Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 452
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, April 2 2003 Volume 01 : Number 452
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] DMCA and Mini-DMCAs
Re: [netz] Can this be netizenship?
Re: [netz] Can this be netizenship?
[netz] empowerment of individual (was DMCA...)
Re: [netz] empowerment of individual (was DMCA...)
Re: [netz] DMCA and Mini-DMCAs
Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 11:28:12 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] DMCA and Mini-DMCAs
At 12:58 PM +0200 4/1/03, Dan Duris wrote:
>HCB> concerned on restrictions that would prevent me, as a legal
>HCB> purchaser, from:
>HCB> -- copying software onto a larger/faster disk drive that
>is practical
>HCB> to administer, rather than needing a DVD drive for each product,
>HCB> -- permitting me to make fair-use backup copies so I can
>continue operating
>HCB> if the purchased disk fails.
>
>There are always some good hackers who'll find out solution. And from
>what I know they already did. So, just forget about one-zone DVD
>players, there are many different open ones on the market, just browse
>through E-bay auctions to see DVD players that doesn't have one-zone
>limitation. The same trick works for computer DVD-ROMs or you can
>always try to look for patch or hack (warez soft to break one-zone
>limit).
>Try: http://astalavista.box.sk or some other security-oriented search engine
>
Just a note -- I don't play with warez. They are as much part of the
problem as part of the solution, especially in the broader definition
of warez as pirated commercial software, not just hacks to deal with
unfair copy protection.
We are talking, I think, about different levels of the problem. Sure,
copy protection is relatively easy to circumvent. But what about the
larger question of whether the publishers should have legal authority
to implement such schemes? Believe me, as an author, I am concerned
with intellectual property rights and royalties.
But some of the anti-piracy proposals have incredibly dangerous side
effects. One that came up a while back, and hopefully has died the
horrible death it deserved, was to require ALL semiconductor
manufacturers to put additional circuitry in ALL analog-to-digital
converter chips. This circuitry would monitor incoming audio streams
for copyright "watermarks," and, unless previously given a license
key, would disable the entire A-to-D process.
In the real world, this could mean that someone using a cellular
phone for emergency communications could walk by a radio playing a
song containing the watermark and have the A-to-D converter hear the
background music that is not part of the communication being
attempted. Under these proposals, the call to the fire department
would be disrupted because the stupid chip assumes that hearing
watermarked content means a piracy attempt is in progress and must be
stopped at all costs.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 11:33:01 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re: [netz] Can this be netizenship?
Hi,
I support hacktivism in case of doing it against totalitarian
regimes.
Check www.hacktivismo.org (or .com?) for hacktivismo declaration and
why open source is not so good. They have their own open source
declaration that explicitly forbids to use software released under
that licence by totalitarian states. The real effect is questionable though.
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- the way is: libertarianism -*
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 17:39:44 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Can this be netizenship?
At 11:33 AM +0200 4/2/03, Dan Duris wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I support hacktivism in case of doing it against totalitarian
>regimes.
What do you see as the bounds of hacktivism? Is it acceptable, for
example, to attack the propaganda ministry of a totalitarian state?
Its central bank? Its military? Its public health service? What if
all of these are located in the same data center, so a denial of
service attack against the communications to it can bring all of
these down?
Incidentally, who gets to decide who is totalitarian?
Let's say you are launching an attack against a particularly odious
propaganda site. Do you check first to see if that site shares
resources with other sites that act in the public good?
Let's say I know the physical location of a server, and assume that
it is isolated from anything else. Is there an ethical difference
between hacking it so it is unusable, or detonating two kilos of
Semtex against it?
I'm concerned that hacktivists often are either unaware of, or don't
care about, the collateral damage they may cause. "It's all virtual"
is not a responsible statement, especially when the hacktivist does
not -- and frequently could not -- do the prestrike reconnaissance to
determine what "civilian" resources are colocated with the offending
resource. And make no mistake, I use a military term because a cyber
attack is no less an attack than an attack with artillery, if it has
the potential of jeopardizing life-critical resources.
I have yet to see a compelling argument to distinguish hacktivism
from terrorism. At the same time, I do agree that it would be licit
for the Coalition to launch cyberattacks against Iraqi targets --
subject to the same concern that any war crime is to be avoided.
>
>Check www.hacktivismo.org (or .com?) for hacktivismo declaration and
>why open source is not so good.
Frankly, I don't intend to. I flatly do not support attacks against
computer systems unless the attack is part of warfare and subject to
the occasionally relevant laws of war.
>They have their own open source
>declaration that explicitly forbids to use software released under
>that licence by totalitarian states. The real effect is questionable though.
>
>dan
>--------------------------
>email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
>ICQ: 17932727
>
>*- the way is: libertarianism -*
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 00:30:46 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: [netz] empowerment of individual (was DMCA...)
tcdug> Sure. But the question is *why* somebody should be taken as "criminal" for
tcdug> doing some innocent thing like listening to a non-pirated Audio CD or
tcdug> keeping a backup of a non-pirated DVD movie.
I completely agree with you. But since I don't agree with copyright
enforcement by DVD and CD publishers I welcome hackers who are
breaking these copyrights. Actually, I am so happy there are CD & DVD
writers on the market. It's great thing for people living in poor
countries where prices of CDs are the same as in US and sometime even
higher, but average salary is 10 times lower or even more. It's so
good to borrow CDs from friends and make your own copies.
Aldous Huxley (I think it was him) once said that individual with
computer and printer is danger for government. I think that computers,
internet and other things around empowered individuals so much as
nothing before.
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- just stop for a moment and listen to chillout... -*
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 18:29:39 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] empowerment of individual (was DMCA...)
At 12:30 AM +0200 4/3/03, Dan Duris wrote:
>tcdug> Sure. But the question is *why* somebody should be taken as
>"criminal" for
>tcdug> doing some innocent thing like listening to a non-pirated Audio CD or
>tcdug> keeping a backup of a non-pirated DVD movie.
I agree that some of the copyright protection schemes are far worse
than the diseases they cure. But, I still maintain that there is a
value to copyright enforcement, especially when the royalties, in
part, go back to the creators.
Just like the long-term solution to many diseases is prevention, the
long-term solution to this is what I'll generically call "netizen"
action to pressure governments not to permit out-of-control copyright
protection measures. When a copyright protection measure has
significant impact on network or computer traffic that is totally
unrelated to the subject receiving the intellectual property
prevention, that measure is out of control.
Antibiotics stop many infections, but also have risks of their own --
in particular, creating resistant mutants. The more cracking becomes
accepted, the more people feel empowered to do what they will to the
net and content sources -- and the more the technical survival of the
net and content sources are put into danger.
I do believe that Robert Morris Jr., who released the first major
Internet worm, really didn't expect to cause the damage he did. But
there are lessons to be learned from biological viruses and worms.
Disease-causing viruses for which there is no immunization or cure
are handled in high-security Biosafety Level 4 hot labs, which are
under considerable regulation and supervision, and only thoroughly
qualified persons work there. I'm appalled at the lack of knowledge
and consequences of many who release viruses and worms.
>I completely agree with you. But since I don't agree with copyright
>enforcement by DVD and CD publishers I welcome hackers who are
>breaking these copyrights. Actually, I am so happy there are CD & DVD
>writers on the market. It's great thing for people living in poor
>countries where prices of CDs are the same as in US and sometime even
>higher, but average salary is 10 times lower or even more. It's so
>good to borrow CDs from friends and make your own copies.
>
>Aldous Huxley (I think it was him) once said that individual with
>computer and printer is danger for government. I think that computers,
>internet and other things around empowered individuals so much as
>nothing before.
Empowerment is one thing; theft and anarchy is another. Somewhere,
difficult lines need to be drawn.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 20:31:04 EST
From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com
Subject: Re: [netz] DMCA and Mini-DMCAs
- --part1_5f.37806cfb.2bbce8d8_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 3/31/03 9:55:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, hcb@gettcomm.com
writes:
> My concern comes when the industry pushes for technology to enforce
> copyright protection, and these protections have indirect effect on
> other technology. If I buy a DVD, I accept restrictions on
> duplication, but I seriously question the restriction on where I
> display it on a legally owned DVD player.
>
Regarding enforcement and managing loss of potential revenue:
...and monomaniacal copyright protection enforcement might not really be the
means to managing shortage. Codes are inevitably going to be cracked.
You've got to look at other ways of compensating loss.
Enhancing consumer access to the information by the author might be a more
practical solution to addressing the issue of digital property theft and the
losses incurred. Consider that MGM is offering the consumer a plethora of
solutions to access its vast movie library.
Each medium or access plan to the MGM library represents a particular viewing
solution -- Varied levels of access, flexibility of place where data can be
consumed, technology, pricing, etc. appeal to different end consumers. It is
about marketing.
Perhaps profitability is really not about enforcement of copyright
protection.
Check out how MGM has become resuscitated under the aegis of Alex
Yemenidjian. After theatrical release, MGM has successfully employed DVD to
exploit their extensive library. They are looking into VOD (video on demand)
and are seriously looking into Internet distribution with exciting services
like Movielink. DVD has enjoyed phenomenal acceptance by consumer homes.
Its growth overshadows, yet remarkably does not appear to occlude the revenue
from other viewing technologies. Differing access technologies coexist.
The game is for the movie studio, as author, to have all means for providing
the consumer all the access to its intellectual capital that is possible at
any particular time.
Realistically, there will be no one rogue out there that can meet you service
to service, legally or illegally, without you knowing about it.
So what if rogue X is selling your most valuable property T at a fraction of
your price on DVD! But rogue X only has DVD as a means of exploitation. You
additionally have the ability to offer the consumer a sexy subscription plan
to Internet download access to not only property T but to all of the other
like valued properties that come out in the future for a price that rivals
what rogue X could provide for the same suite of properties. Via internet,
property T is available to you virtually. Download to a hard drive. You
carry no extra DVD plastic on you.
Entertainment is interesting in that people will purchase the same product
over and over again. So what you purchased a bootlegged digital copy of
property T. Well that does not mean that you will not purchase another form
of access regarding property T. Perhaps you travel and had not carried your
copy of property T with you. You want to see it again, now. You are in a
hotel room and order property T on pay-per-view.
The author is going to be able to have myriad opportunities to exploit the
consumers' interest in his properties. It is a long-term strategy. As long
as the author provides every conceivable means of access, eventually, he
should get his money back.
Fact is that a studio with multidimensional distribution has all the cards.
Naturally, it would appear more convenient for the consumer to go to the
source of all options for consumption of a particular property.
The rules of the intellectual capital distribution game can be changed at the
discretion of the movie studio that truly has the ability to employ all media
to exploit its resources.
It's like evolution. The creature with reproductive predominance or success
will survive.
I know there is a lot of conjecture here. What do you think?
Larry
- --part1_5f.37806cfb.2bbce8d8_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 3/31/03 9:55:06 AM Eastern Standard=
Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">My concern comes when the indus=
try pushes for technology to enforce <BR>
copyright protection, and these protections have indirect effect on <BR>
other technology. If I buy a DVD, I accept restrictions on <BR>
duplication, but I seriously question the restriction on where I <BR>
display it on a legally owned DVD player.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Regarding enforcement and managing loss of potential revenue:<BR>
<BR>
...and monomaniacal copyright protection enforcement might not really be the=
means to managing shortage. Codes are inevitably going to be cracked.=
You've got to look at other ways of compensating loss.<BR>
<BR>
Enhancing consumer access to the information by the author might be a more p=
ractical solution to addressing the issue of digital property theft and the=20=
losses incurred. Consider that MGM is offering the consumer a plethora=
of solutions to access its vast movie library.<BR>
<BR>
Each medium or access plan to the MGM library represents a particular viewin=
g solution -- Varied levels of access, flexibility of place where data can b=
e consumed, technology, pricing, etc. appeal to different end consumers.&nbs=
p; It is about marketing. <BR>
<BR>
Perhaps profitability is really not about enforcement of copyright protectio=
n. <BR>
<BR>
Check out how MGM has become resuscitated under the aegis of Alex Yemenidjia=
n. After theatrical release, MGM has successfully employed DVD to expl=
oit their extensive library. They are looking into VOD (video on demand) and=
are seriously looking into Internet distribution with exciting services lik=
e Movielink. DVD has enjoyed phenomenal acceptance by consumer homes.&=
nbsp; Its growth overshadows, yet remarkably does not appear to occlude the=20=
revenue from other viewing technologies. Differing access technologies=
coexist. <BR>
<BR>
The game is for the movie studio, as author, to have all means for providing=
the consumer all the access to its intellectual capital that is possible at=
any particular time. <BR>
<BR>
Realistically, there will be no one rogue out there that can meet you servic=
e to service, legally or illegally, without you knowing about it. <BR>
<BR>
So what if rogue X is selling your most valuable property T at a fraction of=
your price on DVD! But rogue X only has DVD as a means of exploitatio=
n. You additionally have the ability to offer the consumer a sexy subs=
cription plan to Internet download access to not only property T but to all=20=
of the other like valued properties that come out in the future for a price=20=
that rivals what rogue X could provide for the same suite of properties.&nbs=
p; Via internet, property T is available to you virtually. Download to=
a hard drive. You carry no extra DVD plastic on you. <BR>
<BR>
Entertainment is interesting in that people will purchase the same product o=
ver and over again. So what you purchased a bootlegged digital copy of=
property T. Well that does not mean that you will not purchase anothe=
r form of access regarding property T. Perhaps you travel and had not=20=
carried your copy of property T with you. You want to see it again, no=
w. You are in a hotel room and order property T on pay-per-view. =
<BR>
<BR>
The author is going to be able to have myriad opportunities to exploit the c=
onsumers' interest in his properties. It is a long-term strategy. =
; As long as the author provides every conceivable means of access, eventual=
ly, he should get his money back.<BR>
<BR>
Fact is that a studio with multidimensional distribution has all the cards.&=
nbsp; Naturally, it would appear more convenient for the consumer to go to t=
he source of all options for consumption of a particular property.<BR>
<BR>
The rules of the intellectual capital distribution game can be changed at th=
e discretion of the movie studio that truly has the ability to employ all me=
dia to exploit its resources.<BR>
<BR>
It's like evolution. The creature with reproductive predominance or su=
ccess will survive.<BR>
<BR>
I know there is a lot of conjecture here. What do you think?<BR>
<BR>
Larry</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_5f.37806cfb.2bbce8d8_boundary--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 20:40:26 EST
From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
- --part1_32.36992f02.2bbceb0a_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 4/2/03 11:28:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, hcb@gettcomm.com
writes:
> Exactly what do you mean by power? I'm being completely sincere as
> not following whether you are describing veto power on actions
> already taken, influencing the process of policy formation (and
> accepting, although continuing to comment, that the elected policy
> formers may make a decision that doesn't agree with yours), or
> influencing the election of representatives? All or some of the
> above? The veto/protest part is the only one that comes through.
>
Howard, you have to forgive me. I believe that Ronda was generally
responding to a post that I had sent to her and to this thread.
Larry
- --part1_32.36992f02.2bbceb0a_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 4/2/03 11:28:33 AM Eastern Standard=
Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Exactly what do you mean by pow=
er? I'm being completely sincere as <BR>
not following whether you are describing veto power on actions <BR>
already taken, influencing the process of policy formation (and <BR>
accepting, although continuing to comment, that the elected policy <BR>
formers may make a decision that doesn't agree with yours), or <BR>
influencing the election of representatives? All or some of the <BR>
above? The veto/protest part is the only one that comes through.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Howard, you have to forgive me. I believe that Ronda was generally res=
ponding to a post that I had sent to her and to this thread. <BR=
>
<BR>
Larry</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_32.36992f02.2bbceb0a_boundary--
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #452
******************************
