I'm pretty sure it was the original introduction to Animal Farm; I can't remember the title. In it, Orwell spoke about how the powerful ensured that thing that it "wouldn't do" do discuss weren't discussed... and guess what - the intro wasn't published until long afterwards...
'This' most certainly did not start with 'political correctness'. While the attempts to eliminate ingrained sexual bias by way of litigation certainly have their flaws, they are in no way the ancestors of Kaplan's ruling.
The US has a long, long history of suppressing all kinds of speech, from 'communist' speech during the McCarthy era to pacifist arguments during both world wars to 'pornography' in almost any era. And the US also has a long history of allying with business interests (like sending in the National Guard to break a strike, for example). Neither of these things have anything to do with 'PC', which, incidentally, was a term created by right-wingers to discredit some very reasonable reforms by associating them with some rather outlandish ideas - those of Andrea Dworkin, for example (IMO). Incidentally the same thing happened with 'feminism', where the right publicized the ideas of a very small number (the 'man-hating' faction) and presented these as representing the larger body of 'feminism'. Utter BS, but very effective propaganda.
This may be relevant to the code issue because the same thing is already happening; I recall a recent release by the MPAA which characterized the entire OS movement as believing that everything should be free online, including copyrighted work. Which is not entirely accurate but suits the MPAA very well as it allows them to dismiss an entire community that it knows is opposed to their agenda. The only way to fight this is to do our best to communicate well and to correct these kinds of errors where we see them.
I don't think the judge is biased in the narrow sense, but rather in the larger sense in that she is a conservative (not in the sense of 'Republican') who will simply interpret the law according to previous cases and the current laws--without regard to larger issues, such as constitutional limits on the powers of copyright, or examination of how these laws are getting out of hand. And that's not all a judge's role is, in fact. Judges can and have made larger, more sweeping, statements. But Patel isn't of that mold, I suspect. Here's a pretty key statement, in my opinion:
"I cannot essentially sit by [because the infringement is hard to justify], and plaintiffs are entitled to enforce their copyright rights and not have them infringed just because the nature of the technology is such that it's too hard to identify."
This is a fairly sweeping statement. Basically, this would allow the copyright-holders to enforce their copyrights against anything. Including the net as a whole. This is another area where the judge is not, in my opinion, considering the implications of the current state of copyright law. Also, no consideration anywhere is made of the good that the Napster service provides to the community in general. Again, a conservative and narrow view, focused on money and profit, because that's the traditional focus of this kind of case. That's not entirely Patel's fault, of course.
Another thing that interests me is the fact that intent is considered, quite explicitly, by Patel. I didn't realize that the intent of the creators of a device could have such a large part to play in the legal fate of that device. If Napster had been created in all innocence of infringement issues, would it have a stronger defense? Or can intent merely be used as ammunition for the plaintiffs? It's hard, at this point, to imagine innocence or in fact almost anything being a viable argument, based on intent, for the defense. Which again is more of a systemic issue--one that Patel is not that concerned with, in my opinion. Naturally this brings up some of the weaknesses of the judicial system in general, but I won't address that here.
So, what's next? If difficulty-of-enforcement is no defense, what networks are safe? The only real defense that the net itself has is that it is distributed, that it is really really big (in terms of numbers using) and that it was around for quite some time before an suits were brought against it (which would give it some defense in the intent stakes, and make it seem more like a victim of late-coming abusive users than a collaborator in copyright infringement). But any new network is it real trouble, because it doesn't have any of those defenses, and proving innocence of intent will be almost impossible. So, the copyright rulings have an additional chilling factor on technological development as well as the already-existing one on free speech; cf. cases concerning parody in particular. It would seem that the only real hope is for some titanic ruling (such as one against the entire Internet) that dramatically shows up the deleterious effects of the current 'IP' laws, and thus brings about a radical shift in direction. I'm not holding my breath.
The final page of the transcript, showing Patel's exchanges with the attorneys, supports the above view. Patel (and I suspect she is in the mainstream of American judicial opinion here) considers Napster (and probably any other new thing that comes along and facilitates copyright infringement) to be a genie let out of the bottle. And she considers it the responsibility of Napster, the company, to put it back in the bottle. In other words, any new thing that is created that can be used to infringe copyright is going to be forced, judicially, to deal with that use or cease operation. That may sound reasonable at first, but look at it more closely and think again. Copyright infringement is very easy to do these days, due to the massive efforts put in by interested parties to extend the concept of copyright. What this ruling, and the laws that made it possible, essentially do is give to the major interested parties (MPAA, RIAA, etc.) the power to veto new technologies.
('Hey look, I've created a device that can duplicate anything! An end to poverty! An end to hunger! An end--what? You're representing who? What do you mean, an injunction?')
They weren't riots in Seattle, unless you mean it was the police who were rioting. Of course, the police then provoked riots, but hey, let's blame that on the protesters too
The point about the Starbucks windows was that the response was over the top, and that the property damage wasn't that significant. You are correct about the media coverage and the general public response, although I'm not sure you're really focusing on the clear connection between those two things. If the media only covers the window-breaking, how are the general public even supposed to know about the other stuff? The answer, unfortunately, is: they're not supposed to know.
You're probably very correct about LAers being tired of violent protest. However, a few things: not all property damage is equal; broken windows do not equal mass arson. Out-of-control mobs are apparently very much in the eye of the beholder... there weren't too many 'out-of-control mobs in Seatlle, unless you count the ones fleeing being teargassed for peaceful assembly. Also, it's not that difficult to create an 'out-of-control mob' using police violence. I don't think it would be too easy to stand calmly while getting tear-gassed, pepper-sprayed, beaten, and charged at.
Lastly, a key point arising from all of this is the concerted effort by the police (and the media) to make the protesters appear a lot more violent than they are. That's a big reason why the puppet-making factory got shut down: colorful, playful puppets and similar props give the whole thing a carnival atmosphere and reinforce the message that the protests are non-violent. The police are well aware of this, and of their need to portray the protesters as (essentailly) 'terrorists', so that's why the puppet-making area was a target.
Oh, and here's a quick rant. To anyone who believes all the bullshit about the 'dangerous weapons' found in the factory: are you out of your minds? Giant slingshots? Poisonous spiders? What? This is America! If the protesters were truly interested in violence, they would have guns! And they wouldn't store their armory in one highly-publicized, very open-access space! The police will use anything as a justification, and there is a pattern here: in the DC protests, the puppet-making space was shut down and they found 'weapons' there too: prominently a single 'Molotov cocktail' that later turned out to be a plastic bottle with paint-stripper in it (fairly obviously necessary since they paint the puppets). But no, you can all just go on believing that these people are ingenious and insane violent types who want nothing more than to be able to blow up police cars with venomous spider-filled gas/paintstripper bombs fired from giant slingshots and/or juggling equipment.
Unbelievable. Oh, and hey, I guess you all believe there really was a sniper at Kent State that day (here's a sample link from google if you don't know what I'm talking about:link). I hope you never encounter a dishonest cop, a bent judge, a twisted justice system, a biased media oulet, or political repression. That's not sarcasm, either; I really mean it.
This is turning into WTO all over again: lies, abuse, police brutality etc.
You say 'huge about of property damage' in Seatlle. Really? Where? The Starbucks that got its windows broken? Or were there mass burnings and bombings by the protesters that I somehow missed?
Windows breaking, even done on a much bigger scale than in Seattle, is not a 'hue amount of property damage'.
'Police arrested people. Everyone complains'. Police teargassed and pepper-sprayed people. I have the damn video footage, and I know for a fact that police, many times, took non-violent protesters and forced their eyes open and pepper-sprayed their eyes at range of one foor or less. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT. If you think that blocking traffic deserves pepper-spraying in the eyes, I pity you. 'Everyone complains': that's not true either. A lot of people didn't complain, notably the mainstream media. As for your suggestions about doing something about it, please be serious. You have to give up your career and become a cop to protest the system? Doesn't seem right, somehow... and police review boards are notoriously ineffectual.
As for the 200 guy, and the other people being held on misdemeanors charges: all those tihngs are isdemeanors for a reason. I doubt he was making gas bombs, incidentally. Also, since they arrested everyone at a puppet-making factory (how surreal can this stuff get?)on misdemeanor charges and also set ridiculous bails for them, it's entirely reasonable to think that the 2600 guy was in some kind of similar situation.
Oh, and sure, let's pull out the 'everyone in jail says they're innocent' line to discredit the reporting. How powerful an argument that is... it seems clear from the reports that in general there was a pattern of arrestingand harassing organizers. That's why this guy was arrested. He wasn't 'doing nothing' but he wasn't guilty of anything except looking like (and possibly being, I don't know) a protest organizer. Which isn't exactly a crime for which really high bail is reasonable.
The reporting may not have been stellar, and perhaps the 'New Media' get little respect because of it. However, there has been no coverage by the mainstream media, who are too busy falling over themselves about the 'compassionate new face' of the Republican party. So don't hold them up for respect either.
Your father was a cop for 20 years... does this make you unable to believe the stories of torture and abuse in the prisons? Does this make you believe that I'm lying above about the pepper spray? Does it make you think that any police action must be justified, and that therefore all of the above are justified by default? A lot of people seem to have that last view: 'the police are (by and large) good and decent people, and so if they're abusing these people there must be a good reason'. Which is rather flawed reasoning. While your father, and lots of other police, may have been entirely honorable, good people, that doesn't change the fact that police, especially the riot forces, are used to protect the interests of the powerful, and are fairly brutal towards groups they don't like. (Peaceniks, hippies, 'anarchists', etc.). The harsh truth, which a lot of people don't want to face, is that the US bears an awful lot of resemblance to a police state whenever the usual boundaries of discourse (i.e. 'Democrat or Republican?') are exceeded.
For some of the the demonstrators' points of view, see www.phillyimc.org
You could play Super SF2 Turbo on your PC? Who published that? Any idea where I could get a copy? I loved that in the arcade and would like to have it it on my PC... along with Killer Instinct (which might not be emulated properly for a while...) any pointers appreciated (to either game, but I'm assuming that KI doesn't exist for PC, excluding emulating the SNES to play it, which doesn't count because that version sucks).
Actually, this "you can't yell fire in a crowded thater" metaphor was used as a way to make the government suppression of anti-war protests sound reasonable...
It's supposed to mean that you can't use 'free speech' to cause public safety hazards (like people trampling each other to get to the exits) and expect not to be punished.
However, as Howard Zinn pointed out in A People's History of the United States, the metaphor as used didn't really relate to the issue of anti-war protests, and a better metaphor would have been that you have no right to tell people going into a theater that there's a fire inside, even if there really is one... which, strikingly enough, also sounds appropriate for things like the Mattel case and others where companies attempt to prevent critical commentary on their products.
I'm not sure that meant to harm is part of the definition; you could mean something as a harmless prank but if it goes wrong you'd still be in legal trouble (i.e. if you yelled 'Fire!' as a joke, meaning no harm, that wouldn't be a defense). I think it's more likely to be something that will obviously cause harm. Of course, there's a lot of room for maneuver there.
It's important to remember that the "you don't have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want" interpretation of free speech is the current US legal definition, and does not necessarily apply to the principle or ideal of free speech. And while some people would probably agree that in certain circumstances free speech needs to be restricted in some way (many would disagree with that, too), there's a big difference between that and giving an organization the power to decide which speech is harmful - obviously any such organization will tend to be protective of its own interests.
Sure, I'll explain the relationship. 1. What you call 'pirating' mp3s is actually the transmission of creative work over a certain medium.
2. In order to make the concept of 'free speech' meaningful in the post-Gutenberg world, 'speech' cannot simply mean literal speech, but the publication or transmission or dissemination or expression of concepts/ideas via any medium. Therefore, printed matter is considered (in theory, at least) as having the same protection that, for example, conversation has. On free speech grounds, at least, it's not acceptable to rule that someone can say something but not print it. This naturally applies to digital media also; if it did not, then the concept would be useless as it would not apply to a huge part of modern communication.
3. An mp3, presumably encoding a song, is nothing but the publication of that song in a specific medium, therefore a kind of speech, entitled to the same protection as other kinds in other media.
4. A song definitely constitutes the expression of an idea or ideas.
5. The downloading of an mp3 is therefore the communication of an idea. Placing restrictions on this evidently places constraints on the free and open exchange of ideas.
6. Depending on the mp3 in question, the laws in your region, and your own opinions, the downloading of this mp3 may also be theft. It is not only theft, but, again, may constitute theft in the views of some. This does not mean that it no longer has 'communication of idea' status.
7. The argument I'm replying to exhibits what seems to me a fairly common fallacy: that an idea once copyrighted is no longer an idea but rather someone's 'property', when it is in fact both. It's a lot easier, in fact, to rationalize it not being property than it somehow losing its 'idea' status once it is copyrighted. Also, the equation of 'copyright violation' with 'theft' is problematic in the extreme, since the human concept of theft is rooted in material things. Finally, the equation of the two ignores the elastic nature of copyright; see the end of my last post for details.
Debatable: 'Protecting one's copyrights' is censorship. It can be interpreted as warranted in the interest of promoting economic reward for creative endeavors (which is actually intended to encourage creative endeavors, not economic reward per se), but it is still the suppression of someone else's speech.
Non-debatable: 'Protecting one's copyrights' has certainly been used by organizations, normally large businesses, to censor the speech of others in the case of satire, parody and so forth. The key point here is how far copyrights extend. Parodies of Mickey Mouse (including all kinds of offensive parodies that 'most people' wouldn't like) are actually legally protected but despite this are impossible to defend from armies of lawyers. There are many other examples.
People tend to forget that copyright was created at a specific time with a specific purpose, and that as a legal creation is rather malleable (as has been shown by its constant extension...)./.ers should realize this, especially as it is being extended further and further by things like the DMCA.
There are two basic problems. One, as it becomes more ingrained and gathers more powerful interests behind it, copyright begins to seem a natural moral concept (not an economic incentive). This means that the idea of banning devices which could facilitate copyright violations becomes more palatable. Two, as the technology changes, violating copyright law becomes easier and easier.
All this really means is that it will be extremely difficult to maintain the status quo, and that's what we're seeing: large forces attempting to extend the reach of copyright so that it becomes totally ridiculous, and other forces (perhaps only intending to turn the tide a little, perhaps not) straining to render copyright utterly unenforceable.
A simple "for/against" standpoint doesn't really work anymore, especially since copyright is a legal concept and certain players are able to change the laws in their favour. This is a point that many, including the AC to whom I am replying, appear to miss. Is it 'censorship' to say that you cannot reproduce my work now? In 5 years? In 10? 100? 1000? When does my work (which inevitably drew upon public domain ideas) become part of the public domain? Similarly, is it censorship to say that you can't parody my work? Cite my work? Say bad things about my work? Mention my work?
It's a matter of degree. The key point is not really about copyright 'violations' but rather: what do we want copyright to be? What is the best middle ground between encouraging creativity and encouraging a free and open exchange of ideas? And how do we get there?
The good thing is that, unlike most activists and radicals, we're in a *very* strong position, because the stock market, and the economy in general has bet the farm on the industry we work in...
True, because of the job market it's unlikely that a blacklist or similar tactics could be effective, particularly if any kind of action were widespread. Unlike the situation in many other industries, most businesses in today's market would consider it crazy to even think about a potential employee's politics.
Imagine what were to happen if, in protest of the recent attacks against the linux community, we were to coordinate a general strike?
Great idea. But can it be done? The negative press and general backlash would be immense. On the other hand, the idea that we would be striking on a matter of principle and not for more money would be very weird and I think extremely powerful. The mainstream media would portray it as ideological fanaticism for that very reason, something to be aware of.
Even more powerful is another possibility, what if great portions of the industry took large paycuts in order to work on free software?
This is a good idea too, although I see it as less likely.
...you and your peers (the linux community) will have your freedoms attacked, and it will radicalize you. Think about it...
Actually, it will politicize you. Most of the American population, according to a variety of polls, tend to hold beliefs that the media/politicians consider 'radical' (considering the invasion of Vietnam morally wrong and not just 'a mistake', increasing aid - as long as it's not called 'welfare' - to the poor, drastically reducing the military budget, etc.), making it clear that it's really a question of political awareness rather than being on any kind of fringe (unless the concept of a 'fringe' includes one where most of the population agree). Admittedly, the Linux / OS / geek / IT community is a fringe group mainly because of the technological issues, but I'm pretty sure that if these issues were free from obfuscation the natural tendency of much of the population would be to agree with the commonly-held stances in this community. Perhaps I'm wrong, it really depends in this instance on the degree to which propaganda about 'piracy' has been effective.
--
Keep in mind that Food Not Bombs gives away free vegetarian food to anybody who's hungry. Their reason? Because "food grows on trees."
Despite this wonderful example of altruism, they've had numerous encounters with the police, and are a constant target of brutality and harrassment. Strange, no?
Maybe not. Food Not Bombs are very progressive and radical (as opposed to being liberal, and just whining about poverty), and have decided to take matters into their own hands. Becuase of this, they also use the opportunity to hand out flyers, organize protests, meet other social activists, etc. Most probably, this is what scares the government and corporations into repressing them.
That's certainly a big factor. Another factor is that their activities draw attention to the plight and numbers of homeless, hence suggesting that there are extremely grave problems with our current economic system. The powers-that-be prefer these problems not to be exposed.
Probably open source's saving grace is the fact that most of it's members are not equating the sharing of code with political ideologies. Regardless, it will be targetted by the corporations it threatens, but in the first wave of repression, you'll see very IP-oriented attacks (such as the actions by RIAA), lobbying to forbid the use of open source software in government institutions, along with future ttempts to use the antiquated patent and intellectual property laws against the open source community. As this begins happening, you will start seeing open source advocates becoming increasingly more radical in order to challenge the powers that be.
Again, will they be 'more radical' if they simply try to continue what they've started? Or will their efforts be made 'radical' by the measures outlined above? Okay, it's a small semantic point, but I think it's important not to allow the struggle to be further separated from what most people want (most people would strongly support the free exchange of ideas, for example) by linguistic means, which will certainly be used against anyone not following the corporatist stance.
More protests, more electronic civil disobedience, etc. Once people start using the freedom of open source as a point of advocacy towards a more free and equitable society is when you will see the real repression by the elites. Not because giving away code (or food) is inherently dangerous to them, but because it represents a flaw in their dominance that they will go to great lengths to conceal. What is that flaw? That we don't need them!
Which means that it is inherently dangerous to them. The elite will go to great lengths to undermine anything that even seems slightly dangerous (i.e. moves towards a more free and equitable society). Which is why Kent State happened - unless you really think that those studenst constituted a grave danger to the sovereignty of the United States. Which is why The Reagan and Bush Administrations did so much to (illegally, by both US and international law) attack the Sandanista government in Nicaragua, for example, which was doing dangerous things like improving health services, building a popular movement, improving life expectancy, etc. There are lots of other examples besides these, they were just the first ones that sprang to mind.
The key point is that they've really been blindsided by the OS movement, because a) it comes from a sphere essentially unfamiliar to most of them, b) it comes from a normally compliant sector of the population, the technologically aware, and c) it spread really fast using this system that they built using military funds as a way of funneling money to the high-tech sector while ostensibly 'protecting our communications from nuclear attack' (ironic, huh?)
Make no mistake, Open Source is a revolution, but what most "Linux zealots" don't realize is that the people in control never welcome a revolution of any kind.
Absolutely. A warning that's extremely important. A previous poster wrote:
Forcing people to pay for things isn't capitalism. Providing something they ARE willing to pay for is capitalism. -Rob (Landley?)
But the former is what is really happening today, and any moves towards the latter are revolutionary. The real test will be to see if the community can survive the almost inevitable steps that will be taken to co-opt it; my pessimistic view is that the free software/OS movement(s) will have some possibly significant gains on IP issues, if they really fight, and then will be co-opted to deflect it from politicizing on other issues also. My optimistic view is the opposition will misstep and that the revolutionary currents really will combine and make a huge change. Here's hoping for the optimistic view.
The US, at least US industry, is not who you should be worrying about when thinking about the WTO. The WTO is there pretty much to serve their interests, as should be evident from its makeup (any democratically elected delegates, apart from heads of state? anyone not representing corporate interests sitting on the various boards that settle 'trade disputes'?)
The real worries (apart from intellectual property, which I'll get to in a moment) concern wages, health regulations, working conditions, child labor and environmental damage. Any protections that countries attempt to set up in these areas will be struck down by the WTO as 'trade restraints'. It's a lowest-common-denominator situation. If the EU has more effective regulations governing, say, car engine emissions, the US can claim that these regulations make things more difficult for American car manufacturers, and that therefore they constitute a trade barrier. And the WTO will tell the EU to lower their standards. Ditto health regulations, minimum wage legislation, etc. Things haven't quite gotten this bad _yet_, but that's where they're going (the WTO wants to resurrect the MAI - here's a quick link on that: http://mai.flora.org/mai-info/). That's why the protesters are there.
Now, 'intellectual property' is a concept protected by the US because, as emmons noted, the US leads with 'ideas' - like software, and the entertainment industry. Being a leader in these industries, it wants (or rather, deep-pocketed companies want) to extend the protection of these industries. I said 'protection' because it is protectionism, disguised behind 'intellectual property' concerns... many articles on/. have demonstrated that 'intellectual property' is being warped beyond its original intent (to ensure that entities that come up with ideas are able to recoup their investment in doing so, and make some profit) to simply ensure that certain (American) companies can indefinitely rely on their cash cows (like Mickey Mouse et al).
It's not about 'free trade'. It's about the various big players in the global market angling to set the rules to their advantage. What's different about the WTO is that it's allowing them to set the rules without much reference to little things like democracy or what might be best for everybody. If we allow them to do this, things will only get worse for the vast majority of the planet's population.
Actually, Mondial has made (failed) attempts to force the owner of the earth.com site to give the site name to them... I know it's not exactly the same issue, and is related to DNS problems, but since you brought it up... Also, they _do_ own the trademark 'earth': "Mondial acquired the trademark EARTH. (See Ex. A - U.S. Registration No. 1,371,439 for EARTH, issued November 19, 1985.) For many years, Mondial has prominently and continually used the mark EARTH for footwear." see www.earth.com for more info...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure it was the original introduction to Animal Farm; I can't remember the title. In it, Orwell spoke about how the powerful ensured that thing that it "wouldn't do" do discuss weren't discussed... and guess what - the intro wasn't published until long afterwards...
'This' most certainly did not start with 'political correctness'. While the attempts to eliminate ingrained sexual bias by way of litigation certainly have their flaws, they are in no way the ancestors of Kaplan's ruling.
The US has a long, long history of suppressing all kinds of speech, from 'communist' speech during the McCarthy era to pacifist arguments during both world wars to 'pornography' in almost any era. And the US also has a long history of allying with business interests (like sending in the National Guard to break a strike, for example). Neither of these things have anything to do with 'PC', which, incidentally, was a term created by right-wingers to discredit some very reasonable reforms by associating them with some rather outlandish ideas - those of Andrea Dworkin, for example (IMO). Incidentally the same thing happened with 'feminism', where the right publicized the ideas of a very small number (the 'man-hating' faction) and presented these as representing the larger body of 'feminism'. Utter BS, but very effective propaganda.
This may be relevant to the code issue because the same thing is already happening; I recall a recent release by the MPAA which characterized the entire OS movement as believing that everything should be free online, including copyrighted work. Which is not entirely accurate but suits the MPAA very well as it allows them to dismiss an entire community that it knows is opposed to their agenda. The only way to fight this is to do our best to communicate well and to correct these kinds of errors where we see them.
I don't think the judge is biased in the narrow sense, but rather in the larger sense in that she is a conservative (not in the sense of 'Republican') who will simply interpret the law according to previous cases and the current laws--without regard to larger issues, such as constitutional limits on the powers of copyright, or examination of how these laws are getting out of hand. And that's not all a judge's role is, in fact. Judges can and have made larger, more sweeping, statements. But Patel isn't of that mold, I suspect. Here's a pretty key statement, in my opinion:
"I cannot essentially sit by [because the infringement is hard to justify], and plaintiffs are entitled to enforce their copyright rights and not have them infringed just because the nature of the technology is such that it's too hard to identify."
This is a fairly sweeping statement. Basically, this would allow the copyright-holders to enforce their copyrights against anything. Including the net as a whole. This is another area where the judge is not, in my opinion, considering the implications of the current state of copyright law. Also, no consideration anywhere is made of the good that the Napster service provides to the community in general. Again, a conservative and narrow view, focused on money and profit, because that's the traditional focus of this kind of case. That's not entirely Patel's fault, of course.
Another thing that interests me is the fact that intent is considered, quite explicitly, by Patel. I didn't realize that the intent of the creators of a device could have such a large part to play in the legal fate of that device. If Napster had been created in all innocence of infringement issues, would it have a stronger defense? Or can intent merely be used as ammunition for the plaintiffs? It's hard, at this point, to imagine innocence or in fact almost anything being a viable argument, based on intent, for the defense. Which again is more of a systemic issue--one that Patel is not that concerned with, in my opinion. Naturally this brings up some of the weaknesses of the judicial system in general, but I won't address that here.
So, what's next? If difficulty-of-enforcement is no defense, what networks are safe? The only real defense that the net itself has is that it is distributed, that it is really really big (in terms of numbers using) and that it was around for quite some time before an suits were brought against it (which would give it some defense in the intent stakes, and make it seem more like a victim of late-coming abusive users than a collaborator in copyright infringement). But any new network is it real trouble, because it doesn't have any of those defenses, and proving innocence of intent will be almost impossible. So, the copyright rulings have an additional chilling factor on technological development as well as the already-existing one on free speech; cf. cases concerning parody in particular. It would seem that the only real hope is for some titanic ruling (such as one against the entire Internet) that dramatically shows up the deleterious effects of the current 'IP' laws, and thus brings about a radical shift in direction. I'm not holding my breath.
The final page of the transcript, showing Patel's exchanges with the attorneys, supports the above view. Patel (and I suspect she is in the mainstream of American judicial opinion here) considers Napster (and probably any other new thing that comes along and facilitates copyright infringement) to be a genie let out of the bottle. And she considers it the responsibility of Napster, the company, to put it back in the bottle. In other words, any new thing that is created that can be used to infringe copyright is going to be forced, judicially, to deal with that use or cease operation. That may sound reasonable at first, but look at it more closely and think again. Copyright infringement is very easy to do these days, due to the massive efforts put in by interested parties to extend the concept of copyright. What this ruling, and the laws that made it possible, essentially do is give to the major interested parties (MPAA, RIAA, etc.) the power to veto new technologies.
('Hey look, I've created a device that can duplicate anything! An end to poverty! An end to hunger! An end--what? You're representing who? What do you mean, an injunction?')
They weren't riots in Seattle, unless you mean it was the police who were rioting. Of course, the police then provoked riots, but hey, let's blame that on the protesters too
The point about the Starbucks windows was that the response was over the top, and that the property damage wasn't that significant. You are correct about the media coverage and the general public response, although I'm not sure you're really focusing on the clear connection between those two things. If the media only covers the window-breaking, how are the general public even supposed to know about the other stuff? The answer, unfortunately, is: they're not supposed to know.
You're probably very correct about LAers being tired of violent protest. However, a few things: not all property damage is equal; broken windows do not equal mass arson. Out-of-control mobs are apparently very much in the eye of the beholder... there weren't too many 'out-of-control mobs in Seatlle, unless you count the ones fleeing being teargassed for peaceful assembly. Also, it's not that difficult to create an 'out-of-control mob' using police violence. I don't think it would be too easy to stand calmly while getting tear-gassed, pepper-sprayed, beaten, and charged at.
Lastly, a key point arising from all of this is the concerted effort by the police (and the media) to make the protesters appear a lot more violent than they are. That's a big reason why the puppet-making factory got shut down: colorful, playful puppets and similar props give the whole thing a carnival atmosphere and reinforce the message that the protests are non-violent. The police are well aware of this, and of their need to portray the protesters as (essentailly) 'terrorists', so that's why the puppet-making area was a target.
Oh, and here's a quick rant. To anyone who believes all the bullshit about the 'dangerous weapons' found in the factory: are you out of your minds? Giant slingshots? Poisonous spiders? What? This is America! If the protesters were truly interested in violence, they would have guns! And they wouldn't store their armory in one highly-publicized, very open-access space! The police will use anything as a justification, and there is a pattern here: in the DC protests, the puppet-making space was shut down and they found 'weapons' there too: prominently a single 'Molotov cocktail' that later turned out to be a plastic bottle with paint-stripper in it (fairly obviously necessary since they paint the puppets). But no, you can all just go on believing that these people are ingenious and insane violent types who want nothing more than to be able to blow up police cars with venomous spider-filled gas/paintstripper bombs fired from giant slingshots and/or juggling equipment.
Unbelievable. Oh, and hey, I guess you all believe there really was a sniper at Kent State that day (here's a sample link from google if you don't know what I'm talking about:link). I hope you never encounter a dishonest cop, a bent judge, a twisted justice system, a biased media oulet, or political repression. That's not sarcasm, either; I really mean it.
This is turning into WTO all over again: lies, abuse, police brutality etc.
You say 'huge about of property damage' in Seatlle. Really? Where? The Starbucks that got its windows broken? Or were there mass burnings and bombings by the protesters that I somehow missed?
Windows breaking, even done on a much bigger scale than in Seattle, is not a 'hue amount of property damage'.
'Police arrested people. Everyone complains'. Police teargassed and pepper-sprayed people. I have the damn video footage, and I know for a fact that police, many times, took non-violent protesters and forced their eyes open and pepper-sprayed their eyes at range of one foor or less. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT. If you think that blocking traffic deserves pepper-spraying in the eyes, I pity you. 'Everyone complains': that's not true either. A lot of people didn't complain, notably the mainstream media. As for your suggestions about doing something about it, please be serious. You have to give up your career and become a cop to protest the system? Doesn't seem right, somehow... and police review boards are notoriously ineffectual.
As for the 200 guy, and the other people being held on misdemeanors charges: all those tihngs are isdemeanors for a reason. I doubt he was making gas bombs, incidentally. Also, since they arrested everyone at a puppet-making factory (how surreal can this stuff get?)on misdemeanor charges and also set ridiculous bails for them, it's entirely reasonable to think that the 2600 guy was in some kind of similar situation.
Oh, and sure, let's pull out the 'everyone in jail says they're innocent' line to discredit the reporting. How powerful an argument that is... it seems clear from the reports that in general there was a pattern of arrestingand harassing organizers. That's why this guy was arrested. He wasn't 'doing nothing' but he wasn't guilty of anything except looking like (and possibly being, I don't know) a protest organizer. Which isn't exactly a crime for which really high bail is reasonable.
The reporting may not have been stellar, and perhaps the 'New Media' get little respect because of it. However, there has been no coverage by the mainstream media, who are too busy falling over themselves about the 'compassionate new face' of the Republican party. So don't hold them up for respect either.
Your father was a cop for 20 years... does this make you unable to believe the stories of torture and abuse in the prisons? Does this make you believe that I'm lying above about the pepper spray? Does it make you think that any police action must be justified, and that therefore all of the above are justified by default? A lot of people seem to have that last view: 'the police are (by and large) good and decent people, and so if they're abusing these people there must be a good reason'. Which is rather flawed reasoning. While your father, and lots of other police, may have been entirely honorable, good people, that doesn't change the fact that police, especially the riot forces, are used to protect the interests of the powerful, and are fairly brutal towards groups they don't like. (Peaceniks, hippies, 'anarchists', etc.). The harsh truth, which a lot of people don't want to face, is that the US bears an awful lot of resemblance to a police state whenever the usual boundaries of discourse (i.e. 'Democrat or Republican?') are exceeded.
For some of the the demonstrators' points of view, see www.phillyimc.org
You could play Super SF2 Turbo on your PC? Who published that? Any idea where I could get a copy? I loved that in the arcade and would like to have it it on my PC... along with Killer Instinct (which might not be emulated properly for a while...) any pointers appreciated (to either game, but I'm assuming that KI doesn't exist for PC, excluding emulating the SNES to play it, which doesn't count because that version sucks).
Actually, this "you can't yell fire in a crowded thater" metaphor was used as a way to make the government suppression of anti-war protests sound reasonable...
It's supposed to mean that you can't use 'free speech' to cause public safety hazards (like people trampling each other to get to the exits) and expect not to be punished.
However, as Howard Zinn pointed out in A People's History of the United States, the metaphor as used didn't really relate to the issue of anti-war protests, and a better metaphor would have been that you have no right to tell people going into a theater that there's a fire inside, even if there really is one... which, strikingly enough, also sounds appropriate for things like the Mattel case and others where companies attempt to prevent critical commentary on their products.
I'm not sure that meant to harm is part of the definition; you could mean something as a harmless prank but if it goes wrong you'd still be in legal trouble (i.e. if you yelled 'Fire!' as a joke, meaning no harm, that wouldn't be a defense). I think it's more likely to be something that will obviously cause harm. Of course, there's a lot of room for maneuver there.
It's important to remember that the "you don't have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want" interpretation of free speech is the current US legal definition, and does not necessarily apply to the principle or ideal of free speech. And while some people would probably agree that in certain circumstances free speech needs to be restricted in some way (many would disagree with that, too), there's a big difference between that and giving an organization the power to decide which speech is harmful - obviously any such organization will tend to be protective of its own interests.
Sure, I'll explain the relationship. 1. What you call 'pirating' mp3s is actually the transmission of creative work over a certain medium.
2. In order to make the concept of 'free speech' meaningful in the post-Gutenberg world, 'speech' cannot simply mean literal speech, but the publication or transmission or dissemination or expression of concepts/ideas via any medium. Therefore, printed matter is considered (in theory, at least) as having the same protection that, for example, conversation has. On free speech grounds, at least, it's not acceptable to rule that someone can say something but not print it. This naturally applies to digital media also; if it did not, then the concept would be useless as it would not apply to a huge part of modern communication.
3. An mp3, presumably encoding a song, is nothing but the publication of that song in a specific medium, therefore a kind of speech, entitled to the same protection as other kinds in other media.
4. A song definitely constitutes the expression of an idea or ideas.
5. The downloading of an mp3 is therefore the communication of an idea. Placing restrictions on this evidently places constraints on the free and open exchange of ideas.
6. Depending on the mp3 in question, the laws in your region, and your own opinions, the downloading of this mp3 may also be theft. It is not only theft, but, again, may constitute theft in the views of some. This does not mean that it no longer has 'communication of idea' status.
7. The argument I'm replying to exhibits what seems to me a fairly common fallacy: that an idea once copyrighted is no longer an idea but rather someone's 'property', when it is in fact both. It's a lot easier, in fact, to rationalize it not being property than it somehow losing its 'idea' status once it is copyrighted. Also, the equation of 'copyright violation' with 'theft' is problematic in the extreme, since the human concept of theft is rooted in material things. Finally, the equation of the two ignores the elastic nature of copyright; see the end of my last post for details.
Debatable: 'Protecting one's copyrights' is censorship. It can be interpreted as warranted in the interest of promoting economic reward for creative endeavors (which is actually intended to encourage creative endeavors, not economic reward per se), but it is still the suppression of someone else's speech.
Non-debatable: 'Protecting one's copyrights' has certainly been used by organizations, normally large businesses, to censor the speech of others in the case of satire, parody and so forth. The key point here is how far copyrights extend. Parodies of Mickey Mouse (including all kinds of offensive parodies that 'most people' wouldn't like) are actually legally protected but despite this are impossible to defend from armies of lawyers. There are many other examples.
People tend to forget that copyright was created at a specific time with a specific purpose, and that as a legal creation is rather malleable (as has been shown by its constant extension...). /.ers should realize this, especially as it is being extended further and further by things like the DMCA.
There are two basic problems. One, as it becomes more ingrained and gathers more powerful interests behind it, copyright begins to seem a natural moral concept (not an economic incentive). This means that the idea of banning devices which could facilitate copyright violations becomes more palatable. Two, as the technology changes, violating copyright law becomes easier and easier.
All this really means is that it will be extremely difficult to maintain the status quo, and that's what we're seeing: large forces attempting to extend the reach of copyright so that it becomes totally ridiculous, and other forces (perhaps only intending to turn the tide a little, perhaps not) straining to render copyright utterly unenforceable.
A simple "for/against" standpoint doesn't really work anymore, especially since copyright is a legal concept and certain players are able to change the laws in their favour. This is a point that many, including the AC to whom I am replying, appear to miss. Is it 'censorship' to say that you cannot reproduce my work now? In 5 years? In 10? 100? 1000? When does my work (which inevitably drew upon public domain ideas) become part of the public domain? Similarly, is it censorship to say that you can't parody my work? Cite my work? Say bad things about my work? Mention my work?
It's a matter of degree. The key point is not really about copyright 'violations' but rather: what do we want copyright to be? What is the best middle ground between encouraging creativity and encouraging a free and open exchange of ideas? And how do we get there?
Just wanted to make a few comments about this...
True, because of the job market it's unlikely that a blacklist or similar tactics could be effective, particularly if any kind of action were widespread. Unlike the situation in many other industries, most businesses in today's market would consider it crazy to even think about a potential employee's politics.
Great idea. But can it be done? The negative press and general backlash would be immense. On the other hand, the idea that we would be striking on a matter of principle and not for more money would be very weird and I think extremely powerful. The mainstream media would portray it as ideological fanaticism for that very reason, something to be aware of.
This is a good idea too, although I see it as less likely.
Actually, it will politicize you. Most of the American population, according to a variety of polls, tend to hold beliefs that the media/politicians consider 'radical' (considering the invasion of Vietnam morally wrong and not just 'a mistake', increasing aid - as long as it's not called 'welfare' - to the poor, drastically reducing the military budget, etc.), making it clear that it's really a question of political awareness rather than being on any kind of fringe (unless the concept of a 'fringe' includes one where most of the population agree). Admittedly, the Linux / OS / geek / IT community is a fringe group mainly because of the technological issues, but I'm pretty sure that if these issues were free from obfuscation the natural tendency of much of the population would be to agree with the commonly-held stances in this community. Perhaps I'm wrong, it really depends in this instance on the degree to which propaganda about 'piracy' has been effective.
--That's certainly a big factor. Another factor is that their activities draw attention to the plight and numbers of homeless, hence suggesting that there are extremely grave problems with our current economic system. The powers-that-be prefer these problems not to be exposed.
Again, will they be 'more radical' if they simply try to continue what they've started? Or will their efforts be made 'radical' by the measures outlined above? Okay, it's a small semantic point, but I think it's important not to allow the struggle to be further separated from what most people want (most people would strongly support the free exchange of ideas, for example) by linguistic means, which will certainly be used against anyone not following the corporatist stance.
Which means that it is inherently dangerous to them. The elite will go to great lengths to undermine anything that even seems slightly dangerous (i.e. moves towards a more free and equitable society). Which is why Kent State happened - unless you really think that those studenst constituted a grave danger to the sovereignty of the United States. Which is why The Reagan and Bush Administrations did so much to (illegally, by both US and international law) attack the Sandanista government in Nicaragua, for example, which was doing dangerous things like improving health services, building a popular movement, improving life expectancy, etc. There are lots of other examples besides these, they were just the first ones that sprang to mind.
The key point is that they've really been blindsided by the OS movement, because a) it comes from a sphere essentially unfamiliar to most of them, b) it comes from a normally compliant sector of the population, the technologically aware, and c) it spread really fast using this system that they built using military funds as a way of funneling money to the high-tech sector while ostensibly 'protecting our communications from nuclear attack' (ironic, huh?)
Absolutely. A warning that's extremely important. A previous poster wrote:
But the former is what is really happening today, and any moves towards the latter are revolutionary. The real test will be to see if the community can survive the almost inevitable steps that will be taken to co-opt it; my pessimistic view is that the free software/OS movement(s) will have some possibly significant gains on IP issues, if they really fight, and then will be co-opted to deflect it from politicizing on other issues also. My optimistic view is the opposition will misstep and that the revolutionary currents really will combine and make a huge change. Here's hoping for the optimistic view.
The US, at least US industry, is not who you should be worrying about when thinking about the WTO. The WTO is there pretty much to serve their interests, as should be evident from its makeup (any democratically elected delegates, apart from heads of state? anyone not representing corporate interests sitting on the various boards that settle 'trade disputes'?)
The real worries (apart from intellectual property, which I'll get to in a moment) concern wages, health regulations, working conditions, child labor and environmental damage. Any protections that countries attempt to set up in these areas will be struck down by the WTO as 'trade restraints'. It's a lowest-common-denominator situation. If the EU has more effective regulations governing, say, car engine emissions, the US can claim that these regulations make things more difficult for American car manufacturers, and that therefore they constitute a trade barrier. And the WTO will tell the EU to lower their standards. Ditto health regulations, minimum wage legislation, etc. Things haven't quite gotten this bad _yet_, but that's where they're going (the WTO wants to resurrect the MAI - here's a quick link on that: http://mai.flora.org/mai-info/). That's why the protesters are there.
Now, 'intellectual property' is a concept protected by the US because, as emmons noted, the US leads with 'ideas' - like software, and the entertainment industry. Being a leader in these industries, it wants (or rather, deep-pocketed companies want) to extend the protection of these industries. I said 'protection' because it is protectionism, disguised behind 'intellectual property' concerns... many articles on /. have demonstrated that 'intellectual property' is being warped beyond its original intent (to ensure that entities that come up with ideas are able to recoup their investment in doing so, and make some profit) to simply ensure that certain (American) companies can indefinitely rely on their cash cows (like Mickey Mouse et al).
It's not about 'free trade'. It's about the various big players in the global market angling to set the rules to their advantage. What's different about the WTO is that it's allowing them to set the rules without much reference to little things like democracy or what might be best for everybody. If we allow them to do this, things will only get worse for the vast majority of the planet's population.
Actually, Mondial has made (failed) attempts to force the owner of the earth.com site to give the site name to them... I know it's not exactly the same issue, and is related to DNS problems, but since you brought it up... Also, they _do_ own the trademark 'earth': "Mondial acquired the trademark EARTH. (See Ex. A - U.S. Registration No. 1,371,439 for EARTH, issued November 19, 1985.) For many years, Mondial has prominently and continually used the mark EARTH for footwear." see www.earth.com for more info...