Hmm,... How about the distinct possibility that these soldiers were doing what they were told to do? That's kind of what soldiers do, isn't it? At least that's the way it was when I served 30 years ago.
I think my point is if more folks like us are involved and contributing to the EFF, it will influence the organization. One hard problem is how do you demonstrate to "normal" people that they should care about this? Valenti has a valid point: the bovinity of the general public creates a society that has no clues that they should care. They don't care, and they see no problem with the corporate broadcast (controlled) model we are evolving to.
I am not against copyright. I think the copyright our framers gave us, for example (a term of 14 years, renewable once; granted only if you register; for limited kinds of work;
If I remember correctly, the constitution grants congress the right to set "limited terms". The first time congress did this, they chose 14 years. If the framers said 14 years, we would be in much better shape. The big problem for consumers, is they are not well represented in the process that got us from then to now.
Wouldn't it make more sense to support the EFF? They already have a running start on this. The more of us who get involved in this, the more powerful it becomes. Also lend your copies of the Lessig books to your friends, (er, maybe we should insist that our friends purchase his books .)
Current events teach us that the second amendment rights have fared much better than the first amendment rights. Using what you have taught me about "translation" in your book "Code": The pro gun folks look at the second amendment and reason that it is primarily about guaranteeing the general population recourse against a repressive government. (I would also like to believe that it offers us recourse against repressive corporations, and I believe that it has worked this way in the past.) Going a step further, I would assert the openness of the Internet is a much more effective weapon against repressive governments and corporations than firearms, (well, maybe excluding some weapons of mass destruction .) In other words, it is time to take the second amendment away from the gun fetish folks and give it to the geeks!
My question is: Does this make any sense? Is it possible to use the second amendment to protect the Internet, and fight off the DMCA? (I am ignoring lots of obvious connections between gun manufactures and folks who write code which MAY be used to violate the DMCA.)
BTW, thanks for your excellent work. Because of you, there are now eight books by lawyers on my bookshelf. Hope it helps me write better code <g>.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, ... How about the distinct possibility that these soldiers were doing what they were told to do? That's kind of what soldiers do, isn't it? At least that's the way it was when I served 30 years ago.
I think my point is if more folks like us are involved and contributing to the EFF, it will influence the organization. One hard problem is how do you demonstrate to "normal" people that they should care about this? Valenti has a valid point: the bovinity of the general public creates a society that has no clues that they should care. They don't care, and they see no problem with the corporate broadcast (controlled) model we are evolving to.
I am not against copyright. I think the copyright our framers gave us, for example (a term of 14 years, renewable once; granted only if you register; for limited kinds of work;
If I remember correctly, the constitution grants congress the right to set "limited terms". The first time congress did this, they chose 14 years. If the framers said 14 years, we would be in much better shape. The big problem for consumers, is they are not well represented in the process that got us from then to now.
Wouldn't it make more sense to support the EFF? They already have a running start on this. The more of us who get involved in this, the more powerful it becomes. Also lend your copies of the Lessig books to your friends, (er, maybe we should insist that our friends purchase his books .)
Current events teach us that the second amendment rights have fared much better than the first amendment rights. Using what you have taught me about "translation" in your book "Code": The pro gun folks look at the second amendment and reason that it is primarily about guaranteeing the general population recourse against a repressive government. (I would also like to believe that it offers us recourse against repressive corporations, and I believe that it has worked this way in the past.) Going a step further, I would assert the openness of the Internet is a much more effective weapon against repressive governments and corporations than firearms, (well, maybe excluding some weapons of mass destruction .) In other words, it is time to take the second amendment away from the gun fetish folks and give it to the geeks!
My question is: Does this make any sense? Is it possible to use the second amendment to protect the Internet, and fight off the DMCA? (I am ignoring lots of obvious connections between gun manufactures and folks who write code which MAY be used to violate the DMCA.)
BTW, thanks for your excellent work. Because of you, there are now eight books by lawyers on my bookshelf. Hope it helps me write better code <g>.