Slashdot Mirror
Government Takes Control Of The Net; 2000 In Review
An Anonymous Coward (what, nobody reads The Economist?) sends us this excellent piece: "This is a review of several developments in internet regulation, pointing out several ironies and possibilities, quite lucid and clear. Stop Signs on the Web." There are a lot of thoughtful points in this article - it bears a thorough reading. It is my belief that the end of online "freedom" is just around the corner, and I think this article lays out a number of the forces that are going to cause that to happen.
But that's not freedom, you are arguing for legitimized theft.
The United States was founded on a principle of intellectual property. It is a protected right by grant of the US Constitution.
An assault on freedom would be if the RIAA were to prevent you from recording your own music and selling it on the market. This hasn't been what the internet debates have been about.
If you don't like the restrictions placed on you by the content creators then DON'T UTILIZE THEIR SERVICES! Don't listen to the music, don't watch the movies, don't use the software. That is the only lawful, moral and ethical way to cause them financial harm.
Better yet, go out and create your own music, your own movies, your own software! Then compete with them fairly!
Otherwise if you just sit around whining because the RIAA, MPAA and SIIA is protecting their constitutionally guaranteed right...
You are a parasite. We don't need parasites in our society, as they provide no value.
...is that most, if not all, of the posts are focusing on *government* control of the Internet.
Sorry, guys, but that's a dead-wrong approach. The only governments that are directly squelching the Internet are a few totalitarian regimes with far worse problems of human rights violations than just a bit of Internet-blocking.
No, for most of us Internet users, the problem is not with government control: it's with Corporate control. That these corporations may weild the government as a weapon against us it irrelevant: the fact remains that it's the EULAs, MPAAs, RIAAs and suchlike that are squishing hell out of our 'net freedoms.
The government never gave two shakes about whether you and I swapped software, music or video. Only the Corporate owners cared, and they pressured/bought the changes the government made to our laws.
If you want the Internet to remain free, you've got to battle it on two fronts: you *must* pressure your government into slacking off, and you *must* pressure Corporations into backing off.
And the only way to do the latter is to cause them financial harm. Corporations must ultimately be responsible to their shareholders, and their shareholders demand profits.
So you need to get serious about boycotting, serious about spreading the boycott, and serious about letting the Corporations know that you're boycotting them, and what they need to do differently to win back your financial support.
If you don't take those steps, you--and your use of the Internet--is fucked. Kiss all the freedoms you've come to enjoy on the net goodbye.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
The Constitution says nothing about the duration of copyrights and patents, except to say that they must be for "limited times". Originally, the term was well under 20 years, but that was a term set by Congress, not by the Constitution.
The next ten years will be the time we fight. We will be fighting Corporations that want the Internet to be turned into the perfect medium for delivering demographically tailored marketing to Consumers and the Governments from preventing us from "being culturally subversive."
In ten years we'll know what happened. Will the Internet be a tool for individuals to share information or a tool for Corporations and Governments to spread Propaganda and enforce the Status Quo?
I'll see you in ten years.
--
Scott Brady
While some people laugh and say things like "That will never happen" or "Thats impossible" and "They can try and stop me, but they will fail, *maniacal laughter*". Let me give you a brief history lesson. 50 short years ago, policeman dressed up like militia members with ninja masks on would have shocked the nation. No knock warrants would have never been allowed, and there would have been a huge broohaa over police "anti-drug/anti-terrorist" tatics. These all exist today. We even expect our police to have fully automatic weapons when they charge into a house to resolve a custody dispute. I know that no one really wants to hear this, BUT, we have less "freedom" now than our grandmothers and grandfathers had. Between the War Powers act, the "War on Drugs" and various other "emergencies" that call for action. Get used to carrying your "ID card" and get used to the phrase "Where are you papers?"
If we continue to elect Nazi's instead of buying old memorabilia we're in deep doo doo, and that goes for the Internet as a whole. Well at least we all will look good. The Nazi's were the best dressed soldiers of modern times and I hope the underground will be alive also.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
The Internet was never immune to current law. You have lawyers who claim it isn't tacked down because there is no specific mention of electronic media in copyright law, slander laws, etc. But we know what was intended.
The Internet was never private. It was the rise of typically private transactions that led the hue and cry for privacy. In fact, the Internet was bare, naked, and exposed for all the world. We demanded privacy after-the-fact. This is the same thing that happened with telephones.
Perhaps we should understand the realism, recognize that our states and countries have laws, and instead of expected some sort of Idealistic free world to come about on its own, we should try and create it.
Despite the cynicism of my view, I think the Idealistic views of the Internet have a lot of merit. I also believe that many of the local laws being passed violate existing laws or even, heaven forbid, the Constitution (in the US anyway). Don't take things for granted, they aren't.
----------------------