However, Physicians are centrally licensed by the American Medical Association in order to prevent the widespread public harm by quacks. The same goes for Psychiatrists, Architects, Lawyers, etc. All of these groups are able to enforce their own oaths because you can be disbarred, de-licensed, etc. for violating them. Once that has happened it is a crime to practice your profession and many countries will send you to jail (for fraud if nothing else) for trying.
Similarly most patients, plaintiffs, etc. are not in a position to go over national (or even state) borders to find a cheaper (unlicensed) practitioner. Nor are many in a position of being their own legal counsel or physician (although many are forced to economically). As a result the oaths and their violations have teeth.
There is no central body controlling software developers or engineers in this way, nor do I think that there should be, per se. I believe that ethics in engineering is a valid thing (see works by Samuel C. Florman for more discussion.)
Yet, I do not think that the field can be so easily regulated. Physicians say "Do no Harm" that means "Do not kill people" Lawyers say "Do not lie" (and they mean it whatever common wisdom holds). But what does that mean for software developers?
"Do not help the wrong people get information?" Who are the "wrong people" many people (myself excluded) feel that "the government" should have any and all information it can on people as "Innocent People have nothing to hide" (John Ashcroft). Many others do not.
Similarly many people (myself included) feel that the RIAA is overstepping its bounds on trying to control users and should not be allowed to mandate national copyright control. Many others disagree, not because they are greedy bastards but because they support strong copyright.
The same questions could be made about developing weapons, Blue Boxes, and working for the DEA, etc. Because such ideas are not so clear-cut I don't think that you could easily put together a national consensus (or even a local consensus) on just what is and is not "harm." As endless language debates have shown "Clean code" is a debatable point.
That having been said, I think that ethics are a good thing, and that we as geeks should enforce them in our peers and ourselves as much as possible. This may include returning to the age-old custom of shunning sinners. At the very least we can work to see that what we do in our professional and personal development is good, and ensure that, when we have a say, no-one gets hired to our companies who doesn't measure up.
I agree with you that the CBDTPA is terrible but I think that the nature of your question is the wrong one. The fundamental problem here is that we do not need any news laws. I realize, of course, that it isn't legislatively sexy, or politically gainful for a budding Senator to say that but it's the truth.
The proponents of the bill claim that the current anti-piracy measures are insufficient, and unless "something" is done the "Content Production Industry" will collapse. And, they claim that if this industry collapses nothing new will ever be created. As proof of the damage they cite the lack of Consumer Broadband and Digital Television, as well as declining CD Sales.
As Carnivore and magic-lantern demonstrate governments can track user behavior online. And, they are exploiting those abilities to the utmost. They have been focusing on terrorism lately, but they can always turn their eyes to copyright infringement if they wish. I believe that those tracking powers are too great and need to be reigned in not expanded, but that is a discussion for another time.
Therefore, despite what the "Content Production Industry" claims, the existing laws can be enforced. We do not need to change the underlying code in order to make it more difficult to trade files, nor do we need to make otherwise legal activities (such as fair use) illegal for fear of theft. Such bills only punish the vast majority in order to catch the few, and in so doing, go against the whole point of criminal justice; to defend the majority, not persecute them.
Digital Television and Broadband have been held up by competing standards, low demand, unfair competition, and the last-mile problem. Despite what the bill "finds" the lack of demand is the fault of a number of factors not potential piracy. Even if it was, that lack of demand is not a social problem requiring government efforts. The rpbolem is one for the marketing departments not public servants.
When you consider CD-Sales the same problem of proof exists. When Napster was at its zenith (at the height of the tech boom), CD Sales were up. Now, in the midst of a U.S. recession, they are down. Doubtless copying is part of this but, how much? And, does that impact justify increasing the prices on most consumer electronic products, and making life more difficult for consumers, electronics producers, and even copyright holders? Again the proponents of the bill have not offered any hard proof. The same goes for Movies, books and other cultural works.
Lastly and most importantly, the whole point of copyright law is to encourage the production of "science and useful arts..." It is not intended to create or sustain a publishing industry. Despite what Jack Valenti says they have not proven that the current state of affairs will reduce the number of authors, musicians and filmmakers out there. All that they have shown is that it may reduce the number of publishers out there.
The bottom line is; there is no proven compelling public need for this kind of legislation. If anything the need is to examine the charges of price-fixing and stifling competition that have been leveled at the industry and to examine the digital tracking of the Justice Department.
The clear avenue here is not to do nothing but to prevent harm from being caused.
Firstly there is a problem with your notion of "trick" and "Misrepresent." Whitehouse.com is a business. Whitehouse.gov is a government agency. The two are in different TLD's for that reason. You cannot go around claiming that people can't use the same colloquial names simply because someone might not notice the difference.
Such a decision would not only make parody and criticism (www.walmartsucks.com) impossible if not improbable it would also setup a standard of definitions for the dumbest. If people cannot tell in advance that.com and.gov are different then they will learn. It is as ludicrous as telling people not to paint their houses white for fear of someone wandering in and asking to see the president.
The supreme court has long upheld the right to parody and criticize using similar names and images. It has also long held to the idea that we need not dumb speech down to the lowest common denominator, your argument would do exactly that.
Secondly; "Adult Sites", what the hell does that mean? I am sure that you and many others would agree that www.hornyteensluts.com is "adult" but what about the NY-Times? A glance through it's pages (online and off) reveal about Death war and horror, graphic depictions of carnage, advertisements prominently featuring women in their underwear and discussion of such frank topics as AIDS. Surely not for the average 5-year old. Do we make that.adult, or do we demand that the NY-Times only run stories about Barney. Consider those ads as well, Victories Secret, Fruit of the Loom, etc. Do all of these companies have to hide too?
And then, what about the Bible, that patron book of goodness and light. A quick glance through its pages reveal war death, horror, plagues and yes, Sex. One Priest recently got in toubler for suggesting that the Bible was "Adult Material" but then, perhaps he's right perhaps Falwell and others should be god.adult and only the makers of the Children's Illustrated Bible can sell their wares in public. All the rest of the heathens would have to go. Until, at last you have Barney.com and Sesamie-Street.org "out there" and the-world.adult
As the Supreme court of the United States has long upheld You cannot, in the interests of protecting children limit the speech of adults into what is "appropriate" for minors.
When a child acts out in stupid ways, possibly hurting themselves, it is often called a "cry for help." Perhaps this is just the final straw. Granting the 1-click patent was a call by the lowly clerks to give them better funding, better education and make the process more logical, we didn't listen.
Then they went and ostensibly called for public comments and ignored the responses. Again, a classic cry for help; persisting in destructive behavior despite signs to stop.
Now we have come to this, an official temper-tantrum on the part of the USPTO. You might sum it up as: "You won't give me what I need to do my job, FINE! I'm gonna patent Everything See how you like that!!!."
Fellow Americans, fellow parents, of the poor neglected USPTO, it is time to listen to our child, and give them back the ability to do their damn job.
The US code does not allow for "obvious" patents, such as this one. It also charges the USPTO with asessing the nature of the patents. Specifically, see U.S. Code Title 35 (Patent Law) Part 1 Chapter 1 Section 9:
"The Commissioner may revise and maintain the classification by subject matter of United States letters patent, and such other patents and printed publications as may be necessary or practicable, for the purpose of determining with readiness and accuracy the novelty of inventions for which applications for patent are filed" [emphasis added.]
See also Chapter 10 Patentability of Inventions. Or here for a summary.
The interesting question is, did Olsen violate his oath in applying for this, or was he serious?
Not being the Cambell expert that this guy claims to be I might be wrong. But, wasn't Cambell's whole thesis that Star Wars draws on deep cultural refrents so old and so universal that they appear in everything?
Therefore, even if Lucas is full of it, even if his whole friendship with Cambell (which started after the first movie came out not before) was a scam, and, even if he did copy it from old movie serials and pulp mags such as Flash Gordon isn't Cambell's thesis is still correct? Hasn't he just drawn on the same shared mythos as the rest of us?
To my mind, the only one "blinded by snobbery or the need for self-inflation" here is Steven Hart who seems to be taking the whole discussion waaay too personally.
Although, I do agree that Lucas is kind of a Gasbag:)
That will be in my (better worded) letter when I send it off.
The goal of copyright law is to promote the creation and disemmination of "Useful Works" such as Music movies, and Computer Software. The proponents of the bill have *not* proven that it will increase the production of said works. Rather all experts on the issue (EFF, Vdasz, etc.) have said that it will impair the produyction of those works by making fair use more difficult and by making computer software more complex/expensive/illegal to create.
It will raise the cost of doing business for the IT industrey (which is much larger than the "Content Production Industry" by making almost all software and hardware
Subject to review by the "Content Industry"
More complex and therefore time-consuming to produce
More complex and therefore expensive in terms of training to produce
And likely more difficult to get at because , for security reasons, its design will be secret.
As a result large companies will have to charge more and take longer thus "having a chilling effect" on the IT industry and small businesses/startups may never get off the ground due to the ensuing fees and legal costs.
It puts the government in the dubious business of endorsing consumer goods (Digital Television and Broadband). They face problems such as the "last mile problem" and competing standards that this bill won't touch. More importantly they are, fundamentally, luxury items. It is not the business of the government to encourage their disemmination. Or to put it another way, there is no "Compelling Need" for them that necessitates the Government's endorsement at the ensuing costs.
It will impair fair-use by making the tools of that illegal. I know that the bill states that the standard must comply with fiar use but think about it. The goal of this is to prevent copying. How will the system "know" that such copying is legal? Either:
The government (or companies) will have to hand out fair use licences making it time-consuming and expensive to get them and opening the process to all kinds of rigging. Say I want to criticise Eminem in a documentary you can forget his publisher handing over the rights to that easily and if I can't afford court fees, there goes critical news or cheap education.
The system will place some arbitrary cap on the process say no clips over 3 min. This hardware loophole will be immediately exploited (copy a video in 3min increments) and we will be up that creek again, or it will be so locked down and arbitrary that fair use dies by being made useless.
Lastly it will quietly be killed by using some standard that fully blocks it and the production of new works dies in the process.
Finally it just won't work. Digital data has no "intirinsic meaning" so even if my OS calls ity a copywritten file I can just use low-level calls (the ones the OS is written in) to get at it and call it something else, a little reverse-engineering later and I am free again. Only if everyone's ability to write software/create hardware is taken completely away will this have a dent thus "punishing 99 innocents to catch one guilty person" to use a textbook phrase.
Even if this hideous thing is done (killing the tech industry entirely) it will have no effect on the Chinese, Koreans, Canadians and everyone else not covered by the law who are free to produce illegal copies and ship em back to the U.S. for sale.
Fundamentally the act of making "unauthorized copies" is already illegal and this added layer with its costs and destructive repurcussions will not affect that so why not juet turn to enforcing the violations as are already being done?
That or getting a business model that isn't mired in a dependence upon people's inability to use technology?
Or just charge a fair price? The fact of the matter is that Disney can supply better content than a ripped DivX so why don't they just do that.?
I'm not sure if there is a "best time." If you submit the first letter on a particular toipic then they may read it, if ony to find out what the hell you are talking about. This might be a powerful point to shape their views. On the other hand a massive onslaught of letters at one time all in favor of/opposed to an issue might make more of an impact from a "will this get me re-elected" standpoint. I think it probably depends upon how they do things there.
This isn't on everyone's radar yet.
That may not be the case. I called one of my senators a few months ago to discuss a bill on the day of the vote and the people in his office had no idea what I was talking about. I beleive the exact comment was "He usually tells us his position at some point, I think." I'm hoping that i just got the new person and this won't happen again.
Just to make sure though I've decided on a plan. I plan to begin with e-mail, and then a letter, and then a phone call, and then flowers (nobody really sends flowers any more). Then I'm going to move in next-door to him and play the text of the bill on my stereo really loudly all night long. Then I plan to move into his house and talk nonstop about the bill all the time. Then, finally, just when his daughter is set to marry me, I'll tell him that all he has to do to get me to go away is to vote against it. I'm hoping he'll accept.
Might I suggest that you write this up and send it to the FCC. At present it might probably be noted but, if it comes down to any rulemaking behavior (I beleive) that they will have a public comment period in which this kind of thing will need to be read and responded to. It's easy enough for all of us to make clver arguments but hard data is something that they can't easily avoid.
As the summary here shows there are still a few kinks in the system.
While I have to agree with some people that this isn't in-depth reporting I do think that it is pretty interesting AI. When it comes down to it the problem is not that a computer might be summarizing our news. The problem is twofold.
Firstly people are not always inclined to look beyond summaries. When faced with typical time constraints people prefer to look at summaries because they do not have time to search across a dozen sources and articles. This is why USA today became big in the first place. Nothing there is more than 1 column long. (Incidentally did anybody else find it hilarious that this system "summarizes" USA today who themselves summarize other news sources?)
Secondly much of the news is the same. News is big business and most major news media tell the stories that sell. Because they are all targeting the same markets they tell the same stories and in the same ways. Therefore there is little difference between CNN, the NY Times, etc in terms of tone and "facts". Especially since much of "their news" comes from the same wire services such as Reuters. Fox News is different but that is because they have abandoned the mantle of impartiality and become all conservative all the time.
In essence this system is perfect for the internet news style. Breif summaries of facts followed by more "in-depth" leads that we may peruse as we wish. The real question is, when will this begin drawing on sites like Indymedia, The Register and/.
I personally loved the fact that he *didn't* mention the bill's co-sponsor Republican Senator Ted Stevens.
I would also point out that, contrary to the/. header this doesn't explain what's wrong with the SSSCA (lack of fair use, pointless intrusion, etc.) So much as it discusses how the Republicans could capitalize on the furor it has created.
and ask the government to ban 802.11 or, more likely, ALL wireless transmissions (Better safe than sorry). After all, all those people with cell-phnores are really just pirates in the making.
But wait... When I play music sound travels through the air to other peoples' ears! Better get a bill mandating encryption on air, or at least locking down people's ears so they don't participate. Sure we'd all be unable to communicate and, for that matter, breathe but we must preserve Intellectual Property!
I disagree. Some protests and actions such as those of the Black Block are designed to put force to words but you could just as easily state that they exist to ensure that the words are heard. They exist to transmit the words.
I would argue that words have the effect of force when their goal is to incite immeadiate destruction e.g. showing fire in a crowd in order to make them stampede.
Therefore the original intent of the Amendment to preserve the right of the public top meet and assemble for political purposes is preserved. What is prevented is the deliberate incitement of panic or other destruction. This is contrasted by the injuntions against preventing legitimate speech howevr offensive (see rulings on porn).
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The key issue here is how do you define preacably that opening and the famous statement by Justice Oliver Wendell homes in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919):
"But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
allow for limits to be placed on exactly what you say/protest and how. I'm not just talking about laws against breaking glass but laws against "public indecency" and, most recently, "national security" have been used to curb protests as in New York by placing them in small "special zones" or by preventing them altogether. This has been upheld in some cases by the Supreme Court (see here for some examples).
On another note the report stated: ...and in fact, had they not been safety-harnessed during the tests, many would have broken bones. and this is considered Safe?
I disagree. Holling's threat only works if he can pass the bill. By informing your reps now that you oppose it you can weaken his position and reduce the chances of this bill ever being broaght to the floor. If we wait until the bill is on the floor then the proponents of it will have already been able to win some supporters to their side. If those supporters are made aware that there is opposition now, before they sign on, they will be less likely to do so, and the threat loses force.
Of course the most effect would be acheived by comments now *and* comments later.
Re:Foregone conclusions
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Actually as some of the other articles on the issue have pointed out, the Tech industry PAC that represents Intel has been in Washington far longer than the "Content Industry" people they just have not hed the need or the inclination (given their stated opposition to oversight) to buy politicians. See here for donations by Computer/Internet companies, and here for dontaitions by the (non-book) entertainment industries.
As to Microsofts donations as you can see here Microsoft was in the top 20 industry donators to congress back in 1992. You can do a more detailed search for All Microsoft soft-money, donations by Microsoft Employees, and other groups here
If you want to go Here you can look up everybody's two favorite Senators.
That's exactly the issue. The market (I.E. We consumers) have amply demonstrated to the RIAA and others that we *do not* want their digital services. We have also demonstrated that we *do not* want to pay their high prices. That is why people are turning away from purchasing CDs and moving instead to other avenues (legal and illegal).
When Hillary Rosen says that she had a bad year what she means is not that the RIAA lost money far from it. What she means is that they are no longer growing. CD sales are back to the levels they were at in 1998 which is less than last year to be sure but, in a sagging economy, no big supprise.
What they are trying to do with the SSSCA is circumvent the market by putting into place legal requirements for us (the consumers) to adopt technologies that we have rejected, or at least embraced only slightly, (the RIAA controlled download sites) thus far. If this law passes then the control technology and the pay-services that they wish to mandate can go into effect because they will be the only legal ways to do it. And then they can keep their plush offices.
True fact. The gene that is linked to Sickle-Cell Anemia only causes it under unlikely mutations. If you are a carrier of this gene however, it provides a degree of protection against Malaria. Therefore it is found most often in malarial reigions of the world.
The issue is, If we wipe out a disease such as sickle cell from the worlds population then those people who live in malarial reigons will be far more at risk possibly causing large-scale epidemics.
Healthy babies are good but not if preventing one disease causes an outbreak of another possibly worse one. We have to be careful about our assumption that we *know* what will happen. This is what all the nonfiction opponents of genetic engineering are really on about. We simply *dont* know what all of our genes do or how they behave in specific combinations and under specific conditions. There are just so many possibilities that total prediction and total control is not possible.
Gattaca was less about genetic engineering as ego and fear. It showed a socity so wrapped in its own genetic confidence and so afraid of its own diseases that babies with a 10% chance of heart disease were treated as if they were already dead. The assumption that say the likely appearence of a gene coding for melanin in the skin meant that you were permanantly incapable of any significant task no matter how smart you actually were.
"As for the third charge -- that copyrighted movies are destroying digital innovation -- what the critics mean by "innovation" is legalizing the breaking of protection codes, without which there is no protection.
Really? And here I thought innovation meant creation of something new or 'innovative'. Apparently I was wrong. Never one to leave such a thing alone though I checked Webster's Online Dictionary. Imagine my further supprise when I found this:
One entry found for innovation.
innovation
Pronunciation: "i-n&-'vA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY
- innovational/-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective
Is Websters' Wrong? THE dictionary of the United States. Not necessarily. Mr. Valenti asserted that we were using the word in lieu of "legalizing the breaking of protection codes, without which there is no protection." Therefore the relation might not appear in the dictionary.
Never one to give up on a trusted source so lightly I returned now to (drum roll) the Thesaurus! again however I come up dry getting only:
innovation
Function: noun
Text: Synonyms CHANGE 2, mutation, novelty, permutation, sport, vicissitude
Related Word deviation, introduction, wrinkle
No discussion of copy protection there.
But then I noticed something. I noticed vicissitude. Webster's defines this as:
vicissitude
Pronunciation: v&-'si-s&-"tüd, vI-, -"tyüd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin vicissitudo, from vicissim in turn, from vicis change, alternation -- more at WEEK
Date: circa 1576
1 a : the quality or state of being changeable : MUTABILITY b : natural change or mutation visible in nature or in human affairs
2 a : a favorable or unfavorable event or situation that occurs by chance : a fluctuation of state or condition b : a difficulty or hardship attendant on a way of life, a career, or a course of action and usually beyond one's control c : alternating change : SUCCESSION
Note the term Unfavorable Change. At last the mystery was solved. Jack Valenti was not (to my everlasting dsmay) wholly misdirected. Neither was my trusted Dictionary/Thesaurus wrong. Obviously Jack was just employing a nontypical pair of synonyms in an effort to drag the complex language of "unfavorable events", "difficulty or hardship attendant on a way og life, a career, or a course of action and usually beyond one's control" into the language of everyday life. Because, as he points out elsewhere in his letter: "Other ingredients are necessary to protect digital content, but it gets too complex to explain in a few sentences." Jack is just tying to save space.
Well my friends all that I can say is: Up with VICISSITUDE!
Sadly it's not that difficult at all. Take, for example the case of China where the government Allows international Access but still manages to filter out most (but not all) 'offensive' materials. Other governments such as France have chosen to use Legal actions or simple thuggery (see here and here
I agree with you about the Megacorps. AOL has caved in in the past and even smaller non-gvernmental groups can have a Big Effect.This ruling will only make that easier for them.
Much as I like some of JonKatz's prose, and much as I support the efforts of the File Room I think he overlooks just how weak the net potentially is. It's not just about my ability to put up a server (for all its abstractness the net depends upon physical objects), its about other people's ability to get to that same server. If I get sued out of business or simply attacked by thugs the server goes down. If a government or large media company chooses to deny their people/customers access to my server it might as well be. Either way I have been effectively silenced.
For a moment, Just a moment, lets assume that he is correct and that the openly elected board members are not representative, and that the true problem is lack of public participation. The fact that they have reduced the number of elected board positions from nine to six is, of course, immaterial.
That fairy story being the case, how is a new board composed of five government representatives, five industry clones, and five unelected, self-pupretuating representatives of unknown powers supposed to help. Assuming that the 5 government reps are actually reponsive to the needs of their constituents this gives us a whopping one-third of the board. Those poor government reps will be so maligned and sidelined that they won't have a reason to show up (just like now!).
In all likelyhood this won;t be a problem though the Government Reps will probably come from groups like the Department of Commerce whose commitment to big business is so total that they have managed to offend other portions of the government such as the Small Business Administation.
Come to think of it this plan makes perfect sense. 5 Industry reps + 5 Dept of Commerce toadies <fnord>+ 5 representatives of the New World Order</fnord> and all pesky discussion can come to an end. No more arguments, no more 'research' to back themselves up, and no oversight. I have to give that boy credit, he's smarter than I thought. This will truly be a far far more efficien ICANN. Open too, <fnord>provided you're one of them.</fnord>
"I have come to the conclusion that the original concept of a purely private sector body, based on consensus and consent, has been shown to be impractical.
The fact that many of those critical to global coordination are still not willing to participate fully and effectively in the ICANN process is strong evidence of this fact. But I also am convinced that, for a resource as changeable and dynamic as the Internet, a traditional governmental approach as an alternative to ICANN remains a bad idea. The Internet needs effective, lightweight, and sensible global coordination in a few limited areas, allowing ample room for the innovation and change that makes this unique resource so useful and valuable."
So let me get this straight.
Premise: Our system is imperfect;
Evidence: People don't want to playt by our rigged rules.
Premise: Yet a system based upon governments (those silly things built around public participation and rights) is wrong.
Evidence: None
Conclusion: Let us do whatever we want so that we can be nimble.
Tune in tomorrow boys and girls when we prove that the sky is green, up is down and dictatorships are the only good thing in this world.
Slashdot Mirror
However, Physicians are centrally licensed by the American Medical Association in order to prevent the widespread public harm by quacks. The same goes for Psychiatrists, Architects, Lawyers, etc. All of these groups are able to enforce their own oaths because you can be disbarred, de-licensed, etc. for violating them. Once that has happened it is a crime to practice your profession and many countries will send you to jail (for fraud if nothing else) for trying.
Similarly most patients, plaintiffs, etc. are not in a position to go over national (or even state) borders to find a cheaper (unlicensed) practitioner. Nor are many in a position of being their own legal counsel or physician (although many are forced to economically). As a result the oaths and their violations have teeth.
There is no central body controlling software developers or engineers in this way, nor do I think that there should be, per se. I believe that ethics in engineering is a valid thing (see works by Samuel C. Florman for more discussion.)
Yet, I do not think that the field can be so easily regulated. Physicians say "Do no Harm" that means "Do not kill people" Lawyers say "Do not lie" (and they mean it whatever common wisdom holds). But what does that mean for software developers?
"Do not help the wrong people get information?" Who are the "wrong people" many people (myself excluded) feel that "the government" should have any and all information it can on people as "Innocent People have nothing to hide" (John Ashcroft). Many others do not.
Similarly many people (myself included) feel that the RIAA is overstepping its bounds on trying to control users and should not be allowed to mandate national copyright control. Many others disagree, not because they are greedy bastards but because they support strong copyright.
The same questions could be made about developing weapons, Blue Boxes, and working for the DEA, etc. Because such ideas are not so clear-cut I don't think that you could easily put together a national consensus (or even a local consensus) on just what is and is not "harm." As endless language debates have shown "Clean code" is a debatable point.
That having been said, I think that ethics are a good thing, and that we as geeks should enforce them in our peers and ourselves as much as possible. This may include returning to the age-old custom of shunning sinners. At the very least we can work to see that what we do in our professional and personal development is good, and ensure that, when we have a say, no-one gets hired to our companies who doesn't measure up.
You might see also:
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
The Association for Computing Machinery
and their working group on Computers in Society
My $0.02.
Irvu.
I agree with you that the CBDTPA is terrible but I think that the nature of your question is the wrong one. The fundamental problem here is that we do not need any news laws. I realize, of course, that it isn't legislatively sexy, or politically gainful for a budding Senator to say that but it's the truth.
The proponents of the bill claim that the current anti-piracy measures are insufficient, and unless "something" is done the "Content Production Industry" will collapse. And, they claim that if this industry collapses nothing new will ever be created. As proof of the damage they cite the lack of Consumer Broadband and Digital Television, as well as declining CD Sales.
As Carnivore and magic-lantern demonstrate governments can track user behavior online. And, they are exploiting those abilities to the utmost. They have been focusing on terrorism lately, but they can always turn their eyes to copyright infringement if they wish. I believe that those tracking powers are too great and need to be reigned in not expanded, but that is a discussion for another time.
Therefore, despite what the "Content Production Industry" claims, the existing laws can be enforced. We do not need to change the underlying code in order to make it more difficult to trade files, nor do we need to make otherwise legal activities (such as fair use) illegal for fear of theft. Such bills only punish the vast majority in order to catch the few, and in so doing, go against the whole point of criminal justice; to defend the majority, not persecute them.
Digital Television and Broadband have been held up by competing standards, low demand, unfair competition, and the last-mile problem. Despite what the bill "finds" the lack of demand is the fault of a number of factors not potential piracy. Even if it was, that lack of demand is not a social problem requiring government efforts. The rpbolem is one for the marketing departments not public servants.
When you consider CD-Sales the same problem of proof exists. When Napster was at its zenith (at the height of the tech boom), CD Sales were up. Now, in the midst of a U.S. recession, they are down. Doubtless copying is part of this but, how much? And, does that impact justify increasing the prices on most consumer electronic products, and making life more difficult for consumers, electronics producers, and even copyright holders? Again the proponents of the bill have not offered any hard proof. The same goes for Movies, books and other cultural works.
Lastly and most importantly, the whole point of copyright law is to encourage the production of "science and useful arts..." It is not intended to create or sustain a publishing industry. Despite what Jack Valenti says they have not proven that the current state of affairs will reduce the number of authors, musicians and filmmakers out there. All that they have shown is that it may reduce the number of publishers out there.
The bottom line is; there is no proven compelling public need for this kind of legislation. If anything the need is to examine the charges of price-fixing and stifling competition that have been leveled at the industry and to examine the digital tracking of the Justice Department.
The clear avenue here is not to do nothing but to prevent harm from being caused.
There's some things money can't buy, for the rest; raid the retirement fund.
Two things:
.com and .gov are different then they will learn. It is as ludicrous as telling people not to paint their houses white for fear of someone wandering in and asking to see the president.
.adult, or do we demand that the NY-Times only run stories about Barney. Consider those ads as well, Victories Secret, Fruit of the Loom, etc. Do all of these companies have to hide too?
Firstly there is a problem with your notion of "trick" and "Misrepresent." Whitehouse.com is a business. Whitehouse.gov is a government agency. The two are in different TLD's for that reason. You cannot go around claiming that people can't use the same colloquial names simply because someone might not notice the difference.
Such a decision would not only make parody and criticism (www.walmartsucks.com) impossible if not improbable it would also setup a standard of definitions for the dumbest. If people cannot tell in advance that
The supreme court has long upheld the right to parody and criticize using similar names and images. It has also long held to the idea that we need not dumb speech down to the lowest common denominator, your argument would do exactly that.
Secondly; "Adult Sites", what the hell does that mean? I am sure that you and many others would agree that www.hornyteensluts.com is "adult" but what about the NY-Times? A glance through it's pages (online and off) reveal about Death war and horror, graphic depictions of carnage, advertisements prominently featuring women in their underwear and discussion of such frank topics as AIDS. Surely not for the average 5-year old. Do we make that
And then, what about the Bible, that patron book of goodness and light. A quick glance through its pages reveal war death, horror, plagues and yes, Sex. One Priest recently got in toubler for suggesting that the Bible was "Adult Material" but then, perhaps he's right perhaps Falwell and others should be god.adult and only the makers of the Children's Illustrated Bible can sell their wares in public. All the rest of the heathens would have to go. Until, at last you have Barney.com and Sesamie-Street.org "out there" and the-world.adult
As the Supreme court of the United States has long upheld You cannot, in the interests of protecting children limit the speech of adults into what is "appropriate" for minors.
When a child acts out in stupid ways, possibly hurting themselves, it is often called a "cry for help." Perhaps this is just the final straw. Granting the 1-click patent was a call by the lowly clerks to give them better funding, better education and make the process more logical, we didn't listen.
Then they went and ostensibly called for public comments and ignored the responses. Again, a classic cry for help; persisting in destructive behavior despite signs to stop.
Now we have come to this, an official temper-tantrum on the part of the USPTO. You might sum it up as: "You won't give me what I need to do my job, FINE! I'm gonna patent Everything See how you like that!!!."
Fellow Americans, fellow parents, of the poor neglected USPTO, it is time to listen to our child, and give them back the ability to do their damn job.
See also Chapter 10 Patentability of Inventions. Or here for a summary.
The interesting question is, did Olsen violate his oath in applying for this, or was he serious?
Not being the Cambell expert that this guy claims to be I might be wrong. But, wasn't Cambell's whole thesis that Star Wars draws on deep cultural refrents so old and so universal that they appear in everything?
:)
Therefore, even if Lucas is full of it, even if his whole friendship with Cambell (which started after the first movie came out not before) was a scam, and, even if he did copy it from old movie serials and pulp mags such as Flash Gordon isn't Cambell's thesis is still correct? Hasn't he just drawn on the same shared mythos as the rest of us?
To my mind, the only one "blinded by snobbery or the need for self-inflation" here is Steven Hart who seems to be taking the whole discussion waaay too personally.
Although, I do agree that Lucas is kind of a Gasbag
As a result large companies will have to charge more and take longer thus "having a chilling effect" on the IT industry and small businesses/startups may never get off the ground due to the ensuing fees and legal costs.
Even if this hideous thing is done (killing the tech industry entirely) it will have no effect on the Chinese, Koreans, Canadians and everyone else not covered by the law who are free to produce illegal copies and ship em back to the U.S. for sale.
Fundamentally the act of making "unauthorized copies" is already illegal and this added layer with its costs and destructive repurcussions will not affect that so why not juet turn to enforcing the violations as are already being done?
That or getting a business model that isn't mired in a dependence upon people's inability to use technology?
Or just charge a fair price? The fact of the matter is that Disney can supply better content than a ripped DivX so why don't they just do that.?
Anyway my $0.02
Irvu.
I'm not sure if there is a "best time." If you submit the first letter on a particular toipic then they may read it, if ony to find out what the hell you are talking about. This might be a powerful point to shape their views. On the other hand a massive onslaught of letters at one time all in favor of/opposed to an issue might make more of an impact from a "will this get me re-elected" standpoint. I think it probably depends upon how they do things there.
This isn't on everyone's radar yet.
That may not be the case. I called one of my senators a few months ago to discuss a bill on the day of the vote and the people in his office had no idea what I was talking about. I beleive the exact comment was "He usually tells us his position at some point, I think." I'm hoping that i just got the new person and this won't happen again.
Just to make sure though I've decided on a plan. I plan to begin with e-mail, and then a letter, and then a phone call, and then flowers (nobody really sends flowers any more). Then I'm going to move in next-door to him and play the text of the bill on my stereo really loudly all night long. Then I plan to move into his house and talk nonstop about the bill all the time. Then, finally, just when his daughter is set to marry me, I'll tell him that all he has to do to get me to go away is to vote against it. I'm hoping he'll accept.
Then I'll probably marry his daughter anyway...
A higher quality copy of the bill is availible at Cryptome
Might I suggest that you write this up and send it to the FCC. At present it might probably be noted but, if it comes down to any rulemaking behavior (I beleive) that they will have a public comment period in which this kind of thing will need to be read and responded to. It's easy enough for all of us to make clver arguments but hard data is something that they can't easily avoid.
As the summary here shows there are still a few kinks in the system.
/.
While I have to agree with some people that this isn't in-depth reporting I do think that it is pretty interesting AI. When it comes down to it the problem is not that a computer might be summarizing our news. The problem is twofold.
Firstly people are not always inclined to look beyond summaries. When faced with typical time constraints people prefer to look at summaries because they do not have time to search across a dozen sources and articles. This is why USA today became big in the first place. Nothing there is more than 1 column long. (Incidentally did anybody else find it hilarious that this system "summarizes" USA today who themselves summarize other news sources?)
Secondly much of the news is the same. News is big business and most major news media tell the stories that sell. Because they are all targeting the same markets they tell the same stories and in the same ways. Therefore there is little difference between CNN, the NY Times, etc in terms of tone and "facts". Especially since much of "their news" comes from the same wire services such as Reuters. Fox News is different but that is because they have abandoned the mantle of impartiality and become all conservative all the time.
In essence this system is perfect for the internet news style. Breif summaries of facts followed by more "in-depth" leads that we may peruse as we wish. The real question is, when will this begin drawing on sites like Indymedia, The Register and
I personally loved the fact that he *didn't* mention the bill's co-sponsor Republican Senator Ted Stevens.
/. header this doesn't explain what's wrong with the SSSCA (lack of fair use, pointless intrusion, etc.) So much as it discusses how the Republicans could capitalize on the furor it has created.
I would also point out that, contrary to the
and ask the government to ban 802.11 or, more likely, ALL wireless transmissions (Better safe than sorry). After all, all those people with cell-phnores are really just pirates in the making.
But wait... When I play music sound travels through the air to other peoples' ears! Better get a bill mandating encryption on air, or at least locking down people's ears so they don't participate. Sure we'd all be unable to communicate and, for that matter, breathe but we must preserve Intellectual Property!
I disagree. Some protests and actions such as those of the Black Block are designed to put force to words but you could just as easily state that they exist to ensure that the words are heard. They exist to transmit the words.
I would argue that words have the effect of force when their goal is to incite immeadiate destruction e.g. showing fire in a crowd in order to make them stampede.
Therefore the original intent of the Amendment to preserve the right of the public top meet and assemble for political purposes is preserved. What is prevented is the deliberate incitement of panic or other destruction. This is contrasted by the injuntions against preventing legitimate speech howevr offensive (see rulings on porn).
The key issue here is how do you define preacably that opening and the famous statement by Justice Oliver Wendell homes in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919):
allow for limits to be placed on exactly what you say/protest and how. I'm not just talking about laws against breaking glass but laws against "public indecency" and, most recently, "national security" have been used to curb protests as in New York by placing them in small "special zones" or by preventing them altogether. This has been upheld in some cases by the Supreme Court (see here for some examples).
On another note the report stated:
and this is considered Safe?
I disagree. Holling's threat only works if he can pass the bill. By informing your reps now that you oppose it you can weaken his position and reduce the chances of this bill ever being broaght to the floor. If we wait until the bill is on the floor then the proponents of it will have already been able to win some supporters to their side. If those supporters are made aware that there is opposition now, before they sign on, they will be less likely to do so, and the threat loses force.
Of course the most effect would be acheived by comments now *and* comments later.
Actually as some of the other articles on the issue have pointed out, the Tech industry PAC that represents Intel has been in Washington far longer than the "Content Industry" people they just have not hed the need or the inclination (given their stated opposition to oversight) to buy politicians. See here for donations by Computer/Internet companies, and here for dontaitions by the (non-book) entertainment industries.
As to Microsofts donations as you can see here Microsoft was in the top 20 industry donators to congress back in 1992. You can do a more detailed search for All Microsoft soft-money, donations by Microsoft Employees, and other groups here
If you want to go Here you can look up everybody's two favorite Senators.
That's exactly the issue. The market (I.E. We consumers) have amply demonstrated to the RIAA and others that we *do not* want their digital services. We have also demonstrated that we *do not* want to pay their high prices. That is why people are turning away from purchasing CDs and moving instead to other avenues (legal and illegal).
When Hillary Rosen says that she had a bad year what she means is not that the RIAA lost money far from it. What she means is that they are no longer growing. CD sales are back to the levels they were at in 1998 which is less than last year to be sure but, in a sagging economy, no big supprise.
What they are trying to do with the SSSCA is circumvent the market by putting into place legal requirements for us (the consumers) to adopt technologies that we have rejected, or at least embraced only slightly, (the RIAA controlled download sites) thus far. If this law passes then the control technology and the pay-services that they wish to mandate can go into effect because they will be the only legal ways to do it. And then they can keep their plush offices.
True fact. The gene that is linked to Sickle-Cell Anemia only causes it under unlikely mutations. If you are a carrier of this gene however, it provides a degree of protection against Malaria. Therefore it is found most often in malarial reigions of the world.
The issue is, If we wipe out a disease such as sickle cell from the worlds population then those people who live in malarial reigons will be far more at risk possibly causing large-scale epidemics.
Healthy babies are good but not if preventing one disease causes an outbreak of another possibly worse one. We have to be careful about our assumption that we *know* what will happen. This is what all the nonfiction opponents of genetic engineering are really on about. We simply *dont* know what all of our genes do or how they behave in specific combinations and under specific conditions. There are just so many possibilities that total prediction and total control is not possible.
Gattaca was less about genetic engineering as ego and fear. It showed a socity so wrapped in its own genetic confidence and so afraid of its own diseases that babies with a 10% chance of heart disease were treated as if they were already dead. The assumption that say the likely appearence of a gene coding for melanin in the skin meant that you were permanantly incapable of any significant task no matter how smart you actually were.
Really? And here I thought innovation meant creation of something new or 'innovative'. Apparently I was wrong. Never one to leave such a thing alone though I checked Webster's Online Dictionary. Imagine my further supprise when I found this:
Is Websters' Wrong? THE dictionary of the United States. Not necessarily. Mr. Valenti asserted that we were using the word in lieu of "legalizing the breaking of protection codes, without which there is no protection." Therefore the relation might not appear in the dictionary.Never one to give up on a trusted source so lightly I returned now to (drum roll) the Thesaurus! again however I come up dry getting only:
No discussion of copy protection there.But then I noticed something. I noticed vicissitude. Webster's defines this as:
Note the term Unfavorable Change. At last the mystery was solved. Jack Valenti was not (to my everlasting dsmay) wholly misdirected. Neither was my trusted Dictionary/Thesaurus wrong. Obviously Jack was just employing a nontypical pair of synonyms in an effort to drag the complex language of "unfavorable events", "difficulty or hardship attendant on a way og life, a career, or a course of action and usually beyond one's control" into the language of everyday life. Because, as he points out elsewhere in his letter: "Other ingredients are necessary to protect digital content, but it gets too complex to explain in a few sentences." Jack is just tying to save space.
Well my friends all that I can say is: Up with VICISSITUDE!
Sadly it's not that difficult at all. Take, for example the case of China where the government Allows international Access but still manages to filter out most (but not all) 'offensive' materials. Other governments such as France have chosen to use Legal actions or simple thuggery (see here and here
I agree with you about the Megacorps. AOL has caved in in the past and even smaller non-gvernmental groups can have a Big Effect. This ruling will only make that easier for them.
Much as I like some of JonKatz's prose, and much as I support the efforts of the File Room I think he overlooks just how weak the net potentially is. It's not just about my ability to put up a server (for all its abstractness the net depends upon physical objects), its about other people's ability to get to that same server. If I get sued out of business or simply attacked by thugs the server goes down. If a government or large media company chooses to deny their people/customers access to my server it might as well be. Either way I have been effectively silenced.
Oops, hit the anonymous button by mistake.
For a moment, Just a moment, lets assume that he is correct and that the openly elected board members are not representative, and that the true problem is lack of public participation. The fact that they have reduced the number of elected board positions from nine to six is, of course, immaterial.
That fairy story being the case, how is a new board composed of five government representatives, five industry clones, and five unelected, self-pupretuating representatives of unknown powers supposed to help. Assuming that the 5 government reps are actually reponsive to the needs of their constituents this gives us a whopping one-third of the board. Those poor government reps will be so maligned and sidelined that they won't have a reason to show up (just like now!).
In all likelyhood this won;t be a problem though the Government Reps will probably come from groups like the Department of Commerce whose commitment to big business is so total that they have managed to offend other portions of the government such as the Small Business Administation.
Come to think of it this plan makes perfect sense.
5 Industry reps + 5 Dept of Commerce toadies <fnord>+ 5 representatives of the New World Order</fnord>
and all pesky discussion can come to an end. No more arguments, no more 'research' to back themselves up, and no oversight. I have to give that boy credit, he's smarter than I thought. This will truly be a far far more efficien ICANN. Open too, <fnord>provided you're one of them.</fnord>
Remember "Peace is War" -- 1984
So let me get this straight.
- Premise: Our system is imperfect;
- Evidence: People don't want to playt by our rigged rules.
- Premise: Yet a system based upon governments (those silly things built around public participation and rights) is wrong.
- Evidence: None
- Conclusion: Let us do whatever we want so that we can be nimble.
Tune in tomorrow boys and girls when we prove that the sky is green, up is down and dictatorships are the only good thing in this world.