flynn23 wrote:
] The EFF's ultra radical stance is not a bad thing. Sometimes
] you have to stand a little further off balance than you would
] normally do just so you can make your point crystal clear. I'd
] rather they endorse file sharing rather than some cockamamee
] scheme that the RIAA buys into. If anything, maybe people will
] see this stance and realize that the entire argument of owning
] intellectual property in perpetuity is bullshit. Maybe owning
] ANY intellectual property is bullshit.

This just looks like the right place to hop in this EFF stance thread.. I'll just start my babble here.

Owning IP in perpetuity is bullshit.. However, we must be careful about dismissing the idea of IP ownership as a whole because we think the way it's being used right now sucks. The same framework that makes the RIAA's use of copyright go is also the basis of open licensing al la GPL and Creative Commons. I think thats the key place where you can walk over a line and become ultra radical.. Simply dismissing IP as a whole is like burning down a forrest because you are pissed at a tree house.. Our society is strongly based in law, that's good. Thats not the part of things we want to break down. The concept of IP isn't going anywhere, and we need it.

If I can't take a work and apply some enforceable rule structure that allows me to control its use, not only does it break these closed and restrictive systems we dislike, but it also makes it impossible to enforce open IP systems. Instead of the end-consumers stealing information it's just going to be the big companies stealing innovation. Think SCO. We can be bent over in both directions..

We don't need to completely pull back from the system.. We need to fix the damn system. And the only real way of doing that - if we are to actually buy into our own line of ethics babble - is to setup a system that works better right along side of it. Unfortunately, that's really hard. And all us open framework people work by group think.. "They" can watch "us", and we don't necessarly move faster. Maybe we are just more redundant? shrug.. Its always going to seem like the man is one step ahead. They'll just read the damn blogs.. :) Hopefully we will just be right, and not have our rights gutted before we can prove it.

And then, the one place where I am an extremist comes into play.. I don't give a flying fuck about the law wherever it does something to break my rights to tinker, exercise speech, or any of my other real hot button "I'm-an-American-and-these-are-my-rights" issues. I enjoy breaking law under such circumstances. Its necessary, fun, and patriotic duty! Its really the only time you can do it without being an ethical slob.

That being said, I also think it would be a really bad thing if all intellectual property law as we know it just "went away".. Then we would be getting into Gibson novel territory with some of the stuff I could picture happening. I don't want to go there..

The other day I made a comment about the Wikipedia having all their threat letters and stuff available on the site, and how they key track of who they are going after for using content without attribution. Thats _good_.. The key thing I think we need to be doing is forming these resources that are licensed under terms we feel are fair and good. These things will then battle out in the marketplace of ideas and over time, we will get to see if all this open licensing stuff really does have all the positives we think it does. Our examples like Linux and the Wikipedia will display such. Thus far, I think things are going pretty damn good for open licensing. The systems necessary for an actual marketplace based on these ideas, well.. We have a lot of work to do there.

The barrier for entry into the digital street market is too high in these areas.. There is no Ebay in music land yet. You can't promote, market, etc.. There is no marketplace. I still don't think we have a good idea of what is valuable yet when it comes to information.. Not in this real-time environment. My gut tells me its about "level of service" in the end, and I don't see that reflected in the marketplace being created by iTunes & Napster. I donno. I just know what we need is the marketplace that works, and we are certainly not there yet, barely even defined the problem, let alone started making real solutions.. And thats all real vague, yeah. Its also basically what the EFF has been saying this whole time.

Anyway, the EFF. The EFF is about protecting rights and defending people. Thats what they do, thats what they should be expected to do.. The EFF is also overwhelmed. Considering what the EFF does, I don't think there is any way they can avoid being (successfully) labeled as "radical". Look at the ACLU.. Doesn't mean the EFF isn't going to be effective and important, its just the way these places get demonized. Considering what the EFF is defending against, there is some marketing agency in LA getting paid lots of money just to come up with ways to fuck with them. I'm sure.

That being said.. We should look to the EFF for guidance about how to keep our asses out of jail, and what we can do do help them keep our asses out of jail. However, its not the EFF's job to tell us how to build the new information economy. So folks should lay off the EFF on that. Its not fair. They are not going to have all the worlds' answers. The mixed messages complaints are pretty unreasonable. Especially the "they said they should sue end users" thing. They are reactive statements. The EFF is reacting to bad shit happening, not trying to lead the way to the "new digital millennium"(tm).

One thing for instance.. Compulsory licensing. I get annoyed when I see the EFF's comments about compulsory licensing dissed on. It means one of two things to me: Either the person doing it knows zero about copyright law, or they are a record industry troll. That's like the "alternative unauthorized-but-legitimate sales channel can exist" chunk of law.. That's the only spot a solution could come thru at all, without taking all the Copyright Law on the books, and burning it. The EFF's comments in that area are kind of like shining a flashlight on the place where its obvious the record industry people have no interest in going.

Of course they don't have the answer. Its not really their job. Their job is to protect our rights. Check their webpage's who-we-are/mission-statment kinda stuff. Here is the money line: EFF is a donor-supported membership organization working to protect our fundamental rights regardless of technology; to educate the press, policymakers and the general public about civil liberties issues related to technology; and to act as a defender of those liberties. What in there says "pave way to the future"? The "protecting rights" part is at the core of things. They must be viewed thru those eyes when judged.. When the EFF is talking about compulsory licensing with "policymakers", the message is not "this is the answer", rather its "this is where they are unwilling to go". Its understood.

The EFF does not need to be receiving attacks from our side of the fence.. They are not going to be able to present the entire scope of what's going on with all things IP and show all the right answers. That's like the issue of our times..

two cents.

RE: [Politech] Reply to EFF over its position on RIAA, file swapping [ip]