MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-08-13 |
| FROM | From: "Steve Milo"
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Fwd: [NMLUG] OT Law. (fwd)
|
If they want to lock it to protect their copyright then they are
entitled to that no?
If they lock it down to such an extent that it prohibits dissemination
that is unconstitutional, no?
However, if they lock down their copyright then that in essence should
prohibit dissemination
in every respect. Then the/an industry deprives everyone equally and
not a selected few that
have a vested interest.
With 'trusted computing' its not the locking down thats a problem as
much as the unlocking or locking
or what not on an end users machine. The end user shouldnt have to be
subjected to federally endorsed
computer implementations that are out of the users hands or are used to
blackmail the user to conspire against
him/herself. The 'trusted computing' initiative essentially uses
advanced technology to eliminate due
process of the law. It also runs the chance that it can be used to
seletively limit access information, based on
class, race, finanicial background.
Corporations do it all the time but this capability is now brought
directly to the end user, to his/her personal property.
Steve M
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 18:08 America/Denver, Ruben I Safir
wrote:
> The thing is that even without the DMCA, industry can lock down music,
> books and information
> in such a way as to make access completely restricted, and you will
> NOT be able to unlock it
> until hardware and software is available several generations better
> than todays which can bruet force
> the keys.
>
> Not all cryptography is flawed.
>
> Ruben
>
>
> On 2003.08.13 19:18 Steve Milo wrote:
>>
>> My latest rebuttal. Comments?
>>
>> Steve M
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: Steve Milo
>>> Date: Wed Aug 13, 2003 17:12:15 America/Denver
>>> To: slavik914-at-rennlist.com
>>> Subject: Re: [NMLUG] OT Law. (fwd)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:11:30 -0400 (EDT)
>>> From: Steve Milo
>>> Reply-To: nmlug-at-nmlug.org
>>> To: James Hamilton
>>> Cc: nmlug-at-nmlug.org
>>> Subject: Re: [NMLUG] OT Law.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a flawed argument because your condeming the public by
>>> implying
>>> that no one has anything better to do than circumventing copyright
>>> protection. Wether the products have any value is irrelevant and
>>> only
>>> an
>>> opinion and I was clear on that.
>>> Further, I own only one CD that I can think of that has copied music.
>>> It
>>> is a collection of various artists that was given to me by a friend.
>>> After listening to that CD I liked one of the artists and respect him
>>> enought that I went out and bought one of his published CD's.
>>> Otherwise I have personally chosen not to download music because
>>> *I have better things to do*. Also, currently it is illegal
>>> to circumvent digital copyright protection measures. So thinking of
>>> a
>>> way around 'it' is a federal crime. It is currently illegal to play
>>> DVD's
>>> on a machine that contains Linux because of DeCSS closed source
>>> policy.
>>> And the protection of the federal goverment that prohibits any
>>> circumvention of digital copyright. So even the open source
>>> alternatives
>>> are illegal because of this.
>>> What if this law was around twenty some odd years ago when IBM's BIOS
>>> was
>>> reverse engineered?
>>>
>>> One of the largest consumers of downloaded music were the people
>>> serving
>>> in the military. They almost became federal criminals nearly
>>> overnight
>>> when the DMCA was enacted.
>>> But yet the music they downloaded had given a sense of what they were
>>> fighting for. If laws similar to the DMCA were enacted in WW2, there
>>> would have been no nose art on the bombers or fighters. Mickey Mouse
>>> would not have been a code word in the trenches. Based on these
>>> examples
>>> it didnt take much to keep the soldiers motivated and inspired.
>>> I havent served in the military so I can only imagine how the
>>> littlest
>>> evidence of what I would miss from home would mean to me.
>>>
>>> The consumable goods analogies are painfully flawed and stem from the
>>> federal goverment vs Microsoft monopoly suit. The analogy back then
>>> was
>>> 'think of Microsoft as a one big supermarket and in this supermarket
>>> are
>>> all kinds of products'. Thats all fine and dandy
>>> but there is more than one supermarket in the real world. And those
>>> supermarkets usually play nice. Walmart doesnt try to stifle the
>>> distribution of goods to other supermarkets. They just undercut
>>> everyone
>>> else in price and carry more products than any one store. They find
>>> the
>>> quality point in the customers mind and aim right at it. They dont
>>> use
>>> federal measures to try to protect themselves. They play by the
>>> rules
>>> and
>>> they do it right. They dont steal and they dont pretend that they
>>> invented the idea of one store carrying multiple goods.
>>>
>>> If my neighbor comes over and asks for a cup of sugar I dont have to
>>> worry
>>> about infringing on a copyright of sugar. My neighbor doesnt have to
>>> worry about
>>> infringing on a copyright by using the word sugar to ask me.
>>> In fact neither my neighbor nor I have to worry about using the brand
>>> name 'Domino sugar' or 'Walmart brand sugar' to ask for sugar. Or
>>> cereal
>>> for that matter.
>>> The method for distribution of sugar or cereal does not require by
>>> federal
>>> law, nor is there any such law that protects the possiblity that I
>>> have to
>>> actually carry around a special ID card to be able to purchase any
>>> particular brand of sugar or cereal.
>>> I go to the store, I choose the cereal I want, I pay for it at the
>>> counter
>>> and it is mine to be consumed and share with who I see fit.
>>> To take this one step further, there are no cameras in my bathroom or
>>> my
>>> neighbors bathroom to detect if the cereal that I ate was borrowed or
>>> purchased.
>>> Not that that sort of technology doesnt exist and couldnt be
>>> implemented.
>>> Thankfully congress doesnt have the stomach to digest that kind of
>>> measure, but there are laws that resemble this.
>>> However the technology and law do exist which prohibit me from
>>> shoplifting (i.e. gaining unauthorized access) to the cereal).
>>> By the same token the technology and law does exist that prohibits
>>> me from gaining unauthorized access to so called intellectual
>>> property.
>>> That is, without a federaly enforced measure that requires it to be
>>> installed in my home.
>>>
>>> The first amendment:
>>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>>> or
>>> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>>> speech,
>>> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
>>> and
>>> to
>>> petition the goverment for a redress of grievances.
>>>
>>> The fourth amendment:
>>> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
>>> infamous
>>> crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except
>>> in
>>> cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
>>> actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person
>>> be
>>> subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
>>> limb;
>>> nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
>>> himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without *due
>>> process of law*; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
>>> without just compensation.
>>>
>>> The Constitution states:
>>> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
>>> limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
>>> respective writings and discoveries.
>>>
>>> Any media distributor can establish a way to centrally control
>>> unauthorized access without me having to worry about being monitored
>>> in my
>>> own home.
>>>
>>> However this is what is being implemented with Microsofts Palladium
>>> and the 'fritz chip' that is being implemented in AMD's Opteron
>>> with Intel following closesly behind.
>>> Eavesdropping masquerading as security to protect companies and
>>> idustries
>>> that have trouble standing on its own merit.
>>> How long before any content on the internet is required that *every*
>>> computer require 'trusted computing platforms'. Otherwise be denied
>>> access to the internet all together. The NYU example of using
>>> vitalbooks
>>> is just the beginning, this is beyond eavesdropping this is putting a
>>> chokehold on the free exchange of information by the few who stand to
>>> gain
>>> financially from it.
>>> Earning money is not unconstitutional and I'm not against someone
>>> making a
>>> living. I am against someone making a living when it is detrimental
>>> to my
>>> personal growth and the laws enacted that are designed to enforce
>>> that
>>> stiflement.
>>>
>>> I am also within my Constitional right to voice my greviances on this
>>> matter. Which I will and I encourage others to do the same by
>>> letting
>>> your/our congressman know where the DMCA is flawed and detrimental.
>>>
>>> This is not a 'libertarian, democrat, republican' issue. This is a
>>> fundamental issue that concerns every American citizen from now till
>>> as
>>> long as such laws stay enacted. It isnt a matter of trusting the FCC
>>> or
>>> the FTC. It is a matter of every citizen taking the responsibility
>>> that
>>> is required of him or her to be aware and let these goverment
>>> institutions
>>> know when they make an important decision based on flawed evidence.
>>> It is not in our best interest to be lulled into a sense of
>>> complacency through the paranoia of someone who has a strangle hold
>>> on
>>> information.
>>> It is a matter of keeping the free exchange of information available
>>> for generation to come.
>>> And wether you want to believe it or not the DMCA is detrimental to
>>> national security. It is so very possible that any new discoveries
>>> in science can be limited to distribution on copyrighted DVD's to
>>> certain
>>> university students. Keeping the American people ignorant and
>>> passive
>>> through federaly enforced measures sets a poor example for the rest
>>> of
>>> the
>>> world.
>>> George Orwells 1984 is closer to reality now than some people might
>>> lead you to believe. This is technology the Soviet Union would have
>>> been
>>> afraid of.
>>>
>>> Steve M
>>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, James Hamilton wrote:
>>>
>>>> The consumer is telling the music and motion picture industry that
>>>> the offered
>>>> products don't fit their needs. Consumers bypass this by coming up
>>>> with
>>>> alternate unregulatable sources for distribution. It really doesn't
>>>> matter
>>>> what the copyright holders do or say people will continue to rip off
>>>> music
>>>> and video so long as it's in their best interest to do so. Why
>>>> would
>>>> the
>>>> masses rip off music or video if it were offered at a reasonable
>>>> price in
>>>> a high quality format? I don't argue that the offered products have
>>>> no value
>>>> just that the cost far outweighs the benefit you get from
>>>> purchasing.
>>>> We
>>>> generally refer to products like this as 'overpriced'. In most
>>>> situations the
>>>> market corrects itself, look at cereal prices before the 'no name
>>>> brands'
>>>> became a big deal in stores. There is no real argument here,
>>>> consumers have
>>>> spoken. Media distributors can choose to capitulate or they will be
>>>> replaced
>>>> with no name brand cereal, I mean replaced by consumer friendly
>>>> media
>>>> distributors. The recording and motion picture industries do not
>>>> (even as a
>>>> combine unit) have the means necessary to force the issue in the way
>>>> they
>>>> are attempting to.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 11:58:21AM -0700, wes robbins wrote:
>>>>> All I can say to this is the Last two CD's I got (21.99)(17.99). I
>>>>> got to my car listened to them. First song was so bad I skimmed
>>>>> the
>>>>> rest. The second CD had one new song and 14 version Of GO on it.
>>>>> And walked back in side to return it. Found out that If you open
>>>>> the CD your not aloud to return it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those were the last two Cd's I have purchased.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don Wilde wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don, I don't trust any *SINGLE* media outlet tell me the truth
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> anything. I like news aggregators like Google News
>>>>>> (http://news.google.com)
>>>>>> or Unknown News (http://www.unknownnews.net).
>>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. One of my first projects once my regular PostUpPal is a
>>>>> working
>>>>> success is to add trust metrics to the content for my users.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Don Wilde ---------> Silver Lynx <----------
>>>>> Raising the Trajectory of Human Development
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>>>> http://www.Silver-Lynx.com 001-505-891-4175
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NMLUG mailing list
>>>>> NMLUG-at-nmlug.org
>>>>> http://www.nmlug.org/mailman/listinfo/nmlug
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------
>>>>> Do you Yahoo!?
>>>>> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NMLUG mailing list
>>>> NMLUG-at-nmlug.org
>>>> http://www.nmlug.org/mailman/listinfo/nmlug
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NMLUG mailing list
>>> NMLUG-at-nmlug.org
>>> http://www.nmlug.org/mailman/listinfo/nmlug
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________
>> NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
>> Fair Use -
>> because it's either fair use or useless....
>> NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
>>
> --
> __________________________
> Brooklyn Linux Solutions
> __________________________
> DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com
>
> http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
> http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients
> http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories
> and articles from around the net
> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown
> Brooklyn....
>
> 1-718-382-0585
>
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
