Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Technology Your Rights Online

A Tech Lover's Call to Arms 163

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the apathy-is-the-true-enemy dept.
PrinceofThieves writes "CNET technology columnist Don Reisinger has issued a call to arms for all journalists and tech junkies to join him in his crusade against the forces that attempt to ruin the sanctity of tech. 'Now, a new group of people has emerged to confront the tech lovers all over the world and stop them from being able to do what they want with the technology they own. And while many have tried to confront them on an individual basis, it has not worked. And it's for that reason that we must all come together and fight the ridiculous impositions brought upon us.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Tech Lover's Call to Arms

Comments Filter:
  • What kind of idiot actually thinks there is some sort of "sanctity" to tech, or anything tech-related?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ColdWetDog (752185) *

      What kind of idiot actually thinks there is some sort of "sanctity" to tech, or anything tech-related?

      Somebody who really needs to get a grip on what's important in life. Poor fellow: "Everyday when I wake up, I'm constantly reminded by how limited we are in our rights with technology." (Proceeds to rant about RIAA and friends).

      OK, all you slashdotters who continually post the same whining about teh evils of said RIAA and the importance of being able to freely copy anything you can get your hands o

      • by StreetStealth (980200) on Friday April 18, 2008 @11:57PM (#23125464) Journal
        You know what? "Sanctity" may be an overdramatic word for it, but if you don't get what it's ostensibly supposed to mean here, I don't think you really appreciate the spirit of the tinkerer.

        Yes. Saving human life in Darfur is more important. Political expression in Tibet is more important. Economic recovery in the USA is more important.

        But here we are at Slashdot, where the subject is our own lives. To probe, inspect, disassemble, analyze, and modify the technology we use is what we do. We are curious, we are inventive, and we are resourceful.

        There are many who openly wish we were none of those and seek to prevent us from doing these things. They fear what they do not understand, even as their bogeymen are less often nefarious and duplicitous, and more often simply curious, inventive, and resourceful.

        This message, that tinkering is not to be feared and that understanding is key, is important. It's not on the front page of the papers. It's not life or death. But it is its own little message of freedom. And that's something worth taking a stand for.
        • by wellingj (1030460)
          What it amounts to is that people who think for themselves are no longer wanted in society.
          When did this happen?
          What should we do about it?
          Who is John Galt?
        • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

          by FoolsGold (1139759)
          Fair point, but I'd argue what the parent is suggesting is that perspective is the key.

          As in, with regards to all the true things that are important in a person's life and what should be worried about, technology should pale in comparison to, in the case of most men, finding a nice girl, raising a family, spending time with your kids, etc. THOSE aspects of life are what count to most people - the pleasures in life that are respected far more than one's crusade to protect the "sanctity" of technology.
          • by EvilNTUser (573674) on Saturday April 19, 2008 @02:01AM (#23125800)
            Are you saying that you spend so much time worrying about your family that you don't have time for anything else? Your argument is meaningless, and only serves to diminish the importance of technology rather than elevate the importance of "true things".

            But let's look at this from the perspective of children, sure. Do you want them to grow up into a world in which the vendors control everything they can do with their devices? A world in which learning is impossible unless you're the best cracker who ever lived, and the economy is in the gutter because industries aren't adapting to new technologies? No, you probably don't.

            And what if we replace the word technology with the word freedom? Are you going to continue being so cavalier about fighting one losing battle after another, small as they may seem?

            As aimless as that article may seem to us who already know about all the abuse, maybe it'll actually reach someone who doesn't read slashdot.

            • It's time that the technology industry gets intelligent and stops being stupid. Intelligently design your technology.

              Napster was a great idea, it's decentralized. The way to solve this is to decentralize by design and bring as much power as you can to the user through the design of the software itself.
            • by MrKaos (858439)

              Are you saying that you spend so much time worrying about your family that you don't have time for anything else?

              Especially considering it has the opposite causal effect, likely they are too mentally lazy to realise they stand to loose the most from this selfish attitude. Anything that stifles innovation within the technology industry, threatens it (umm, pun unavoidable?). Laws constructed to artificially support old business models should be resisted because these type of laws stop our industry from evo

          • by cayenne8 (626475)
            "in the case of most men, finding a nice girl, raising a family, spending time with your kids, etc. "

            Close....chasing women to get laid is a good thing, but, that part about raising a family, etc, well, that just sucks all your time and money away from fun things like tinkering with stuff, travelling, buying fun toys, and chasing women to get laid with.

            I suppose if you make a LOT of money...they I suppose you can have it all, but, that takes a LOT of money. And if you marry, you risk losing half of that

        • by Mistshadow2k4 (748958) on Saturday April 19, 2008 @02:17AM (#23125836) Journal

          I agree with you, but I think there's a flaw in your argument. Sure, life in Darfur is way more important, but it has been the allowing of people like the RIAA run rampant in one area that has set the example for others. If you can, say, screw over everyone because you're a record company, why can't I as something else do the same? Why can't I, as a doctor, screw people over, since I see lawyers getting away with it all the time? I don't know who said "rot from the core spreads outward" but he missed the mark; rot doesn't have to be at the core to spread.

          Or maybe this only makes sense with a lot of beer.


        • Revolutionary software and hardware designs will bring you a revolution of options.

          If you want a call to arms, the best ideas would be new legalese licensing schemes to protect privacy rights, and the rights of the tinkerer.

          New software designs which promote tinkering and interaction, such as free software. Use your creativity to promote your liberty.

        • by extrasolar (28341)
          Agreed. I think the point is that, while we know that these companies produce and support technology primarily for profit, we still have to stick up for ourselves in that their purpose, profit, isn't what we're here for. We might want to do things that are contrary to their intentions, we are spontaneous. We're about the appropriation of technology for *our* purposes, not theirs.

          In my mind, and I apologize for getting too philosophical, this is really about a rebellion against the very concept of purpose
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Maybe he meant "sanctimonious."

      I read the summary twice and still had no idea what he was talking about.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by radagenais (1261374)
      It is not the tech that we should sanctify, but the freedom of thoughts and actions that seek to satisfy curiousity and a thirst for knowledge.

      And the freedom to do anything you please with something you rightfully own - most especially an object.

      But so long as the burden is on Them to have to sue Us one by one to exercise their so-called "rights" and "licenses", I really don't see a real threat to these freedoms - at worst a nuisance. Possession is nine-tenth's the law, after all.
    • What kind of idiot actually thinks there is some sort of "sanctity" to tech, or anything tech-related?
      He works for Comstar?
    • its directly tied to creative activities of the human psyche. same kind of link was there in between renaissance works and their creators. resulting creativity and sharing and inventiveness resulted in renaissance. you can see similar traits in tech, internet and i.t. sharing, free speech, opportunity, choices and all.
    • by SL Baur (19540)

      What kind of idiot actually thinks there is some sort of "sanctity" to tech, or anything tech-related?

      You didn't read TFA and you're the same kind of idiot as the author. The author nearly hits the mark, but his case would have been stronger if he had used software patents as his example instead of petty copyright violations by users of technology.

      "Tech" helped rebuild the ruins of Tokyo after we stopped bombing it. High technology is raising many people out of poverty in India, and I hope my sons are able to do the same sort of thing in their Mother's birthplace - Mindanao (by becoming local jobs provid

    • by bechthros (714240)
      there's sanctity in anything math-related. DNA, code, music.
  • by Coldeagle (624205) * on Friday April 18, 2008 @10:36PM (#23125134)
    He makes some good points, but he doesn't really say much other than take up arms. Unfortunately the very people he's making reference to don't read CNET or any other technology slanted publication. I would almost say boycotting is the best way. Organize a boycott of companies that don't meet with our ideals. I already do this with Microsoft, AT&T, and Time Warner cable. I will not give my money to this companies because I staunchly disagree with their business practices.

    What does everyone else think?
    • by Coldeagle (624205) *
      Just to clarify by, "people he referenced," I meant the ones in public office and senior management.
    • by rtb61 (674572) on Friday April 18, 2008 @11:12PM (#23125276) Homepage
      Being a little politically pro-active might also be called for. So not just a boycott but, actually making those offensive practices illegal and, punishable by long term imprisonment.

      The internet provides the means by which the majority can regain control over politics and laws. The internet redefines how the public mind scape is formed and shaped. The mass media, greed is every thing message is dying, along with celebrity worship and the mindless messages that celebrities sell.

      So a campaign of re-regulation, a campaign of corporate executive culpability and liability, a campaign of not only protecting what we have but also taking back what has already by stolen via corporate corruption of the political system.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Coldeagle (624205) *
        I would love to see that eventually, but what's the first step? If there's a major boycott going on, the media will start to pay attention. If that happens, maybe people will pay attention the message that our legal system is fraked up and needs a boost. FCC, Patents and copyrights, etc. We also need to start hitting the freaking polls people, and I don't mean the ones /.
      • NOT MORE REGULATION (Score:3, Interesting)

        by sporkme (983186) *
        The problem is not a lack of regulation; it is that there is already excessive regulation--of end users. The means for organizations like the ones mentioned are based in existing law. The solution is not to make MORE laws, but to repair or preferably repeal the "broken" laws.

        What is it that they say about insanity? Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result... something to that tune. We do not gain freedoms from more laws. Fouling up the code further for people on down the line
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by CodeBuster (516420)

        actually making those offensive practices illegal and, punishable by long term imprisonment.

        Be careful what you wish for. There are far too many ill conceived laws on our books already and they do plenty more harm than good. There is no inherent right not to be offended. If we start passing laws against practices which some people find offensive then it will be the first step towards the end of freedom. This is what separates us in the civilized Western world from those in the east who live under religious law defining what is and is not offensive both in practice and speech with punishments suc

      • by iminplaya (723125)
        So a campaign of re-regulation, a campaign of corporate executive culpability and liability, a campaign of not only protecting what we have but also taking back what has already by stolen via corporate corruption of the political system.

        Are you now or have you ever been a... communist?
        • by rtb61 (674572)
          Generally the application of communism has been nothing more than another version of totalitarianism, so no I never have been nor wish to be a communist. I am quite comfortable with being a social democrat, you know, you just might possibly have heard of it, a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

          Why would wanting to ensure legal accountability for corporate executive officers be considered communism. Taking legal and moral responsibility for your actions might be considered a long


      • Liberty through creativity!
    • I would almost say boycotting is the best way. Organize a boycott of companies that don't meet with our ideals. I already do this with Microsoft, AT&T, and Time Warner cable

      As if babbling on about the "sanctity of tech" wasn't pretentious enough.

      Now again we have the geek talking boycott.

      In markets where he is less sigificant a presence than the sixth grader with her first cell phone.

  • by TubeSteak (669689) on Friday April 18, 2008 @10:48PM (#23125176) Journal

    How many times must we hear that video games cause violence before we stand up together and stop the spewing of inaccurate ideas? How many times must we listen to the RIAA tell us that college students are the root of all evil as it pertains to piracy before we tell the organization that it's wrong? How many times must we listen to public interest groups allow families to get off the hook instead of blaming them when "security concerns" are revealed to the public before we tell them the truth? How many times must we listen to people who have no knowledge of the technology industry restate the misguided ramblings of lawmakers before we vote for change?
    You will keep hearing all these things until your Think Tank writes papers & model legislation stating otherwise.

    You will keep hearing all these things until your "experts" go on TV and intelligently explain your position to a media interested in death, sex, and scandal.

    You will keep hearing all these things until your lobbyist "educates" misguided lawmakers.

    I could keep going in that vein for quite some time, but what it fundamentally boils down to is either changing the structure of the debate or co-opting it for your own message. But honestly, who's going to pay for a 30 second TV ad with a montage of straight-A students saying "I play violent video games and I've never killed anybody"
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Coldeagle (624205) *
      Maybe EA, LucasArts, or TakeTwo would pay for them? Seriously, why aren't the big names in gaming spending any money on commercials about what crap it is that playing violent games makes you violent?

      Seriously! At least Eminem makes a good point about the violence he spouts, it's just MUSIC, if your kids decide to go blow away their class mates, maybe you should look at yourself and not try to blame everyone else for your lack of parenting. My parents raised me to be responsible for my own actions and
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        I just recently watched an episode of "A Bit Of Fry & Laurie" - and I think they had the right idea (and from 1989, ahead of their time!). If simulated violence made people want to act violent in real life, why not include depictions of heroes giving large sums of money to the game makers? That way, if they're wrong about video games causing violence, it won't matter because they'll be rich, rich, rich!
      • by westlake (615356)
        Maybe EA, LucasArts, or TakeTwo would pay for them? Seriously, why aren't the big names in gaming spending any money on commercials about what crap it is that playing violent games makes you violent?

        Because when you take Rockstar out of the picture most of the problems go away.

        Bioshock entered the market to rave reviews, healthy sales and nary a word of complaint. Half-Life has been on the shelves for ten years now. There are dozens of other examples.

        The games that strike a raw nerve, the games that mak

  • by icebike (68054) on Friday April 18, 2008 @10:53PM (#23125192)
    Yes, we all have our hit list of hated Luddites and money grubbers, but this article is so much standing on on a soap box in a pouring rain screaming to passers by, (most of whom regard the screamer as a kook).

    There is no rational plan of action, no believable tragedy for attack, and no suggestion for doing anything but throwing open the windows and screaming into the night.

    Until we either change the laws we are pretty much stuck with the current situation of constant turf wars, suits and counter suits until the absurdness of it all starts to sink in.

    There are signs that it IS starting to sink in. But not due to whining of the masses, but rather people suing ISPs, counter-suing the RIAA, etc.

    Real actions. Pony up for the lawyers and go to court. The soapbox gets you nowhere.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by somenickname (1270442)
      Actually, I found TFA inspiring. I think we should all galvanize and form some sort of foundation to help protect the electronic frontier. Now if we could only come up with a catchy acronym for it...

    • You understand the technology, they dont.

      You understand the code, they dont.

      You designed the hardware, they cant.

      You created the protocols, napster, linux, slashdot, programming languages and compilers, encryption and decryption software, etc.

      Start by making sure everything you design and create in the future increases the liberty of the user, call it user-centric design. No more client-server, or slave master designs. Peer to Peer, and Hive designs are the answer.

      Decentralize and distribute.
    • by DarkOx (621550)
      People have to be made to care. If you start careing and doing things to that effect people get curious and start asking questions.

      "Why won't you see that movie?" your friends may ask, and you can answer "Because its made by Sony pictures and they support an abusive and unfair form of property rights" you can answer.

      "So you are not planing to get anything in HD that won't work with Analog component video or strait DVI?" answer "Yes because HDMI is evil, it offers you nothing that DVI with AC3 on digital co
  • Lots of Hot Air (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Comatose51 (687974) on Friday April 18, 2008 @10:59PM (#23125222) Homepage
    Seriously man.

    Sanctity of technology? I'm a software engineer. I help created technology but I don't worship it. I love when my code is nice and elegant but I also make trade-offs when needed because what I make has to work in the real world. Sanctity? What is this guy trying to sell? Only fanboys and snake oil salesman talk about technology as some Platonic ideal or traded as an object of worship.

    Where has this guy been? Did he JUST now noticed the RIAA, MPAA, and corrupt lawmakers trying to subvert the spirit of intellectual rights and freedom? This didn't just happen over night. The DMCA was passed when Clinton was president.

    Lastly, at the end of the rant, he has a call to action. What does he want us to do? Give us a plan. A rant without a plan is just a rant. Unite and rise up? Seriously man. We're not some Bolsheviks trying to overthrow the tzar. Get a sense of reality. The entire "article" is a bunch of hyperbole, obvious statements, and a total lack of any actionable items.

    Give me a break. It's an insult to our intelligence.
    • Re:Lots of Hot Air (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Friday April 18, 2008 @11:15PM (#23125290) Journal
      Yes, its all very stupid. Is RIAA evil? of course. Are file shares of copry written material evil? Of course. Just because there are two sides,doesn't mean any of them are correct. In most wars both sides are wrong.
      • by nurb432 (527695)
        Ummm everything is technically copyrighted. ( at least in the US )

        The debate is if unauthorized sharing of content is wrong, not about copyrighted materials in general. ( which is a RIAA tactic to confuse the issue. )

        Oh, and i don't agree with your statement that its 'evil'. it might ( or might not ) be legal, but its not 'evil'.
        • Everyone calls *IAA evil, I was just using the common slashdot terminology to make a point. Its pretty clear at least in the US courts that it file sharing of copy written material is illegal. There have also been several class action suits proving illegal anti competitive action on behalf of the record labels as well. both are do illegal things, both are wrong. Right and wrong, good and evil may depend upon your value system, but you really have to ask if your value system has been skewed by what is best f
          • by nurb432 (527695)
            It would be nice if you were to use the accurate statement of 'sharing of copyrighted material with out permission'. Just saying 'copyrighted material' only marginalizes those that do allow it, and those that don't believe in IP as it is defined today. ( which is part of what the *AA's want to do, muddy the water and eliminate artists that don't play by the their rules )

            I can point you to 1000's of example where the copyright holder specifically requests that that you share. ( be it music, video, software,
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Heshler (1191623)
      I agree that there was a lack of substance, but that is understandable considering the breadth of the issues. Yes it didn't have a plan; yes it was a rant. However, it was a provocative rant, which was the entire point. Basically saying let's get our act together. Should geeks have more political influence?

    • Wouldn't you rather code with a purpose?

      Anyone can be a software engineer, don't you want to change the world?
    • What does he want us to do?

      Organize, he wants us to start discussing these issues in a manner that encourages others to join the cause.

      And while he sounds like he's on a soapbox techies are like cats, each has their own morality (often defined by Star Trek) and while most are idealists who suspect that their real peers will see things exactly the way they do some recognize the need for compromise.

      Some points for discussion: Do we believe in freedom of speech if allows; internet pedophilia, copywrite
  • I must say, (Score:4, Insightful)

    by v(*_*)vvvv (233078) on Friday April 18, 2008 @11:00PM (#23125224)
    technology is such an old and abused term I say we stop using it right now. The word is a total buzz kill. Computers and circuitry are already ubiquitous enough that we can just factor this "technology" reference out.

    If in 20 years we still refer to our "toys" as "technology" I would be damned.
    • by dangitman (862676)

      Fire and the wheel are still technology. It doesn't matter how old a technology is, it's still technology. Perhaps that puts it in too stark terms for you? People would be pretty outraged if they couldn't light a fire or breathe oxygen without paying licensing fees. But that's the way it's going. So, perhaps the term is unexpectedly apt?

      Personally, I find "tech," "technological" and "IT" to be more offensive and abused than "technology." What do you think it should be called?

      • Well, when is the last time you used the word? You can argue anything is technology (as demonstrated by your fire and wheel example), and that is what businesses have done. And that is why when we hear the word we need to know more, because it holds no weight. It is redundant.

        This article seems to claim that there are tech lovers and tech haters. Even those who work for the RIAA have their fancy cell phones and laptops and iPods. Even music labels are tech savvy in that they are all over iTunes.

        Another word
  • by russlar (1122455) on Friday April 18, 2008 @11:08PM (#23125262)
    Does taking up arms require me to get off my couch? That would really be a deal-breaker.

    And of you want me to go outside at all, forget it.
  • Geek Voting Block (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Heshler (1191623) on Friday April 18, 2008 @11:16PM (#23125294)
    I wonder if geeks could form some sort of voting block/interest group. We could stand up to tyranny. Seriously though, I'm not sure the extent to which this is feasible. First of all, people don't generally expect politicians to have a clue about tech. In Canada, it is a non-issue. These kinds of issues can simply be sidestepped by politicians. I guess the question is: how many people (not just /.) would actually change their vote based on a candidate's tech policy? Personally, Obama's tech credentials put him just over McCain (if I could vote there), but ALL OF PARLIMENT/CONGRESS needs to understand these issues in order to enact sound policy and not be easily persuaded by lobbyists. But let's be honest. Many/most of these issues have little tangible effect on typical people. It's hard to persuade people that tech issues are up there with Heath Care and the Economy.
    • by Coldeagle (624205) *
      Problem is not many geeks have the $$ to make an interest group! Most of us are well off, but not that well off.

      Maybe more of us need to run for office so we can educate the lawyers in Congress about what affect their policies on technology have!

      I would say let's start our own political party but so many of us are of different opinions on non-technology related politics. (as seen by the ramped Ron Paul debates seen on /.)

    • It's the geeks that rigged the voting machines.
  • Geek Wakeup Call (Score:3, Informative)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Friday April 18, 2008 @11:28PM (#23125346) Homepage Journal
    Gee, a call to arms at 11:30PM on a lovely Spring Friday night.

    This manifesto is going nowhere. At least not this weekend.
  • by MrKaos (858439) on Friday April 18, 2008 @11:47PM (#23125424) Journal
    ...it's that I just don't care.
  • by iminplaya (723125) <iminplaya.gmail@com> on Friday April 18, 2008 @11:53PM (#23125446) Journal
    Won't somebody please, think of the authorities? Jackboots aren't free, you know.
  • In real life, all sorts of things are being regulated and prohibited as well. Sometimes, it makes sense (monopolies), sometimes it doesn't (sex, drugs). It's just the way governments and people work.
  • ...I believe (I may be wrong) that, unfortunately, there isn't any single entity that is 1.coordination 2.delegating and 3.prioritizing the development of Open Hardware; the closest being The Open Hardware Foundation [openhardwa...dation.org], and that is closest in name only, as it is currently only working on the Open Graphics Project.

    Wikipedia's Open source hardware page [wikipedia.org] otoh informs me of numerous Open Hardware projects, but still, no coordinating entity/s.

    Sure some may argue that they don't want to be organised and would rat
  • Missed the point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sjames (1099) on Saturday April 19, 2008 @12:45AM (#23125612) Homepage

    There is a problem, but the article managed to barely graze it on it's way to somewhere else (I'm not sure where).

    The part about ripping was there and made sense but that's about it. The real problem is things like media companies driving efforts to force manufacturers to design hardware primarily to make sure it doesn't do what the owner wants.

    In turn, that makes open hardware a real problem to obtain. Not that I think we would otherwise get firmware source with a new DVR, but I'll bet manufacturers would make a lot less effort to hinder hacking if they weren't forced into it.

    There is a nasty trend towards more expensive, lower performance, and less versatile standards just to please a 3rd party (HDMI cables anyone?).

    Part of Vista's problem is that so much of it is designed to prevent the user from (God forbid) copying a movie. Meanwhile, all the electronic "tilt switches" will surely drive up the cost and lower the performance of video cards with no benefit to the buyer whatsoever. An estimated 10% of the nice new CPU you paid for is dedicated to making sure you haven't modified the video card you bought.

    In truth, the lot of it is interferance with ownership.

  • Really old news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Yvanhoe (564877) on Saturday April 19, 2008 @01:13AM (#23125672) Journal
    People had the same idea years ago. They founded the EFF. You can help them finance their crusade, it has been an ongoing effort.
    • I really wish I had some mod points right now. This article sounds like such wishy-washy, unrealistic crap. I can't wait to read his next article: "Hey y'all we should do something about the homeless", or "Kids, stop humping. That's how babies are made"


    • What if we don't want to give money? what if we want to actually DO something ourselves using our own talents?
      • by winwar (114053)
        "What if we don't want to give money? what if we want to actually DO something ourselves using our own talents?"

        Then study to be a lawyer :) Or write letters to your congresscritter, your state legislator and/or the appropriate federal/state agency.

        If the opposing side has lawyers, you generally need one too. Hell, even to get basic government services like worker's compensation you often need a lawyer.

        Lawyers seem to be the socially accepted (mandated) way to solve problems today.
  • This is one of the reasons I'm voting for Obama in Tuesday's PA primary,
    -He's for net neutrality so that becomes assured for another 4 years at least and would give the internet time to become even more dependent on the concept. There's a certain threshold with internet where network neutrality needs to be maintained for a long enough period to which the public gets educated enough on the concept that they won't accept an un-neutral internet.
    -Advocates copyright reform.
    -Advocates patent reform.

    among other t
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 19, 2008 @03:37AM (#23126108)

    ...of cash for stealing 20 songs?
    Because even seasoned journalists (moreover in rallying cries like this) can be tricked into using and spreading legally inaccurate demonizations like "stealing" and "piracy" that have only been coined to exaggerate IP infringement [oxfordjournals.org] out of proportion?
  • Well, thats sort of elitist and hypocritical. Just another set of people to ignore as far as i'm concerned.
  • Well, from some posts here it seems some feel this guy is being overly dramatic or making a mountain out of a molehill.

    I couldn't disagree more; I think organizing against this sort of stuff IS important and is one of the few things people can do to push back against this consortium of corporate and government interests who have aligned against the people.

    The issue isn't only DRM or the RIAA - that is but the tip of the iceberg and the government certainly knows that. All of these issues are related; DRM an
  • This is the first article on slashdot that describes what I have been calling the "Technology War" for quite a few years. The point is that governments around the world are trying to make it so that technology does what THEY want, but at the same time trying to take away rights from civilians to use the technology that THEY want.

    One small example? Radar detectors being illegal in my state. Another example? DRM. Another example: Photographers rights to take pictures in public coming under fire.

    Plea

  • Your typical "let's all get together and..." - do fuck all...

The typical page layout program is nothing more than an electronic light table for cutting and pasting documents.

Working...