Re: [OS:N:] Re: Open Source in Schools and then some

[Evan Leibovitch <evan telly org>]

On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Daniel Carrera wrote:

> > Of course it affects _my_ life, because I work with it. What's less clear
> > is whether it affects the lives of my technophobe friends. How is the DMCA
> > changing their lives.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with that.  The other day I told my mom that if she
> bought a CD in Britain, it wouldn't play in Canada.  And that you'd go to
> jail if you circunvented that.

The DMCA prevents you from doing that in the US, but (thankfully) its
counterpart has not yet passed in Canada and most other countries.

Of course, this kind of exercize is a good example of how the public don't
*care* that (let alone how) their rights are eroded. That particular CD
(the European pressing of the latest Celine Dion album) has big labels on
it warning about problems about playing on computers (apparently if you
try to play it on a Mac the CD will refuse to eject).

People have a way of protesting this -- don't buy the CD. Yet there are no
organized boycotts, no major media decrying the loss of consumer rights.
The scheme would never be used again if the CD's sales dropped. Yet the
record companies have rightly gambled that the public would tolerate this.

If something *this* blatant can't get the masses angry, what hope do the
foes of the more insidious (and harder to explain in non-technical terms)
elements of the DMCA have?

If Silicon Valley stood up to Hollywood we might have a fair fight. But
the open source community alone is going to have a hard time fighting this
on its own.

In the meantime, I have many other reasons for not buying Celine Dion CDs. :-)

(For anyone who cares, a good technical dissection of the CD issue can be
found at http://www.macopinion.com/columns/curmudgeon/02/05/28/ )

> That affects her fairly directly and she was very upset about it.

Upset enough to not buy the CD and call for others not to buy it? Or did
she just complain about it to the cashier?

> > Of course they do. That's why they elect governments that pass laws to
> > ban assault weapons, criminalize driving while using cellphones and force
> > restaurants to get rid of smoking areas. People not only give up rights,
> > they gladly advocate the taking away of the rights of others. Happens all
> > the time. People are constantly curtailing freedoms in favor of some
> > perceived greater good.
>
> The freedom to bear arms is not an inherent human right.

Watch out; that's an article of faith, not a statement of fact. And it has
vocal opponents deep within our own community:

  "Open-source software is about getting freedom; personal firearms are
   about keeping it."

   - Eric Raymond, August 2000
     http://old.lwn.net/2000/features/LinuxWorld/gwg.php3

Without wanting to enter *that* quagmire, I note that there is no clear
universal acceptance of what constitutes "inherant" human rights. Even the
most basic perceived right, the right to life, is under debate in issues
of abortion and euthanasia. And clearly there are dictatorships and
theocracies around the world that reject many rights that we might
consider inherant.

What's your starting point of an adequate description of man's rights and
responsibilities? The US Bill of Rights? The Canadian Charter of Rights?
The Ten Commandments? The Magna Carta? The Koran? Something else? Is
something a _universal_ right if it can be amended by popular vote, or if
based only on the holy words of someone's deity?

Also consider: When someone willing to die for their cause encounters
someone willing to kill for theirs, which cause survives? The one that
respects life?

Oh gawd are we off-topic. Sorry.

- Evan