Posted on 04/14/2002 5:32:07 PM PDT by milestogo
Hollywood's new enemy--Linux fans
Sun Apr 14, 7:43 PM ET
By Lisa M. Bowman, ZDNet News
Spooked by Hollywood-backed legislation that seeks to regulate technology, Linux (news - web sites) geeks plan to launch a political-action committee that fights back.
Jeff Gerhardt, host of "The Linux Show," and Doc Searls, senior editor of the Linux Journal, are forming a lobbying group called GeekPAC that would try to convince lawmakers to consider developers when they draft laws concerning technology.
The goal is to ensure that legislative attempts to protect the interests of companies such as Walt Disney and the Baby Bells don't stifle technological development.
"We have witnessed a slow and steady erosion of the ability of Internet and IT developers to freely develop innovative products," states a draft document proposing the formation of GeekPAC.
In recent years, attempts to crack down on illegal copying by outlawing some technologies have outraged developers, but few technologists have had the time or political wherewithal to challenge proposed legislation. The most high-profile law so far has been the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (news - web sites), which has landed one developer in jail and led to countless threats of enforcement against other programmers.
Most recently, Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C., introduced legislation that would require government-mandated copy-protection technology in consumer devices. The bill, a Hollywood-sponsored attempt to thwart piracy, has alarmed many technology companies and executives, who are rushing to stop it.
Earlier this week, PC maker Gateway began airing commercials protesting the bill. And a few weeks ago a bevy of high-profile Silicon Valley executives and venture capitalists launched DigitalConsumer.org, a group designed to represent consumers' interests in the battle between Hollywood and technology companies.
What's more, several tech executives, including Intel Chief Executive Andy Grove and DigitalConsumer.org head and Excite founder Joe Kraus, have testified before Congress, urging lawmakers to steer clear of new laws that would insert government-authorized technology in upcoming products.
Now Linux enthusiasts--long known for their grassroots marches and colorful demonstrations against corporate entities including Microsoft--are entering the fray.
The backers of GeekPAC say simply protesting efforts to regulate technology won't work. They're calling on developers and tech supporters to open their wallets to fight the colossal lobbying attempts of companies such as Disney.
"It has become apparent...regardless of the efforts that people in the various and diverse technology communities have attempted to use to influence the outcome of political events, that the real impact that the mixed group of communities has exerted has been minimal, and that those efforts have failed," the GeekPAC document states.
The tension between Silicon Valley and Hollywood stems from new technology that makes it easier than ever to make and distribute perfect copies of digital material, products ranging from the Napster (news - web sites) network to the Rio player, both of which have been targets of entertainment industry lawsuits.
The entertainment industry has argued (successfully in the case of Napster) that such products promote copyright infringement. However, GeekPAC founders say legislative crackdowns are interfering with technology.
"The greater evil is that these oppressive regulations go too far and generally stifle the development of new, better technologies in an effort to preserve old technologies and business models," the GeekPAC proposal said.
GeekPAC founders hope to assemble an "all-star" team of technology experts to lead their charge, and--proving that they're getting into the politico spirit--plan to sponsor a "whistle-stop campaign" to educate people about their cause.
It wouldn't be the first time technology advocates have tested political waters inside the beltway, but it may be the most grassroots effort so far.
A few years ago venture capitalists including Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers partner John Doerr formed TechNet in response to a California initiative to make shareholders' lawsuits easier to file. The group has since taken up issues such as improving education and spurring broadband adoption.
And back when tech stocks were flying high, some young Silicon Valley bigwigs launched Pac.com, a Democratic lobbying group that accepts stock donations.
Any commercial entity entering into that technology as a vehicle for providing copies for sale would be estopped from taking any action to protect any copyright.
We can envision such a bill having further provisions to protect Internet Users from such entitles as the Washington Post which expects to be able to post stuff and not have it copied. The Post and others of that ilk would be allowed to post whatever they wished, but they would be estopped from asserting any sort of copyright. Their protection from folks with copying technology would be to simply produce their material in a different media, e.g. the print media where, in fact, the Washington Post and it's gaggle of propagandists should be restricted by law (were that possible).
It is crucial that Hollywood and its allies (Microsoft) be stopped, whatever the cost.
The problem is not lobbiests getting pet legislation passed, it's carreer politicians who no longer have a clue about the real world. I bet Fritz Hollings doesn't know how to turn on a computer, much less actually use one. His knowledge of the issues is second or third hand.
Disney (Pixar and Dreamworks) use a lot of Linux too! Most of the graphics redering is done with a large farm of Linux computers (2000+). If Linux is illegal, then they will have to start over using a legal OS.
It is my opinion that many of the large software houses are truely afraid of the threat that Linux poses to them. These attempts at putting forth really draconian an largely unenforcable legislation are a reflection of this.
Copyright law has become such a farce it is not even worth talking about. One of the best examples of this is the following: Copyright as it currently exists protects works for the life of the author plus 70 years. (90 years for corporate copyright). In 1967, Disney released a feature length cartoon of "Jungle Book" a year after the copyright (as the law existed then) expired. If copyright law had been the same then as it is now, Disney would not have been able to release this cartoon until 2006, 70 years after Mr. Kipling's death in 1936!
Think back to the various cartoons Disney has released over the years and see if you can recall any that were actually original stories, and were not just remakes of either classical fairy-tales or other works that existed in the public domain. They find no fault in their making use of the public domain, but don't want for anyone else to gain similar rights with their works.
Until we rework copyright and bring it back to something closer to what was initially intended (14 years with one possible renewal to 28 years max), we're going to see these giant media conglomerates continue to treat you and I as marks who exist to continuously fork out money over and over for the same product year after year.
Make no mistake about it, it is the dream of Disney and similar companies to set things up so that every time you play a CD, you'll have pay them.
The reason they see Linux and other open source software as a threat is because the unpaid programmers who make up the bulk of the community aren't likely to buy into these schemes.
No, I understand perfectly. The problem is the people greasing his skids don't even live in his state. He's more interested in pleasing donors from Hollywood and New York than his constituents in South Carolina.
And even Gateway is already on our side.
You know that this has nothing to do with looting, other than MicroDisney's attempt to loot the marketplace by outlawing any competition.
Sure they are. By requiring proprietary hardware interfaces, the ability to create Open Source-compatible kernel modules (drivers) is essentially outlawed.
It may not be the primary motivation, but I'm sure Redmond would not frown on such a development.
The thing is, there's a lot more money in IT than there is in all of Hollywood. And IT is adopting Linux, so mark my words: there will be a fight over this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.