Why Political Liberty Depends on Software Freedom More Than Ever

Copyright vs Community in the Age of Computer Networks

Since  I am on something of a roll on the topic of the technological aspects of what I call "surviving in a world of zombies", I have decided to post some links to the audio recording of a recent presentation by Richard Stallman (a personal hero of mine) on the issue of Copyright vs Community in the Age of Computer Networks.  In this absolutely fascinating talk, Richard (who often is known as "RMS") begins by a short introduction on the issue of free software, but rapidly switches to his main topic, the history and misuse of the idea of copyright.  RMS discusses the topic of copyright as applied not only to books, but also to music and even art in general.  I strongly recommend that you listen to this most interesting presentation and the Q&A which follows it.  

Click on these links to download/listen to the recordings in ogg format: 

• Richard Stallman: Copyright vs Community in the Age of Computer Networks - application/ogg 121M
• Questions and Answers - application/ogg 55M 

Click on these links to download/listen to the recordings in mp3 format:

• Richard Stallman: Copyright vs Community in the Age of Computer Networks - mp3 104M
• Questions and Answers - mp3 49M

I really urge you all to take the time to listen to RMS and think through his arguments.  Most of us do instinctively realize that there is something wrong with copyrights, the RIAA, the MPAA, DRMs, the DMCA and all the rest of the corporate imposed world of thought control, but I promise you that listening to RMS will show you how bad things truly are and will show you how to resist.

The Saker

Lending ebooks? Debunking corporate lies

Since have recently posted a review of ebook readers I decided that it might be a good idea to post an excellent article by John Sullivan, the operations manager at the Free Software Foundation (of which I am a 'card carrying member'), debunking some of the lies told to us by big corporations about the issue of 'ebook lending'.  John's piece, entitled "Lending: A solved problem" appeared in the Fall 2010 FSF Bulletin. I highly recommend it.

The Saker

_______

Lending: A solved problem by John Sullivan

Lending and borrowing are not desirable activities. They are things we do when we have to, when there isn't enough of something to go around. Not to say that lending something like a book to a friend is without benefits beyond access to the material; it can create a shared experience that makes for good conversation, or provide an excuse to see each other.

But really, it's something we'd rather not have to do. Even the best-intentioned friends forget to return things, and sometimes during the lending period we wish we had the book back to look up a favorite quote. A good friend of mine gets upset whenever even the corner of one of her books gets bent — not an uncommon fear among book lovers — and this is a heavy responsibility to bear when borrowing.

We like lending libraries because, like public schools, they give more people access to more information and culture regardless of their wealth. They allow us to explore and research topics we are interested in, in a single location and without the difficult task of actually acquiring dozens of physical books. For many of us, libraries are wonderful places; it can be inspirational to be holed up at a desk somewhere deep in the stacks.

But really, we'd rather not have to use a lending library. All too often, the books we want to borrow aren't there, because someone else has already borrowed them. We've all turned excitedly to a promising page from a book's index, only to find the page has been glued with chewing gum to the facing page, or its key words obscured by coffee stains. The borrowing part of the library is not the good part; the fact that only one person can have a particular book out at a time — and that we all have to repeatedly use the same copies — runs counter to the most important reasons we support the existence of libraries.

If we could have the benefits of lending to friends and borrowing from libraries without the inconveniences, we would. If we could just make a copy of that good book and give it to our friend at no noticeable cost, we would choose to do that, every time. If both you and I could get the same book from the library at the same time, neither of us would deny the other that.

Fortunately, with electronic books, the inconveniences of lending and borrowing are solved problems. Books can now be infinitely read and shared. We can now all have access to all of them, all of the time. And this is why it sounds so strange to hear digital book companies like Amazon and Barnes & Noble bragging about how their ebook-reader devices "support lending."

When they advertise this "feature," what they mean is: "We have managed to take a digital book, and make it not work anymore!" They have removed one of the primary advances the digital book represents for civilization, and replaced it, by design, with a defective version.

They have managed to recreate, in the palm of a reader's hand, the thrill of tracking down a call number deep in the library stacks only to find its spot occupied by empty space. With a clever arrangement of bytes, they have enabled users to experience the equivalent of being without their books while their friends' dogs chew on them. Maybe if we're lucky, next they'll implement the feature that allows two electronic pages to be stuck together as if by gum, or that translates coffee spilled on the screen into equivalent damage to the digital pages.

It's clear from these basic observations that these companies are doing us and our books no favors. They have taken a technology which solves the lending problem and twisted it to make lending even more of a problem. But when we consider more closely the details of how this electronically simulated lending works, it makes corporate excitement around the antifeature even more baffling.

When Barnes & Noble announced that its ebook reader would support lending, we raised an eyebrow. Since we knew that it was going to be restricted by DRM, we were curious to know how the device would act out an equivalent temporary transfer of a book by one person to another and back. When Amazon made their "us too!" announcement, we were really intrigued.

It turns out that "lending" to them means a user can — if the publisher permits it — give a book to another person enrolled in the same ebook system (Kindle users can't lend to Nook users, or vice versa), for a limited and preset time. During that time, the original user may not access her own copy — even though it still exists on her device. This charade can be executed one time ever per book. In order to receive the book, the lendee has to register with the authorities at whichever company the book was purchased from, divulging various bits of personal information and allowing the company to track her reading list (which is then also available to subpoena by law enforcement).

This setup bears only the most vague and insulting resemblance to lending. But even if they had managed to replicate the act perfectly, we wouldn't want it. We lend and borrow because we have to; because physical books are physical property. If someone takes one from us, we don't have it anymore. This is not true with electronic books, and it's a mistake to try and force them to work the same old way. To do so is to distort the necessary limits of a physical object into unnecessary power relationships, where companies use software to dictate the terms of our access to knowledge and culture.

Companies attempt to justify this power relationship as necessary to protect authors; but this is a false choice. Authors can be supported without robbing readers and scholars of freedoms from which everyone, including authors, benefit — especially given that there is no evidence such restrictions translate into more support for authors. Plenty of writers out there want their books read and shared, and don't agree with digital restrictions as a means to secure a living. Companies pushing restrictions are working to increase their own power, not to protect authors — in fact, Apple and Sony have refused to publish ebooks without DRM even when the authors requested they do so.

Some publishers are recognizing that the restrictions are an affront — Springer Verlag for example, has been offering their electronic titles to libraries without DRM. We should support these authors and publishers, and reject the restrictions imposed by companies like Amazon, Sony, Apple, and Barnes & Noble.

The freedom we are protecting here is not the freedom to lend. Lending is the exercise of other kinds of freedom, unfortunately limited by connection with physical objects. The ultimate goal of lending is sharing. The more fundamental freedom we are protecting is the freedom to use our technology as a means to accomplish this same goal of sharing, to the benefit of ourselves and our communities, without agreeing to be subjugated, restricted, or divided from each other, by the companies who "own" the mediating software.

You can help us stand for these freedoms by following our anti-DRM campaign at DefectiveByDesign.org. Please lend us your support, as we work to make lending a thing of the past.

Googling Sibel Edmonds

Over 24 hours have passed since the video and full transcript of Sibel Edmond's deposition have been made public, giving even the most stupid and lazy journalist the time to either watch the video or read the transcript. This morning, I decided to check what Google News would find for me. I simply typed "Sibel Edmonds" and hit enter. Here are the results:

Now, I cannot say that I was expecting a tsunami of reports, but still, nothing. Almost nothing at all! Take a look for yourself (click on the pic for a higher resolution). What do you see?

The Brad Blog. Well, yes, since Brad Friedman has been following this story from the very beginning and since his blog is, along with Lukery's "Let Sibel Speak", the unofficial "Sibel news" blog.

What else?

Znet, Georgetown News Democrat, kypost, and Antiwar.com.

That's it. Absolutely nothing from the corporate press. Not a single word, not even on page 23...

Think of some of the possible news headlines which could have legitimately been made with Sibel's testimony:

FBI WHISTLEBLOWER ACCUSES NUMBER TWO AT STATE OF SELLING NUCLEAR SECRETS

or

BISEXUAL CONGRESSWOMAN BLACKMAILED BY NATO ALLY

Surely, if the corporate media is in the business of selling stuff, then such catchy headlines are just any editor's wet dream, no?

Among the many lessons of the Sibel Edmonds case is the incontrovertible proof that the corporate media is not in the business of selling anything, at least not primarily. Selling news is only a subsidiary goal of the corporate press, but its real mission is to make people stupid and ignorant and, once this goal is reached, to keep them this way. Either that, or it is so terrified of the puppeteers which run the official government in the USA that they rather sacrifice a fantastic marketing opportunity than incur the wrath of the US "deep state" and the Nomenklatura which supports it.

But the silence on the Sibel Edmonds case does not stop with the corporate media. Almost the same picture can be observed in the free press, independent press, blogosphere etc.

Yesterday, Amy Goodman found the time to report about "EPA Fails to Inform Public About Weed Killer in Drinking Water" but not about the Edmonds case, not even in the short news section (It would be interesting to compare the number of stories DemocracyNow had about Sibel Edmonds in, say, the past year or two with the number of stories they had about homosexuals and their "rights"). A quick look at Commondreams.org this morning also shows nothing about Sibel Edmonds.

Frankly, at this point I intended to list all the "alternative" websites which had nothing about Sibel, but I felt so embarrassed for them, that I decided to refrain from doing so. While some are clearly in the "opposition business", others are the "real thing" and I don't want to offend anybody for what could be an innocent oversight. But still, the bottom line terrible: Sibel's truly heroic efforts are almost totally ignored by the free, alternative or independent press.

I don't believe that it is morally correct to simply accuse everybody of being hypocrites, nor do I believe that nobody really cares. They care, a lot, in fact. No, my explanation for what is going on is very different: the "free, alternative and independent" media is also largely dependent on the corporate press to gather it's news stories. And that, if true, is really frightening.

This is frightening because that means that the Empire can still "shut down" a story when needed and the so called "free, alternative and independent" media is not truly free, alternative or independent.

There are all sorts of possible explanations for this state of affairs, ranging from the simple laziness of some reporters to the way search engines work. Whatever the true reason(s) for this - the case of Sibel Edmonds should serve as a warning to all of us: the Empire can still has formidable means to prevent us from learning the truth about what is happening behind the scenes.

The Saker

Freedom Fry - Happy birthday to GNU!

One more political prisoner in the Empire's Dungeons

From today's Democracy Now headlines:

Palestinian Professor Sentenced to 11 Years For Refusing to Testify:

In Chicago, a federal court has sentenced a Palestinian-American activist to more than 11 years in prison for refusing to testify before a grand jury in 2003 about the activities of the Palestinian group Hamas. Abdelhaleem Ashqar defended his refusal to testify saying that he shouldn't have to give testimony that would aid the Israeli government.

Ashqar told the court:

"The only option was to become a traitor or collaborator, and that is something that I can't do and will never do as long as I live." Ashqar is a former associate professor of business at Howard University in Washington. Earlier this year a jury acquitted Ashqar of being a leading member of Hamas and conspiring to support terrorism from the United States.

While Amy Goodman did report this story on Democracy Now, the corporate media did not, or when it did, it did so on page 25, in small print, without any comments.

I mean, how cares, right? Yet another Palestinian academic is getting jailed for refusing to be a snitch. It's not even the first case. Remember Sami Al-Arian, who is now serving time in jail for refusing to testify against former associates?

In both cases the government lost at trial and failed to provide any proof that these academics were linked to terrorism. But that's no big deal, Uncle Sam will jail them for refusing to snitch on their friends.

The most amazing thing is the deafening silence in which all this is taking place. The US academia is silent about this, presumably freedom-loving democrats (small 'd') are saying nothing, probably assuming that, hey, this is not a good time to speak up for an 'AYErab'.

All those who now look away would do well to remember the following words:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

Finally, Action! Ron Paul Introduces Bill to Defend Constitution!

by Naomi Wolf

It's not every day that there is something concrete you can do to save democracy in one powerful stroke and make sure your kids don't come of age in an American in which we are no longer protected by the rule of law. I have been writing about the terrifying and precipitous assault on our liberties and our very system of checks and balances; I have crossed the country with this message -- today I am in Boston -- and I have heard across the nation that (as usual) the people are ahead of the leaders and the pundits. Americans of all backgrounds are alarmed and outraged and ready to take action against these vicious assaults on the rule of law. But what I hear again and again is: "What can we do?"

Here is what you can do, and it is big, big news. If we do this together in our millions we are safer; and if we fail to act we miss an historic opening and risk far worse to come.

There are two new organizations that are driving a grassroots push to restore the rule of law: the American Freedom Agenda was started by leaders who are conservative: Bruce Fein, who was a Reagan administration official in the Department of Justice, and others. The American Freedom Campaign was started by progressives. Both groups advance comparable 10 point legislative agendas that would stabilize democracy long enough for us to forestall the worst and regroup for more long-term reparation of the Constitution and the rule of law. Both would, if passed, protect Americans from the scary stories of abuse and recrimination I am hearing every single day -- journalists intimidated, prisoners tortured, innocent citizens spied on by the State in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Both would make it illegal for any administration to commit the kinds of crimes against America and its constitution that we have seen under this one: the innocent lawyer Brandon Mayfield's home broken into, the innocent software engineer Maher Arar kept prisoner by U.S. agents in an interrogation cell in a U.S. airport and prevented from calling his lawyer, and journalists reporting on abuses by the government threatened by the state with prosecution that could keep them in jail for a decade. Urgently it would close the horrific legal possibility for the president to call you or me an "enemy combatant" tomorrow -- JUST BECAUSE HE SAYS SO -- and lock us up in solitary confinement for years.

Passing the legislative agenda of either group would make it clear that American citizens -- in spite of a heretofore craven and compliant Congress -- refuse to stand by silently while a group of criminals systematically violates the core structure of the democracy our Founders put in place for us.

The big news is that this idea can now become a law and a law creates a reality.

On Monday, Rep. Ron Paul, the outsider Republican presidential candidate who has long upheld these values and who was an early voice warning of the grave danger to all of us of these abuses, introduced the AFA's legislative package into Congress. (The mainstream press has an irrational habit of disparaging outsider candidates -- as if corrupt money and machine endorsements equal seriousness of purpose -- even though the Founders hoped that the system they established would lead citizens, ideally those unembedded in the establishment, to offer their service to the nation.) It is the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 [PDF], and you should read it in its entirety: just as accounts of the recent abuses send chills down your spine, this beautifully argued document feels historic and has the ring of great power to correct great injustice.

What does it do? According to an alert put out by the American Freedom campaign, it would accomplish the following:

"The American Freedom Agenda Act would bar the use of evidence obtained through torture; require that federal intelligence gathering is conducted in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); create a mechanism for challenging presidential signing statements; repeal the Military Commissions Act, which, among other things, denies habeas corpus to certain detainees; prohibit kidnapping, detentions, and torture abroad; protect journalists who publish information received from the executive branch; and ensure that secret evidence is not used to designate individuals or organizations with a presence in the U.S. as foreign terrorists."

Ron Paul was the first of all the presidential candidates, red or blue, to step up in this way -- and all credit is due to him for getting there first. May the others of both parties race to follow his lead. These days, as we have seen from how reluctant some candidates have been -- even on the Democratic sign -- even to sign a mere pledge to uphold the Constitution, it takes some courage to stand fast against the assaults of this administration -- and their manipulations of the terms "patriotism" and "terror threat" -- and insist with legislation on the Founders' vision and on restoring democracy.

A groundswell of millions of Americans of all parties rising up to insist on passage of the AFA legislation means that we are awake -- we get it -- and that we assert that an alert citizenry, not a whipped-dog Congress or a violently abusive executive, decides what happens in this nation still. I am not a voter on his side of the ballot -- but I will move heaven and earth to support the passage of this lifesaving agenda. (Interestingly when I run into Paul's supporters -- who are deeply alert to the abuses of democracy -- and I demur by saying I am a Democrat, it is they who rightly assure me that these issues transcend party).

There is no way to overstate how crucial this piece of legislation is. We are at a turning point, and without the restoration of the rule of law the "blueprint" for what I have called a "fascist shift" -- the closing down of democracy -- calls for scarier recriminations against citizens, greater tightening of social controls -- the ever-growing, disturbingly political TSA watch list is, alarmingly, due to go from the airlines' administration to that of the TSA itself -- and more corruptions of the electoral process. Blackwater is a truly terrifying wild card. Without the rule of law we will be powerless as each of these assaults on liberty continue to escalate. With it we can fight back.

This is the answer both to those who say "What we can do?" and to those who claim (actually, sometimes whine) "there is nothing we can do." And if we don't act on this now we will get the democracy we deserve -- which is no democracy at all.

Put aside your partisan ideal world -- sometimes issues simply transcend partisanship -- and if ever there is an issue that is above and separate from party politics, it is the restoration of the democratic system we inherited. There are good people and passionate patriots across the political spectrum.

We at the AFC are putting out a call to pass this set of laws. Pick up the phone -- every day. Email your representative -- every day. Let them hear from millions of Americans a day. Let them hear from twenty. Please play hardball -- the times demand it and nice girls and boys have managed to get this Congress to do literally nothing at all to protect liberty.

Congressmen and women say off the record that they can't support liberty, much as they'd like to, because they are scared of "looking soft on terror" and they want to run out the clock -- a naive and self-serving posture in a time of crisis. Make them more scared of you if they don't. Tell them you will bombard their donors with the message that they have sold out liberty. Tell them you will denounce them as traitors to the Constitution in your local and regional letters to the editor and op-eds. Tell them they are unpatriotic to stand by while liberty is disemboweled. Tell them you will stop at nothing to ensure their future defeat unless they support this and make it the law of the land.

Let's do it. There is no excuse now. The restoration of democracy is up to you -- as the Founders intended it should be.

Ron Paul on US policies towards Cuba

Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Still No Cigars

by Rep. Ron Paul

Since Raul Castro seems to be transitioning to a more permanent position of power, the administration has begun talking about Cuba policy again. One would think we would be able to survey the results of the last 45 years and come to logical conclusions. Changing course never seems to be an option, however, no matter how futile or counterproductive our past actions have been.

The Cuban embargo began officially in 1962 as a means to put pressure on the communist dictatorship to change its ways. After 45 years, the Cuban economy has struggled, but Cuba's dictatorship is no closer to stepping to the beat of our drum. Any ailments have consistently and successfully been blamed on U.S. capitalism instead of Cuban communism. They have substituted trade with others for trade with the U.S., and they are "awash" in development funds from abroad. Our isolationist policies with regard to Cuba, meanwhile, have hardly won the hearts and minds of Cubans or Cuban-Americans, many of whom are isolated from families because this political animosity.

In the name of helping Cubans, the U.S. administration is calling for multibillions of taxpayer dollars in foreign aid and subsidies for Internet access, education, and business development for Cubans under the condition that the Cuban government demonstrates certain changes. In the same breath, they claim lifting the embargo would only help the dictatorship. This is exactly backward. Free trade is the best thing for people in both Cuba and the U.S. Government subsidies would enrich those in power in Cuba at the expense of already overtaxed Americans!

The irony of supposed free-marketeers inducing communists to freedom with government handouts should not be missed. We call for a free and private press in Cuba while our attempts to propagandize Cubans through the U.S.-government-run Radio/TV Marti have wasted $600 million in American taxpayer dollars.

It's time to stop talking solely in terms of what's best for the Cuban people. How about the wishes of the American people, who are consistently in favor of diplomacy with Cuba? Let's stop the hysterics about the freedom of Cubans – which is not our government's responsibility – and consider freedom of the American people, which is. Americans want the freedom to travel and trade with their Cuban neighbors, as they are free to travel and trade with Vietnam and China. Those Americans who do not wish to interact with a country whose model of governance they oppose are free to boycott. The point being: it is Americans who live in a free country, and as free people we should choose whom to buy from or where to travel – not our government.

Our current administration is perceived as irrelevant, at best, in Cuba and the message is falling on deaf ears there. If the administration really wanted to extend the hand of friendship, they would allow the American people the freedom to act as their own ambassadors through trade and travel. Considering the lack of success government has had in engendering friendship with Cuba, it is time for government to get out of the way and let the people reach out.

The Israel Lobby and its methods - Academic Freedom under Threat

Watch this short video about the Lobby's attempt to suppress any critical discussion of the self-styled "Jewish state" and its racist policies: