Slashdot Mirror
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."
"Lawrence Lessig has written an accessible article in Foreign Policy..."
/. effect seldom misses.
Give it time.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.)
I'm a bloodsucking fiend! Look at my outfit!
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.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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
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.
why hasn't there been a greater effort to stop or get rid of this?
There has, but the people with the most money won.
The problem with our system (with any system, really) is that it has gradually become a perversion of what it was intended to be. Consider the paradox that is the American political system: In order to serve the people, politicians need votes, and in order to get votes they need publicity, and in order to get publicity they need money, and in order to get money the need the support of monied private interests, and these private interests have no allegiance to the people that the politicians represent. In order to serve the people, politicians must peddle influence to parties that dissserve the people
Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .