Bei der Gruppe, für die Sie eine Mitteilung verfassen, handelt es sich um eine Usenet-Gruppe. Wenn Sie in dieser Gruppe Nachrichten posten, ist Ihre E-Mail-Adresse für jeden im Internet sichtbar
A journalist contacted me. We've spoken of our point of view and what
each of us has understood of that law.
We don't agree on several points and I seriously think we need some
juridical advice.
In the meantime let's talk about that law and the risks for our
consumer freedom.
The main misunderstanding concerns point 4. What does that mean in
common language, it's just confusing:
Example:
- I buy a DVD in a store / that's OK (until now...)
- I buy anydvd online / point 3 says "It's forbidden to import" then
point a says "it's sold to bypass efficient technical measure"
- I crack the DVD with anydvd / point 1 says It's forbidden to bypass
- I make a backup copy / point 4 says "you can bypass for legitimate
use"
Is this private copy legitimate ?
Do I have the right to own that software ?
If the software was OpenSource do I have the right to improve it ?
Of course I think that the law forbids me the right to do so. But he
persists that the previous scenario isn't against the law. He say
point 4 allows me to bypass the other points, I disagree.
My point of view, is I can make a copy. But I don't have the right to
own or code a program that cracks the original.
I have another scenario to think about:
You rent a cable recorder with a Hard disk
You want to record one channel directly to a dvd.
You record the program. It's then recorded on the hard disk. No way to
burn it on a dvd.
You open the box, remove the hard disk, crack the file system burn it
to a dvd
Are you using point 4 "you can bypass for legitimate use". After all
this program was free to the air. It's just the cable company who
decided to lock that program down.
But point 3 still forbids me to produce a method to bypass. So do I
really have the right to crack into the file system?
Another one:
I buy a CD
I buy a last generation CD recorder with "error correction".
I make a working copy of the CD
It's well known that last generation CD (DVD) recorder bypass without
a software most basic copy protection.
Does that mean that the shops won't be allowed to sell recorder likely
to perform a copy of a protected CD (point 3c). Am I allowed to own
that CD recorder for private copies (point 4).
The main point is, the law paradoxical and obscure. It is so because Article 39 Abs 1, 2, 3 where written by the content industry. And Abs 4 was written by the consumer organizations. These two groups have diametral different views about the topic.
Hence the law is uninterpretable. But since law is what courts run on, it will get interpreted, and we all know from good example that the content-industry is extremely fond of "interpreting" such laws.
It's really a nobrainer, that law is bad, it's ambigous, it shouldn't be there.
On Dec 4, 2007 8:06 PM, Didier <didier.rod...@urbanet.ch> wrote:
> A journalist contacted me. We've spoken of our point of view and what > each of us has understood of that law.
> We don't agree on several points and I seriously think we need some > juridical advice. > In the meantime let's talk about that law and the risks for our > consumer freedom.
> The main misunderstanding concerns point 4. What does that mean in > common language, it's just confusing:
> Example:
> - I buy a DVD in a store / that's OK (until now...) > - I buy anydvd online / point 3 says "It's forbidden to import" then > point a says "it's sold to bypass efficient technical measure" > - I crack the DVD with anydvd / point 1 says It's forbidden to bypass > - I make a backup copy / point 4 says "you can bypass for legitimate > use"
> Is this private copy legitimate ? > Do I have the right to own that software ? > If the software was OpenSource do I have the right to improve it ?
> Of course I think that the law forbids me the right to do so. But he > persists that the previous scenario isn't against the law. He say > point 4 allows me to bypass the other points, I disagree. > My point of view, is I can make a copy. But I don't have the right to > own or code a program that cracks the original.
> I have another scenario to think about:
> You rent a cable recorder with a Hard disk > You want to record one channel directly to a dvd. > You record the program. It's then recorded on the hard disk. No way to > burn it on a dvd. > You open the box, remove the hard disk, crack the file system burn it > to a dvd
> Are you using point 4 "you can bypass for legitimate use". After all > this program was free to the air. It's just the cable company who > decided to lock that program down. > But point 3 still forbids me to produce a method to bypass. So do I > really have the right to crack into the file system?
> Another one:
> I buy a CD > I buy a last generation CD recorder with "error correction". > I make a working copy of the CD
> It's well known that last generation CD (DVD) recorder bypass without > a software most basic copy protection. > Does that mean that the shops won't be allowed to sell recorder likely > to perform a copy of a protected CD (point 3c). Am I allowed to own > that CD recorder for private copies (point 4).
Of course every law is interpretable : that's the job of judges.
The problem is that the law will have a large chilling effect and has
also a large potential for abuse.
It really doesn't matter what the judge will say, people and companies
will refrain (?) from doing some development because they will fear
prosecution ... even if they would be safe and, for individuals, just
want to exercise their right for make fair copies (backups, ...).
In other words, you cannot exercise your legitimate right to
circumvent copy protection (39.4) if there's no tool to do it - no
everybody is DVD Jon.
addition : the core criteria in points b in art 39.3 are impossible to
determine from a conceptor point of view. One can make a tool to strip
the protection mechanism, but that's the user that will use it and
define what is the "prime purpose" of the tool.
Ok, maybe not very constructed arguments, but still.
On Dec 4, 8:13 pm, "Florian Bösch" <pya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The main point is, the law paradoxical and obscure. It is so because Article
> 39 Abs 1, 2, 3 where written by the content industry. And Abs 4 was written
> by the consumer organizations. These two groups have diametral different
> views about the topic.
> Hence the law is uninterpretable. But since law is what courts run on, it
> will get interpreted, and we all know from good example that the
> content-industry is extremely fond of "interpreting" such laws.
> It's really a nobrainer, that law is bad, it's ambigous, it shouldn't be
> there.
> On Dec 4, 2007 8:06 PM, Didier <didier.rod...@urbanet.ch> wrote:
> > Hi folks
> > A journalist contacted me. We've spoken of our point of view and what
> > each of us has understood of that law.
> > We don't agree on several points and I seriously think we need some
> > juridical advice.
> > In the meantime let's talk about that law and the risks for our
> > consumer freedom.
> > The main misunderstanding concerns point 4. What does that mean in
> > common language, it's just confusing:
> > Example:
> > - I buy a DVD in a store / that's OK (until now...)
> > - I buy anydvd online / point 3 says "It's forbidden to import" then
> > point a says "it's sold to bypass efficient technical measure"
> > - I crack the DVD with anydvd / point 1 says It's forbidden to bypass
> > - I make a backup copy / point 4 says "you can bypass for legitimate
> > use"
> > Is this private copy legitimate ?
> > Do I have the right to own that software ?
> > If the software was OpenSource do I have the right to improve it ?
> > Of course I think that the law forbids me the right to do so. But he
> > persists that the previous scenario isn't against the law. He say
> > point 4 allows me to bypass the other points, I disagree.
> > My point of view, is I can make a copy. But I don't have the right to
> > own or code a program that cracks the original.
> > I have another scenario to think about:
> > You rent a cable recorder with a Hard disk
> > You want to record one channel directly to a dvd.
> > You record the program. It's then recorded on the hard disk. No way to
> > burn it on a dvd.
> > You open the box, remove the hard disk, crack the file system burn it
> > to a dvd
> > Are you using point 4 "you can bypass for legitimate use". After all
> > this program was free to the air. It's just the cable company who
> > decided to lock that program down.
> > But point 3 still forbids me to produce a method to bypass. So do I
> > really have the right to crack into the file system?
> > Another one:
> > I buy a CD
> > I buy a last generation CD recorder with "error correction".
> > I make a working copy of the CD
> > It's well known that last generation CD (DVD) recorder bypass without
> > a software most basic copy protection.
> > Does that mean that the shops won't be allowed to sell recorder likely
> > to perform a copy of a protected CD (point 3c). Am I allowed to own
> > that CD recorder for private copies (point 4).
I think the FUD agument is important: as soon as this gets through, the uncertainty can be used to create fear and doubt. In legal battles, often money wins, and the content industry has more than consumer groups..
About the facebook article: why not put it up on the no-dcma site, where it can be easily read without the facebook login etc.? I had to create a facebook account too see it, I doubt if others will bother, unless they already have accounts.
> About the facebook article: why not put it up on the no-dcma site, > where it can be easily read without the facebook login etc.? I had to > create a facebook account too see it, I doubt if others will bother, > unless they already have accounts.
> About the facebook article: why not put it up on the no-dcma site,
> where it can be easily read without the facebook login etc.? I had to
> create a facebook account too see it, I doubt if others will bother,
> unless they already have accounts.
As I understand this page is attended to be some kind of sample that
we can forward per mail.
Good idea, but there's one main problem:
People's (unexsting) attention:
So I would make something more brutal and direct to attract their
attention in the first lines. I would introduce my mailing by a
slogan:
"Dear Swiss Citizen, are you realy ready to be fined or jailed just
because you made some private copy of your own CD ?
No ? Then you should read the rest, because it's what's going to
happen next year if you carry on not caring about it..."
After that I would directly add the link for the PDF form (in the
right language.)
And after that all, I would introduce the extensive explanation
Of course we can make that text more consensual,less "in your face",
it's supposed to reach any citizen...
Another comment:
"Il devient illégal de bricoler une XBOX ou une Playstation"
"it's illegal to modify a XBOX or a Playstation".
Shouldn't we find a more common example, linked with DVD, CD or cable
TV or VCR, we've got to speak about theme that hook anyone...
I mean It would just be illegal to modify your cable TV top box,
that's an example that everyone is able to understand.
Or
It would be illegal to make a copy of your CD to listen to it in your
car.
I wait your comments
On 5 déc, 17:27, PowerKiKi <adrien.crive...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 10:42 pm, "Sean Boran" <s...@boran.com> wrote:
> > About the facebook article: why not put it up on the no-dcma site,
> > where it can be easily read without the facebook login etc.? I had to
> > create a facebook account too see it, I doubt if others will bother,
> > unless they already have accounts.
Well the problem is what you're proposing is lying, because it isn't like that. Beeing sensational with wrong facts will get you nowhere really. The problem is that the facts are complex, I would suggest a flash movie ala "trusted computing" or something.
On Dec 5, 2007 7:40 PM, Didier <didier.rod...@urbanet.ch> wrote:
> As I understand this page is attended to be some kind of sample that > we can forward per mail. > Good idea, but there's one main problem:
> People's (unexsting) attention:
> So I would make something more brutal and direct to attract their > attention in the first lines. I would introduce my mailing by a > slogan: > "Dear Swiss Citizen, are you realy ready to be fined or jailed just > because you made some private copy of your own CD ? > No ? Then you should read the rest, because it's what's going to > happen next year if you carry on not caring about it..."
> After that I would directly add the link for the PDF form (in the > right language.)
> And after that all, I would introduce the extensive explanation
> Of course we can make that text more consensual,less "in your face", > it's supposed to reach any citizen...
> Another comment: > "Il devient illégal de bricoler une XBOX ou une Playstation" > "it's illegal to modify a XBOX or a Playstation". > Shouldn't we find a more common example, linked with DVD, CD or cable > TV or VCR, we've got to speak about theme that hook anyone... > I mean It would just be illegal to modify your cable TV top box, > that's an example that everyone is able to understand. > Or > It would be illegal to make a copy of your CD to listen to it in your > car.
> > On Dec 4, 10:42 pm, "Sean Boran" <s...@boran.com> wrote:
> > > About the facebook article: why not put it up on the no-dcma site, > > > where it can be easily read without the facebook login etc.? I had to > > > create a facebook account too see it, I doubt if others will bother, > > > unless they already have accounts.
As I said, no need to be that radical, but I think a slogan would be a
good thing.
The problem is of course to find one.
I had contact today with a lawyer. He said concerning the CD copy for
your car and the need to bypass the security with a software that:
"l'Institut fédéral de la propriété intellectuelle: <<Il s'agit d'une
exception à la loi et non d'un droit.>>"
So in fact they tolerate it but it's not a right. That's all the
problem. So I don't think it's a lie, if they decide to persecute you
(no I don't mean prosecute) they'll have the law to do it.
Do you still think my slogan is lying ?
On 5 déc, 19:45, "Florian Bösch" <pya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well the problem is what you're proposing is lying, because it isn't like
> that. Beeing sensational with wrong facts will get you nowhere really. The
> problem is that the facts are complex, I would suggest a flash movie ala
> "trusted computing" or something.
> On Dec 5, 2007 7:40 PM, Didier <didier.rod...@urbanet.ch> wrote:
> > Nice job,
> > As I understand this page is attended to be some kind of sample that
> > we can forward per mail.
> > Good idea, but there's one main problem:
> > People's (unexsting) attention:
> > So I would make something more brutal and direct to attract their
> > attention in the first lines. I would introduce my mailing by a
> > slogan:
> > "Dear Swiss Citizen, are you realy ready to be fined or jailed just
> > because you made some private copy of your own CD ?
> > No ? Then you should read the rest, because it's what's going to
> > happen next year if you carry on not caring about it..."
> > After that I would directly add the link for the PDF form (in the
> > right language.)
> > And after that all, I would introduce the extensive explanation
> > Of course we can make that text more consensual,less "in your face",
> > it's supposed to reach any citizen...
> > Another comment:
> > "Il devient illégal de bricoler une XBOX ou une Playstation"
> > "it's illegal to modify a XBOX or a Playstation".
> > Shouldn't we find a more common example, linked with DVD, CD or cable
> > TV or VCR, we've got to speak about theme that hook anyone...
> > I mean It would just be illegal to modify your cable TV top box,
> > that's an example that everyone is able to understand.
> > Or
> > It would be illegal to make a copy of your CD to listen to it in your
> > car.
> > > On Dec 4, 10:42 pm, "Sean Boran" <s...@boran.com> wrote:
> > > > About the facebook article: why not put it up on the no-dcma site,
> > > > where it can be easily read without the facebook login etc.? I had to
> > > > create a facebook account too see it, I doubt if others will bother,
> > > > unless they already have accounts.
> As I said, no need to be that radical, but I think a slogan would be a > good thing. > The problem is of course to find one.
> I had contact today with a lawyer. He said concerning the CD copy for > your car and the need to bypass the security with a software that: > "l'Institut fédéral de la propriété intellectuelle: <<Il s'agit d'une > exception à la loi et non d'un droit.>>" > So in fact they tolerate it but it's not a right. That's all the > problem. So I don't think it's a lie, if they decide to persecute you > (no I don't mean prosecute) they'll have the law to do it.
> Do you still think my slogan is lying ?
> On 5 déc, 19:45, "Florian Bösch" <pya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well the problem is what you're proposing is lying, because it isn't > like > > that. Beeing sensational with wrong facts will get you nowhere really. > The > > problem is that the facts are complex, I would suggest a flash movie ala > > "trusted computing" or something.
> > On Dec 5, 2007 7:40 PM, Didier <didier.rod...@urbanet.ch> wrote:
> > > Nice job,
> > > As I understand this page is attended to be some kind of sample that > > > we can forward per mail. > > > Good idea, but there's one main problem:
> > > People's (unexsting) attention:
> > > So I would make something more brutal and direct to attract their > > > attention in the first lines. I would introduce my mailing by a > > > slogan: > > > "Dear Swiss Citizen, are you realy ready to be fined or jailed just > > > because you made some private copy of your own CD ? > > > No ? Then you should read the rest, because it's what's going to > > > happen next year if you carry on not caring about it..."
> > > After that I would directly add the link for the PDF form (in the > > > right language.)
> > > And after that all, I would introduce the extensive explanation
> > > Of course we can make that text more consensual,less "in your face", > > > it's supposed to reach any citizen...
> > > Another comment: > > > "Il devient illégal de bricoler une XBOX ou une Playstation" > > > "it's illegal to modify a XBOX or a Playstation". > > > Shouldn't we find a more common example, linked with DVD, CD or cable > > > TV or VCR, we've got to speak about theme that hook anyone... > > > I mean It would just be illegal to modify your cable TV top box, > > > that's an example that everyone is able to understand. > > > Or > > > It would be illegal to make a copy of your CD to listen to it in your > > > car.
> > > > On Dec 4, 10:42 pm, "Sean Boran" <s...@boran.com> wrote:
> > > > > About the facebook article: why not put it up on the no-dcma site, > > > > > where it can be easily read without the facebook login etc.? I had > to > > > > > create a facebook account too see it, I doubt if others will > bother, > > > > > unless they already have accounts.
Ok,
you're the moderator, I'll stick to your point of view. But your short
answer doesn't help me.
It's just once again confusing. Can't you be more accurate on that
particular point (copy of a protected cd for my own use).
Sorry to insist, but I'm getting lost.
On 5 déc, 20:21, "Florian Bösch" <pya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is nothing new however, and isn't what the current law will change.
> On Dec 5, 2007 8:06 PM, Didier <didier.rod...@urbanet.ch> wrote:
> > As I said, no need to be that radical, but I think a slogan would be a
> > good thing.
> > The problem is of course to find one.
> > I had contact today with a lawyer. He said concerning the CD copy for
> > your car and the need to bypass the security with a software that:
> > "l'Institut fédéral de la propriété intellectuelle: <<Il s'agit d'une
> > exception à la loi et non d'un droit.>>"
> > So in fact they tolerate it but it's not a right. That's all the
> > problem. So I don't think it's a lie, if they decide to persecute you
> > (no I don't mean prosecute) they'll have the law to do it.
> > Do you still think my slogan is lying ?
> > On 5 déc, 19:45, "Florian Bösch" <pya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well the problem is what you're proposing is lying, because it isn't
> > like
> > > that. Beeing sensational with wrong facts will get you nowhere really.
> > The
> > > problem is that the facts are complex, I would suggest a flash movie ala
> > > "trusted computing" or something.
> > > On Dec 5, 2007 7:40 PM, Didier <didier.rod...@urbanet.ch> wrote:
> > > > Nice job,
> > > > As I understand this page is attended to be some kind of sample that
> > > > we can forward per mail.
> > > > Good idea, but there's one main problem:
> > > > People's (unexsting) attention:
> > > > So I would make something more brutal and direct to attract their
> > > > attention in the first lines. I would introduce my mailing by a
> > > > slogan:
> > > > "Dear Swiss Citizen, are you realy ready to be fined or jailed just
> > > > because you made some private copy of your own CD ?
> > > > No ? Then you should read the rest, because it's what's going to
> > > > happen next year if you carry on not caring about it..."
> > > > After that I would directly add the link for the PDF form (in the
> > > > right language.)
> > > > And after that all, I would introduce the extensive explanation
> > > > Of course we can make that text more consensual,less "in your face",
> > > > it's supposed to reach any citizen...
> > > > Another comment:
> > > > "Il devient illégal de bricoler une XBOX ou une Playstation"
> > > > "it's illegal to modify a XBOX or a Playstation".
> > > > Shouldn't we find a more common example, linked with DVD, CD or cable
> > > > TV or VCR, we've got to speak about theme that hook anyone...
> > > > I mean It would just be illegal to modify your cable TV top box,
> > > > that's an example that everyone is able to understand.
> > > > Or
> > > > It would be illegal to make a copy of your CD to listen to it in your
> > > > car.
> > > > > On Dec 4, 10:42 pm, "Sean Boran" <s...@boran.com> wrote:
> > > > > > About the facebook article: why not put it up on the no-dcma site,
> > > > > > where it can be easily read without the facebook login etc.? I had
> > to
> > > > > > create a facebook account too see it, I doubt if others will
> > bother,
> > > > > > unless they already have accounts.
> Ok, > you're the moderator, I'll stick to your point of view. But your short > answer doesn't help me. > It's just once again confusing. Can't you be more accurate on that > particular point (copy of a protected cd for my own use). > Sorry to insist, but I'm getting lost.
> On 5 déc, 20:21, "Florian Bösch" <pya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This is nothing new however, and isn't what the current law will change.
> > On Dec 5, 2007 8:06 PM, Didier <didier.rod...@urbanet.ch> wrote:
> > > As I said, no need to be that radical, but I think a slogan would be a > > > good thing. > > > The problem is of course to find one.
> > > I had contact today with a lawyer. He said concerning the CD copy for > > > your car and the need to bypass the security with a software that: > > > "l'Institut fédéral de la propriété intellectuelle: <<Il s'agit d'une > > > exception à la loi et non d'un droit.>>" > > > So in fact they tolerate it but it's not a right. That's all the > > > problem. So I don't think it's a lie, if they decide to persecute you > > > (no I don't mean prosecute) they'll have the law to do it.
> > > Do you still think my slogan is lying ?
> > > On 5 déc, 19:45, "Florian Bösch" <pya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Well the problem is what you're proposing is lying, because it isn't > > > like > > > > that. Beeing sensational with wrong facts will get you nowhere > really. > > > The > > > > problem is that the facts are complex, I would suggest a flash movie > ala > > > > "trusted computing" or something.
> > > > On Dec 5, 2007 7:40 PM, Didier <didier.rod...@urbanet.ch> wrote:
> > > > > Nice job,
> > > > > As I understand this page is attended to be some kind of sample > that > > > > > we can forward per mail. > > > > > Good idea, but there's one main problem:
> > > > > People's (unexsting) attention:
> > > > > So I would make something more brutal and direct to attract their > > > > > attention in the first lines. I would introduce my mailing by a > > > > > slogan: > > > > > "Dear Swiss Citizen, are you realy ready to be fined or jailed > just > > > > > because you made some private copy of your own CD ? > > > > > No ? Then you should read the rest, because it's what's going to > > > > > happen next year if you carry on not caring about it..."
> > > > > After that I would directly add the link for the PDF form (in the > > > > > right language.)
> > > > > And after that all, I would introduce the extensive explanation
> > > > > Of course we can make that text more consensual,less "in your > face", > > > > > it's supposed to reach any citizen...
> > > > > Another comment: > > > > > "Il devient illégal de bricoler une XBOX ou une Playstation" > > > > > "it's illegal to modify a XBOX or a Playstation". > > > > > Shouldn't we find a more common example, linked with DVD, CD or > cable > > > > > TV or VCR, we've got to speak about theme that hook anyone... > > > > > I mean It would just be illegal to modify your cable TV top box, > > > > > that's an example that everyone is able to understand. > > > > > Or > > > > > It would be illegal to make a copy of your CD to listen to it in > your > > > > > car.
> > > > > I wait your comments
> > > > > On 5 déc, 17:27, PowerKiKi <adrien.crive...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I copied this article to the wiki: > > >http://wiki.no-dmca.ch/email_template
> > > > > > On Dec 4, 10:42 pm, "Sean Boran" <s...@boran.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > About the facebook article: why not put it up on the no-dcma > site, > > > > > > > where it can be easily read without the facebook login etc.? I > had > > > to > > > > > > > create a facebook account too see it, I doubt if others will > > > bother, > > > > > > > unless they already have accounts.
Ok,
let's say it's more complex, so you would prefer something like
"Dear Swiss Citizen, are you really ready to be fined or jailed just
because you made some private copy of your own CD ?
No ? Then you should read the rest, because it's what's COULD
happen next year. A LAW THAT COULD LEAD TO THIS ISSUE
HAS BEEN VOTED BY OUR PARLIAMENT"
excuse the capital letters it's to pinpoint the difference.
Sorry guys you're wasting your time. At this stage, the important
thing is to get signatures, no time for long debates, neither among
us
nor with the people in the street. Those who sign: "thank you". Those
who won't: "have a nice day". Save your time and energy for signature
collection. So instead of debating here: get out there and get some
signatures. Go to bed early and and get some signatures before work
tomorrow. Leave work early and get some signatures in the crowd of
commuting people.
There will be enough time to debate once we prepare the vote.
Peter
On 5 Dez., 21:03, Didier <didier.rod...@urbanet.ch> wrote:
> Ok,
> let's say it's more complex, so you would prefer something like
> "Dear Swiss Citizen, are you really ready to be fined or jailed just
> because you made some private copy of your own CD ?
> No ? Then you should read the rest, because it's what's COULD
> happen next year. A LAW THAT COULD LEAD TO THIS ISSUE
> HAS BEEN VOTED BY OUR PARLIAMENT"
> excuse the capital letters it's to pinpoint the difference.
I can't bring people to sign something I'm not convinced of.
This forum was useful to me. I need to debate to understand
I had to answer a journalist, you can't just tell nonsense in a
newspaper. It would be harmfull to our cause
I also need flyers to interract with people's unexisting attention.
This site is creating those flyers
So I really don't think it's useless
But you're right we're in a hurry...
On 6 déc, 02:48, PeterKeller <peter.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry guys you're wasting your time. At this stage, the important
> thing is to get signatures, no time for long debates, neither among
> us
> nor with the people in the street. Those who sign: "thank you". Those
> who won't: "have a nice day". Save your time and energy for signature
> collection. So instead of debating here: get out there and get some
> signatures. Go to bed early and and get some signatures before work
> tomorrow. Leave work early and get some signatures in the crowd of
> commuting people.
> There will be enough time to debate once we prepare the vote.
> Peter
> On 5 Dez., 21:03, Didier <didier.rod...@urbanet.ch> wrote:
> > Ok,
> > let's say it's more complex, so you would prefer something like
> > "Dear Swiss Citizen, are you really ready to be fined or jailed just
> > because you made some private copy of your own CD ?
> > No ? Then you should read the rest, because it's what's COULD
> > happen next year. A LAW THAT COULD LEAD TO THIS ISSUE
> > HAS BEEN VOTED BY OUR PARLIAMENT"
> > excuse the capital letters it's to pinpoint the difference.
I agree with both, on one hand I've had debate with people I emailed because the arguments were not clearly formulated. Without flyers there is no change of convincing non-techies. If you send an a badly formulated email to your friends, the chance is lost, you can't really send out a second one with explanations. And time is really, really short. I think content needs to be finalised soon, so mass mailing and handing out of flyers can start.
Has anyone actually handed out any kind of flyers yet, have they and feedback?
Sean
On 06/12/2007, Didier <didier.rod...@urbanet.ch> wrote:
> I can't bring people to sign something I'm not convinced of. > This forum was useful to me. I need to debate to understand > I had to answer a journalist, you can't just tell nonsense in a > newspaper. It would be harmfull to our cause > I also need flyers to interract with people's unexisting attention. > This site is creating those flyers > So I really don't think it's useless > But you're right we're in a hurry...
> On 6 déc, 02:48, PeterKeller <peter.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry guys you're wasting your time. At this stage, the important > > thing is to get signatures, no time for long debates, neither among > > us > > nor with the people in the street. Those who sign: "thank you". Those > > who won't: "have a nice day". Save your time and energy for signature > > collection. So instead of debating here: get out there and get some > > signatures. Go to bed early and and get some signatures before work > > tomorrow. Leave work early and get some signatures in the crowd of > > commuting people.
> > There will be enough time to debate once we prepare the vote.
> > Peter
> > On 5 Dez., 21:03, Didier <didier.rod...@urbanet.ch> wrote:
> > > Ok, > > > let's say it's more complex, so you would prefer something like
> > > "Dear Swiss Citizen, are you really ready to be fined or jailed just > > > because you made some private copy of your own CD ? > > > No ? Then you should read the rest, because it's what's COULD > > > happen next year. A LAW THAT COULD LEAD TO THIS ISSUE > > > HAS BEEN VOTED BY OUR PARLIAMENT"
> > > excuse the capital letters it's to pinpoint the difference.
After reading briefly through the parliament debates, here is my
impression (also reflected in the email template I wrote (http://
wiki.no-dmca.ch/email_template)):
* Point 4 allows consumers to use DRM crackers to make copies for
private use.
* Point 3, however, forbids consumers to create, import, distribute
and mention DRM crackers.
The conclusion is: We can use them but it is illegal to download them
and even mention them. Whis is what is ridiculous and which is what we
should use as the main justification for our referendum.
Regarding Didier's thoughts / talks:
> Example:
> - I buy a DVD in a store / that's OK (until now...)
> - I buy anydvd online / point 3 says "It's forbidden to import" then
> point a says "it's sold to bypass efficient technical measure"
> - I crack the DVD with anydvd / point 1 says It's forbidden to bypass
> - I make a backup copy / point 4 says "you can bypass for legitimate
> use"
> Is this private copy legitimate ?
Yes, it has been before, and it will be after.
> Do I have the right to own that software ?
Yes, according to Point 4, which allows you to use the software to
crack the DRM, but ONLY using it. Point 4 only cancels Point 1 in case
of private use. Point 3 is strict, no exceptions.
> If the software was OpenSource do I have the right to improve it ?
No. According to Point 3.
> Of course I think that the law forbids me the right to do so. But he
> persists that the previous scenario isn't against the law.
He's right.
> He say
> point 4 allows me to bypass the other points, I disagree.
You're right. Not all other points, just point 1.
> My point of view, is I can make a copy. But I don't have the right to
> own or code a program that cracks the original.
Own: yes. Code: no.
> I have another scenario to think about:
> You rent a cable recorder with a Hard disk
> You want to record one channel directly to a dvd.
[...]
> You open the box, remove the hard disk, crack the file system burn it
> to a dvd
> Are you using point 4 "you can bypass for legitimate use". After all
> this program was free to the air. [...]
> But point 3 still forbids me to produce a method to bypass. So do I
> really have the right to crack into the file system?
You can crack the file system, but you can't produce the method
yourself.
(Independent from the issue of not having the right to open and modify
rented equipment or to loose the guarantee for bought equipment.)
> Another one:
> I buy a CD
> I buy a last generation CD recorder with "error correction".
> I make a working copy of the CD
> It's well known that last generation CD (DVD) recorder bypass without
> a software most basic copy protection.
> Does that mean that the shops won't be allowed to sell recorder likely
> to perform a copy of a protected CD (point 3c).
Yes, they won't be allowed.
> Am I allowed to own
> that CD recorder for private copies (point 4).
Yes.
I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure I'm right about this.
Peter
On 4 Dez., 20:06, Didier <didier.rod...@urbanet.ch> wrote:
> A journalist contacted me. We've spoken of our point of view and what
> each of us has understood of that law.
> We don't agree on several points and I seriously think we need some
> juridical advice.
> In the meantime let's talk about that law and the risks for our
> consumer freedom.
> The main misunderstanding concerns point 4. What does that mean in
> common language, it's just confusing:
> Example:
> - I buy a DVD in a store / that's OK (until now...)
> - I buy anydvd online / point 3 says "It's forbidden to import" then
> point a says "it's sold to bypass efficient technical measure"
> - I crack the DVD with anydvd / point 1 says It's forbidden to bypass
> - I make a backup copy / point 4 says "you can bypass for legitimate
> use"
> Is this private copy legitimate ?
> Do I have the right to own that software ?
> If the software was OpenSource do I have the right to improve it ?
> Of course I think that the law forbids me the right to do so. But he
> persists that the previous scenario isn't against the law. He say
> point 4 allows me to bypass the other points, I disagree.
> My point of view, is I can make a copy. But I don't have the right to
> own or code a program that cracks the original.
> I have another scenario to think about:
> You rent a cable recorder with a Hard disk
> You want to record one channel directly to a dvd.
> You record the program. It's then recorded on the hard disk. No way to
> burn it on a dvd.
> You open the box, remove the hard disk, crack the file system burn it
> to a dvd
> Are you using point 4 "you can bypass for legitimate use". After all
> this program was free to the air. It's just the cable company who
> decided to lock that program down.
> But point 3 still forbids me to produce a method to bypass. So do I
> really have the right to crack into the file system?
> Another one:
> I buy a CD
> I buy a last generation CD recorder with "error correction".
> I make a working copy of the CD
> It's well known that last generation CD (DVD) recorder bypass without
> a software most basic copy protection.
> Does that mean that the shops won't be allowed to sell recorder likely
> to perform a copy of a protected CD (point 3c). Am I allowed to own
> that CD recorder for private copies (point 4).
It is thought provoking, especially the idea that a) Switzerland would under pressure anyway to pass this law, since it ratified the treaty.. b) could do more harm than good.
> It is thought provoking, especially the idea that > a) Switzerland would under pressure anyway to pass this law, since it > ratified the treaty.. > b) could do more harm than good.
> Is Tonnerre on this list, do any of you know him?
Tonnere is from the ffii.ch. (forwarded to you the whole discussion). The essence of the argument is:
If we manage to abolish the law now, the next will be worse. We don't agree on a few essential point, where he doubtlessly has more expirience. My particular trouble with his line of argument is:
* Tonnere apears to me defeatist, pessimistic and has no trust in the power of the public whatsoever. While this is maybe justified, I certainly wouldn't do anything about a law if I thought that way. * He makes predictions about the future. I refuse, on the grounds of principle and heisenberg, to make such predictions. For me it is very clear that: If the consumer gets a lot of new duties and restrictions, and the industry gets a lot of new rights to exercise freely, then the new law is definitly worse then the one we have.
The Future is uncertain at all times, we can do something now, and maybe make it matter, or we can abandon all hope.
From: *Florian Bösch* <pya...@gmail.com> Date: Dec 2, 2007 5:54 PM To: chaosli...@chaostreff.ch
Hi,
The new copyright act that the swiss goverment approved contains a dangerous and hidden sting. You can read about it on the home page for the referendum<http://no-dmca.ch>( no-dmca.ch), basically it means you cannot circumvent drm, you may however for private purpose, but you cannot distribute, mention, talk about, advertise etc. the means to do so.
this is rather silly, and I'm pretty unhappy about it. Please help me fight this law in any way you can.
Thanks, Florian ---------- From: *Marco Meile* <li...@natural-geek.org> Date: Dec 2, 2007 8:15 PM To: chaosli...@chaostreff.ch
Wir sollten kommendes Wochenende in den verschiedenen Orten wo wir uns grad aufhalten, Unterschriften sammeln.
Ich schau das ich zum naechsten Chaostreff kommen kann, und schau das wir in St.Gallen leute zum sammeln zusammentrommeln koennen.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d-- s-:- a-- C++ UL+++ P-- L+++ E--- W++ N+ o K- w-- O-- M V- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t 5 X++ R tv- b+ DI-- D+ G++ e+ h++ r y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
_______________________________________________ Chaosliste mailing list Chaosli...@chaostreff.ch http://sonne.alt-f4.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chaosliste ---------- From: *Norbert Bollow* <n...@bollow.ch> Date: Dec 3, 2007 3:49 PM To: pya...@gmail.com Cc: chaosli...@chaostreff.ch
Florian <pya...@gmail.com> schrieb: Doing a referendum at the current stage is IMO a tactically and strategically very bad idea. That would only have the effect of strengthening the position of the pro-DRM lobby.
If you want to join us in the fight against DRM - great.
There are good ways for taking effective action, but in the current situation, a referendum campaign is not one of them.
Greetings, Norbert.
-- Norbert Bollow <n...@bollow.ch> http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ---------- From: *Florian Bösch* <pya...@gmail.com> Date: Dec 3, 2007 4:12 PM To: Norbert Bollow <n...@bollow.ch> Cc: chaosli...@chaostreff.ch
I see your point, I really do. But what do you suggest amounts to take it lying down that:
* our law gets written by the american content industry * you can sneak harmful laws in under the radar * you can get parties and consumer orginizations to line up nicely and trust them not to vote against it (only two bloddy votes against), and not start a referendum at all...
Well yes, you're right, maybe it's wrong, but it's the right kind of wrong.
Salut, That is wrong, it has actually been written by the European content mafia, and has been released by the European Commission as «EUCD». It diffunded to Switzerland with some more serious formulations. Also wrong. It has been known for at least 2 years now, and people have worked on this legislative proposal for ages. We even had public meetings on this subjects, have published amendments, and other things.
I'm sorry if you slept through it all like all the others. That is indeed true, but it is mostly caused (in my opinion) that we left this item slip for too long and that our work power was very low. Plus some other organizational problems in my opinion.
Well it doesn't really matter by which mafia we get screwed over does it?
Yes afterwards everybody's sorry, I admit it first of all, I didn't give a damn because I (naively) thought that _somebody_ will look after this and make some waves before it gets that serious.
Whatever caused it to be slipped trough so smoothly, it again doesn't matter, it happend, it's bad, it makes me feel sacked.
What're we going to do about it so we can sleep at night and look ourself into the face in the mirror, now that another thing.
---------- From: *Tonnerre LOMBARD* <tonne...@ffii.ch> Date: Dec 3, 2007 4:41 PM To: Florian Bösch <pya...@gmail.com> Cc: Norbert Bollow <n...@bollow.ch>, chaosli...@chaostreff.ch
Salut, Yes, but they have only exercised their right to provide input to the legislators. What you name as a systematic failure is indeed only our own failure to react appropriately. The system itself did its work, there is no obligation of the parliament to stop this type of legislation if no or hardly any input has been provided.
(How should they even tell?) Well, at least we should not start stupid referenda against it becuse we are bound to fail right now, and if we do, we will give the content mafia a great opportunity to test their legislation in court.
We are indeed taking action in this area, and everyone is welcome to help us by joining the discussion on the FSF Europe mailing lists. However, what I see as the real problem here is that there are indeed people who do things like this petition without being in contact with us. It shows that we still have a major problem of communication to solve.
Tonnerre ---------- From: *Florian Bösch* <pya...@gmail.com> Date: Dec 3, 2007 4:45 PM To: Tonnerre LOMBARD <tonne...@ffii.ch>
They will test it in court anyway, regardless of what we do. The only way to get them not to test it in court is not to let them pass the stupid law to begin with.
Now you're beeing unfair to yourself. I have a major problem of communication to solve, and I'm working on that right now. I mean to say, I'm not alright with this law beeing passed, and I will do whatever is left for me to do against it, however little that is. Yes it's not very likely to succeed, granted, and I acknowledge that the whole thing doesn't fit whatever was planned. But trying is all one can do.
---------- From: *Tonnerre LOMBARD* <tonne...@ffii.ch> Date: Dec 3, 2007 4:53 PM To: Florian Bösch <pya...@gmail.com>
Salut, Yes, but what could be worse than a referendum pro this law? Or a failed one? It is not an applicable subject right now. The public is not sensibilized sufficiently. Yes, but still we, the activists in .CH, do anything but we don't know what the others are doing and thinking. We need to change that NOW.
Tonnerre ---------- From: *Norbert Bollow* <n...@bollow.ch> Date: Dec 3, 2007 5:12 PM To: pya...@gmail.com Cc: chaosli...@chaostreff.ch
Not really.
The major battle was over Art 39a(4) which the content industry pushed hard to get deleted from the draft law.
We won that battle.
If we had lost it, I would have started a referendum campaign long ago.
For a time it looked like we might lose that battle, and I even got to the point of registering a domain name that I thought would be good for the referendum campaign in case it would be needed.
If you read the media release from the relevant meeting of the legal affairs commission of the national council, you see that Mr Visher (who chaired that commission) described the commission's resolution as "referendumsfähig" (capable of surviving a refrendum) which shows that he was very aware that there'd be a referendum with reasonable chances of success if they had given in to the content industry's demand to strike Art 39a(4). If we had been able to recruit more lobbyists at the time when it mattered, and/or if we had been better-organized, we might have been able to achieve more than we did (I believe Tonnerre has some details on that online somewhere), but sleeping through the main phases of the political process and afterwards saying "oh, let's make a referendum" is simply not going to help our side. We need to act in such ways that we will be politically taken seriously
...
> It is thought provoking, especially the idea that > a) Switzerland would under pressure anyway to pass this law, since it > ratified the treaty.. > b) could do more harm than good.
> Is Tonnerre on this list, do any of you know him?
Tonnere is from the ffii.ch. (forwarded to you the whole discussion). The essence of the argument is:
If we manage to abolish the law now, the next will be worse. We don't agree on a few essential point, where he doubtlessly has more expirience. My particular trouble with his line of argument is:
* Tonnere apears to me defeatist, pessimistic and has no trust in the power of the public whatsoever. While this is maybe justified, I certainly wouldn't do anything about a law if I thought that way. * He makes predictions about the future. I refuse, on the grounds of principle and heisenberg, to make such predictions. For me it is very clear that: If the consumer gets a lot of new duties and restrictions, and the industry gets a lot of new rights to exercise freely, then the new law is definitly worse then the one we have.
The Future is uncertain at all times, we can do something now, and maybe make it matter, or we can abandon all hope.
From: *Florian Bösch* <pya...@gmail.com> Date: Dec 2, 2007 5:54 PM To: chaosli...@chaostreff.ch
Hi,
The new copyright act that the swiss goverment approved contains a dangerous and hidden sting. You can read about it on the home page for the referendum<http://no-dmca.ch>( no-dmca.ch), basically it means you cannot circumvent drm, you may however for private purpose, but you cannot distribute, mention, talk about, advertise etc. the means to do so.
this is rather silly, and I'm pretty unhappy about it. Please help me fight this law in any way you can.
Thanks, Florian ---------- From: *Marco Meile* <li...@natural-geek.org> Date: Dec 2, 2007 8:15 PM To: chaosli...@chaostreff.ch
Wir sollten kommendes Wochenende in den verschiedenen Orten wo wir uns grad aufhalten, Unterschriften sammeln.
Ich schau das ich zum naechsten Chaostreff kommen kann, und schau das wir in St.Gallen leute zum sammeln zusammentrommeln koennen.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d-- s-:- a-- C++ UL+++ P-- L+++ E--- W++ N+ o K- w-- O-- M V- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t 5 X++ R tv- b+ DI-- D+ G++ e+ h++ r y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
_______________________________________________ Chaosliste mailing list Chaosli...@chaostreff.ch http://sonne.alt-f4.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chaosliste ---------- From: *Norbert Bollow* <n...@bollow.ch> Date: Dec 3, 2007 3:49 PM To: pya...@gmail.com Cc: chaosli...@chaostreff.ch
Florian <pya...@gmail.com> schrieb: Doing a referendum at the current stage is IMO a tactically and strategically very bad idea. That would only have the effect of strengthening the position of the pro-DRM lobby.
If you want to join us in the fight against DRM - great.
There are good ways for taking effective action, but in the current situation, a referendum campaign is not one of them.
Greetings, Norbert.
-- Norbert Bollow <n...@bollow.ch> http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ---------- From: *Florian Bösch* <pya...@gmail.com> Date: Dec 3, 2007 4:12 PM To: Norbert Bollow <n...@bollow.ch> Cc: chaosli...@chaostreff.ch
I see your point, I really do. But what do you suggest amounts to take it lying down that:
* our law gets written by the american content industry * you can sneak harmful laws in under the radar * you can get parties and consumer orginizations to line up nicely and trust them not to vote against it (only two bloddy votes against), and not start a referendum at all...
Well yes, you're right, maybe it's wrong, but it's the right kind of wrong.
Salut, That is wrong, it has actually been written by the European content mafia, and has been released by the European Commission as «EUCD». It diffunded to Switzerland with some more serious formulations. Also wrong. It has been known for at least 2 years now, and people have worked on this legislative proposal for ages. We even had public meetings on this subjects, have published amendments, and other things.
I'm sorry if you slept through it all like all the others. That is indeed true, but it is mostly caused (in my opinion) that we left this item slip for too long and that our work power was very low. Plus some other organizational problems in my opinion.
Well it doesn't really matter by which mafia we get screwed over does it?
Yes afterwards everybody's sorry, I admit it first of all, I didn't give a damn because I (naively) thought that _somebody_ will look after this and make some waves before it gets that serious.
Whatever caused it to be slipped trough so smoothly, it again doesn't matter, it happend, it's bad, it makes me feel sacked.
What're we going to do about it so we can sleep at night and look ourself into the face in the mirror, now that another thing.
---------- From: *Tonnerre LOMBARD* <tonne...@ffii.ch> Date: Dec 3, 2007 4:41 PM To: Florian Bösch <pya...@gmail.com> Cc: Norbert Bollow <n...@bollow.ch>, chaosli...@chaostreff.ch
Salut, Yes, but they have only exercised their right to provide input to the legislators. What you name as a systematic failure is indeed only our own failure to react appropriately. The system itself did its work, there is no obligation of the parliament to stop this type of legislation if no or hardly any input has been provided.
(How should they even tell?) Well, at least we should not start stupid referenda against it becuse we are bound to fail right now, and if we do, we will give the content mafia a great opportunity to test their legislation in court.
We are indeed taking action in this area, and everyone is welcome to help us by joining the discussion on the FSF Europe mailing lists. However, what I see as the real problem here is that there are indeed people who do things like this petition without being in contact with us. It shows that we still have a major problem of communication to solve.
Tonnerre ---------- From: *Florian Bösch* <pya...@gmail.com> Date: Dec 3, 2007 4:45 PM To: Tonnerre LOMBARD <tonne...@ffii.ch>
They will test it in court anyway, regardless of what we do. The only way to get them not to test it in court is not to let them pass the stupid law to begin with.
Now you're beeing unfair to yourself. I have a major problem of communication to solve, and I'm working on that right now. I mean to say, I'm not alright with this law beeing passed, and I will do whatever is left for me to do against it, however little that is. Yes it's not very likely to succeed, granted, and I acknowledge that the whole thing doesn't fit whatever was planned. But trying is all one can do.
---------- From: *Tonnerre LOMBARD* <tonne...@ffii.ch> Date: Dec 3, 2007 4:53 PM To: Florian Bösch <pya...@gmail.com>
Salut, Yes, but what could be worse than a referendum pro this law? Or a failed one? It is not an applicable subject right now. The public is not sensibilized sufficiently. Yes, but still we, the activists in .CH, do anything but we don't know what the others are doing and thinking. We need to change that NOW.
Tonnerre ---------- From: *Norbert Bollow* <n...@bollow.ch> Date: Dec 3, 2007 5:12 PM To: pya...@gmail.com Cc: chaosli...@chaostreff.ch
Not really.
The major battle was over Art 39a(4) which the content industry pushed hard to get deleted from the draft law.
We won that battle.
If we had lost it, I would have started a referendum campaign long ago.
For a time it looked like we might lose that battle, and I even got to the point of registering a domain name that I thought would be good for the referendum campaign in case it would be needed.
If you read the media release from the relevant meeting of the legal affairs commission of the national council, you see that Mr Visher (who chaired that commission) described the commission's resolution as "referendumsfähig" (capable of surviving a refrendum) which shows that he was very aware that there'd be a referendum with reasonable chances of success if they had given in to the content industry's demand to strike Art 39a(4). If we had been able to recruit more lobbyists at the time when it mattered, and/or if we had been better-organized, we might have been able to achieve more than we did (I believe Tonnerre has some details on that online somewhere), but sleeping through the main phases of the political process and afterwards saying "oh, let's make a referendum" is simply not going to help our side. We need to act in such ways that we will be politically taken seriously
...
Thanks very must for forwarding that thread. It _is_ important to think long term too.. Tonnerre does seem very pessimistic about the Swiss public and democracy, but he has experience. I've never been involved before, and have not been 'burned yet' :-)
But if we don't go ahead, then what? Its kind of difficult to 'sit idly by', are the DRM train gain momentum everywhere..
> > It is thought provoking, especially the idea that
> > a) Switzerland would under pressure anyway to pass this law, since it
> > ratified the treaty..
> > b) could do more harm than good.
> > Is Tonnerre on this list, do any of you know him?
> Tonnere is from the ffii.ch. (forwarded to you the whole discussion). The
> essence of the argument is:
> If we manage to abolish the law now, the next will be worse. We don't agree
> on a few essential point, where he doubtlessly has more expirience. My
> particular trouble with his line of argument is:
> * Tonnere apears to me defeatist, pessimistic and has no trust in the power
> of the public whatsoever. While this is maybe justified, I certainly
> wouldn't do anything about a law if I thought that way.
> * He makes predictions about the future. I refuse, on the grounds of
> principle and heisenberg, to make such predictions. For me it is very clear
> that: If the consumer gets a lot of new duties and restrictions, and the
> industry gets a lot of new rights to exercise freely, then the new law is
> definitly worse then the one we have.
> The Future is uncertain at all times, we can do something now, and maybe
> make it matter, or we can abandon all hope.
Florian, I fully agree with you. Making us fear "the next law will be
worse" just doesn't apply. If the Swiss people say "no" to this law,
how would they ever say "yes" to a law wich is even worse? No way.
About International treaties: Thank god the Swiss people have the last
word here, too. The government signs a treaty, and the people vote
against it? Cancelled! That's why we got to vote about joining the
EEA, Schengen, the EU, the UN, etc. That's why we got to vote over
treaties like the Bilateral Agreements I and II, paying one billion to
Eastern Europe, etc. That's why often in these treaties I guess the
Swiss government puts a phrase like "it will enter into action except
if the Swiss people vote against it".
Peter
On 7 Dez., 08:18, "Florian Bösch" <pya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is thought provoking, especially the idea that
> > a) Switzerland would under pressure anyway to pass this law, since it
> > ratified the treaty..
> > b) could do more harm than good.
> > Is Tonnerre on this list, do any of you know him?
> Tonnere is from the ffii.ch. (forwarded to you the whole discussion). The
> essence of the argument is:
> If we manage to abolish the law now, the next will be worse. We don't agree
> on a few essential point, where he doubtlessly has more expirience. My
> particular trouble with his line of argument is:
> * Tonnere apears to me defeatist, pessimistic and has no trust in the power
> of the public whatsoever. While this is maybe justified, I certainly
> wouldn't do anything about a law if I thought that way.
> * He makes predictions about the future. I refuse, on the grounds of
> principle and heisenberg, to make such predictions. For me it is very clear
> that: If the consumer gets a lot of new duties and restrictions, and the
> industry gets a lot of new rights to exercise freely, then the new law is
> definitly worse then the one we have.
> The Future is uncertain at all times, we can do something now, and maybe
> make it matter, or we can abandon all hope.
> From: *Florian Bösch* <pya...@gmail.com>
> Date: Dec 2, 2007 5:54 PM
> To: chaosli...@chaostreff.ch
> Hi,
> The new copyright act that the swiss goverment approved contains a dangerous
> and hidden sting. You can read about it on the home page for the
> referendum<http://no-dmca.ch>(
> no-dmca.ch), basically it means you cannot circumvent drm, you may however
> for private purpose, but you cannot distribute, mention, talk about,
> advertise etc. the means to do so.
> this is rather silly, and I'm pretty unhappy about it. Please help me fight
> this law in any way you can.
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.12
> GCS d-- s-:- a-- C++ UL+++ P-- L+++ E--- W++ N+ o K- w--
> O-- M V- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t 5 X++ R tv- b+ DI-- D+
> G++ e+ h++ r y+
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
> _______________________________________________
> Chaosliste mailing list
> Chaosli...@chaostreff.chhttp://sonne.alt-f4.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chaosliste > ----------
> From: *Norbert Bollow* <n...@bollow.ch>
> Date: Dec 3, 2007 3:49 PM
> To: pya...@gmail.com
> Cc: chaosli...@chaostreff.ch
> Florian <pya...@gmail.com> schrieb:
> Doing a referendum at the current stage is IMO a tactically and
> strategically very bad idea. That would only have the effect of
> strengthening the position of the pro-DRM lobby.
> If you want to join us in the fight against DRM - great.
> There are good ways for taking effective action, but in the current
> situation, a referendum campaign is not one of them.
> Greetings,
> Norbert.
> --
> Norbert Bollow <n...@bollow.ch> http://Norbert.ch > President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch > Working on establishing a non-corrupt and
> truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org > ----------
> From: *Florian Bösch* <pya...@gmail.com>
> Date: Dec 3, 2007 4:12 PM
> To: Norbert Bollow <n...@bollow.ch>
> Cc: chaosli...@chaostreff.ch
> I see your point, I really do. But what do you suggest amounts to take it
> lying down that:
> * our law gets written by the american content industry
> * you can sneak harmful laws in under the radar
> * you can get parties and consumer orginizations to line up nicely and trust
> them not to vote against it (only two bloddy votes against), and not start a
> referendum at all...
> Well yes, you're right, maybe it's wrong, but it's the right kind of wrong.
> Salut,
> That is wrong, it has actually been written by the European content mafia,
> and has been released by the European Commission as <<EUCD>>. It diffunded to
> Switzerland with some more serious formulations.
> Also wrong. It has been known for at least 2 years now, and people have
> worked on this legislative proposal for ages. We even had public meetings
> on this subjects, have published amendments, and other things.
> I'm sorry if you slept through it all like all the others.
> That is indeed true, but it is mostly caused (in my opinion) that we left
> this item slip for too long and that our work power was very low. Plus some
> other organizational problems in my opinion.
> Well it doesn't really matter by which mafia we get screwed over does it?
> Yes afterwards everybody's sorry, I admit it first of all, I didn't give a
> damn because I (naively) thought
> that _somebody_ will look after this and make some waves before it gets
> that serious.
> Whatever caused it to be slipped trough so smoothly, it again doesn't
> matter, it happend,
> it's bad, it makes me feel sacked.
> What're we going to do about it so we can sleep at night and look ourself
> into the face in the mirror, now that another thing.
> Salut,
> Yes, but they have only exercised their right to provide input to the
> legislators. What you name as a systematic failure is indeed only our
> own failure to react appropriately. The system itself did its work,
> there is no obligation of the parliament to stop this type of legislation
> if no or hardly any input has been provided.
> (How should they even tell?)
> Well, at least we should not start stupid referenda against it becuse we
> are bound to fail right now, and if we do, we will give the content mafia
> a great opportunity to test their legislation in court.
> We are indeed taking action in this area, and everyone is welcome to help
> us
|
