you would be surprised at how open "the masses" are to many of the ideas expressed in Katz's article (and others who think the IP system we have now is in need for a low level format). Take a few minutes to explain and they "get it". I do it all the time, peer pressure works on big companies too, just like they use it against us.
True, Microsoft would never think of using market power to influence another company to limit a competitor (like they said they would in los documentos de la Dia de los Muertos, or like the gub'ment said they did in DOJ v Microsoft). --
There should be any easy way to encode page info as XML. RadioSpy (and quakespy before it) uses active pinging technology pretty good. Is this something that could be wrapped around Mozilla?
"no-cost product"... WHAT?!?! Did you just say that the life of an artist and their work is absolutely worthless?
No, you're reading your assumption that I'm a grumpy pirate into your argument. The product itself costs the creator NOTHING to reproduce a billion times over and spread throughout the world. Yes, there are fixed costs on producing content, but given the multiplying effects of digital media, that is the only cost in creating a product. So that is the only cost that needs to be covered to continue production.
I'm amazed at how much contempt for the artist I am discovering in these discussions, it is truly amazing.
No, it is not contempt for the artist. It is contempt for the people who control the artists and convince them to sign over the rights to their own work, in exchange for the promotional efforts and industry ties that all but guarantee a good selling album. They also convince the artists to sign away their next 5 albums, so in case the first one makes it big, the artist can't go and find a better deal. That is where the contempt is.
So by making Lambourghinis $200k, they are "controlling" my "access" to it? Excuse me, but no.
Umm that seems like a pretty good control of access, no? Besides, please don't try and bring products where scarcity is a concern into the argument, they don't apply. Unless you happen to know where I can download a Ferrari...
How does this have any bearing at all on the current discussion?
This is what the current discussion is about. Remember at the beginning of my first comment when I said "You forgot about the Internet." You're trying to do it again.
Instead of being a constructive atmosphere, you choose to represent the Internet as a place where if you want to create, good, we'll steal every single thing you do and rape you dry and we don't give a fuck about your life.
Or perhaps it would be a bit more like that other thing where people have released their creation to the Net. That Linux thing. Where nobody cares about Linus, or Alan, or Richard, or Miguel, or Rasterman. It's a freakin' cult of personality. Kind of like music should be, no? I guess I was raping Phish when I plunked down $175 to get in a gate to see them play (multiple that by 75,000 and tell me you can't make money giving away music). Yea, those idiots, releasing all that music on the Net to make their fans happy. What a crazy idea!
That might work for Morissey, but it won't work for many others.
Give me a list of those that have tried, and I'll believe you. Give me a list of big bands who have made their music free to all (just to listen to, mind you) and has failed because of it. I'll be right here waiting...
You just shot a huge load with that statement. You are assuming everyone is stupid enough to be duped by advertisment, you're assuming people are watching those advertisements, you'r eassuming a whole assload of things which boil down to a simple point: You believe people are stupid and that companies only have to spend a few bucks to get them hooked. I believe this is true for a large quantity of human beings. I also believe that those human beings deserve exactly what they get from the big corporations.
Aah, this is where we differ. I, being the happy-go-lucky person I am, would rather the poor unguided souls NOT support repressive regimes and line the pockets of immoral record executives. You think that's great. It's not your responsibility, or even a worthwhile undertaking, to educate others about the effects of their apathy. I guess if that's where you want to stand , so be it.
The big question here is, what was the last band that failed that the record companies supported?
hmm, Vanilla Ice, Milli Vanilli, New Kids on the Block, Poison, Debbie Gibson, oh, here's a nice list
Fine, just ingore my point
No prob, it was a weak point. Unless you think that *every* story was told and every *painting* was done for the sole reason of education.
They'd then stick a nice big spear through your skull when you ask them why they waste time hunting while they could be painting pretty pictures and then letting other people have them without trade.
Wow, they had the Internet back then? Awesome (remember my first sentence waay back when, something about remembering something...).
There will be a future on the Internet of protected content.
Perhaps, but not for music.
You will hate it, you will rail against it, which is why it WON'T happen.
Sit back and wait. Wait and watch.
YOU do that, I've got better stuff to do.
hmmm If you do art for arts sake, well, masturbation is fun but empty.
I saw this on one of your other threads. Now I know why you don't get it.
ALL HAIL THE PROFIT MOTIVE, ITS THE ONLY REASON ART GETS DONE! --
However, the music market on the Internet is currently hostile. Any format which supports a secure method of generating royalties for the artist is attacked and eventually cracked.
well, yes, the Internet is certainly is hostile to anything it sees as an error. Secure methods used to leverage a no-cost product into a high cost one are quickly exposed for the useless bits of logic they are. And I daresay the Internet will continue to be hostile to these forms of control for the forseeable future. The Internet makes control of digital media impossible.
Until there is a secure protection of their copyrights, it would make absolutely no sense to publish their music on the Internet.
Then they should keep their precious, precious IP all to themselves...and then see how much it is worth. What copyright was originally setup to do is protect the right to profit from the works. And so it has. It has also protected the right to profit mightily from the distrubution and reproduction of those works. It is these activities that the music industry has leveraged to control access to their product. Under these guidelines there is a good reason to support these large companies, because without them we couldn't get our music. Along comes the Internet, which makes their entire scheme null and void. It's not needed, their profit generating activities, once the only way to get music into the hands of millions, are no longer needed. That's not to say there still isn't money to be made and a profit to be had, but when you take away 99% of the cost of something, the profit margin will go down. These companies don't want that.
They are using the revenue generated from a stranglehold in one era, to strangle the next. That is NOT good for popular culture (unless you think popular culture should consist of what you are TOLD is popular)
Cave paintings and folk stories were not works of art.
I would say the painters and tellers would disagree. Have you ever seen a good storyteller? Nowadays most go by the moniker "actor".
They showed how one hunts. they showed what one hunts,
Kind of like Swingers, no?
they told of what happens to people when they do bad things in an allegorical fashion.
And you're saying this isn't art?! Demonstrating an insight into life through metaphor? You ever listen to any music? (that would be outside the "look at me, I'm young and hot" genre)
Is art a reflection of life, or life a reflection of art?
Realize, I'm not saying copyright and IP should be done away with. I just think they need to be adjusted to be more inline with the reality of the situation. (which is that the Internet makes control of digital media impossible)
You forgot about the Internet. It replaces every single large company that artists must sign their life's work away to get promotion money. The kind of money that buys Tom Poleman the Program Director for WHTZ-Radio (Z-100) in New York City an all-expense paid trip to Bermuda after he put Ricky Martin's latest "sure to be #1" on the playlist. That money came from Ricky's marketing budget.
That's where the problem comes in. By lobbying to help make barriers of entry harder, and creating an environment where you can't help but sell your soul to get a bit of radio airplay, the established players in the market are trying to make it a CRIMINAL ACT to compete with them. Or at least slow that competition with ridiculous lawsuits based on lobby-writtn laws.
Money made art possible. Money still makes are possible.
This is utter complete and total bullshit. So money made the cavepaintings? Money is why for generations the elders of a tribe would recount their legends? Money is why workers sign in the fields and gather around a campfire to sharet their voices?
Money destroys art because it takes away the passion that lead to its creation. It makes the "best" art the most common, the most profitable, the art that communicates to the lowest common denomenator. Money makes art shit.
..community reputation, as far as I'm concerned. Their lawyering folk got a little miffed that someone had ported Magic to the Internet.
What followed was a quick lawsuit, and tremendous outrage from the online community. Eventually WoTC capitulated and decided to play nice. They are on, as it were, the cluetrain. Let's hope they stay there. I've got a page about it somewhere...
art (and science) are not self sustaining entities that can be just given away.
I'm curious why you don't think art and science are self-sustaining? Or can they only not be given away when something has to be given (i.e. a physical exchange)? I offer Linux as a science counter-example, I don't think art has been given the opportunity yet.
Of course, you could subscribe to the thoughts of Marx and the examples of aberrant implementations by Chairman Mao, Lenin, Stalin, etc. where true art (a la Solzhenitsen (sp?), the guy who wrote the Gulag Archipeligo and thusly expelled) is highly censored but free for all.
Why would it need to be consored here? I would think that free art in a free market would flourish. High levels of competition and all that.
Or, you can deal with privately funded art which is never censored (cf Maplethorpe (sp?), Piss Christ, etc. (I hate LISP as a side note), art produced for a very, very select few to appreciate) but only available at the whim of the owner.
If people want to pay for their own twisted fantasies to be made real that's fine...
I think copyright has been pushed too far. It's been aggegated and exploited and now the original pupose (much like the patent system and software) has been lost, replaced with the unquenchable thirst of corporate profits. When "artists" band together and lobby the government, you know something is SERIOUSLY wrong.
I would be busting a gut to see that there was no way to home-copy with the new equipment that will accompany HDTV.
What do you think they are doing? This is the major hold-up for implementing a spec for Digital TV. The major copyright holders (you know the acronyms) are pushing for hardware layer copy protections. The makers of the sets (and pretty much everyone else) doesn't want that, as it adds both an additional layer of expense and complexity that is unnecessary. Here's a good place to start, if you are curious. The government get's involved, esp the FCC, because we give broadcasters their entire spectrum (for free!!)
"When they charged $79 for a VHS movie, it created a clear incentive to make pirated copies," he said. "When they charge a fair price, the market for pirated copies disappears."
Now, of course to get rid of a pirate market, there would have to be one. I haven't seen it. And they know they aren't against "piraters" out for a profit, they are against "sharers" who are against draconian control of the media. The Internet makes control of digital media impossible. The longer is takes the major copyright holders in the U.S to realize that, is the longer that lawyers will be making money off them. And the longer they WON'T be making money off us.
after playing some of the AI is Q3 (esp. the final dude) I fail to see how the futuristic robots in Terminator and the like were capable of *missing* their targets.
I don't know why I should be forced to copy protect my desktop.... .
You know what the biggest impediment to reaching an agreeable spec for DTV is? Content producers want hardware layer copy protections, but the manufacturers don't want to put it in. Why? Because it costs too much and is technically useless....
and so is Springer and Souhtpark and even the Simpsons. We (at least my generation) likes laughing at ourselves a lot. Mainly because we know how ridiculous we are...
Exactly. We are definitely on the same side, but it was a reply to one of *my* extremely cynical posts that motivated me to do this. So I was just trying to keep the fire burning...
BTW, I need a quick DeCSS link, I've finally got my site back up. Anyone?
You're wrong sig. Totally. While janitors might work have something in common with us, they don't work with the same stuff we do. Information. We are all information workers, right?
And what's the most powerful political force?
What's the most powerful cultural force?
What's the most powerful military force?
Info, baby, and we're swimming in it. So cut the cynicism, or at least temper it with action. Then we'll be talking in 20 years of the hard-fought victories, instead of the opressive regimes.
I got there at 12:58 for a 1:00 appointment. He met me about 1:15. Khakis. blue shirt, tie.
I started off with a couple questions about privacy and the FBI. He was against most of their efforts to gain administrative wiretapping permission, instead saying there should still be a judge involved (although he mentioned there were both good and bad judges, IHHO)
Then I went on to some patent issues. This was where he was most responsive to some of my ideas. Having read up a bit on the history of the patent system, I was able (I think) to illustrate to him that it was not, at least in the realm of software, fuctioning as originally intended, and was now inhibiting the progress of an industry. I said that often the physical task of writing software was inexpensive (at least froma a starting point), and often it was prohibitively expensive to do a thorough enough check to make sure someone hadn't used the same obvious of even slightly trickly method you were planning on implementing. Thus creating prohibitive barriers of entry into a burgeoning industry. I mentioned Bezo's letter, and suggestions, but how he felt his hands were tied given the current system.
Then I went on into DMCA, IP, and copyright. I used the DVD case (which he had heard of) as an example on why you might need to circumvent copy protection as a means to fair use, and how that action was now a felony in the U.S. I mentioned how I download MP3s as a way to try new music, and how various industry groups have tried to fight new technology every step of the way. Instead of fighting in the marketplace, they have moved to fighting in the courts. Since he didn't recognize the DMCA by name, I think a lot of this went in one ear and out the other. He was playing with his pen and fingernails during this one.
Finally, I got to explain (in under two minutes) the Linux/Open Source phenomonem and how it differed from traditional product design and distribution,i.e. the differences between an M$ EULA and the GPL. I mentioned how I felt political websites (including his) were not being used as the community centers they might be, and directed him to/., as a sample site for a community meeting place (hehe).
Finally, I ended with a quick bit about my fears as a current 'Net user that big (international conglomerate) money and government interference would erode and eventually destroy this wonderful medium and everything it makes possible.
I don't know how much he grokked, or even tried, but that was 10 minutes of time he wan't lobbied by the RIAA;-) I would strongly urge you to try and do something similar. I have the rather useful advantage of working in the same building as my congressman, but you might be surprised how accessible some of them might be.
There ya go. (oh, and thanks to 348 for the final push, no link, I post too much:(
I have an appointment (in about 15 min) to meet with one of my state's congressmen. After mentioning it to a couple people here (physical), I've gotten "good luck, he's a ___", none of which was good. I'll let you know how it goes. Basically I just want to see what the knows/thinks about the Net and some of its issues.
Slashdot Mirror
you would be surprised at how open "the masses" are to many of the ideas expressed in Katz's article (and others who think the IP system we have now is in need for a low level format). Take a few minutes to explain and they "get it". I do it all the time, peer pressure works on big companies too, just like they use it against us.
--
I think my Voodoo3 runs at 185(7?), some of the nVidia's might go up to 200, but that's tops, IIRC.
--
M$ would really like to push people off of win9x (for some good reasons)
Maybe if they wanted to do that, they would remove LAN support from Windows: (screw) Me.
submitted a while back but probably dismissed as flamebait, which it is.
--
True, Microsoft would never think of using market power to influence another company to limit a competitor (like they said they would in los documentos de la Dia de los Muertos, or like the gub'ment said they did in DOJ v Microsoft).
--
There should be any easy way to encode page info as XML. RadioSpy (and quakespy before it) uses active pinging technology pretty good. Is this something that could be wrapped around Mozilla?
--
I agree, here's one for you Trek fans (like me)
I was looking for a "buy this print", but couldn't find one.
--
"no-cost product" ... WHAT?!?! Did you just say that the life of an artist and their work is absolutely worthless?
No, you're reading your assumption that I'm a grumpy pirate into your argument. The product itself costs the creator NOTHING to reproduce a billion times over and spread throughout the world. Yes, there are fixed costs on producing content, but given the multiplying effects of digital media, that is the only cost in creating a product. So that is the only cost that needs to be covered to continue production.
I'm amazed at how much contempt for the artist I am discovering in these discussions, it is truly amazing.
No, it is not contempt for the artist. It is contempt for the people who control the artists and convince them to sign over the rights to their own work, in exchange for the promotional efforts and industry ties that all but guarantee a good selling album. They also convince the artists to sign away their next 5 albums, so in case the first one makes it big, the artist can't go and find a better deal. That is where the contempt is.
So by making Lambourghinis $200k, they are "controlling" my "access" to it? Excuse me, but no.
Umm that seems like a pretty good control of access, no? Besides, please don't try and bring products where scarcity is a concern into the argument, they don't apply. Unless you happen to know where I can download a Ferrari...
How does this have any bearing at all on the current discussion?
This is what the current discussion is about. Remember at the beginning of my first comment when I said "You forgot about the Internet." You're trying to do it again.
Instead of being a constructive atmosphere, you choose to represent the Internet as a place where if you want to create, good, we'll steal every single thing you do and rape you dry and we don't give a fuck about your life.
Or perhaps it would be a bit more like that other thing where people have released their creation to the Net. That Linux thing. Where nobody cares about Linus, or Alan, or Richard, or Miguel, or Rasterman. It's a freakin' cult of personality. Kind of like music should be, no? I guess I was raping Phish when I plunked down $175 to get in a gate to see them play (multiple that by 75,000 and tell me you can't make money giving away music). Yea, those idiots, releasing all that music on the Net to make their fans happy. What a crazy idea!
That might work for Morissey, but it won't work for many others.
Give me a list of those that have tried, and I'll believe you. Give me a list of big bands who have made their music free to all (just to listen to, mind you) and has failed because of it. I'll be right here waiting...
You just shot a huge load with that statement. You are assuming everyone is stupid enough to be duped by advertisment, you're assuming people are watching those advertisements, you'r eassuming a whole assload of things which boil down to a simple point: You believe people are stupid and that companies only have to spend a few bucks to get them hooked. I believe this is true for a large quantity of human beings. I also believe that those human beings deserve exactly what they get from the big corporations.
Aah, this is where we differ. I, being the happy-go-lucky person I am, would rather the poor unguided souls NOT support repressive regimes and line the pockets of immoral record executives. You think that's great. It's not your responsibility, or even a worthwhile undertaking, to educate others about the effects of their apathy. I guess if that's where you want to stand , so be it.
The big question here is, what was the last band that failed that the record companies supported?
hmm, Vanilla Ice, Milli Vanilli, New Kids on the Block, Poison, Debbie Gibson, oh, here's a nice list
Fine, just ingore my point
No prob, it was a weak point. Unless you think that *every* story was told and every *painting* was done for the sole reason of education.
They'd then stick a nice big spear through your skull when you ask them why they waste time hunting while they could be painting pretty pictures and then letting other people have them without trade.
Wow, they had the Internet back then? Awesome (remember my first sentence waay back when, something about remembering something...).
There will be a future on the Internet of protected content.
Perhaps, but not for music.
You will hate it, you will rail against it, which is why it WON'T happen.
Sit back and wait. Wait and watch.
YOU do that, I've got better stuff to do.
hmmm If you do art for arts sake, well, masturbation is fun but empty.
I saw this on one of your other threads. Now I know why you don't get it.
ALL HAIL THE PROFIT MOTIVE, ITS THE ONLY REASON ART GETS DONE!
--
However, the music market on the Internet is currently hostile. Any format which supports a secure method of generating royalties for the artist is attacked and eventually cracked.
well, yes, the Internet is certainly is hostile to anything it sees as an error. Secure methods used to leverage a no-cost product into a high cost one are quickly exposed for the useless bits of logic they are. And I daresay the Internet will continue to be hostile to these forms of control for the forseeable future. The Internet makes control of digital media impossible.
Until there is a secure protection of their copyrights, it would make absolutely no sense to publish their music on the Internet.
Then they should keep their precious, precious IP all to themselves...and then see how much it is worth. What copyright was originally setup to do is protect the right to profit from the works. And so it has. It has also protected the right to profit mightily from the distrubution and reproduction of those works. It is these activities that the music industry has leveraged to control access to their product. Under these guidelines there is a good reason to support these large companies, because without them we couldn't get our music. Along comes the Internet, which makes their entire scheme null and void. It's not needed, their profit generating activities, once the only way to get music into the hands of millions, are no longer needed. That's not to say there still isn't money to be made and a profit to be had, but when you take away 99% of the cost of something, the profit margin will go down. These companies don't want that.
They are using the revenue generated from a stranglehold in one era, to strangle the next. That is NOT good for popular culture (unless you think popular culture should consist of what you are TOLD is popular)
Cave paintings and folk stories were not works of art.
I would say the painters and tellers would disagree. Have you ever seen a good storyteller? Nowadays most go by the moniker "actor".
They showed how one hunts. they showed what one hunts,
Kind of like Swingers, no?
they told of what happens to people when they do bad things in an allegorical fashion.
And you're saying this isn't art?! Demonstrating an insight into life through metaphor? You ever listen to any music? (that would be outside the "look at me, I'm young and hot" genre)
Is art a reflection of life, or life a reflection of art?
Realize, I'm not saying copyright and IP should be done away with. I just think they need to be adjusted to be more inline with the reality of the situation. (which is that the Internet makes control of digital media impossible)
--
I've got a page about it somewhere...
sorry about the double post.
--
You forgot about the Internet. It replaces every single large company that artists must sign their life's work away to get promotion money. The kind of money that buys Tom Poleman the Program Director for WHTZ-Radio (Z-100) in New York City an all-expense paid trip to Bermuda after he put Ricky Martin's latest "sure to be #1" on the playlist. That money came from Ricky's marketing budget.
That's where the problem comes in. By lobbying to help make barriers of entry harder, and creating an environment where you can't help but sell your soul to get a bit of radio airplay, the established players in the market are trying to make it a CRIMINAL ACT to compete with them. Or at least slow that competition with ridiculous lawsuits based on lobby-writtn laws.
Money made art possible. Money still makes are possible.
This is utter complete and total bullshit. So money made the cavepaintings? Money is why for generations the elders of a tribe would recount their legends? Money is why workers sign in the fields and gather around a campfire to sharet their voices?
Money destroys art because it takes away the passion that lead to its creation. It makes the "best" art the most common, the most profitable, the art that communicates to the lowest common denomenator. Money makes art shit.
--
..community reputation, as far as I'm concerned. Their lawyering folk got a little miffed that someone had ported Magic to the Internet.
What followed was a quick lawsuit, and tremendous outrage from the online community. Eventually WoTC capitulated and decided to play nice. They are on, as it were, the cluetrain. Let's hope they stay there. I've got a page about it somewhere...
--
note that this is an older recipe
but I want the new Coke!
--
art (and science) are not self sustaining entities that can be just given away.
I'm curious why you don't think art and science are self-sustaining? Or can they only not be given away when something has to be given (i.e. a physical exchange)? I offer Linux as a science counter-example, I don't think art has been given the opportunity yet.
Of course, you could subscribe to the thoughts of Marx and the examples of aberrant implementations by Chairman Mao, Lenin, Stalin, etc. where true art (a la Solzhenitsen (sp?), the guy who wrote the Gulag Archipeligo and thusly expelled) is highly censored but free for all.
Why would it need to be consored here? I would think that free art in a free market would flourish. High levels of competition and all that.
Or, you can deal with privately funded art which is never censored (cf Maplethorpe (sp?), Piss Christ, etc. (I hate LISP as a side note), art produced for a very, very select few to appreciate) but only available at the whim of the owner.
If people want to pay for their own twisted fantasies to be made real that's fine...
I think copyright has been pushed too far. It's been aggegated and exploited and now the original pupose (much like the patent system and software) has been lost, replaced with the unquenchable thirst of corporate profits. When "artists" band together and lobby the government, you know something is SERIOUSLY wrong.
--
about the satellite rebroadcasting.
What you want is happening in the form of the 1999 Satellite Home Viewers Act. Here's the homepage
Thanks for the briefing, this looks like a transitional device, maybe the 2.4 version will have what you really wanted.;)
--
what are you up to now? I'm at a lazy 155...
I wonder what Sig has by now...
--
Besides, if someone is activly re-reading these posts in late 2055, expecting something of value, then they deserve to be disappointed.
and they'll wonder how we could have possibly eaten all those hot grits.
--
I would be busting a gut to see that there was no way to home-copy with the new equipment that will accompany HDTV.
What do you think they are doing? This is the major hold-up for implementing a spec for Digital TV. The major copyright holders (you know the acronyms) are pushing for hardware layer copy protections. The makers of the sets (and pretty much everyone else) doesn't want that, as it adds both an additional layer of expense and complexity that is unnecessary. Here's a good place to start, if you are curious. The government get's involved, esp the FCC, because we give broadcasters their entire spectrum (for free!!)
--
is at the end of the article
"When they charged $79 for a VHS movie, it created a clear incentive to make pirated copies,"
he said. "When they charge a fair price, the market for pirated copies disappears."
Now, of course to get rid of a pirate market, there would have to be one. I haven't seen it. And they know they aren't against "piraters" out for a profit, they are against "sharers" who are against draconian control of the media. The Internet makes control of digital media impossible. The longer is takes the major copyright holders in the U.S to realize that, is the longer that lawyers will be making money off them. And the longer they WON'T be making money off us.
--
after playing some of the AI is Q3 (esp. the final dude) I fail to see how the futuristic robots in Terminator and the like were capable of *missing* their targets.
--
I don't know why I should be forced to copy protect my desktop.... .
You know what the biggest impediment to reaching an agreeable spec for DTV is? Content producers want hardware layer copy protections, but the manufacturers don't want to put it in. Why? Because it costs too much and is technically useless....
--
and so is Springer and Souhtpark and even the Simpsons. We (at least my generation) likes laughing at ourselves a lot. Mainly because we know how ridiculous we are...
--
Exactly. We are definitely on the same side, but it was a reply to one of *my* extremely cynical posts that motivated me to do this. So I was just trying to keep the fire burning...
BTW, I need a quick DeCSS link, I've finally got my site back up. Anyone?
--
You're wrong sig. Totally. While janitors might work have something in common with us, they don't work with the same stuff we do. Information. We are all information workers, right?
And what's the most powerful political force?
What's the most powerful cultural force?
What's the most powerful military force?
Info, baby, and we're swimming in it. So cut the cynicism, or at least temper it with action. Then we'll be talking in 20 years of the hard-fought victories, instead of the opressive regimes.
--
I got there at 12:58 for a 1:00 appointment. He met me about 1:15. Khakis. blue shirt, tie.
/., as a sample site for a community meeting place (hehe).
;-) I would strongly urge you to try and do something similar. I have the rather useful advantage of working in the same building as my congressman, but you might be surprised how accessible some of them might be.
:(
I started off with a couple questions about privacy and the FBI. He was against most of their efforts to gain administrative wiretapping permission, instead saying there should still be a judge involved (although he mentioned there were both good and bad judges, IHHO)
Then I went on to some patent issues. This was where he was most responsive to some of my ideas. Having read up a bit on the history of the patent system, I was able (I think) to illustrate to him that it was not, at least in the realm of software, fuctioning as originally intended, and was now inhibiting the progress of an industry. I said that often the physical task of writing software was inexpensive (at least froma a starting point), and often it was prohibitively expensive to do a thorough enough check to make sure someone hadn't used the same obvious of even slightly trickly method you were planning on implementing. Thus creating prohibitive barriers of entry into a burgeoning industry. I mentioned Bezo's letter, and suggestions, but how he felt his hands were tied given the current system.
Then I went on into DMCA, IP, and copyright. I used the DVD case (which he had heard of) as an example on why you might need to circumvent copy protection as a means to fair use, and how that action was now a felony in the U.S. I mentioned how I download MP3s as a way to try new music, and how various industry groups have tried to fight new technology every step of the way. Instead of fighting in the marketplace, they have moved to fighting in the courts. Since he didn't recognize the DMCA by name, I think a lot of this went in one ear and out the other. He was playing with his pen and fingernails during this one.
Finally, I got to explain (in under two minutes) the Linux/Open Source phenomonem and how it differed from traditional product design and distribution,i.e. the differences between an M$ EULA and the GPL. I mentioned how I felt political websites (including his) were not being used as the community centers they might be, and directed him to
Finally, I ended with a quick bit about my fears as a current 'Net user that big (international conglomerate) money and government interference would erode and eventually destroy this wonderful medium and everything it makes possible.
I don't know how much he grokked, or even tried, but that was 10 minutes of time he wan't lobbied by the RIAA
There ya go. (oh, and thanks to 348 for the final push, no link, I post too much
--
I have an appointment (in about 15 min) to meet with one of my state's congressmen. After mentioning it to a couple people here (physical), I've gotten "good luck, he's a ___", none of which was good. I'll let you know how it goes. Basically I just want to see what the knows/thinks about the Net and some of its issues.
--