The Internet Under Siege

Gorgonzola writes: "Lawrence Lessig has written an accessible article in Foreign Policy on the threats to freedom on the internet, including the threat the DMCA poses to open and free software. Nothing new to Slashdot regulars, but good to see something appear in an influential magazine like Foreign Policy. An article mentioning the Sklyarov case like this one does, is going to draw a lot more attention from policymakers to the problems the DMCA and other legal troubles are posing to online freedom than your average rant on a board like this, how well reasoned it may be."

Comments

the effect of knowlege laws...

[Lumpy]

the only effect is that it generates a huge underground that replaces what the laws take away. and forces people to become criminals. (Prohabition in the 20's)

The only use for any information control laws is to make a very few filthy rich at the expense of the general populace.

The root of the problem. . .

[czardonic]

. . .is not necessarily that politicians don't understand the threat of DMCA like legislation to freedom (of speech, etc). Rather, it is that they have been put in the position of protecting our intrests, or protecting theirs. Face it, the status quo will always have a voice in society. Politicians (or most of them), are not going to bite the hand that feeds them (cash rich lobbies) to protect what has successfully been characterized as a hacker/pirate fringe.

Internet access is a basic right

[Walter Bell]

In this day and age, when so much business work, interpersonal communication, and research is done on the Internet, it is hard to imagine what it is like to not have Internet access. Often politicians talk the talk about the "digital divide," spewing rhetoric about how the lower classes have little exposure to technology; but when it comes time to vote, they hand out checks to the Baby Bells with no strings attached - business as usual. It seems like letting large private companies (who all have a vested interest in controlling consumers in every way possible) control Internet access is just asking for trouble.

The time has come for the population to stand up and demand universal, unrestricted Internet access from our government. I would no longer balk at paying 1/3 of my salary in taxes if it meant that this country could start moving into the 21st century. (Observe the higher quality of life in Canada and the proliferation of subsidized Internet access over there. The two are related.) Freedom of speech means nothing if the government is not willing to provide its citizens with access to the predominant form of expression in the so-called "Information Age."

Besides a more educated, more globally competitive populace, what else would this achieve? It would reduce transaction costs in general and put many parasites out of business. Many distributors and other undesirable middlemen would be out of business because people will learn to buy direct. If your neighborhood is devoid of useful businesses, you can order everything online - problem solved. Payday loans will become a thing of the past as consumers find decent rates from online bankers who actually need to compete with each other.

Universal, unrestricted Internet access would work wonders for our society, promote competition and more efficient markets, and put some of that wasted money we pay in taxes to good use.

~wally

Re:Internet access is a basic right

[coupland]

Observe the higher quality of life in Canada and the proliferation of subsidized Internet access over there. The two are related.

What have you been smoking? Are you assuming that just because something is available in Canada that means it's subsidized by the government? We're not on crack here, nor are we "paying 1/3 of [our] salary in taxes" to provide subsidized internet access. We also don't wear toques in the summer or eat back bacon

Canada (and Sweden, Finland et-al) are more wired than the USA because we have longer winters (no, not all 12 months) and this means people spend more for internet access during the months you'd prefer not to go outside. It's not because the government buys us a T1...

Re:Internet access is a basic right

[coupland]

Furthermore, I gotta say that while I can tolerate ignorant Americans, Americans who think they're smart because they know that Canada is "up thar yonder" just fail to impress me. Don't make sweeping statements about our political system if you've only read about it in "Democracy for Dummies..."

Re:Internet access is a basic right

[tzanger]

We're not on crack here, nor are we "paying 1/3 of [our] salary in taxes" to provide subsidized internet access. We also don't wear toques in the summer or eat back bacon

Hmmm... You're obviously not "making enough" to be in the 33% tax bracket. And yes, the government is subsidizing net access. Some of us wear toques in the summer (as they do in the U.S., it appears to be a "cool" thing to do) and back bacon kicks ass.

Canada (and Sweden, Finland et-al) are more wired than the USA because we have longer winters (no, not all 12 months) and this means people spend more for internet access during the months you'd prefer not to go outside.

Interesting theory, but I thought it was due to the Chretien government wanting to do for information access what Mackenzie did for transportation. At least I think it was Mackenzie.

For a Canadian, you sure don't sound like one.

The DMCA will delete this post.

[Fucky Badger]

My secret message to Dimitry Sklyarov:

Vsyah basha osnoba - preenadpyehzhat nam.

On July 17, 2001, the FBI arrested Dmitry Sklyarov, a Russian computer science student for an alleged violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). He delivered a speech in a Las Vegas hotel regarding Adobe eBooks entitled:

"eBook Security: Theory and Practice" The application addressed in the speech bypasses Adobe eBooks security only if you have previously purchased the eBook. Furthermore, it allows the purchaser to backup their eBook, read the eBook on a platform other than Windows and is useful to the Blind. Adobe had him arrested.

Since when are people arrested for pointing out a flaw? We believe this law, which enforces a WTO Treaty, should be reviewed and challenged. Free Speech allows someone to critize and/or demonstrate flaws within corporate products.

Programmers speak in Code.

The intimidation has already begun. The Public Libraries are next.

Rather than Rah-Rah, Look for Substance

[Anonymous Coward]

For those of you not familiar with Larry Lessig, he's the equivalent of Jon Katz, except he writes much better. Typically his articles/books contain self-coined buzz words, and rallying cries, but lack substantial arguments.
He's a lawyer that has never practiced, and his Computer Science training is specious at best (a couple of undergrad classes at Penn.) Thus, before everyone gets a hard-on that a Stanford professor and a major magazine is pushing your political agenda. Please take a look at the article and see if it really goes somewhere. Here are some examples of Lessigism in practice.

"This commons was built into the very architecture ..." Typical Lessig style. He uses a term-of-art with legal significance, but does not develop it or analyze it properly. His intent is to get everyone to agree that no country should regulate a commons. He even implies that "commons" are unregulated. He tries to illustrate this point by turning to patent law. Mr. Lessig is wrong on two counts.

First, commons are regulated. Most parks and public properties have rules of use, and offer fines for those transgressing those uses. Mr. Lessig fails to point out any commons that does not have a regulation scheme. Please go to your nearest public park for an example of a regulated commons.

Second, the patent law scheme that Mr. Lessig says threatens the Internet is not a US creation. The GATT imposes IP protection on its signatories. TRIPS expands the provision. Both are international regulatory conventions, not US conventions. No country was forced to sign either document.

Mr. Lessig also rants about software patents, but mistakes several facts. Far before State Street and Excell, the cases Mr. Lessig implicitly sites for the crime of patenting business methods, inventors were able to achieve software patents by writing the claims to the machine. This was true even for the Member States that now make up the EU. Mr. Lessig, and most anti-IP pundits, seem to make this out to be a new creation.

Its true that most people will empathize with the plight of Skylarov. Hopefully, these situations will help keep the laws in check. However, Mr. Lessig continues to post information that is only substantiated in his unresearched view of the world.

Re:Rather than Rah-Rah, Look for Substance

[Tadhg]

Lessig clearly states in the article that a commons can be regulated:

Neutral or equal restrictions may apply to it (an entrance fee to a park, for example) but not the restrictions of an owner. A commons, in this sense, leaves its resources "free."

One of his key points relates to the difference between 'neutral' and 'ownership' restrictions. (Since you appear to have missed it the first time, that's in the first paragraph under the "The Neutral Zone" heading)
So at least in its current form, your first point goes bye-bye.

Your second point is disingenuous... the US is the biggest proponent of the 'IP protection' pushed by GATT and TRIPS. US pressure definitely influenced the treaties in question, so it's entirely fair to call those patent laws a 'US creation'. This is particularly obvious when you note that the EU, whose constituent countries are signatories to TRIPS and to the GATT treaties, have different patent laws. (As was discussed in the article...)
'No country was forced to sign either document' - but signing those treaties is rather important to being able to participate in international trade with the industrial world, so there's an awful lot of pressure to sign. Your second point doesn't stand up either.

I don't like to be bitchy, but I strongly suggest that before you go out and accuse someone else of an 'unresearched view of the world', you should do some research of your own, and at the very least read carefully the article which you are commenting on.

Re:Internet access is NOT a basic right

[atrowe]

A "basic right", as you put it, is something that is manditory for survival.

Basic Rights are:
Food
Water
and shelter

Unmetered Internet access is nothing more than a luxury. I know it may seem hard for *you* to live without such "necessities" as Jon Katz and Napster, but in the grand scheme of things, these are nothing more than another way to pass the time.

While it would be nice to have a nice fat fibre pipe going to my flat, in no way is my government under obligation to provide me with such. This rings especially true when there are so many around the world who are forced to do without their real basic rights of food, water, and shelter.

Before you write your representative demanding your God-given right to free 'net access. Think about those less fortunate, who would trade a lifetime of Internet usage for a single bowl of rice.

A very troubling bit to me...

[Eryq]

...is where he described how companies are invoking the DMCA to protect themselves from criticism.

a British pharmaceutical company invoked the DMCA in order to force an ISP to shut down an animal rights site that criticized the British company. Said the ISP, "It's very clear [the British company] just wants to shut them up," but ISPs have no incentive to resist the claims.

Consider the ramifications if applied widely. To call attention to, say, meat products in McDonald's supposedly-vegetarian food (as in India). To Nike's sweatshops. Even if the information is true, the ISPs might prefer to yank it rather than verify that it violates copyright. And, since you're obviously a troublemaker, they might cancel your account completely.

So welcome to the DMCA future, where an unsubstantiated accusation carries punishment even without a conviction -- so long as the accusation is coming from a moneyed source.

(Actually, given that people accused of crimes often have their reputations ruined, even after acquital, perhaps it's just a logical extension of the world today. But it still sucks.)

difference between this and prohibition

[dpilot]

The Internet runs on fat pipes, and access to those pipes can be throttled. You can weasel your away around all you want, but ultimately whoever can control a router between you and the backbone controls your ability to speak. Right now, cable providers have terribly restrictive TOS, such that in some ways I'd almost prefer dialup if I could really get 56k instead of never quite making it to the full 33.6k.

Unfortunately, the same entertainment industry we rail at for the DMCA and the like largely owns broadband to the home, (I guess ATT has some cable.) and they set the TOS. So far I haven't tried peer2peer, and I know that they've at least left port22 inbound open. But they could interpret their contract to shut down EVERY incoming port, if they so desired.

I wouldn't feel too flush with civil disobedient power, especially with a business friendly administration in place. Otherwise, we're going to have to start rebuilding the old home BBS network.

I agree that the real power of the Internet will emerge as peer2peer comes into its own, and flexes its muscles. But at the moment, the entertainment industries are POWERFUL and would just as soon turn the Internet into another broadcast medium, like the Vast Wasteland called TV.

Give up? No way. But choose battles carefully and keep an eye to the desired end.

Re:difference between this and prohibition

[Lumpy]

you'rfe only limited because the general masses aren't smart enough to find different ways in.

Myself and 10 others have built a "internet" using wireless technology. we span over 10 square miles riht now with pockets of free-public access.

we do not announce who we are, to keep the broadband providers from opressing us. if we become big enough they will probably try to shut us down, but hopefully by then we'll have long distance and more redundant connections to thwart any attempts.

acess is always available... you just have to be clever enough to find it.

We're losing our rights... Now what?

[dominion]

It seems like for all the time I've been on Slashdot (at least 3 years now), there's been this constant discussion around whether we're losing our rights or not...

I want this discussion to end. Not because it's not a valid discussion, but because conclusions have already been made.

Yes, we are losing our rights.

Where are we losing them from? Some say government, others say industry, and some insist that we're not losing our rights at all.

I'm not interested in arguing with those who insist everything's just fine.

There needs to be a basic analysis of how anarchic cultures like that of the internet and that of the free software movement interact (and many times, are at odds with) with heirarchical structures like the state and the capitalist marketplace.

Ultimately, power corrupts, and any strong concentration of power moves towards greater concentration. In other words, "Welcome to the new economy, same as the old economy."

Our rights are lost as corporations consolidate, create bigger lobbies, and government bends over backwards to accomodate them. Things like DMCA don't come out of anywhere, and if corporations and the "power elite" (C.Wright Mills) truly believed in a free marketplace, then DMCA would never have been created.

So, you have us, the idealistic internet users, techies, free software advocates, etc., up against the biggest economic superpowers the world has ever known.

What do we do? How do we fight this?

Well, in one way, we've been doing really well in the realm of creating alternatives. Free software work, it works well, and it's not dependant on the NASDAQ for it's survival. Very good.

In other realms, we haven't done all that well. There's been talk about creating a "tech" lobby, but it's never really materalized. And could it even stand up to the hegemony of the lobbies that are already entrenched in Washington DC?

The EFF is a wonderful organization, but look at what they're up against. Look at how hard it is for the ACLU to influence lawmaking, and they've got a support base that's much larger than the EFF. The ACLU has written scathing reports on the threats to civil liberties that the USA-PATRIOT ACT (and the even scarier Illinois version), yet these are being pushed through without any consideration.

I think in order to properly preserve our rights, and more importantly, greatly *EXPAND* them, we need to abandon all notions that the market and the state are on our side, in any way shape or form.

Think in terms, not of what we want to oppose, but what we want. How should intellectual property be handled? Is it really *wrong* to reverse engineer something? Should a law stop us? If a law makes something illegal, can we create a technical solution to make it impossible to regulate (ie, gnutella/freenet?). What about a large project to create an internet service provider collective with incredibly cheap internet access? What about free internet access for everybody? Don't think we can do it? The hell we can't!

And furthermore, does this only affect us, or does it affect everybody? Why are we only preaching to the choir? How do these issues tie in to other issues that affect people?

Think about it. I hate to use the cliche, but we're gonna have to fight back. Sitting around on Slashdot, complaining about how we're losing our rights doesn't solve anything.

Maybe we should, to use the old syndicalist slogan, start building the new world in the shell of the old...

Dominion

Re:We're losing our rights... Now what?

[krmt]

Ah, but isn't that the problem though? Voting alone doesn't do it. If you and you alone are the one dissenting voice in the ballot box, there's no way any congressman is going to respect you. You've got to command a bloc of votes, like the religious right. They may not command the majority, but they are a substantial presence in this country and as such they wield a lot of power.

What needs to happen, as the parent talked about (great post there BTW) is that we need to form some kind of consolidated power bloc. The EFF isn't enough, we need a movement. The state and businesses aren't on our side because they don't see us as being anything other than marginal. We, as people concerned with our rights in the digital age, do need to do more than what we've been doing. Unfortunately, I'm at a complete loss as to what that is.

My brother, who's big in to political activism, just attended a seminar by a congressional staffer on the subject of grassroots influence. The staffer said you have two options: either assemble a lot of people together to influence public opinion or work on a campaign, get they guy elected and then get your voice heard from within. I think we need more of the former. We need to get people out there, talking about what's going on from our point of view, and we have to get them to see that it affects everyone, not just the geeks. I don't know how to mobilize this sort of thing though, and that's the problem. Like the parent said, what now?

Re:We're losing our rights... Now what?

[Soko]

Nice post. Good points for discussion:

I want this discussion to end. Not because it's not a valid discussion, but because conclusions have already been made.

Yup. Every time you use and/or improve an Open Source software package, you're drawing that conclusion nearer. As one William H. Gates III put it, "There is a particular approach that breaks the cycle (of freely developed software being commercialised) called the GPL that is not worth getting into today, but I don't think there is much awareness about how so-called free software foundations designed that to break that cycle."

Bill's right - we're breaking the system by accepting the validity (some would say neccesity) of giving away our time and intellectual resources to create things that cannot be forced into artificial scarcity, any who wish to use the fruits of this labour can do so - as long as they agree to only use it for the same purpose. IMHO, Richard Stallman didn't forsee or count on this, it's just a happy accident it turned out this way. There are many people who are (understandably, IMHO) terrified of the GPL - they think that they won't be able to put bread on the table if all software were open sourced, thier creativity would be squashed due to lack of funding and the world as they know it would generally come to an end. And as luck would have it, they're right.

The EFF is a wonderful organization, but look at what they're up against. Look at how hard it is for the ACLU to influence lawmaking, and they've got a support base that's much larger than the EFF. The ACLU has written scathing reports on the threats to civil liberties that the USA-PATRIOT ACT (and the even scarier Illinois version), yet these are being pushed through without any consideration.

I think in order to properly preserve our rights, and more importantly, greatly *EXPAND* them, we need to abandon all notions that the market and the state are on our side, in any way shape or form.

I'm Canadian, and can serve as a willing nom-de-plume for publishing code that's not allowed in the US. See how much US laws affect the process in reality? The laws the state makes are ineffectual, unless they can succesfully stifle communications in some way. And those are usually circumvented in short order, aren't they?

Think about it. I hate to use the cliche, but we're gonna have to fight back. Sitting around on Slashdot, complaining about how we're losing our rights doesn't solve anything.

Fine. Don't fight though - just continue on your merry OSS way then, but purposefully move along your way. Never mind the threats hurled at you, nor the corpses of any combatants you see along the way. To paraphrase someone, if you see damage, route around it. If we all move towards a goal with purpose, and never shy from obtaining the goal, who's to stop us?

Maybe we should, to use the old syndicalist slogan, start building the new world in the shell of the old...

Nope. We will just slowly replace the old world piece by piece, and push anything that doesn't fit in off the edge. The GPL puts software into the commons, kicking and screaming if needs be. Some will definately suffer huge economic losses - very unfortunate, but when you tear down a world to replace it with another, however slowly and carefully, damage happens. The world has already changed - the first bricks of the wall that has been built between a user, thier data and the ways to communicate thier data have already been chipped off. It is this scarcity of easy, inexpensive communications channels that has kept our world from being more about one to one than many to many. When we take control of these channels, and open them to any and all who have the curiosity to try, we put more people on the other side of the wall, and more bricks are chipped off. Eventually, the wall will give. We just need to make sure it comes down on the right heads.

As I've said before, we are the competition to the old economy - and competition at this level at times can get very, very ugly.

Soko

Only so helpful

[twilight30]

Hm. While I liked the piece, I have to wonder how effective this is going to be. OK. It's significant that this kind of article made it into FP in the first place -- the journal is notoriously biased to the conservative.

However, the closing part of Lessig's argument, that American lawmakers should not regulate in an extra-territorial fashion, nor give tools to that effect to other entities, just will not work. Your government already has numerous laws pointed to enforcing American mores on other nationals. Time and again, your government has refused to modify those laws in the face of persistent criticism, particularly from your allies in Canada, the European Union, and Australia.

What exactly convinces Lessig this will be any different?

Re:not the status quo

[kingos]

I don't get this political system, as I am not American. How can you guys allow such an obviously flawed system to exist?

The person with the most money wins - the person who is payed buy the companies with the most money wins - the companies with the most money win

This obviously makes the politicians cater to the needs of the big companies rather than the people. I know I am not saying anything new here, but why hasn't there been a greater effort to stop or get rid of this?

No wonder you only get 2 weeks holiday a year! :)

Oh, yeah, AMEN to this:

[GISboy]

The Internet has not only inspired invention, it has also inspired publication in a way that would never have been produced by the world of existing publishers.

F'n A!

This is what I have been saying for the longest time, even in several discussions elsewhere.

One particular reply said, in effect: "So, broadband/the interentet is good only for stealing".

Ummm, no. I suppose in a way I alluded to that is one "infringing use" but the rapid dissemination of *information* and *content* is what the net is all about.

Now my brain is kinda fried after a long day, but the article said exactly what I am saying now.
Information/content has to be thought of in nebulous terms, unfortunately, and that throws people off (and pisses them off, too. Referring, of course to the RI/MP-AA).

If my train of thought leaves the station, the point is a network does not care "what is transmitted" only that a 'reasonable effort is made to get it to it's destination'.
Therein lies the danger to the MP/RI-AA...content and information in the form of video, audio, text, images, html, voice, data of all kinds.

Data is data. Binary, text...all data, correct?
Video? Data. Audio? Data. Text? Data.

All of the MP/RI-AA's "precious resources" are becoming commodities, plain and simple, just like air and sunshine, but, they are fighting like hell to "cut off our air supply" and keep people in the dark to keep themselves in business.

Like I said before, it explains a lot.

Censorship and Russia...

[Zach`]

That many people are now robbed of their right to free speech may utlimately cause a renaissance for free speech. I've heard stories from Russia, how during the Breshjnev period, there were lots of underground theater groups. Profound books were written, criticizing the regime. Protest singers were among the most popular artists. There was this guy singing about the wolfs, running through the woods with the wolfs biting at his heels. The song was really about the regime.

Because of the censorship, they had to hide their messages, using creative images and fables. The people knew instinctively that these messages were important and they craved them.

Then Glasnost came about, and eventually the Iron Carpet came down. Suddenly the people were free. Starved of free speech, there was a short flurry of popular political activity, with large political meetings, marches and what not.

Then things settled down, and one day they woke up. All this new stuff they had been denied all these years was now available. What a disappointment it must have been to them to discover that although the political messages in the western press might be of a different color, most of the stuff was ads, tabloid reporting on celebrities, porn, worthless fiction, stupid game shows, and soap operas. We fought all these years to hear the message from the other side, and all they have to tell us is "Drink Coca Cola?"

If I was Russion, I'd drown myself in vodka, too.

And what has this to do with the DMCA? Just the fact that it will force U.S citizens to be vigilant (break the DMCA laws) in order to have their free speech. By being in opposition to the ruling regime (the megacorps), U.S citizens can enjoy the excitement of getting their free speech, in spite of the regime. Now it's worth something. Hard to come by free speech is valuable. Gratis free speech is worthless.

Re:Censorship and Russia...

[shaunak]

"The people knew instinctively that these messages were important and they craved them."

That is the difference between the Russia of those years and the US of today.

In Russia then, the living conditions were deplorable and the people scarcely had enough to eat. Although other factors may have contributed, they knew SOMETHING WAS VERY WRONG because although they had been promised (and were being promised) prosperity, they had hunger.
This kind of thought does not exist in the US of A because people are prosperous. They have all this rhetoric about the high morals and freedoms their country stands for, and they believe it although these same freedoms are slowly being taken away from them. It is only a few who actually realise what is happening, and these few will not be able to do squat to prevent it.

To put it short, Prosperity has mellowed that part of the people that is willing to fight for freedom. It's like 'Freedom for Money'.

Re:Yeesh

[Happy Monkey]

"Foreign Policy" magazine is hardly a group of basement-bound teenagers spouting the Slashdot party line.

Mental image of the MP/RI-AA

[GISboy]

Pardon my sillyness, but I can't seem to get this image out of my head.

If you remember the "Beggin' Strips" commercial: I kept picturing that dog's nose saying "It's DATA! data-data over here, data-data over there...What's this?! I can't read!

The MP/RI-AA is the "dog" chasing the smell of bacon/data (i.e. wielding the DMCA, lawsuits and general nastiness) and "they can't read" the writing on the wall, as it were, with code being free speech (or falling under the 1st Amen.)

Honestly, I think the idea applies more to the MPAA than the RIAA, because of DeCSS's implications.
Napster issues aside (and I am not touching that one) consider mp3, though.
Mp3's are not illegal. Consider taping a program to ripping an mp3 being approximately the same.
You are not stealing your own music, but you are "shifting" its form for later/different use.

(I hope that made sense. Enterprise is on, gotta go)

Re:Internet access is NOT a basic right

[Darth Turbogeek]

A "basic right", as you put it, is something that is manditory for survival.
Basic Rights are:
Food
Water
and shelter

---

The only "rights" we have is what those who rule grant the huddled masses. We dont have rights. We have privledges. And it really annoys me when poeple simply stamp and shout saying they have RIGHTS!!!

For example, while for an infant, you have the pirvedge of a mother or father whom feeds you. This is not a right. There are laws in place to make sure that this pivedge is not taken away, but the point remians - your parents could well deny you food and shelter and you could have no recourse. The law of course says something about that, but it dont affect you when your dead.

A right is something to be taken for granted. A privledge is something to be fought for / achieved. The USA have a misnamed document called the Bill of Rights that were a hard won set of privledges.

A right is not something I need to struggle for. A privledge is. Are our privledges worth fighting for? Some are and some arent. It's really up to yourself to work out which ones are worthwhile.

Right now, it is our privledge to have anonymous web and everything that comes with that. Is that worthwhile fighting for, to keep that? Worth keeping the privledge of free speech?

I think so. Because once a privledge is removed, it's hard to get it back