| We got a pepper bar. |
[May. 3rd, 2005|01:34 am] |
Haha! Matt left his journal all logged in and stuff, and I am updating it. Mwahahahaa!
And I gave him a new icon. :D |
|
|
| chemical castration |
[Feb. 17th, 2005|02:22 pm] |
I felt this was a topic worthy of resurrecting my LJ page ...
KSTP News story
I'll quote the whole article, since it's short and has no byline:
ST. PAUL - Minnesota state lawmakers plan to introduce an extreme bill to make repeat sex offenders less dangerous.
The "asexual rehabilitation" bill would be a form of chemical castration specifically for pedophiles.
Several other states have similar legislation.
The measure is expected to be introduced this afternoon.
I wonder if the good legislators would add a liability clause, stating that evidence exhonorating a person punished by this method entitles the person to a payment of [X] millions of dollars by the state. I can't imagine that compensation measured in smaller units would suffice. (Of course, this is targeted at repeat offenders, so the decreasing likelihood of multiple wrong-convictions mitigates a bit.)
Does anyone remember the bumper-sticker sociology lesson from the '80s: "Rape is a crime of violence, not sex"? I disagree with that but, more to the point, I think the campaign presented a false dichotomy. To state that violence and sex are separable and distinct is to ignore (1) the strong ties between violence and sex in our own animal ancestry (competition for a mate stands out here), and (2) that violence and sex combine very well for many people (BDSM practitioners are not so small a club, I think), even for healthy and well-adjusted people.
So if rape is not a crime driven by sex, what benefit will derive from eliminating the serial rapist's sex drive? |
|
|
| Coleman on the INDUCE Act |
[Jul. 23rd, 2004|02:36 pm] |
I don't post here very often, but when I do ... it's a doozy.
Information on the INDUCE Act abounds the web; below is an e-mail I sent to Senator Norm Coleman, and his response. Enjoy!
|
My e-mail to Norm Coleman, 7/22/2004:
Hi, Norm. Say, remember a while back when you had those hearings on the RIAA lawsuits? Yeah, I remember that well. We were all proud of you for being among the rare few that can stand up to mega-interests like the RIAA and say, "Hey fellas, you wanna explain what you're doing?" I'm still proud. We need more leadership like that, and I want to thank you.
Anyway, here we are some months down the road, and your colleagues Hatch and Leahy (among numerous others) are working toward a solution to the problem of massive copyright infringement over peer-to-peer filesharing networks.
I say "working," because they haven't found the solution yet. Oh, they have the Inducing Infringements of Copyright Act, about which a hearing was held this afternoon. But believe me: it's not a solution.
Ernest Miller, a highly distinguished copyright & information policy leader, writes on his web site that he has "yet to hear of a single senator who opposes or even has serious questions about the bill." I am ashamed that you have not raised your voice -- I don't expect a frontal assault (though it deserves one), but as a constituent who has seen you take action in the peer-to-peer realm in the past, I sure as hell expected SOMETHING. Not even a word? Maybe you haven't heard of this bill yet ... can I offer some advice?
Trash it.
As crazy as it may seem, EVERY technological innovation of the past decades which interacts with audio and video -- data compression, portable music players, photocopy machines, hard disk drives, and volatile computer memory, to name a tiny sample -- has been developed under a legal regime that PERMITS innovative companies to design products and sell them. When those products can be used for illegal purposes (such as copyright infringement), the general rule of secondary liability has been sound for decades.
This rule was affirmed by the Supreme Court in "Sony v. Universal," and it has been affirmed tine and time again. The rule is this: if your product is used for evil, then you're only liable under two conditions. Those are: (1) You must have constructive knowledge of specific acts of evil. And, (2) You must meet condition (1) at a time when you have the means and authority to prevent the evil from taking place.
It's very simple. This is the rule by which the manufacturers of woodchippers can persue their trade, without fear that one day they'll stare across a courtroom at the family of that unfortunate loner in the movie "Fargo." The rule works pretty well.
Hatch and Leahy (and, lamentably, many more of your colleagues) don't see the value in this model of contributory liability. They want to take it away. They want the standard eviscerated.
How can you stay silent on this? As much as I'd love you to share my opinion on this bill, I would be pleased nonetheless if you would only add your voice into the chorus of the bill's supporters, rather than wait on the sidelines with nothing to say.
There is much to say about this bill. Please Norm, read the testimony. (You can even read the testimony of Mitch Bainwal and Marybeth Peters, but I disagree with those people, so you might just skim those pages. Kidding.) Read it, and understand it. This bill matters, and I need you to be a voice.
Yours might be a lonely voice, if you choose to oppose this bill publicly. But if you add your voice in support, I hope to hear some clear, well-reasoned explanations for WHY you support it -- or better said, why you don't oppose it.
Thanks for your time, Norm. I look forward to hearing any thoughts you have. I'm happy to provide more details if you'd like. This subject (copyright, information policy, etc.) is my passion, so if it will help, I can come by your office and give you a little puppet show, or something. (Hey, it's better than stacks of paper.)
Take care, and enjoy the summer.
-- Matt Perkins
| |
And the response ...
|
Response sent Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:27:41 -0400, from the sender 'Opinion@coleman.senate.gov':
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding S. 2560, better known as the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004, or the Induce Act. I share your concern.
S. 2560 was introduced in the Senate by Senators Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on June 22, 2004. Subsequent to its introduction the Induce Act was referred to the committee on the Judiciary.
The debate surrounding the culpability of producers and sellers of “dual-use” technology under copyright law was first brought before U.S. policy makers two decades ago with the introduction of the videocassette recorder (VCR). In Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that someone selling copying equipment would not be liable if a buyer used it to infringe copyright as long as the equipment was "capable of substantial non-infringing use." The Induce Act readdresses the culpability of producers and sellers of “dual-use” technology under copyright law by making any actor who aids, abets, or induces a copyright violation liable as an infringer.
While, I believe that an individual who has a copyright should be able to protect it, I do not believe that the Induce Act is the right answer to piracy. Rather than effectively prevent piracy, S. 2560 would expose makers and sellers of dual-use technology to charges of copyright infringement simply because one buyer committed a copyright violation.
Thank you once again for contacting me. I value your advice. If I can be of further assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me again.
| |
How about that? "Not a single senator" becomes, well, one single senator. I feel like I broke the big story or something, but I can't get too excited. Two realities temper my glee:
First, this seems a bit too well-crafted; it suggests "form letter," which suggests that mine is not the first e-mail he's received on the subject. (Errrmm, I guess this is where I confess that I haven't contacted any of my national legislators until yesterday, despite the repeated calls to action. Sorry. I'm kind of a half-assed copyfighter.)
Second, given the tone and conclusions of yesterday's hearing, the bill as drafted is already dead. How much guts, really, does it take to withhold support from a bill after the plug has been pulled?
Still, it's nice to see something. Thanks, Senator.
On a final note: my clumsy articulation of secondary liablility in the e-mail above is incomplete, and probably muddles "contributory" with "vicarious." Cut me some slack: these issues are tough. (I know just enough about copyright law to know that I'm not a lawyer.) |
|
|
| Blogs |
[May. 7th, 2004|03:12 pm] |
There was a very thought-provoking comment at the Lessig blog recently ... I can't do it justice, so I'll quote it:
|
Retorically this sounds fine, but I am not yet ready to buy the idea that hacking DVDs or the unrestricted sharing of music via p2p or otherwise “playing around cultural signs” is not largely about getting something without paying for it rather than looking for ways to solve problems like terrorism or environmental pollution. I can understand that positing this contrast seems a bit unfair, but my observation is that a lot of the most vocal “copyfight” thinkers use similar arguments about democracy to justify limiting commercial protection of IP. I guess I am grappling with finding where the “rubber meets the road.” Why is the fair use doctrine as it currently stands insufficient to allow critical, commentary or other expressive uses that enhance the debate re social and political issues. Also, what do you see as constituting a “full and fair examination and justification” to allow information to be given IP protection?
| |
Strong stuff. How do we justify defending the get-something-for-nothing tools? What benefit to human expression, or to anyone, does it serve? And at what costs? I tried for an answer, which I reproduce (with modest edits) below:
|
I’ll try to hit Casey’s question, on the connection between cultural evolution and “locking” information, with a rather blunt example (I’m sure there are more elegant ones):
Probably, many people have written essays and doctoral theses on Gone with the Wind focusing on the novel’s depiction of Reconstruction-era race relations, and how the author’s own era shaped that depiction. That’s great. Such analyses certainly should be written. That’s how our culture evolves with respect to important matters.
The audience for most of those papers and journal articles, if there were any, has probably been pretty limited. I can say honestly that, although I have pretty diverse interests, I would never go looking for such an article, and if I found it I’m not sure that I would have the interest or patience to read it.
Alice Randall expressed that analysis in a different manner: she made the same points, but she made them in the framework of “retelling” GWTW. Same characters, same incidents, wildly different perspectives. Randall’s genius wasn’t in merely observing that Mitchell’s work embodied a questionable and controversial view of history: it was in presenting that observation in an immediate, accessible manner, from which a reader could make those observations on her own. Now, the discussion has broadened to include those who aren’t full-time academics with subscriptions to The Journal of Historical and Cultural Socio-Economic Perceptivity (or something). The Wind Done Gone is the “picture” that’s worth a thousand essays.
To your second question, on why fair use isn’t sufficient: I would point to the second part of the story, in which Randall’s publisher was bestowed with a generous lawsuit from Mitchell’s estate’s trustee. Lessig really nailed it in Free Culture: fair use only is the right to hire a lawyer. I would add that fair use is also the requirement that you only hire lawyers who will advise you not to criticize, if you don’t have permission — or can’t afford litigation — for your criticism.
But you know, I’m kind of jaded about these things. If fair use case law were a bit more consistent, then many of my problems with it might evaporate.
--matt
| |
If I could add anything in retrospect, it would be that The Wind Done Gone was damn near entirely a new work of authorship. What it "borrowed" from its inspiration were themes, locations, characters, and some selective quotation. (Of those, I believe that only the last one should survive an idea-expression test. But I'm pretty much alone on that one.)
The process of writing a book may be analogized to editing movie & television clips into a similar transformative criticism. (I'm thinking of things like juxtoposing "The West Wing" with footage actual White House press conferences.) Only, movies and TV have digital locks built into them. The "hacker tool" that enables unlimited P2P distribution is the same tool that enables the electronic Wind Done Gone. If you ban the tool for hackers, you ban it for everybody.
That ain't right. |
|
|
| Slashdot |
[May. 6th, 2004|08:37 am] |
I have a question ... there's a Slashdot article, First DVD+R9 Burners Reviewed, with one comment that seems very out of place:
|
fris7 5top (Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 06, @08:59AM (#9072373)
problem; a few minutes. At home, most. Look at the all along. *BSD under the GPL. to decline for baby...don't fear posts on Usenet are progress. In 1992, IS DYING LIKE THE the developer For the project. Than this BSD box, Pro-homosexual long term survival Of user base for About half of the about half of the we get there with Shall we? OK! Notwithstanding, Consistent with the It will be among Than make a sincere consistent with the and Michael Smith and coders as those non gay,
| |
Sorry if this reveals me to be quaintly non-Web-savvy, but I don't know what I'm looking at. It sure looks like it was written by an agent, or some other scripting tool; but for what purpose, I sure as heck don't know. I would rule out spam, since there's no contact info.
Curious, I wondered if the text was derived from the page on which the post appeared. This is because the first function I could imagine was a steganographic or encryption utility -- hiding messages or keys on public-posting host sites.
CTRL+F for the word "problem" -- sure enough, it's there. Then, "a few minutes" -- also there. Some of the other words/phrases were on the page (comment threshold -1, to show all), but not all of them. And for most of these things about which I'm only mildly curious, I really don't have the patience to dig any deeper. (You'll note that the Bush administration hasn't put me in charge of hunting down terrorists.) |
|
|
| Star Wars |
[May. 5th, 2004|08:20 am] |
My ClearPlay rant was cut short. (Just as well.)
Today, The Digital Bits has this lovable little tidbit:
|
When asked if the forthcoming DVDs would feature the original theatrical release versions of the trilogy or the Special Editions, Sansweet answered that the films contained on the discs would be the incarnations of the films "as George Lucas sees them today." He reminded people of the 1995 video release of the trilogy that hailed itself as the last time the original theatrical cuts would ever be available. "They weren't kidding," Sansweet noted.
| |
This is great news!
You see, for judges to decide that an activity is a Fair Use, they often weigh most heavily the fourth of the statute's suggested factors: "the effect of the use on the market for the work." With statements like these, Lucasfilm seems to discount all intention of ever participating in the marketplace for the original film & audio portions of the 1977-1983 Star Wars trilogy. I guess we're free to distribute them on P2P networks, right...?
Just a thought.
Update:
Just found Jack Balkin's most recent post, on a NY Times article I saw earlier on Disney & Michael Moore. (Balkin is among the embarassingly large crowd of folks who make me feel really, really dumb in comparison.) He makes a cool point:
|
[A]s media become vertically and horizontally integrated, they may become held responsible by politicians and advertisers for *everything* that they do.
| |
Sounds reasonable. Makes me wonder why anyone would link a parent-company name to a distinctive brand (like "The Walt Disney Company," or "Time Warner"): when somebody finds one of your subsidiary's products offensive, he easily associates his distaste with your high-profile parent name. This kind of offense-bleed probably doesn't happen as much with a company named like News Corporation or Viacom.
Say what you will about Fox News; most people wouldn't express their discontent with that network by boycotting TV Guide or the Knicks -- because most people aren't even aware that those high-profile products are News Corp. properties. But it just seems more reasonable to lash out at ABC by "boycotting Disney." After all, the name "Disney" has a very prominent marketplace identification, so it's trivial to identify those products you wish not to buy.
I wonder if in 20 years, this kind of parent-name branding will subside? |
|
|
| Well, how 'bout them apples. |
[Apr. 29th, 2004|04:28 pm] |
It seems that ClearPlay has finally got its hardware on the market! Hooray!
This is essentially the famous (or in-, depending on whom you ask) DVD-editing (-censoring?) computer program -- the germ of what might yet become a fascinating lawsuit -- stripped from its Windows/Intel prison and stuffed into a home DVD player. I don't know if I love this product, but I sure as hell love the idea of this product.
Not the idea of ever, ever using it, mind you. At least, not as intended. (More on that, further down.)
There are many questions which the market presence of a device like this one should introduce. Without giving each one its proper exploration, I can suggest some. What is the director's true role, apart from his colleagues, in the sculpting of film entertainment? Is it even possible to generalize such a role? Can the words "art" and "artist" be reasonably applied to things like Sex in the City and Vivendi Universal? Should they? Should our expectations of artistic integrity change when the art looks more like commerce, or the artist more like a manufacturer?
I have to dismiss those issues, for now. I'm interested, but I'm not competent to write about it. Truth be told, I'm really not competent to write about copyright either -- but I'm going to do it anyway, since I don't know any better.
I'm not a lawyer. But I shouldn't have to be: the answers should be simple.
As I understand it, the Copyright Act doesn't recognize moral rights or rights of integrity except for the creators of certain works or visual art. Defacing a newspaper isn't a criminal act; defacing a limited-issue reproduction of a painting might be. Okay, so there's one right that filmmakers don't have.
They do, however, have their names somewhere in the movie, or on the copy's packaging, and the Huntsman lawsuit is (hopefully) going to explore some of that. See, that's not a copyright matter, because motion pictures aren't in that special "visual arts" category; plus the directors, as work-for-hire agents, have no direct copyright interest anyway. But it is, the DGA seems to think, a trademark issue. They seem to conclude that a ClearPlay version of a work is inarguably deficient or, at least, violative of the director's integrity. It's an argument that provokes some empathy, when you ponder a world in which the name "Martin Scorsese" conjures a thought that can be expressed without the word "blood."
Empathy aside, there's another obstacle the DGA faces. I generally either mistake people for being far smarter than they actually are, or far dumber. So, my calculus on this matter should be qualified with that knowledge. But, even when I'm leaning toward the "people are stupid" mindset, I have never beleived that humans could be as contemptibly dim as the DGA does. For an trademark dilution case, the DGA is forced to assert that there's a "likelihood of confusion" -- that is, a ClearPlay customer might be tricked into believing that his ClearPlay movie experience is either (1) the true work of the director, or (2) authorized by the director. ClearPlay has basically killed (2), with disclaimers and whatnot. But to believe that (1) is true ... my god, the sheer contempt of human dignity. To think that somebody would deliberately seek and implement a product like ClearPlay, and then either forget or misunderstand that they are operating a product like ClearPlay ... it is astonishing.
I mean, given my own prejudices on artistic integrity (I like it), I tend to stick ClearPlay's potential customer base into the "dumb" side of the human brain spectrum, at least as a default matter. So I'm not arguing that this is a crowd of braniacs; I'm just saying they're not that stupid; not as stupid as the DGA has to argue.
Anyway ... sorry, got carried off in the trademark crap. I don't even like trademark; I like copyright. I'll have to continue this later, because that's the shit I'm ticked about.
Goodnight! |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
strictx's journal