Slashdot Mirror
The Internet Backlash
An AC wrote to say that "telepolis has an article telling you why the DMCA and the companies who pushed it forward are doomed to fail. It's nothing new but a good summary of the neverending copyright discussion." The author's summary is good but I disagree with the conclusion -- there's no reason to believe that some deus ex machina is suddenly going to save net users from a police state.
Aww.. Dude.. I was totally counting on that tho'.. Are you sure?
Actually, if anything will save users from a police state it's going to have to be the users themselves.. The main problem I see right now is that most users are overwhelmed with the flood of new technology.. Many people are just amazed that it's possible to do so many things with a computer.. They're in the process of getting used to that ability now.
The flood of new tech right now is faster than law, and that lets people try new methods of communicating working and sharing.. Once these are ingrained it's going to be much harder for anyone to take these tools away from the masses.
air and light and time and space
The word is "losing", not "loosing". I don't have a lot of confidence in anything that can't even make it through its subtitle without getting a word wrong.
is the reasonable state. As heise (the company publishing telepolis) reported today, the german government will use provisions in the european version of the DMCA to allow private copies of copyrighted materials. Thus Copy Control Mechanisms will HAVE to aloow the user to make limited copies (the article talks of aboput 3 or 4) before kicking in. Apart from the fact i dont know of a copy control scheme in existance wich can do this and that this would be the death sentence to the upcoming copy protected cds (whee) i dont think that anxyone will be able to create such a system in a reasonably secure way.
-- never underestimate someone who overestimates himself
The story's been slashdotted, so I haven't read the author's perspective, but do you want to know the real reason the DMCA will fail?
The ingenuity of the geeks.
Information may not really want to be free (as in speech), but if people with the right skills want it to be free (as in beer), it will be.
Copyright law -- and by extension the DMCA -- is merely state sanctioned censorship: they allow the holder of the copyright to censor anyone who wants to copy it.
And, as was said back in the pre-web days, the internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
*BSD is dying, silly! =)
If we refuse to put up with it, it won't happen. If we lie back and wait for someone else to save us, we'll all wind up as indentured servants to the MPAA.
And there lies the problem. We can scream and moan and protest all we want, but it won't matter one damn bit unless we become politically active. Why do the corporations so often get their way? Because they make huge campaign contributions? Why do issues involving senior citizens, such as Social Security and Medicare, get constant attention? Because senior citizens vote. Yes, friends, they vote, they vote in large numbers, they care about these issues, and they make absolutely sure the politicians know it.
It seems odd that Net users, who are often the most well-connected people out there, haven't come together to defend themselves against political persecution and scapegoating. Still, that unity hasn't developed, but it had better happen soon. If we were to become a force that could change the outcome of elections, things would change, but until that happens, we'll continue to be on the losing end of laws like the DMCA. So, until people begin to get organized and flex some political muscle, nothing will change.
Anyone care to form an Internet-based political advocacy group? Slashdot would probably be an excellent place from which to draw some initial members. And a name even comes to mind: OpenSociety.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
Dude, there are already plenty of worthy organisations to join. The EFF springs to mind. Rather than do exactly what you've just said is a bad thing, form yet another group, why not support one that has been active for years and does some great stuff?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT after you.
I agree, but I wasn't thinking so much in terms of groups like the EFF. I'm thinking of something more overtly political, a group whose primary mission is to apply political pressure to make sure Net users' interests are respected. Certainly, its views would fit nicely with those of the EFF, but it would be more focused on either pressuring incumbent politicians or developing its own slate of candidates, not unlike the tactics of, dare I say it, the Christian Coallition. Obviously, what I'm contemplating would have absolutely nothing in common with them in terms of philosophy, but no one can deny that they exemplify the power of grass-roots organization with their voter guides. Love 'em or hate 'em, they often get results for their supporters. I think the Net could likewise benefit from a damn-the-torpedoes political action group. Let groups like the EFF, CDT, and EPIC continue to do what they do, and rely on them to formulate well-thought-out policy issues, then use whatever political action group you have to ram these issues through Congress and the state legislatures using good old-fashioned political muscle, since that's often the only language politicians understand.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
This is one of the best articles I've seen on the whole IP/copyright/DMCA issue. It basically mirrors most of my opinions on the matter. I recently realized some things, though, which both give me some hope and make me fear for the future.
First, the part that makes me fear for the future. The laws in our country generally reflect the "will of the people". Stop. Think about this. Sure, there are the odd examples where something gets slipped in almost as an afterthought and people don't realize it until it's too late (e.g. the CDA, remember that?, also to a lesser extent the DMCA). In general, though, the laws don't get passed unless a decent number of people think they should be.
Notice that I didn't mention the Constitution anywhere in the preceding paragraph. This is one of the things I realized: Most people in the US DON'T CARE about the Constitution. You may argue with me and say that I'm making sweeping judgments without any fact (but then, hey, this is Slashdot). You may say that the Constitution and human rights are important to everyone in the country. To which I reply: Native Americans. Slavery. Imperialism. Manifest Destiny. McCarthyism.
People here care about the Constitution for just as far is is suits THEM. Not anyone else. Not some pinko kike nigger who wants to be able to raise a family and maybe live in peace. Face it; most people in this country (including many judges, prosecutors, policemen) don't really care about the "intent" behind the Constitution. In fact, if you were able to convince them of what the intent actually was, they'd probably try to get the damned thing changed, and fast.
Then another thought occured to me. This is what the Supreme Court is for. It may take them forever to reach a real conclusion on any case that really affects society, and they may take a middle-ground stance on many issues we think are hugely important. By and large, though, they succeed in taking overzealous prosecutors, executives, legislators, and even judges to task on things that most people don't care about (the whole constitution thing).
However, they are damned slow. So if we want things to change now we're going to have to fight a social battle. Why are these laws bad for the economy? Why are they bad for national security? Why do they stop academic researchers from discussing topics which will affect Joe Consumer in a couple years, long after he has any ability to stop them? Okay, now explain it to Joe Consumer. If you talk to him the right way, you will persuade him. The vilified large media conglomerates and multinational corps have been very talented at talking to Joe; they have practice. Start talking about his wallet. Start talking about his kids. He will listen. The NYT and other major publications' pieces are a step in the right direction. This is a PR battle. If you stop this law, another will come along until public opinion changes.
Quite off the subject, I thought the design of heise.de/tp/ was exceptional. I like the little identifier symbols next to the links to tell you whether they were local or off-site. I liked the clean, easy to read sidebars, with pull downs that make sense. The download and forum icons were also very intuitive. Great design.
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."