Subject: Re: there is a new battlefield folks
From: newnham (newnham@gci.net)
Date: Mon Apr 01 2002 - 12:32:42 AKST
ok I sent in my fax for this Hollings bill. I also added a huge poin that we
overlooked. ill post that point here. I want to know of you guys think i
should present it to the senator.
here it is
5. If the Hollings bill passes it will inadvertantly affect the consumer
market, and inturn will make a black market for ripped software as big, if
not bigger, than the current drug market today. Granted, Drug enforcement
does prevent the public use of illegal drugs. But software piracy is not
public, it is very often performed in ones private dwellings. This will make
another illegal industry that is popular and profitable. In turn It will
also create better programmers that are angry and annoyed at the government.
If this happens people will have great deal of knowledge about computer
protectcion and more prone to hack public and government agencies. Security
of huge network infrastructures is already a problem, this bill will make it
even worse.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William F. Fulton" <fulton@gci.net>
To: "James Gibson" <twistedhammer@subdimension.com>; <aklug@aklug.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 11:40 AM
Subject: RE: there is a new battlefield folks
>
> Hey guys it looks like we can get a meeting with Sen Stevens we need some
of
> our leadership to be involved who would be interested in doing something
> like this????????????????
>
> Bill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: aklug-bounce@aklug.org [mailto:aklug-bounce@aklug.org]On Behalf Of
> James Gibson
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 2:42 PM
> To: aklug@aklug.org
> Subject: Re: there is a new battlefield folks
>
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Arthur Corliss wrote:
> >
> > > This is a bunch of fascist BS and I think we need to send a message
> > > to OUR Senator that this type of legislation is an abomination and
> > > to have him support, let alone SPONSOR such a piece of trash is
> > > unacceptable. We should write an official letter from the Alaska
> > > Linux Users Group protesting this nonsense.
> >
> > I think this is an excellent idea, as long as no one has a beef with
this
> > slight political intervention. Getting a petition signed and delivered
> (even
> > an electronic version) would be great, and if we can tap some of the
> > excellent oratorical skills of the group, we could make a compelling
> argument
> > to stop this kind of nonsense.
> >
> > --Arthur Corliss
>
> Some thoughts to bring to the table:
>
> My biggest problem with this bill (not that there aren't some number of
> runners up) is the bass-ackwards nature of what we are considering here.
> Copyright (aka Intellectual Property) is NOT an in-alien-able Right;
> Congress is given the 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" [1]. Nowhere is it
> stated that Congress is even required to USE this power, nor is it
> compelled anywhere with the task of enforcing that Right, and the Industry
> itself has no Right granted to it to guarantee it's continuance. Certainly
> not at the cost of freedoms. My body is capable of storing digital
> copyrighted works; My voice is capable of making them audible; My hands
> can make them visible. Does this mean I need a DRM chip implanted in my
> brain? Or perhaps the copyright industry has out lived it's usefulness in
> it's present form; As it stands it scarcely falls under the category of
> "useful Arts".
>
> As an example, consider when electricity was beginning to be used for
> lighting. This had a HUGE impact on the candle-making industry, oil-lamp
> vendors, and a quaint little profession known as whale-hunting. Whale-fat
> was top-notch fuel for oil lamps in those days. So where would we be today
> if our government had said "No, wait. We need laws on the books to keep
> people from using electricity to make light, so that the whale-hunting
> industry will continue to thrive."? Just imagine.. even if we GOT to the
> point where we had computers (and were still using our oil lamps) we'd be
> stumped over the whole monitor issue: we can't have a monitor because it
> could be used as an illumination device.
>
> If it comes to choosing between un-crippled soft/hardware and the tripe
> generated by the Music and Video industries, take a wild guess where I
> stand.
>
> James
>
>
> [1] (US Constitution. Article 1. Sect 8 Clause 8.
> "http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html"
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a23 : Sun Mar 31 2002 - 12:33:23 AKST