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" 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 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" 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 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" 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 In a message dated 3/31/03 9:55:06 AM Eastern Standard= Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:

My concern comes when the indus= try 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 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.

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. 

Perhaps profitability is really not about enforcement of copyright protectio= n. 

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. 

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 servic= e 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 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. 

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. =

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.

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.

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.

It's like evolution.  The creature with reproductive predominance or su= ccess will survive.

I know there is a lot of conjecture here.  What do you think?

Larry - --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 In a message dated 4/2/03 11:28:33 AM Eastern Standard= Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:

Exactly what do you mean by pow= er? 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 res= ponding to a post that I had sent to her and to this thread.  
Larry - --part1_32.36992f02.2bbceb0a_boundary-- ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #452 ******************************