Slashdot Mirror
Divining the Future of Internet Law
Mansing writes: "In his last Cyber Law Journal (New York Times, registration required, etc.), Carl Kaplan has captured a collection of insights from the like of Dr. Larry Lessig and Dr. James Boyle. Each one of these correspondents brings a slightly different, and sometimes humorous, view of what legal challenges and legal decisions may face the users of technology in the next year."
At least most of the law professors interviewed by the NYT haven't lost all touch with reality. They predict things such as users not patronizing RIAA-run music services (no suprise there), the government abusing its powers under the new USA-Patriot act (again, no suprise), more court cases being brought up to fight the Constitutionality of the DCMA and predictions that the Supreme Court will hear them, internet privacy battles being fought over how much the government can regulate what we do.
None of it's really suprising, if you pay attention to the news, but the good news is that prominent law professors realize that this is happening, and many of them at least appear to be siding with sanity.
Perhaps in the next few years, we'll see either the DMCA being revoked, or at least heavily amended, and if we're really lucky, some of those quoted law professors will mean what they say and go to bat for the public against the government, protesting the invasions of privacy.
Gawyn
Freedom of Speech?
bipolar companies such as Sony who make great profits off of consumer electronics -- walkman say -- and from content -- their music holdings -- will be engaged in strong internal battles over intellectual property rights (hardies going for lesser protection so as to get more content and more demand for hardware at a lower price point; content protectors the opposite). since Sony and others make much more from hardware look for the challenge to IP to come from them as they turn on the RIAA and MPAA
Certified Black Helicopter Pilot *** Unwitting Dupe of One World Gov'ment
Actually, if you think that legal battles don't matter, you're sadly mistaken. The major changes to the internet and "life as we know it" will happen in the courtrooms, far from most of us. That is what the EFF is here for, to fight for the rights of, well, people like us. Those of us who use computers, the internet, DVDs, what have you. Legal issues are often underlooked in the online community, but they are very important.
Gawyn
Freedom of Speech?
Geez, I read through the article quickly, but nobody seemed to mention taxes.
All other Internet issues will take a back burner on the congressional agenda, although it may not happen in an election year. Watch out in 2003, though. This year, they'll probably appease the special interests, such as RIAA and MPAA, which can generate some campaign cash before the elections.
They're no fools, they want money to spend, and the Internet is a source of it. A money grab coming on the heels of the bursting bubble would have been too tacky even for politicians. But expect them to take it up again as e-commerce growth starts to recover.
Then, of course, they'll claim credit for the recovery.
(on a related note why do you think they wanted to pass a "economic stimulus package"? They know the economy is going to recover this year, and they wanted to take credit for it. Thankfully, they also wanted to make sure the opposing party didn't take credit for the recovery... so each party blocked the other's initiatives, and nothing happened. So now, if it doesn't recover, they can each blame the other side. I used to try to analyze these initiatives on their merits, until I realized what was really going on.)
Regarding "he-who-has-the-gold-makes-the-rules," remember that the American consumer is the one with the gold, and we give it to record companies and we make the rules. The gold isn't the issue; it's who cares most and who acts most effectively upon it.
Best to do something yourself, but if not, haven't you at least helped support the EFF who is speaking out on this?
--LP (no EFF connection other than as a supporter and fan)
From the article, David Post suggests:
Predictions are too difficult . . . though I think you can bet on the following headline: "Music Iindustry Fails in Attempts to Get Users to Patronize Sponsored Music Services
It is difficult to predict what will happen in the next year, especially given the events of last year. But it's dead on to say people will not pay for things they can currently get for free.
FYI, Napster is giving free previews of their membership service, and from the reaction on boards frequented by ex-Napster users, Mr. Post's prediction will most likely ring true.
I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.
All of previous human law is about to become terribly outdated and unable to deal with robots and cyborgs
At least this'll get Congress to reduce the copyright term from life + 70, as if "life" can be perpetual, a copyright term longer than "life" flies in the face of the "for limited times" limitation of the Copyright Clause even more than repeated copyright term extensions do.
Will I retire or break 10K?
That may well be true, but I suspect that the Internet is alive. What I mean by that, is that the Internet is capable of growing and evolving.
Let's say that the Internet begins to evolve in such a direction that content and access are heavily controlled - geographically, by companies, whatever. The Internet is just a series of connected networks, and you don't have to be part of the Internet to be networked. I suspect that Internet2 and freenet would grow, and that other networks with (small 'l') libertarian principles would grow as well. I certainly would be willing to get a leased line network set up between my friends and I, and have a gateway or two to the Internet at large, in order to preserve my ability to communicate freely.
It can be argued that I would then be unable to access the content of the Internet at large, but that is bunk. I would be able to, should I choose, but I would not be forced to use the (putatively bad) protocols and such in order to email friends and family.
Would this be expensive? Yes. Is it impossible to do or to afford? No.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
The prediction I found most interesting is:
... because this permits the Feds to catch "evildoers."
Congress will pass legislation to encourage companies to share cyber-security data with the government, by exempting such data from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and by providing antitrust protection for companies that collaborate on cyber-security matters.
I think this concept will be extended further. Remember that Congress can grant antitrust and other illegal activity protection by law. (Hence the NBA/Baseball franchises). I expect Congress will start granting such exemptions, and protecting the data that tells consumers about these exceptions. Think about it. What wouldn't Microsoft give up for full protection from most laws? They'd happily give away all the Passport data, as well as anything else they can get their hands on. You could easily couch this as "protection of the Internet"
T.
Profit motivates invention.