MESSAGE
| DATE | 2002-05-08 |
| FROM | marco
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] Re: edited comentary
|
Hi all,
I also found Ruben's text important, though sometimes a
little difficult to read, so I edited it some.
This editing was not done as a criticism, I was trying to
make the statement a bit more focused, especially around the
two major points which are in my opinion the media
monopoly's stealing, and how the DMCA can make free software
illegal with the ATM comparison.
I took out a few sentences which were either too specific to
our group, which I was unable to make sufficient sense out
of , or which I found misleading for some reason. I have
those sentences in a follow up email.
This satement is still long and might benefit from being
broken into three pieces: stealing, DMCA/BIOS/ATM, and the
proposed publicly supported legislation.
The legislation part has to be worded SO carefully because
even though most people would tend to agree with the gist,
the PR departments of every proprietary shop in the nation,
plus NYTimes journalists etc. will tear it apart. They will
try (like they have in the past) to make the free software
people out to be the evil ones. A weakly worded example is
easy to tear apart and I takes twice as long to put the
arguement back together. I propose we pour over these
statements to strengthen them.
I also propose that anyone who can think of slogans
supporting the bullet points of the legislation, come up
with them now. We should have a list. I'll make them into
web-site banners, we should start spreading these memes
every way we can (e-mail signatures, top-ten lists etc.)
--Marco
-----------Edited and spell-checked text follows------------
----------(except contractible? contractable? )-------------
----------( Hollings' ? Holling's ?)
Let's look at the threat that the Holling's Bill and the
DMCA present to Free Software.
Even under the DMCA, if the major manufacturers chose to end
free software, they could do so by simply running encryption
on any copyrighted part of the system, especially, the
system BIOS.
Simply put, machines could be constructed in such a way that
booting into anything other than an approved Operating
System would be a felony under the DMCA. If you listen to
the DMCA fair use exemption hearings at the Library of
Congress, it becomes clear that this reality is not so far
away. It is just a matter of time before this horror is
implemented. Such is the nature of the world.
For example, when ATM machines first came out, banks begged
people to use them instead of tellers because of the cost
savings these machines would provide. Initially, the
customer was not charged for this service. Now that the use
of ATMs has became commonplace, to the point that the
public *relies* on them, it's nearly impossible to use an
ATM without paying additional fees. Banks also, now
repeatedly claim that ATMs are a special service, rather
than a cost savings method. The way was effectively paved
to a fee per use system, I have never had to tip a teller.
The same will happen with the copyrighted BIOS. Today, the
public would be outraged if Microsoft and Intel prevented
other OS's from being installed on a system. But already
Microsoft is re-educating the public about the property
rights of their PC, and making claims that only their OS is
authorized on certain machines (for further detail one can
refer to the recent flap about schools accepting donated
systems at:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/18/1623240&mode=thread
or
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25085.html
).
The Holling's bill, by whatever name they are calling it
this week, is a legal mandate of the worse case scenario of
the DMCA. It will end Free Software the moment it is passed
because it demands secret control of your system in order to
protect the copyrighted franchises of monopolies. Free
Software can't be secret...
These bills, and other legislative and regulatory
activities, are already removing the basic property rights
and free speech rights of PC owners. What do we do?
We MUST stop chasing our tails.
We need to go on the offensive and turn the tables.
We must control the language used in the debate on these
issues.
For starters, we need to always publicly say, that when a
law is passed which prevents our full enjoyment of
information legally acquired through purchase or borrowing,
this law is *stealing* our legally acquired product from us.
We must explain this stealing by the media monopolies in
clear and simple terms. We need to say that these
regulations and business activities are equivalent to
someone knocking down your door and stealing your computer,
music and books. We need to say it immediately, constantly
and often, because this is JUST what Adobe and Time-Warner
have said about GNU/Linux users accessing a DVD on their
computers. They literally say we're stealing.
So we need to turn it around and point out that if someone
does actually break into my house (or inserts a lock on my
computer or other digital device) to prevent me from viewing
all my DVD's that I should call the cops and report the
theft. Time-Warner wants to steal my legally acquired
product from me.
As I see it, the courts are not prepared to uphold the
public's interest in the face of legislation that promotes
wiretapping, property damage to privately owned computers,
and the theft of legally acquired products by monopoly
franchises under the guise of protecting their never ending
copyrights.
So, we need to pro-actively present bills that redefine
Copyright in statutory law.
We need to introduce a new bill that will protect fair use
and property rights. The bill, if crafted correctly, will
fortify the courts in protecting individuals against 4th
amendment abuses by the media monopolies, defuse the DMCA
and end a whole slew of unethical activities which are
currently supported by the executive branch of government,
and approved by our Congress even though these activities are
deeply despised by the majority of the population.
Jeanne Thewell, who is someone I would trust my life with,
is a lawyer working with NY Fair Use to draft such a bill
(thelwell-at-mindspring.com). The broad outline of the bill is
as follows...
The legislation will be drafted to accomplish the following
objectives which all reasonable citizens should expect:
-All copyrights to individual scores, writings, and
recordings will be returned to the original artist after a
period of 10 years.
-No technology which spies on, wiretaps or discloses
privately owned information which is stored on digital
devices, can be deployed 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 an individuals rights under the 4th and 1st
amendments of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.
-That ownership of all physical media, and devices to read
such media, is the sole property of the purchaser of the
media.
-No technological software or hardware method can be
deployed and made available for normal retail sale which
inhibits, in any way, the full enjoyment of the property by
the purchasers. Any agreement between the designer of the
hardware or software products which infringe on this
enjoyment are null, and not contractable.
-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 designed to 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 spy-ware legislation, but
also defeat Senator Hollings. WE CAN force him from office,
because he's a radical.
ALL POLITICS are LOCAL.
I'd love to expand on how to target a congressman. It's got
to be done like Tammany Hall, machine politics, in the
neighborhoods, and focusing on not only software, but the
effects on education, libraries and wiretapping! We must
broaden our constituency.
~Ruben
____________________________
New Yorker Linux Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
