbied on the behalf of the drug companies to pass the bill through.
Actually, if Hatch has balls why didn't he use them to put his name on his legislation???? See here.
Also, you can follow the history of this crap legislation here.
That, and if Disney were to have lost those trademarks, it would have lost the core of their business, costing a hell of a lot of jobs
It is not the purpose of the constitution to "provide jobs for Disney employees". Sure, that was Disney's teary eye plea, but it doesn't wash. This is the epitome of "corporate welfare". Maybe they could think of some new ideas to sell, like the constitution intended??? See all of the pathetic arguments dealt with here and here and here and most importantly here
He's an artist himself, so he undertstands both the need to protect content creators as well as the need for people to be able to copy works they own.
Actually, he doesn't have a clue. See this letter written to him.
And people who have "copyrights" don't "own" their work. It was only meant to be a temporary "right to copy". Not a perpetual "right to own". See this for a detailed history and explanation.
and what the hell relevance does it have to any of this anyway?
I guess when Senator Hatch speaks "in favor" of the consumer as he does here in the NYT article, he pegs the BS meter now.
As for the link, several Democratic senators were also involved in the copyright extensions
Oops, you're right here. This is not a "Democratic" or "Republican" issue. It's a "represent the public interest issue before those of lobbyists" issue.
don't know. I have posted this rant to a mail list already, so those that have seen it please close your eyes.
> "The government's view of the law is not monolithic, however. Senator
> Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah and chairman of the Senate Judiciary
> Committee, recently wrote a letter to the Court of Appeals stating that
> the government's brief does not necessarily express the views of the
> Congress in the matter. "
I live in Utah where Senator Hatch is up for re-election. As someone who once knew Senator Hatch, I'm really sorry to say that he _is not_ your fair use friend.
As head of the Judiciary Committee he was one of the principal authors of the DMCA. Also, he was the one that sponsered the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA).
When the MPAA and a few pals roll into town he is only too willing to roll over and support their cause after a few "donations". The conservative "Eagle Forum" explains how Disney has clout with the republican congress.
He was the one who put forth from "anonymous" a bill attached to unrelated legislation to extend the term for drug patents. (ala the "as a work for hire" fiasco that took song rights from musicians). It's the least he could do after riding around in Schering-Plough's corporate jet, the ones who have the patent for Claritin that is about to expire. Too bad seniors (AARP) noticed because they have enough of a hard time as it is paying for prescriptions. It sort of makes the republican's plan for a prescription drug benifit ring hollow.
If he really cared about "fair use", he would have delineated it by now in the DMCA. Or at least given half a thought about the "anti-crcumvention" monster that he created.
My guess is that he wanted to blow some hot air in the sails of the Good Ship Lollipop before she goes down, knowing full well that "fair use" has already been tossed in a lockbox and thrown overboard to the unattainable deep.
Sure he looks good for supporting Napster and "fair use". Just too bad that he really smells.
Really fellow computer users need to remember this day. This needs to be the war cry that we all pick up a copy of linux and do whatever we can to make it better. We need to make it more accessible, more usable, more pervasive. And then when we are done we need to write an application for it.
If you don't want to program, how about becoming a beta tester and find bugs? If not that, how about working on documentation? How about making yourself available on IRC to answer questions?
And we all need to help others install and get started with it.
you don't need high voltage to see caps explode. Just plug a tantulum capacitor in backwords at twice it's rated voltage (for sure fire, though they often explode when backwards at rated voltage) and it really is better than a firecracker.
It's patents that only used to last for 17 years, which was recently raised to 20. But the problems with patents pale in comparison to that of copyrights.
Copyrights, on the other hand last for 95 years with the recent adoption by the Copyright Term Extension Act, otherwise known as the Sonny Bono act (what a miserable way to remember somebody if you ask me).
What this means is that if something is copyrighted today, you or any children you might have now will not see it released into the public domain in your or their lifetimes.
And there is nothing in the law that says that they "have to" release encryption information to the public either, thus giving companies and distant heirs to the original authors a "perpetual copyright". The constitution only provides copyright to the authors for a "limited times" (exact words). It wasn't intended to provide copyright as welfare to grandchildren of authors or companies that exist forever (as copyright was intended for the author of the work only). Really, copyright law could be argued unconstitutional on that point alone. (And I can't fathom that lower court judge not throwing out the CTEA, or Kaplan, whose appointing these judges anyway? Whose payroll are they on?)
So copyright is a "temporary right". Just that congress' idea of temporary is infinity-1. Really, it is a disgraceful representation of the public interest as there can be. This stinks on so many different levels that I've never had a worse hate for congress in my life. And this is not a republican versus democrat issue either, it's a "serve and protect the publics interest" issue. Quite honestly, I don't swap MP3s and all the music I listen to is legal. But I'm starting to look for an eyepatch.
If there is one congressperosn to blame, that would have to be my own Senator Orrin Hatch. He was the one that is head of the Judiciary Commitee, and played the key role for authoring the DMCA. If you read the congressional record on the DMCA, you get an idea of what kind of kissy fest it was for special interests. He also was the sponser of the Sonny Bono act, and he also tried to sneak a bill (by amending unrelated legislation) to extend the life of patents for drug companies. As if seniors can't afford their medication already. What a disgrace of representation for the public. His record is a complete and thorough shame in this area. I would ask all fellow Utahns to recognize this and vote him out of office on this iszsue alone. If he can't represent your interests here, do you think he is going to represent your interests in other places??? Oh yes, his recent support of Napster is a complete crock. Don't think for a second that he is representing the publics' interest on this point. I really think that he is saying to himself "Napster is going down anyway, I might as well look good as the lone ranger and support it, so I can pull the wool over a few teenagers eyes, and get their vote".
On the basis of his record, that is very likely his thought process. He has got to be one of the slimiest politicians around. Talk about rolling over with his legs in the air for big money interests. He was good at one time, now he is corruption personified.
This is the first time in history that we are not seeing copyrights enter into the public domain. No, this is not in the public's interest. It's in the interests of the Corporations and distant heirs to copyright owners. The arguements made by Janet Reno in support of the CTEA are quite easily refuted (go to open law for more info). What a loser. You'd think she would know the constitution. Jimmy Stewarts "its a Wonderful Life" never became popular until it became public domain. And there's another story of a copyright re-hijacked. And I don't think that any music recordings have entered the public domain either, as allot of the stuff from the 1920's is still protected by copyright. (Yes, that's how ludicrous it is).
It really is putrid beyond belief. Why even have a copyright in the first place???? No, I think it is time for a constitutional amendment abolishing all copyrights. If the public are not going to get their due, why should they protect that which benifits others??
So much as encryption goes, that is a misuse of copyright to control how and when somebody uses somehing that they purchased. I would like to see copyright owners lose their copyright for doing this. There really needs to be some lawsuits in this area if for no other reason than to call attention to how the public and the constitution are being raped.
look at this with a critical eye. It's just another story that tells the public that anybody that programs a computer is a cracker. And they accept it blindly.
In the MSNBC article, they have a box 'The history of Hacking', which has Emmanuel Goldstein as starting 2600 as a clearinghouse for hackers, and the last page Masters of Reverse Engineering (MORE) noting the DeCSS player.
Forget that we wanted to play DVDs on linux. Forget that we have a right to reverse engineer. Forget free speech.
cnet also ran this story, and there was this choice quote;
Everett Eaton, public safety director at OSU, said the department obtained a search warrant from the Payne County District Court in Oklahoma and seized the student's computer equipment.
"We're doing some forensic review of the hard drive and determining what is there," Eaton said. "After we finish that review, we will evaluate the amount of substance he was distributing."
That would be great if they would make it a patent issue, because the constitution was not intended to have one play off the other, creating a "super monopoly" The arrogance of the MPAA is stupefying though, because that's exactly what they are trying to do.
There was a discussion about this on openlaw. Not so much that they have patents (I'm sure somebody does, knowing how the PTO is patenting the time of day now), but that they are using their copyright in a patent like manner,
But this is just the beginning folks. Next week the MPAA is holding their crypto-warez meeting in LA. To see what kind of fun they have in store for us, go here.
One aarguement for the new batch of software players is that software patents can't preempt mathematical algorithyms, which the new brute forcing dvd player does now. (In fact the DeCSS code doesn't work on new disks as the Xing key was revoked). See here.
In other less than stellar news Senator Leahy made this statement today:
In 1998, the Chairman and I worked closely together on the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act, "DMCA," to advance the complementary goals
of protecting intellectual property rights in a digitally-networked
world and promoting the continued growth of electronic commerce and
development of innovative technologies. As new online services are
launched and new websites created, the DMCA is helping order the
online environment. For example, earlier this year a federal court
relied on the DMCA to shut down websites that were used to post a
computer program permitting users to break the encryption used to
protect copyrighted motion pictures on DVDs, and copy the movies
without permission. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes,
82 F. Supp.2d 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
All this makes me feel pissy allover. Go to openlaw to feel even more pissy.
Re:I don't think this is the wrong place to talk
on
FBI Rep To Speak
·
· Score: 1
I take that back. Do wear you DVD/CCA shirt.
I don't think this is the wrong place to talk
on
FBI Rep To Speak
·
· Score: 1
about DVD/DeCSS.
The question you need to ask is, "Will Carnivore be used to monitor those people who are 'emailing' (i.e trafficking) the now illegal source code DeCSS if Judge Kaplan ruling holds???
another great question is;
Has the MPAA approached the FBI to help in their effort to in finding those who are working with DeCSS???
Or maybe you could get a general question in like "How often does the MPAA contact you concerning pirated movies on the net???
If he wants to clam up about the MPAA, you can ask "Can Carnivore be used to monitor those who are emailing illegal programs???
Or will Carnivore be used on people sending MP3's to enforce copyright???
So these questions are just off the top of my head. I bet that if it was given some thought you could really "probe" alot better.
Entirely appropriate to show up. Wear some penguines.
I thought that everybody would be interested in this little news blurb:
> Valenti has founded a new department
> within the Motion Picture Association
> called Digital Strategies "to involve
> ourselves in digital rights management
> procedures so we can clothe our
> movies in a protective shield that
> would disallow them to be copied by
> anybody.
This is the kicker:
> Sniffers will instantly pluck out
> anything out there that's unauthorized."
Circumventing encryption technology is now against federal copyright law. Trafficking in DeCSS would fall under federal commerce laws since it is a form of insterstate trade. But hey, don't let me tell you that - listen to the goat's mouth (from this link at the end of the Salon Article);
We formed what is called a copyright assembly just two weeks ago, in which every single enterprise in this country to which copyright protection is vital -- professional baseball, basketball, hockey, golf, NASCAR, NCAA, broadcasters, television stations, cable systems, music songwriters, movies, television programs -- they've all banded together to and make it clear to the Congress that if a hosting or thievery or absconding or illegal use, or unauthorized use of the property of all these enterprises -- which, by the way, dominate the world -- is allowed to go untended by some kind of a protective shield , the nation's economy is the loser. (italics mine).
So I think that it would be reasonable to say that what he means by "protective shield" is not Star Wars or safe sex.
to think it does. And in the confusion that is presently called copyright everybody has bought off on this idea. But it's not just Slashdotters who are confused about copyright - everybody is. Including, which is very depressing to say, our lower courts. So we are in good (bad!) company. The erosion of our public "copyright" has reached the point where we have been put in a "virtual prison", and by illusion have lost all our rights given to us by our constitution. I say by "illusion", because companies want us to believe that we don't own the work that they sell us, that we just "rent it".
The startling fact of the matter is, and some of you are going to have a hard time believing this is - but it's true- that copyright owners do not "own" the work that they have a copyright for. They own the right to copy only, not the work that they have a copyright for. See the link below to understand this (and before you email me in a huff). So the notion of "intellectual property" is not constitutional. Only the "right to copy" is constitutional.
Congress has sold us down the river Big Time. They have bastardized copyright law to the point that it is only good for suing people, which is exactly what MPAA/RIAA and pals wanted in the first place. If anybody wants to have _any_ right to fair use in the future, we have to get organized. Whatever shreds of public access to the works of authors, both past, present and future - we _must_ protect. It's so bad that nobody knows what those rights are any more, and especially what they should be. You must read this to appreciate fully what's going on here. And to understand that Congress has enacted unconstitutional laws at the bequest of companies, and nobody has noticed until now. Please email me (kphil(at)hotmail)if you are interested in organizing to reclaim our public rights. It's going to be long, hard, and boring work. But it has to be done.
of the people I talk to. They think it absolutely does not matter one iota. The either don't know, don't understand, don't care, or don't want to be bothered.
Admittedly, some of the issues are technical, complicated, and the result of letting the media mafia get their way is not apparent.
The fact of the matter is that the same symptom that has produced bad copyright law has also been unable to do anything about healthcare. And that's a congress that is overrun with special interests. See what a billionare says about it here.
I would like to start an informal discussion on IRC on organizing/strategies to correct/inform public attitude about this. If you are one those who want do something, email me kphil(at)hotmaiI
Slashdot Mirror
Reading all these posts is like reading war vs. peace, they're all right.
I suppose a good analogy would be like the old 17th century "pistol duels" where two 'gentlemen' could disagree as gentlemen and then settle the matter out in the field with a couple of single shot muskets at ten paces......
That's the really scary thought - that he is just "the mouth". I mean if it was just Jack, ok then. But it's not. It's that Sony VP saying they're going to stop at nothing to protect their copyrights (whatever that means to them now). It's like they got there own 'little cult' of thou shall not use unless we say so when. It's their hired engineers who are not thinking about just "40 bit encryption" but "128 bit encryption" for the next generation of HDTV players.
That's the one big impression that I got from the debate. How utterly intransigent Valenti's position is (thus the MPAA's too). It is apparent that there is no 'room' for negotiating. He couldn't bring himself to concede any point. The best he did was "talk around" debate points.
"If you want to change the law, you have to go to congress to do that" Jack Valenti said, almost in a smug way that was like he finally had bought the copyright law he always wanted.
Just too bad that we don't have the thousands of dollars to buy off congress like he does.
It's an Internet Explorer thing. I got the same error. I closed out and used Netscape and I didn't have a problem with it thru to the end.
My guess - a bug in the JVM.
yeah, look at this;
:) )
2000-09-27 01:59:24 Jack Valenti vs. Lessig: the debate (articles,internet) (rejected)
I know that they can only post a certain number of stories a day, but they could have squeezed this off the main and put in "YRO you rights online" I forgive the guys on this though. I'm sure that there are some who are tired of the whole DeCSS thing, and think that slashdot has become "all MPAA all the time". What I can't understand is why this wasn't on CSPAN2. This is far more interesting than some of the drone book authors they have on there (in my very biased opinion
Still, it was fun seeing ol' Jack pull out the 'occam's razor' and call us all thieves, and us ranting about his funny looking hair behind his back on the chat channel.....
Sure. When I was trying to "opt-out" of the order I know I didn't give a rat's ass to what they had patented!
All the points you raise are good though. It would be interesting to know what the terms given to Apple were. Amazon could have even made it a "sweetheart deal" in order to validate the use of their patent, increase it's acceptance, and improve their image.
But it really does make you wonder if they really want to stay in business. Case in point: their privacy policy. What were they thinking here??? Compare their privacy policy to that of Barnes and Nobles and they are light years apart. B&N goes out of their way to say that your info is safe with them.
Amazon on the other hand should have known (or even cared) that privacy groups would jump all over the changing of their privacy policy, which they did.
If they are so smarty-pants about "One-Click shopping (TM)", why don't they have a "One-Click we-protect-your-information-everywhere" idea??
Both the "One-Click Shopping" and "Privacy Policy" could have been broached in entirely different ways that would't have given their image a kick in the pants. Top that with the "we experiment with customer's pricing" fiasco and you really have to wonder if the aren't trying to run their store into the ground.
I didn't give up Amazon for their "One-Click Shopping". I still did business with them. I did give them up with when they did the customers with the "Privacy Policy". It really is incredibly easy to walk from them as everything they offer can be found somewhere else. The pricing scam only affirms that they are only interested in abusing the customer to make a profit.
Where the patent office probably went off track is when they started patenting "business methods". At least with software patents people were saying "yeah, yeah, it's bad but you can get around it". But with "business methods" somebody may already have been doing business a certain way and somebody else could be patenting it. There is not going to be a "public repository" in place for "business methods" like thre is for "algorithms".
The patent office is no longer patenting "novelty" but they seem to be patenting "use". Copyright is the same way. They are not protecting "the right to copy" but "how you use the material".
Just because an idea is "subtly different" does not make it "novel". What you have then is a developer that is afraid to use his own ideas because they might already be patented!
The patent term of 25 years (or even 20?) does seem to be a bit long for some of these ideas. You get the feeling that if "business methods" patents had a term of say "ten years" people might would think twice if it was worth really worth patenting a "bussiness method".
I personally feel like a lot of the software patents could be busted by prior art. It's just unfortunate that their is not anybody willing to do the leg work (e.g. patent office) unless you're on the receiving end of a lawsuit for infringement.
Yeah, maybe you're right, but I don't know I got snagged up though. I was reading all over the place to undo my one click!!!! I must have read the equivalent of a cheap Harlequin Romance to undo the deal!
Maybe they did the same thing that they have been doing with prices. Meaning, as they charge one user one price for an item, and then they charge another user an entirely different price for the exact same item. They say that this was an "experiment". Maybe they were "experimenting" on me. I know that I did make this order as they were just starting 1-click, so maybe enough people complained that the put a 90 minute "back out" in there.
I do know one thing, I would have liked to have found it when I was ordering. Maybe I didn't find it because I was frantic and my eyes could have blurred over!
It was a small order though, so it wasn't too bad. You know, when they first came out with 1-click and I wasn't able to back out, I should have patented the "90 minute back-out"!!!!
I've used Amazon's one click before (once), not fully realizing that it truly is a "done deal". No amount of clicking let's you change your mind, or preview an order. So let it be known that I am proud to announce my
Two Click Shopping (TM)
U.S. and foreign patents pending.
With this revolutionary technology you will now be able to "check" an order, or "preview" it before we ship to you. If you want to back out for any reason whatsoever, or change the order, you can do that with a "second click".
But Two Click Shopping is even more versatile now, as you can use the "second click" to "affirm" the order. It will henceforth be processed in a prompt manner and you can expect speedy shipment.
If you have any problems with the above, or disagree with it in any manner, or want to use any "multiple click" technology, this will be in violation of the EULA of this post. Moderating this post "down" as "troll" or "flamebait" will be considered as circumvention of the original intention of this post. Please consider this as your Cease and Desist Notice. If you do not bring youself into compliance immediately, I will be forced to contact Dutch l33t h4x0r Nohican who will change your password and email it to the penis bird troll.
Thank you for your attention, and I hope we can come to a satisfactory
resolution to this matter.
Very Truly Yours,
Slashdot user eclectro #227083
It's true. The main page gets 1 - 2 million hits a day, and these other pages get like five, maybe 10 on a busy day.
But whose fault is this??? Everybody knows that these "secondary" pages exist. What's more, the're one (1) mouse click away. I mean, how much effort does it take to click your mouse once???
People bitch and moan about the shortcomings of slashdot incessantly. Some of their gripes are justified, but it isn't "their" site anyway. There are lot of secondary sites out there, and you can create your own. It's true, nobody hangs out on these other pages (just like they don't hang out on slashdot's secondary pages!).
The thing is, if you are complaining about slashdot, then you are not "in the spirit" of slashdot. You have to take it for what it is. Reactionary, biased, contentious, and often off the cuff in its' presentation. That's just what "it is". The warts are part of its appeal.
So, if you want unbiased, marketdroid canned news, there's always CNN. I often will clickaround if I want to get another "unbiased" view on a news story. I try not to be too judgemental about the zealots around on slashdot (especially if I disagree with them), because I'm probably one too.
Normally it's not too good to feed an offtopic troll like yourself, but this one is particularly cute.
Actually, if you take a close look at these patents, you have to ask yourself "What's going on here???".
:)), Isn't "Global Network" the same as "Web Browser". Parsing "Web Browser" (I know, it's sinking lower, but it's not my fault), it is intended to mean (or is a shorter version of) "World Wide Web Browser".
First, let's backtrack to the one patent that we know that Digital Convergence has.
That would be this one:
Patent #6,098,106 Method for controlling a computer with an audio signal. Granted Aug 1, 2000
This one references the above patents mentioned in parent post. We know this patent by that cable you can plug from your TV to your computer.
What is interesting is this little blurb in the patent;
This application is related to copending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/151,471, entitled, "METHOD FOR INTERFACING SCANNED PRODUCT INFORMATION WITH A SOURCE FOR THE PRODUCT OVER A GLOBAL NETWORK" filed of even date herewith.
But this patent has yet to be granted, and is probably the one that they think is going to (or already does in their minds) protect their IP.
Call me a nit picker, but isn't "global network" the same as "the internet"???
isn't that the same as "clent/server"????
So if they manage to get this patent (I wouldn't put it beyond the patent office), they would essentially be patenting location.
But this raises a deeper question (like from an outhouse
So, isn't "World Wide Web" or "Global Network" or "Internet" interchangable??
Maybe this is one of those "Business Methods" patents. If it is, then it might be infringing on this patent;
patent #5,918,214 System and method for finding product and service related information on the internet. IPF inc - filed Oct 25, 1996 - granted June 29, 1999 Classification 705/27:DATA PROCESSING: FINANCIAL, BUSINESS PRACTICE, MANAGEMENT, OR COST/PRICE DETERMINATION:Electronic shopping (e.g., remote ordering) - Presentation of image or description of sales item (e.g., electronic catalog browsing).
Let's review the Neomedia patent;
patent #5,978,773 System and method for using an ordinary article of commerce to access a remote computer. Neomedia Technologies - filed Oct 3, 1995 - granted Sept 2, 1999 Classification 705/23:DATA PROCESSING: FINANCIAL, BUSINESS PRACTICE, MANAGEMENT, OR COST/PRICE DETERMINATION:. Including point of sale terminal or electronic cash register - . . Input by product or record sensing (weighing, scanner processing).
Then, let's compare it to this one;
patent #5,804,803 Mechanism for retrieving information using data encoded on an objectIBM - filed April 2, 1996 - granted - Sept 8, 1998 Classification 235/375:REGISTERS:SYSTEMS CONTROLLED BY DATA BEARING RECORDS.
First, let me state that IANAL before I make these observations;
Clearly, what is been patented here is "use" more than anything. The claims on some of these patents are so utterly specific that half a turn on a screw would make them a different patent. One could cogently argue that novelty is lost in the patent office. The IBM patent while filed later than Neomedia one seems to cover the actual working setup, in which case Digital Convergence may need a license from them (if they don't have one already). What's left is "The doing business this way" patents.
Second; this is valid if and only if all these patents are valid (Hold up in court). So, if you are hauled into court remember that chances are quite high that the judge will be technically illiterate and judgement may rest on who dresses the nicest.
Third; No business practice should interfere with freedom of speech. I am positive that allot of IP holders are assuming now that they are empowered to control what you say. Again, depending on which judge they may be able to buy, they might be right.
Fourth; I just covered scanning "objects". There's a whole slew of Metrologic patents that cover scannning "printed" barcodes and going to the internet and variations thereof. I wonder if Digital Convergence has licensed those?? Maybe they think that they can use "slanted line barcodes" like in the radioshack catalog and that makes it different. Knowing the patent office, that could be the case. But if I were Metrologic I'd be looking for a piece of DC's butt.
Fifth; IBM might be reasonable on licensing their patent to GPL applications. This would benifit IBM as it would help validate the use of their patent and find other possible applications for this technology. And as long you don't use your barcode scanner to go to a catalog or show where you can buy something or show it's price (i.e. commercial applications, because there are probably countless variations on a theme here, and other hostile companies like Digital Convergence) you wouldn't be infringing on other patents. They probably will be easier to work with than Digital Convergence in any event.
Most importantly, if I were on the receiving end of one of these letters by Digital Convergence I would find a smart lawyer and have him write a letter back asking for specific information as to what patents/IP (as the DMCA could come into play) you are violating. Without them presenting this information, they really don't have a right to crow. If the patent that they quote is one that they don't own, then they may not have standing. But again, let your lawyer decide that.
As citizens, we really do need to take back our "fair use" rights.
Yeah. it makes you wonder. You're right about artists willing to swallow anything to get in the business. So you can't help but wonder when half the crowd walked out when Napster's inventor showed up on stage at the music awards was because the RIAA "told them to". Probably a lot of arm twisting/blackmail/lying. An organized effort like that among artists just doesn't "happen" spontaneously.
It's just too bad that the majority of the music traded on napster is copyrighted/pirated. Napster does have potential and the technology could be used (legally) for dozens of other purposes besides music. But napster has set themselves up to be the sacrificial lamb of the old guard that can't stand the thought of losing a single nickel (which by recent numbers of CD sales shows that it just is not happenning - ironically napster is probably helping sales). But you know, it's about "principal" (translation: greed).
Napster is not "the" problen though. Napster is "a symptom" of the problem. The real problem is a overly restrictive and bad copyright law (thanks to special interests buying congress), and the internet that could largely render copyright law irrelevant - but not without copyright holders giving a fight.
It really is amazing how restrictive the DMCA is, and how utterly useless also. Take a look at this link that makes the case that the DMCA won't work (besides it being unconstitutional).
I digress. I would hope that this will be an opportunity for unknown artists (and I am quite sure that there are alot of high caliber ones) can bubble up to the surface when the big labels put all their music into proprietary encrypted formats. They will be "independent", and thus free from RIAAs iron grip. And maybe people will listen to them more than major labels. That would give the labels a cut into their revenue stream that they so richly deserve.
The CDs that these "indies" will produce will be cheaper too (so that they will compete against the outrageous $20 CD - not hard to do). And artists would earn more money even with these lower price CDs. That's why the RIAA is fighting napster so hard. Not because people swap a lot of "copyrighted music". But because they want to keep the artificial price of CDs high, and their grubby hands in artists pockes.
So in the end, the RIAA and fellow cronies will only give up their monopoly business when it is pried from their cold dead hands.
One can only hope that it is real soon now.
All you have to do is scratch the surface to see the puss ooze. For instance;
Actually, it was Linda Daschle, wife of Democratic Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle who lobbied on the behalf of the drug companies to pass the bill through.
Actually, if Hatch has balls why didn't he use them to put his name on his legislation???? See here.
Also, you can follow the history of this crap legislation here.
That, and if Disney were to have lost those trademarks, it would have lost the core of their business, costing a hell of a lot of jobs
It is not the purpose of the constitution to "provide jobs for Disney employees". Sure, that was Disney's teary eye plea, but it doesn't wash. This is the epitome of "corporate welfare". Maybe they could think of some new ideas to sell, like the constitution intended??? See all of the pathetic arguments dealt with here and here and here and most importantly here
He's an artist himself, so he undertstands both the need to protect content creators as well as the need for people to be able to copy works they own.
Actually, he doesn't have a clue. See this letter written to him.
And people who have "copyrights" don't "own" their work. It was only meant to be a temporary "right to copy". Not a perpetual "right to own". See this for a detailed history and explanation.
and what the hell relevance does it have to any of this anyway?
I guess when Senator Hatch speaks "in favor" of the consumer as he does here in the NYT article, he pegs the BS meter now.
As for the link, several Democratic senators were also involved in the copyright extensions
Oops, you're right here. This is not a "Democratic" or "Republican" issue. It's a "represent the public interest issue before those of lobbyists" issue.
It would have been a perfect troll otherwise.
don't know. I have posted this rant to a mail list already, so those that have seen it please close your eyes.
> "The government's view of the law is not monolithic, however. Senator
> Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah and chairman of the Senate Judiciary
> Committee, recently wrote a letter to the Court of Appeals stating that
> the government's brief does not necessarily express the views of the
> Congress in the matter. "
I live in Utah where Senator Hatch is up for re-election. As someone who once knew Senator Hatch, I'm really sorry to say that he _is not_ your fair use friend.
As head of the Judiciary Committee he was one of the principal authors of the DMCA. Also, he was the one that sponsered the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA).
When the MPAA and a few pals roll into town he is only too willing to roll over and support their cause after a few "donations". The conservative "Eagle Forum" explains how Disney has clout with the republican congress.
He was the one who put forth from "anonymous" a bill attached to unrelated legislation to extend the term for drug patents. (ala the "as a work for hire" fiasco that took song rights from musicians). It's the least he could do after riding around in Schering-Plough's corporate jet, the ones who have the patent for Claritin that is about to expire. Too bad seniors (AARP) noticed because they have enough of a hard time as it is paying for prescriptions. It sort of makes the republican's plan for a prescription drug benifit ring hollow.
If he really cared about "fair use", he would have delineated it by now in the DMCA. Or at least given half a thought about the "anti-crcumvention" monster that he created.
My guess is that he wanted to blow some hot air in the sails of the Good Ship Lollipop before she goes down, knowing full well that "fair use" has already been tossed in a lockbox and thrown overboard to the unattainable deep.
Sure he looks good for supporting Napster and "fair use". Just too bad that he really smells.
to bring back the forum2000.org IMHO.
Really fellow computer users need to remember this day. This needs to be the war cry that we all pick up a copy of linux and do whatever we can to make it better . We need to make it more accessible, more usable, more pervasive. And then when we are done we need to write an application for it.
If you don't want to program, how about becoming a beta tester and find bugs? If not that, how about working on documentation? How about making yourself available on IRC to answer questions?
And we all need to help others install and get started with it.
you don't need high voltage to see caps explode. Just plug a tantulum capacitor in backwords at twice it's rated voltage (for sure fire, though they often explode when backwards at rated voltage) and it really is better than a firecracker.
before he gets a cease and decist and has to take down his web page for infringing.
It's patents that only used to last for 17 years, which was recently raised to 20. But the problems with patents pale in comparison to that of copyrights.
Copyrights, on the other hand last for 95 years with the recent adoption by the Copyright Term Extension Act, otherwise known as the Sonny Bono act (what a miserable way to remember somebody if you ask me).
What this means is that if something is copyrighted today, you or any children you might have now will not see it released into the public domain in your or their lifetimes.
And there is nothing in the law that says that they "have to" release encryption information to the public either, thus giving companies and distant heirs to the original authors a "perpetual copyright". The constitution only provides copyright to the authors for a "limited times" (exact words). It wasn't intended to provide copyright as welfare to grandchildren of authors or companies that exist forever (as copyright was intended for the author of the work only). Really, copyright law could be argued unconstitutional on that point alone. (And I can't fathom that lower court judge not throwing out the CTEA, or Kaplan, whose appointing these judges anyway? Whose payroll are they on?)
So copyright is a "temporary right". Just that congress' idea of temporary is infinity-1. Really, it is a disgraceful representation of the public interest as there can be. This stinks on so many different levels that I've never had a worse hate for congress in my life. And this is not a republican versus democrat issue either, it's a "serve and protect the publics interest" issue. Quite honestly, I don't swap MP3s and all the music I listen to is legal. But I'm starting to look for an eyepatch.
If there is one congressperosn to blame, that would have to be my own Senator Orrin Hatch. He was the one that is head of the Judiciary Commitee, and played the key role for authoring the DMCA. If you read the congressional record on the DMCA, you get an idea of what kind of kissy fest it was for special interests. He also was the sponser of the Sonny Bono act, and he also tried to sneak a bill (by amending unrelated legislation) to extend the life of patents for drug companies. As if seniors can't afford their medication already. What a disgrace of representation for the public. His record is a complete and thorough shame in this area. I would ask all fellow Utahns to recognize this and vote him out of office on this iszsue alone. If he can't represent your interests here, do you think he is going to represent your interests in other places??? Oh yes, his recent support of Napster is a complete crock. Don't think for a second that he is representing the publics' interest on this point. I really think that he is saying to himself "Napster is going down anyway, I might as well look good as the lone ranger and support it, so I can pull the wool over a few teenagers eyes, and get their vote".
On the basis of his record, that is very likely his thought process. He has got to be one of the slimiest politicians around. Talk about rolling over with his legs in the air for big money interests. He was good at one time, now he is corruption personified.
This is the first time in history that we are not seeing copyrights enter into the public domain. No, this is not in the public's interest. It's in the interests of the Corporations and distant heirs to copyright owners. The arguements made by Janet Reno in support of the CTEA are quite easily refuted (go to open law for more info). What a loser. You'd think she would know the constitution. Jimmy Stewarts "its a Wonderful Life" never became popular until it became public domain. And there's another story of a copyright re-hijacked. And I don't think that any music recordings have entered the public domain either, as allot of the stuff from the 1920's is still protected by copyright. (Yes, that's how ludicrous it is).
It really is putrid beyond belief. Why even have a copyright in the first place???? No, I think it is time for a constitutional amendment abolishing all copyrights. If the public are not going to get their due, why should they protect that which benifits others??
So much as encryption goes, that is a misuse of copyright to control how and when somebody uses somehing that they purchased. I would like to see copyright owners lose their copyright for doing this. There really needs to be some lawsuits in this area if for no other reason than to call attention to how the public and the constitution are being raped.
look at this with a critical eye. It's just another story that tells the public that anybody that programs a computer is a cracker. And they accept it blindly.
In the MSNBC article, they have a box 'The history of Hacking', which has Emmanuel Goldstein as starting 2600 as a clearinghouse for hackers, and the last page Masters of Reverse Engineering (MORE) noting the DeCSS player.
Forget that we wanted to play DVDs on linux. Forget that we have a right to reverse engineer. Forget free speech.
We're nothing but a bunch of outlaw hackers.
cnet also ran this story, and there was this choice quote;
Everett Eaton, public safety director at OSU, said the department obtained a search warrant from the Payne County District Court in Oklahoma and seized the student's computer equipment.
"We're doing some forensic review of the hard drive and determining what is there," Eaton said. "After we finish that review, we will evaluate the amount of substance he was distributing."
That would be great if they would make it a patent issue, because the constitution was not intended to have one play off the other, creating a "super monopoly" The arrogance of the MPAA is stupefying though, because that's exactly what they are trying to do.
There was a discussion about this on openlaw. Not so much that they have patents (I'm sure somebody does, knowing how the PTO is patenting the time of day now), but that they are using their copyright in a patent like manner,
But this is just the beginning folks. Next week the MPAA is holding their crypto-warez meeting in LA. To see what kind of fun they have in store for us, go here.
One aarguement for the new batch of software players is that software patents can't preempt mathematical algorithyms, which the new brute forcing dvd player does now. (In fact the DeCSS code doesn't work on new disks as the Xing key was revoked). See here.
In other less than stellar news Senator Leahy made this statement today:
In 1998, the Chairman and I worked closely together on the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act, "DMCA," to advance the complementary goals
of protecting intellectual property rights in a digitally-networked
world and promoting the continued growth of electronic commerce and
development of innovative technologies. As new online services are
launched and new websites created, the DMCA is helping order the
online environment. For example, earlier this year a federal court
relied on the DMCA to shut down websites that were used to post a
computer program permitting users to break the encryption used to
protect copyrighted motion pictures on DVDs, and copy the movies
without permission. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes,
82 F. Supp.2d 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
All this makes me feel pissy allover. Go to openlaw to feel even more pissy.
I take that back. Do wear you DVD/CCA shirt.
about DVD/DeCSS.
The question you need to ask is, "Will Carnivore be used to monitor those people who are 'emailing' (i.e trafficking) the now illegal source code DeCSS if Judge Kaplan ruling holds???
another great question is;
Has the MPAA approached the FBI to help in their effort to in finding those who are working with DeCSS???
Or maybe you could get a general question in like "How often does the MPAA contact you concerning pirated movies on the net???
If he wants to clam up about the MPAA, you can ask "Can Carnivore be used to monitor those who are emailing illegal programs???
Or will Carnivore be used on people sending MP3's to enforce copyright???
So these questions are just off the top of my head. I bet that if it was given some thought you could really "probe" alot better.
Entirely appropriate to show up. Wear some penguines.
I thought that everybody would be interested in this little news blurb:
> Valenti has founded a new department
> within the Motion Picture Association
> called Digital Strategies "to involve
> ourselves in digital rights management
> procedures so we can clothe our
> movies in a protective shield that
> would disallow them to be copied by
> anybody.
This is the kicker:
> Sniffers will instantly pluck out
> anything out there that's unauthorized."
Circumventing encryption technology is now against federal copyright law. Trafficking in DeCSS would fall under federal commerce laws since it is a form of insterstate trade. But hey, don't let me tell you that - listen to the goat's mouth (from this link at the end of the Salon Article);
We formed what is called a copyright assembly just two weeks ago, in which every single enterprise in this country to which copyright protection is vital -- professional baseball, basketball, hockey, golf, NASCAR, NCAA, broadcasters, television stations, cable systems, music songwriters, movies, television programs -- they've all banded together to and make it clear to the Congress that if a hosting or thievery or absconding or illegal use, or unauthorized use of the property of all these enterprises -- which, by the way, dominate the world -- is allowed to go untended by some kind of a protective shield , the nation's economy is the loser. (italics mine).
So I think that it would be reasonable to say that what he means by "protective shield" is not Star Wars or safe sex.
No, this singular honor belongs to Carnivore.
to think it does. And in the confusion that is presently called copyright everybody has bought off on this idea. But it's not just Slashdotters who are confused about copyright - everybody is. Including, which is very depressing to say, our lower courts. So we are in good (bad!) company. The erosion of our public "copyright" has reached the point where we have been put in a "virtual prison", and by illusion have lost all our rights given to us by our constitution. I say by "illusion", because companies want us to believe that we don't own the work that they sell us, that we just "rent it".
The startling fact of the matter is, and some of you are going to have a hard time believing this is - but it's true- that copyright owners do not "own" the work that they have a copyright for. They own the right to copy only, not the work that they have a copyright for. See the link below to understand this (and before you email me in a huff). So the notion of "intellectual property" is not constitutional. Only the "right to copy" is constitutional.
Congress has sold us down the river Big Time . They have bastardized copyright law to the point that it is only good for suing people, which is exactly what MPAA/RIAA and pals wanted in the first place. If anybody wants to have _any_ right to fair use in the future, we have to get organized. Whatever shreds of public access to the works of authors, both past, present and future - we _must_ protect. It's so bad that nobody knows what those rights are any more, and especially what they should be . You must read this to appreciate fully what's going on here. And to understand that Congress has enacted unconstitutional laws at the bequest of companies, and nobody has noticed until now. Please email me (kphil(at)hotmail)if you are interested in organizing to reclaim our public rights. It's going to be long, hard, and boring work. But it has to be done.
of the people I talk to. They think it absolutely does not matter one iota. The either don't know, don't understand, don't care, or don't want to be bothered.
Admittedly, some of the issues are technical, complicated, and the result of letting the media mafia get their way is not apparent.
The fact of the matter is that the same symptom that has produced bad copyright law has also been unable to do anything about healthcare. And that's a congress that is overrun with special interests. See what a billionare says about it here.
I would like to start an informal discussion on IRC on organizing/strategies to correct/inform public attitude about this. If you are one those who want do something, email me kphil(at)hotmaiI