Re: [DMCA-Activists] Re: (DC 7/17) NY Arena Outreach, 11/3/02

[Ruben I Safir]

hat's not our pitch.

It's unfocused and not in step with the NY Fair Use
Agenda.

Nor is this an NY Fair Use stratergy or approved activity.


The NY Fair Use action tomoorw is at Brooklyn College and 
focused on the results of the Congressmnal Hearing and Contacts
made in Washington earlier in the year.

This IS the current NY Fair Use Write up for the P2P
Action, in which Congressman Coble asked at the end of the
Hearing:

"Can someone tell me why all this P2P is not Larcony?"

Trusted Computing - the beginning of the end of Freedom

The Associated Press Article run throughout the nation on
Tuesday, November 5th, 2002 on Digital Rights Management 
and "Trusted Computing" made several factual errors. It showed
such poor research on the part of the reporter, Matthew Fordhahl,
that he should be released from his position.

Digital Rights Management and "Trusted Computing" can only be
described by honest people has wiretapping and unlawful breaking
and entering.  It does nothing to allow for secure computing and
no evidence in the article is presented to justify this quote from
the article:

"Trustworthiness would be achieved by giving users two choices: trusted
and untrusted.  On a computer running in untrusted mode, information would
be shared just as it has been for the last 20 years.  It's also vulnerable to 
attack.

The trusted realm, however, would be immune from such attack.  Data and memory 
would be held by a chip that lets in only trusted software"

Anyone with at least marginal understanding of computers would be flaberguasted
at the incredible stupidity of this argument. Every computing professional on 
the planet outside of Redmond Washington knows that the security issues which
have plagued the PC platform for the last 20 years has been directly due to the
poor implementation and software design of commercial products on the market.  
No encryption of memory is going to prevent Outlook from automatically executing
code. This executing of code has been marketed as a  'feature' built directly 
into the application.  

In fact, historically, The Windows operating system has exposed it's entire 
OS through public access channels which included the ISS Internet Web Server, 
the Exchange Mail Server, and the entire Microsoft Office Suite.  Hell, a few 
years ago you could remove the entire Windows hard drive by simply viewing a 
web site.

There is no need for a digital 'agent man' in you PC in order to
prevent secure private transactions.  Publicly available cryptography is 
currently readily available through GPG, VPN and IPSec, also known as freeSWan,
and we have encrypted hard drives for laptops.  The major commercial vendors 
have dragged their feet at making these things available, despite their 
being free and available to the public for a decade.

So what then is the purpose to putting a "secret agent man" chip in every
PC.  The purpose, and the only purpose, is to spy on you and to take your
property from you.  Digital Rights Management is theft.  It steals from the
public.  It spies on you, it records your every activity, it exposes your
home and business to risk.  It's about marketing through control, and 
wiretapping.  The public has be become more alert about these con games
designed to systematically end private ownership of information and the means
to store it, copy it and manipulate the information we own.  The "Trusted 
Computing" idea is nothing less than Stalinistic.  In fact, Stalin would have 
LOVED to been able to have a 'Trusted' media for his program of forced 
coercion, propaganda and social control.

So who is culprit in this drive to take control of all the digital information
systems on the planet.  None other than our good friend Jack Valelnti of the
MPAA.  This is the same Jack Valenti who likened the VCR to the Boston
Strangler, and the same MPAA which has lost multiple anti-trust lawsuits and
tried to plant sub-liminal advertising into movies in the 50's and 60's.
According to the MPAA, having a 'secret agent man' in every digital device
will unlock the potential of our computers, presumably by letting us download
videos over the Internet.  Jack was reported as saying that if Department of
Commerce wouldn't take the steps needed to prevent 'theft' of their property, 
then they would get Congress to do it.

Indeed, we do need Congress to step in and protect personal property, the
personal property being seized by Stalinists like Jack Valenti.  It is not
ethical to impose on the people digital systems which have chips which will
spy on us, and lock us out of our own information.  Having a 'Secret Agent
Man' spyware chip in a PC is the same as quartering an agent of the government
in your home, to monitor everything you type, rip and watch.

The proposed systems will force everyone to use 'trusted' systems.  The
reasons for this is obvious.  Nobody can live in a vacuum.  The public is the
first stakeholder in the access and control of information, even when that
information, like most information, is under copyright.  The public will be
forced to use the snoop chips in order to read the newspaper, to listen to the
radio, to watch news footage, and to get a basic education.  Since all
information published in the 20th Century is under strict copyright, we will
have no choice but to allow ourselves to be snooped on and spied on.  And we
will be inhibited from participating as free people in a society where the
communication methods are increasingly digital.

Just as the public needed to be protected from wiretapping by the telephone
companies, the public now needs similar protection for their digital devices.
Doing otherwise is inhibiting competition in the market, and political
discourse.  If we are to have any political rights in the future, then we need
to first be secure in our homes, and businesses.  DRM is theft, and it is an
evasion of property.  We must retain the right to use information without any
form of prior restraint.  Without this ability, we become second class
citizens at the mercy of others.



The other write up is on http://fairuse.nylxs.com

It's the OFFICIAL and only authoirized venue for NY Fair Use activity.  Since I 
own the NY Fair Use Logo and the Copyright of
most it' materials, consider this an official notice to to stop mimicking the 
group. 


Who Owns That Downloaded File Anyway?

US CONSTITUTION:


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and 
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 
no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or 
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the 
persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

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.


Article 1:


The Congress shall have power 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;


We are the Stakeholders


It's more than a slogan. It's a fact, and one which the public demands Congress 
to recognize. There it is. The rights of every individual citizen, clearly 
stated in the US Constitution in English as plain to understand today as it was 
when it was written over 200 years ago. Individuals are guaranteed to right to 
be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects. This is absolute and 
the foundation of Freedom. We can not have a free people if we are subject to 
inspection, wiretapping, bullying and preemptive control of our digital 
communication. We can not tolerate this any more than we can tolerate 
wiretapping of our phone lines, spying on our private letters, or burning of 
our books. It doesn't matter if the public chooses to share music files or 
movies on a massive scale, individual to individual. All that matters is that 
we are protected from corporations and the government from doing so.


This summer the Music, Software and Movie Industry has pressed both the 
executive branch and the legislative branches of our government to allow 
spying, preemptive filtering, and commandeering of personal property in order 
to prevent the common distribution of information which is protected by 
copyright. Anyone who reads the plain meaning of the constitution can clearly 
see that these copyrighted articles are owned by the public. Congress is only 
authorized to give limited rights to creators of works in order to promote the 
publication of more on them. And then, only if they are useful. We fully demand 
protection from those who scam the public, and steal from us our cultural 
heritiage.


Who owns copyrighted works? It is the public. Tomorrow Congress can end all 
copyright protections, and then there is none. But Congress can never pass a 
law which ends our ownership of our papers, books and property. We demand the 
same protection to share information on our hard drives, on CD's, Vinyl, Tape 
and paper that is afforded used books.


On September 26th, 2002, in the House Sub-Committee on Intellectual Property, 
while reviewing HR 5211, Congressman Berman publically announced that nobody is 
talking about preventing the sharing of a few files between individuals. 
Evidently, Congressman Howard Berman seems to be misinformed. The Recording 
Industry Association of America clearly says that they disagree. Their 
statements on 
http://www.soundbyting.com/html/copyright_101/music_copyright.html clearly 
states:


?So the only LEGAL way to reproduce a piece of recorded music -- uploading, 
downloading, copying from a CD, whatever - is to get permission from the owners 
of these different copyrights. It's called, obtaining a license?




This is just wrong. Our homes are not businesses open to in discriminant 
industrial policies. Our homes are private. We do not license our music and our 
computers. We purchases them for cash. And we will use them as we choose to, 
and we will share information with others without prior constraint, and of our 
own free will. We are not pirates. We are voters, and WE ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS.


In our private lives, we will share what we choose to, we will educate as we 
see fit, and we will build libraries for public access and to help educate and 
provide for our children and the poor. And we will not have the public treated 
as robbers and criminals.


If the RIAA sees a legitimate copyright violation, we are protected from their 
gross exaggeration of their legal rights by the fourth and fifth amendments in 
the Bill of Rights. If the legalities of prosecuting individuals under the law 
is not convenient for the RIAA, we do not authorize a digital police state 
instead. We will not walk down the path of George Orwell's 1984, where 
computers are used to control the the thoughts and activities of the 
population. We will not allow our property to be continued to be described as 
the property of a Copyright Holders.


Finally, the public is tired of the foot dragging by the Movie and Recording 
industry in publishing materials electronically. We demand Congress force the 
Copyright Holders to provide their end of their bargain in Copyright. Congress 
should move immediately to force the media companies to publish music on-line. 
Use forced licensing if you must, but get our cultural heritage on the 
internet. The Music industry, especially, has impeded innovation and job 
creation because of it's refusal to publish. Nobody has the 'right' not to 
publish, once they have been given a copyright and made works available. The NY 
Times reporter, Amy Harmon, wrote on September 23rd:

(http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/23/technology/23MUSI.html?pagewanted=print&position=top)


Concerns over piracy, money or unrelated contract disputes have prompted 
artists like Madonna and Radiohead to insist that their music not be 
distributed digitally. And even if the artist and the label are on board, the 
publisher who represents the writer of a song may not be. Sometimes it takes 
months to figure out who the publisher is, since there are more than 30,000 of 
them in the United States and their names are often not included on the CD.


"It's as if Franz Kafka designed this system and employed Rube Goldberg as his 
architect," said Rob Glaser, the chairman of MusicNet, which is part-owned by 
his company, RealNetworks, along with AOL Time Warner, Bertelsmann and the EMI 
Group. "It's full of tripwires."


The most glaring omissions from the services are the entire catalogs of major 
labels that have so far declined to license to the services backed by their 
offline competitors. The Warner Music Group, the music division of AOL, and the 
BMG unit of Bertelsmann have yet to license their music to Pressplay. Likewise, 
Pressplay's owners, the Universal Music Group of Vivendi Universal and Sony 
Music Entertainment, have not licensed their recordings to MusicNet. The EMI 
Group, the smallest of the five major labels, has licensed to both MusicNet and 
Pressplay. And Listen.com, which has no record labels among its corporate 
parents, has licenses from all five major labels.



It is time for Congress to step in and make the copyright holders publish on 
the internet. We don't care is Madonna makes money or not. We care that works 
are made available to the public. We give publishers narrow, but well defined 
exclusive rights to profit from by distributing copies of copyrighted work. We 
give these rights in exchange for making them public. Their 'rights' are not 
the inalienable rights, such as those defined in the Bill of Rights, but 
subject to the will of the People. The People demand that they publish, or 
otherwise strip them of their copyrights all together.



On 2002.11.09 10:42 Seth Johnson wrote:
> 
> address@hidden wrote:
> > 
> > mind passing along that pitch in text form? i'd love to
> > pass this along to 2600 meeting across the country (and
> > maybe even world?) who meet in public places for
> > extended periods of time and generally agree with what
> > you're trying to accomplish. if not, is there anything
> > else local 2600 meetings can do to help the cause?
> 
> 
> Yes.  The street pitch is pasted below, and a media blurb is
> below that.  You print the pitch out in double spacing and
> use it to let volunteers work off of.
> 
> We are also recruiting press outreach campaigners -- people
> who can help spread the word as new developments crop up.
> 
> We may be able to visit groups within a day trip range of
> Manhattan and work with them on outreach, set them up with
> tools and some spot training, if they'd like.
> 
> Seth
> 
> 
> New Yorkers For Fair Use
> www.nyfairuse.org
> 
> FCC Broadcast Flag Street Outreach Pitch
> 
> 
>      Don't let the FCC outlaw home recording!
> 
>      Hello, the FCC is planning to enact regulations
> requiring that digital TVs not be allowed to have standard
> analog audio-video jacks by 2006. Hollywood is trying to
> outlaw ownership of home computers, while reserving rights
> to own a computer for themselves.
> 
>      (Show BPDG flyer, with 4.12 language. Explain that the
> proposed FCC rule will outlaw all fully functional digital
> TV devices for ordinary citizens while creating an exception
> for Hollywood:
> 
> > 4.12 Both proposals for section X.2 of the
> > Compliance and Robustness Requirements anticipate
> > that an appropriate provision will be crafted so
> > as to exempt the requirements from applying to
> > products that are specifically intended for
> > professional and broadcast use [e.g., equipment
> > used by studios, TV broadcasters, satellite and
> > cable operators].
> 
> 
>      We can't let that happen!  Don't you agree?
> 
>      New Yorkers for Fair Use is working to stop this policy
> and other developments like it that take away your
> fundamental rights.  For example, Microsoft is building
> something called Palladium into their operating system that
> takes control of your computer away from you and lets
> spyware run on your computer in a protected space that you
> can't access.
> 
>      We focus on information freedom issues that directly
> affect the local community.  We recruit and train volunteers
> to help deliver benefits to the community, to do outreach on
> the street and in the media, to help with phone banks, to do
> production that's needed to get the word out about what's
> going on.  For example, two major areas that are heavily
> affected by information freedom issues are libraries and
> education.  We are beginning a campaign to deliver software
> to our local libraries that lets you access free sources of
> online research and scholarship.  By getting PCs donated
> that we can preconfigure with non-proprietary software like
> this, we can save libraries thousands of dollars.
> 
>      Can you help us?
> 
>      We need:
> 
>           Phone Bankers
>           Benefits Delivery
>           Press Outreach
>           Street Outreach
>           Production Workers
>           Commentators
> 
> ----
> 
> Media Blurb:
> 
> 
> Tell the FCC to Serve the Public, Not Hollywood! 
> 
> Public Comments Needed to Stop the "Broadcast Flag" Proposal
> at the FCC 
> 
> Please go to the Center for Democracy and Technology's
> Broadcast Flag Action Page and use their form to let the FCC
> know that the public's rights are at stake:
> http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/fcc.flag.xhtml. 
> 
> What's Going On: 
> 
> The FCC is considering a proposal that digital televisions
> be required to work only according to the rules set by
> Hollywood, through the use of a "broadcast flag" assigned to
> digital TV broadcasts. 
> 
> Through the deliberations of a group called the Broadcast
> Protection Discussion Group which assiduously discounted the
> public's rights to use flexible information technology,
> Hollywood and leading technology players have devised a plan
> that would only allow "professionals" to have
> fully-functional devices for processing digital broadcast
> materials. 
> 
> Hollywood and content producers must not be allowed to
> determine the rights of the public to use flexible
> information technology. The idea of the broadcast flag is to
> implement universal content control and abolish the right of
> free citizens to own effective tools for employing digital
> content in useful ways. The broadcast flag is theft. 
> 
> In the ongoing fight with old world content industries, the
> most essential rights and interests in a free society are
> those of the public. Free citizens are not mere consumers;
> they are not a separate group from so-called
> "professionals."  The stakeholders in a truly just
> information policy in a free society are the public, not
> those who would reserve special rights to control public
> uses of information technology.
> 
> Please go to the Center for Democracy and Technology's
> Broadcast Flag Action Page and use their form to let the FCC
> know that the public's rights are at stake:
> http://www.cdt.org/action/copyright/.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DMCA-Activists mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca-activists
> 
-- 
__________________________
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