Slashdot Mirror
The Internet-Have We Reached A Turning Point?
Pyromage asks: "Given all the lawsuits (DeCSS, the censorware ones, etc.) and all the laws (UCITA, DMCA) that are essentially impacting the net right now, do you see it being the end of the net as we know it? As cheesy as it sounds, depending on how these events turn out, I can see it as the beginning of regulation and the end of privacy & freedom online, or as a solid precedent guarding the rights of people on the net. Thoughts?" Interesting question. Have any of you actually thought about how these events, which are developing as we speak, will affect the network that we all know and love?
Is it the end of the net as we know it? Emphatically, yes. Hackerdom and geeklings are now fighting a rear-guard action against the likes of congress, corporations, and the public. They were too busy coding to notice the world had passed them by.
When clipper came out, it should have set off a major counteroffensive and propaganda campaign. The CDA should have been anticipated, and countervened by a ban on internet regulation ahead of time. The actions in the DeCSS would have been easily predicted by someone with political experience. Strategy should have been hashed out before the release of the code. Don't even get me started about how hackers have failed to educate the public about the actual virus threat (no "electronic pearl harbor" is coming, but have we gotten this message out?). Let's not talk about the image of geekdom after the 3 days of DDoS fame.
A bunch of kids with a fascination for technology cobbled the internet together, built it into an excellent working medium, and let it go. It was foolishly assumed that the net would have to be free, that no one could even *attempt* to regulate it. The lack of political experience and the absence of tactical or strategic acumen have left the geeks exactly where they love to be: slaving over the code in the basement.
Sorry, boys and girls. Decisions are made in the front office, and in congress. You lost your chance to shape and control the internet when you failed to anticipate the actions of your enemies.
At this point, privacy and freedom, as envisioned in the "information wants to be free" bromide, are extinct. A protracted electronic guerilla campaign might stand a chance of ressurecting it, but I doubt many of you have thought of the strategy and tactics necessary to carry out such an exercise.
As long as politicians and corporations can claim the public spotlight and control their image, we are fighting a losing, rear-guard action. We have been since the CDA was first proposed. No one understood this then (we beat them away, the net is now free forever!), and no one gets this now.
Oh, well. I guess that's what you get when you spend too much time playing DOOM and not enough reading Clausewitz, Sun-Tsu, Zedong, and Musashi.
At least you can still get rich by starting a dotcom.com.
When the europeans came they introduced private ownership and fenced off the land, preventing the free migration of animals and natives. They brought with them their own laws and the power to enforce them upon the natives. The internet is in a similar situation. Corporations (Europeans) and their lawyers (sheriffs) are imposing laws on the previous inhabitants (Indians) of the internet, with no regard to the existing culture and ethics of the Indians. Current 'raiding parties' on Corp and GOv servers will be no more effective than the battles the Indians fought. An occasional 'Little Big Horn' means nothing. Even if the Indians and destroyed the Columbus on the beach, the differences in technology and customs between the the two cultures would have eventually led to a permanent 'beach head' and the same result. I don't know how far this analogy can be carried but the similarities are striking. It scares me. If cphack guys can be made to give up the fight so easily, even with ACLU support, this will only embolden the other suits to make other attacks.
There's a third option: we can leave the sandbox to them and go find ourselves a new one. Then they can pour all the mud they want in it, and it won't be our problem.
Ahh, wishful thinking, I suppose.
-Mars
"I'll bet anyone $10 that there will be Net taxes . . . for municipal, county, and states, in existance by 2010."
You mean like the 6.5% use tax on amounts over $700 spent online or outside of the state for Minnesotans? Or the 0.5% on top of that for residents of Minneapolis? They don't have a great way to be sure they are collecting it, but Minnesota already tries to collect it. This year's tax instructions carried a thinly veiled threat that if you don't file and pay the tax, and they find out, you'll be penalized. How they'll find out, I don't know, but they want to.
LetterJ
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
I used to think this way, until something happened a few years ago. There was this guy, Mitnik I think his name was. He broke into some commercial networks and obtained some secrets. They put his ass in jail and held him there without trial or bail for over 4 years.
Last time I read the U.S. constitution that isn't supposed to happen. But it did. He had lawyers... so what! They couldn't help him.
Ever since Lincoln completely usurped state's rights in the civil war the Federal Government has had complete control of a large part of the lives of U.S. citizens. Take a look at this latest census form if you don't believe me...Privacy has gone out the window. It is a FELONY to NOT answer these questions. Of course they won't use any of this information.
My point is that if Da Man shows up and says I have to put 'this filter' or 'that black box' on my internet connection, and "Oh By The Way! Here's the invoice for said equipment and you've also got to put in a special phone line just for our use so we don't have to 'bother' you when we want access!"
I don't have a choice. I do it or they put me out of business if I'm lucky. If I'm unlucky they hold me in jail for 4-6 years without trial or bail. Next ISP owner says, "Sure, stick it right there on the rack! I don't wanna end up like Robbie!"
MOST people (in the U.S. at least...) get ISP access through commercial entities which are completely at the mercy of this stuff, cause we're accountable.
You clueless students need to go cash a reality check if you think the Government CAN'T do just what you're worried about. If there's enough popular sentiment to "protect our kids!!!" they'll do any damned thing they want.
Also if you think the government (NSA) doesn't already have the full cooperation of backbone providers and telcos in monitoring ANYTHING THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE... Come to my website I've got some oceanfront property in Kansas for sale.
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Lots of groups do agree (I'm not a member of any, no need for any goverment visits at my house) and they are either persecuted by the government or investigated and imprisioned.
This is most certainly the end of the world^H^H^H^H^Hnet as we know it. This is because we are reactive and not proactive. Little by little, year by year our rights are taken away. The net just happens to be one of the most visible places this is happening right now.
/was/, given How [D]ARPA was no longer in charge of it ) would be entirely out of reach of any governmental control. Sure, we might loose the high speeds, the nifty graphics, the e-commerce sites, yadda yadda, but the FREE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION would still be there.
/not/ about copyrights, patents, Movies, or even Operation Systems. It is about the natural right of our thoughts and ideas to be dissemnted to however many people we want. The idea of a seperate network appeals to me, maybe I'm sounding "old fasioned" or even "nostaligic" but I miss the days before "The Web" where USENET ruled and the command line was king. We IDEAS and not IMAGES were what was absorbed. Why not go back to that?
What we really need to do is start being proactive, the protest in Washington was a good start...but it was TWO YEARS after the law passed, we need to be getting on top of these things quicker. We need a good clearing house of information. A YRO newsletter or something similar would probably do the trick. But even why they are attempting to attack the freedom that has been the Internet.
Don't forget that this wonderful network of networks was formed on Open Standards. What is too stop us from hooking up just our computers with TCP/IP and forming the GeekNET? Why...nothing of course, and it would be out of touch from Government Regulations. A PRIVATELY funded network ( And to be honest I thought that was what the internet
This wonderful thing that we all have access to is
Ah well, I'm rambling now so I'll go, but I'll leave with this last thought: The Internet is in many ways an organic being, with that there is bound to be change, and eventually it will die. What we need is to produce offspring to ensure it's existince. And with that I am out.
Sgt Pepper
I highly recommend reading "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace" for an intelligent, and at times disheartening, look at the issues involved here. It really comes down to political action if some of the nasty things coming down the pike are to be avoided. In the early days the internet wasn't on the political radar screen, and the people building it made some sensible decisions that gave us the freedom we enjoyed until recently.
Now though, the big money is involved so the politicians are all over the issue "like Oprah on a baked ham" (Simpsons). If we don't stand up and be counted then soon "protecting the children", otherwise known as making the web safe for big business, will put an end to what we've come to love.
development.lombardi.com
So why bother? Because companies (Microsoft especially) don't want to sell you a single copy of something. You might be happy with it, not buy another copy and cut off their revenue stream. (they fight this by releasing new versions and leaving the old ones unsupported) And they certainly don't want to give you free bug fixes because they don't make money from those either. This is why UCITA is such a big deal for them - and if a few measly consumer rights are trampled in the process, that's not their problem.
Again, pardon me if I'm restating the obvious. But if we're going to fight these stupid laws we need to understand their original goal as well as the detrimental side effects they have on the rest of us.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
First, the World Wide Web is part of the internet but not the whole internet mind you. Second, corporate interest in the internet as a whole has been a fairly annoying thing. Sure, people have gotten rich and such. However, spam, junk mail posting and corporate entities throwing their weight around in terms of copyright law have negated much of the benefits in my opinion of the promise of e-commerce and the money of old companies coming into the digital world.
However, like I said before, the web is not the entire internet. The backbone of the network has not been copyrighted. Once the geeks have all gone home and finally gotten tired of pop-up porno ads, junk postings in their USENET groups and spam in their dozen or so email addresses, we will create a new space just as lawless and wild as the web use to be. Maybe I am not imaginative enough but I doubt there are few of us out there that will see the nature of the next step in computing, networking and sharing information over the internet but it will come.
I remember that the mere idea of the internet seemed mind-boggling to me as a sat back dialing into my BBS at 2400 baud. Technology will move faster than the corporations and every new space will have a moment to breath before being consumed by money.
Look for the open spaces to breath. That is the only advice I can give.
ACK
It's not necessarily the same guy. I too think, contrary to Kaa's unique viewpoint, that most people here would agree the concept of IP is not natural in the same way as ownership of material objects. For the simple reason that there can be only one instance of a particular material object whereas information can be distributed without depriving the original owner of it. Kaa's post was just a troll and insults people's intelligence. It's no wonder that someone got angry about it.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Internet Regulation by the US...will end up like the Prohibition. The Prohibition was canceled shortly after it was enacted because it was seriously flawed.
You may well be right, but if so, that is hardly good news. Prohibition was in force for something like ten years. Hundreds if not thousands were killed, either by government thugs (coast guard, police, FBI) or gangsters (nongovernment thugs), and hundreds if not thousands more were imprisoned, lost their homes, and so forth. Not to mention the social ramifications (higher rates of alcoholism due to the near absence of low-alcoholic content beverages such as beer and whine coupled with the plethora of more profitable high-alcoholic content moonshine liquors of various types, and the emergence of an organized crime syndicate financed from profits made possible by the criminalization of alcohol which we still have with us today, 70 years later).
How many of us will lose our homes, our livelihoods, our freedoms, and even our lives, before this "regulation is slowly lifted?" How many evil, destructive policies will be enacted, how many evil, destructive people and organizations will benefit financially, gaining even more power, before it is over.
Finally, with the full-scale assualt on nearly every aspect of our democracy and our constitutional rights, how do you know the mechanisms will even still be in place for the situation to correct itself at all? Just because the United States has flirted with constitutional disaster before and had the good fortune to emerge relatively intact, doesn't mean we'll be so lucky again.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
01/29/1999
$1,000
Gore, Al
09/14/1999
$1,000
Gore, Al
09/30/1999
$1,000
McCain, John
10/21/1999
$1,000
Bush, George W
The only guy of any consequence not on the list is Bradley. This guy doesn't care WHO wins, he just wants to try and make sure he has a little leverage, albeit small, on the guy who wins.
*sigh*
Shoot a black man.. go to jail for murder.
Shoot a black man, calling him "nigger" while you do it.. go to jail for committing the "hate crime" of murder, with a longer sentence.
Simply uttering the word "nigger" in that case, made the crime "more severe". The speech brought about additional punishment.
Is it any wonder that the US has the highest per-capita imprisonment rate in the world?
You know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of 3rd-party web annotations, like Third Voice. We need something like Third Voice for Real Life stuff. Maybe some day when someone is walking down the isle of a store while wearing their cybergoggles, warning messages from third parties will pop up whenever they look at SDMI products. :-)
Actually, we also need something like Third Voice, but with an open and documented protocol (so that it can be implemented on all platforms), collaborative filtering so you can skip over whatever B1FF says, and enabled by default on all web browsers. Hm...
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Given the fact that public education in this country leaves much to be desired, Given that competition in the marketplace of education will make things better for the consumers
You've got about 10 paragraphs of "givens" that I don't agree are "given".
Although I suppose you could always say education could be better, the fact of the matter is that all the countries with "better" educational systems are far behind us in virtually every segment of technology, business, and finance. All the standardized tests can show that people in the US are poorly educated, but the empirical evidence seems to indicate that we're doing just fine.
I went to public school and don't feel I was robbed of a good education, on the contrary most of the people I've met who went to private school seem to have grown up in a fairyland vacuum where everyone is rich and white and polite. Where every transgression is forgiven as a childish prank (Witness George W, running for president, unlike most other "youthful indescretion" drug users who are in jail).
And I don't buy that "competition" makes schools (or more importantly, education) better. Public schools currently compete too much, IMHO. They waste half their time teaching to the standardized test (because that's what their funding is based on!) rather than educating. They compete with each other and other school districts for funding, and more importantly for the financial impact being the "best district/school in the state" has. A good school district brings companies (and thus $$$), a bad one makes employees reluctant to transfer there.
It is also a fact that, no matter how large or small the community in which we live, we must each make choices that, for better or worse, affect our lives and the lives of those around us. Libertarian thought simply states that it's best if we're able to make those decisions for ourselves
That's the logic I don't understand. Any major decision affects other people, therefore those other people shouldn't have any input on the decision?
Quite frankly, I don't want the chemical plant owner "making the decision for himself" whether or not to dump his waste into the ground (and thus into the water table and our drinking/bathing water.
If you want to "make the decision for yourself" to send your kid to catholic school, or to get more insurance or to buy a house or have sex with an inflatable woman, knock yourself out.
If you want to make the choice not to fund the public schools that you (and everyone else) benefit from, then no the choice is only yours insofar as you and the rest of the community (the electorate) can agree it's a good idea.
And don't kid yourself that this won't have religious repercussions. If 80% of the community sends their kids/vouchers to a Catholic school, then how the hell are the Jewish or Muslim kids gonna get the education they deserve without taxpayer-sponsored religious instruction that is contrary to their beliefs? If it's not profitable to make a non-religious school in an area, it won't get built.
As someone who respects my rights (especially those so sensitive as to be enumerated in the Constitution) I find it disturbing that we're so eager to hand them all over in an eagerness to (maybe) save a few dollars. Businesses have no responsibility to protect your speech or religion or privacy. Private schools will have no issues with prayer at football games -- they can just kick you out if they don't like your attitude...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
If you pay taxes (including school district taxes), but you also have to pay tuition and fees and whatnot for your child to attend a private school, why the Hell are you paying school taxes?
You're paying for the same rteason that people wihtout kids pay school taxes -- no one lives in a vacuum. The kids that go to school are the adults, voters, employees, employers, and neighbors of tomorrow.
This, ultimately is my greatest disagreement with pure libertarian thought -- that it never acknowledges the communal reality of existence in modern times...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Good post!
But you assume there is only one law applicable to the net, the US one. But that's not true. The net may not be regulated all over, at least enless the US is able to confine the EU to regulate the same. And that will never happen. The EU allready does things just to do the opposite of the US... And how much the companies of the US successes to regulate it there (Not taxes, but regulations (regulations on what you are able to say and do online)), there will allways be oversea-sites running providing free infomation. The only risk is if you start to censor yourself with some blocking software... And if you do, that is a proof of the US being equal to China.
-- One party system, two party system -- what's the difference? Where did all the other parties go?
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
If it weren't for the governments power of eminent domain under the constitution (brits - compulsory purchase)there would be no network.
Ah, so they were indeed funded by the tax coffers. They weren't privately created. My point still stands...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I've seen the CATO institute and Reason bitching about the WTO protests.
I haven't read every CATO and Reason article out there on the subject, but the ones I have read bitched about the "protest" and did not argue in favor of the WTO itself. A lot of those protestors wanted to replace the oppressive WTO with schemes even more oppressive.
Libertarians also support school vouchers because they beleive that school vouchers with privatize public education.
Some libertarians support school vouchers. A lot support tuition credits instead. Unfortunately, with vouchers you get the benefit of Republicans as allies and a lot of press coverage. With credits you're on your own.
Simillarly, I have also seen many libertarians supporting stronger copyright protection (like the DCMA).
I've found libertarians to be split on the issue of information as property. Some are completely against it (see the GNU pages for an example) while others take the opposite extreme that all information must be protected with the utmost of vigilance. Most will take the middle ground the ones own works are ones own property, but also that holders of copies of those works have property rights as well.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Firstly, because the "Internet" is != "The US" and any restrictions placed solely on US internet providers will simply create a market outside the US for services.
And besides.. regulating the internet is like herding cats.
I think your statement that very few countries would not follow the US in their decisions is very wrong. I am not trying to speak positively or negatively about the US, but even if you look at our own Canadian laws, we tend to follow Europe far more than we follow the US.
We have tons of space. And you are more than welcome to join us up here.. but you'll have to leave a small part of your capitalist extremist attitudes back in the US when you leave. We take things a little easier up here... there's more to life than money.
On another note, though.. The US *IS* a great country, and a fine neighbor.. but rather than run away, you have to MAKE NOISE! Let your politicians know how YOU want your country to be run.
Remember.. the US is supposed to be a shining example to the world of a country goverened OF FOR AND BY the people, and more and more often, it appears that the people have no control over the government. Even us Canadians have a better grip on what's going on (or so it appears). I'd say you should continue that example, all get together and 'splain to your government how it is.
And as your friendly neighbors, you'll get all the support from us canucks you can handle.
Imminent Death of the Internet Predicted!
:-)
Film at eleven.
*yawn* This again? The Internet has been changing and evolving since it was created. It will continue to do so, likely forever. Yet, for some reason, people drag out these doom-and-gloom, the-world-as-we-know-it-is-going-to-end prophecies on a regular basis.
Wake me up when some real news breaks.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
The endless law suits from america cant stop the internet simply because it belongs to everyone - and i really doubt they can employ enough lawyers to sue everyone on the planet :o)
The various people sueing like there is no tomorrow are doing just that - doing whatever they can to survive. I believe those companies will die out very quickly unless they embrace, not attack the internet
You are correct in the fact that there have men many, err too many, failed regulations. But the point that I am trying to make is that the US is going to suffer in the form of money and right now it seems that money is the driving force of the political process, UCITA in Virginia. The loss of money due to the regulation of the Internet will force the de-regulation.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
You may well be right, but if so, that is hardly good news.
I never claimed it was good news.
Hundreds if not thousands were killed, either by government thugs (coast guard, police, FBI) or gangsters (nongovernment thugs), and hundreds if not thousands more were imprisoned, lost their homes, and so forth.
That was a different time. The media would jump over anything remotely close to the government's actions during the Prohibition. There will be isolated insidents but as the press converges on them they will subside. And you cannot say that the media is controled by the government. It is controled by money hungry mega-monopoly corporations. For them money = number of viewers. The easiest way to get a high number of viewers is to put the worst light on the government as possible.
Things may change though and very soon all our rights may be striped from us. I feel that this will not happen but objectively I cannot discount this fact. So I will continue to vote and do my best to be involved with the UCITA and DMCA.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
Taking the laws one at a time
DMCA: a biggie. This could have serious implications by "closing" standards. I think that, in the long run, it has overreached itself, and will be ruled unconstitutional (or at least parts of it) because effectively indefinitely extends copyright. In the short run it'll be bad.
UCITA: even worse. Every time I read about it I cannot believe it. Worse, I can't see what can stop it legally if it is enacted. The best that could be hoped for is that big business realises that it is terrible, and stops it. Unlikely.
DeCSS. A corker, as they are trying to enforce "no reverse engineering" where it is legal to reverse engineer.
Privacy - sorry guys, we're all statistics. Even if you use PGP you will be targetted as "that 1.8% of people who use PGP - try to sell them techy toys." Rights on the net - there are none. The net is a commercial entity: you have no right to free speech (no ISP is bound to have you, no company has to sell you connectivity), no right to privacy. Equally "they" have no rights either - use encryption, block banner ads, lie on surveys.
Remember - they (the denizens of the commercial net) are only in it for the money. All you can do is make behaviour that you find unacceptable unprofitable for them. The net is going to be a great social engineering experiment. We'll find out whose money talks the loudest - those that spend it or those that take it.
The end of the net as we know it? It's always the end of the net as we know it. Best we make tomorrow's net a better place.
Depends on the "we" you're talking about. We passed some of the crossroads a long time ago.
I've been on the net for almost 15 years, and it's WAY different now than it was then. Not long after I got on the net, usenet started taking off. I remember being able to read ALL of the messages in ALL of the newsgroups I cared about every day without kill files, threading or anything of the sort. Now, usenet is quickly becoming a repository for spam and illegal distribution of copyrighted material (mp3s, jpgs, warez, etc). Slashdot did a story not too long ago about whether usenet is dead yet.
I remember thinking how cool WAIS was, and how useless and redundant gopher was. I remember using beta versions of Mosaic, and thinking how useful it might be. I remember thinking how cool it was that there were more people on the net. I remember thinking how cool it was the first time I saw a URL in an ad.
I now spend a lot of time thinking how lame it is that there are more people on the net, and how cool it is to see an ad without a URL...
the signal to noise ratio of the net in general has gone down over time. for a while, it was worth a little more noise to get a little more signal, but we have long since past the point where the ratio is very tolerable. hopefully, someone will come out with some neat new technology to allow us to filter through the cruft better...until someone figures out how to abuse that too.
sigh,
Michael
Who cares if they're in place when they work so poorly as they do?
Look at drug prohibition, for example. Started as a racist gig -- instead of fighting the black people directly, just force them all to be criminals -- and who's out there fighting against that injustice? Hmm. Anyone who does, swiftly gets branded a criminal. Or a joke. Many of us remember when the word "hacker" was primarily praise.
Is there a ray of light coming from the Internet? Perhaps. It's a good lever for the best our society has to offer, not just the worst.
Heh. Instead of "Geeks in Space", we could have "Geeks on Strike".
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
We always at a turning point because the Internet is still evolving/changing rapidly. Only things that do not move cannot turn.
There is nothing particularly special about this moment in time.
True, the various authorities [control addicts] have been awaking, but there are also lots more `net users who enjoy the freedom they find here.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't fight the straightjackets that others would like to fit us in. Of course we should. This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Both are extremely consumerism oriented, however, I think there are some appreciable differences:
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Where it really went wrong was when the web was started up.. I long for the days of archie, telnet, ftp ad gopher.. no netscape, ie, and all that..those were the days..
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Hey infodragon.
I have to take issue with your statement that the media would jump all over anything remotely close to the government's actions during prohibition.
Here in the US we are currently undergoing a period of prohibition. The drug warriors are all up on their high-horses riding down your rights. Your rights have been, and are currently being, eroded very seriously in the name of the war on drugs.
The media has chosen to ignore these abuses quite handily. No TV station has yet had the balls to stand up and say that seizure of property on the suspicion that drug money may have been involved AND placing the burden of proof to reclaim the property on the person from whom it was seized is wrong. It's pretty clearly wrong, the Founding Fathers would have had fits over it, but our media does not have the stones to say it.
That is only one example.
Now if anyone knows why the media is so quiet on the subject I'd love to hear it. I'm really quite perplexed myself. I've figured the media as corporate stooges for ages, but I can't for the life of me figure out why corporate money wants our property rights eroded in this way? What are they getting?
Absimiliard
--------------------------------------
All sigs are lame, but mine is the lamest!
.. that any tyranny does not stand over time. Yes, the companies and other interests that control things through force of money can slowly leech away the rights of people, but eventually people will notice what is going on. Taking away the right to reproduce something /you/ own for /your own/ enjoyment is something that affects anyone who can afford a player and content.
Once people unite against corporations, things will change. We shall use all peaceful means to overcome tyranny, and succeed.
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
...neither is big business or government. A lot of our international posters keep saying "DMCA, UCITA, etc. doesn't apply to me" and they're right. However, these laws didn't just pop up out of nowhere. I think it was inevitable that once the internet grew beyond novelty and into something useful (and therefore *worth* something) that corporations and government would want to control it.
Your country doesn't have to "follow the US lead" -- once the Net becomes something of real value in your country there will be a company or government agency there ready to claim control of it. The natural impulse of any organization is to grow and accrete more power. The problem has only surfaced in the US first because the Net has moved beyond novelty here and into the daily lives of many more people.
The US has its own spate of stupid laws, but we've already seen stupid laws passed in otherwise democratic places like Australia. Yes, RIAA and MPAA both end in "Association of America", but don't you think that companies like BMG will move to protect their interests when the time comes? (And right now they can sit back as the RIAA fights most of their battles for them.) In places where there is already strong control of existing media, it will be a natural to extend this to the Internet. Even though we all know how difficult this is technically, if something is illegal it still gives the government a pretext to arrest people they don't like.
Like I said, the impulse is everywhere, lying just under the surface. You won't end up with America's stupid laws -- you'll have a whole set of your own unless you watch out. Even if your country happens to be highly enlightened and all your personal liberties are preserved, if other countries around you are not, then it won't be much of a "World Wide" web, will it?
One last comment: corporations making fortune selling things online was not what the internet used to be about...so I fail to see how the argument of preserving the internet as it was should apply here...
You're right. E-commerce is nice and convenient, but it certainly hasn't changed my life.
The best thing about the internet is the unlimited free flow of ideas, and that really can't be stopped, just by the nature of how the hardware works. You can implement all the filters you want, but people will find a way to get the information somehow. It's like trying to clean up a huge oil spill with paper towels, from the point of view of those who want to control the internet. Even the Chinese seem to be letting in some sites that are questionable to their governments' ideals...it's impossible to find them all anyway.
We haven't really reached a point where the international nature of the internet actually puts any governments' power at risk, but that day may come, in a form I can't really think of today. Maybe then we'll see mandatory government filtering of, say, an entire country's domain.
I think the real risk is not Orwellian type threats (not in the near future anyway), but the type of thing we've always seen: limiting people's ability to "break the law", and thus prevent large scale "disobediance", limiting activity to a relatively small group of people. If no one knows about you and your cause, your free speech rights don't bother the government or any other institution.
On the upside, we've all seen the limited success of "controlling" mp3s by the RIAA, etc. It really can't be done. So I'm pretty optimistic about our future. We just need to keep in mind it's not the technology that changes things, it's how we use it.
Is This The End of The Internet As We Know It? Again???
My first thought is, 'no of course not--don't be stupid!' My second though is a bit more uncertain.
I've always figured that as new aspects of the internet come about, they'll be more and more regulated. The web is already far more regulated than the more basic, primitive, and older aspects. (IRC, usenet, etc.) Usenet, for instance, is so fundamentally unregulable that it's pretty much free of danger as long as it sticks around.
But then I look at the things that _have_ fallen by the wayside over the years, anon.penet.fi being a big one. The idea that an ISP is fundamentally not responsible for user content is another (especially with most service moving from academic to commercial providers) The lack of international laws to deal with abuse, and as a result, the 'vigilante justice' that's been working fairly well up until now.
Things are changing. Things are changing RIGHT NOW more than I would have expected possible four years ago. Companies, lawmakers, and meddlers won't rest until they get control over things again, to their satisfaction. I don't know how it's going to happen but already control that seemed impossible is starting to appear (and freedom that seemed inevitable is starting to falter).
Death of the internet? Never. It's already so entrenched that in one form or another, it's going to be as ubiquitous as electricity and running water is today. (and yes, neither of those are universal) However, death of the internet as an informal, loosely regulated, anarchistic world may be starting to come about.
Pity. The worst thing is, aside from keeping 'talk' and IRC clients alive, I can't see any way of stopping it.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
This is a list of the people who've gotten cash from Jack Valenti (MPAA). The MPAA contributed 4000 this year, which is small when compaired to the studio's make the top soft money lists. Many of law makers listed are on the Judiciary Committee.
These are only for the 2000 elections. In the previous election he made over 32 donations.
Source: www.opensecrets.org
Valenti, Jack
Washington, DC 20005
Motion Picture Association
01/29/1999
$1,000
Gore, Al
03/10/1999
$500
Frost, Martin
06/10/1999
$500
Watts, J C
09/07/1999
$250
Restore America PAC
03/01/1999
$500
Lofgren, Zoe
08/04/1999
$1,000
Hatch, Orrin G
08/17/1999
$1,000
Democratic Leader's Victory Fund 2000
06/07/1999
$500
Casey, Patrick Raymond
03/10/1999
$500
Lone Star Fund
06/23/1999
$500
Clyburn, James E
10/07/1999
$1,000
Hyde, Henry J
10/07/1999
$1,000
Hyde, Henry J
05/26/1999
$1,000
Conyers, John Jr
09/14/1999
$1,000
Gore, Al
09/30/1999
$1,000
McCain, John
10/21/1999
$1,000
Bush, George W
Beyond that there is the attempt to regulate content residing outside the US (or your country of choice) by holding the big ISP and backbone hosts responsible for the content they allow users to view. This can have the effect of chopping the `Net up into national nets. Multinational companies and national governments aren't going to care if the objectional material is only available on-line in Lower-Outbackastani.
And beyond that is the arm-twisting the US does to other governments to get them to echo the US legal directions. Plus mutual backscratching between governments where country A regulates something they don't care about one way or another but contry B does, just to get country B to regulate something they way country A feels it should be.
Consider the sate of radio in its early, unregulated days. A few people thought that it would have the same sort of impact the many here feel the Net has. Radio was regualted in the US as a "limited resource" (available frequencies), but in other countries other reasosns were given. (The UK and licenses for radios and TVs). Public decency, protecting against "insurrectionist" talk, halting the spreading of illegal and dangerous information (US Senate bill 486) - the list goes on. All of these are reasons for governments to attempt to regulate and control the Net.
Now, if a IP packet modem that used the unregualted spread spectrum bands were to be marketed, and come into common use, one could see the appearance of an alternative backbone within populated areas of land masses. Everyone passes others packets on down the line, in a distributed web-like network arather than the current trunk and branches. Much harder to apply pressure to the backbone when it's a large number of small sites all over the place.
Us geeks could always use a tunneling protocol over the net. Or special pages that require decryption plug-in which will ask for the average flying speed of an unladened European swallow, or for the name of the CPM debugger, before granting access.
The only reason why the CPHack, DeCSS, and my case have been issues is because non-geeks find out and have access to that information.
Fight Spammers!
But don't get discouraged, the change is more illusion than reality. The fact that the Internet doubles in size very fast has meant that the majority of the population at any given time are newbies. Another large fraction have gotten through the newbie stage and have become dismayed by how many more newbies have come along and ruined things. But in reality, things have stayed about as messed up as they ever were. The "change" most of you are experiencing is just the change in yourself relative to the state of the Internet.
And things may actually stabilize in the forseeable future. Eventually the flood of newbies must end. The global population can't grow as fast as Internet users. So things may actually get better. Maybe someday people won't even post warnings about blue star stamps to the whole world on Usenet.
In reality the Internet is still a place you can go, get some data from a satellite (SOHO) orbiting at the L1 point between the earth and sun in near real-time, and discover new comets the pro's overlooked as they whiz past the surface of the Sun. (here's how) And that's awsome!
I think we are already at a definite turning point. Most of it is brought about by greed. at first the web was a wonderful place, a free speech playground. Now that E-Commerce has come to the web or freedom of speech is deteriorating. For instance NBC is threatening 2600 with a lawsuit for owning the Domain fucknbc.com because of trademark infringement. I doubt anyone has gone to this site thinking it was NBC. Clearly these companies will try to regulate the net more and more in hopes to "protect their companies" And of course the previously mentioned Mattel, DeCSS, etc. second point is now the government will see companies making money tax free so it will have to find a way to take it's share, like it or not, it's coming. Also france no longer allows anonymous web pages, what countries are next. Great FireWall of USA??? Maybe it's time we find a way to deal with these issues. obviously we can't kick ecommerce off the net, 2 wrongs don't make a right, and most companies aren't jerks like the above mentioned. So how do we keep them from ruining it for everone without dropping to their level. I seriously think we need to address this before it snowballs into something no one can control. I hate watching our freedom of speech float away. It scares me to think my childern my someday just see the web as a virtual mall and not the biggest collection of ideas, facts, opinions and information ever invented.
To many transactions are made over the net for the law not to regulate. Consumer protection is one of the many issues I see here. Taxation is another thing, but governments have always found new ways to make money... for those of you who own cell phones you pay a tax for the right to use the airwaves because the government decided it owned them ... nice isn't it ?
So what about the internet ? Why would anything be different ?
Taxation of sale transactions over the internet will be a reality as the economy moves more into ecommerce ... and it has to be that way. The government will face loss of revenus if it doesnt to that and will have to raise taxes in one way or the other.... the only democratic and socialy responsive way to do it is to tax thoses transactions otherwise (if the government has to raise the income tax)you place the burden over the whole population and allow a certain class of people to escape their contribution to society.
As for the many who disagree with my point of view I think you should look at the issue as more of a society problem and stop hiding behin the idealism of a free internet.
One last comment: corporations making fortune selling things online was not what the internet used to be about...so I fail to see how the argument of preserving the internet as it was should apply here...
Imagination is more important than knowledge. --- Albert Einstein
You are right to point out that other countries exist too, but they aren't as independent as you make out. What happens in the US often spreads to other countries. I suspect the EU will follow the US's lead in a lot of this, for example
And, don't forget, the Internet itself ties countries more closely together. Regulations in the US will in practice effect how US-based websites do business in all the countries they serve - i.e. everywhere. Imagine you are (say) Yahoo! and you decide to comply with one of these new laws. Its unlikely that you'll choose not to comply for customers outside the US. That's assuming you can tell which customers are from where. That's assuming that the US laws even allow websites to not comply when dealing with non-US users.
So yes, of course other countries exist on the net. But in practice, a lot of these new rules will de factor end up applying outside the US too, for better or worse.
Sailing over the event horizon
And the reality is that there will be governmental regulation. Too many corporations are spending way too much money for this not to happen.
I'm constantly amazed by this and similar thoughts that are expressed on /.. Assuming that you don't want the "corporations" taking over the net, then how exactly do you propose to stop them? Government regulation is an effective tool by which "we the people" can control corporate behavior. Lawsuits are an effective way for people who are abused by corporations to prevent future abuses. Neither of these are apparently acceptable to the rabid /.-er.
So how exactly are you going to change the corporations? By writing angry posts to /. discussion? Yeah, I can hear the mighty corporations quivering in their boots... The community will be more effective if it uses the mechanisms our society already has in place to achieve its end, rather than trying to ferment some sort of revolution that isn't going to happen and isn't supported by the majority of your fellow countrymen.
The usual IMHO disclaimers apply, of course ;-)
Sailing over the event horizon
Yes, but it's NOT staying the same. The clock is already ticking.
Imagine this: The FBI sets up a "Reichstag Fire", and tells Congress that they NEED to be able to track IP addresses in real-time.
The idiots on the IPv6 commitee have handed them the solution on a silver platter. All Congress has to do is pass a law which not only mandates that all ISP's use IPv6, but that they also provide the mechanisms to allow the FBI to track these connections, and listen in, if possible, in real time.
Think it can't happen? You'd be wrong. Congress just gave the telco's over $200 million to do something similar with digital phone connections; after passing a similar law back in the mid 90's.
There's nothing to stop them from doing it with IPv6; though the ISP's would bitch and moan as loudly as the phone companies, until they got enough money to do this.
So soon you'll be able to kiss your internet anonimity goodbye.
Isn't that what the deCSS guys thought?
Gee, if you think libertarians are going to flame you for your "truth", then you don't understand libertarians. I'll go one better, I'll flame you for your inane assumptions about libertarians:
they will zealously defend their interests, through the creation of regulations and laws.
Libertarians are against regulations and laws that infringe upon life, liberty and property. We will agree with you on this one.
They will demand the regulation of the Net, they will insist on laws, and it will happen.
Libertarians are against the regulation of the net. The only laws applying to it should be for the express purpose of guaranteeing peoples rights to life, liberty and property. Including the property rights of Free Software.
Taxes are also inevitable.
Libertarians are against taxes. Some are against them completely. Others will relent to basic and necessary taxation. But you do make a statement that libertarians will take issue with: hey should be really low for small business and startups...but not for big companies. Actually, beyond the mischaracterization of libertarians, this is one of the few things in your post I disagree with. Everyone must be treated equally.
such as requiring open access to broadband pipes.
If the broadband pipe was funded through taxes, then libertarians will agree with you. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "broadband pipes" though. If you mean access to a companies privately constructed backbone, I'll have to disagree.
Overall, you don't have any disagreements with libertarians. It's a shame that you think them hostile to freedom.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
People have an innate preference to share with others when it benefits them.
People have an innate preference to do all kind of stuff when it benefits them. I don't see what's so special about sharing (in this context).
I think I have a much lower opinion of human nature than you do.
IMHO, people follow their instincts. Most intellectual property laws follow against people's instincts
Don't mistake your instincts for the people's instincts. You are not typical at all and your viewpoint is the minority viewpoint. I may not agree with specific IP laws, but I think that at least the concept of IP follows natural instincts pretty well (besides, I can derive most of IP from the freedom of contract).
So, in the end, producing Intellectual Property isn't going to make any money. All jobs will be service jobs
Oh, yeah? That's a major reality check failure. Maybe you'd like the world to work this way (though I can't imagine why), but it's not going to happen.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
I agree that there will be a turning point - but in our favor.
People have an innate preference to share with others when it benefits them. This is why Free Software works, and why programs like Napster and other file sharing protocols work. Same cause, although different legalitiy...
IMHO, people follow their instincts. Most intellectual property laws follow against people's instincts, and the only think that protected them in the past was the copying cost (ie for books and movies that cost a lot to copy on paper and film).
We're going to see legal disobedience on a large scale, on the basis of what comes naturally. You can't fight that , no matter how many laws you make. Even then, smart people will find a way - they always have and always will.
So, in the end, producing Intellectual Property isn't going to make any money. All jobs will be service jobs - people are paid to create for a specific purpose or situation (like doctors and scientists and sysadmins are paid today).
We're going to win. It's just a matter of time.
-BBK
will end up like the Prohibition. The Prohibition was canceled shortly after it was enacted because it was seriously flawed. It looked good on paper but just didn't stand up to what was reality. I have a bad feeling that some BAD internet/digital/infomation laws are going to be passed by the US government. The US is going to hurt economically in a serious way once the regulation is in place. It will take a while but the regulation will be slowly lifted to allow for economic growth. Just like crypto regulation is slowly being lifted now.
I wish it wasn't so but the powers that be don't understand anything about the ramifications of regulating anything tech let alone something the US doesn't own.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
We need ways of getting the information out to more people about product which take away your rights. I think one good way to do this would be to place stickers on the products in stores.
/etc, and stick them on SDMI player in stores.
Example: We need to keep people from buying portable music players which support SDMI. We could place information online about how to order stickers which say:
WARNING This product uses SDMI. SDMI is designed to maintain the music industry's monopoly over marketing and promotion of music. SDMI product have been known to restrict where you can obtain your music from, degrade the quality of independently produced mp3 music, require waisting of drive space to lissen to mp3s, and prevent you from letting your friends lissen to your music. We strongly discurage you from buying this product without further research. WE suggest instead that you learn about SDMI and purchas an mp3 player which dose not support SDMI.
People all over the country would order these stickers, distribute them at LUGs / protets
The problem is designing an efficent, cheap, and legal way of distributing such stickers. I think the most effective way would be via an affiliat program at some online sticker retaler. Perferably a retailer who would be willing to lower the unit price if large numbers of people ordered identical stickers.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
All the enlightened, open-minded, freedom-loving people would probably end up denounced as anarchists or kooks, while the more contented majority continues to digest reports about the dangers of the Internet.
I'm not kidding. I really don't see a lot of discontent out there, and what there is, often lies within relatively single-issue groups that as often as not hate each other's guts and likely will never unite. The NARAL, the NRA, and NORML, for instance, don't typically defend each other, and my suspicion is that the intersection between the three is close to nil.
What we see, for instance, is that most folks today consider the state of the union to be pretty good. They're happy. They're reasonably well-off. They're not openly at war, and the situations in Iraq and Kosovo are probably pretty far from their minds. Many seem willing to accept more restrictions on their rights -- in particular, on speech and firearms -- in return for (allegedly) security and safety, and dismiss any protests as extremism, and protesters as kooks. I doubt you'll see a mass uprising anytime soon.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I agre with a lot of this. However, it can happen in a positive way or a bad way.
/. is barely a start. The key is to talk about these issues to others in an intelligent manner. and by Intelligent, I mean using reason and not a loud voice and a bunch of four letter words. Even i get sick of hearing things like "fucking big business is screwing us again."
The good way is for business to regulate themselves and spend a few bucks working to prevent themselves from being riped off instead of spending a lot of bucks lobbying congressmen and other legislators. An example of this is would be like with napster or decss. Instead of trying to sue everyone who has anything to do with the software why not give people an incentive to go buy the movies / albums? Why not make it easy for everyone to watch DVD's on their computers? Wouldnt the money spent on this lawsuit be better spent developing software to do this very thing? And if a 17 (?) year olf guy in norway can do it, how hardwould it be for techs at Sony?
As far as music goes, why not lower the price of CD's? I mena i cant think of an album out there right now that's woth 16-18 bucks when i really only want one song. Of course Im gonna fire up Napster and go get that one song. Of course Im stilll tryign to figure out why downloadign a song from napster is bad and yet recording it from the radio is ok.
Of course the only way to ensure this happens in a positive way is to speak out. And posing at
They're not realy out to screw anyone, they just trying to make a bunch of money, and the only way to make sure they dont do this at our expense is to stand up against them in a resonable manner and with *lots* of people behind you. And, the only way to get people behind you is to reason with them and explain all the facts in a clear mannner.
After all, aren't the best decisions made when people have the best information in front of them.
"I mean, All you can definately say about a fellow who thinks he's a poached egg, is; He's in the minority." James Burke
For a while, the internet was ruled by geeks and corporations could not stop us.
Now, corporations have taken control (and on occassion rightly so).
What is happening, is that regular media, and non-geeks have been paying attention and realizing what is going on. They realize that this actually effects them, and not just some geek's problem.
What has happened with the Mattel/MSI/CyberPatrol issue here, is that it had become more mainstream. People are waking up and realizing that some company abusing up a little guy, is not just some crackpot or some hacker. But they are starting to realize that they might be next.
Things will turn when the press will actually print the truth, and not rehash company press releases. Or is that what people not on the net complain about too? :)
Fight Spammers!
How is the UCITA different from a license file that is needed to run Matlab, SAS, Mathematica, etc.? These can be computer specific and expire after a certain amount of time. The fact that the program checks for its license on another computer is no different from how Matlab works (with a license server). I see no problem with a software vendor making licenses for a specific computer. Also, isn't this how digital satelite works?
I'm not looking to change opinions, but an informed response that can tell me how UCITA will affect me: I use Linux at home, Netscrape 4.7, StarOffice, Sybase, Apache, some inetd stuff--all of which I have a license to use already. I read EULAs (believe it or not) and avoid programs which have agreements I don't like. I don't install the software to reverse-engineer a copy of it, but try to write one that does what I want it to.
As for the rest of the discussion.. everyday is a turning point in cyberspace. Remember the good old days, just last decade when only college types had access and there was no slashdot? With every innovation comes problems. More people are online (innovation) meaning that the courts are now getting involved (problem). Growing pains is what this is called. Solving them will provide more innovation causing more problems. I personally like challenges and innovation.
Just remember whose livelihood you may be tampering with when you misunderstand the word free (ie B*ll G*t*s always gets paid, but junior coder may loose a job). If you don't like a particular practice of a member of the internet community, boycott. You may find yourself in the majority and win or you may find yourself in the minority (like most of us here on slashdot) and have to suck it up.
What we are seeing is restriction of absolute freedom in certain areas in exchange for higher profitability for certain entities. These businesses, governments, and special interest groups have their own requirements for their ideal web. Needless to say different peoples' ideals are quite different. As different groups attempt to determine what strength they have in this medium and new area of both our cultures and our laws, they will push the boundaries. The same behaviors have occurred every time a new frontier crops up.
Is the time of the Mecca of absulute privacy and freedom over? It never really existed, honestly. We have always used real information about people on the net. If you want to be listened to seriously, you often have to let people know who you really are. You can lie convincingly, and that was just as good. The same principle applies now. Certain information is required and certain freedoms are limited to use many new aspects of the internet. This has been happening from Day One, but now corporations are doing it through lawsuits instead of individuals killfiling you on usenet. All we are seeing is the reactions changing according to the perceived severity of the situation from the "aggrieved" party's side. If you can lie convincingly in the new ways, it is still just as good as real information and privacy.
Like all frontiers, the web will continue to "civilize" as more people seek to get rich, put in the hard work, make it their home, and proceed from the founder generation to the ones that take this frontier for granted. Things will change, but barring an international action of draconian nature, freedom and privacy will remain. Our perceptions of them are what will change.
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
Actually, my main project that I am currently involved in is just like that. I, and another student, have gotten approval to make an anonymous, decentralized content distribution system for near our entire grade this quarter at Rose in one of our classes. Its tentatively named 'Antioch' - "the ANonymous Transfer Interface Of antioCH". Currently, the protocol is only mostly defined, and the code is still skeletal, the initialization functions currently being debugged (the quarter did just start after all).
:)
Basic protocol design:
Client sends out a broadcast regexp request to match. Servers respond (within reason) with all matching requests. Certain file extensions (implemented as loadable extension modules) can load up part of the file into memory for regexp matching as well (such as an id3 tag for mp3).
Client queries the servers which contain what it wants, for configuration compatability (in case a server has such strict security opts turned on that it won't allow you to connect, etc) and free bandwidth. The most efficient path is chosen.
A person who has a client has a server running at the same time. In their default configuration, they are encouraged to link to their friends that are outside the current network - preferably, way far away. When a client doesn't find what it wants, it will start following links on other people's systems - within reason. It won't trace very far in, and only will follow links on very idle systems. This is due to the nature of obscuring the destination. Each client on a net, when accessing a link on another computer, gets not an IP and port, but a number to refer to the link - they can't see where they're going. The relevant information gets sent to the computer with the link, which correspondingly forwards it (redoing encryption if mandated by either side of the connection). Links an be nested within each other - for example, a packet could go to XXX.XXX.XXX.21, link 3, XXX.XXX.131.42, link 1, XXX.XXX.XXX.101, and then stop there and download.
The user doesn't tell it where to search; the client keeps bookmarks of where the user has been finding things and prefers to use those links, subject to bandwidth and cpu constraints of the servers along the way. However, in 3, university-scale hops, you could get nearly anywhere in the nation, in theory. And have no clue where you're going to. (and, the only way to figure out where you're going to is confiscation of every hard drive along the way, I.e. completely infeasable for a recording industry/motion picture industry/other large corporate entity crackdown)
Additionally, I've worked out how to a) make the packets appear to be from the wrong computer, b) have the destination address be to the wrong computer, c) have both computers randomly rearrange ports at regular intervals, and d) have no recognisable contents in the packet that would give it away as being from an antioch system, and all the while having it function normally.
Note, that a) and b) require the program be run as root, b) and d) require extra cpu, and c) either require a supplied service info daemon on both ends, or on the end(s) which doesn't have one, more cpu and have to be run as root. Again, that will be configuration dependant; most people will probably choose to stick to the default configuration.
Planned encryption is GPG, or a rouch variant of it, but its support has not been implemented in our currently skeletal code.
All in all, it should be virtually impossible to firewall or track down. In fact, it should be possible, running as root, to even ensure anonymity over the local subnet, but that part of the protocol is still tentative and probably won't be implemented till after our first beta release.
Anyways, I just thought I'd share
- Rei
Pinkypants -- my favorite!
Okay, so we are looking at ourselves and it looks like all we can do any more is get in trouble. Face it, DeCSS got yanked, Mattel is being stupid, Amazon has some butt-head patent, and eToys showed the world what it thought about art. Things just don't look nice at all.
But, take a step back and look really hard. Know what I see? I see a bunch of corporate types who are doing nothing but making total asses out of themselves. In all of the above cases, only one did the internet come out on top. Why? Because we raised such a stink that there was nothing else that the money grubbers could do but to give in.
Things still are not over on the DeCSS front, nor the MP3 front, nor the Mattel front. We are being monkey wrenches in their corporate culture - a culture that says "money is all that counts!" and "you have no rights if it costs me a buck!" We are being attacked and we are fighting back. And ya know what? They are paying attention.
We are being told that we can't do stuff that has been done for years (reverse engineering). How are they going to stop us from doing that? They are going to have about as much success in keeping your typical hacker from doing any sort of RE as President Regan had with the moral majority type Meese Police laws back in the 80s.
I don't know about anyone else, but I personally have so much time on my hands to further monkey wrench corporate america that it is not even funny - and what is great is I never have to leave my house to do it. And neither does anyone else. Simply keep doing what you are doing. Keep coming up with great software like we are. Let them spend all their money and effort playing their little SLAP games.
This reminds me of an episode of Andy Griffith that I saw the other day. Barney Fife went to tell some road side vendors they were going to have to move. They were both bigger than he was and were very intimidating. He said something that we should all keep in mind: "You two may be bigger than I am, but just remember something - this badge represents a lot of people who are are bigger than the both of you."
And we are. You and I outnumber Mattel like crazy.
We outnumber Amazon, eToys, and the RIAA. It is time for every one of us to either put up or shut up. It is simple as that.
OK, I'm sure I'll get flamed by all the Libertarians, but I'm going to tell you the truth.
First of all, grok this: there is too much money invested in the Net by big players and too many newbies who think they actually have privacy on the Net. I own shares in a number of corporations which are investing heavily in the Net, and they will zealously defend their interests, through the creation of regulations and laws. This is a done deal. One can complain about it, but it will happen.
Secondly, the growth of the Net implies the existence of many more clueless newbies. They will demand the regulation of the Net, they will insist on laws, and it will happen. We can shape this debate or we can fight the valiant fight against it and lose. And we will lose if we choose to fight instead of mold it in a better form.
Taxes are also inevitable. They should be lower than for bricks and mortar, but they are necessary for cities, counties, and states to pay for basic services such as roads (used by UPS to deliver your goods), rail (ditto), airports (ditto), police (to arrest the fraud mongsters), jails (to lock up the Free Net activists in), and courts (to find them guilty and protect the monied interests from having their credit cards stolen). They should be really low for small business and startups, to encourage creation of new things, but not for big companies.
This is the reality. If you want, I'll bet anyone $10 that there will be Net taxes (not on ISPs, but on sales and e-commerce) for municipal, county, and states, in existence by 2010. And there will be regulations.
We can help ensure that only the good regulations survive - such as requiring open access to broadband pipes. Or we can rail against the wind and lose.
Will in Seattle
the US is still the most free country around.
Bzzt. Wrong answer.
I recently saw the results of a study the UN did to determine which countries have the most freedom. They covered many different areas, from speech and religion, to the economy and the way minorities are treated.
Guess where the US placed? Not even in the top ten. Sweden was number one.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."