cj#717> reader comments


Richard Moore

Dear cj,

Only now getting around to looking at things people have sent in over the
past several weeks...  here are a few.


Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 14:43:18 -0400
To: •••@••.•••
From: Nazli Roth <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cj#704> about rkm

Dear Richard,

Thank you for the interesting info and the CyberJournal- I have been
enjoying it for over a year and have been lurking so far since I am more on
the learning end than sharing end at this point.  I think you are doing a
great job and I have benefited from it greatly.

I am currently doing my master's degree at the Michigan State University in
Telecommunications - Social Effects of Telecommunications to be precise.
My strong interest lies in the effect of the new telecommunication
technologies on the American copyright system- from the public perspective
point of view.  I resonate with the views of Pamela Samuelson, EFF, CPFSR
etc. on this issue- in other words, I do think the changes that are
attempted to be established by the government, publishing co's etc in the
name of "adjustment to the new paradigm"  are in fact self-serving and take
away from the intended rights of the public as expressed in the Constitution.

It is my intention to prepare my graduate thesis in this area and focus
especially on the hits the fair use doctrine will be getting -specifically
in the education area- due to the new changes trying to assert what is fair
use and what is infringement in Internet-based communications.  I believe a
great potential of the Internet lies in aiding with education and the
corporate greed, say, trying to limit a maximum of 150 copyrighted words or
so even for educational purposes and related new proposed rules and
guidelines do not make much sense to me.  I find myself in a position to at
least point this out and provide a good case for it in my thesis.

After this long intro, let me ask you if you are aware of any specific case
that deals with these issues.  Fair use and education are my preferable
areas, but any case that represents the said conflicts (users vs.
publishers rights in the new era) would be of great interest to me.  Also,
are you familiar with anyone that would be involved with any of these issues?

Again, thank you for your time and all you have done for the list so far.
By the way I enjoyed your personal info and can relate to some parts of it
very well myself, having found myself an unexpected home across the
Atlantic (originally from Turkey and now a resident of US).  I guess the
journey is meant to be a journey after all!

Nazli Roth

Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997
Sender: Todd HFillingham <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cj#705> feedback re/cyberjournal

        My view torwards that general philosophy of finding salvation
through chaos is that it is fundamentally a very immature desire. The work
of organizing people into a politically powerful and progressive force is
formidable in the extreme. The progress seems incremental. Nevertheless,
just because it may be hard to do and one may require patience and cunning
doesn't invalidate the principle. The rate of change is tied to closely to
incalculable variables and should not be used as a means of comparison
between these two courses. What may seem a glacially slow course may
generate a geometric progression that could be dazzling; while the thrilling
chaos of an apocalyptic upheavel may set back the intended goals considerably

        The appeal of salvation through chaos is very strong, witness the
number of salvationist religions, appocalyptic cults, etc. Reason dictates
against igniting such a preciptous course, yet reason too requires a good
deal of effort and is not always as appealing as pie in the sky bye and

Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997
From: "Anderson, Robert" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cj#712> a comedy break - (apologies to lawyers)

A riot piece.....

Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997
From: xxx
Subject: who holds the high cards
To: (rkm personal)

        you're discussion of who will control cyberspace is right on. of
course the powerful monied interests will dominate. it reminds me of a
discussion in berkeley in the 60's. i'd gone to hear eugene mccarthy speak,
and afterwards about a dozen of us had an impromptu klatch with him. we were
talking about the environment and pollution, and cleaning things up.  one of
the established politicos in attendance was adamant that as we developed new
technologies and implemented plans to clean up and protect the environment, we
had to be sure that none of the companies which had profited from polluting
things could make any profit in helping to clean up the mess they'd helped
make. even then i knew he was hopelessly naive; as were most of us; and as are
most would-be reformers today.

        it is usually specific issues which ignite people's anger toward the
system. there are many such issues. the fact that we remain helpless to solve
them is because our reasonablly constructed republic has had its public and
private institutions usurped by rascals.  for the people to regain some
measure of power to balance the monied forces several things must happen. all
campaigns should be funded with public monies, and no contributions of any
kind allowed from anyone. our public airwaves should be used to give equal and
free time for campaign debates.  corporation law has to be changed. a
corporation cannot have the same rights as an individual. the officers of
corporations must be help accountable for misdeeds, criminally and civilly
i.e. corporations and their officers must loose their immunity from
accountability.  corporations must pay their share of taxes.

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997
Sender: Yves Leclerc <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cj#715> re: Iraq, Turkey, and sanctions (fwd)


Your points are well taken. You could also have given a few other
examples: Grenada, Haiti, Cuba. The US is having the UN systematically
condone under the pretext of democracy and peace what is in fact a
renewal of the old British Empire's technique of "gunship diplomacy".
In the case of Iraq, if the US was not so dominant, it could and should
be accused of war crimes: nearly one million unnecessary and atrocious
civilian deaths (mostly children and old people) during and since the
war, either through direct carpet-bombing, the destruction of essential
life-support structures: water, food distribution, or through famine
caused by economic sanctions the rest of the world wanted lifted long
ago but Washington alone insisted on maintaining.

Much the same is true of Cuba, the victim of a crippling blocus whose
only objective is the removal of a legal and mostly beneficient (health,
education) regime. This, by the way, was also the case for Iraq: in the
1990 Encyclopedia Britannica yearbook, it was mentioned as the example
of enlightened and progressive government in the Middle East. In the
1991 edition, it had become the monstrous reincarnation of Nazi Germany,
and all the previous glowing statistics went unmentioned. It is not only
Uncle Joe Stalin who "rewrites history" to his convenience.

Yves Leclerc, Montreal