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.

Comments

Summary...

[tshak]

To save you - the busy /. reader - time, I've compiled a summary of posts:

• The DMCA violates free speech. It's bad.
  
• There's no excuse for piracy.
  
  • Hey, if I want to copy my CD to my MP3 player that's MY business (read: FAIR USE).
    
  
  
• Let's DO something instead of talking about it. Click here[some.gov] to write your congressmen! Click here[eff.org] to donate your tax rebate to the EFF.
  
• Our society views "hackers" as if they where "rapists". How ignorant!
  
• The average person doesn't even know what the DMCA is, nor do they care.
  
  • Oh ya, then why has [3 big new agency links] been reporting it?
    
  • They will when they buy their error-encoded CD and find out they can't play it in their computer.
    
  
  
• IANAL, but section i of paragraph j states [rubbish]. What this seems to say is that [attempt to decipher rubbish].
  

Re:Police State? Only if we put up with it

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

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.

One of the best articles I've seen...

[Gregoyle]

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.