[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/bulletins bulletin-002.html
|
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
|
Subject: |
www/bulletins bulletin-002.html |
|
Date: |
Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:06:03 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 08/10/21 12:06:03
Modified files:
bulletins : bulletin-002.html
Log message:
Validation fixes. Fix the link to freedom-to-tinker.com.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/bulletins/bulletin-002.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.6&r2=1.7
Patches:
Index: bulletin-002.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/bulletins/bulletin-002.html,v
retrieving revision 1.6
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -b -r1.6 -r1.7
--- bulletin-002.html 19 May 2008 09:35:20 -0000 1.6
+++ bulletin-002.html 21 Oct 2008 12:05:58 -0000 1.7
@@ -18,8 +18,6 @@
<body>
-<a href="#translations">Translations</a> of this page
-
<h3>FSF Bulletin - Issue No.2 - June 2003 - Free Software Foundation</h3>
<!-- When you replace this graphic, make sure you change -->
@@ -27,308 +25,454 @@
<!-- If you make a new graphic for this page, make sure it -->
<!-- has a corresponding entry in /graphics/graphics.html. -->
-<a href="/graphics/agnuhead.html"><img src="/graphics/gnu-head-sm.jpg" alt="
[image of the Head of a GNU] " width="129" height="122" /></a>
+<p><a href="/graphics/agnuhead.html"><img src="/graphics/gnu-head-sm.jpg"
+alt=" [image of the Head of a GNU] " width="129" height="122" /></a></p>
-<P>
<hr/>
<h4>Table of Contents</h4>
<ul>
- <li> <a href="#FromExecutiveDirector" id="TOCFromExecutiveDirector">From the
Executive Director</a> </li>
- <li> <a href="#SuperDMCA" id="TOCSuperDMCA">The State Super-DMCA
Fight</a></li>
- <li> <a href="#FreeSoftwareMatters" id="TOCFreeSoftwareMatters">Free
Software Matters: Free Software and the Broadcast Media</a></li>
- <li> <a href="#FSFNotes" id="TOCFSFNotes">FSF Notes</a></li>
- <li> <a href="#GPLCompliance" id="TOCGPLCompliance" >The GPL Compliance
Program</a></li>
- <li> <a href="#Patron" id="TOCPatron">FSF Corporate Patron Program</a></li>
- <li> <a href="#Donate" id="TOCDonate" >How to Donate to FSF</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#FromExecutiveDirector"
+ id="TOCFromExecutiveDirector">From the Executive Director</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#SuperDMCA" id="TOCSuperDMCA">The State Super-DMCA
+ Fight</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#FreeSoftwareMatters" id="TOCFreeSoftwareMatters">Free
+ Software Matters: Free Software and the Broadcast Media</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#FSFNotes" id="TOCFSFNotes">FSF Notes</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#GPLCompliance" id="TOCGPLCompliance" >The GPL
+ Compliance Program</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#Patron" id="TOCPatron">FSF Corporate Patron
+ Program</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#Donate" id="TOCDonate" >How to Donate to FSF</a></li>
</ul>
<hr />
<h3>
-<a href="#TOCFromExecutiveDirector" id="FromExecutiveDirector" >From the
Executive Director</a>
+<a href="#TOCFromExecutiveDirector" id="FromExecutiveDirector">From
+the Executive Director</a>
</h3>
-<P>
-by Bradley M. Kuhn
+<p>
+by Bradley M. Kuhn</p>
-<P>
-I am happy to report some early success of our associate membership program.
As of May 2003, there are 1,152 paid
-associate members. Your dues are helping us to carry out the core work we do
for the Free Software Movement. We are
-particularly thankful for those who, through your blogs and Slashdot posts,
have helped to inspire you friends and
-colleagues to join the Foundation.
-<P>
-Last issue, I wrote about the excitement of Eldred v. Ashcroft, a Supreme
Court case, in which we filed an
-amicus brief, that was poised to decide the future of the commons and the
extent and limits of copyright law. I am
-sad to report that despite Professor Lessig's and Moglen's arduous and valiant
efforts, the Court decided that
-Disney matters more than the freedom of the public. This battle rages on, and
we are now sure that the
-cause of freedom faces an uphill battle with the federal government. In this
issue, you'll read about possible FCC
-action that will serve to regulate the future of Free Software.
-<P>
-Meanwhile, matters of software freedom in our community remain on our minds.
We have this year already opened
-dozens of confirmed GPL violation cases reported to us from the community; we
continue diligently in our enforcement
-efforts. The cost of these efforts increases each quarter. Since nearly all of
the resources of the Compliance Lab
-are used to bring companies into compliance, we have begun to ask
corporations, through our GPL Compliance and Corporate
-Patron Programs, to fund this activity.
-<P>
-Since last summer, GNU Press has shipped nearly 2,500 copies of RMS' book,
<i>Free Software, Free Society</i>
-around the world. That title is now our top-selling book, and we are excited
that we have been able to educate
-the world about software freedom through our press activity.
-<P>
-Finally, we are ever vigilant in our efforts to fight co-opting of the Free
Software Movement. We see a
-rising popularity of proprietary software in Free Software environments. Our
goal remains to build a world where all
-published software is Free Software. In particular, we have put some
additional resources into
-<a href="http://savannah.gnu.org"; >savannah.gnu.org</a>. It is not only ironic
but lamentable that the primary site
-used for Free Software development, sourceforge.net, runs mostly proprietary
software. Our hope is to provide more
-development resources for the community that allow freedom to thrive. Your
support is essential to that endeavor.
-<P>
+<p>
+I am happy to report some early success of our associate membership
+program. As of May 2003, there are 1,152 paid associate members.
+Your dues are helping us to carry out the core work we do for the Free
+Software Movement. We are particularly thankful for those who,
+through your blogs and Slashdot posts, have helped to inspire you
+friends and colleagues to join the Foundation.</p>
+<p>
+Last issue, I wrote about the excitement of Eldred v. Ashcroft, a
+Supreme Court case, in which we filed an amicus brief, that was poised
+to decide the future of the commons and the extent and limits of
+copyright law. I am sad to report that despite Professor Lessig's and
+Moglen's arduous and valiant efforts, the Court decided that Disney
+matters more than the freedom of the public. This battle rages on,
+and we are now sure that the cause of freedom faces an uphill battle
+with the federal government. In this issue, you'll read about
+possible FCC action that will serve to regulate the future of Free
+Software.</p>
+<p>
+Meanwhile, matters of software freedom in our community remain on our
+minds. We have this year already opened dozens of confirmed GPL
+violation cases reported to us from the community; we continue
+diligently in our enforcement efforts. The cost of these efforts
+increases each quarter. Since nearly all of the resources of the
+Compliance Lab are used to bring companies into compliance, we have
+begun to ask corporations, through our GPL Compliance and Corporate
+Patron Programs, to fund this activity.</p>
+<p>
+Since last summer, GNU Press has shipped nearly 2,500 copies of RMS'
+book, <i>Free Software, Free Society</i> around the world. That title
+is now our top-selling book, and we are excited that we have been able
+to educate the world about software freedom through our press
+activity.</p>
+<p>
+Finally, we are ever vigilant in our efforts to fight co-opting of the
+Free Software Movement. We see a rising popularity of proprietary
+software in Free Software environments. Our goal remains to build a
+world where all published software is Free Software. In particular,
+we have put some additional resources into
+<a href="http://savannah.gnu.org"; >savannah.gnu.org</a>. It is not
+only ironic but lamentable that the primary site used for Free
+Software development, sourceforge.net, runs mostly proprietary
+software. Our hope is to provide more development resources for the
+community that allow freedom to thrive. Your support is essential to
+that endeavor.</p>
<h3>
-<a href="#TOCSuperDMCA" id="SuperDMCA" >The State Super-DMCA Fight</a>
+<a href="#TOCSuperDMCA" id="SuperDMCA">The State Super-DMCA Fight</a>
</h3>
-by David "Novalis" Turner
+<p>by David “Novalis” Turner</p>
-<P>
-The MPAA and cable television companies have proposed Draconian new technology
control regulations in several
-states; yours could be next. Their propaganda says these regulations are
simply to stop theft of cable services; but
-that's already illegal. In fact, the laws are more akin to the reviled Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
-The digital freedom community has been calling them "super-DMCAs".
-<P>
-The original MPAA model bill (introduced more-or-less without change in
Massachusetts and Texas) prohibits
-receiving (or doing almost anything else with) communication services without
the express consent of the communication
-service provider. And just about everything counts as a communication service.
This means that you can't use a
-radio or television without permission from the broadcasters. Nobody is going
to tell you that you can't watch TV, but
-they might tell you that you can't record it, a right the US Supreme Court
affirmed in 1984. They might tell you that
-you can't use your Free Software PVR to pause it while you answer the phone.
The Motion Picture Association of America,
-primarily through its Copyright Protection Working Group, has already said
that it wants to limit these sorts of
-freedoms.
-<P>
-Although I'm too young to remember it, I'm told that people used to be
required to rent phones from the phone
-company. People would get in trouble for using third party phones, and had to
pay for each extension. If TV and radio
-broadcasters have their way, you may have to rent your radio, TV, and VCR from
them, or only use "authorized"
-equipment. And this equipment won't have a record button.
-<P>
-Many of these bills also prohibit anonymous communication, which is a
constitutional right. Abuse survivors, human
-rights workers, and whistleblowers depend on anonymization technology like
Mixminion (a Free Software program) to
-communicate securely. Mixminion's developers have been actively opposing the
Massachusetts bill.
-<P>
-In March, the Massachusetts super-DMCA, HB 2743, had a public hearing before
the joint committee for
-Criminal Justice. I organized cryptographers to oppose the bill, and many
others came down on their own.
-In all, twenty people testified against the bill. Only one person, a lobbyist
from the MPAA, testified in
-support. The bill is now effectively dead. In Colorado, activists convinced
the governor to veto the bill. In Oregon,
-letters to the bill's sponsor convinced him to withdraw it.
-<P>
-The battles in other states have been much harder. In Tennessee, I helped
organize various GNU/Linux user groups
-to oppose SB 213 and HB 457. Activists there have now formed the <a
href="http://tndf.net";>Tennessee Digital Freedom Network (TNDF)</a>. TNDF has
shown up at many hearings only to have them deferred. All rules have been
suspended in
-the Tennessee legislature now, so bills can be debated with little warning.
Many members of TNDF have to take off
-work or school on short notice. Despite these heroic efforts, the bills have
made it out of the House and Senate
-Judiciary committees, and on to still more committees. The fight continues.
-<P>
-The MPAA and cable industries have fought hard to pass these bills. In Texas,
normal rules were suspended,
-and on a few hours notice, activists had to show up at the state house, only
to wait for seven hours. The
-bill was finally discussed after midnight. In Tennessee, every time a company,
university, or consortium was
-recruited to oppose the bill, a special exception was proposed to pacify them,
while not helping consumers at
-all.
-<P>
-You can help fight these bills. First, check out whether a bill like this has
been introduced in your state.
-Professor Ed Felten maintains a list at <a
href="http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/superdmca.html";
>freedom-to-tinker.com/superdmca.html</a>. If your state isn't listed there,
check the legislature's web site to make sure it hasn't been
-introduced since Felten's site has been updated. If there is a bill, go to any
public hearings. Bring friends from
-your local digital freedom group, GNU/Linux users group, or university. Be
prepared to answer questions about the
-details of the bill, but plan to speak for only a few minutes. Don't read from
written text -- you can usually
-simply submit a written statement, which the legislators can read at leisure.
-<P>
-Preemptive activism is useful too. Even if there's no bill in your state, you
can set up an appointment with your state
-senator or representative. The MPAA has vowed to introduce the bill in all
fifty states, so your legislators will
-see the bill eventually.
-<P>
-When we first started fighting the super-DMCA laws, they looked unstoppable.
The MPAA and cable industry groups
-have more money than all of the digital freedom groups put together. They can
fly in consultants to public hearings in
-every state. But legislators have shown that they can tell paid lobbyists from
genuinely concerned citizens. Your views
-can be heard.
-<P>
+<p>
+The MPAA and cable television companies have proposed Draconian new
+technology control regulations in several states; yours could be next.
+Their propaganda says these regulations are simply to stop theft of
+cable services; but that's already illegal. In fact, the laws are
+more akin to the reviled Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The
+digital freedom community has been calling them
+“super-DMCAs”.</p>
+<p>
+The original MPAA model bill (introduced more-or-less without change
+in Massachusetts and Texas) prohibits receiving (or doing almost
+anything else with) communication services without the express consent
+of the communication service provider. And just about everything
+counts as a communication service. This means that you can't use a
+radio or television without permission from the broadcasters. Nobody
+is going to tell you that you can't watch TV, but they might tell you
+that you can't record it, a right the US Supreme Court affirmed in
+1984. They might tell you that you can't use your Free Software PVR
+to pause it while you answer the phone. The Motion Picture Association
+of America, primarily through its Copyright Protection Working Group,
+has already said that it wants to limit these sorts of freedoms.</p>
+<p>
+Although I'm too young to remember it, I'm told that people used to be
+required to rent phones from the phone company. People would get in
+trouble for using third party phones, and had to pay for each
+extension. If TV and radio broadcasters have their way, you may have
+to rent your radio, TV, and VCR from them, or only use
+“authorized” equipment. And this equipment won't have a
+record button.</p>
+<p>
+Many of these bills also prohibit anonymous communication, which is a
+constitutional right. Abuse survivors, human rights workers, and
+whistleblowers depend on anonymization technology like Mixminion (a
+Free Software program) to communicate securely. Mixminion's
+developers have been actively opposing the Massachusetts bill.</p>
+<p>
+In March, the Massachusetts super-DMCA, HB 2743, had a public hearing
+before the joint committee for Criminal Justice. I organized
+cryptographers to oppose the bill, and many others came down on their
+own. In all, twenty people testified against the bill. Only one
+person, a lobbyist from the MPAA, testified in support. The bill is
+now effectively dead. In Colorado, activists convinced the governor
+to veto the bill. In Oregon, letters to the bill's sponsor convinced
+him to withdraw it.</p>
+<p>
+The battles in other states have been much harder. In Tennessee, I
+helped organize various GNU/Linux user groups to oppose SB 213 and HB
+457. Activists there have now formed the <a href="http://tndf.net";>
+Tennessee Digital Freedom Network (TNDF)</a>. TNDF has shown up at
+many hearings only to have them deferred. All rules have been
+suspended in the Tennessee legislature now, so bills can be debated
+with little warning. Many members of TNDF have to take off work or
+school on short notice. Despite these heroic efforts, the bills have
+made it out of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, and on to
+still more committees. The fight continues.</p>
+<p>
+The MPAA and cable industries have fought hard to pass these bills.
+In Texas, normal rules were suspended, and on a few hours notice,
+activists had to show up at the state house, only to wait for seven
+hours. The bill was finally discussed after midnight. In Tennessee,
+every time a company, university, or consortium was recruited to
+oppose the bill, a special exception was proposed to pacify them,
+while not helping consumers at all.</p>
+<p>
+You can help fight these bills. First, check out whether a bill like
+this has been introduced in your state. Professor Ed Felten maintains
+a list at <a href="http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/tags/super-dmca";>
+freedom-to-tinker.com/tags/super-dmca</a>. If your state isn't listed
+there, check the legislature's web site to make sure it hasn't been
+introduced since Felten's site has been updated. If there is a bill,
+go to any public hearings. Bring friends from your local digital
+freedom group, GNU/Linux users group, or university. Be prepared to
+answer questions about the details of the bill, but plan to speak for
+only a few minutes. Don't read from written text — you can
+usually simply submit a written statement, which the legislators can
+read at leisure.</p>
+<p>
+Preemptive activism is useful too. Even if there's no bill in your
+state, you can set up an appointment with your state senator or
+representative. The MPAA has vowed to introduce the bill in all fifty
+states, so your legislators will see the bill eventually.</p>
+<p>
+When we first started fighting the super-DMCA laws, they looked
+unstoppable. The MPAA and cable industry groups have more money than
+all of the digital freedom groups put together. They can fly in
+consultants to public hearings in every state. But legislators have
+shown that they can tell paid lobbyists from genuinely concerned
+citizens. Your views can be heard.</p>
<h3>
-<a href="#TOCFreeSoftwareMatters" id="FreeSoftwareMatters" >Free Software
Matters: Free Software and the Broadcast Media</a>
+<a href="#TOCFreeSoftwareMatters" id="FreeSoftwareMatters">Free
+Software Matters: Free Software and the Broadcast Media</a>
</h3>
-by Eben Moglen<br>
-<P>
-Just as free software has been a particularly scary subject for the music and
film industries in the past several years,
-threatening their control over their content, it is about to become
excessively frightening to their television and radio
-lordships as well.
-<P>
-Here in the United States we are awaiting rule-making by the Federal
Communications Commission concerning the
-possibility of copy protection for digital television content. In 1996,
Congress legislated a ten-year plan for
-the conversion of the US broadcasting system to a digital TV standard. Every
owner of an existing analog television
-station was given, at no cost, an additional place on the spectrum for a
second, digital broadcast operation. When,
-in 2006, every station in the US is supposed to be fully operational in
digital broadcast, the operators are supposed
-to return to the public their original analog television spectrum locations.
-<P>
-But, although many broadcasters have made the expensive investments in the
digital broadcast chain, from the cameras
-through the studio equipment to the transmitters, Americans have shown a
predictable unwillingness to replace all their
-inexpensive TV sets with new digital sets that cost on the average ten times
as much. Their reluctance has been
-understandable in part because Hollywood has not made available all the
supposedly smashing dramatic
-and sexy content that was supposed to make watching digital television such a
wonderful experience.
-<P>
-As usual, the reason has been concern from the content moguls that their
digital content would leak out into the
-world in the form of perfect copies for peer-to-peer sharing. A long round of
inter-industry negotiations last year
-concluded with a proposal for a "broadcast flag" in digital content, which all
hardware that handles digital video is
-supposed to recognize, and treat as an instruction not to permit copying of
the attached content.
-<P>
-Having reached this supposedly "consensus" (largely by ignoring the objections
of consumers, librarians, and other
-representatives of the users of video content and the general public), the
content industries and the broadcasters have
-lobbied the Federal Communications Commission to make administrative rules
requiring manufacturers of consumer TV
-equipment (which in this context means everything from digital tuners, digital
video recorders, and even digital
-television displays themselves) to treat as uncopyable all data streams with
the "broadcast flag" turned on.
-<P>
-Enter, as so often, free software. After all, digital TV is just a bitstream
that a general purpose computer equipped
-with an antenna can take out of the air and decode. One can write for oneself
a program that will perform that task,
-and which will do so without paying any special attention to the "broadcast
flag". Such a program is
-<a href="/software/gnuradio/gnuradio.html" >GNU Radio</a>, a development
project of the Free
-Software Foundation. GNU Radio can already receive and decode US-standard
digital television signals. Thus, as the
-FCC considers the order for special-interest regulation handed to it by the
Masters of MegaMedia, GNU Radio is
-going to cause quite a headache. The FCC is accustomed to telling the
manufacturers of TV sets how they should work,
-but whether it has the authority (or the imprudence) to attempt to control
software running on ordinary personal
-computers is entirely uncertain. If the FCC attempts to implement broadcast
copy protection, in other words, it
-will have to attempt to control the free software movement. If it does not
risk an extension of its authority into
-the domain of ordinary software, the "broadcast flag" favor it is being asked
to do for Hollywood will be worthless.
-<P>
-So my colleagues and I are currently urging the FCC to reconsider the
"broadcast flag" proposal. If they don't, the
-stage is set for a confrontation between the free software movement and the
media industries over GNU Radio, and the
-idea of "software-controlled radio" overall. That confrontation would test the
power of the FCC to make rules governing
-ordinary computer software, and would raise very substantial freedom of speech
issues, because the Commission would be
-trying to limit the distribution of general technical information. The next
few months will tell whether the FCC is
-prepared to take on that challenge. The Free Software Foundation and the
developers of GNU Radio certainly stand ready
-to challenge any regulation that prohibits the distribution of our software.
Because GNU Radio is free software that
-any user has the right to understand and to modify, when GNU Radio is
configured to receive broadcast digital TV, a user
-could modify the program to ignore the copy-protection -- in the form of the
so-called "broadcast flag" -- under
-consideration by the FCC.
-<P>
-But GNU Radio's role in challenging Hollywood's preferred form of "content
protection" for digital TV is just the
-beginning. In a much larger sense, over the next decade, free software will be
an inherent part of a rebellion against
-the way the electromagnetic spectrum is managed throughout the world.
-<P>
-Since the late 1920s, governments everywhere have controlled the
electromagnetic spectrum under conceptions of
-"stewardship," "public trust," or "public ownership". In some countries this
has meant government exercising complete
-control over broadcast media, in others government has "licensed" a few
favored private parties to make exclusive use
-of particular frequencies. Some mix of government-controlled and private
broadcasting has been the norm in many
-societies, as it has been in Great Britain for the last generation.
-<P>
-All these arrangements have been predicated on two basic principles: that the
electromagnetic spectrum is inherently
-a public resource ultimately owned by the people as a whole, and that
technical factors require government to control
-the use of the spectrum in order to prevent what the economist Garrett Hardin
famously called "the tragedy of the
-commons". If everyone were free to use all frequencies of the spectrum however
he or she liked, interference would
-frustrate everyone's attempts. So, in the interests of the public, governments
have given exclusive control over some
-frequencies to individuals and organizations, called "broadcasters", who have
acquired enormous social influence
-and power as a result of their ownership of the means of mass communication.
-<P>
-But the technical basis on which this system of broadcasting rests has grown
shaky. The modern cellphone is an example
-of a device that shares the electromagnetic spectrum with tens of thousands of
other similar devices, without creating
-the cacophony associated with unregulated broadcasting. "Wi-fi" data
communications, capable of carrying voice
-and video signals as well as every other form of digital information, are
similarly arranged around spectrum
-sharing. These are early examples of the twenty-first century approach to the
electromagnetic spectrum, in which
-frequencies are optimally employed by being shared -- used simultaneously by
intelligent devices for all
-sorts of one-to-one, one-to-many and many-to-many communications -- not by
being exclusively "licensed" to a
-few "broadcasters" who gain the power to communicate with millions while
everyone else merely watches or
-listens. Although there are new, more efficient, and more democratic ways of
using the public airwaves,
-governments remain in control of spectrum, assertedly on their citizens'
behalf, and governments either themselves
-control broadcasting, or -- as in the United States -- are dependent for their
political success on the broadcasters they
-have licensed. As a result, the power of the de facto owners of spectrum is
maintained by the power of the State.
-<P>
-But "software-controlled radios", transmitters and receivers whose selection
of frequencies and communications
-protocols are implemented in software, are going to become ubiquitous in the
next decade; again, the cellphone
-is a familiar early example. And if the software in software-controlled radios
is free software, users gain the
-ability to modify for themselves the rules about how spectrum is employed.
-<P>
-Could collectives of citizens "homestead" the spectrum, using free software
and slightly modified transmitting and
-receiving hardware? Communications regulators in several countries are
beginning to worry that they will soon be able
-to do just that. Broadcasters, already losing eyeball-share to "the Internet",
are one constituency stimulating their
-worry. Badly battered telecommunications companies are another. If public
wireless networks controlled by their users
-begin carrying significant amounts of voice and data traffic now carried over
phone lines, local telephone service
-monopolies will be subjected to competition from a medium that is completely
free.
-<P>
-So regulators are going to face increasing calls to prevent free software from
running software-controlled radios, in the
-interest of preventing the public from using the public airwaves in the ways
the public actually wants. Agencies
-that have traditionally controlled telephones and radio receivers are going to
be attempting to control every
-general-purpose computer, and the software that runs on it. Free software is
going to stand not only for free content,
-but also for free spectrum, and with it, free bandwidth. The same sort of
challenge to their control that the
-content industries were facing in 2002, the bandwidth industries, both
broadcasting and telecommunications,
-with all their power and their allies in government, are going to be facing
long before 2012. A movement that
-originally seemed primarily a new kind of competitor for the PC software
monopoly, and then became a threat to
-the sanctity of cultural ownership by Disney and other "content" companies,
will soon be challenging the social
-control of bandwidth and the power of the broadcasters. Once again, when it
comes to free speech, free software
-matters.
-<P>
-<i>Eben Moglen is a professor of law at Columbia University Law School. He
serves pro bono as FSF's General Counsel and
-as a Board Member.</i>
+<p>by Eben Moglen</p>
+<p>
+Just as free software has been a particularly scary subject for the
+music and film industries in the past several years, threatening their
+control over their content, it is about to become excessively
+frightening to their television and radio lordships as well.</p>
+<p>
+Here in the United States we are awaiting rule-making by the Federal
+Communications Commission concerning the possibility of copy
+protection for digital television content. In 1996, Congress
+legislated a ten-year plan for the conversion of the US broadcasting
+system to a digital TV standard. Every owner of an existing analog
+television station was given, at no cost, an additional place on the
+spectrum for a second, digital broadcast operation. When, in 2006,
+every station in the US is supposed to be fully operational in digital
+broadcast, the operators are supposed to return to the public their
+original analog television spectrum locations.</p>
+<p>
+But, although many broadcasters have made the expensive investments in
+the digital broadcast chain, from the cameras through the studio
+equipment to the transmitters, Americans have shown a predictable
+unwillingness to replace all their inexpensive TV sets with new
+digital sets that cost on the average ten times as much. Their
+reluctance has been understandable in part because Hollywood has not
+made available all the supposedly smashing dramatic and sexy content
+that was supposed to make watching digital television such a wonderful
+experience.</p>
+<p>
+As usual, the reason has been concern from the content moguls that
+their digital content would leak out into the world in the form of
+perfect copies for peer-to-peer sharing. A long round of
+inter-industry negotiations last year concluded with a proposal for a
+“broadcast flag” in digital content, which all hardware
+that handles digital video is supposed to recognize, and treat as an
+instruction not to permit copying of the attached content.</p>
+<p>
+Having reached this supposedly “consensus” (largely by
+ignoring the objections of consumers, librarians, and other
+representatives of the users of video content and the general public),
+the content industries and the broadcasters have lobbied the Federal
+Communications Commission to make administrative rules requiring
+manufacturers of consumer TV equipment (which in this context means
+everything from digital tuners, digital video recorders, and even
+digital television displays themselves) to treat as uncopyable all
+data streams with the “broadcast flag” turned on.</p>
+<p>
+Enter, as so often, free software. After all, digital TV is just a
+bitstream that a general purpose computer equipped with an antenna can
+take out of the air and decode. One can write for oneself a program
+that will perform that task, and which will do so without paying any
+special attention to the “broadcast flag”. Such a program
+is <a href="/software/gnuradio/">GNU Radio</a>, a development project
+of the Free Software Foundation. GNU Radio can already receive and
+decode US-standard digital television signals. Thus, as the FCC
+considers the order for special-interest regulation handed to it by
+the Masters of MegaMedia, GNU Radio is going to cause quite a
+headache. The FCC is accustomed to telling the manufacturers of TV
+sets how they should work, but whether it has the authority (or the
+imprudence) to attempt to control software running on ordinary
+personal computers is entirely uncertain. If the FCC attempts to
+implement broadcast copy protection, in other words, it will have to
+attempt to control the free software movement. If it does not risk an
+extension of its authority into the domain of ordinary software, the
+“broadcast flag” favor it is being asked to do for
+Hollywood will be worthless.</p>
+<p>
+So my colleagues and I are currently urging the FCC to reconsider the
+“broadcast flag” proposal. If they don't, the stage is
+set for a confrontation between the free software movement and the
+media industries over GNU Radio, and the idea of
+“software-controlled radio” overall. That confrontation
+would test the power of the FCC to make rules governing ordinary
+computer software, and would raise very substantial freedom of speech
+issues, because the Commission would be trying to limit the
+distribution of general technical information. The next few months
+will tell whether the FCC is prepared to take on that challenge. The
+Free Software Foundation and the developers of GNU Radio certainly
+stand ready to challenge any regulation that prohibits the
+distribution of our software. Because GNU Radio is free software that
+any user has the right to understand and to modify, when GNU Radio is
+configured to receive broadcast digital TV, a user could modify the
+program to ignore the copy-protection — in the form of the
+so-called “broadcast flag” — under consideration by
+the FCC.</p>
<p>
+But GNU Radio's role in challenging Hollywood's preferred form of
+“content protection” for digital TV is just the beginning.
+In a much larger sense, over the next decade, free software will be an
+inherent part of a rebellion against the way the electromagnetic
+spectrum is managed throughout the world.</p>
+<p>
+Since the late 1920s, governments everywhere have controlled the
+electromagnetic spectrum under conceptions of
+“stewardship,” “public trust,” or
+“public ownership”. In some countries this has meant
+government exercising complete control over broadcast media, in others
+government has “licensed” a few favored private parties to
+make exclusive use of particular frequencies. Some mix of
+government-controlled and private broadcasting has been the norm in
+many societies, as it has been in Great Britain for the last
+generation.</p>
+<p>
+All these arrangements have been predicated on two basic principles:
+that the electromagnetic spectrum is inherently a public resource
+ultimately owned by the people as a whole, and that technical factors
+require government to control the use of the spectrum in order to
+prevent what the economist Garrett Hardin famously called “the
+tragedy of the commons”. If everyone were free to use all
+frequencies of the spectrum however he or she liked, interference
+would frustrate everyone's attempts. So, in the interests of the
+public, governments have given exclusive control over some frequencies
+to individuals and organizations, called “broadcasters”,
+who have acquired enormous social influence and power as a result of
+their ownership of the means of mass communication.</p>
+<p>
+But the technical basis on which this system of broadcasting rests has
+grown shaky. The modern cellphone is an example of a device that
+shares the electromagnetic spectrum with tens of thousands of other
+similar devices, without creating the cacophony associated with
+unregulated broadcasting. “Wi-fi” data communications,
+capable of carrying voice and video signals as well as every other
+form of digital information, are similarly arranged around spectrum
+sharing. These are early examples of the twenty-first century
+approach to the electromagnetic spectrum, in which frequencies are
+optimally employed by being shared — used simultaneously by
+intelligent devices for all sorts of one-to-one, one-to-many and
+many-to-many communications — not by being exclusively
+“licensed” to a few “broadcasters” who gain
+the power to communicate with millions while everyone else merely
+watches or listens. Although there are new, more efficient, and more
+democratic ways of using the public airwaves, governments remain in
+control of spectrum, assertedly on their citizens' behalf, and
+governments either themselves control broadcasting, or — as in
+the United States — are dependent for their political success on
+the broadcasters they have licensed. As a result, the power of the de
+facto owners of spectrum is maintained by the power of the State.</p>
+<p>
+But “software-controlled radios”, transmitters and
+receivers whose selection of frequencies and communications protocols
+are implemented in software, are going to become ubiquitous in the
+next decade; again, the cellphone is a familiar early example. And if
+the software in software-controlled radios is free software, users
+gain the ability to modify for themselves the rules about how spectrum
+is employed.</p>
+<p>
+Could collectives of citizens “homestead” the spectrum,
+using free software and slightly modified transmitting and receiving
+hardware? Communications regulators in several countries are
+beginning to worry that they will soon be able to do just that.
+Broadcasters, already losing eyeball-share to “the
+Internet”, are one constituency stimulating their worry. Badly
+battered telecommunications companies are another. If public wireless
+networks controlled by their users begin carrying significant amounts
+of voice and data traffic now carried over phone lines, local
+telephone service monopolies will be subjected to competition from a
+medium that is completely free.</p>
+<p>
+So regulators are going to face increasing calls to prevent free
+software from running software-controlled radios, in the interest of
+preventing the public from using the public airwaves in the ways the
+public actually wants. Agencies that have traditionally controlled
+telephones and radio receivers are going to be attempting to control
+every general-purpose computer, and the software that runs on it.
+Free software is going to stand not only for free content, but also
+for free spectrum, and with it, free bandwidth. The same sort of
+challenge to their control that the content industries were facing in
+2002, the bandwidth industries, both broadcasting and
+telecommunications, with all their power and their allies in
+government, are going to be facing long before 2012. A movement that
+originally seemed primarily a new kind of competitor for the PC
+software monopoly, and then became a threat to the sanctity of
+cultural ownership by Disney and other “content”
+companies, will soon be challenging the social control of bandwidth
+and the power of the broadcasters. Once again, when it comes to free
+speech, free software matters.</p>
+<p>
+<i>Eben Moglen is a professor of law at Columbia University Law
+School. He serves pro bono as FSF's General Counsel and as a Board
+Member.</i></p>
<h3>
-<a href="#TOCFSFNotes" id="FSFNotes" >FSF Notes</a>
+<a href="#TOCFSFNotes" id="FSFNotes">FSF Notes</a>
</h3>
-<h4>
-Upcoming Events
-</h4>
-<p>
-We will be at conferences on the west coast this summer. Be sure to look for
our booths!
-<P>
-We will host an Associate Membership party on Wednesday 6 August 2003 in San
Francisco. Members and two
-of their guests can attend for free. Details about the party will be available
at
-<a href="http://member.fsf.org";>member.fsf.org</a> in late June 2003.
-<P>
-On Thursday 7 August 2003, FSF will host a Fund-raising Dinner also in San
Francisco. The cost of the dinner will be
-$100 (20% discount for associate members).
-<P>
-On Friday 8 August 2003, we will hold a seminar on the GNU GPL. The seminar,
titled "Free Software Licensing and
-the GNU GPL", will be co-led by Daniel Ravicher, Outside Counsel to FSF from
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, and
-Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director of FSF. The one-day seminar is designed to
offer lawyers and businesspeople, who
-are working in software licensing, a complete introduction to the legal issues
surrounding the development and
-distribution of Free Software.
-<P>
-This seminar will be held at Stanford Law School. A similar seminar will be
held in New York in September 2003.
-<P>
-For more information about these or other FSF events, please contact <<a
href="mailto:address@hidden"; class="url" >address@hidden</a>>
-<P>
+<h4>Upcoming Events</h4>
+<p>
+We will be at conferences on the west coast this summer. Be sure to
+look for our booths!</p>
+<p>
+We will host an Associate Membership party on Wednesday 6 August 2003
+in San Francisco. Members and two of their guests can attend for
+free. Details about the party will be available at
+<a href="http://member.fsf.org";>member.fsf.org</a> in late June
+2003.</p>
+<p>
+On Thursday 7 August 2003, FSF will host a Fund-raising Dinner also in
+San Francisco. The cost of the dinner will be $100 (20% discount for
+associate members).</p>
+<p>
+On Friday 8 August 2003, we will hold a seminar on the GNU GPL. The
+seminar, titled “Free Software Licensing and the GNU GPL”,
+will be co-led by Daniel Ravicher, Outside Counsel to FSF from
+Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, and Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive
+Director of FSF. The one-day seminar is designed to offer lawyers and
+businesspeople, who are working in software licensing, a complete
+introduction to the legal issues surrounding the development and
+distribution of Free Software.</p>
+<p>
+This seminar will be held at Stanford Law School. A similar seminar
+will be held in New York in September 2003.</p>
+<p>
+For more information about these or other FSF events, please contact
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+<address@hidden></a>.</p>
<h3>
-<a href="#TOCGPLCompliance" id="GPLCompliance" >The GNU GPL Compliance
Program</a>
+<a href="#TOCGPLCompliance" id="GPLCompliance">The GNU GPL Compliance
+Program</a>
</h3>
-FSF is responsible for creating the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) in
1989 and updating it thereafter. The GPL is
-the most commonly used Free Software license. Through the GNU GPL Compliance
Lab, we diligently work to ensure the
-protection of Free Software.
-<P>
-The Compliance Lab has been an informal activity of FSF since 1992 and was
formalized in December 2001. One of
-its main functions is to provide general "knowledge infrastructure" concerning
the GNU GPL and Free
-Software licensing. Our new GNU GPL Compliance Program provides companies with
consultation on software
-development, license compliance, legal matters and software certification
through a paid annual program. Currently over
-28 corporations have access to consultation provided by the Compliance Program.
-<P>
-The annual program fee helps us to sustain the service in perpetuity, and
provide the service gratis to volunteer
-Free Software developers. To learn more about the Compliance Program, please
contact Peter Brown at
-<<a href="mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a>>.
-<P>
+<p>FSF is responsible for creating the GNU General Public License (GNU
+GPL) in 1989 and updating it thereafter. The GPL is the most commonly
+used Free Software license. Through the GNU GPL Compliance Lab, we
+diligently work to ensure the protection of Free Software.</p>
+<p>
+The Compliance Lab has been an informal activity of FSF since 1992 and
+was formalized in December 2001. One of its main functions is to
+provide general “knowledge infrastructure” concerning the
+GNU GPL and Free Software licensing. Our new GNU GPL Compliance
+Program provides companies with consultation on software development,
+license compliance, legal matters and software certification through a
+paid annual program. Currently over 28 corporations have access to
+consultation provided by the Compliance Program.</p>
+<p>
+The annual program fee helps us to sustain the service in perpetuity,
+and provide the service gratis to volunteer Free Software
+developers. To learn more about the Compliance Program, please contact
+Peter Brown at
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.</p>
<h3>
<a href="#TOCPatron" id="Patron">FSF Corporate Patron Program</a>
</h3>
-In March 2003, we launched the FSF Corporate Patron Program. The Patron
Program offers the community of
-businesses that use Free Software a way to support the work of the Foundation.
-<P>
-The benefits include: a patron logo that the company can display on its
website and materials, the company's name
-and/or logo on the "Current Patron" page, two free hours of consulting from
and automatic membership in FSF's GNU
-GPL Compliance Program, and two complimentary passes to FSF-sponsored seminars.
-<P>
-To learn more about the program, please visit <a
href="http://patron.fsf.org";>patron.fsf.org</a> or contact
-<<a href="mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a>>. A list of
companies already signed up is available on the
-site.
-<P>
+<p>In March 2003, we launched the FSF Corporate Patron Program. The
+Patron Program offers the community of businesses that use Free
+Software a way to support the work of the Foundation.</p>
+<p>
+The benefits include: a patron logo that the company can display on
+its website and materials, the company's name and/or logo on the
+“Current Patron” page, two free hours of consulting from
+and automatic membership in FSF's GNU GPL Compliance Program, and two
+complimentary passes to FSF-sponsored seminars.</p>
+<p>
+To learn more about the program, please
+visit <a href="http://patron.fsf.org";>patron.fsf.org</a> or contact
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. A list of
+companies already signed up is available on the site.</p>
+
<h3>
-<a href="#TOCDonate" id="Donate" >How to Donate to FSF</a>
+<a href="#TOCDonate" id="Donate">How to Donate to FSF</a>
</h3>
-<b>On-line</b>: Use your credit card to make an on-line donation at <a
href="http://donate.fsf.org"; >donate.fsf.org</a>.<br>
-<b>Phone</b>: You can also make a credit card contribution by calling us at
+1-617-542-5942.<br>
-<b>Associate Membership</b>: Become a "card carrying" Associate Member of FSF.
Benefits include a bootable membership card and email forwarding. To sign-up or
get more information, visit <a href="http://member.fsf.org";>member.fsf.org</a>
or write to <<a href="mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a>>.<br>
-<b>United Way</b>: As a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, the FSF is eligible
to receive United Way funds. On the donor
-form, check the "Specific Requests" box and include the sentence, "Send my
gift to the Free Software Foundation, 59
-Temple Pl, Ste 330, Boston, MA 02110".<br>
-<b>Contact <<a href="mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a>> for more
information on supporting FSF</b>.
+<p><b>On-line</b>: Use your credit card to make an on-line donation
+at <a href="http://donate.fsf.org"; >donate.fsf.org</a>.<br />
+<b>Phone</b>: You can also make a credit card contribution by calling
+us at +1-617-542-5942.<br />
+<b>Associate Membership</b>: Become a “card carrying”
+Associate Member of FSF. Benefits include a bootable membership card
+and email forwarding. To sign-up or get more information,
+visit <a href="http://member.fsf.org";>member.fsf.org</a> or write to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.<br />
+<b>United Way</b>: As a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, the FSF is
+eligible to receive United Way funds. On the donor form, check the
+“Specific Requests” box and include the sentence,
+“Send my gift to the Free Software Foundation, 59 Temple Pl, Ste
+330, Boston, MA 02110”.<br />
+<b>Contact <a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>
+for more information on supporting FSF</b>.</p>
<!-- If needed, change the copyright block at the bottom. In general, -->
<!-- all pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
@@ -337,32 +481,6 @@
<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document -->
<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002." -->
-<P>
-<HR>
-
-<p style="font-size: 10pt;">
-<a id="translations"></a>
-<b>Translations of this page:</b><br />
-
-<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical, and in the original -->
-<!-- language if possible, otherwise default to English -->
-<!-- If you do not have it English, please comment what the -->
-<!-- English is. If you add a new language here, please -->
-<!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
-<!-- - in /home/www/bin/nightly-vars either TAGSLANG or WEBLANG -->
-<!-- - in /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
-<!-- one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
-<!-- - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
-<!-- to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
-<!-- Please also check you have the 2 letter language code right versus -->
-<!-- http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/iso639.htm -->
-
-[
- <a href="/bulletins/bulletin-002.html">English</a>
-]
-
-</p>
-
<div class="copyright">
<p>
Return to the <a href="/home.html">GNU Project home page</a>.
@@ -371,10 +489,10 @@
<p>
Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
-There are also <a href="/home.html#ContactInfo">other ways to contact</a>
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF.
<br />
-Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to
+Please send broken links and other corrections or suggestions to
<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
</p>
@@ -386,10 +504,10 @@
</p>
<p>
-Copyright © 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
-51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA
-<br />
-Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
+Copyright © 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008 Free Software
+Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110,
+USA</p>
+<p>Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is
preserved.
</p>
@@ -397,11 +515,10 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2008/05/19 09:35:20 $
+$Date: 2008/10/21 12:05:58 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
-
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/bulletins bulletin-002.html,
Yavor Doganov <=