About me
Recent comments
Links
"Fall Seven Times Stand Up Eight"
doesn't that suck
Quotes, Quips, And My General Word Wizardry
Whitey
Archives
today
July 2007
April 2007
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
Counter
visited *loading* times
Shit That's Pissing Me Off
Translation: By certifying hardware, we can guarantee the entertainment and cable industry that it will successfully restrict fair-use rights such as time shifting or copying to other formats (e.g., Video iPod). Consumers will voluntarily agree to surrendering these rights because it will be in the license agreement and because they basically have no other choice. Companies that try to break ranks and restore these rights to consumers will be hit with a DMCA suit.
Goddamn this fucking bullshit!!!
Makes me wanna kill someone....
1) The average consumer is not aware of DRM and its ultimate implications, but are catching on more and more. Education of the masses is important at this point. Until people realize how they are being treated by these companies, and how they will be treated in the future, they will do NOTHING.
2) Those who are aware feel crippled, that they can't do anything by themselves and there is not big movement to be swept into. There needs to be an accessible movement that offers action to be performed for the average person, not just sending in a check. The DRM-mongers (MPAA, et al) need to have consequences for their actions.
3) Geeks need to get into politics. You can make a difference is not just by lobbying, voting, and calling your congressperson, but by running for office yourself.
There are many organizations that exist to combat this sort of garbage, but they remain on the fringes of society, seemingly reserved for the geeky/open source people. This needs to change and needs to change now. Encourage your friends, family, whoever you can to get educated and get involved.
http://www.eff.org/
http://www.fsf.org/ (In the same realm of consumer's rights)
http://www.epic.org/ (I'm not too familiar with them)
http://www.cdt.org/
http://www.cpsr.org/
1. Creators of ideas and inventions have the right to be compensated for their work, but not to limit political expression, veto technological innovation, or restrict education and scientific research.
Creators should be fairly compensated for their work. Large intellectual property holders, however, have started to misinterpret "compensation" as "absolute control." This mindset has led to a one-way ratchet of increasing entitlements for intellectual property-holders while the public's rights diminish.
For example, laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) have been used over and over again to stifle scientific research, silence political expression, and chill technical innovation. IP laws need to be reigned in to protect free expression, technical innovation, and robust democratic debate.
2. Intellectual property laws should be judged by their potential to foster new creativity, as required by the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution explicitly states that intellectual property protections should last only "for limited times" and promote the progress of "science and the useful arts." In other words, valuable ideas and expressions are supposed to become part of the public domain, where everyone can enjoy and use them equally. However, rights-holders have an interest in extending the amount of time that they can exploit their work. This tension has created a situation where copyright and patent terms are extended retroactively, in spite of the Constitution's plain language.
For instance, it doesn't make sense to extend the copyright term on a work that was created 60 years ago. Its creator was likely compensated long before, and the extension certainly can't encourage her to make something that she has already produced. Meanwhile, the Constitution's promise that the work fall into the public domain is indefinitely deferred.
Intellectual property was meant to be an incentive to create work that the public can enjoy, not an ever-lengthening entitlement for rights-holders.
3. Intellectual property laws should be clear and explicit, so anybody can create without fear of lawsuits.
Today's IP law is a thicket of jargon that makes lawyers necessary for almost any creative act. Sampling music in a new song, combining movie clips for a film class, or even removing objectionable content from your lawfully purchased DVDs can draw the ire of rights-holders. Companies routinely use patents against small inventors and businesses that can't fight back. And since fighting even frivolous claims is terribly expensive, creators and innovators may self-censor rather than attract a lawsuit.
This kind of predatory intellectual property is bad for society. It chills artistic and political expression. It stops technical innovation that could benefit society. And it directly contradicts the purpose of intellectual property by ensuring that less work, not more, is produced by our creators.
Posted by: hitokiriyuki at June 15, 2006 01:26 |
link | comments
