MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-08-13 |
| FROM | Ruben I Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Fwd: [NMLUG] OT Law. (fwd)
|
On 2003.08.13 20:37 Steve Milo wrote:
> If they want to lock it to protect their copyright then they are
> entitled to that no?
no - they are not entitled to ANYTHING
>
> If they lock it down to such an extent that it prohibits dissemination
> that is unconstitutional, no?
Right
Which is why NYFAIRUSE was created. The need to to PROTECT fair use, with new statuatory laws
Ruben
>
> 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
> >
>
--
__________________________
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
|
|
