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

[Ruben I Safir]

On 2002.11.09 21:08 Ruben I Safir wrote:
> That'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
> 
-- 
__________________________
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