artwork is bioterrorism says ashcroft
Daeron
michael June 04 2004
gnetwerker writes "Wired and others are reporting about artist Steve
Kurtz, professor at Univesity of Buffalo (NY), and member of the
Critical Art Ensemble will face a Grand Jury in two weeks on
bioterrorism charges over artwork that used samples of harmless bacteria
to make a statement about genetic engineering and food safety.
He is charged with BioTerrorism under Section 817 of the PATRIOT Act.
Apparently John Ashcroft can't tell a weapons lab from an art
installation. There is more info and a Defense Fund on the CAE Defense
Fund Site."
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/06/04/224237.shtml?tid=123&tid=134&tid=191&tid=99
http://snipurl.com/6vlk
- unquote -
But only when you use it to criticise bigBIZ .. :)
Tim Smith
[stuff]
What is the connection to Linux?
--
--Tim Smith
Daeron
> On 2004-06-05, Daeron <dae...@demon.net> wrote: [stuff]
> What is the connection to Linux?
Just another example of bigbiz using gov legislation to attack
competitors. Something those laws were not designed to do. But then
again no government could resist abusing such powers. Especially when
they are being financed by such vested interests.
What has this to do with Linux. Well take the recent SCO/Baystar attempt
to litigate its way into control of the Linux. Do you not think that a
certain company would have a vested interest in using legislation to
attack Open Source. For example:
How influencial is the Microsoft Corporation with the U.S. and other
governments?
Blocking Open Source From Intellectual Property Discussions
In 2003 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was
organizing a meeting on the significance of open source software. The
meeting was suggested by 60 technologists, economists, and academics
from around the world. Many nations, especially those with much smaller
economies, could potentially benefit from the less restrictive copyright
and opposing views on patents.
Lobbyists from Microsoft funded trade groups, including their Business
Software Alliance, encouraged officials at the U.S. State Department and
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to prevent the meeting from taking
place. "Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office, said that open-source software runs counter
to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property
rights." (Krim, Jonathan. "The quiet war over open-source." The
Washington Post 21 Aug 2003)
http://mattschwartz.net:9000/msversus/
-
How Companies Use (and Abuse) Law for Competitive Gains
[...]
.. Shell’s thesis centers on what he calls “competitive legal strategy”
– the use of contracts, courts, regulation, and lobbying to secure
competitive advantage in business. He shows how Sumner Redstone, Rupert
Murdoch, Andy Grove, and Bill Gates, among others, have forced rivals to
the bargaining table with litigation, defined the boundaries of their
markets with regulations and used politics to fight competitive battles.
Nor, Shell notes, is this a recent development. Long before SCO Group
tried to gain control over the Linux market with copyright lawsuits, the
first manufacturers of sewing machines, automobiles, radios, and even
airplanes perfected litigation strategies to control their respective
industries. Shell uses examples from business history to illustrate his
thesis ...
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/index.cfm?fa=viewArticle&id=978
msg: <2fvkg5F...@uni-berlin.de>
-
Bush administration broadens legal efforts to stifle dissent
Last week when U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan threw out the
Justice Department’s indictment against Green-peace on charges of
“sailor mongering,” the Bill of Rights, as well as Greenpeace, won a
small victory.
Greenpeace has been actively engaged in calling attention to the
environmental dangers of logging and to the unwillingness of our
government to enforce existing laws. In April 2002, two Greenpeace
act-ivists tried to board the cargo ship Jade and hang a banner that
read “Presi-dent Bush: Stop Illegal Logging.”
http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/040526/civlib/index.asp
Before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia disallowed
the practice, the RIAA blanketed Internet service providers with
requests to comply with copyright subpoenas served on behalf of the
recording industry. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
previously allowed the RIAA to demand the "expeditious" disclosure of
user identities from ISPs.