This is not the first example of this and the article is factually wrong. There is on they have been working on in Hollywood for quite a while that was featured on Scientific America on PBS.
This is old news which we've all heard before. What is new about this? The NYC subway has a the "over 35 Year Old" quote on the walls in Barnes and Noble poster..
BTW - the better quote from that campaign is that "The limitations of a Man's view of the horizon is always mistaken for the scope of the Universe". Children under the age of 35 most often have a very small horizons:).
The New GPL solves the fundemental problem that the GPL was origianlyl designed for. It prevents someone from using a physicl barrier which removes all of the freedoms that an individual has with software which up til now has been only legally bound up.
We're facing a situation today where the legal contracts are irrelevant because the available hardware enforces restrictions which were previously only enforcable through contract and copyright law. Its not a market issue. Its the use of copyright contracts and the GPL to enforce the software writer and users rights to have continued access to Free Software. If the majority of available laptops use a DRM scheme, in the way that "Linus" is talking about, to restrict their running only a version of a MS OS, then the Free Software users, and all the GPL's in the world is fucked.
Ruben President NYLXS Founder of New Yorkers for Fair Use
Linus needs to watch out because putting private DMCA protected keys into the source code of Linuxz will make Linux a trafficing agent for a circumvention device under the DMCA.
I'm personally looking forward to this happening. Instead of Free Dmitry, NY Fair Use (fairuse.nylxs.com) can get more coverage on this issue if they lock up the poster child of Free Software
Re:Some people seem to miss the point.
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
Putting the Keys into the source is worse than just a minor problem of IF DRM can be done. The DRM under protection of the DMCA which would be in the Linux Source would become a trafficing device. Then Linus would be a felon.
Looking further at the troubles with
the e-gov-os conference and after reviewing the
opinions of Bruce Perens, Richard Stallman, David Sugar, Jay
Sulzburger, David Wheeler, Stanley Klein, Chalu Kim, Claus
Srensen, Jason Faulkner, Russell McOrmond, Louis
Suarez-Potts, David A. Hammond and others, comments which have
expanded over 10 mailing lists, and which have generated a few
hundred private emails to me in my private email box, I'm forced to
draw several conclusions.
First, as President of NYLXS and
President of New Yorkers for Fair Use, my primary concern is two
fold:
First, in my role as President of
NYLXS, my primary goal is to cater to the needs of the membership,
and the extended constituency of the organization, the Free Software
development community and users in the New York City area. In
truth, all organizations have a primary responsibility to their
constituencies. It is time for others to look at their constituency
and see how they are serving them. An organization which doesn't
serve a constituency is an organization in name only.
Secondly, as an individual citizen and
active member of the Free Software movement, I'm concerned with broad
policy decisions of others in regards to individual rights with in
our digitalized communications network. I'm focused on practical
activities which protect the freedom of individuals and empower
individuals and communities in education, government and business.
These are the only two
prisms in which I can view the planned events of EgovOS
conference.
I tend to be very
thorough and deliberate in my conclusions.
When I work through the process of developing activities and
actions, or when I write in regard to issues of importance in a
proper fashion for publication, or when I give a formal opinion
piece representing any of our organizations journals, radio shows,
public speeches, or other formalized media
outlets, I bring to bear on that presentation, not only thorough
research of the issue and much consultation, but also my 30 years of
political and practical experience in
affecting positive political and social outcomes.
I bring this same effort to this
current letter, which I am opening up to the public and which will be
published on http://fairuse.nylxs.com
and which will be included in the coming NYLXS Journal.
First, let's look at the stated goals
of the sponsored event. As listed on htttp://www.egovos.org/,
the goals of this conference is:
Open Source for National and Local
eGovernment Programs in the U.S. and EU
Goals:
the presentation of best practices
raising awareness
sharing of experiences among
policy makers, donors, users/consumers, universities, and industry
specialists in Open Source, e-Government and related fields.
NYLXS has, for a couple of years,
worked to sell Free Software on both the local, New York City Level
and in the Federal Government. We'll had a variety of
experiences in this regard, many of them very
negative. As such, this conference seems to be important to
the economic and political health of the NYLXS membership, including
The Free Software Chamber of Commerce, our Public Educational
initiative in New York City Public Schools, and New Yorkers for Fair
Use. Our direct prosperity as a community is tied to the stated
goals of the conference, and in fact, members of the Free Software
Chamber of Commerce had prepared to make presentations at the
conference. It was the concerns of members of the Free Software
Chamber of Commerce which brought the problems which have
enveloped the conference to my attention.
The main problem is the participation
of Microsoft as a speaker and presenter at the conference. In a
previous email, I have already listed the problems that
Microsoft presents. But for the sake of making this a
complete document, I will reiterate them and expand upon the
Microsoft issue.
First of all, Microsoft is a reckless
company which operates above the law. It has recently been convicted
twice for antitrust activities, and has been guilty of numerous other
illegal competitive practices which have gone without prosecution.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm
is a rundown of the current conviction of Microsoft for antitrust
actions which is still going through the courts. Microsoft was not
only determined have acted illegally in regard to browser
technology, but they have also had their CEO, Bill Gates, lie under
oath. The testimony can be searched here:
Chase's testimony last week struck a note similar to the previous
week's fiasco over a Microsoft videotaped demonstration. Government
attorney David Boies had scored by pointing out inconsistent details
in a videotape, submitted by Microsoft as evidence, that showed that
Microsoft had used multiple PCs to film a demo the company first
implied was a seamless segment filmed on one computer. U.S. District
Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson said he did not believe that the
Microsoft witness who had testified to the truthfulness of the tape
lied about it, but trial observers said the incident undermined the
defense's credibility.
In fact, this reprint of the
original Ziff Davis Net article with a John Hall interview is
in my private archive of resources. The article quotes Mad Dog Hall
as properly urging the government to jail Bill Gates for his illegal
activities:
Microsoft has competed unfairly with
Borland, FoxPro, Netscape, Sun, Apple among
others. They have actively pursued a business plan designed
to strip individuals and organization from the fruits of their
efforts by tweaking the desktop making
others products function worse than Microsoft's
products. They have repeatedly hindered the empowerment of
people and prevented the empowerment of individuals, especially
negatively impacting disenfranchised communities, such as
those that NYLXS represents in Brooklyn, and the City of New York.
60 minutes even broadcast a show which showed to fear that developers
have of Microsoft and the expectations of these developers to be
damaged by their 'Partner'
Of the many
corporations in the global economy,
Microsoft alone has distinguished itself as a proactive
opponent to Free Software.
Things began to heat up with the
Halloween Papers.
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
Microsoft then made a frontal attack on
the Free Software Foundations GPL, the most potent tool which
protects the community from hostile activities by businesses and
individuals who wish to destroy our ability to collaborate.
looks at how DRM (trusted computing)
attacks the GPL.
This certification scheme will rip the guts out of the GPL. That is,
the minute I begin tinkering with my software, my ability to
interface with the Great PKI in the Sky will be broken. I'll have a
Linux box with a GPL, all right; but if I exercise the license in any
meaningful way I'll render my system 'unauthorized for Palladium' and
lose business. So instead, I imagine I'll be turning to my vendor for
support, updates, modifications and patches. And I'll be dependent on
them for support services at whatever price they can wheedle out of
me because I dare not lose my Palladium authorization. I wonder if
the cost of ownership of an open-source system will actually be lower
than the cost of a proprietary system under such circumstances.
Prior to this, Microsoft's Craig Mundie
made several false statements against the GPL at New York University.
Some of the most successful OSS technology is licensed under the GNU
General Public License or GPL. The GPL mandates that any software
that incorporates source code already licensed under the GPL will
itself become subject to the GPL. When the resulting software product
is distributed, its creator must make the entire source code base
freely available to everyone, at no additional charge. This viral
aspect of the GPL poses a threat to the intellectual property of any
organization making use of it. It also fundamentally undermines the
independent commercial software sector because it effectively makes
it impossible to distribute software on a basis where recipients pay
for the product rather than just the cost of distribution.
Microsoft
had mailed to every IT director in the US
brochures which vilified the GPL, the Free Software movement,
and by extension, the Open Source
advocates. These mailings contained blatant lies
about the contribution of Free Software to the economy and threatened
IT directors and developers with unfounded negative consequences if
they deploy or use Free Software. The recent GPL FAQ, for example,
has the following excerpt:
Have your lawyers read the GPL (and the LGPL)? Because the
GPL is so frequently misunderstood and
because it attempts, under certain circumstances, to impose
significant obligations on licensees and their intellectual property
rights, no responsible business should use GPL software
without ensuring that its lawyers have read the license and
explained the business rights and obligations. They should
also review and explain the Lesser General Public License, or LGPL,
a related license that is sometimes used with open source libraries.
Businesses
every day uses Microsoft Software and the software of others which
contain intrusive and abusive licensing
which is directly in conflict with logical business practices. They
would never be accepted by legal teams if the process was open to
genuine contract negotiation. The contracts with Microsoft
foists on businesses through its abusive monopoly
powers constrains segments which allow the
disabling of the software and intrudes on the private ownership of
data and systems by businesses which purchase Microsoft products
today. This is in addition to the clauses which waves them from any
responsibility for damages done to business through security
violations or the failure of products to perform according to their
expectations. And then they sponsored UCITA
to make sure that downloaded software from Free Software vendors can
not get the same level of protection in a blatant
effort to damage efforts of distributors of
Free Software to comply with the GPL.
Microsoft
has been such an aggressive enemy of Free Software, and the general
public that they have used the BSA to do witch hunts against users
and business.
They
have threatened lawsuits against those who
have reversed engineered their document formats They moved their free
font access because users downloaded them for Free Software systems.
They have proposed a DRM system designed to
circumvent the freedom of Free Software development. They have fixed
benchmarking studies versus Free Software
systems. They have obstructed the legally required refund for
operating systems which are forced on consumers with preinstalled
systems. They built spyware into their multimedia players, twisted
the Java programming language to be incompatible with the
implementation on other platforms, refused to release products
on Free Software platforms, which includes Microsoft Internet
Explorer, introduced in NT4 service pack 3 changes to the SMB
protocols to make it break with the Free Software SAMBA
product, built back doors into in it's
CryptoAPI, deliberately broke the Opera Web Browser when used with
the MSN network, have brought down the internet through viruses TWICE
in the last year, supported DRM in concert with Record Labels
(
http://grotto11.com/blog/slash.html?+1039831658
), advertised recently
for advanced Free Software administrators to
work for Microsoft in order to create a strategy
to force businesses off of Free Software, and more.
Overall,
Microsoft alone as a corporation has
distinguished itself as an entity which, as a core business
policy, is set to enslave Free Software and the general population.
Their mission is to dehumanize and embarrass our
membership, and to impoverish our community.
This
body of evidence would be enough to reject out of hand the entry of
Microsoft to the conference. But NYLXS and NY Fair Use has a growing
new concern which is pushing it to action. In the face of the
growing threat by the Microsoft Corporation to
the well-being of Free Software developers, a threat that can be seen
by Microsoft hiring GNU/Linux experts in
the effort to undermine the business efforts of our community through
lies and falsehoods, as well as technically breaking the
beneficial integration of mixed environments, and which can be
further seen by the 'shared source' media
campaign which lies about the foundation of a free society and
the stake of businesses in the promotion of both Open Sourced and
Free Software legal foundation, there is an increasing knee jerk
reaction by organizations supposedly representing the communities
interests to give Microsoft a platform and a business advantage at
conferences and shows which are designed to promote the community's
effort in establishing digital rights and economic development. This
started at 'Linux World Expo' in San Fransico and has moved into the
New York 'Linux World Expo', where it directly damaged the well being
of my membership through the winning of an award which rewarded them
for creating a program only could properly write if you have the
Windows code base, and it is now making its way to the egov-os
conference.
The
inclusion of Microsoft at this event directly threatens the
health of the Free Software Chamber of Commerce in New York City.
There are places for an academic style debate for Free Software
versus Sun's community license and Microsoft's
Share Source' . A conference whose stated goals is to
raise awareness of Free Software and Open Software benefits, to
present the best practices for government, and to share experiences
about the benefits of using Free Software in government, is not such
a venue. This venue is about selling Free Software and the
community's efforts to the government. It is hoped to and create a
much needed stable economic pipeline for free software vendors with
government, based on its technical and
political merits. Microsoft's goals are in
direct conflict with the stated agenda of the conferences. Allowing
them to participate, based on the sole attribute that they are
Microsoft and feel that they have something to say, is not enough
reason to allow them a platform which will be used to hurt members of
the community.
Microsoft
has never contributed any code to the community.
Microsoft
has never advocated any benefits of the use of Free Software or Open
Source Software
Microsoft
has never financially contributed to any
Free Software development or promoted the education of people about
Free Software
Microsoft
has not, in any way, befriended the community.
Microsoft
has positioned itself as an enemy of the
community and has threatened it on numerous occasions. In
fact, Microsoft has singled out the Free Software and Open Source
community for abuse.
Because
of the growing misconduct of those who are presenting Free Software
and Open Sourced Software to the public, first IDG and now egovos,
NYLXS and New Yorkers for Fair Use is now
contemplating action, not so much directed against Microsoft,
but those wolves in sheep closing who are more directly hurting my
membership and the community at large.
In
considering actions to take, we are looking at a number of
possibilities.
First,
it is the opinion of Jay Sulzburger that we can use a hour of time to
counter the arguments of Microsoft. My experience is that this will
not work. On July 17th, I lead NY Fair Use to Washington
to argue against the inclusion of DRM. Despite the fact that our
presence was the most important part of the conference, to the point
where we engaged productively from the audience both Jack Valenti and
Philip Bond, we got no mainstream press. This was
despite the presence of the New York Time's Amy Harmon and
others. But our action was famous on
Capital Hill. When we went back for the Peer to Peer/Berman Bill
hearing two months later, several congressional staff members
sought me out to ask what we did and to give us compliments. Simply,
in regard to Jay's suggestion, nobody will attend such a session
outside of the choir, and it will receive no press. On the other
hand, Microsoft will get much press.
It
has been suggested that egov-os is better to concede a place for
Microsoft to allow an open debate. This will not be affective, and
the alternative of being tongue whipped by
Microsoft in the press is far better since they simply don't qualify
for a placement at the conference, and it will allow us to present to
the government administrators without interference. It is not NY
Fairuse's policy to play 'whack the mole' with DRM issues. Instead,
we focus on specific actions which will have broad affect and
undermine the ability of our political foes to bring endless action
again and again through the governments entire alphabet soup of
bureaucracy and congressional committees.
If Microsoft objects to being excluded, NY Fair Use
(http://fairuse.nylxs.com)
would be all to happy to provide a forum for both Microsoft and
Richard Stallman, and others, for the benefit of academic debate. It
would be a good fund raiser for the Free
Software Institute in the coming months. My guess is that Bill Gates
has no interest in such a real debate. His
company is only interested in marketing and damaging the community.
Therefore, participation by any Free Software advocates, or Open
Source advocates, in this egov-os conference is highly damaging to
the community if it includes Microsoft. And we are therefor calling
on a boycott for this event.
It
has been said that nobody is stupid enough to believe that
Microsoft's 'shared source' promotes Open Source software.
Unfortunately, this is very wrong. On the Open Office.org website,
every day people ask if they can use and distribute the products.
While I wouldn't say people are as dumb as rocks, I will say that
they've been so conditioned to think out software as a
super-restricted, crash inducing, virus ridden products, that they
often have trouble thinking straight about what they should expect
from business and software providers.
NY
Fair Use is now looking to organize a protest of the event in
Washington. A protest will at least give those genuinely from the
community an uninhibited outlet. However, NY Fair Use, in general,
dislikes protests as a vehicle of change,
as we feel they mostly are ignored by a public besieged by 'the
protest of the day'.
As a
result, we are looking at a more organized campaign against this
convention and those who would put events like this one together
without considering the moral imperative of
not harming the community by giving those who wish to destroy use a
platform such as this. Egov-os supposedly advocates Free Software
usage in business and government. It should do so without constraint
and without apologies.
We
are calling for an investigation of the egov-os organizers for
misconduct. I've spoken with Tony Stanco many times and it's not
possible that he doesn't grasp the basics of the issues outlined
here, or how including Microsoft will negatively
affect our community. Therefor, the invitation of Microsoft
to this conference must be either a direct payoff, or self promotion.
Since they are moral equivalents, they are
both both equally condemnable.
We
insist that Microsoft should not be given any platform at this event,
because it is their purpose to undermine the community and its
efforts. Since this is not being promoted as an academic debate, but
instead is a marketing tool for Open Source and Free Software, we
reject any arguments which are based on the concept that we should
open the floor to them in order to dispel
Microsoft corporate lies. This
venue does not have the most basic format to handle this problem.
If,
for contractual reasons, it is impossible to remove them from the
conference, we ask the organizers to give NYLXS's subcommittee,
New Yorkers for Fair Use, both the keynote and the Microsoft slot in
the speaking arraignments. David Sugar will represent NYLXS, and I
will represent NY Fair Use.
Finally,
the website for the event needs to have on the front page a clear
statement that it has determined that Microsoft's
'shared' code' program to be directly in
opposition to both Free Software and the Open Source ideals, in that
it does not promote the empowerment of the community through the
freedom of innovation and digital systems ownership by individuals,
the government or businesses.
I do
not expect that these suggestions will be taken by Bruce Perens, or
the other organizers of the egov-os events. So I expect that we will
have to work to oppose the event.
Looking further at the troubles with
the e-gov-os conference and after reviewing the
opinions of Bruce Perens, Richard Stallman, David Sugar, Jay
Sulzburger, David Wheeler, Stanley Klein, Chalu Kim, Claus
Srensen, Jason Faulkner, Russell McOrmond, Louis
Suarez-Potts, David A. Hammond and others, comments which have
expanded over 10 mailing lists, and which have generated a few
hundred private emails to me in my private email box, I'm forced to
draw several conclusions.
First, as President of NYLXS and
President of New Yorkers for Fair Use, my primary concern is two
fold:
First, in my role as President of
NYLXS, my primary goal is to cater to the needs of the membership,
and the extended constituency of the organization, the Free Software
development community and users in the New York City area. In
truth, all organizations have a primary responsibility to their
constituencies. It is time for others to look at their constituency
and see how they are serving them. An organization which doesn't
serve a constituency is an organization in name only.
Secondly, as an individual citizen and
active member of the Free Software movement, I'm concerned with broad
policy decisions of others in regards to individual rights with in
our digitalized communications network. I'm focused on practical
activities which protect the freedom of individuals and empower
individuals and communities in education, government and business.
These are the only two
prisms in which I can view the planned events of EgovOS
conference.
I tend to be very
thorough and deliberate in my conclusions.
When I work through the process of developing activities and
actions, or when I write in regard to issues of importance in a
proper fashion for publication, or when I give a formal opinion
piece representing any of our organizations journals, radio shows,
public speeches, or other formalized media
outlets, I bring to bear on that presentation, not only thorough
research of the issue and much consultation, but also my 30 years of
political and practical experience in
affecting positive political and social outcomes.
I bring this same effort to this
current letter, which I am opening up to the public and which will be
published on http://fairuse.nylxs.com
and which will be included in the coming NYLXS Journal.
First, let's look at the stated goals
of the sponsored event. As listed on htttp://www.egovos.org/,
the goals of this conference is:
Open Source for National and Local
eGovernment Programs in the U.S. and EU
Goals:
the presentation of best practices
raising awareness
sharing of experiences among
policy makers, donors, users/consumers, universities, and industry
specialists in Open Source, e-Government and related fields.
NYLXS has, for a couple of years,
worked to sell Free Software on both the local, New York City Level
and in the Federal Government. We'll had a variety of
experiences in this regard, many of them very
negative. As such, this conference seems to be important to
the economic and political health of the NYLXS membership, including
The Free Software Chamber of Commerce, our Public Educational
initiative in New York City Public Schools, and New Yorkers for Fair
Use. Our direct prosperity as a community is tied to the stated
goals of the conference, and in fact, members of the Free Software
Chamber of Commerce had prepared to make presentations at the
conference. It was the concerns of members of the Free Software
Chamber of Commerce which brought the problems which have
enveloped the conference to my attention.
The main problem is the participation
of Microsoft as a speaker and presenter at the conference. In a
previous email, I have already listed the problems that
Microsoft presents. But for the sake of making this a
complete document, I will reiterate them and expand upon the
Microsoft issue.
First of all, Microsoft is a reckless
company which operates above the law. It has recently been convicted
twice for antitrust activities, and has been guilty of numerous other
illegal competitive practices which have gone without prosecution.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm
is a rundown of the current conviction of Microsoft for antitrust
actions which is still going through the courts. Microsoft was not
only determined have acted illegally in regard to browser
technology, but they have also had their CEO, Bill Gates, lie under
oath. The testimony can be searched here:
Chase's testimony last week struck a note similar to the previous
week's fiasco over a Microsoft videotaped demonstration. Government
attorney David Boies had scored by pointing out inconsistent details
in a videotape, submitted by Microsoft as evidence, that showed that
Microsoft had used multiple PCs to film a demo the company first
implied was a seamless segment filmed on one computer. U.S. District
Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson said he did not believe that the
Microsoft witness who had testified to the truthfulness of the tape
lied about it, but trial observers said the incident undermined the
defense's credibility.
In fact, this reprint of the
original Ziff Davis Net article with a John Hall interview is
in my private archive of resources. The article quotes Mad Dog Hall
as properly urging the government to jail Bill Gates for his illegal
activities:
Microsoft has competed unfairly with
Borland, FoxPro, Netscape, Sun, Apple among
others. They have actively pursued a business plan designed
to strip individuals and organization from the fruits of their
efforts by tweaking the desktop making
others products function worse than Microsoft's
products. They have repeatedly hindered the empowerment of
people and prevented the empowerment of individuals, especially
negatively impacting disenfranchised communities, such as
those that NYLXS represents in Brooklyn, and the City of New York.
60 minutes even broadcast a show which showed to fear that developers
have of Microsoft and the expectations of these developers to be
damaged by their 'Partner'
Of the many
corporations in the global economy,
Microsoft alone has distinguished itself as a proactive
opponent to Free Software.
Things began to heat up with the
Halloween Papers.
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
Microsoft then made a frontal attack on
the Free Software Foundations GPL, the most potent tool which
protects the community from hostile activities by businesses and
individuals who wish to destroy our ability to collaborate.
looks at how DRM (trusted computing)
attacks the GPL.
This certification scheme will rip the guts out of the GPL. That is,
the minute I begin tinkering with my software, my ability to
interface with the Great PKI in the Sky will be broken. I'll have a
Linux box with a GPL, all right; but if I exercise the license in any
meaningful way I'll render my system 'unauthorized for Palladium' and
lose business. So instead, I imagine I'll be turning to my vendor for
support, updates, modifications and patches. And I'll be dependent on
them for support services at whatever price they can wheedle out of
me because I dare not lose my Palladium authorization. I wonder if
the cost of ownership of an open-source system will actually be lower
than the cost of a proprietary system under such circumstances.
Prior to this, Microsoft's Craig Mundie
made several false statements against the GPL at New York University.
Some of the most successful OSS technology is licensed under the GNU
General Public License or GPL. The GPL mandates that any software
that incorporates source code already licensed under the GPL will
itself become subject to the GPL. When the resulting software product
is distributed, its creator must make the entire source code base
freely available to everyone, at no additional charge. This viral
aspect of the GPL poses a threat to the intellectual property of any
organization making use of it. It also fundamentally undermines the
independent commercial software sector because it effectively makes
it impossible to distribute software on a basis where recipients pay
for the product rather than just the cost of distribution.
Microsoft
had mailed to every IT director in the US
brochures which vilified the GPL, the Free Software movement,
and by extension, the Open Source
advocates. These mailings contained blatant lies
about the contribution of Free Software to the economy and threatened
IT directors and developers with unfounded negative consequences if
they deploy or use Free Software. The recent GPL FAQ, for example,
has the following excerpt:
Have your lawyers read the GPL (and the LGPL)? Because the
GPL is so frequently misunderstood and
because it attempts, under certain circumstances, to impose
significant obligations on licensees and their intellectual property
rights, no responsible business should use GPL software
without ensuring that its lawyers have read the license and
explained the business rights and obligations. They should
also review and explain the Lesser General Public License, or LGPL,
a related license that is sometimes used with open source libraries.
Businesses
every day uses Microsoft Software and the software of others which
contain intrusive and abusive licensing
which is directly in conflict with logical business practices. They
would never be accepted by legal teams if the process was open to
genuine contract negotiation. The contracts with Microsoft
foists on businesses through its abusive monopoly
powers constrains segments which allow the
disabling of the software and intrudes on the private ownership of
data and systems by businesses which purchase Microsoft products
today. This is in addition to the clauses which waves them from any
responsibility for damages done to business through security
violations or the failure of products to perform according to their
expectations. And then they sponsored UCITA
to make sure that downloaded software from Free Software vendors can
not get the same level of protection in a blatant
effort to damage efforts of distributors of
Free Software to comply with the GPL.
Microsoft
has been such an aggressive enemy of Free Software, and the general
public that they have used the BSA to do witch hunts against users
and business.
They
have threatened lawsuits against those who
have reversed engineered their document formats They moved their free
font access because users downloaded them for Free Software systems.
They have proposed a DRM system designed to
circumvent the freedom of Free Software development. They have fixed
benchmarking studies versus Free Software
systems. They have obstructed the legally required refund for
operating systems which are forced on consumers with preinstalled
systems. They built spyware into their multimedia players, twisted
the Java programming language to be incompatible with the
implementation on other platforms, refused to release products
on Free Software platforms, which includes Microsoft Internet
Explorer, introduced in NT4 service pack 3 changes to the SMB
protocols to make it break with the Free Software SAMBA
product, built back doors into in it's
CryptoAPI, deliberately broke the Opera Web Browser when used with
the MSN network, have brought down the internet through viruses TWICE
in the last year, supported DRM in concert with Record Labels
(
http://grotto11.com/blog/slash.html?+1039831658
), advertised recently
for advanced Free Software administrators to
work for Microsoft in order to create a strategy
to force businesses off of Free Software, and more.
Overall,
Microsoft alone as a corporation has
distinguished itself as an entity which, as a core business
policy, is set to enslave Free Software and the general population.
Their mission is to dehumanize and embarrass our
membership, and to impoverish our community.
This
body of evidence would be enough to reject out of hand the entry of
Microsoft to the conference. But NYLXS and NY Fair Use has a growing
new concern which is pushing it to action. In the face of the
growing threat by the Microsoft Corporation to
the well-being of Free Software developers, a threat that can be seen
by Microsoft hiring GNU/Linux experts in
the effort to undermine the business efforts of our community through
lies and falsehoods, as well as technically breaking the
beneficial integration of mixed environments, and which can be
further seen by the 'shared source' media
campaign which lies about the foundation of a free society and
the stake of businesses in the promotion of both Open Sourced and
Free Software legal foundation, there is an increasing knee jerk
reaction by organizations supposedly representing the communities
interests to give Microsoft a platform and a business advantage at
conferences and shows which are designed to promote the community's
effort in establishing digital rights and economic development. This
started at 'Linux World Expo' in San Fransico and has moved into the
New York 'Linux World Expo', where it directly damaged the well being
of my membership through the winning of an award which rewarded them
for creating a program only could properly write if you have the
Windows code base, and it is now making its way to the egov-os
conference.
The
inclusion of Microsoft at this event directly threatens the
health of the Free Software Chamber of Commerce in New York City.
There are places for an academic style debate for Free Software
versus Sun's community license and Microsoft's
Share Source' . A conference whose stated goals is to
raise awareness of Free Software and Open Software benefits, to
present the best practices for government, and to share experiences
about the benefits of using Free Software in government, is not such
a venue. This venue is about selling Free Software and the
community's efforts to the government. It is hoped to and create a
much needed stable economic pipeline for free software vendors with
government, based on its technical and
political merits. Microsoft's goals are in
direct conflict with the stated agenda of the conferences. Allowing
them to participate, based on the sole attribute that they are
Microsoft and feel that they have something to say, is not enough
reason to allow them a platform which will be used to hurt members of
the community.
Microsoft
has never contributed any code to the community.
Microsoft
has never advocated any benefits of the use of Free Software or Open
Source Software
Microsoft
has never financially contributed to any
Free Software development or promoted the education of people about
Free Software
Microsoft
has not, in any way, befriended the community.
Microsoft
has positioned itself as an enemy of the
community and has threatened it on numerous occasions. In
fact, Microsoft has singled out the Free Software and Open Source
community for abuse.
Because
of the growing misconduct of those who are presenting Free Software
and Open Sourced Software to the public, first IDG and now egovos,
NYLXS and New Yorkers for Fair Use is now
contemplating action, not so much directed against Microsoft,
but those wolves in sheep closing who are more directly hurting my
membership and the community at large.
In
considering actions to take, we are looking at a number of
possibilities.
First,
it is the opinion of Jay Sulzburger that we can use a hour of time to
counter the arguments of Microsoft. My experience is that this will
not work. On July 17th, I lead NY Fair Use to Washington
to argue against the inclusion of DRM. Despite the fact that our
presence was the most important part of the conference, to the point
where we engaged productively from the audience both Jack Valenti and
Philip Bond, we got no mainstream press. This was
despite the presence of the New York Time's Amy Harmon and
others. But our action was famous on
Capital Hill. When we went back for the Peer to Peer/Berman Bill
hearing two months later, several congressional staff members
sought me out to ask what we did and to give us compliments. Simply,
in regard to Jay's suggestion, nobody will attend such a session
outside of the choir, and it will receive no press. On the other
hand, Microsoft will get much press.
It
has been suggested that egov-os is better to concede a place for
Microsoft to allow an open debate. This will not be affective, and
the alternative of being tongue whipped by
Microsoft in the press is far better since they simply don't qualify
for a placement at the conference, and it will allow us to present to
the government administrators without interference. It is not NY
Fairuse's policy to play 'whack the mole' with DRM issues. Instead,
we focus on specific actions which will have broad affect and
undermine the ability of our political foes to bring endless action
again and again through the governments entire alphabet soup of
bureaucracy and congressional committees.
If Microsoft objects to being excluded, NY Fair Use
(http://fairuse.nylxs.com)
would be all to happy to provide a forum for both Microsoft and
Richard Stallman, and others, for the benefit of academic debate. It
would be a good fund raiser for the Free
Software Institute in the coming months. My guess is that Bill Gates
has no interest in such a real debate. His
company is only interested in marketing and damaging the community.
Therefore, participation by any Free Software advocates, or Open
Source advocates, in this egov-os conference is highly damaging to
the community if it includes Microsoft. And we are therefor calling
on a boycott for this event.
It
has been said that nobody is stupid enough to believe that
Microsoft's 'shared source' promotes Open Source software.
Unfortunately, this is very wrong. On the Open Office.org website,
every day people ask if they can use and distribute the products.
While I wouldn't say people are as dumb as rocks, I will say that
they've been so conditioned to think out software as a
super-restricted, crash inducing, virus ridden products, that they
often have trouble thinking straight about what they should expect
from business and software providers.
NY
Fair Use is now looking to organize a protest of the event in
Washington. A protest will at least give those genuinely from the
community an uninhibited outlet. However, NY Fair Use, in general,
dislikes protests as a vehicle of change,
as we feel they mostly are ignored by a public besieged by 'the
protest of the day'.
As a
result, we are looking at a more organized campaign against this
convention and those who would put events like this one together
without considering the moral imperative of
not harming the community by giving those who wish to destroy use a
platform such as this. Egov-os supposedly advocates Free Software
usage in business and government. It should do so without constraint
and without apologies.
We
are calling for an investigation of the egov-os organizers for
misconduct. I've spoken with Tony Stanco many times and it's not
possible that he doesn't grasp the basics of the issues outlined
here, or how including Microsoft will negatively
affect our community. Therefor, the invitation of Microsoft
to this conference must be either a direct payoff, or self promotion.
Since they are moral equivalents, they are
both both equally condemnable.
We
insist that Microsoft should not be given any platform at this event,
because it is their purpose to undermine the community and its
efforts. Since this is not being promoted as an academic debate, but
instead is a marketing tool for Open Source and Free Software, we
reject any arguments which are based on the concept that we should
open the floor to them in order to dispel
Microsoft corporate lies. This
venue does not have the most basic format to handle this problem.
If,
for contractual reasons, it is impossible to remove them from the
conference, we ask the organizers to give NYLXS's subcommittee,
New Yorkers for Fair Use, both the keynote and the Microsoft slot in
the speaking arraignments. David Sugar will represent NYLXS, and I
will represent NY Fair Use.
Finally,
the website for the event needs to have on the front page a clear
statement that it has determined that Microsoft's
'shared' code' program to be directly in
opposition to both Free Software and the Open Source ideals, in that
it does not promote the empowerment of the community through the
freedom of innovation and digital systems ownership by individuals,
the government or businesses.
I do
not expect that these suggestions will be taken by Bruce Perens, or
the other organizers of the egov-os events. So I expect that we will
have to work to oppose the event.
NYLXS [nylxs.com] OK The Gnu/Linux 1 class, the Unix 1, class, the Perl 1 class, and others have all been superb. You are being taught by instructors who know what they teach, in an active, hands on environment. It is backed by an active mailing list, a learn list, an announcements list, Inservices that present various free software services and applications that are free to attend, business demos [nylxs.com], and more. Richard Stallman has dropped in on classes, inservices, and other events from time to time, and David Sugar (Bayonne telephony Project)and others have held inservices and dropped in on meetings and classes as well.
The philosophy behind NYLXS (which is in the process of becomming a non-profit entity) is that open source is useful and productive, should be promoted by everyone, and can only grow larger. The funds raised from classes will go to promoting free/open source software.
If you look at the mass push behind free/open source software in other countries, in companies and schools across America, and in various agencies, their eyes are either slowly being opened, or are being jammed wide open at the benefits for running free/open source software. It can no longer be denied that gnu/linux has a huge momentum behind it, and must be a part of everyone's toolbox from now on.
NYLXS teaches the nitty-gritty of what you need to know to get the job done. You can take individual classes, or take an entire program and get discounts. At the end of several classes, you will have a working server, which can be setup to do anything you want, apache, mail, file/print, etc. You will also have the knowledge you need to go forward as a sys admin, or whatever other computer related job you choose, or for just your own knowledge.
They have Gnu/Linux 1/2, Unix 1/2, Perl 1/2, C, Gimp, Open Office, and other classes as well. Every class is taught by someone who uses the software daily as their main operating system/application, and they may be using it as the main software in their profession, or they may be using it as an aid to pick up where other software falls flat on its face.
NYLXS [nylxs.com] also has a free software chamber of commerce, where they provide solutions for businesses using free/open source software, and which also gives the students who go through the training an opportunity to obtain employment, allows the students to make important business contacts, etc.
NYLXS [nylxs.com] will be present and have a booth at LinuxWorld [tradeshownews.com] in NYC. NYLXS membership was instrumental at the events that occured on July 17, 2002 at the Commerce Committee hearing for drm/other controls [nylxs.com], which had the direct effect of stalling the legislation, and opening up the process to what was previously a good 'ol boys process of enacting legislation behind closed doors.
Any sys admin, or anyone maintaining computers in a large user environment who does not know how to use and administer Gnu/Linux systems will be at a handicap when trying to sell themselves. I am aware of the environments of many companies, and for the larger (more than 10-15 seats) companies, they are virtually all experimenting with gnu/linux servers at least at a minimal level. They are just getting their feet wet at some of these companies, but as they become more familiar, and as they realize the benefits, they will become more and more involved with gnu/linux.
If you only know ms products, and are having trouble finding work, you must realize why. If you only know free software, you will also have trouble finding work. But sys admins and other techies that know both, and are comfortable with both, will have an easier time under any possible scenario.
Check out NYLXS [nylxs.com], especially the pages under the Free Software Institute [nylxs.com], and see what they offer. Their prices are very good, you get a working computer as part of the classes (which is used in the classes), you get access to numerous distributions, and you get a first rate education that is not taught to any test.
Complete one of the sequences, and then study the questions that are on the LPI exam [lpi.org], and you shouldn't have any problem passing the LPI exam when you are done with an NYLXS sequence.
The Gnu/Linux 1 class, the Unix 1, class, the Perl 1 class, and others have all been superb. You are being taught by instructors who know what they teach, in an active, hands on environment. It is backed by an active mailing list, a learn list, an announcements list, Inservices that present various free software services and applications that are free to attend, business demos [nylxs.com], and more. Richard Stallman has dropped in on classes, inservices, and other events from time to time, and David Sugar (Bayonne telephony Project)and others have held inservices and dropped in on meetings and classes as well.
The philosophy behind NYLXS (which is in the process of becomming a non-profit entity) is that open source is useful and productive, should be promoted by everyone, and can only grow larger. The funds raised from classes will go to promoting free/open source software.
If you look at the mass push behind free/open source software in other countries, in companies and schools across America, and in various agencies, their eyes are either slowly being opened, or are being jammed wide open at the benefits for running free/open source software. It can no longer be denied that gnu/linux has a huge momentum behind it, and must be a part of everyone's toolbox from now on.
NYLXS teaches the nitty-gritty of what you need to know to get the job done. You can take individual classes, or take an entire program and get discounts. At the end of several classes, you will have a working server, which can be setup to do anything you want, apache, mail, file/print, etc. You will also have the knowledge you need to go forward as a sys admin, or whatever other computer related job you choose, or for just your own knowledge.
They have Gnu/Linux 1/2, Unix 1/2, Perl 1/2, C, Gimp, Open Office, and other classes as well. Every class is taught by someone who uses the software daily as their main operating system/application, and they may be using it as the main software in their profession, or they may be using it as an aid to pick up where other software falls flat on its face.
NYLXS [nylxs.com] also has a free software chamber of commerce, where they provide solutions for businesses using free/open source software, and which also gives the students who go through the training an opportunity to obtain employment, allows the students to make important business contacts, etc.
NYLXS [nylxs.com] will be present and have a booth at LinuxWorld [tradeshownews.com] in NYC. NYLXS membership was instrumental at the events that occured on July 17, 2002 at the Commerce Committee hearing for drm/other controls [nylxs.com], which had the direct effect of stalling the legislation, and opening up the process to what was previously a good 'ol boys process of enacting legislation behind closed doors.
Any sys admin, or anyone maintaining computers in a large user environment who does not know how to use and administer Gnu/Linux systems will be at a handicap when trying to sell themselves. I am aware of the environments of many companies, and for the larger (more than 10-15 seats) companies, they are virtually all experimenting with gnu/linux servers at least at a minimal level. They are just getting their feet wet at some of these companies, but as they become more familiar, and as they realize the benefits, they will become more and more involved with gnu/linux.
If you only know ms products, and are having trouble finding work, you must realize why. If you only know free software, you will also have trouble finding work. But sys admins and other techies that know both, and are comfortable with both, will have an easier time under any possible scenario.
Check out NYLXS [nylxs.com], especially the pages under the Free Software Institute [nylxs.com], and see what they offer. Their prices are very good, you get a working computer as part of the classes (which is used in the classes), you get access to numerous distributions, and you get a first rate education that is not taught to any test.
Complete one of the sequences, and then study the questions that are on the LPI exam [lpi.org], and you shouldn't have any problem passing the LPI exam when you are done with an NYLXS sequence.
i forget over time how much NYLXS does for the community. I'm so pround of this organization, and our training and instructors are dedicated. They offer the best Training on the East coast, and the pofessional proesentations are great as well.
Check us out at LWE in the.ORG pravilion this coming week.
This is because they don't understand what computers can do for education. They really believe that making power point presentations is the solution. In NYLXS, with our educational initiative, we realized the FIRST question is, "what do we want from the computers" in education. The answer is two fold. First, we want students to learn about Computers as an area of study. We want them to learn generally what computers ARE, what do they DO, how can you PROGRAM THEM. We want this for the same reason we want them to learn Algebra. It's just a basic skill high School students need, and they can ONLY GET THIS with Free Software, where they can tinker and poke and learn by examination.
Secondly, we want to INTEGRATE the computers into the rest of the class study. We want them to learn the basic prinicples of ART with computers, and not learn PhotoShop, We want them to learn the prinicples of WRITING with computers to help them write, not teach them WORD, we want them to learn Book Keeping, NOT EXCEL, and so on.
So what we started to do is to create a criculum for TEACHERS. We found we need to teach teachers why and what they can get from the integration of computers into the learning environment.... and not to just stick a Computer Lab into the school and expect that functions to teach something.
The need for human expression is reason enough to produce art. Currently, almost no artists lives on their work and even D'vinci depended on patronage.
Give to PBS, but stop stealing my property by depriving me of the enjoyment of my property in my home.
We hope to have this Bill written in the next few months, and can use help in this matter from a lawyer. NYLXS hopes to fund this process. The basic outline is as follows:
Consider it a Digital Bill of Rights for the New Millennium:
The legislation to be drafted will accomplish the following main stream objectives which all reasonable people can expect:
-All copyrights to individual scores, writings, and recordings will be returned to the original artist after a period of 10 years.
-No technology can be deployed which spies on, wiretaps or discloses privately owned information which is stored on digital devices by any government agency or private 3rd party without the issuance of a publicly pronounced and disclosed warrant limited to a specific criminal investigation.
-All copyright cases must prove, prior to a judgment of guilt, proof that the actions in question did not infringe on Fair Use, and the individuals rights under the 4th and 1st amendment of the Bill of rights US Constitution.
-Ownership of all physical media, and devices to read such media, is the sole property of the purchaser of the media, without an expressly negotiated and signed contract between both the copyright holder and the purchaser.
-No technological software or hardware method can be deployed in a digital product and made available for normal retail sale which inhibits, in any way, the full enjoyment of the property by the purchasers, regardless of any agreement between the designer of the hardware or software products. Such agreements are null, and not contractible.
-Copyright is an exception to Fair Use as it limits the ability for individuals to enjoy their private property and express themselves with the use of such copyrighted materials. Fair Use is a doctrine to be based on the 4th and 1st amendments of the US Constitution.
-Individuals have the right to express themselves to others about the means, mechanism and workings of all digital devices, including but not limited to, discussion on how to make fair use of media, how to improve such devices, or to reverse engineer all such devices and the algorithms which are used to help them display, copy or run media.
We need to get as many big guns on this as possible and then relentlessly campaign, actively working to elect supporters and vote out incumbent opposition. In fact, we should look to defeat, not just the proposed spyware legislation, but also defeat Senator Hollings
Not to Quote Rube Too many times but, at the Libre Software Meeting in France he made this observation:
It is my hope that today, Brooklyn and the City of New York, can again find themselves as allies in the cause of freedom with this great nation of France. Free Software is the only way of assuring a future of prosperity, and security for all the peoples of the world. Only through the freedom to associate, to come together and collaborate in solving our problems can we hope to assure that these wonderful tools which we use for our expression, our industry, and our education, continue to remain as free as our press and our governments.
Our job as users, marketeers, promoters, and programmers of Free Software, is to assure the creation of the widest possible tent. We welcome all individuals to participate with Free Software. We welcome them to code, and to use Free Software to enrich their lives. We hope they can find in Free Software the freedom to express themselves and to become fulfilled.
While it is central to the business plan of every proprietary closed computing system to entangle the user, and to limit the use of digital tools, for Free Software, the essential goal is the opposite. Our goal to provide Free Software is for everyone. Our goal is to be empower the individual through our software, regardless of peoples wealth, background, or ethnicity. We offer everyone a stake in the future, a future which promises to be filled with digital communications, and increasing dependency on computers for our daily living. Digital devices are the future for education, entertainment and all of our information needs.
NY Fair Use
and NYLXS have worked really hard at preventing this. Your COngressman in Town this week!!! Pay a visit with your lug to the office this week.
We have to keep hammering it just like that, line for line on
these arguements, just as they are laid out.
Jack Valenti and July 17th, Washington DC, Department of
Commercie DRM Workshop:
"A little Demagogary Never Hurt anyone"
Jack agian in 1982:
"The VCR is to Movies like the Boston Strangler
to Young Women"
Ruben Safir: President of NYLXS and Co-Founder of NY Fair Use
August 2002:
"Jack Valanti is to Private Ownership and Property
as the Boston Strangler to the VCR"
Jack Valenti again at the DRM Workshop:
"If this body connot find a way to agree to find
a way which will protect private property from
Theft then we'll just have to go to Congress and
get it done"
Ruben Safir at the Press Conference after the Workshop:
"I completely agree with Jack Valenti. Congress
has to step in and protect our private property
from theft. It's my damn disk, my damn computer.
If someone breaks into my home and steals my computer
and my DVD's, who calls the cops and files the police
report?
Me or Universal Pictures?
DRM is Theft. Congress must pass a law which will
protect the property of every owner of a computer
and purchaser of Digital Information by outlawing
anything which prevents the full enjoyment of their
property. We don't need prior aproval of Warner
Brothers, Jack Valenti, or Barry Sorkin to use our
computers to augment our enjoyment of our property.
There is no forced contract to a cash sale. Forcing
a contract on the public which they didn't negotiate
as equal partners is a form of slavery no free citizen
can put up with.
That's why we propose a New Fair Use Bill, one which
guarantees that Copyright is secondary to the
Constitutional Right of Security in ones Home and
with one's pocessions. Because Copyright is secondary
to my property rights in my home and Congress has to make
it clear.
If anyone should be forced into a license, then Bertleson
should be forced to License to Listen.com. That's why we
gave them the limited exclussive Monopoly in the first place,
to make sure the material is published. If they don't want to
publish, too bad, make them do it anyway or strip them of
their Monopoly.
How can we can we continue to expect to maintain a free
society if we can't accumulate, copy and archive on our
digital systems and information. How are we expected to
be able to publish from annotated facts, with references
to the original works when everything on the internet can
expire or disapear. We have to be able to copy to archive.
It's essential to our politcal speech, or for that matter
our abilty to have party music mixed to our own enjoyment
on Saturday Night."
Considering they tried to ban the VCR, and when that didn't work, institute a "modest" fee of $50 per blank tape, is this really fear mongering?
To get some accurate [nyfairuse.org] info on drm, go to http://www.nyfairuse.org, and to see a NY group that has been proactively fighting drm and other attacks on fair use [nylxs.com], linux and other issues, go to www.nylxs.com
I'm e-mailing you today in my capacity of New Yorkers for Fair Use and as President of NYLXS, the New York GNU Linux Scene
Guy's, you have a Congressman down there who is co-sponsering the Bill to allow the MPAA and the RIAA to hack into our computers and steal our files.
I'm starting a letter writing campaign up here in NY to local representitives on the House Judiciary Committee, but your guy is the CHAIR.
How about some political Action Guys. We can come down and help if you think it would be worth while.
I'm sending a copy of our announcement today and my personal letter. Let's get to work or tomorrow there might not be any Free Software to protect!
Ruben
______ NY Fair Use
Your next Political Action has come upon us.
In this article: http://news.com.com/2100-1023-946316.html , there is a misrepresentation of the basic facts of the Berman Bill. The Berman Bill would approve the theft of our computers by authorizing Breaking and Entering of our computers in our homes if copyrighted material is discovered on our computers. The bill gives Police Powers to the RIAA and the MPAA, but here is being discussed as if it somehow is a computer security issue with viruses.
This is misinformation on the part of the RIAA.
Everyone is to right Congressman Weiner, who is on the same Sub-Committee as Berman, and inist for assurances to vote and lobby against this bill which authorizes Breaking and Entering without a warrent by the Copyright Monopoly Holders.
Also write your local representitive and Senator Schummer and Senator Clinton.
Send a Copy to the NY FairUse list, and send 5 copies to someone in your address book asking them to also write. Send these letters by Fax to Weiners Office. Let's see if we can get a real chain reaction working.
Ruben
_______
Dear Congressman Weiner
Congressman Berman of California's 26th District is proposing a Bill which would steal the private property of every computer owner in America. The bill, designed to prevent peer to peer sharing of files, would give the Movie and the Music Industry police powers are normally assigned only to the state. It assigns them to these private industries by allowing them to invade our homes and enter into our computer systems without a wararnt, to remove our files, or to prevent our lawful use of these files. In theory this would help protect protect copyright monopolies. But a Copyright Monopoly doesn't give a business the right to perform breaking and entering.
This amounts to theft and an invassion of personal property. Some in the press are representing this bill as some form of virus or security bill. The Bill has nothing to do with computer security at all accept that it will create less security for everyone who owns a computer.
I'm asking you to ask that this bill does not leave the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property even though Mr Cobble, the Chairman, is a Co-Spounsorer. We need you vocally object to the intrussion that this bill asks for on the public, and question it's constitutionality.
My vote depends on your action on this matter. This kind of legistlation is something to expect our of the Peoples Repulic of China, not a free Society like the US. If we can't protect our private property from invassion of people like the RIAA and the MPAA, then how are we different from a Communist Dictatorship?
This bill is asking for the legalization of Breaking and Entering be a bunch of GOONS.
Ruben Safir President of NYLXS and Co-Founder of New Yorkers for Fair Use
New Yorkers for Fair use/NYLXS Washington Report US Department of Commerce DRM Workshop Political Action July 17th, 2002
On July 17th, 2002, New Yorkers for Fair Use and NYLXS, with help from the Free Software Foundation, held a political action at the Department of Commerce where they were holding their second Digital Rights Management (DRM) Workshop. New Yorkers for Fair Use spearheaded the efforts to bring public opinion to the meeting in a reasonable and effective manner. New Yorkers for Fair Use is happy to announce that all of our goals were met in this action, and even exceeded, without disrupting the normal activities of the meeting. It was our goal to have a voice and participate in the Democratic process, and not to disrupt entirely the process.
Prior to the meeting in Washington DC, the President of NYLXS and co-founder of NY Fair Use, Ruben Safir, was attending at the request of the French Free Software movement, the Libre Software Meeting in Bordeuax France. Upon arriving to France, Ruben checked his email and received from the NY Fair Use Secretary, Seth Johnson, a message outlining the Commerce Departments announcement with a list of participants, and asking if NY Fair Use wanted to attend the meeting, scheduled to happen the day after Ruben's arrival back in New York the next week. Ruben was reluctant to schedule a trip to Washington DC so soon after arriving home, but the meeting appeared to be too good of a target for the NY Fair use agenda to pass up. It would give us an oppurtunity to speak face to face with most of our chief opponents including the likeable and articulate Jack Valenti of the MPAA, the RIAA, and several industrial leaders including Microsoft, and Intel. So Ruben sent a reply back to Seth to prepare for the trip and assigned him the duty of preparing everyone for the trip.
Once the decision was made within the NY Fair Use management to go ahead with the plan, several goals were agreed upon by the management including Ruben, Seth, Co-founder of NY Fair Use Brett Wynkoop, and Jay Sulzberger our general public relations manager. NYLXS also geared into action providing network services and funding for the trip. NYLXS members, as usually, sprang into action in support of the NY Fair Use activity. In particular, Micheal Richardson, the NYLXS Membership Chairman and Journal Editor designed buttons and helped drive everyone down to Washington, Kevin Mark contributed to the PR material, Vinnie alerted as much of the press as possible and Joe Maffia offered technical support. Even with large parts of NYLXS on vacation, the organization worked admirably according to it's charter, to support and educate the public about issues which affect Free Software in business, education, and in the home.
The first agenda item by NY Fair Use was to get us representation on the panel, specifically by including Ruben Safir as a panel representative. Although Ruben was in France and cut off from many of the Washington connections which have been nutured over the last few years, NY Fair Use was petitioning for a place on the panel from the start. We had Sarah Brown of the EFF in Washington who put Seth Johnson in contact with Chris Israel inside the Commerce Department. Seth Johnson also tried to contact Congressman Weiners Office in an effort to bring some Congressional pressure on the matter. But with the limited time frame and our chief advocate in Europe, we were not able to get representation on the board. Ultimately, NY Fairuse had to fall back to our secondary plan, to participate as members of the audience.
Limited to audience participation, we now opened the discussion on a new mailing list created by Seth for the purposes of organizing this action in Washington. The first order of business was to produce proper slogans for our goals. One goal of NYLXS is to change the whole lexicon of the DRM and Copyright discussion. We felt that certain messages needed to be brought to the public and the press to assure our future success, not just in this battle over DRM, but also in a wide variety of copyright and fair use issues as they have trickled into the public eye over the last few years. We decided, after much discussion and after considering many opinions on the mailing lists, to attempt to drive into the public lexicon the phases, "DRM is Theft" and "We are the Stakeholders". We chose these expressions very carefully to counter the rhetoric coming out of the copyright monopoly content industry, especially the claims by Senator Hollings that he had assembled all the "Stakeholders" to write his CBDTPA bill, and Jack Valenti's rhetoric that the simple act of listening to a DVD on a GNU/Linux operating system is stealing property from the motion picture industry.
The next stage of planning fell into the lap of Seth Johnson, who mobilized NYLXS and NY Fair Use for the practical matters of making the trip. Fortunately, NYLXS is today a well oiled machine. We are very proud of the volunteer spirit of the organization and it's ability to deliver when called upon. Joe Maffia researched our previous work in find a minibus for the trip down. Seth Johnson offered use of his credit cards to get the truck. Michael Richardson volunteered to drive everyone to DC. Brett Wynkoop oversaw all the system adminitrations and co-ordination duties needed to keep everyone in touch. Jay Sulzberger wrote up a terrific position paper for the trip and a media guid. Vinnie contacted nearly every press contact he could find with information about the trip. Members with almost every political background came from every part of the city to volunteer to make the trip. NYLXS has become very effective at organizing events. They are motivated, proactive, and competitant.
Meanwhile in France, Ruben Safir and Richard Stallman, over much wine, reviewed the political strategy for the action. The principals agreed to a joint effort of the FSF and NY, and even planned on backup contingencies including how to hold a protest outside of the building if we were eventually not allowed into the conference room. Some of the ideas we knocked around was shhowing up with steaks, as in meat, to drive home the message that the public is the stakeholders on copyright monopoly matters, or dessing in costumes. However time would not allow us to co-ordinate these efforts. They are still on the table for future political action.
On Richard and Ruben's arrival home to the States, all the pieces were in place for a successful run at changing the direction of the DRM discussion.
The afternoon Ruben came home to New York, Seth and Ruben touched base and made certain that the arrangements for the van was in place, and that everyone was clear about the time and place we were to meet. We argeed to meet early in the afternoon the day Ruben arrived home, and the day before going to Washington, to pick up the truck from another neighborhood in Brooklyn across town. Seth, Micheal and Ruben went out to rent the van, and drove it home. We decided to meet at Ruben's house the night before for a final planning session Since we were leaving at 4AM in the morning to get to DC on time for a meeting with the media at 10AM, everyone assembled very early in Flatbush. Brett left with his own care from Park Slope in Brooklyn and we stayed in touch on the road. In the minibus we had Michael Richardson, Jay Sulzberger, Seth Johnson, Vinnie, Forrest Mars, Murray, Kevin Marks, and Ruben. Nearly everyone was dressed in a suit and tie.
The drive down to Washington went smoothly and we met with media guru Eric Hensal at the Corner Bakery in the Press Club building a few blocks from the Commerce Department Building. Eric gave NY Fair Use great media tips on how to get seen by the press, in addition to a packet with vital press contacts both in the building and across town. Forrest Mars ran our Media Alert through the building, while Richard Stallman met with us at the bakery with copies of the flyers. Richard and Ruben had spent most of the night on the phone and through mail dotting the i's and crossing the t's on the press release. Vinnie ran off more copies. Brett and Kevin ran down to the Commerce Department Building to scout out the conditions. As it turned out, this was critical because the Department of Commerce was convinced that they could close the meeting to the public. Brett's charm and force of rhetoric convinced the panel that they couldn't close the workshop, and by the time that we were ready to actually go to the meeting, the Panel had rolled out the red carpet for NY Fair Use, giving us an escort to upstairs to the 4th Floor.
Finally, at about 12:30, Ruben, Richard, Seth and Kevin marched to the Commerce Department building, with the rest following later. Ruben handed out our flyers, and met with several friends in the press and with other organizations who are aligned with us. We met with Declan McCullagh from CNN Net, and Robin Gross of the EFF. We also met with American Library Association Representative, Miriam Nisbet and told them of our efforts to protect Libraries last year with our save the Libraries Campaign. People lined up to meet Richard Stallman before the meeting, and eventually the rest of our group arrived at the meeting, filling up the room.
We also had the pleasure of seeing many old friends from the Press including Seattle reporter Sarah Strickland and Bloomberg reporter Katherine Reynolds Lewis. As the meeting started, everyone in our group was wearing the "DRM is Theft" Buttons, and the "We are the Stakeholders" Buttons. In fact, we almost ran out of buttons.
It was not the plan of NY Fair Use in any way to disrupt the Workshop Panel. Neither was it the goal of the organization to sit mute in the audience and not be felt. Our goal was to clearly participate as audience members of the panel. In this matter, and within the bounds of normal political discourse as is the rule with such contentious issues. For example, as the meeting started, the Chair began by saying that he'd like to announce that nobody on the panel is a villian. This brought audible laughter from the audience. We were then quiet for the next hour. At one point, Brett Wynkoop, who couldn't find a chair and finally sat near the panel's table, raised his hand when the Chair asked if anyone else had a comment. The Chair recognized Brett, who then proceeded to announce his name and position as co-founder of NY Fair Use. The Chair tried to un-recognize him, but Brett just plowed forward, within the bounds of Rogers Rules of Order, by asking the panel how they could consider regulations and laws which would turn every teenager in America with a Magic Marker or Wite-Out, into a felon. Brett was refering to the recent flap over the attempt by the music industry to produce DRM for audio CD's which was quickly defeated with a single line made by a marker. Several minutes of interesting debate followed which finally climaxed when one of the lawyers on the panel gave the legal opinion that the courts would never convict anyone for using a Magic Marker as a circumvention device because the courts had not considered that a sufficient circumvention method under the DMCA. This caused Ruben to ask if we can get that in writing for the next DMCA trial dealing with digital music. Everyone was jovial at this point, laughing and smiling and, enjoying the open participatory democratic process unfolding before their eyes. Only the most pretentious of individuals in the crowd refused to smile and participate.
Earlier, a schematic diagram was given of the current state of DRM development. This alphabet soup of circles and letters were discoursed upon for several minutes; the thing looked looked similar to a Network Map of the internet. Nobody could understand a word of what was being presented, but everyone sat quitely and listened anyway. At the end of this part of the representation, the image on the projector was flipped, to connect the dots in complete chaos. This fitting image of the state of current DRM schemes would come back to haunt the panel as the presentation went on.
NY Fair Use mostly sat quietly through the meeting, occasionally whispering to each other, until MPAA spokesman Jack Valenti took the floor. At this point, Jack elegantly said in a beautiful self-effacing fashion, that he hopes that everyone on the panel would give him the courtesy to be heard and then he would yield the floor to others. At this moment, Vinnie stood up and said, "How can you expect everyone to present their response to your comments when you've left off the panel the most important stakeholders, the public.". Jack then graciously said that if we let him speak without interruption (not that we seriously interupted anyone), that he would be glad to listen to Vinnie's reply. Jay Sulzberger stood up and said we all agree, and the Chair was feeling a little uncomfortable at this point, feeling he was losing control. But everyone sat silently and heard Jack speak. He put on a classic Jack Valenti performance, and said that it was his position that Government intervention in this matter wasn't a bad thing. And that his experience in the Johnson Administration passing the 1965 Civil Rights Act showed him how important and good proper Government intervention can be. He then continued by saying in his charming Texas drawl, that it was his hope that the leaders in the IT industry and the computer field would come to a consensus in the next month on a DRM standard which would protect the property of the Movie Industry from theft. This caused Ruben to whisper to Vinnie that when the floor returned to him, he should defer comment to Richard Stallman, who was the most qualified and highest ranking IT professional in the building.
When Jack finished, the Chair reluctantly deferred to Jack's wishes and gave the floor to Vinnie. Vinnie then identified himself as a member of NY Fair Use and asked to defer the answer the Richard. Richard stood up, but the Chair didn't let him talk, in violation of the rules of order, and instead said, We've already accidently added one of your members to the panel, and he saw no reason why we should get another member to give their opinion. This caused the audience to get visibly upset. In response, NYLXS President Ruben Safir intervened and asked the Chair, "Pardon me, Mr Chair, however, Mr. Valenti nicely pleaded that the leaders of the IT industry to come to a consensus on DRM. However, one of the greatest figures in the Computing Field was standing right here to the left, as part of NY Fair Use. Richard Stallman has just been given an award in France by the United Nations for his contributions to World Heritage with the invention and development of the GNU/Linux system and it's variants. He's the most qualified person in the room to make a public comment in response to Mr Valenti's request." Ruben's intervention at this point quieted the crowd as nobody wanted things to break down into a raucous confrontation. Though Richard was still denied a chance to speak, our discipline assured that the meeting could continue without derailing the workshop.
However, much of the conversation from that point forward was affected by the events. The Digital Recording Rights Coalition presented more forcefully their position that DRM eroded Fair Use. Jack, in order to convey just how serious the MPAA is about getting DRM enacted quickly, said that while the MPAA responded to a letter from Microsoft about progress toward DRM in 24 hours, that when the MPAA sent such a letter to Microsoft, Microsoft took a long time to return a response. Microsoft at this point all but threatened to buy all the Movie Producers if they continued to be such a pain in the neck. Although this was not their exact words, their threat was neither veiled or lost on Mr Valenti.
Meanwhile, Jack tried to persuade the panel that the Movie Industry had never really been against the VCR. This caused some agitation of panelists, and the crowd just laughed. The panel pointed out that despite the Movie Industry's professed love for the VCR, they brought an injunction against panel members whoose companies made VCR, which injunction was eventually defeated in the supreme court.
But Jack was not the only Panel member capable of bald faced lies. EMI tried to convince everyone that artists really don't hate their record labels, but only say so in public because it's good PR. And later they claimed that the record labels weren't responsible for preventing music from being available, but that it was the artist's fault. AOL Time Warner delightfully wants to close the analogue hole. And a bunch of other positions were espoused, many of which have been covered by Slashdot Ad Nauseum and need not be repeated here.
At the end of the session, everyone had a chance on the panel to express themselves exactly as they wished to. And when it finished, Jay announced that NY Fair Use was to have a press conference in front of the Commerce Department Building at 4:30. Ruben gave his press conference with the help of Richard and Jay. We talked extensively with Bloomberg and other reporters. We announced our position and we announced our sponsorship of the NY Fair Use "Fair Use Bill".
NY Fair Use attained almost all of our goals for this action. The phrases, "We are the stakeholders" and "DRM is theft" have begun to make their way into the press. We are being invited to a new panel on DRM for consumers and we are debating the merits of this now. We are leery of the formation of another panel and question whether is is a stalling tactic. And we reiterated our position that NY Fair Use wants a seat with the original panel. Capital Hill was abuzz the next day with our activities. And Congressman Weiner's Office has promised to led it's efforts to bring us into the panel in the future.
NY for Fair Use has kicked down the door that everyone else will now run through,
This is the essential problem with the
Open Source ideology and all too many of
the developers who view themselves as Open
Source advocates. The issue of the DMCA pales
in comparision of anything HP can be funding for
OSI, and yet, Bruce Perens is refusing to demonstrate
effectively against the DMCA because of the economic
interests of HP.
When NYLXS had it's Business Demonstration at the
Graduate Center of CUNY in Manhattan, one young man
challenged us when he asked if we should be doing more
with IBM on the front of Free Software advocacy. We
replied to him that IBM can not be trusted to protect
the interests of Free Software, and digital property
rights, because IBM is mandated by it's charter as a
corperation to protect the interests of it's share
holders.
So while it is true that businesses need freedom to
compete in a fair and open market, businesses can not
be depended upon to protect that freedom, nor should we
expect them to. This is not their function.
Only through Free Software and political action to
protect individual property rights to their computers
and media, can we assure a future with Free Digital
communications, which will be the foundation of political
discourse, education, and social interaction in the future.
We must have a Free Digital infrastructure if our people
and government will remain as free. This can not be trusted
to IBM, HP or MS, but is in the hands of the people.
Join NY Fair Use to pass the Fair
Use bill, and turn the DMCA on
it's ears.
This is the essential problem with the
Open Source ideology and all too many of
the developers who view themselves as Open
Source advocates. The issue of the DMCA pales
in comparision of anything HP can be funding for
OSI, and yet, Bruce Perens is refusing to demonstrate
effectively against the DMCA because of the economic
interests of HP.
When NYLXS had it's Business Demonstration at the
Graduate Center of CUNY in Manhattan, one young man
challenged us when he asked if we should be doing more
with IBM on the front of Free Software advocacy. We
replied to him that IBM can not be trusted to protect
the interests of Free Software, and digital property
rights, because IBM is mandated by it's charter as a
corperation to protect the interests of it's share
holders.
So while it is true that businesses need freedom to
compete in a fair and open market, businesses can not
be depended upon to protect that freedom, nor should we
expect them to. This is not their function.
Only through Free Software and political action to
protect individual property rights to their computers
and media, can we assure a future with Free Digital
communications, which will be the foundation of political
discourse, education, and social interaction in the future.
We must have a Free Digital infrastructure if our people
and government will remain as free. This can not be trusted
to IBM, HP or MS, but is in the hands of the people.
Join NY Fair Use to pass the Fair
Use bill, and turn the DMCA on
it's ears.
I'm rather dismayed at the posting of this biased and incorrect review of the events of the DOC's panel. This document has several mistakes which the author, Alex Payne, most have known prior to presenting this article to slashdot, and some of which just shows a complete fundamental lack of knowledge of the political process, which can best be contributed to is young age and lack of experience in public politics.
First of all, I'd like to thank the Department of Commerce for their wonderful patients in handling the discourse in the room. It could have very easily been the case that they could have closed out the public entirely from watching this important issue discussed, and in fact, they almost did that until NYLXS and NY Fair use kindly pointed out that as a matter of law, they could not prevent the public from attending a public meeting of this type. And despite that, they could have been malicious and thrown everyone out who clapped and participated in the hearings from the crowd. Instead, the DOC was gracious enough to permit participator Democracy to function in the public, and it did function as the meeting took place without being disrupted by NY Fair use or anyone else. Everything which happened at the meeting happened within the sandbox of health, normal political discourse. Fortunately, Mr Bond, the chair of panel understands what healthy political discourse is about, and is a fine representative of America's open Democratic society, which in my opinion, is the best government on earth. Many people and nations can learn well from Mr Bond's tolerance and handling of this meeting, including many people who follow slashdot and complain constantly about how the government is brought off, but never lift a finger to actually participate and work through the political process.
In Alex Payne's article on Slashdot and other venues, he wrongfully reports that NY Fair use never tried to join the panel through proper channels. I have no idea how young Alex could have drawn this conclusion, but clearly he never entered the NY Fair use mail archives, which are normally published on the NY Fair use web site. Had Young Alex done his job properly as a report of this event, he would have known that while I was in Europe, we had several people in Washington and New York working on getting into the panel. This included phone calls to Chris Israel, the point man for the panel, and multiple phone calls to our local Congressman, Anthony Weiner, asking for help getting on the panel. We were simply snubbed from the process, and so we were relegated to listening to the hearing from the gallery.
Before leaving NYC, we had a very serious discussion about our tactics for political action in Washington. We considered holding a large and noisy protest outside the Department of Commerce building, and bringing Steaks to show that we are the stake holders in the DRM debate. It was the decision of NYLXS and NY Fair use to not take this tactic except as a last resort. We felt that as members of a concerned public, that we needed to make our presence felt within the audience of the hearing. We also felt that under no circumstances would either organization take any action which would interfere with the normal function of the panel, and in fact, we succeeded in both matters.
Everyone on the panel was heard, and the panel debated all of the issues present on the panels agenda. NY Fair use did nothing to prevent any member from being heard, nor did we interfere in anyway with the panel members ability express their opinions in the discussion. Mr Bond and Mr Rogan was a skilled parliamentarian, and NY Fair use had strict discipline in order to achieve the balanced goals of partipatory Democracy. And when the transcript is released, or the recording of the meeting is made available, it will completely demonstrate with as fact.
This is not to say that NY Fair use quietly or timidly sat in the audience without participating as audience members. First, Brett Wynkoop was accidently recognized by the chair, and Brett graciously added much depth and interesting debate to the conversation. Brett was simply sitting in the only chair available to him near the table and raised his hand. His comments about Magic Markers and CD Digital Rights Management Attempts was picked up numerous times by the panel in discussing the problems of Fair Use and the DMCA. One participant even gave us a legal opinion on the matter of the CD DRM issue, which while I believe is incorrect within the facts of the quoted court case and case law, still showed that the issues of Fair Use is still important to some members of the panel. Alex Payne, in his article says, "Geeks should be happy to know that their voice is being heard by the tech industry". This seems to be a misrepresentation of the statements given by the panel. Or perhaps Alex himself doesn't understand the issues being debated. This wouldn't surprise me since Alex got so many of the details wrong about the events of the meeting itself. He seems to suffer from not completely understanding events around him as they happen, and by a fundamental lack of research prior to making reports. At no time did any of the tech industry say a single word about protecting the publics basic property rights under the 4th Ammendment of the US Constitution, which is the main legal protection the public currently has to guarantee basic political freedom. Instead, everyone on the panel, even Philips who best seemed to grasp the idea that DRM is a snake pit of problems for the growth of technology, gave lip service for the need to have DRM to protect and enforce unfair Copyright Licensing Restrictions on the Public, which otherwise do not exist from this simple cash sale of media and digital devices.
Everyone on the panel was willing to grant some form of force contractual arraignment on the public without a signed fairly negotiated agreement. This violates the public privacy and property rights in their homes. Mr Valenti kindly said that the Internet is delivery system. This interpretation of the Internet is not only incorrect, but it is dangerous to the political freedoms of the American People. The American Public, and in fact all the peoples of the World, fill many roles in their lives are human beings. One of which is our role as a consumer. But we also play the role of producers, writers, artists, creators, publishers, and most importantly, we play the role of FREE CITIZENS. The Internet was never designed, nor can it be properly viewed as a delivery system. It was designed from it's very beginnings as a form of communication device like the telephone, and it is most accurately described today as a Press. The Internet and Digital Computers and the Printing Presses of the 21st Century and beyond. Individuals MUST be able have completely unfettered Printing Press ownership without any interference from the government, or for that matter, private industry, or the owners of Limited Copyright Monopolies.
DRM, in all it's proposals can not overcome the requirements of a Free Society because it prevents private ownership of our Printing Press (the digital computer) and the copies of information on media such as DVD's, Music CD's and Literature or Books. In order to do proper DRM, every aspect of Computer I/O (In and Out), has to be monitored and controlled. It immediately ends any notion of Fair Use and the two simply can not co-exist. The elimination of the publics right to ownership, and fair use of limited copyright monopolies can not be justified by any business plan, or Copyright Ownership issues. If we have to make a choice between unacceptable levels of Piracy, which in of itself is a term badly maligned and manipulated by our Friends in the Copyright Monopoly Industry, and our ability to protect private ownership and control of our communication infrastructure and free press, then we have no choice, we must protect the publics fundamental rights to property, ownership and free speech.
It's unfortunate that the panel actively suppressed the ability of NY Fair use from joining the panel. Otherwise they would have had the benefit to have heard that legal experts none smaller than Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner have stated on legal record that she can no longer make the determination of who a publisher is any longer because with the Internet, we are ALL publishers. And indeed we are. Even someone like Alex Payne is capable of publishing to most ill conceived and un-researched bias press reports on Slashdot under the current model of the Internet. What greater proof do we need that the Stake holders to the DRM issue is not being adequately heard, and that DRM is theft from the public.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not the first example of this and the article is factually wrong. There is on they have been working on in Hollywood for quite a while that was featured on Scientific America on PBS.
Ruben
This is old news which we've all heard before. What is new about this? The NYC subway has a the "over 35 Year Old" quote on the walls in Barnes and Noble poster..
BTW - the better quote from that campaign is that "The limitations of a Man's view of the horizon is always mistaken for the scope of the Universe". Children under the age of 35 most often have a very small horizons :).
Ruben
The New GPL solves the fundemental problem that the GPL was origianlyl designed for. It prevents someone from using a physicl barrier which removes all of the freedoms that an individual has with software which up til now has been only legally bound up.
We're facing a situation today where the legal contracts are irrelevant because the available hardware enforces restrictions which were previously only enforcable through contract and copyright law. Its not a market issue. Its the use of copyright contracts and the GPL to enforce the software writer and users rights to have continued access to Free Software. If the majority of available laptops use a DRM scheme, in the way that "Linus" is talking about, to restrict their running only a version of a MS OS, then the Free Software users, and all the GPL's in the world is fucked.
Ruben
President NYLXS
Founder of New Yorkers for Fair Use
Your incorrect. Copyright is NOT a right, not in the sense you use it here. Copyright is a privledge or a grant.
Get your facts straight.
Ruben
NYLXS
OK
I don't get it
Linus needs to watch out because putting private DMCA protected keys into the source code of Linuxz will make Linux a trafficing agent for a circumvention device under the DMCA.
I'm personally looking forward to this happening. Instead of Free Dmitry, NY Fair Use (fairuse.nylxs.com) can get more coverage on this issue if they lock up the poster child of Free Software
Putting the Keys into the source is worse than just
a minor problem of IF DRM can be done. The DRM under protection of the DMCA which would be in the Linux Source would become a trafficing device. Then Linus would be a felon.
Then maybe he would become a bit more political
Ruben
Looking further at the troubles with the e-gov-os conference and after reviewing the opinions of Bruce Perens, Richard Stallman, David Sugar, Jay Sulzburger, David Wheeler, Stanley Klein, Chalu Kim, Claus Srensen, Jason Faulkner, Russell McOrmond, Louis Suarez-Potts, David A. Hammond and others, comments which have expanded over 10 mailing lists, and which have generated a few hundred private emails to me in my private email box, I'm forced to draw several conclusions.
First, as President of NYLXS and President of New Yorkers for Fair Use, my primary concern is two fold:
First, in my role as President of NYLXS, my primary goal is to cater to the needs of the membership, and the extended constituency of the organization, the Free Software development community and users in the New York City area. In truth, all organizations have a primary responsibility to their constituencies. It is time for others to look at their constituency and see how they are serving them. An organization which doesn't serve a constituency is an organization in name only.
Secondly, as an individual citizen and active member of the Free Software movement, I'm concerned with broad policy decisions of others in regards to individual rights with in our digitalized communications network. I'm focused on practical activities which protect the freedom of individuals and empower individuals and communities in education, government and business.
These are the only two prisms in which I can view the planned events of EgovOS conference.
I tend to be very thorough and deliberate in my conclusions. When I work through the process of developing activities and actions, or when I write in regard to issues of importance in a proper fashion for publication, or when I give a formal opinion piece representing any of our organizations journals, radio shows, public speeches, or other formalized media outlets, I bring to bear on that presentation, not only thorough research of the issue and much consultation, but also my 30 years of political and practical experience in affecting positive political and social outcomes.
I bring this same effort to this current letter, which I am opening up to the public and which will be published on http://fairuse.nylxs.com and which will be included in the coming NYLXS Journal.
First, let's look at the stated goals of the sponsored event. As listed on htttp://www.egovos.org/, the goals of this conference is:
Open Source for National and Local eGovernment Programs in the U.S. and EU
Goals:
the presentation of best practices
raising awareness
sharing of experiences among policy makers, donors, users/consumers, universities, and industry specialists in Open Source, e-Government and related fields.
NYLXS has, for a couple of years, worked to sell Free Software on both the local, New York City Level and in the Federal Government. We'll had a variety of experiences in this regard, many of them very negative. As such, this conference seems to be important to the economic and political health of the NYLXS membership, including The Free Software Chamber of Commerce, our Public Educational initiative in New York City Public Schools, and New Yorkers for Fair Use. Our direct prosperity as a community is tied to the stated goals of the conference, and in fact, members of the Free Software Chamber of Commerce had prepared to make presentations at the conference. It was the concerns of members of the Free Software Chamber of Commerce which brought the problems which have enveloped the conference to my attention.
The main problem is the participation of Microsoft as a speaker and presenter at the conference. In a previous email, I have already listed the problems that Microsoft presents. But for the sake of making this a complete document, I will reiterate them and expand upon the Microsoft issue.
First of all, Microsoft is a reckless company which operates above the law. It has recently been convicted twice for antitrust activities, and has been guilty of numerous other illegal competitive practices which have gone without prosecution. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm is a rundown of the current conviction of Microsoft for antitrust actions which is still going through the courts. Microsoft was not only determined have acted illegally in regard to browser technology, but they have also had their CEO, Bill Gates, lie under oath. The testimony can be searched here:
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/video/gates/
http://www.broadcast.com/news/billgates/
investigation of his perjury is here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/24990.html
http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=A rticle&cid=FT3MLEDHF0D&live=true&useoverridetempla te=ZZZUGORQ00C&tagid=ZZZNSJCX70C&subheading=global
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/msdo j991107.html
They even doctored their prepared testimony which got much press:
http://www.idg.net/crd_microsoft_67162.html and to quote:
Chase's testimony last week struck a note similar to the previous week's fiasco over a Microsoft videotaped demonstration. Government attorney David Boies had scored by pointing out inconsistent details in a videotape, submitted by Microsoft as evidence, that showed that Microsoft had used multiple PCs to film a demo the company first implied was a seamless segment filmed on one computer. U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson said he did not believe that the Microsoft witness who had testified to the truthfulness of the tape lied about it, but trial observers said the incident undermined the defense's credibility.
Further discussion of the Gate's Perjury includes http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Bill+Gates+testi mony+Perjury&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=nobody-060200 2327560001%40adsl-209-233-20-69.dsl.snfc21.pacbell .net&rnum=5
In fact, this reprint of the original Ziff Davis Net article with a John Hall interview is in my private archive of resources. The article quotes Mad Dog Hall as properly urging the government to jail Bill Gates for his illegal activities:
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources/johnhall-ms.h tml
Microsoft has competed unfairly with Borland, FoxPro, Netscape, Sun, Apple among others. They have actively pursued a business plan designed to strip individuals and organization from the fruits of their efforts by tweaking the desktop making others products function worse than Microsoft's products. They have repeatedly hindered the empowerment of people and prevented the empowerment of individuals, especially negatively impacting disenfranchised communities, such as those that NYLXS represents in Brooklyn, and the City of New York. 60 minutes even broadcast a show which showed to fear that developers have of Microsoft and the expectations of these developers to be damaged by their 'Partner'
Of the many corporations in the global economy, Microsoft alone has distinguished itself as a proactive opponent to Free Software.
Things began to heat up with the Halloween Papers.
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
Microsoft then made a frontal attack on the Free Software Foundations GPL, the most potent tool which protects the community from hostile activities by businesses and individuals who wish to destroy our ability to collaborate.
This article by The Register at http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25891.html
looks at how DRM (trusted computing) attacks the GPL.
This certification scheme will rip the guts out of the GPL. That is, the minute I begin tinkering with my software, my ability to interface with the Great PKI in the Sky will be broken. I'll have a Linux box with a GPL, all right; but if I exercise the license in any meaningful way I'll render my system 'unauthorized for Palladium' and lose business. So instead, I imagine I'll be turning to my vendor for support, updates, modifications and patches. And I'll be dependent on them for support services at whatever price they can wheedle out of me because I dare not lose my Palladium authorization. I wonder if the cost of ownership of an open-source system will actually be lower than the cost of a proprietary system under such circumstances.
Prior to this, Microsoft's Craig Mundie made several false statements against the GPL at New York University.
Some of the most successful OSS technology is licensed under the GNU General Public License or GPL. The GPL mandates that any software that incorporates source code already licensed under the GPL will itself become subject to the GPL. When the resulting software product is distributed, its creator must make the entire source code base freely available to everyone, at no additional charge. This viral aspect of the GPL poses a threat to the intellectual property of any organization making use of it. It also fundamentally undermines the independent commercial software sector because it effectively makes it impossible to distribute software on a basis where recipients pay for the product rather than just the cost of distribution.
Microsoft had mailed to every IT director in the US brochures which vilified the GPL, the Free Software movement, and by extension, the Open Source advocates. These mailings contained blatant lies about the contribution of Free Software to the economy and threatened IT directors and developers with unfounded negative consequences if they deploy or use Free Software. The recent GPL FAQ, for example, has the following excerpt:
Have your lawyers read the GPL (and the LGPL)? Because the GPL is so frequently misunderstood and because it attempts, under certain circumstances, to impose significant obligations on licensees and their intellectual property rights, no responsible business should use GPL software without ensuring that its lawyers have read the license and explained the business rights and obligations. They should also review and explain the Lesser General Public License, or LGPL, a related license that is sometimes used with open source libraries.
Businesses every day uses Microsoft Software and the software of others which contain intrusive and abusive licensing which is directly in conflict with logical business practices. They would never be accepted by legal teams if the process was open to genuine contract negotiation. The contracts with Microsoft foists on businesses through its abusive monopoly powers constrains segments which allow the disabling of the software and intrudes on the private ownership of data and systems by businesses which purchase Microsoft products today. This is in addition to the clauses which waves them from any responsibility for damages done to business through security violations or the failure of products to perform according to their expectations. And then they sponsored UCITA to make sure that downloaded software from Free Software vendors can not get the same level of protection in a blatant effort to damage efforts of distributors of Free Software to comply with the GPL.
Microsoft has been such an aggressive enemy of Free Software, and the general public that they have used the BSA to do witch hunts against users and business.
They have threatened lawsuits against those who have reversed engineered their document formats They moved their free font access because users downloaded them for Free Software systems. They have proposed a DRM system designed to circumvent the freedom of Free Software development. They have fixed benchmarking studies versus Free Software systems. They have obstructed the legally required refund for operating systems which are forced on consumers with preinstalled systems. They built spyware into their multimedia players, twisted the Java programming language to be incompatible with the implementation on other platforms, refused to release products on Free Software platforms, which includes Microsoft Internet Explorer, introduced in NT4 service pack 3 changes to the SMB protocols to make it break with the Free Software SAMBA product, built back doors into in it's CryptoAPI, deliberately broke the Opera Web Browser when used with the MSN network, have brought down the internet through viruses TWICE in the last year, supported DRM in concert with Record Labels
( http://rss.com.com/2100-1023-983017.html?type=pt&p art=rss&tag=feed&subj=news
),
broke basic TCP/IP protocols with IE5 and IIS
( http://grotto11.com/blog/slash.html?+1039831658 ), advertised recently for advanced Free Software administrators to work for Microsoft in order to create a strategy to force businesses off of Free Software, and more.
Overall, Microsoft alone as a corporation has distinguished itself as an entity which, as a core business policy, is set to enslave Free Software and the general population. Their mission is to dehumanize and embarrass our membership, and to impoverish our community.
This body of evidence would be enough to reject out of hand the entry of Microsoft to the conference. But NYLXS and NY Fair Use has a growing new concern which is pushing it to action. In the face of the growing threat by the Microsoft Corporation to the well-being of Free Software developers, a threat that can be seen by Microsoft hiring GNU/Linux experts in the effort to undermine the business efforts of our community through lies and falsehoods, as well as technically breaking the beneficial integration of mixed environments, and which can be further seen by the 'shared source' media campaign which lies about the foundation of a free society and the stake of businesses in the promotion of both Open Sourced and Free Software legal foundation, there is an increasing knee jerk reaction by organizations supposedly representing the communities interests to give Microsoft a platform and a business advantage at conferences and shows which are designed to promote the community's effort in establishing digital rights and economic development. This started at 'Linux World Expo' in San Fransico and has moved into the New York 'Linux World Expo', where it directly damaged the well being of my membership through the winning of an award which rewarded them for creating a program only could properly write if you have the Windows code base, and it is now making its way to the egov-os conference.
The inclusion of Microsoft at this event directly threatens the health of the Free Software Chamber of Commerce in New York City. There are places for an academic style debate for Free Software versus Sun's community license and Microsoft's Share Source' . A conference whose stated goals is to raise awareness of Free Software and Open Software benefits, to present the best practices for government, and to share experiences about the benefits of using Free Software in government, is not such a venue. This venue is about selling Free Software and the community's efforts to the government. It is hoped to and create a much needed stable economic pipeline for free software vendors with government, based on its technical and political merits. Microsoft's goals are in direct conflict with the stated agenda of the conferences. Allowing them to participate, based on the sole attribute that they are Microsoft and feel that they have something to say, is not enough reason to allow them a platform which will be used to hurt members of the community.
Microsoft has never contributed any code to the community.
Microsoft has never advocated any benefits of the use of Free Software or Open Source Software
Microsoft has never financially contributed to any Free Software development or promoted the education of people about Free Software
Microsoft has not, in any way, befriended the community.
Microsoft has positioned itself as an enemy of the community and has threatened it on numerous occasions. In fact, Microsoft has singled out the Free Software and Open Source community for abuse.
Because of the growing misconduct of those who are presenting Free Software and Open Sourced Software to the public, first IDG and now egovos, NYLXS and New Yorkers for Fair Use is now contemplating action, not so much directed against Microsoft, but those wolves in sheep closing who are more directly hurting my membership and the community at large.
In considering actions to take, we are looking at a number of possibilities.
First, it is the opinion of Jay Sulzburger that we can use a hour of time to counter the arguments of Microsoft. My experience is that this will not work. On July 17th, I lead NY Fair Use to Washington to argue against the inclusion of DRM. Despite the fact that our presence was the most important part of the conference, to the point where we engaged productively from the audience both Jack Valenti and Philip Bond, we got no mainstream press. This was despite the presence of the New York Time's Amy Harmon and others. But our action was famous on Capital Hill. When we went back for the Peer to Peer/Berman Bill hearing two months later, several congressional staff members sought me out to ask what we did and to give us compliments. Simply, in regard to Jay's suggestion, nobody will attend such a session outside of the choir, and it will receive no press. On the other hand, Microsoft will get much press.
It has been suggested that egov-os is better to concede a place for Microsoft to allow an open debate. This will not be affective, and the alternative of being tongue whipped by Microsoft in the press is far better since they simply don't qualify for a placement at the conference, and it will allow us to present to the government administrators without interference. It is not NY Fairuse's policy to play 'whack the mole' with DRM issues. Instead, we focus on specific actions which will have broad affect and undermine the ability of our political foes to bring endless action again and again through the governments entire alphabet soup of bureaucracy and congressional committees. If Microsoft objects to being excluded, NY Fair Use (http://fairuse.nylxs.com) would be all to happy to provide a forum for both Microsoft and Richard Stallman, and others, for the benefit of academic debate. It would be a good fund raiser for the Free Software Institute in the coming months. My guess is that Bill Gates has no interest in such a real debate. His company is only interested in marketing and damaging the community. Therefore, participation by any Free Software advocates, or Open Source advocates, in this egov-os conference is highly damaging to the community if it includes Microsoft. And we are therefor calling on a boycott for this event.
It has been said that nobody is stupid enough to believe that Microsoft's 'shared source' promotes Open Source software. Unfortunately, this is very wrong. On the Open Office.org website, every day people ask if they can use and distribute the products. While I wouldn't say people are as dumb as rocks, I will say that they've been so conditioned to think out software as a super-restricted, crash inducing, virus ridden products, that they often have trouble thinking straight about what they should expect from business and software providers.
NY Fair Use is now looking to organize a protest of the event in Washington. A protest will at least give those genuinely from the community an uninhibited outlet. However, NY Fair Use, in general, dislikes protests as a vehicle of change, as we feel they mostly are ignored by a public besieged by 'the protest of the day'.
As a result, we are looking at a more organized campaign against this convention and those who would put events like this one together without considering the moral imperative of not harming the community by giving those who wish to destroy use a platform such as this. Egov-os supposedly advocates Free Software usage in business and government. It should do so without constraint and without apologies.
We are calling for an investigation of the egov-os organizers for misconduct. I've spoken with Tony Stanco many times and it's not possible that he doesn't grasp the basics of the issues outlined here, or how including Microsoft will negatively affect our community. Therefor, the invitation of Microsoft to this conference must be either a direct payoff, or self promotion. Since they are moral equivalents, they are both both equally condemnable.
We insist that Microsoft should not be given any platform at this event, because it is their purpose to undermine the community and its efforts. Since this is not being promoted as an academic debate, but instead is a marketing tool for Open Source and Free Software, we reject any arguments which are based on the concept that we should open the floor to them in order to dispel Microsoft corporate lies. This venue does not have the most basic format to handle this problem.
If, for contractual reasons, it is impossible to remove them from the conference, we ask the organizers to give NYLXS's subcommittee, New Yorkers for Fair Use, both the keynote and the Microsoft slot in the speaking arraignments. David Sugar will represent NYLXS, and I will represent NY Fair Use.
Finally, the website for the event needs to have on the front page a clear statement that it has determined that Microsoft's 'shared' code' program to be directly in opposition to both Free Software and the Open Source ideals, in that it does not promote the empowerment of the community through the freedom of innovation and digital systems ownership by individuals, the government or businesses.
I do not expect that these suggestions will be taken by Bruce Perens, or the other organizers of the egov-os events. So I expect that we will have to work to oppose the event.
Ruben Safir
President New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://fairuse.nylxs.com
Looking further at the troubles with the e-gov-os conference and after reviewing the opinions of Bruce Perens, Richard Stallman, David Sugar, Jay Sulzburger, David Wheeler, Stanley Klein, Chalu Kim, Claus Srensen, Jason Faulkner, Russell McOrmond, Louis Suarez-Potts, David A. Hammond and others, comments which have expanded over 10 mailing lists, and which have generated a few hundred private emails to me in my private email box, I'm forced to draw several conclusions.
First, as President of NYLXS and President of New Yorkers for Fair Use, my primary concern is two fold:
First, in my role as President of NYLXS, my primary goal is to cater to the needs of the membership, and the extended constituency of the organization, the Free Software development community and users in the New York City area. In truth, all organizations have a primary responsibility to their constituencies. It is time for others to look at their constituency and see how they are serving them. An organization which doesn't serve a constituency is an organization in name only.
Secondly, as an individual citizen and active member of the Free Software movement, I'm concerned with broad policy decisions of others in regards to individual rights with in our digitalized communications network. I'm focused on practical activities which protect the freedom of individuals and empower individuals and communities in education, government and business.
These are the only two prisms in which I can view the planned events of EgovOS conference.
I tend to be very thorough and deliberate in my conclusions. When I work through the process of developing activities and actions, or when I write in regard to issues of importance in a proper fashion for publication, or when I give a formal opinion piece representing any of our organizations journals, radio shows, public speeches, or other formalized media outlets, I bring to bear on that presentation, not only thorough research of the issue and much consultation, but also my 30 years of political and practical experience in affecting positive political and social outcomes.
I bring this same effort to this current letter, which I am opening up to the public and which will be published on http://fairuse.nylxs.com and which will be included in the coming NYLXS Journal.
First, let's look at the stated goals of the sponsored event. As listed on htttp://www.egovos.org/, the goals of this conference is:
Open Source for National and Local eGovernment Programs in the U.S. and EU
Goals:
the presentation of best practices
raising awareness
sharing of experiences among policy makers, donors, users/consumers, universities, and industry specialists in Open Source, e-Government and related fields.
NYLXS has, for a couple of years, worked to sell Free Software on both the local, New York City Level and in the Federal Government. We'll had a variety of experiences in this regard, many of them very negative. As such, this conference seems to be important to the economic and political health of the NYLXS membership, including The Free Software Chamber of Commerce, our Public Educational initiative in New York City Public Schools, and New Yorkers for Fair Use. Our direct prosperity as a community is tied to the stated goals of the conference, and in fact, members of the Free Software Chamber of Commerce had prepared to make presentations at the conference. It was the concerns of members of the Free Software Chamber of Commerce which brought the problems which have enveloped the conference to my attention.
The main problem is the participation of Microsoft as a speaker and presenter at the conference. In a previous email, I have already listed the problems that Microsoft presents. But for the sake of making this a complete document, I will reiterate them and expand upon the Microsoft issue.
First of all, Microsoft is a reckless company which operates above the law. It has recently been convicted twice for antitrust activities, and has been guilty of numerous other illegal competitive practices which have gone without prosecution. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm is a rundown of the current conviction of Microsoft for antitrust actions which is still going through the courts. Microsoft was not only determined have acted illegally in regard to browser technology, but they have also had their CEO, Bill Gates, lie under oath. The testimony can be searched here:
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/video/gates/
http://www.broadcast.com/news/billgates/
investigation of his perjury is here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/24990.html
http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=A rticle&cid=FT3MLEDHF0D&live=true&useoverridetempla te=ZZZUGORQ00C&tagid=ZZZNSJCX70C&subheading=global
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/msdo j991107.html
They even doctored their prepared testimony which got much press:
http://www.idg.net/crd_microsoft_67162.html and to quote:
Chase's testimony last week struck a note similar to the previous week's fiasco over a Microsoft videotaped demonstration. Government attorney David Boies had scored by pointing out inconsistent details in a videotape, submitted by Microsoft as evidence, that showed that Microsoft had used multiple PCs to film a demo the company first implied was a seamless segment filmed on one computer. U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson said he did not believe that the Microsoft witness who had testified to the truthfulness of the tape lied about it, but trial observers said the incident undermined the defense's credibility.
Further discussion of the Gate's Perjury includes http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Bill+Gates+testi mony+Perjury&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=nobody-060200 2327560001%40adsl-209-233-20-69.dsl.snfc21.pacbell .net&rnum=5
In fact, this reprint of the original Ziff Davis Net article with a John Hall interview is in my private archive of resources. The article quotes Mad Dog Hall as properly urging the government to jail Bill Gates for his illegal activities:
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources/johnhall-ms.h tml
Microsoft has competed unfairly with Borland, FoxPro, Netscape, Sun, Apple among others. They have actively pursued a business plan designed to strip individuals and organization from the fruits of their efforts by tweaking the desktop making others products function worse than Microsoft's products. They have repeatedly hindered the empowerment of people and prevented the empowerment of individuals, especially negatively impacting disenfranchised communities, such as those that NYLXS represents in Brooklyn, and the City of New York. 60 minutes even broadcast a show which showed to fear that developers have of Microsoft and the expectations of these developers to be damaged by their 'Partner'
Of the many corporations in the global economy, Microsoft alone has distinguished itself as a proactive opponent to Free Software.
Things began to heat up with the Halloween Papers.
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
Microsoft then made a frontal attack on the Free Software Foundations GPL, the most potent tool which protects the community from hostile activities by businesses and individuals who wish to destroy our ability to collaborate.
This article by The Register at http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25891.html
looks at how DRM (trusted computing) attacks the GPL.
This certification scheme will rip the guts out of the GPL. That is, the minute I begin tinkering with my software, my ability to interface with the Great PKI in the Sky will be broken. I'll have a Linux box with a GPL, all right; but if I exercise the license in any meaningful way I'll render my system 'unauthorized for Palladium' and lose business. So instead, I imagine I'll be turning to my vendor for support, updates, modifications and patches. And I'll be dependent on them for support services at whatever price they can wheedle out of me because I dare not lose my Palladium authorization. I wonder if the cost of ownership of an open-source system will actually be lower than the cost of a proprietary system under such circumstances.
Prior to this, Microsoft's Craig Mundie made several false statements against the GPL at New York University.
Some of the most successful OSS technology is licensed under the GNU General Public License or GPL. The GPL mandates that any software that incorporates source code already licensed under the GPL will itself become subject to the GPL. When the resulting software product is distributed, its creator must make the entire source code base freely available to everyone, at no additional charge. This viral aspect of the GPL poses a threat to the intellectual property of any organization making use of it. It also fundamentally undermines the independent commercial software sector because it effectively makes it impossible to distribute software on a basis where recipients pay for the product rather than just the cost of distribution.
Microsoft had mailed to every IT director in the US brochures which vilified the GPL, the Free Software movement, and by extension, the Open Source advocates. These mailings contained blatant lies about the contribution of Free Software to the economy and threatened IT directors and developers with unfounded negative consequences if they deploy or use Free Software. The recent GPL FAQ, for example, has the following excerpt:
Have your lawyers read the GPL (and the LGPL)? Because the GPL is so frequently misunderstood and because it attempts, under certain circumstances, to impose significant obligations on licensees and their intellectual property rights, no responsible business should use GPL software without ensuring that its lawyers have read the license and explained the business rights and obligations. They should also review and explain the Lesser General Public License, or LGPL, a related license that is sometimes used with open source libraries.
Businesses every day uses Microsoft Software and the software of others which contain intrusive and abusive licensing which is directly in conflict with logical business practices. They would never be accepted by legal teams if the process was open to genuine contract negotiation. The contracts with Microsoft foists on businesses through its abusive monopoly powers constrains segments which allow the disabling of the software and intrudes on the private ownership of data and systems by businesses which purchase Microsoft products today. This is in addition to the clauses which waves them from any responsibility for damages done to business through security violations or the failure of products to perform according to their expectations. And then they sponsored UCITA to make sure that downloaded software from Free Software vendors can not get the same level of protection in a blatant effort to damage efforts of distributors of Free Software to comply with the GPL.
Microsoft has been such an aggressive enemy of Free Software, and the general public that they have used the BSA to do witch hunts against users and business.
They have threatened lawsuits against those who have reversed engineered their document formats They moved their free font access because users downloaded them for Free Software systems. They have proposed a DRM system designed to circumvent the freedom of Free Software development. They have fixed benchmarking studies versus Free Software systems. They have obstructed the legally required refund for operating systems which are forced on consumers with preinstalled systems. They built spyware into their multimedia players, twisted the Java programming language to be incompatible with the implementation on other platforms, refused to release products on Free Software platforms, which includes Microsoft Internet Explorer, introduced in NT4 service pack 3 changes to the SMB protocols to make it break with the Free Software SAMBA product, built back doors into in it's CryptoAPI, deliberately broke the Opera Web Browser when used with the MSN network, have brought down the internet through viruses TWICE in the last year, supported DRM in concert with Record Labels
( http://rss.com.com/2100-1023-983017.html?type=pt&p art=rss&tag=feed&subj=news
),
broke basic TCP/IP protocols with IE5 and IIS
( http://grotto11.com/blog/slash.html?+1039831658 ), advertised recently for advanced Free Software administrators to work for Microsoft in order to create a strategy to force businesses off of Free Software, and more.
Overall, Microsoft alone as a corporation has distinguished itself as an entity which, as a core business policy, is set to enslave Free Software and the general population. Their mission is to dehumanize and embarrass our membership, and to impoverish our community.
This body of evidence would be enough to reject out of hand the entry of Microsoft to the conference. But NYLXS and NY Fair Use has a growing new concern which is pushing it to action. In the face of the growing threat by the Microsoft Corporation to the well-being of Free Software developers, a threat that can be seen by Microsoft hiring GNU/Linux experts in the effort to undermine the business efforts of our community through lies and falsehoods, as well as technically breaking the beneficial integration of mixed environments, and which can be further seen by the 'shared source' media campaign which lies about the foundation of a free society and the stake of businesses in the promotion of both Open Sourced and Free Software legal foundation, there is an increasing knee jerk reaction by organizations supposedly representing the communities interests to give Microsoft a platform and a business advantage at conferences and shows which are designed to promote the community's effort in establishing digital rights and economic development. This started at 'Linux World Expo' in San Fransico and has moved into the New York 'Linux World Expo', where it directly damaged the well being of my membership through the winning of an award which rewarded them for creating a program only could properly write if you have the Windows code base, and it is now making its way to the egov-os conference.
The inclusion of Microsoft at this event directly threatens the health of the Free Software Chamber of Commerce in New York City. There are places for an academic style debate for Free Software versus Sun's community license and Microsoft's Share Source' . A conference whose stated goals is to raise awareness of Free Software and Open Software benefits, to present the best practices for government, and to share experiences about the benefits of using Free Software in government, is not such a venue. This venue is about selling Free Software and the community's efforts to the government. It is hoped to and create a much needed stable economic pipeline for free software vendors with government, based on its technical and political merits. Microsoft's goals are in direct conflict with the stated agenda of the conferences. Allowing them to participate, based on the sole attribute that they are Microsoft and feel that they have something to say, is not enough reason to allow them a platform which will be used to hurt members of the community.
Microsoft has never contributed any code to the community.
Microsoft has never advocated any benefits of the use of Free Software or Open Source Software
Microsoft has never financially contributed to any Free Software development or promoted the education of people about Free Software
Microsoft has not, in any way, befriended the community.
Microsoft has positioned itself as an enemy of the community and has threatened it on numerous occasions. In fact, Microsoft has singled out the Free Software and Open Source community for abuse.
Because of the growing misconduct of those who are presenting Free Software and Open Sourced Software to the public, first IDG and now egovos, NYLXS and New Yorkers for Fair Use is now contemplating action, not so much directed against Microsoft, but those wolves in sheep closing who are more directly hurting my membership and the community at large.
In considering actions to take, we are looking at a number of possibilities.
First, it is the opinion of Jay Sulzburger that we can use a hour of time to counter the arguments of Microsoft. My experience is that this will not work. On July 17th, I lead NY Fair Use to Washington to argue against the inclusion of DRM. Despite the fact that our presence was the most important part of the conference, to the point where we engaged productively from the audience both Jack Valenti and Philip Bond, we got no mainstream press. This was despite the presence of the New York Time's Amy Harmon and others. But our action was famous on Capital Hill. When we went back for the Peer to Peer/Berman Bill hearing two months later, several congressional staff members sought me out to ask what we did and to give us compliments. Simply, in regard to Jay's suggestion, nobody will attend such a session outside of the choir, and it will receive no press. On the other hand, Microsoft will get much press.
It has been suggested that egov-os is better to concede a place for Microsoft to allow an open debate. This will not be affective, and the alternative of being tongue whipped by Microsoft in the press is far better since they simply don't qualify for a placement at the conference, and it will allow us to present to the government administrators without interference. It is not NY Fairuse's policy to play 'whack the mole' with DRM issues. Instead, we focus on specific actions which will have broad affect and undermine the ability of our political foes to bring endless action again and again through the governments entire alphabet soup of bureaucracy and congressional committees. If Microsoft objects to being excluded, NY Fair Use (http://fairuse.nylxs.com) would be all to happy to provide a forum for both Microsoft and Richard Stallman, and others, for the benefit of academic debate. It would be a good fund raiser for the Free Software Institute in the coming months. My guess is that Bill Gates has no interest in such a real debate. His company is only interested in marketing and damaging the community. Therefore, participation by any Free Software advocates, or Open Source advocates, in this egov-os conference is highly damaging to the community if it includes Microsoft. And we are therefor calling on a boycott for this event.
It has been said that nobody is stupid enough to believe that Microsoft's 'shared source' promotes Open Source software. Unfortunately, this is very wrong. On the Open Office.org website, every day people ask if they can use and distribute the products. While I wouldn't say people are as dumb as rocks, I will say that they've been so conditioned to think out software as a super-restricted, crash inducing, virus ridden products, that they often have trouble thinking straight about what they should expect from business and software providers.
NY Fair Use is now looking to organize a protest of the event in Washington. A protest will at least give those genuinely from the community an uninhibited outlet. However, NY Fair Use, in general, dislikes protests as a vehicle of change, as we feel they mostly are ignored by a public besieged by 'the protest of the day'.
As a result, we are looking at a more organized campaign against this convention and those who would put events like this one together without considering the moral imperative of not harming the community by giving those who wish to destroy use a platform such as this. Egov-os supposedly advocates Free Software usage in business and government. It should do so without constraint and without apologies.
We are calling for an investigation of the egov-os organizers for misconduct. I've spoken with Tony Stanco many times and it's not possible that he doesn't grasp the basics of the issues outlined here, or how including Microsoft will negatively affect our community. Therefor, the invitation of Microsoft to this conference must be either a direct payoff, or self promotion. Since they are moral equivalents, they are both both equally condemnable.
We insist that Microsoft should not be given any platform at this event, because it is their purpose to undermine the community and its efforts. Since this is not being promoted as an academic debate, but instead is a marketing tool for Open Source and Free Software, we reject any arguments which are based on the concept that we should open the floor to them in order to dispel Microsoft corporate lies. This venue does not have the most basic format to handle this problem.
If, for contractual reasons, it is impossible to remove them from the conference, we ask the organizers to give NYLXS's subcommittee, New Yorkers for Fair Use, both the keynote and the Microsoft slot in the speaking arraignments. David Sugar will represent NYLXS, and I will represent NY Fair Use.
Finally, the website for the event needs to have on the front page a clear statement that it has determined that Microsoft's 'shared' code' program to be directly in opposition to both Free Software and the Open Source ideals, in that it does not promote the empowerment of the community through the freedom of innovation and digital systems ownership by individuals, the government or businesses.
I do not expect that these suggestions will be taken by Bruce Perens, or the other organizers of the egov-os events. So I expect that we will have to work to oppose the event.
Ruben Safir
President New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://fairuse.nylxs.com
NYLXS did an article on this in the September Journal and will be following up with a series on Open Office.
y sq l.html
http://www.nylxs.com/journal/sept2002/openoff_m
http://www.nylxs.com/journal/
NYLXS [nylxs.com]
OK
The Gnu/Linux 1 class, the Unix 1, class, the Perl 1 class, and others have all been superb. You are being taught by instructors who know what they teach, in an active, hands on environment. It is backed by an active mailing list, a learn list, an announcements list, Inservices that present various free software services and applications that are free to attend, business demos [nylxs.com], and more. Richard Stallman has dropped in on classes, inservices, and other events from time to time, and David Sugar (Bayonne telephony Project)and others have held inservices and dropped in on meetings and classes as well.
The philosophy behind NYLXS (which is in the process of becomming a non-profit entity) is that open source is useful and productive, should be promoted by everyone, and can only grow larger. The funds raised from classes will go to promoting free/open source software.
If you look at the mass push behind free/open source software in other countries, in companies and schools across America, and in various agencies, their eyes are either slowly being opened, or are being jammed wide open at the benefits for running free/open source software. It can no longer be denied that gnu/linux has a huge momentum behind it, and must be a part of everyone's toolbox from now on.
NYLXS teaches the nitty-gritty of what you need to know to get the job done. You can take individual classes, or take an entire program and get discounts. At the end of several classes, you will have a working server, which can be setup to do anything you want, apache, mail, file/print, etc. You will also have the knowledge you need to go forward as a sys admin, or whatever other computer related job you choose, or for just your own knowledge.
They have Gnu/Linux 1/2, Unix 1/2, Perl 1/2, C, Gimp, Open Office, and other classes as well. Every class is taught by someone who uses the software daily as their main operating system/application, and they may be using it as the main software in their profession, or they may be using it as an aid to pick up where other software falls flat on its face.
NYLXS [nylxs.com] also has a free software chamber of commerce, where they provide solutions for businesses using free/open source software, and which also gives the students who go through the training an opportunity to obtain employment, allows the students to make important business contacts, etc.
NYLXS [nylxs.com] will be present and have a booth at LinuxWorld [tradeshownews.com] in NYC. NYLXS membership was instrumental at the events that occured on July 17, 2002 at the Commerce Committee hearing for drm/other controls [nylxs.com], which had the direct effect of stalling the legislation, and opening up the process to what was previously a good 'ol boys process of enacting legislation behind closed doors.
Any sys admin, or anyone maintaining computers in a large user environment who does not know how to use and administer Gnu/Linux systems will be at a handicap when trying to sell themselves. I am aware of the environments of many companies, and for the larger (more than 10-15 seats) companies, they are virtually all experimenting with gnu/linux servers at least at a minimal level. They are just getting their feet wet at some of these companies, but as they become more familiar, and as they realize the benefits, they will become more and more involved with gnu/linux.
If you only know ms products, and are having trouble finding work, you must realize why. If you only know free software, you will also have trouble finding work. But sys admins and other techies that know both, and are comfortable with both, will have an easier time under any possible scenario.
Check out NYLXS [nylxs.com], especially the pages under the Free Software Institute [nylxs.com], and see what they offer. Their prices are very good, you get a working computer as part of the classes (which is used in the classes), you get access to numerous distributions, and you get a first rate education that is not taught to any test.
Complete one of the sequences, and then study the questions that are on the LPI exam [lpi.org], and you shouldn't have any problem passing the LPI exam when you are done with an NYLXS sequence.
NYLXS [nylxs.com]
The Gnu/Linux 1 class, the Unix 1, class, the Perl 1 class, and others have all been superb. You are being taught by instructors who know what they teach, in an active, hands on environment. It is backed by an active mailing list, a learn list, an announcements list, Inservices that present various free software services and applications that are free to attend, business demos [nylxs.com], and more. Richard Stallman has dropped in on classes, inservices, and other events from time to time, and David Sugar (Bayonne telephony Project)and others have held inservices and dropped in on meetings and classes as well.
The philosophy behind NYLXS (which is in the process of becomming a non-profit entity) is that open source is useful and productive, should be promoted by everyone, and can only grow larger. The funds raised from classes will go to promoting free/open source software.
If you look at the mass push behind free/open source software in other countries, in companies and schools across America, and in various agencies, their eyes are either slowly being opened, or are being jammed wide open at the benefits for running free/open source software. It can no longer be denied that gnu/linux has a huge momentum behind it, and must be a part of everyone's toolbox from now on.
NYLXS teaches the nitty-gritty of what you need to know to get the job done. You can take individual classes, or take an entire program and get discounts. At the end of several classes, you will have a working server, which can be setup to do anything you want, apache, mail, file/print, etc. You will also have the knowledge you need to go forward as a sys admin, or whatever other computer related job you choose, or for just your own knowledge.
They have Gnu/Linux 1/2, Unix 1/2, Perl 1/2, C, Gimp, Open Office, and other classes as well. Every class is taught by someone who uses the software daily as their main operating system/application, and they may be using it as the main software in their profession, or they may be using it as an aid to pick up where other software falls flat on its face.
NYLXS [nylxs.com] also has a free software chamber of commerce, where they provide solutions for businesses using free/open source software, and which also gives the students who go through the training an opportunity to obtain employment, allows the students to make important business contacts, etc.
NYLXS [nylxs.com] will be present and have a booth at LinuxWorld [tradeshownews.com] in NYC. NYLXS membership was instrumental at the events that occured on July 17, 2002 at the Commerce Committee hearing for drm/other controls [nylxs.com], which had the direct effect of stalling the legislation, and opening up the process to what was previously a good 'ol boys process of enacting legislation behind closed doors.
Any sys admin, or anyone maintaining computers in a large user environment who does not know how to use and administer Gnu/Linux systems will be at a handicap when trying to sell themselves. I am aware of the environments of many companies, and for the larger (more than 10-15 seats) companies, they are virtually all experimenting with gnu/linux servers at least at a minimal level. They are just getting their feet wet at some of these companies, but as they become more familiar, and as they realize the benefits, they will become more and more involved with gnu/linux.
If you only know ms products, and are having trouble finding work, you must realize why. If you only know free software, you will also have trouble finding work. But sys admins and other techies that know both, and are comfortable with both, will have an easier time under any possible scenario.
Check out NYLXS [nylxs.com], especially the pages under the Free Software Institute [nylxs.com], and see what they offer. Their prices are very good, you get a working computer as part of the classes (which is used in the classes), you get access to numerous distributions, and you get a first rate education that is not taught to any test.
Complete one of the sequences, and then study the questions that are on the LPI exam [lpi.org], and you shouldn't have any problem passing the LPI exam when you are done with an NYLXS sequence.
Wow
.ORG pravilion this coming week.
i forget over time how much NYLXS does for the community. I'm so pround of this organization, and our training and instructors are dedicated. They offer the best Training on the East coast, and the pofessional proesentations are great as well.
Check us out at LWE in the
Ruben
Secondly, we want to INTEGRATE the computers into the rest of the class study. We want them to learn the basic prinicples of ART with computers, and not learn PhotoShop, We want them to learn the prinicples of WRITING with computers to help them write, not teach them WORD, we want them to learn Book Keeping, NOT EXCEL, and so on.
So what we started to do is to create a criculum for TEACHERS. We found we need to teach teachers why and what they can get from the integration of computers into the learning environment.... and not to just stick a Computer Lab into the school and expect that functions to teach something.
To join this effort, see www.nylxs.com
Ruben
>>
The need for human expression is reason enough to produce art. Currently, almost no artists lives on their work and even D'vinci depended on patronage.
Give to PBS, but stop stealing my property by depriving me of the enjoyment of my property in my home.
We hope to have this Bill written in the next few months, and can use help in this matter from a lawyer. NYLXS hopes to fund this process. The basic outline is as follows:
Consider it a Digital Bill of Rights for the New Millennium:
The legislation to be drafted will accomplish the following main stream objectives which all reasonable people can expect:
-All copyrights to individual scores, writings, and recordings will be returned to the original artist after a period of 10 years.
-No technology can be deployed which spies on, wiretaps or discloses privately owned information which is stored on digital devices by any government agency or private 3rd party without the issuance of a publicly pronounced and disclosed warrant limited to a specific criminal investigation.
-All copyright cases must prove, prior to a judgment of guilt, proof that the actions in question did not infringe on Fair Use, and the individuals rights under the 4th and 1st amendment of the Bill of rights US Constitution.
-Ownership of all physical media, and devices to read such media, is the sole property of the purchaser of the media, without an expressly negotiated and signed contract between both the copyright holder and the purchaser.
-No technological software or hardware method can be deployed in a digital product and made available for normal retail sale which inhibits, in any way, the full enjoyment of the property by the purchasers, regardless of any agreement between the designer of the hardware or software products. Such agreements are null, and not contractible.
-Copyright is an exception to Fair Use as it limits the ability for individuals to enjoy their private property and express themselves with the use of such copyrighted materials. Fair Use is a doctrine to be based on the 4th and 1st amendments of the US Constitution.
-Individuals have the right to express themselves to others about the means, mechanism and workings of all digital devices, including but not limited to, discussion on how to make fair use of media, how to improve such devices, or to reverse engineer all such devices and the algorithms which are used to help them display, copy or run media.
We need to get as many big guns on this as possible and then relentlessly campaign, actively working to elect supporters and vote out incumbent opposition. In fact, we should look to defeat, not just the proposed spyware legislation, but also defeat Senator Hollings
Not to Quote Rube Too many times but, at the Libre Software Meeting in France he made this observation:
It is my hope that today, Brooklyn and the City of New York, can
again find themselves as allies in the cause of freedom with this great
nation of France. Free Software is the only way of assuring a future of
prosperity, and security for all the peoples of the world. Only through
the freedom to associate, to come together and collaborate in solving
our problems can we hope to assure that these wonderful tools which we
use for our expression, our industry, and our education, continue to
remain as free as our press and our governments.
Our job as users, marketeers, promoters, and programmers of Free Software,
is to assure the creation of the widest possible tent. We welcome all
individuals to participate with Free Software. We welcome them to code,
and to use Free Software to enrich their lives. We hope they can find in
Free Software the freedom to express themselves and to become fulfilled.
While it is central to the business plan of every proprietary closed
computing system to entangle the user, and to limit the use of digital
tools, for Free Software, the essential goal is the opposite. Our goal
to provide Free Software is for everyone. Our goal is to be empower the
individual through our software, regardless of peoples wealth, background,
or ethnicity. We offer everyone a stake in the future, a future which
promises to be filled with digital communications, and increasing
dependency on computers for our daily living. Digital devices are the
future for education, entertainment and all of our information needs.
Jack Valenti and July 17th, Washington DC, Department of Commercie DRM Workshop:
"A little Demagogary Never Hurt anyone"
Jack agian in 1982: "The VCR is to Movies like the Boston Strangler to Young Women"
Ruben Safir: President of NYLXS and Co-Founder of NY Fair Use August 2002:
"Jack Valanti is to Private Ownership and Property as the Boston Strangler to the VCR"
Jack Valenti again at the DRM Workshop:
"If this body connot find a way to agree to find a way which will protect private property from Theft then we'll just have to go to Congress and get it done"
Ruben Safir at the Press Conference after the Workshop:
"I completely agree with Jack Valenti. Congress has to step in and protect our private property from theft. It's my damn disk, my damn computer. If someone breaks into my home and steals my computer and my DVD's, who calls the cops and files the police report?
Me or Universal Pictures?
DRM is Theft. Congress must pass a law which will protect the property of every owner of a computer and purchaser of Digital Information by outlawing anything which prevents the full enjoyment of their property. We don't need prior aproval of Warner Brothers, Jack Valenti, or Barry Sorkin to use our computers to augment our enjoyment of our property. There is no forced contract to a cash sale. Forcing a contract on the public which they didn't negotiate as equal partners is a form of slavery no free citizen can put up with.
That's why we propose a New Fair Use Bill, one which guarantees that Copyright is secondary to the Constitutional Right of Security in ones Home and with one's pocessions. Because Copyright is secondary to my property rights in my home and Congress has to make it clear.
If anyone should be forced into a license, then Bertleson should be forced to License to Listen.com. That's why we gave them the limited exclussive Monopoly in the first place, to make sure the material is published. If they don't want to publish, too bad, make them do it anyway or strip them of their Monopoly.
How can we can we continue to expect to maintain a free society if we can't accumulate, copy and archive on our digital systems and information. How are we expected to be able to publish from annotated facts, with references to the original works when everything on the internet can expire or disapear. We have to be able to copy to archive. It's essential to our politcal speech, or for that matter our abilty to have party music mixed to our own enjoyment on Saturday Night."
#4098584)
Fear mongering and scare tactics?
Considering they tried to ban the VCR, and when that didn't work, institute a "modest" fee of $50 per blank tape, is this really fear mongering?
To get some accurate [nyfairuse.org] info on drm, go to http://www.nyfairuse.org, and to see a NY group that has been proactively fighting drm and other attacks on fair use [nylxs.com], linux and other issues, go to www.nylxs.com
Gentlemen
I'm e-mailing you today in my capacity of New Yorkers for Fair Use and as President of NYLXS, the New York GNU Linux Scene
Guy's, you have a Congressman down there who is co-sponsering the Bill to allow the MPAA and the RIAA to hack into our computers and steal our files.
I'm starting a letter writing campaign up here in NY to local representitives on the House Judiciary Committee, but your guy is the CHAIR.
How about some political Action Guys. We can come down and help if you think it would be worth while.
I'm sending a copy of our announcement today and my personal letter. Let's get to work or tomorrow there might not be any Free Software to protect!
Ruben
______
NY Fair Use
Your next Political Action has come upon us.
In this article: http://news.com.com/2100-1023-946316.html , there is a misrepresentation of the basic facts of the Berman Bill. The Berman Bill would approve the theft of our computers by authorizing Breaking and
Entering of our computers in our homes if copyrighted material is discovered on our computers. The bill gives Police Powers to the RIAA and the MPAA, but here is being discussed as if it somehow is a computer security issue with viruses.
This is misinformation on the part of the RIAA.
Everyone is to right Congressman Weiner, who is on the same Sub-Committee as Berman, and inist for assurances to vote and lobby against this bill which authorizes Breaking and Entering without a warrent by the Copyright Monopoly Holders.
Also write your local representitive and Senator Schummer and Senator Clinton.
Send a Copy to the NY FairUse list, and send 5 copies to someone in your address book asking them to also write. Send these letters by Fax to Weiners Office. Let's see if we can get a real chain reaction working.
Ruben
_______
Dear Congressman Weiner
Congressman Berman of California's 26th District is proposing a Bill which would steal the private property of every computer owner in America. The bill, designed to prevent peer to peer sharing of files, would give the Movie and the Music Industry police powers are normally assigned only to the state. It assigns them to these private industries by allowing them to invade our homes and enter into our computer systems without a wararnt, to remove our files, or to prevent our lawful use of these files. In theory this would help protect protect copyright monopolies. But a Copyright Monopoly doesn't give a business the right to perform breaking and entering.
This amounts to theft and an invassion of personal property. Some in the press are representing this bill as some form of virus or security bill. The Bill has nothing to do with computer security at all accept that it will create less security for everyone who owns a computer.
I'm asking you to ask that this bill does not leave the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property even though Mr Cobble, the Chairman, is a Co-Spounsorer. We need you vocally object to the intrussion that this bill asks for on the public, and question it's constitutionality.
My vote depends on your action on this matter. This kind of legistlation is something to expect our of the Peoples Repulic of China, not a free Society like the US. If we can't protect our private property from invassion of people like
the RIAA and the MPAA, then how are we different from a Communist Dictatorship?
This bill is asking for the legalization of Breaking and Entering be a bunch of GOONS.
Ruben Safir
President of NYLXS and Co-Founder of New Yorkers for Fair Use
80% into Hotmil is spam
90% of the mail FORM hotmail is spam...
and MS owns a copyright on it all (read the agreement)
New Yorkers for Fair use/NYLXS Washington Report
US Department of Commerce DRM Workshop Political Action
July 17th, 2002
On July 17th, 2002, New Yorkers for Fair Use and NYLXS, with help from the Free Software Foundation, held a political action at the Department of Commerce where they were holding their second Digital Rights Management (DRM) Workshop. New Yorkers for Fair Use spearheaded the efforts to bring public opinion to the meeting in a reasonable and effective manner. New Yorkers for Fair Use is happy to announce that all of our goals were met in this action, and even exceeded, without disrupting the normal activities of the meeting. It was our goal to have a voice and participate in the Democratic process, and not to disrupt entirely the process.
Prior to the meeting in Washington DC, the President of NYLXS and co-founder of NY Fair Use, Ruben Safir, was attending at the request of the French Free Software movement, the Libre Software Meeting in Bordeuax France. Upon arriving to France, Ruben checked his email and received from the NY Fair Use Secretary, Seth Johnson, a message outlining the Commerce Departments announcement with a list of participants, and asking if NY Fair Use wanted to attend the meeting, scheduled to happen the day after Ruben's arrival back in New York the next week. Ruben was reluctant to schedule a trip to Washington DC so soon after arriving home, but the meeting appeared to be too good of a target for the NY Fair use agenda to pass up. It would give us an oppurtunity to speak face to face with most of our chief opponents including the likeable and articulate Jack Valenti of the MPAA, the RIAA, and several industrial leaders including Microsoft, and Intel. So Ruben sent a reply back to Seth to prepare for the trip and assigned him the duty of preparing everyone for the trip.
Once the decision was made within the NY Fair Use management to go ahead with the plan, several goals were agreed upon by the management including Ruben, Seth, Co-founder of NY Fair Use Brett Wynkoop, and Jay Sulzberger our general public relations manager. NYLXS also geared into action providing network services and funding for the trip. NYLXS members, as usually, sprang into action in support of the NY Fair Use activity. In particular, Micheal Richardson, the NYLXS Membership Chairman and Journal Editor designed buttons and helped drive everyone down to Washington, Kevin Mark contributed to the PR material, Vinnie alerted as much of the press as possible and Joe Maffia offered technical support. Even with large parts of NYLXS on vacation, the organization worked admirably according to it's charter, to support and educate the public about issues which affect Free Software in business, education, and in the home.
The first agenda item by NY Fair Use was to get us representation on the panel, specifically by including Ruben Safir as a panel representative. Although Ruben was in France and cut off from many of the Washington connections which have been nutured over the last few years, NY Fair Use was petitioning for a place on the panel from the start. We had Sarah Brown of the EFF in Washington who put Seth Johnson in contact with Chris Israel inside the Commerce Department. Seth Johnson also tried to contact Congressman Weiners Office in an effort to bring some Congressional pressure on the matter. But with the limited time frame and our chief advocate in Europe, we were not able to get representation on the board. Ultimately, NY Fairuse had to fall back to our secondary plan, to participate as members of the audience.
Limited to audience participation, we now opened the discussion on a new mailing list created by Seth for the purposes of organizing this action in Washington. The first order of business was to produce proper slogans for our goals. One goal of NYLXS is to change the whole lexicon of the DRM and Copyright discussion. We felt that certain messages needed to be brought to the public and the press to assure our future success, not just in this battle over DRM, but also in a wide variety of copyright and fair use issues as they have trickled into the public eye over the last few years. We decided, after much discussion and after considering many opinions on the mailing lists, to attempt to drive into the public lexicon the phases, "DRM is Theft" and "We are the Stakeholders". We chose these expressions very carefully to counter the rhetoric coming out of the copyright monopoly content industry, especially the claims by Senator Hollings that he had assembled all the "Stakeholders" to write his CBDTPA bill, and Jack Valenti's rhetoric that the simple act of listening to a DVD on a GNU/Linux operating system is stealing property from the motion picture industry.
The next stage of planning fell into the lap of Seth Johnson, who mobilized NYLXS and NY Fair Use for the practical matters of making the trip. Fortunately, NYLXS is today a well oiled machine. We are very proud of the volunteer spirit of the organization and it's ability to deliver when called upon. Joe Maffia researched our previous work in find a minibus for the trip down. Seth Johnson offered use of his credit cards to get the truck. Michael Richardson volunteered to drive everyone to DC. Brett Wynkoop oversaw all the system adminitrations and co-ordination duties needed to keep everyone in touch. Jay Sulzberger wrote up a terrific position paper for the trip and a media guid. Vinnie contacted nearly every press contact he could find with information about the trip. Members with almost every political background came from every part of the city to volunteer to make the trip. NYLXS has become very effective at organizing events. They are motivated, proactive, and competitant.
Meanwhile in France, Ruben Safir and Richard Stallman, over much wine, reviewed the political strategy for the action. The principals agreed to a joint effort of the FSF and NY, and even planned on backup contingencies including how to hold a protest outside of the building if we were eventually not allowed into the conference room. Some of the ideas we knocked around was shhowing up with steaks, as in meat, to drive home the message that the public is the stakeholders on copyright monopoly matters, or dessing in costumes. However time would not allow us to co-ordinate these efforts. They are still on the table for future political action.
On Richard and Ruben's arrival home to the States, all the pieces were in place for a successful run at changing the direction of the DRM discussion.
The afternoon Ruben came home to New York, Seth and Ruben touched base and made certain that the arrangements for the van was in place, and that everyone was clear about the time and place we were to meet. We argeed to meet early in the afternoon the day Ruben arrived home, and the day before going to Washington, to pick up the truck from another neighborhood in Brooklyn across town. Seth, Micheal and Ruben went out to rent the van, and drove it home. We decided to meet at Ruben's house the night before for a final planning session Since we were leaving at 4AM in the morning to get to DC on time for a meeting with the media at 10AM, everyone assembled very early in Flatbush. Brett left with his own care from Park Slope in Brooklyn and we stayed in touch on the road. In the minibus we had Michael Richardson, Jay Sulzberger, Seth Johnson, Vinnie, Forrest Mars, Murray, Kevin Marks, and Ruben. Nearly everyone was dressed in a suit and tie.
The drive down to Washington went smoothly and we met with media guru Eric Hensal at the Corner Bakery in the Press Club building a few blocks from the Commerce Department Building. Eric gave NY Fair Use great media tips on how to get seen by the press, in addition to a packet with vital press contacts both in the building and across town. Forrest Mars ran our Media Alert through the building, while Richard Stallman met with us at the bakery with copies of the flyers. Richard and Ruben had spent most of the night on the phone and through mail dotting the i's and crossing the t's on the press release. Vinnie ran off more copies. Brett and Kevin ran down to the Commerce Department Building to scout out the conditions. As it turned out, this was critical because the Department of Commerce was convinced that they could close the meeting to the public. Brett's charm and force of rhetoric convinced the panel that they couldn't close the workshop, and by the time that we were ready to actually go to the meeting, the Panel had rolled out the red carpet for NY Fair Use, giving us an escort to upstairs to the 4th Floor.
Finally, at about 12:30, Ruben, Richard, Seth and Kevin marched to the Commerce Department building, with the rest following later. Ruben handed out our flyers, and met with several friends in the press and with other organizations who are aligned with us. We met with Declan McCullagh from CNN Net, and Robin Gross of the EFF. We also met with American Library Association Representative, Miriam Nisbet and told them of our efforts to protect Libraries last year with our save the Libraries Campaign. People lined up to meet Richard Stallman before the meeting, and eventually the rest of our group arrived at the meeting, filling up the room.
We also had the pleasure of seeing many old friends from the Press including Seattle reporter Sarah Strickland and Bloomberg reporter Katherine Reynolds Lewis. As the meeting started, everyone in our group was wearing the "DRM is Theft" Buttons, and the "We are the Stakeholders" Buttons. In fact, we almost ran out of buttons.
It was not the plan of NY Fair Use in any way to disrupt the Workshop Panel. Neither was it the goal of the organization to sit mute in the audience and not be felt. Our goal was to clearly participate as audience members of the panel. In this matter, and within the bounds of normal political discourse as is the rule with such contentious issues. For example, as the meeting started, the Chair began by saying that he'd like to announce that nobody on the panel is a villian. This brought audible laughter from the audience. We were then quiet for the next hour. At one point, Brett Wynkoop, who couldn't find a chair and finally sat near the panel's table, raised his hand when the Chair asked if anyone else had a comment. The Chair recognized Brett, who then proceeded to announce his name and position as co-founder of NY Fair Use. The Chair tried to un-recognize him, but Brett just plowed forward, within the bounds of Rogers Rules of Order, by asking the panel how they could consider regulations and laws which would turn every teenager in America with a Magic Marker or Wite-Out, into a felon. Brett was refering to the recent flap over the attempt by the music industry to produce DRM for audio CD's which was quickly defeated with a single line made by a marker. Several minutes of interesting debate followed which finally climaxed when one of the lawyers on the panel gave the legal opinion that the courts would never convict anyone for using a Magic Marker as a circumvention device because the courts had not considered that a sufficient circumvention method under the DMCA. This caused Ruben to ask if we can get that in writing for the next DMCA trial dealing with digital music. Everyone was jovial at this point, laughing and smiling and, enjoying the open participatory democratic process unfolding before their eyes. Only the most pretentious of individuals in the crowd refused to smile and participate.
Earlier, a schematic diagram was given of the current state of DRM development. This alphabet soup of circles and letters were discoursed upon for several minutes; the thing looked looked similar to a Network Map of the internet. Nobody could understand a word of what was being presented, but everyone sat quitely and listened anyway. At the end of this part of the representation, the image on the projector was flipped, to connect the dots in complete chaos. This fitting image of the state of current DRM schemes would come back to haunt the panel as the presentation went on.
NY Fair Use mostly sat quietly through the meeting, occasionally whispering to each other, until MPAA spokesman Jack Valenti took the floor. At this point, Jack elegantly said in a beautiful self-effacing fashion, that he hopes that everyone on the panel would give him the courtesy to be heard and then he would yield the floor to others. At this moment, Vinnie stood up and said, "How can you expect everyone to present their response to your comments when you've left off the panel the most important stakeholders, the public.". Jack then graciously said that if we let him speak without interruption (not that we seriously interupted anyone), that he would be glad to listen to Vinnie's reply. Jay Sulzberger stood up and said we all agree, and the Chair was feeling a little uncomfortable at this point, feeling he was losing control. But everyone sat silently and heard Jack speak. He put on a classic Jack Valenti performance, and said that it was his position that Government intervention in this matter wasn't a bad thing. And that his experience in the Johnson Administration passing the 1965 Civil Rights Act showed him how important and good proper Government intervention can be. He then continued by saying in his charming Texas drawl, that it was his hope that the leaders in the IT industry and the computer field would come to a consensus in the next month on a DRM standard which would protect the property of the Movie Industry from theft. This caused Ruben to whisper to Vinnie that when the floor returned to him, he should defer comment to Richard Stallman, who was the most qualified and highest ranking IT professional in the building.
When Jack finished, the Chair reluctantly deferred to Jack's wishes and gave the floor to Vinnie. Vinnie then identified himself as a member of NY Fair Use and asked to defer the answer the Richard. Richard stood up, but the Chair didn't let him talk, in violation of the rules of order, and instead said, We've already accidently added one of your members to the panel, and he saw no reason why we should get another member to give their opinion. This caused the audience to get visibly upset. In response, NYLXS President Ruben Safir intervened and asked the Chair, "Pardon me, Mr Chair, however, Mr. Valenti nicely pleaded that the leaders of the IT industry to come to a consensus on DRM. However, one of the greatest figures in the Computing Field was standing right here to the left, as part of NY Fair Use. Richard Stallman has just been given an award in France by the United Nations for his contributions to World Heritage with the invention and development of the GNU/Linux system and it's variants. He's the most qualified person in the room to make a public comment in response to Mr Valenti's request." Ruben's intervention at this point quieted the crowd as nobody wanted things to break down into a raucous confrontation. Though Richard was still denied a chance to speak, our discipline assured that the meeting could continue without derailing the workshop.
However, much of the conversation from that point forward was affected by the events. The Digital Recording Rights Coalition presented more forcefully their position that DRM eroded Fair Use. Jack, in order to convey just how serious the MPAA is about getting DRM enacted quickly, said that while the MPAA responded to a letter from Microsoft about progress toward DRM in 24 hours, that when the MPAA sent such a letter to Microsoft, Microsoft took a long time to return a response. Microsoft at this point all but threatened to buy all the Movie Producers if they continued to be such a pain in the neck. Although this was not their exact words, their threat was neither veiled or lost on Mr Valenti.
Meanwhile, Jack tried to persuade the panel that the Movie Industry had never really been against the VCR. This caused some agitation of panelists, and the crowd just laughed. The panel pointed out that despite the Movie Industry's professed love for the VCR, they brought an injunction against panel members whoose companies made VCR, which injunction was eventually defeated in the supreme court.
But Jack was not the only Panel member capable of bald faced lies. EMI tried to convince everyone that artists really don't hate their record labels, but only say so in public because it's good PR. And later they claimed that the record labels weren't responsible for preventing music from being available, but that it was the artist's fault. AOL Time Warner delightfully wants to close the analogue hole. And a bunch of other positions were espoused, many of which have been covered by Slashdot Ad Nauseum and need not be repeated here.
At the end of the session, everyone had a chance on the panel to express themselves exactly as they wished to. And when it finished, Jay announced that NY Fair Use was to have a press conference in front of the Commerce Department Building at 4:30. Ruben gave his press conference with the help of Richard and Jay. We talked extensively with Bloomberg and other reporters. We announced our position and we announced our sponsorship of the NY Fair Use "Fair Use Bill".
NY Fair Use attained almost all of our goals for this action. The phrases, "We are the stakeholders" and "DRM is theft" have begun to make their way into the press. We are being invited to a new panel on DRM for consumers and we are debating the merits of this now. We are leery of the formation of another panel and question whether is is a stalling tactic. And we reiterated our position that NY Fair Use wants a seat with the original panel. Capital Hill was abuzz the next day with our activities. And Congressman Weiner's Office has promised to led it's efforts to bring us into the panel in the future.
NY for Fair Use has kicked down the door that everyone else will now run through,
You are welcome.....
Ruben Safir
Co-founder of NY Fair Use.
President NYLXS.
When NYLXS had it's Business Demonstration at the Graduate Center of CUNY in Manhattan, one young man challenged us when he asked if we should be doing more with IBM on the front of Free Software advocacy. We replied to him that IBM can not be trusted to protect the interests of Free Software, and digital property rights, because IBM is mandated by it's charter as a corperation to protect the interests of it's share holders.
So while it is true that businesses need freedom to compete in a fair and open market, businesses can not be depended upon to protect that freedom, nor should we expect them to. This is not their function.
Only through Free Software and political action to protect individual property rights to their computers and media, can we assure a future with Free Digital communications, which will be the foundation of political discourse, education, and social interaction in the future.
We must have a Free Digital infrastructure if our people and government will remain as free. This can not be trusted to IBM, HP or MS, but is in the hands of the people.
Join NY Fair Use to pass the Fair Use bill, and turn the DMCA on it's ears.
When NYLXS had it's Business Demonstration at the Graduate Center of CUNY in Manhattan, one young man challenged us when he asked if we should be doing more with IBM on the front of Free Software advocacy. We replied to him that IBM can not be trusted to protect the interests of Free Software, and digital property rights, because IBM is mandated by it's charter as a corperation to protect the interests of it's share holders.
So while it is true that businesses need freedom to compete in a fair and open market, businesses can not be depended upon to protect that freedom, nor should we expect them to. This is not their function.
Only through Free Software and political action to protect individual property rights to their computers and media, can we assure a future with Free Digital communications, which will be the foundation of political discourse, education, and social interaction in the future.
We must have a Free Digital infrastructure if our people and government will remain as free. This can not be trusted to IBM, HP or MS, but is in the hands of the people.
Join NY Fair Use to pass the Fair Use bill, and turn the DMCA on it's ears.
Greetings
I'm rather dismayed at the posting of this biased and incorrect
review of the events of the DOC's panel. This document has several
mistakes which the author, Alex Payne, most have known prior to presenting
this article to slashdot, and some of which just shows a complete fundamental
lack of knowledge of the political process, which can best be contributed to
is young age and lack of experience in public politics.
First of all, I'd like to thank the Department of Commerce for their wonderful
patients in handling the discourse in the room. It could have very easily been
the case that they could have closed out the public entirely from watching this
important issue discussed, and in fact, they almost did that until NYLXS and NY Fair use
kindly pointed out that as a matter of law, they could not prevent the public from attending
a public meeting of this type. And despite that, they could have been malicious and thrown everyone
out who clapped and participated in the hearings from the crowd. Instead, the DOC was gracious
enough to permit participator Democracy to function in the public, and it did function as the meeting
took place without being disrupted by NY Fair use or anyone else. Everything which happened at the
meeting happened within the sandbox of health, normal political discourse. Fortunately, Mr Bond,
the chair of panel understands what healthy political discourse is about, and is a fine representative
of America's open Democratic society, which in my opinion, is the best government on earth. Many people
and nations can learn well from Mr Bond's tolerance and handling of this meeting, including many people
who follow slashdot and complain constantly about how the government is brought off, but never lift
a finger to actually participate and work through the political process.
In Alex Payne's article on Slashdot and other venues, he wrongfully reports that NY Fair use never
tried to join the panel through proper channels. I have no idea how young Alex could have drawn this
conclusion, but clearly he never entered the NY Fair use mail archives, which are normally published
on the NY Fair use web site. Had Young Alex done his job properly as a report of this event, he would
have known that while I was in Europe, we had several people in Washington and New York working on
getting into the panel. This included phone calls to Chris Israel, the point man for the panel, and
multiple phone calls to our local Congressman, Anthony Weiner, asking for help getting on the panel.
We were simply snubbed from the process, and so we were relegated to listening to the hearing from
the gallery.
Before leaving NYC, we had a very serious discussion about our tactics for political action in
Washington. We considered holding a large and noisy protest outside the Department of Commerce
building, and bringing Steaks to show that we are the stake holders in the DRM debate. It was
the decision of NYLXS and NY Fair use to not take this tactic except as a last resort. We felt that
as members of a concerned public, that we needed to make our presence felt within the audience of the
hearing. We also felt that under no circumstances would either organization take any action which
would interfere with the normal function of the panel, and in fact, we succeeded in both matters.
Everyone on the panel was heard, and the panel debated all of the issues present on the panels
agenda. NY Fair use did nothing to prevent any member from being heard, nor did we interfere in
anyway with the panel members ability express their opinions in the discussion. Mr Bond and Mr Rogan
was a skilled parliamentarian, and NY Fair use had strict discipline in order to achieve the balanced goals of
partipatory Democracy. And when the transcript is released, or the recording of the meeting is
made available, it will completely demonstrate with as fact.
This is not to say that NY Fair use quietly or timidly sat in the audience without participating
as audience members. First, Brett Wynkoop was accidently recognized by the chair, and Brett graciously
added much depth and interesting debate to the conversation. Brett was simply sitting in the only chair
available to him near the table and raised his hand. His comments about Magic Markers and CD Digital
Rights Management Attempts was picked up numerous times by the panel in discussing the problems of
Fair Use and the DMCA. One participant even gave us a legal opinion on the matter of the CD DRM issue,
which while I believe is incorrect within the facts of the quoted court case and case law, still
showed that the issues of Fair Use is still important to some members of the panel.
Alex Payne, in his article says, "Geeks should be happy to know that their voice is being heard by the tech industry".
This seems to be a misrepresentation of the statements given by the panel. Or perhaps Alex himself doesn't understand
the issues being debated. This wouldn't surprise me since Alex got so many of the details wrong about the events
of the meeting itself. He seems to suffer from not completely understanding events around him as they happen, and
by a fundamental lack of research prior to making reports. At no time did any of the tech industry say a single
word about protecting the publics basic property rights under the 4th Ammendment of the US Constitution, which is
the main legal protection the public currently has to guarantee basic political freedom. Instead, everyone on
the panel, even Philips who best seemed to grasp the idea that DRM is a snake pit of problems for the growth
of technology, gave lip service for the need to have DRM to protect and enforce unfair Copyright Licensing
Restrictions on the Public, which otherwise do not exist from this simple cash sale of media and digital devices.
Everyone on the panel was willing to grant some form of force contractual arraignment on the public without a
signed fairly negotiated agreement. This violates the public privacy and property rights in their homes.
Mr Valenti kindly said that the Internet is delivery system. This interpretation of the Internet is not
only incorrect, but it is dangerous to the political freedoms of the American People. The American Public,
and in fact all the peoples of the World, fill many roles in their lives are human beings. One of which
is our role as a consumer. But we also play the role of producers, writers, artists, creators, publishers,
and most importantly, we play the role of FREE CITIZENS. The Internet was never designed, nor can it be
properly viewed as a delivery system. It was designed from it's very beginnings as a form of communication
device like the telephone, and it is most accurately described today as a Press. The Internet and Digital
Computers and the Printing Presses of the 21st Century and beyond. Individuals MUST be able have completely
unfettered Printing Press ownership without any interference from the government, or for that matter, private
industry, or the owners of Limited Copyright Monopolies.
DRM, in all it's proposals can not overcome the requirements of a Free Society because it prevents private ownership
of our Printing Press (the digital computer) and the copies of information on media such as DVD's, Music CD's and
Literature or Books. In order to do proper DRM, every aspect of Computer I/O (In and Out), has to be monitored and
controlled. It immediately ends any notion of Fair Use and the two simply can not co-exist. The elimination of
the publics right to ownership, and fair use of limited copyright monopolies can not be justified by any business
plan, or Copyright Ownership issues. If we have to make a choice between unacceptable levels of Piracy, which
in of itself is a term badly maligned and manipulated by our Friends in the Copyright Monopoly Industry, and
our ability to protect private ownership and control of our communication infrastructure and free press, then we
have no choice, we must protect the publics fundamental rights to property, ownership and free speech.
It's unfortunate that the panel actively suppressed the ability of NY Fair use from joining the panel. Otherwise they
would have had the benefit to have heard that legal experts none smaller than Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day
O'Conner have stated on legal record that she can no longer make the determination of who a publisher is any longer
because with the Internet, we are ALL publishers. And indeed we are. Even someone like Alex Payne is capable
of publishing to most ill conceived and un-researched bias press reports on Slashdot under the current model of the
Internet. What greater proof do we need that the Stake holders to the DRM issue is not being adequately heard,
and that DRM is theft from the public.