FC: Ukraine parliament snubs U.S.; more debate with Esther Dyson

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

I should note that I wrote the Subject: line for Esther's post ("CD 
copyright laws necessary"), and perhaps I took too much liberty. I urge 
Politechnicals to read what she wrote and not rely on my characterization. 
Previous messages:

"Esther Dyson replies to RIAA, says CD copyright laws necessary"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02989.html

"RIAA replies to John Gilmore on Ukraine: Don't cheer piracy!"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02987.html

Thanks, folks, for contributing to this debate.

-Declan

*********

From: "paul music" <pmusic () mmcable com>
To: "DeClan" <declan () well com>
Subject: Ukraine MPs Snub CD Piracy Law
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:37:02 -0600

<http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2002/01/11/046.html>http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2002/01/11/046.html 


---

  Friday, Jan. 11, 2002. Page 7
   Ukraine MPs Snub CD Piracy Law

   KIEV -- Ukraine's attempts to avoid $75 million of U.S. trade
   sanctions suffered a severe blow Thursday after parliament refused to
   debate a law aimed at cracking down on pirated compact discs, which
   could cost Russia's southern neighbor about $470 million a year in
   export revenues.

   President Leonid Kuchma and Prime Minister Anatoly Kinakh had this
   week urged deputies to resume debates on the bill to regulate CD
   production but the legislators declined Thursday even to include the
   issue on the session agenda.

   "The decision means that we will have to start from anew again. The
   government will have to submit a new draft law and then we will debate
   it again," said Viktor Omelich, head of the parliamentary committee
   for regulations.

   [...]

*********

From: sean () havenco com
To: <edyson () edventure com>
Cc: "Declan McCullagh" <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: Esther Dyson replies to RIAA, says CD copyright laws necessary
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 13:52:53 -0500

Esther,

As I am a founder of the data haven company HavenCo, you can probably guess
how I feel about copyright. However, I respect your intelligence, and have
agreed with many things you have written in the past - and I am always
willing to give a fair hearing to other points of view. Would you be willing
to discuss your thoughts on copyright with me via email so that I might
clarify my own thoughts on this matter?

If so, let me start be saying that my basic view comes from the idea that
property claims are a societal mechanism to reduce use of force by making it
clear to others what we will defend. The extension of property to a pattern
rather than a physical object defeats this reduction of use of force by
vastly increasing the number of actual physical things that we will use
force to defend. The more easily copied a pattern, the closer such a claim
is to being an infinite one - and requiring infinite resources to defend.

Like yourself, I am a strong supporter of free communications, and
technological development - but I do not see how you can extend the concept
of property into the space of ideas without severely curtailing both. As
communication technology increases, it becomes harder to enforce
intellectual property laws. We have seen what happens when the executive
branch of a government is asked to enforce impossible laws - they do not
give up - they just consume more resources and call for even worse laws.
Already they have begun to attack the technology rather than its illicit
use - in an effort to maintain control.

Copyright was semi-enforceable for a brief period of history from the
invention of the printing press until digital encoding of information.
Before that period, those who created such information loved to see it
copied so that they might be well known and remembered. During that period
it was possible to acquire great wealth by charging large sums for products
with small marginal costs of production. Now that period has ended.

While I can not predict the solution that a free market would (will?) find,
the future of a society that chooses to govern the technology that
replicates information is all too clear to me.

--Sean Hastings

*********

Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 16:27:55 -0500
To: <sean () havenco com>
From: Esther Dyson <edyson () edventure com>
Subject: RE: Esther Dyson replies to RIAA, says CD copyright laws
  necessary
Cc: "Declan McCullagh" <declan () well com>

I'd be happy to discuss it by e-mail, so let me start that there's a 
difference between the concept of copyright - a limited right to a monopoly 
on creative expression - and the variety of laws that may be used to 
enforce it.

In the real world, there are a lot of business models that may be more 
effective than selling copies of things, but that should be up to the 
copyright-holder to decide.

On the other hand, society needs to find a balance in the laws it creates 
to make any copyright protection possible, both with reality and with the 
rights of fair use. But I *do* think copyright protection can have 
benefits, and I think John (among others) has little idea of the reality of 
the situation in Ukraine.

I don't think the existence of Osama Bin Laden is an argument against Islam 
in general, and I'd say the same for people who over-vigorously enforce 
copyright laws, or who ask for overvigorous laws, vis a vis the notion of 
copyright in general.  Meanwhile,  what's happening in Ukraine is quite 
different; the "bad guys" are  (among others) the ones who are *breaking* 
the copyright laws on a commercial scale.

The world is not black and white, and more than that, colors change in 
different cultures.

Esther

*********

Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 12:38:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Alexander Moskalyuk <prostoalex () yahoo com>
Subject: Re: FC: Esther Dyson replies to RIAA, says CD copyright laws necessary
To: JCabrera () riaa com, declan () well com, gnu () toad com

Thank you, Declan and others, for the debate on U.S.
imposing trade sanctions on Ukraine. There are several
corrections that I feel obliged to make slight
corrections to the messages posted by John Gilmore and
Jano Cabrera.

The political situation in Ukraine is currently such
that President and Parliament are mostly in fierce
opposition. Furthermore, the Parliament is right now
in its last session, with the elections being held in
the last week of March and election campaign already
started. Thus Parliament is really cautious about
passing any legislature, proposed by the President,
that will create a negative image of parliamentarians,
and the law on licensing the optical media is one of
those highly controversial compositions.

Many readers have expressed their surprise to the fact
that U.S. imposed sanctions on the goods completely
unrelated to the optical media. The trade sanctions
make the biggest impact on steel manufacturers, not
music or software pirates. That does seem strange,
until one researches the Ukrainian steel industry,
most of which, if not all, is controlled by current
President, with his son-in-law being in charge of the
largest steel manufacturing group. Perhaps U.S.
deliberately chose steel industry to provide greater
pressure on Ukrainian President.

Neil Turkewitz's assertion that U.S. was not so much
interested in the law itself is perhaps some
misrepresentation of the facts. United States
postponed the introduction of trade sanctions several
times, being told that the law is being prepared to
appear in front of the Parliament. Every time U.S. was
told that the law is ready, but it's on the waiting
line, the U.S. postponed the sanctions. When the law
found no support in Rada, United States introduced the
sanctions.

It is also very amusing to see RIAA worry about the
future of Ukraine and stating noble goals about the
market equality, even though it makes little sense to
expect revenues from the country where the average
salary is around $20-50 per month. During the
discussions with the Ukrainian government the U.S.
officials made it clear that it's not the situation
with the Ukrainian market that worried them so much,
as exporting the media to Western Europe and other
places. That's where organized crime was syndicated
and that's where labels suffered their biggest losses.

=====
Alexander Moskalyuk
http://www.moskalyuk.com/

*********

Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 13:00:24 -0500
From: "J. Lasser" <jon () lasser org>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Subject: Re: FC: Esther Dyson replies to RIAA, says CD copyright laws necessary

In the wise words of Esther Dyson:

> When I began traveling to the Soviet Union in 1989 and after, the naive
> view was that Microsoft et al. should help the poor Russians/Ukrainians by
> giving them free or cheap software, but the locals vigorously rejected that
> approach, which would have  had the side-effect of rendering their own
> entrepreneurial efforts useless.   You can argue about degrees and
> mechanisms, but free software is no help to developing economies that are
> struggling to productively exploit their own local IT talents.  They want
> investment and paying customers, not charity (or piracy).

Esther's argument has much in common with Brett Glass' arguments at

        http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/weblog/view/cs_msg/5321

regarding Tim O'Reilly's suggestion for "software recycling," the idea
that defunct companies should release the source code for their
applications under an open license.

Both arguments presuppose a "right" on the part of programmers to
develop software, and charge for it, without regard to the larger
market for such software. In Brett Glass' case, he's concerned with
a competitor to a failed company's "right" to continued success; in
Esther's case, she champions one locale's "right" to entrepreneurial
efforts.

If you haven't already guessed, this is entirely misguided: software
is a means to an end. I have no problem with software as a product,
nor am I a fan of software piracy, but people will only buy it
so long as it fulfills needs that are otherwise unmet. People buy
software to accomplish a task, or a set of tasks. If these tasks
can be accomplished with software available for free, or without any
tools at all, then good for the person who makes the decision not to
buy software.

Let's say you sell devices that read books to the blind. One week,
artificial eyes come on the market that give perfect sight to all blind
people at marginal cost. What do you do? You could fold up your tent and
go home, or find a new application of the technology and make that your
business. Or you can whine about your right to sell book-reading
machines, and how bad these new eyes are for your business.

The computer industry in general, and the software industry in
particular, are immature industries. Clinging to the way things are
for no other reason than their short-term benefit for us personally is
the very definition of shortsighted behavior.

I suspect that a mature computing industry won't have a software
industry per se: the "appliance" model, the "subscription" model, and
the "services" model both make much more sense for most people than
what we have. (Windows XP's licensing scheme is a step in this
direction, though I believe and hope that that particular model is
doomed to fail.) Note that none of these have an explicit software
industry, but none of them exactly eliminate the need for programmers,
either.

Professionally, I'm a system administrator. (Well, a consulting system
administrator.) One day, systems will hopefully be simple and reliable
enough not to require a priesthood to maintain them. Until that day, I
have a job; after that day, it's time to look for a new line of work,
not to lament my lost way of life.

--
Jon Lasser
Home: jon () lasser org            |    Work:jon () cluestickconsulting com
http://www.tux.org/~lasser/ |    http://www.cluestickconsulting.com
   Buy my book, _Think_Unix_! http://www.tux.org/~lasser/think-unix/

*********

Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 12:25:12 -0600
From: Dave <2gds () raytheon com>
To: declan () well com
CC: politech () politechbot com, JCabrera () riaa com, gnu () toad com,
        edyson () edventure com
Subject: Re: FC: Esther Dyson replies to RIAA, says CD copyright laws necessary

Hello :-)  Good list folks.  Great lunch time reading.

Glad to see people talking about these
things.  We certainly are down here in the great state of Texas,
in family, friendly and church settings.  We're rather upset to see
our tax dollars being used to police what amounts to cartel distribution
channels (the entertainment industry being only one). Free market economics
is a good thing.  Perhaps we won't
quite ever have that (the Keynesians and the IMF, and soon the new
keeper of the international fiat fractional reserve ECB, will assure this) but
at
least we should be vigilant in protecting what liberties we have left
here on U.S. soil (those of us who cannot afford luxury homes on multiple
continents like the cartel leadership).

And we should aim also to see that
we treat trading partners fairly and promote actual competition.
This strong dollar policy stuff is destroying our own economy.
Agriculture, Manufacturing, Transportation and now technical positions
are being "outsourced" :-)  What will be left?  Well, look at the Dept. of 
labor
stats and you'll see who is winning.  EBby Halliday and Coldwell Banker
and the financial services industry - and ofcourse entertainment is
their darling.  I mean what are ya gonna do with all that cash and
spare time.  Traveling Europe gets old after a while I'd imagine.

Anyway.. the quip about Valenti :-)  I've read quite a bit of what that
fella has said to our elected reps, (Hillary Rosen is another one), and
frankly, it's rubbish (an ol' Southern term).  Many of us down here
no longer purchase "art" peddled by these cartels.  It's just not
quality.  Lip synch kings and the latest sexy this and that.

Be advised though that whittling away at personal liberties and using
our tax dollars to sit on the invisible hand *is* starting to seriously offend
the
sensibilities of many down this way.  It's about time to start putting
the private back in "private citizen".  In some instances that means
biting the hand that feeds us.  Increasingly though, the alternative
is not a world worth living in.

>So long as Jack Valenti remains an effective teller of supposed old Texas
>stories, RIAA is subject only to ridicule in South Park, not effective
>consumer protection law.

Kindest Regards,
Dave

*********

Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:13:56 -0800
From: Seth David Schoen <schoen () loyalty org>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Cc: John Gilmore <gnu () toad com>, Piotr Mitros <pmitros () MIT EDU>,
        David Lawrence <david () online-today com>
Subject: Re: FC: Esther Dyson replies to RIAA, says CD copyright laws necessary

I think John Gilmore's point is not that Ukraine shouldn't enforce
copyrights, but that the risk of copyright infringement is not a reason
to ban people from publishing on compact disc anonymously.  Although
people may disagree with that, John wasn't attacking the general idea
that Ukraine should act to enforce copyright in general.

The IFPI SID is an "accepted norm" today only because of the political
efforts of the recording industries, and it does hinder the ability to
be an anonymous publisher.  The recording industries are aware of this
and seem to have suggested sometimes that having anonymous publishers
makes it more difficult to enforce copyrights, which is true.  On the
other hand, we know of other good things about the existence of
anonymous publishers.

One of the interesting things about this debate is that nobody is
_used to_ the CD format being used legally by someone who would want
to remain anonymous.  So I think a lot of people would be worried
about serial numbers in paper (which John suggested was analogous to
the SID), because we know and are accustomed to the idea that there is
a legitimate reason to publish anonymously on paper.  Somehow we have
not gotten used to the idea that there is a legitimate reason to
publish anonymously on CD.  I could go into reasons for that
impression, but I just wanted to point it out.


Two people in this thread were skeptical of other people's factual
claims.

> From: Piotr Mitros <pmitros () MIT EDU>
>
> >Gilmore suggests that sanctions were imposed because the Ukrainians
> >failed to adopt an "optical media licensing regime." The reality is
> >that while the vote on this licensing regime may have been the final
> >act precipitating the introduction of sanctions, the sanctions were
> >not introduced because of the Rada's rejection of the bill, but
> >because the Government of Ukraine had violated nearly every provision
> >of a US-Ukraine agreement reached in June of 2000 under which it
> >committed to take a number of steps to address runaway pirate
> >production.
>
> You would do well to back this up with some evidence.

As far as I know, the Ukraine did fail to implement such an agreement.
I haven't seen the text, but it is the same agreement alluded to
in this news article

http://www.ukrainet.lviv.ua/infobank/2001/1105e.html

and announced in this USTR press release

http://www.ustr.gov/releases/2000/06/00-43.pdf

The press release highlights four points of the Ukraine-U.S.
agreement; the fourth is "adopt regulations requiring the licensing of
all entities involved in the distribution of sound recordings, and
requiring the use of unique identifiers in the manufacturing process".
That's the SID requirement.

Now, the most prominently _publicized_ feature of that agreement --
mentioned repeatedly in the Federal Register filings in which the U.S.
overnment contemplated imposing these sanctions, as well as on the RIAA
web site -- was the SID requirement.  I don't know how important each
provision was to the various interests involved, but I recall that SIDs,
the "optical media licensing regime", were consistently mentioned
throughout the process.

Cryptome has been publishing the relevant Federal Register filings, if
you want to see what the government's been saying about Ukrainian
copyright law for the past two years.

So, the agreement went beyond the SID system -- but it's clear that the
SIDs in particular were a priority for the copyright industries.

> From: David Lawrence <david () online-today com>
>
> >Reader, in case you didn't know, every color Xerox machine and color
> >laser printer prints the serial number of the machine on every page
> >they produce, covertly hidden in the output, under a long-standing
> >private "arrangement" with the US Treasury Department.  I have been
> >unable to confirm whether this is also true of black-and-white xerox
> >machines.
>
> What in the HELL is he smoking? This is laughable. Are we just being
> goaded by someone who is a conspiracy theorist?

The existence of serial numbers in color Xerox output should be beyond
dispute by now, since it is so widely documented, and even mentioned
in the published specs for some copiers:

http://www.google.com/search?q=counterfeit+deterrent+marking+system

Just to dispel any question, I wrote to Xerox today to confirm that
their copiers generate hidden serial numbers.  Here is the reply I got.

http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/xerox.txt

"The Secret Service has the ability to track a particular document to
the source equipment that has produced a suspect image. This information
is used for criminal investigation purposes only. The Secret Service does
not provide this information to private individuals or companies, nor
do they allow other parties to access this information."

(I'm not sure such a system applies to printers, though; I've heard
people say that printers do not mark output this way.)

--
Seth David Schoen <schoen () loyalty org> | Reading is a right, not a feature!
     http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ |                 -- Kathryn Myronuk
     http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ |

*********

From: Zero Sum <count () shalimar net au>
To: declan () well com
Subject: Re: FC: Esther Dyson replies to RIAA, says CD copyright laws necessary
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 10:56:31 +1100

On Saturday 05 January 2002 03:03, Declan McCullagh wrote:

[snip]

> Let me weigh here, too, please, more from the software than the
> content perspective. I am not normally an apologist for the RIAA,
> but I do support the *principle* of copyright even though the
> mechanisms of enforcement are sometimes overreaching.

What principle of 'copyright'? Law and principles differ everywhere.
Well they did until the US arrested Skylarov.

What is being enforced currently is NOT the original concept of
copyrigt. Copyright is granted to producers in order to ensure they
will still continue to produce or the benefit of the general public.

Copyright should not even be applied on something that a producer
does not or will no longer supply. (Windows 301 - PCs for Kids).

If something is 'obsolete' or out of print (for more than a
reasonable period) then it should be able to be copied freely. The
work was produced as the (current) pinnacle of human knowedge and has
added to that pinacle. In order for the right to use that developed
in common, the work should be 'returned' to the commons when it is no
longer at the 'pinnacle'. Even language is a pretty sophisticated
communication method, developed over (at least) millenia.

So, by all means, weigh in. But please tell us something about what
you believe, not some vague generalities ("I do support the
principle*) about something totally undefined ("copyright ").

You haven't told us what you support or what you don't.

> Cabrera/Turkewitz are correct in many respects. Aside from
> enriching the Ukrainian "mafia," a truly despicable bunch, many
> with links to government figures, lax copyright enforcement
> hinders the development of Ukraine's indigenous software and
> content creators. These developers would benefit from the Western
> price umbrella to work under as they build their own industry;
> they are eager to develop products and to get paid for their work.

And this differs from America, how?   Be careful.  I am not an
American but I have seen how American  companies operate overseas and
how their executives behave.  Calling them 'mafia' would be
overpolite.  Calling them pirates would only be slightly off track.

A better, more accurate term would be 'corsairs'.

> When I began traveling to the Soviet Union in 1989 and after, the
> naive view was that Microsoft et al. should help the poor
> Russians/Ukrainians by giving them free or cheap software, but the
> locals vigorously rejected that approach, which would have had
> the side-effect of rendering their own entrepreneurial efforts
> useless.

Whose naive view?  Yours?  Obviously, not the locals and not mine
either.  You make the assumption that they rejected it for the reason
you propose.  But you don't show support for it, just take it for
granted that you are right.

> You can argue about degrees and mechanisms, but free
> software is no help to developing economies that are
> struggling to productively exploit their own local IT talents.

Would you like to provide some support for this?  It is completely
contrary to what I have seen.  I think China would be a very good
counter example.  A sufficient example as to make your statement
factually incorrect.

> They want investment and paying customers, not charity (or piracy).

Okay, so can now see that you regard free software as 'charity'.

> As Turkewitz/Cabrera says, the targets of enforcement in this case
> are not small businesses using Western software to run their
> businesses but a crew of thugs crowding out honest entrepreneurs.

Wheras you make that "crew of thugs" corporate and national heroes.
Microsoft, IBM, ICL, etc. Open your eyes or read some history.

Look at how IBM started, look at what is happening with MS now.

> Their presence deters not only software vendors but also software
> developers (local and foreign) who might otherwise hire Ukraine's
> talented programmers and give them a chance to make a decent living
> and contribute to their and the world's economy.

Like Dimitri?

I feel that your attitudes and idea are based on a factor of
regarding 'control' as a right, not 'copyright'.

> Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!

These were all OLD mistakes.  Failures in logic and fact that a
balanced education could have prevented.

--
 Zero Sum<count () shalimar net au> Vescere bracis meis.

*********

Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 19:22:19 -0500
To: Zero Sum <count () shalimar net au>
From: Esther Dyson <edyson () edventure com>
Subject: Re: FC: Esther Dyson replies to RIAA, says CD copyright laws necessary
Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>, gnu () toad com

I was not trying to argue the whole issue of copyright (or what I believe; 
I have better things to do!), just the particular situation in Ukraine. 
Other than that, I doubt I have any new arguments that will change your 
mind, so I will not try.  And FWIW, I am *not* the author of the headline.

Esther Dyson

*********

From: "Thomas Leavitt" <thomasleavitt () hotmail com>
To: declan () well com
Subject: Re: FC: Esther Dyson replies to RIAA, says CD copyright laws necessary
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 20:59:26 -0800

Esther's post neatly bypasses the central question in this discussion: is 
it appropriate for the U.S. government to force industry requirements for 
labeling of masters and media, on a foriegn country - indeed, is it 
appropriate for this to happen in the U.S.?

The implication here is that the RIAA wouldn't mind if it were impossible 
to produce a piece of digital data without source/origin identifiers on it 
- that would certainly discourage piracy of music... of course, it would 
also discourage free speech, especially of the anonymous sort.

Regards,
Thomas Leavitt

*********

Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 09:20:38 +0000
From: David Tomlinson <d.tomlinson () technologist com>
Organization: Metronix Systems <www.metronixsystems.co.uk>
To: declan () well com
Subject: Re: FC: Esther Dyson replies to RIAA, says CD copyright laws necessary

The Intellectual Property tail wags the Societal dog.

>Aside from enriching the Ukrainian "mafia," a truly despicable bunch

The Ukrainian mafia are not making a political statement about copyright
or engaging in civil disobedience. They are criminals who are maximizing
profit while minimizing expenditure. It is the legal and technical
measures that that protect copyright that create they high _legal_ and
technical cost of entry, as opposed to the physical cost of
manufacturing the media, distributing the product etc. It is the
artificial mechanisms that make copyright so attractive to the existing
incumbent producer/distributors that also make commercial counterfeiting
attractive to criminals. I assume that the "mafia" would not be
interested in competing with legal producers/distributors of open source
software.

>free or cheap software, but the locals vigorously rejected that approach,
>which would have had the side-effect of rendering their own
>entrepreneurial efforts useless.

If this software was propriety then to some extent this would be true.
As it is distributed without source code, any modifications or
enhancements to the software have to be made by the vendor. Even if
through the embedding of scripting languages may provide the opportunity
for extensive customization, and therefore considerable employment.
However this restriction does not apply to open source software. You can
certainly charge (as a developer) for the enhancements as long
as someone perceives a need for them. And you can use the functional
blocks as part of a more sophisticated product.

Too much emphasis is placed on the packaged software market, and the
rewards are attractive. However the barriers to entry are often
overlooked. The highly visible desktop and office markets are dominated
by a monopolist that will use legal and technical means to perpetuate
and extend its' monopoly.

>These developers would benefit from the Western price umbrella to
>work under as they build their own industry

The umbrella is a myth, given perfect intellectual property controls
perfect market segmentation would follow. Price sensitivity is evaluated
and each market is charged appropriately. (Grey imports are an example
of the failure of market segmentation)

>As Turkewitz/Cabrera says, the targets of enforcement in this case are not
>small businesses using Western software to run their businesses

Just who are the targets of Microsoft product activation and upgrade
cycle, or of the RIAA's attempts at DRM. The technically sophisticated
mafia (who may be quite happy to produce a duplicate of the original DRM
included) or the end user ?

Also isn't this just the market that the locals were afraid would be
destroyed by free software. The market under the umbrella ? (My view is
that in practice this market was always closed to them. See market
segmentation above).

>(they mostly use 1C, anyway, which is a Russian small-business accounting 
package
>distributed, sold for a fair price and *supported* by a network of VARs
>throughout the region)

Accountancy software is notoriously specific to the practices and legal
environment it operates in and requires on going support. I don't see
the mafia providing support or a mass market vendor wishing to tackle
the degree of customization and support required.  Accountancy is part
of the class of software that is substantially market specific.

What prospect is there for a Ukrainian office package to compete with MS
Office or alternative commercial desktop to compete with Windows ? Look
at the US companies that have failed in this market IBM, Borland,
Novell, Lotus etc.

This is a brief extract from and synopsis of what should be a better
argued document. I am just not aware of who has written or where to find
it at the moment.

David Tomlinson  d.tomlinson () technologist com

*********

Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:15:23 -0800
From: Jason Lindquist <jlindqui () babylon5 figure1 net>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Cc: david () online-today com, politech () politechbot com
Subject: Re: FC: Esther Dyson replies to RIAA, says CD copyright laws necessary

In our last episode, Declan McCullagh included:

> From: David Lawrence <david () online-today com>

[Quoting John Gilmore:]

>> Reader, in case you didn't know, every color Xerox machine and color
>> laser printer prints the serial number of the machine on every page
>> they produce, covertly hidden in the output, under a long-standing
>> private "arrangement" with the US Treasury Department.  I have been
>> unable to confirm whether this is also true of black-and-white xerox
>> machines.
>
> What in the HELL is he smoking? This is laughable. Are we just being
> goaded by someone who is a conspiracy theorist?

No.

The PRIVACY forum article about this:
    http://www.vortex.com/privacy/priv.08.18

The obligatory Slashdot discussion:
    http://slashdot.org/yro/99/12/08/1342209.shtml

Another article:
    http://www.monkey.org/geeks/archive/9912/msg00011.html

This is considered an "open secret" in the printing and copying industry.

*********

From: "Daniel Kluesing" <daniel () 452productions com>
To: <declan () well com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020104103947.00aa0e00 () mail well com>
Subject: Re: Esther Dyson replies to RIAA, says CD copyright laws necessary
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 12:49:44 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

One thing I find quite interesting is the round denouncement record
companies are receiving for putting 'pop' music on the front burner. It
seems to be the general consensus of individuals that 'pop' music is less
worthy than other forms of music, and the record labels should be admonished
for propagating it. While I agree, I don't think that is a valid argument in
the copyright debate. Simply put, as dangerous as the current copyright
restrictions are, it's even more dangerous to say that because the record
companies are pushing "the manufactured pop star" they can be pirated (If
you're into buzz words, denied profits is the real term) without guilt. Once
you've done that you've passed judgement on someone else's right to
distribute speech.

Go ask a teenie boper if they think PISH should be distributed, you'll get
the same response as if you'd asked a bunch of techie's about N*sync.
Strange as it may seem, some people *like* pop music. While I think it's
crap, I'm not allowed to pass judgement about the probative value of that
speech and deny rightful profits based on that judgement.

One man's vulgarity is another's lyric. - Justice John M. Harlan, Cohen v.
California

The quality of the content is not an issue in the copyright debate.

Daniel Kluesing

*********




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------