Slashdot Log In
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Part Two
from the corporatism-vs-the-geeks:-first-blood dept.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a frontal assault on the open source ethic, both technological and social. The underlying political issue is both clear and significant: Must we depend on the creative choices and products of a handful of ferociously greedy and monopolistic corporations who have increasingly come to dominate media, culture and entertainment? Or can we define our own cultural experiences? (Read more below.)
Before the passage of this law, the answer was yes; individuals controlled at least some of their choices.
Increasingly, though, the answer now seems to be no; corporatism rules. This act directly affects individuals' consumer options and cultural choices. It also dramatically restricts the right of individual artists to have their works seen, heard and sold. That makes it a First Amendment as well as a corporate issue. One of the Net's universally shared ethics, at least among geeks, has been empowerment and choice, along with a growing open-source instinct about software and technology. But new software and hardware applications that affect entertainment, culture and information are now limited by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Before DMCA, sites let users create custom playlists, creating individualized music programs. That practice has been slowed by the law's restrictions on the number of songs from a single artist or album that can be transmitted at one time.
Internet radio stations are still allowed to broadcast music, but under a completely different set of rules. The DMCA stipulates that unlike ordinary radio and TV broadcasters, Webcasters must pay royalties to record companies. Webcasts are limited to three songs from one album in any three-hour period.
This is a particularly noxious provision of the DMCA, as it sets a different standard for Net music than for offline music broadcasting. Previously, Net culture has tended to be freer than offline culture. Music, the spark for a surprising percentage of the Net's legal battles, has become a metaphor for the emerging political struggle over who defines and propagates culture on the Web and the rest of the Net.
The implications are enormous. Several years ago, the federal courts overturned not one but two efforts by Congress to police "indecent" speech on the Net: the Communications Decency Act and its equally hoary successor, the baby CDA. The federal court ruling, one of the first significant legal precedents set regarding online freedom, held that the Internet had established a tradition of free speech and free flow of ideas and opinions that was entrenched and constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. It said congressional efforts to curb that freedom were offensive as well as unconstitutional. Hopefully, that precedent will apply to the DMCA.
Judicial rejection of CDA notwithstanding, the DMCA threatens to do much more harm to freedom on the Net than the CDA ever would have. The Communications Decency Acts, however obnoxious, were both efforts at political theater, staged mostly for constituents. They were ludicrously unenforceable and vague. By contrast, the DMCA is already proving itself shockingly effective.
The Net is, in fact, redefining what content and intellectual property are. Many people of good faith are bitterly divided about that issue. Many artists and companies argue that the distributors of content have the right to be paid for the work they transmit or create, and that music downloaders are stealing, plain and simple. Others sense that music will simply be distributed and sold in freer, more diverse ways. It's a valid debate, and a necessary one. But the DMCA doesn't promote a debate on that issue; in fact, it's a back-door effort by lobbyists and politicians to circumvent debate or discussion entirely.
The law's proponents claim that the DMCA was intended to promote balance, but so far, at least, it tilts sharply towards copyright holders, not copyright challengers. It advances a principle of blind copyright protection that in no way takes into account the Net's unique nature, nor the rights and sensibilities of a generation that defines culture differently. Nor does it even acknowledge the idea of any universal right to define choice, options or personal enjoyment. This kind of pre-Net copyright protection will advance the same sort of tepid and homogeneous culture that the music and movie industries have forced on the offline world by promoting products that can generate enormous revenues, and by gobbling up independent companies and acquiring media and entertainment companies and mass-marketing (and in effect, censoring and moderating) popular culture. Corporatism isn't the same as capitalism, or corporations. It's new, bigger, more global and vastly more powerful. It has acquired most mainstream media. It is the primary contributor to the political system. It is viscerally at odds with free speech and individual expression.
Everywhere it reigns, from Wal-Mart to AOL/Time Warner to Microsoft, corporatism discourages creativity, pushes individuals to the margins and promotes conformity and control of software, hardware, intellectual content and culture.
One of the striking aspects of geek culture is that it's so far remained much freer than the mainstream. Software and hardware have enabled individuals to seek out rich, diverse and highly individualized entertainment. The ability to personalize culture in this way is unprecedented, a unique feature of life online.
But that ability is endangered. A less appealing hallmark of geek ideology is the sometimes unconscious but pronounced arrogance that comes from having so much freedom. The belief that even if laws restrict the Net, innovative software and hardware will triumph, is pervasive. The DMCA suggests that may be wishful thinking.
Although many people online pride themselves on their lack of traditional political consciousness, what they have built -- the software and hardware that runs the Net and the Web -- is intensely political, especially to corporations seeking footholds online. Geeks may be the only barrier standing between us and the rampaging corporatists drooling over profits from cyberspace.
The primary political struggle of the 21st Century -- corporatism versus individualism -- has erupted right under our noses. And with little political consciousness or response, we seem to be losing the first big battle.
Abraham Lincoln on corporatism (Score:3)
http://www.ratical.org/corporation s/Lincoln.html [ratical.org]
What about compilations or import DVDs I paid for? (Score:3)
Please enlighten me and describe how any of the following constitute a "crime" or "theft":
(1) Combining tracks from several different CDs I own onto a single read and burned fully digitally (no analog conversions) on my computer's CDR burner for my own personal use.
(2) Modifying my DVD player or buying the parts or modify my DVD player or buying a pre-modified DVD player in order to defeat the region coding so I can play the import DVDs I ***paid*** for.
(3) Defeating macrovision in order to copy a DVD to VHS so my daughter can watch The Little Mermaid over and over and over. Kids can be brutal to media and easily scratch and ruin a DVD.
I'm listening.
Re:Property is property. (Score:3)
It is impossible to, and immoral to attempt to restrict the ways in which a person can think. Yet this is what you propose.
I am going to coin a phrase: The frogs jumped from the tower.
According to you, I not only now own this phrase, but you aren't allowed to redistribute it. You can't repeat it. You can't write it down. You can't write something derivative of it. Frankly, you aren't even allowed to *think* it. No without my specific approval.
And furthermore, you (I'm making the safe (IMHO) assumption here that you're the previous AC) claim that I can eternally assign this ownership to my heirs, so that unless they're feeling charitable, no one will ever, through the entire course of the future ever, EVER repeat that phrase in any way whatsoever.
That's insane.
However, my course is now clear. I think I'll just rev up the old computer and have it print out a list containing every possible combination of letters up to words that are 20 letters long (approx 2*10^29 unless my math is off). I and my heirs will forever own all of these words, so you'd better not get caught using any of them, ever.
Beginning to see the problems with your argument?
Re:Natural rights vs. Legal rights (Score:3)
The phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is not even in the Constitution. It's in the Declaration of Independence.
Furthermore, copyrights are not ennumerated rights. The constitution never, ever says that people can own ideas. It says that the Congress has the power to enact legislation which grants copyrights, patents, etc. This is very different. It means that the only controls over ideas are laws, which are trumped by the Constitution. Therefore it's easily possible for a court to interpret the current gang of copyright laws as being unconstitutional, even though the Congress has the power to make these types of laws (because the exercise of that power requires that it carry the intent that is explicitly written in the Constitution).
So to recap:
1)Copyright laws are not natural, ennumerated rights
2)Copyright laws are not granted in the Constitution
3)Copyright laws are merely possible, provided they fulfill the associated requirements spelled out in the Constitution
4)The copyright laws you're so fond of are quite likely unconstitutional
5)And not only that, but any copyright law ever is contrary to your natural rights anyway
I won't even dignify the 2nd part of your post with any response other than reiterating that you're very much a troll. Why people can't be honest around here is beyond me....
Information is a Commodity (Score:3)
I disagree with the last statement that this is erupting under our noses. This has already erupted and has long since been put to bed. As much as we like to think that information and intellectual property in and of itself should be granted, to some degree, to the public (humanity itself), the very obvious reality is that information and any intellectual effect which can be profited from, can be.
In addition, the construct of our political and legal system seems to prefer the rights of those who would make commercial use and economic gain by means of exploiting information and intellectual creations over those who would wish to make that information more or less available to all without restriction.
This may not be our law or the way we see ourselves, but it is what we've seen practiced over the last few decades. As we know, precedence often supersedes word-for-word legal decrees.
Perhaps I'm just a bit too cynical. I have been the 'victim' of plagiarism and copyright infringement and acknowledge the right of the creators to distribute and limit their 'product' as they see fit, but I also am slightly (and unrealistically) compelled to side with the utopian dream of limitless free information for everyone. I say this not as some punk who wants to rip every CD on the face of the earth to build his MP3 collection (I actually OWN a CD copy of every MP3 I have), but as someone who believes that information should never-the-less not be limited by and for those who can afford it.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Occlusion Of The Point (Score:3)
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a frontal assault on the open source ethic, both technological and social. The underlying political issue is both clear and significant: Must we depend on the creative choices and products of a handful of ferociously greedy and monopolistic corporations who have increasingly come to dominate media, culture and entertainment? Or can we define our own cultural experiences?
Before the passage of this law, the answer was yes; individuals controlled at least some of their choices.
And after the passage of this law, individuals no longer control their choices? How amazing -- the DMCA subverts free will. I no longer have the ability not to watch television, or not to listen to the radio, or not to write my own books or songs? DMCA enforcement squads will prevent me from flying halfway across the country to attend an Over the Rhine concert? I doubt it.
While your concerns may be warranted, you do your argument a disservice with this exaggeration.
One of the Net's universally shared ethics, at least among geeks, has been empowerment and choice, along with a growing open-source instinct about software and technology.
Is it universal, or is it shared among geeks? Be precise.
Previously, Net culture has tended to be freer than offline culture.
This, from someone who has decried the so-called "Digital Divide"? Aren't the barriers to participation in Net culture sufficiently higher (the cost of a PC and an Internet connection) than those of offline culture (the cost of a radio)?
If you don't like me reframing the question in those terms, be more specific on what you mean by 'freer'. (I suspect the answer lies in a latter paragraph which mentiones "free flow of ideas and opinions". I was fortunate enough to find this, among college students, before I discovered the Internet.)
Music, the spark for a surprising percentage of the Net's legal battles, has become a metaphor for the emerging political struggle over who defines and propagates culture on the Web and the rest of the Net.
Step back and look at the bigger picture. The question is, "What are the legal and ethical ramifications of trivially duplicated Intellectual Property?" That question has bounced around for decades, if not longer. (I would imagine that it came up as recording equipment became popular and practica for home use, and again as photocopying technology spread.) The current incarnations of the debate (MP3s, DVDs, TV rebroadcasting) only demonstrate that the issue has never been resolved.
The Net is, in fact, redefining what content and intellectual property are.
Some would argue that the definitions were never very good.
The law's proponents claim that the DMCA was intended to promote balance, but so far, at least, it tilts sharply towards copyright holders, not copyright challengers. It advances a principle of blind copyright protection that in no way takes into account the Net's unique nature, nor the rights and sensibilities of a generation that defines culture differently.
What is "the Net's unique nature"? Who is this mythical generation? How does it "define culture differently"? Please support your opinions with some facts. That will, at least, give your essay the semblance of commentary.
Nor does it even acknowledge the idea of any universal right to define choice, options or personal enjoyment.
Perhaps you need a law to tell you that it is okay to like something you didn't see on TV or hear on the radio, but the rest of us are doing okay without it. I am not a mindless consumer, bleating advertising jingles all day long, waiting for 5 pm when I can invade the mall with the rest of my flock, emerging bleary eyed, emblazened with the corporate logos.
This kind of pre-Net copyright protection will advance the same sort of tepid and homogeneous culture that the music and movie industries have forced on the offline world by promoting products that can generate enormous revenues, and by gobbling up independent companies and acquiring media and entertainment companies and mass-marketing (and in effect, censoring and moderating) popular culture.
Someone interested in "choice, options, or personal enjoyment" might even acknowledge that some people have made the choice, or, horrors, personally enjoy that "tepid and homogenous culture". Jack Valenti certainly did not send his good squad to force me to attend a movie or two last year.
One of the striking aspects of geek culture is that it's so far remained much freer than the mainstream.
Again, in which ways? The geeks who like Star Trek? The hardcore libertarian bunch? Cypherpunks? Script kiddies? Alt.binaries.* readers? MCSEs? Warez d00ds?
Software and hardware have enabled individuals to seek out rich, diverse and highly individualized entertainment.
As did cable television, libraries, oral tradition, and imagination before them.
The ability to personalize culture in this way is unprecedented, a unique feature of life online.
When you define culture as "a list of bookmarks in a web browser", you are correct. Unfortunately, no one else defines culture in such a short-sighted fashion.
The belief that even if laws restrict the Net, innovative software and hardware will triumph, is pervasive. The DMCA suggests that may be wishful thinking.
Whereas you suggest that the idea that I can decide not to partake of the "tepid, homogenized mass media culture" is wishful thinking.
Is there cause for concern with the DCMA? Certainly. Is it anything new? No. Is it the end of the world? Certainly not.
Grandiose exaggerations, sweeping generalizations, a limited sense of proportion and history, and vague notions about some sort of utopian geek paradise threatened by evil big business do very little but occlude the real issue.
--
Re:Absolutely. (Score:3)
Yes, but the thing about it is...these distribution and reproduction costs are ALL PAID FOR BY THE CONSUMER. The zero cost is what is incurred by the owner of the media (if they wish to set it free.) One could also include promotion as an unnecessary cost, if you take the stance that if something is good enough the average consumer would want to tell their friends about it and a mechanism exists that they can share the something. But as it stands the current copyright holders would rather pay for distribution, reproduction, and promotion themselves, it's a lot easier to add $3 to $15 than it is to add it to $1.
--
Odd side effects. (Score:3)
- The first network is for those people who currently live off of and feed these corporations. The people who want their music fed to them. Hopefully they'll take over the new AOL [aol.com].
- The second network will be for the theives and pirates. Those who want what the megacorps put out and think they shouldn't have to pay. Unfortunately, I think they'll take Freenet [sourceforge.net] as well.
- The final net will be where it always was, out in the public and hard to find. It will be the college radio stations and the small bars like the old el&gee [el-n-gee.com] club I used to frequent. It will resemble the way things used to be here, where some
.plan or .project pointed you to a cool gopher file somewhere.
The truth is, the corporations can sue us only as long as we buy their stuff. Once we realize that it's just glitter without substance, we're free from them.-----
Re:Absolutely. (Score:3)
Napster alternative (Score:3)
Proposal: an open source, distributed database search engine, where the search is performed in parallel by a large number of logged-in clients, and results are combined on the requesting client. When a new client runs, it uploads file info onto several other clients, whose location is found from the cached results of the last run / public web sites / hidden ftp servers / information from friends / whatever else you might come up with. Search can be performed akin the infamous worm viruses with graph search depth limitations.
As for the name, we can call it World Wide Search (WWS), or some other silly choice to attract attention. Obviously, this thing has to be portable enough to run on all platforms, including non-Linux.
E-mail me if you are interested.
Remove "SPAM" twice to reply.
*can* be used in a crime != *will* be used. (Score:4)
Now this really *pisses* *me* *off*. RIAA thinks it it entitled to assess a fine *upon* *me* because *other* people are pirating. This leads me to one of two conclusions. (1) this fee is wrong, and should be banned or (2) Since I'm being punished along with the pirates, I may as well actually set out and pirate since I've already been judged guilty with sentence carried out. Since the crime has already been paid for, why not to pirate?
What's next? Do we tax a "murder fee" onto knife sales and give the monet to law enforcement, because x% of knives are used in murders every year?
(2) The movie companies feel that you should not be able to see a film before its released on the cinema in your country because that is stealing the claim to first showing from the cinemas. I might agree with this if region locks somehow automatically expired after a certain time. But fucking 50 year old movies are coming out today on DVD with region locks?! Kinda lays waste to the distribution argument, eh? Of course, many of the import DVDs I have will *never* see a local release, and even if they did, videos are often edited, extra features removed, audio dubbed over... the point being that IT ISN'T EVEN THE SAME PRODUCT ANYMORE. It's changed, so how can it can be seen as competing with the other region product anymore? And when I buy an import DVD, are not the original IP owners getting compensated? Isn't this what this whole protection scheme is supposed to really (3) You COULD use this to produce pirate videos.
This logic is so flawed, I'll leave its dubunking as an excercise for the reader.
OT: You own your body/mind, but don't have control (Score:4)
You may own your body, but you're in error if you think you can do anything to it that you like. Suicide is a crime in many jurisdictions (although enforcement is a bit of a problem). You do not have the right to determine what you put in your own body (see the "War On Drugs"). Altering your own brain/body chemistry without government approval IS a criminal offense. In many places, it's a felony. That's right, if you put the wrong thing in your body, and your government finds out, men from said government will come with guns to put you in a cage.
If we can't, as a nation, accept that people have the natural right to do to their own bodies as they see fit, then we shouldn't be surprised when we find our other freedoms abridged.
Thoughtcrime isn't a crime yet, but only because it's not yet possible to police. Don't you thing EMI or Bertelsmann would love to take a penny every time you hum/remember a tune they own? Don't you think they'd require it if they could?
Waxing cynical,
-Isaac
A16: Call to Action! (Score:4)
Listen up, people!
On April 16th, a diverse group of protesters will be converging on Washington DC to protest the IMF. More importantly, though, they will be protesting corporate rule and the placement of profit over freedom.
It just so happens that I found this on the RIAA website:
> The RIAA is located at:
> 1330 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 300
> Washington, DC 20036
> Phone: (202) 775-0101
> Fax: (202) 775-7253.
If I'm not mistaken, this isn't that far from where the A16 action will occur. We need to organize and get our voices heard! We have a few different options, from physically occupying their offices and demanding certain concessions, to locking arms around their building, to attacking their building with grafitti and posters outlining why we feel the RIAA and others are destroying the culture of sharing information.
If you can get to A16 [a16.org] in D.C., do it! Contact groups like the Direct Action Network [agitprop.org], the Ruckus Society [ruckus.org], or possibly other more revolutionary [infoshop.org] groups, and start talking about how to organize.
You don't get things accomplished by continually posting on Slashdot. At some point you have to get off your butt and take to the streets!
Michael Chisari
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:4)
If ideas _were_ property, you'd still owe money to the heirs of the guy who invented words like 'the'.
Rather, there is no natural law that grants anyone ownership of any idea. That's impossible. Just conveying your idea to others spreads it. I suppose if you had an idea which you never said, or wrote, or illustrated in any way you would own it. Wouldn't do any good though, huh?
Furthermore, copyright laws are really quite new. For thousands of years, barring any cultural restrictions (e.g. our God says you have to be a holy scribe to write his mysteries down; the King frowns on people who correspond with his enemies) there have been no laws regulating ideas.
If you wrote a book anyone could reprint it (although there were limits on what kind of writing the government might allow, and if they'd let you keep your press or your life...), if you gave a speech, anyone could repeat it, and if you invented something, anyone could figure it out and make a copy.
(in fact, the only reason we have anything of Shakespeare's is due to people stealing his papers and printing the contents, and actors transcribing the plays from memory. I remember seeing a really hilarious version of Hamlet's soliloquy where the actor didn't remember things properly)
But the common thread here, is that there is no such thing as ownership of an idea. Ownership relies on the scarcity of things. But tell me an idea and now we *both* have the idea. Scarcity has not been reduced. Ergo, you do not own your ideas. No one does.
As an INCENTIVE for coming up with ideas though, copyright and patent laws came about. They granted a temporary monopoly on some limited types of use (e.g. copyrights prevent other people from making many copies and selling them all, although they can sell any copies they bought from the copyright holder)
But the monopoly is only to be granted for a limited time (so sayeth the Constitution), because monopolies stifle creativity. They only give you a reason to persue creative persuits in the first place, but limit you when you're doing it. After this time has expired, your monopoly ends and your ideas are no longer artificially constrained. Anyone can use them in any way, and if this helps them come up with something, so much the better.
And btw, you're dead wrong on your ideas about real property too. Squatter's rights have a long established history. If you own some piece of property which you ignore, and someone else improves your property for you - putting in effort that you don't expend yourself - eventually the rights to it transfer to them. You have to use it or lose it.
So do try to remember that free copying and use are the natural way of things. Congress has actually been acting unconstitutionally IMHO in regards to copyrights for the few decades. (the Constitution says that it has to both promote progress and be for a limited time, and right now it's effectively doing neither)
Re:"The Net is redefining..." (Score:4)
When are we going to figure out that what 534 boneheads and one libertarian (the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ron Paul) vote on up there in the District O'Crime, aka The Law, means exactly jack when it comes to what you and I do on a daily basis? How many of us speed on a daily basis? Even better: How many of us actually stop the car completely every time at a stop sign when nothing is coming? I thought so.
The Law can't be everywhere.
What does this mean for you and me and the DMCA? Nothing, really. The DMCA is worth less than the paper it's printed on.
On the other hand, it also means a lot. It means that we've just been pushed (back) over the line into being a culture of outlaws, like our predecessors in the Sixties. This is constraining, in that some of us will have consequences for exercising our freedom of choice. It is also freeing, in the idea that, hey, if we're going to be outlaws, we may as well act like it. They can't kill the net, they can only push it underground. You guys still remember how to do Fido and UUCP, don't you? We can also tunnel protocols across the "legit" Net, encrypt our data, steganize it, all sorts of shifty things to keep The Man off our backs. The tech to do this is already out there, in the clear, currently unfettered. All we have to do is USE IT.
Bottom line is, I agree with a previous poster. If we don't like what Big Brother is doing, t'hell with him. See to it that he doesn't get any of our money, or our friends' money. Support your local mom and pop band. ISP. Grocery/health food store. Credit union. (Get the hell out of Megabank.... but that's a whole 'nother can of worms)
In short, make the message resoundingly clear with our silence: Big Brother, stick it.
--
"Take this jooooob and shove it,
I ain't workin' here no more...."
-- George Jones
consumer warfare (Score:4)
seriously... they treat all of their customers like criminals. They lie, cheat, spread propaganda and attack their customers... And worst of all, they force stuff like the backstreet boys and brittney spears on us...
And yet, the very people that they are attacking are supposed to patronize these fascist dictators of america.
Seriously - if someone described a country where control of the government is centralized into the hands of a few (big corporations), the artwork was controlled by the same few i.e. movies, books, music.
And the NEWS was controlled byt these same groups...
We would call it a fascist/communistic country...
and that folks, is where we are at.
Round Peg in a square hole (Score:4)
If you go to the library and check out a book, the next person must wait for you to return the book before he/she can check it out.
If you go to the digital library and check out a book, there is always a book left.
A fundamental shift in business model. The companies who can understand this shift have a significant advantage on how we are going to be tdoing business tomorrow. The same goes for DMCA if they apply the same "Old School" model to today./tomorrows technical environment problems, the problems will not get addressed, they will increase ten fold.
I don't thing the folks behind DMCA are nessasarily evil, they just simply are using the wrong tools, the wrong model and for some reason forcing a round peg in a square hole.
Absolutely. (Score:5)
The digital realm is different. While initially producing something may cost money, once that has been done it is present in the digital realm in basically infinite supply. As long as one instance of something exists, an infinite amount of instances can be created at zero cost. Because the digital realm is a zone of abundance rather than one of scarcity, new rules must be found to work with it.
The DMCA, and its silly restrictions on Net broadcasts/publishing/whatever, isn't really trying to impose a double standard. What it's trying to do is fit the old rules over a new realm. And in the end that doesn't work. The Net restrictions on broadcasting, for example, are there because RIAA sees Net radio not as a broadcast medium but as a distribution medium (in truth it is both and neither at the same time, but this isn't possible in the physical world so RIAA never realized that), and therefore lobbied for different standards.
The truth is, corporations are scared of the Net. They're afraid that it'll kill off their precious profits. The fact is it won't, but corporations have to adapt, to be willing to throw the old rules out the window for a new set which fits the digital realm.
What are those rules? I don't claim to know; I don't think the Net has yet been around long enough that one could form a set which works. The old economic laws certainly don't work; the Net itself violates even the most basic law of supply and demand (supply is essentially infinite, but demand is clearly nonzero). The Open-Source ethic might be an answer, but it also might not.
Companies don't have to worry as much as they do, not even RIAA. This is simply an economic evolution, one which they would be better off adapting to rather than resisting. If they want to pull out of the digital economy completely, the physical economy will always be there. At least, it will as long as there are physical beings, like people. But it's useless to map old economic laws onto a place which violates just about every one of them by its very nature.
I've been giving this more thought.. (Score:5)
Let's use art as an example. You paint a picture. Do you own the painting? Yes; you bought the materials and made the painting. You build a sculpture; do you own it? Yes; again you bought the materials and used them. But let's say you record a CD. Certainly you own the CD. But how do you own sound, even a specific configuration thereof? Or let's say you write a book; you certainly own the book, but how do you own words? You write a piece of software; how do you own thought? You build something; you own what you have built, but how do you own the concept of whatever it is you have made?
The simple fact of the matter is, you don't. You can't, any more than you could own fire. So who owns it, then? Nobody does; nobody can. This is where the patent, copyright, and trademark offices come in. The idea is to promote the distribution of these non-ownable things by stating that for a certain period of time, no one but the first person to register these may use the idea, except by permission or fair use. Each handles a different thing; trademarks cover corporate identity, copyrights cover thoughts, and patents cover devices.
Now, before someone goes to claim that I'm saying that a person has no rights to his mind, that's not what I mean. It does mean you have to view the mind from a different perspective, but it ends, as with the "intellectual property" myth, with a person keeping rights to his own mind.
Certainly you own your own body. This means that among other things, you own your brain. Your brain (at least according to generally accepted theory) houses your mind, and you own that too because it's a part of you. What does the mind do? It produces thought. I don't think anyone here will argue against the assertion that the mind is (or at least should be) sacrosanct, not something that anyone else has the right to interfere with, if only because each person owns his own mind. Because of this, you have a right to your own thoughts, just as if you did own them. The difference is only that you have no intrinsic right to sell your thoughts (the concept doesn't work anyway; if you sell your idea to someone else you lose nothing except perhaps the time it took to explain it, so it's not a fair trade).
This is why I think we really need to come up with a better phrase than "intellectual property" for this sort of thing. No doubt it was started by the corporation, because it tips the balance in their favor. But it's also a misnomer.
Resistance is not futile (Score:5)
In the future world where two or three mega-corps control every industry, it is only through vocal protests and real-world action that the teeny-tiny voices of indinidual consumers will ever be heard. We must speak up, we must spread the word, and when it's needed, shout from every rooftop and bitcast from every node.
People can't resist when they don't know they are fighting. It's in the established businesses best interests to keep consumers ignorant, and they'll spend a lot of money o their best interests. It won't be as much censoring what you say, but just saying so much more than you so that no one can ever hear. Or spewing forth such rhetoric, that by the time you have a chance to debate with "average joe" he has already been told 100+ times that you are a pirate, a thief, and the scum of the earth because you don't think you should pay for unnecessary services from a monopolist.
Make conscious consumer choices, make an effort to educate your friends, and don't give up. The only way to lose is to stop fighting.
--
DCMA, etc. (Score:5)
I agree that it makes sense to do some of the innovation ourselves, but we can't depend upon that for our consumer rights - we have to simply say that the Government has no right to regulate our private use of products we pay for. It doesn't derive that from anything - read up on political science theory and you'll see that our government is based upon the idea of natural rights, one of which is to do things with stuff that we pay for. That's not a libretarian-geek philosophy, which is where Katz would place it, but it's simply a standard idea in these thoughts. Read Locke or Thoreau sometime - it has to do with the core political theory upon which our government derives its power as a democracy. Esp. read Thoreau to understand what you're doing when you host your copy of DeCSS.
Partly, the DCMA applies to copying for profit of artistic works, which is where it should be applied. Not to private use - they have no right.
Uh oh - are those the UN Black Helicopters? gotta go
"The romance of Silicon Valley was about money - excuse me, about changing the world, one million dollars at a time."
what a damn fool thing to write (Score:5)
1.
This is false. Radio stations - like TV stations, cable networks, etc. - need to get licenses from performing rights groups like ASCAP or BMI [bmi.com]. Even businesses and restaurants larger than a certain size (2000 sq. ft. and 3750 sq. ft., respectively) need to get licenses. Those licenses are not free - they are bought for millions of dollars sometimes, and the money from their purchase goes to the songwriters and performers.
2.
Well, duh. All copyright laws are First Amendment issues in part. All of them. Why? Because copyright laws are inherently about what you can and cannot do and say. The DMCA is no more especially a First Amendment matter than any other copyright law.
And recognizing that there are free-speech issues involved, the DMCA (like other copyright acts) leaves intact the "Fair Use" doctrine, which permits the use of copyrighted material for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.
3.
First of all, calling it a "back-door effort" ignores the facts that there were lobbyists and politicians on both sides of every part of the issue, and that comments and input were solicited from the online community and libraries and computer makers. What's more, some of the Act's provisions had been discussed and debated internationally, as part of a World Intellectual Property Organization treaty - and were first publicized years and years ago. Calling it secretive or "back-door" is plain inaccurate.
4.
This is nonsensical. How is the DMCA "blind"? The point of the law, whether you like it or not, is that it does take into account the Net's unique nature, by recognizing that the Net can be used to disseminate information instantly everywhere. It isn't blind: it tries to stop some of that information from just disappearing into the ether, possibly leaving creators unpaid. What do you mean this generation "defines culture differently"? Every generation defines culture differently, and (if you'll allow me to follow your logic to its natural conclusion) every person defines culture differently. This is not a culture gap, and there is no acceptable reason for lawmakers, musicians and other copyright holders to be held hostage by people who don't want to pay for anything.
5.
Like the theory of phlogiston, your argument here sounds great. But, like the theory of phlogiston, there is not a great deal of empirical evidence to back it up. First of all, your statement about "mainstream media" is circular since you are defining mainstream media as "those media which are owned by corporations." Second, the primary contributor to the political system, in terms of money and in terms of vocal input, is the ordinary voting population; it contributes more money than any other contributing segment. In fact, even though nobody talks about this, corporations are not allowed [fec.gov] to support candidates for federal office.
6.
O, Katz, come on. Compare the words you use for corporations (discourages, pushes, conformity, control, rampaging, drooling) with the words you use for geeks (free, diverse, individualized, unprecedented, unique). What propaganda!
Things are a whole lot more complicated than that. First of all, you refuse to admit the positive effects of the corporate control you so disdain. Thanks to AOL, 20 million people are online. Thanks to Microsoft, lots of confused non-techies are able to use these machines we take for granted. Thanks to WalMart, people have access to more and cheaper products.
How you can claim this is not capitalism is beyond me. With the exception of monopolistic behavior (the integrated-browswer debate is not worth getting into here), each of these companies is behaving as capitalist firms should - by offering products and services that consumers are drawn to.
What's more, it's ridiculous to cast corporations as an Evil Empire trying to crush the plucky, charming geeks who can see how "culture" is changing around them. Even as the Net lets people express themselves more individually, it also spreads a common culture, full of common language and terms and beliefs which can themselves become tyrannical. Before writing "Geeks," you should have sat down and read some Alexis de Tocqueville.
7.
I disagree here again. Technology is extraordinarily powerful, and right now, it is shaping the law - not the other way around. (And if you believe Lawrence Lessig, in many ways, the technology is the law.) I expect that trend will continue for several decades.
8.
First of all, to claim that "corporatism versus individualism" is the "primary political struggle" of the next century demonstrates as much a sense of history as the people who called the O.J. Simpson trial the "trial of the century." Life always ends up amazingly unlike what we had supposed.
Second, again, you are unwilling to see political activism by geeks because you are defining "geeks" circularly - as those who are not politically active. There are many people, including many people here in Washington, D.C., who share the political and technological views of geeks, and are fighting every day to prevent new dumb laws from being passed. Most people are not politically conscious - not just geeks - and that's a wonderful thing. It's a sign of our freedom and safety. The places where political cognizance is a necessary good are places like Chechnya or Somalia or Cuba or China, where a lack of political sense can land you in jail.
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society [tecsoc.org]
The law moves slow, the world moves fast (Score:5)
Besides, EVEN IF it can be fairly maintained that digital music is a first amendment issue, don't forget that the actual rights to the music are owned by record companies, rendering it more a commerce and copyright issue if the courts so decide.( This wouldn't be the first time an anti-free-speech law went on the books in the US, either (1798, repeatedly in the 1890s and during the Red Scare)).
And that's another problem-- the fact that these new laws, CDA, UCITA, DMCA, span so many legal categories, makes them hard to grok fully, much less fight. Your average legislature hasn't the time to parse 80 pages of text when they have 800 bills on the docket and an expert testimony in front of them that says it's okay. Of course that testimony was written by. . .
2) Do you know where staffers from Capitol Hill go when they burn out?? Across the Potomac to the Northern VA/Maryland tech corridor, where they get jobs as "legislative consultants." That's fancy talk for lobbyists. The tech companies are not stupid, they're mining the very source for legislative talent. See # 1 above, and marvel at the collusion going down.
--