Slashdot Mirror
Legal Pundits Pan Internet Exceptionalism
Back in Brown writes: "This article from today's Wall St. Journal (via MSNBC) presents the viewpoints of several legal commentators that the Internet should be treated like any other invention and not subject to novel legal interpretations. 'The steam engine ... probably transformed American law, but the "law of the steam engine" never existed.' Another quote: 'cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia."'"
'cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia."'
they didn't say anything about all the pr0n!
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
Comparing the information highway to the steam engine highway is innacurite. Besides, each situation deserves to be judged individually, something our law makers should be aware of. Simply preserving precedent ensures we will never throw off the shackles of the past.
something pretty good for a while. But then again there are laws specifically for autos also. Hard to say really which is better view.
Software should be free as in speech, but if we also get some free beer, all the better.
cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia.
I prefer to think of myself as a nihilistic technofetishist.
(Name That Quote!)
--saint
When cars were widely available, new laws certainly came into effect. Speed limits were posted (not previously needed for horse and buggy carriages). Now exhaust limits, to controll pollution, are in place. Free trade laws, or lack of them, were hammered out in gov't because of the money involved. Each tech upgrade requires us to examine how it will affect humanity, and the internet is no different.
Sounds good to me.
Who the heck needs the DMCA, CDBPTA, and all that other crap anyways?
Oh, I know -- the lawyers that bottom feed off of it.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Is venue. Where is the case going to be held? For a website being sued, is it where the website is hosted? Where the owner lives? Where the person suing lives? It may not be totally new, but it makes issues such as thing much more common than before.
You know what I'd like to see?
'cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia."'
I'd like to see George W. Bush try to say that exact quote without fudging one word.
- Records: made perfomances copyright able
- Radio, again copyrights, plus broadcased regulations.
- Printing press: Copyright!
...
I suspect that it is the law makes that are lacking in historical persective not the techies.Grey (Chris Lusena)
nihilistic technofetishist: William Gibson. Panther Moderns.
Moderation totals that amuse me for one of my posts: Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Funny=2, Overrated=1, Underrated=1
For all of you with the wittism to point out new laws came about for cars, locomotives, etc...
The point of the article is that existing laws didn't bend for the new technology.
It was illegal to murder someone before the car. Its illegal to murder someone after the invention of a car. Its even illegal to murder someone in a car *and* with a car.
In the states there is "vehicular manslaughter" but premeditated murder with a car is still IIRC murder in the 1st. The former charge would be if you unintentionally cause an accident that is your fault that kills someone.
Anyways, its just more bs from a news source. Don't they just point out the obvious for a living then call it news?
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I just saw a show where in an earier time Irish immigrants were working in a mill worked overtime and as a result American nationals were forced to work overtime too... With all this talk of jobs going overseas, such a thing couldn't possibly have happened, could it...
Relevant Links
We actually shouldn't treat cyberspace differently. I think what many want is for the entire world to be treated like cyberspace, where censorship and repression are difficult and ultimately, impossible for the truly determined.
Information technologies and the internet *are* different for a simple reason: information scarcities are almost puerly artificial.
:)
Until recently, even software distribution has had a physical component (e.g. the media + manual). We are approaching the point where software this is the exception, with the norm being distribution via the internet (free software has already passed this point). Any pretence of software or "content" being scarce in the traditional sense of the word will then be completely bogus.
Add to this decades of corporate abuse of the copyright system (Sonny Bono, et al.) and you have a system that is terminally screwed. Perhaps they are right: we shouldn't be making exceptions for the Internet, we should overhauling the whole system
I was wondering: Since the internet has become so important in not just peoples lives, but in business, economics, politics, etc., is it just a priviledge or is it now a right to have it? I'd appreciate if somebody would answer! thanks
now it's the "cyberbuffs" that want special and new laws for new technology? i think it's the other way - the world would be so beautiful for us geeks if old principles like "fair use" would not be undermined, if the same copyright laws that apply to print media would apply to the internet as well. and of course if censorship would be as illegal on the internet as it is in the "normal" world. the most prominent example of a special technology law is certainly the dmca: the result of massive industry lobbying.
They don't want a set of laws that specifically apply to the internet because there weren't specific laws that apply to trains. (Great choice, cause the internet, and trains are so similiar)
Let's choose something more modern. Let's say we shouldn't have laws that only apply to the internet because we don't have laws that apply to the phone, or the fax machine.
What's that you say? Oh, so we do have those laws.
How about comparing the internet to the post office? Oh, we've got laws for the post office too huh?
Trains were not a revolution, just an evolution. People already knew how to get from point a to point b, a train just made the process faster. There's no reason laws for trains would need to be made.
The internet on the other hand, is unlike anything before. You can steal something, without depriving it's owner of his property. You can destry someone's property (software) and all they have to do is put it back.
The internet does need laws, but I find that people don't know where to stop. Sure we could have spam laws, or we could just use technology to block spam completely. We could have laws that outlaw unwanted phone calls, or you could buy a $30 device that requires all callers to know a 4-digit pass-number.
What we need is intelligent people guiding those that make decisions... People much smarter than most Slashdoters. The problem is that the government will be happy to spend a trillion on corporate bail-outs, but you'll practically have to work for minimum wage if you want to take a government tech job.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
IANAL, but if I undestand correctly, the great deal of Western law is based on 'common law', the practice of allowing previous court decisions to affect future decisions.
The problem with trying to apply laws to the Internet is that digital technology has caused a wave of obsolescence in any kind of existing communication, information technology, and dozens of other of societal concepts we hold near and dear. Law based on past precidents rather than fairness and equitable behavior can't hope to keep up through such an incredible wave of advancement.
Take copyright, for (our favorite) example. It's an artificial scarcity placed on information to encourage development of new information, bit it music, data, scientific research, or text.
Since digital technology has forever completely erased the possibility of having a finite supply of any kind of information, the length and breadth of copyright law is dying-- screaming, kicking, doing it's best to cling to existance in a scary new world inhospitable to it, but dying nonetheless. Like symbiotic bacteria, only the lawyers are keeping the dinosaurs of companies that profit by control of information alive.
Other facets of law relating to digital technology will go through similiar changes. Those laws that can adapt will make the change, just like the small rodents and other mammals who survived the Yucatan blast when the dinosaurs were obliterated. We will find the fossils of those who can't in the strata of obsolete legal records.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Proof that the author and those quoted don't really understand what they're dealing with lies in the underlying assumption that one nation's laws can be binding on something like the internet. Certainly the French government/judiciary may rule that Nazi memorabilia advertisements and sales are not legal (online or otherwise) in France and take measures to prevent that. However the ruling in France has nothing to do with the availability of such things in India. That is the somewhat unique nature of the internet - it is multinational.
The author further tips his hand by reducing the discussion to a discourse on laws, pundits and law students in America (meaning the U.S.), showing no awareness of the extranational nature of the internet. Just as the internet is no one application (a suprisingly apt realization on the author's part), the internet does not exist in any particular place, making it indeed worthy of special consideration when it comes to legislation and legalization.
Certainly some do get carried away with the internet as champion of true democracy, etc., but the fact remains that the internet does form a unique medium for all sorts of activities carried out by participants from around the globe. It only bears comparison to the steam engine in that it has definitely changed our way of life, but the comparison ends there. Attempting to approach the ramifications of the internet in the same manner as the steam engine was approached is to suffer from "insufficient perspective, (and a )disdain for history..." as well as being short sighted and overly simplistic.
I've never been convinced that the internet needs laws different than those affecting standard print. Obviously, some laws concerning technology will need to be implemented. But those should strive to mirror the intent of existing laws as much as possible. The law as it stands in the U.S. concerning speech works for the most part (don't bother posting all three of your examples that don't work - I've seen them). Aside from speech it's hard to argue that theft, fraud etc. need to be treated differently online. We still want identity theft and credit fraud to be illegal.
It is important to remember that when the laws on the internet are derived from existing laws, the protections also carry over. No premptive restrictions on speech, no causing imminent danger with inciteful speech and the ability to trash the government and so on exist here because we apply "real" world laws to the internet. There will certainly be some exceptions, but they must remain that. Exceptions. We have spent 200+ years forging laws that work, and we certainly don't need to throw them out the window because of a few idealogical extremists.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -Voltaire
Like most Slashdot commenters, I have not read the article before writing this comment. However, I feel like posting a quick comment. It describes what I currently feel about the laws and Internet. It's not argumented. It's not great, but I hope it can sparkle interesting counter-comments. :)
:)
Internet doesn't need new laws. There are laws that punish the acts of thievery, of diffamation, of misinformation, of undecency, of conspiracy, etc. They are generally sufficiently abstract to apply efficiently to the Internet. The government and the judges might need to adapt the way they apply the law, but it's no the same as writing new laws.
Internet need new laws. It changes some fundamental aspects of our society. The copyright law is the first one that should be revamped. But it needs a nationwide debate, not a corporal sponsorship. Some assumptions about the act of publishing should be rethought, too. In the Internet age -- my, this sounds so pre-2k! -- everyone can be a publisher. Everyone should have the right to be.
Internet need labels. Everybody can have a role on the Internet that was previously only obtainable by professionals - retailer, publisher, advisor. Yet you can't expect everybody to fare equally well, and you shouldn't expect them to be equally liable. Labels should be instored, allowing someone to say "I am a good quality publisher. I accept that I am more liable than un unlabeled publisher. You can trust me more than un unlabeled publisher".
I'm sorry I can't write something more coherent; I'm so exhausted; I need to sleep.
In Mexico James Michener (the great historical novelist) had an episode take place in 15th century Spain shortly after the discovery of precious metals in the New World (primarily Mexico). A town elder (University Professor) argued that the Romac Catholic church's law against usury, or the loaning of money, was no longer applicable to business ventures in the New World. He argued that the risk and distance (hence the communication feedback time) were too great to not allow lenders to charge interest. He was treated with suspicion and then recanted his opinion in lecture the day after being warned by several visiting scholars that he was courting a charge of heresy (don't forget that the Spanish Inqisition held a lot of political power that could not be crossed at that time).
Marijuana Linked to Sitting Around and Getting High
... on the part of 'cyberbuffs,' it's insufficient perspective on the part of those who would regulate and control. Recent history has already proven that the instantaneous exchange of ideas and data is changing our world (work from home! develop software with people from all over the world! see the newest release from Indian cinema! get a Japanese pen-pal! Read the news from other countries!) Clamping down on this kind of exchange is a Draconian measure meant to protect industries that are proving themselves to be falling rapidly behind-the-times.
The internet is here. It's time for the business world to adapt, not those that are taking advantage of new technology in every way possible.
Who was it that said "the internet views censorship as damage.. and routes around it accordingly."????
Moderation totals that amuse me for one of my posts: Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Funny=2, Overrated=1, Underrated=1
futurology:
The study or forecasting of potential developments, as in science, technology, and society, using current conditions and trends as a point of departure.
This is unnecessary? Uh, somebody fill me in...
shuffling off to the tar pits.
Good riddance.
Dumfucks who don't even deserve to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
If not traitors to the potential of the human race.
Curses be upon them.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
The article presents a false dichotomy. On the one hand, it talks about the "technology-friendly" who adhere to the "Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace" (sic), and claim that "the Internet is a new, unique thing that requires its own special laws". On the other hand, it has "cyberskeptics" who believe "something happening online shouldn't be treated any differently by the law".
In fact, the "Cyberspace Declaration of Independence" was written in response to the Telecom Reform Act, as a reaction to attempts to burden the online world with extra legislation that enforces distinctions. I believe the declaration's author, along with most readers of Slashdot, would agree with the idea that online activity generally suffers from specific laws.
The "cyber" world, just like the real world, should be governed by fair principles (such as those of the US constitution) justly applied. The point, which is totally missed by the author of this article, is that our legal system is groaning under the weight of regulations pandering to special interests, and that the good of the people comes off second best.
Thx for the link...
C|N>K
Are you an idiot?? You really can't see the racism in that statement? What other possible interpretation can you get out of the statement "we've been screwed ever since we gave n*****s the right to vote." ?!
You guys are reaally starting to piss me off!!
...between claiming an 'exception' merely to be different, or to exploit the fact that this is something new, and making different interpretations because actual use and practice is different than in past cases.
The current exemption from taxes, for example, is simply a 'perk' of being new. It's no more difficult to tax internet business than mail-order business. The mail-order companies are just exploting the disorder of the states. If the states get together or Federal Govt. ever gets its act together and passes a uniform tax code for mail order companies, they will be taxed. Same for internet 'e-tailing' or whatever fancy name you want to invent. International mail-order is also no different from international online transactions.
But there are very real differences in daily life brought on by new technologies. Back when direct telephone connections to homes and businesses was new there was a hue and cry about criminals being able to conduct their nefarious business without being subject to surveillance, very much like the current paranoia about internet fraud and pedophiles, etc... The police used to be heavy practitioners of 'eavesdropping' before the telephone. But there was also recognition of how the technology could be abused to increase police powers in unacceptable ways. So we didn't setup a central phone listening system like some dictatorship, we crafted a reasonable system of requiring police to get evidence that someone needed to be snooped on and get a warrant. We think this is 'routine' now, but it was a very new and strange thing in the early years of the last century.
As a white man living in Maine, USA, I take ofense to it also. But since Slashdot is fair it should be moderated down to -1 pretty soon. There're jerks where-ever you go. /. isn't immune to them.
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
Where's this guy living? Hypespace?
I would love it if his editors applied the treat-cyberspace-like-meatspace and killed his column. Then we wouldn't have the WSJ churning out endless blather about the effect of the new economy. There are no columns devoted to the steel industry or the building supply industry. Yet, this guy keeps going on and on about the so-called Boom Town. (Can't someone explain to him the problem with the column's title?) If he wants to treat cyberspace like everything else, he should leave the reporting to industry rags, not flashy columns.
And the premise is all mixed up.
There are tons of new regulations introduced for each new technology. There's a special category called "wire fraud" for people who use the phone system to defraud people. Transmitting gambling information across state lines is a crime and that law was introduced to stop people from phoning their bookie, not going to their bookie's website.
The main reason that cyberspace is different is the only thing moving from place to place is information and freedom of speech is protected by many constitutions. So any law regulating the Internet often runs afoul of these laws.
It would be nice if the regular laws from the world applied to cyberspace. How much did Kevin Mitnick steal? How much damage did he really cause? I would love to see concrete analysis applied. The fact is that most hacking efforts cause less damage than most grafiti. In most cases, the damage can be reversed by running some backup tapes. I realize this takes time. I realize that it's pain. Hey, some jerk broke into my car last week and it caused me more pain and suffering than any hacker.
I wouldn't say that Slashdot tolerates racism. Rather, it doesn't tolerate censorship. Unfortunately, that means that terms like the one that offended you (it offended me as well) can be expressed. On the flip side, though, the majority cannot quiet you. If everybody believes in God, and you say 'Long Live Vishnu', you won't be censored for it.
I don't think Slashdot is the problem, I think the real problem is the idiot who can't show some respect.
Hello!
This doesn't make since because:
Internet doesn't change what is wrong, though it may change how wrong can be accomplished.
Therefore, if somebody does something illegal, using Internet, then it would still be the same as though they had not used Internet to do the crime. That person can be prosecuted, but Internet itself has nothing to do with the crime, and remains free.
Because Internet is *a bunch of nodes that can send packets to each other*, it really doesn't need any special laws (other then FCC kind of stuff). However, using Internet does not exempt one from the existing laws.
This is why the Network itself must remain free, but usage of the Network does not make the user free.
I liked the article's note about "phonespace" to show the silliness of "cyperspace". Whoever coined that tern deserves to be executed (same with that bletcherous "Information Super Highway").
But on the other hand, the article *way* over-used cyberfoo words, so it's self- contradictitory in that way.
That's, broadly, what is now called "patent law". Patents, as legislated in the last two centuries, are perfect for steam engines. One cannot easily carry away a 100-ton boiler, and any new ideas in the machine are quite evident from inspecting the mechanism.
Unfortunately, the concept of intellectual property is not as clear-cut in the internet. Files are copied instantly from one side of the globe to the other, and can you disassemble every binary file to look for stolen ideas?
When you transpose the traditional IP concept from patent and copyright law to the internet you may get anything, from digital dictatorship to outright piracy, depending on very fine points in detail interpretation.
It's an interesting nexus where we simultaneously have issues of:
I think we're only just now starting to get to the juicy issues. Much slack has been given to the Internet as a whole simply due to its novelty. Now that it's starting to coalesce into a more mature environment, some of those swarming buzzards are deciding to come roost on it..
We're going to get into even more sticky points when truly distributed computing and storage becomes more the norm and suddenly you can't just point to a box and say "that's where everything is. Apply your laws (privacy, taxation, copyright, etc) to it..."
The desire to keep it simple based on existing tort law is understandable, but I think they underestimate how many new legal scenarios we will be faced with simply because this beasty crosses into so many different realms...
In the Portland, Ore area and like card games? Check out: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/portlandgames/
As I remember, It was called the "Red Flag Act", enforced in England for... the safety of horse-driven carriages :-)
It has practically made impractical the use of steam-engine automobiles.
Any bells ringing?
When cars were widely available, new laws certainly came into effect.
And with steam engines came the locomotives and a need for standardizing time across time zones.
Technology isn't as revolutionary as some make it out to be, but it does change things. A comparison is made to telephone calls in the article, but no RIAA was created to prevent me from playing Van Halen on my phone and letting you record it. Why? Quality, convenience blah blah, etc.
I think in the case of the internet and laws with regard to Intellectual Property, the existing laws are ambiguous and/or insufficient for today's reality.
Deep-linking, terms of use, digital music/video/software are in a new venue with the internet. Owning a song was an easier concept with piano rolls, LP's, tapes and even CD's, but now some companies are trying to take away usage rights from us with the new technology when the new technology makes usage easier.
The right to swing my fist ends at your nose, but the argument can be hard to define when I buy a product from you and you tell me I can only use it a certain way and I have no recourse if it breaks. (Copy protected CD's/DVD's/etc.) I don't recall any book publishers printing books with ink that will fade in a certain number of years or if you cross a regional border.
And I don't recall a phone number having terms of use that were revealed after you dialed it.
I don't want to troll into yet another IP/RIAA/MPAA/KaZaA/Napster/whatever debate, but I just want to acknowledge that there is need for new precedent in the internet media. It's not controllable or accountable in the same way as communication was in the past, and society and the legal systems have to deal with that.
Sued a freakin rock, as told on Slashdot's article this past Saturday
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0
0 rows returned
PAN = BAN
WHO = TWO
Learning all sorts of new things today about acceptable letter replacement. I'll keep an eye out for more.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
That's DISGUSTING!!
One thing that probably separates the internet from most other inventions .. things like the car are tangible .. and can be contained and confiscated and governed by people within that area .. the internet just is(kind of) .. i just dont see how anyone can expect a lawyer in Boston to tell a child in belium that he cant do something .. a law here in the united states would normally only affect a person who is within the confines of this country .. maybe the UN should begin to govern it .. i dont know .. but there just cant be anyway for a lawyer in a US city to tell anyone outside the US what they can and cannot do ... of course IANAL
the point isnt exceptions. The point is that the internet invalidates current jurisdiction laws by being an international entity which cannot be ruled by a single government without fragmentation, which would end the internet and create two seperate networks, one of which would probably keep the title, and both of which would keep the name in common use i'm sure.
To boil down what the internet is: The internet is the world's largest TCP/IP Network. It is not controlled by any one country or entity. So basically, it's a giant WAN that has tried to become more than that and in the eyes of many (including lawmakers) has. The problem is not so much the technological advancements. The problem is the convergence of technological advances, which often results in contradictory laws. Telecommunications is one set of laws, publishing another, and intellectual property yet another (publishing being the act of distributing, IP being the act of ownership). The list is endless as to the different types of law which can collide.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
The skeptics start by questioning the very existence of cyberspace, which they say is no more real than a "phone space" involving all the people on the telephone at a given time. They go on to argue that something happening online shouldn't be treated any differently by the law than if it occurred on Main Street.
... probably transformed American law, but the 'law of the steam engine' never existed,"
:-)
:-)
First part makes sense, second part implies that one's use of the telephone in their own home is equivalent to using their telephone on "Main Street".
they all have as a core principle a rejection of the notion of "Internet exceptionalism," or the idea that the Internet is a new, unique thing that requires its own special laws. "The steam engine
Comparing steam engines and telecommunications devices is about as stupid as it gets, anyone should understand that much.
And they certainly deride the ideas behind the "Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace," which is posted on many Web sites and poses a "hands off" challenge to government.
I've never heard of this thing before, I don't recognize it, and I think that they're just using it as a straw to hold up and try to cover up their engines to telephones comparison.
And most of the activists continue to see the Internet as a utopian ideal -- despite the fact that many progressives are beginning to worry that the Web is really just a very efficient way for companies to move white-collar U.S. jobs overseas.
Hey, any environment where we can't run up and kill each other in any meaningful sense has some utopian elements to it.
Reducing the internet to the web and defining it as a mechanism whose main purpose is to destroy american jobs is pretty goofy though. Tech has created quite a few jobs locally, as it has about everywhere else. Though I won't argue it overall helped or hurt, I just don't have any figures.
But what about his students? Well, he concedes, they're another matter. Many of them, with the passion of youth, are still enthralled with the whole idea of a separate universe, one they can call their own.
And you wouldn't consider an immersive conference call something to liken to a seperate universe?
Could someone make a picture of a whole bunch of people on "Main Street" talking into steam engines? It would summarize this article nicely.
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
'cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia."'
Classic marketing/financial services speak, to be expected from a banker quoted by the WSJ I suppose. Anyway, here's what that means:
"People who are keen on the internet don't look further than their noses and take a narrow view, have little consideration for what came before and have an unhealthy obsession for the latest technology and the next big thing."
A nice, sweeping generalisation, that's more anecdotal than scientific. (Or, put simpler, they don't have any numbers to back up what they say but, hey, everyone knows it's true don't they?)
If you can say something in an "artistic" way, use lots of long, fluffy words, instead of a straightforward manner, using plain, simple language, then a job in public relations or investment banking awaits you.
And people in those industries wonder why we don't believe everything they say...
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Any law is basically a set of rules that citizens agree to abide by. By that definition, the GPL is a law. A number of specialised legal thinking is occuring to consider how to handle the various issues .... see for example in Australia
s p# opensrc
:-).
http://www.law.qut.edu.au/research/conference.j
We can apply certain principles of contract law and even tort, but ultimately, the unique economics of information services require somewhat different approach than matter-based products. For example, how do you price risk? Are the CreativeCommons an orthogonal set of "rights"? How does one detect and punish fraud (a big concern given the antics of Enwrong and WorldCon).
When the lawyers start getting their IP infringed upon, I'd like to see how they start to react
LL
Lawyers sue people. Law commentators are almost the same. What do you want from me dammit! I pretty much hate lawyers right now due to some serious legal bullshit I'm enduring from one rogue attourney. Note to self... no more coffee before reading a legal-based story.
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0
0 rows returned
What kind of lame comparison is that? The steam engine is not a form of expression. The steam engine was not responsible for a mass communication at all levels (individual to individual, group to individual, etc.) that retains massive amounts of information, experiences, and ideas across geographical boundaries. Sure, it changed a lot of things, but it's influence falls in a completely different realm of human experience. Do we have special laws governing expression and speech? Sure we do, and we don't generally compare them to laws that govern commerce, as we might with the steam engine.
Um...hello!? Just about all laws are based on mental constructs that we collectively decide upon as a community. The community feels that cybersapce is something different, and these guys don't get to tell us otherwise. Also, the nature of communication over a phone is of such a different nature that to compare them is terribly short-sighted.
Sorry, but these guys sound like they just want to be contrarians, staking out a radical position for the sake of academic interest.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
Priviledge. Rights are not things or activities.
Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
has the fact that most of what transpired on
Napster was theft escaped most of you idiots?
sure, I used it, but I didn't kid myself about
what I was doing.
nihilistic technofetishist
I thought for sure that would be a successful googlewhack... pity.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
If someone jumps out in front of you and you don't have time to stop, then it really isn't your fault, and the law sensibly doesn't hold you accountable. But you can't just plow through a jaywalker simply because he was in the street illegally -- if you can avoid hitting the jaywalker, you must do so.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
That isn't a racist statement. If you had instead slated someone elses religion in an insulting way, then that would be racist.
For example, if you started referring to 'those filthy kikes' or 'goddamn pig-fucking Muslims' - that would be racist.
Expressing happiness for your own religion/race should not be construed as racist.
Err, Muslims are semites. Just like Jews, they consider pigs to be filthy animals and don't eat pork (or, as Jules from Pulp Fiction would say, they don't dig on swine). The idea that a Muslim would lie down with a pig isn't intrinsically racist, but it is highly offensive to a Muslim.
Arguably, by even suggesting that Muslims would have intimate contacts with pigs, your words are more inflammatory than you perhaps originally imagined. In essence, your examples of how to cause offence are highly offensive, ignorant of the Islamic faith and, as such, could be interpreted as racist.
Oh, the irony.
(FYI, I am not a Muslim. I'm just a pedant.)
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I'm really sorry...
/. can be very one sided, it seems to me that we get plenty of perspectives here.
... probably transformed American law, but the 'law of the steam engine' never existed,"
+5 interesting to parent
It's so obvious, it stings like a hard slap in the face, but it is very true.
My own addition:
Insufficient perspective? While
Disdain for history? I am a big history buff, myself. I can't speak for everyone, but I can't see how this generalization can be true.
"The steam engine
The steam engine didn't allow for near instantanious sharing of nearly all information, either.
Unnecessary futurology? This is why I agree with what Tackhead said regarding "disdain for the possibilities of the future." This is the first time in human history when instant communication and information sharing is availiable to so many people at once. Telegraphs and phones came close, but now instead of talking to a person, we have entire BOOKS available.
Why should we be afraid to take this as far as we can? The Internet, while allowing for online ordering, cyber-terrorism, and the like, also allows for the instant sharing of information by anyone with access -- almost all information, at least right now. We need laws to protect us from identity theft, etc., but we should not fear information integration.
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
That's the whole point, Mister Obvious.
Proof that the author and those quoted don't really understand what they're dealing with lies in the underlying assumption that one nation's laws can be binding on something like the internet.
... the internet." It is merely that a nation's laws can be binding upon the French subsidiary of Yahoo, over whom it had plain and simple jurisidiction. As much as some would like to pretend that Yahoo France is a "virtual" company residing in the internet, the Nazi paraphernalia case is a very bad poster boy for accusations of virtual jurisdiction.
Straw man. The "assumption" is not that "one nation's laws can be binding on
Yahoo WAS a bad citizen in this case, and was slammed accordingly. Under US law, this result seems foolish and foreign, but we in the US do not get to impose our constitution on France -- a place brutally savaged by the Nazis. France applied its own law as against its own corporate citizen and its parent, a citizen that faced pretty bad and ugly facts in its own defense, using traditional notions of extraterritoriality.
Yahoo is probably not the best example to suggest that these authors don't "get it." Indeed, the poster seems to have as much difficulty understanding the law as he insists these jurists are having difficulty understanding the tech.
In fact, Lessing was wrong - there is a "law of the horse". One of the earliest legal codes we have, from one of the Scandanavian kings (Ranulf?), has at least two horse-specific laws. And they're interesting.
One law provided that, if a horseshoer made a horse temporarily lame, (which happens occasionally, more often with inept horseshoers) they had to provide a loaner horse until the hoof healed up. This is perhaps the first piece of consumer protection legislation. Note that it's very specific, and, like modern "lemon laws", places the blame unambiguously on the service provider. It's not a general tort or liability law; it's a law that arbitrarily assigns blame for a specific, common problem.
Another law provided that that if someone borrowed a horse and rode it around the village, they were guilty of a minor offense, but if they rode it out of the village, they were guilty of a major offense. Some jurisdictions make that distinction today in auto theft cases, mostly for juveniles.
So the law of the horse did exist when horses were important.
There's a sizable law of steam. Start with the ASME Boiler Code, which is very specific and has the force of law in many countries. Boilers used to blow up frequently before there was law that set standards for boilers and the people who design and build them. The U.S. safety regulations for steam locomotives (49 CFR 230) are still valid and enforced. There's a National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors.
For a history of the law of steam, see page 35 of this recent boiler explosion investigation report. There's a law of steam for good reason. The first law of steam was enacted in the US in 1838, after a riverboat blew up, killing 300 people. The issue remains; a steam locomotive blew up in 1995, killing several people.
Thus, claims that there is no "law of the horse" or "law of steam" are false. Such laws exist.
This is not new. If a person sues a mail order company, where is the case going to be held? The same principals that have historically been found in contract law between two parties who form an obligation in differentjurisdictions should apply to cybercases and I have not seen a compelling argument to demonstrate that Congress and the Judiciary should tackle the Internet CyberHighWay with new laws.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Laws come from legislatures. Legislatures are tied to the nation-state. Until an entity emerges with a political scope to match the Internet's scope, it doesn't make much sense to talk about so-called cyberlaw. Individual legislatures will continue to act as they see fit.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The purpose of laws is to provide checks and balances that are not provided naturally. In this light, it functions like a dam wall, where the surrounding hills do most of the holding of water.
With the advent of computers, the main check and balance (the cost of copying and distribution) for things like privacy, copyright, etc, is no longer there.
So what happens, is that to print off a copy of a book or record, I'd need to invest in a suitable press (and such activity is not easy to hide), for copying music now, all I need is a program and a computer, both of which are elsewhise legitimate.
A train, or a car, or even an aeroplane, is in essence, a fast mode of transport. It is still a thing on the road, it just moves quicker. Of course, there are law modifications to adjust for this. In some cases, we give them new roads.
The internet, etc, is something fundementally new, in that the laws are based on the assumption that copying and collecting and analysing data is a fairly expensive activity. Nothing is now further from the truth.
Until we find a way to deal with this issue, we will have any number of problems.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
No new laws were made for railroads. 700 railroads went bankrupt in America in the last decades of the 1800's. No new laws were made for the Internet. How many dot.coms went bankrupt now?
How can we expect continued innovations in infrastructure if we don't right now commit ourselves that the next time an important advance comes around, we will immediately pass laws to be sure that those who invest their time and/or capital into building that infrastructure will all get their just share of the gains - and not end up impoverished while society happily rides the rails and surfs the Net?
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Perhaps I'm asking for too much from a short piece, but I wasn't clear on what it was about before or after reading it. Okay, so there's one example of a case in France. Great, now we're getting somewhere-- but it stops there.
What are they talking about? What special laws are they referring to? So, first, we take as a given that there are jurisdictional issues with someone putting up something on a server in Texas, and someone reading it in Germany. And, yes, lawyers and politicians are trying to figure this out. The article does say that it's useful to think of it as a bunch of computers being connected and sending around bits-- thanks.
I'm just asking, because this sounds like an interesting article. There very well might be internet-specific laws. There might be examples of cases making internet exceptions, or not making internet exceptions. I don't know-- I'd like to find out. But this article didn't say a damned thing.
'cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia."'" oh yeah?! well... my dad could beat up their dads!
Let's face it, if we're to take that criticism (we're all a bunch of dreamers, with no sense of history), we should all realize that the *lawmakers* are taking the same view, with legislation like the DMCA and proposed CBDTPA.
If you look at it one way, the automobile forced the imposition of the speed limit; if you look at it another, it *raised* the limit. These naysayers are asking us to swallow our medicine for the sake of the status quo, but I'd argue that we have a choice- we can extend the (tax-free/public domain) commons, and reap the benefits- open source development, derivative music, art, and science- or we can hobble ourselves, and demand our new technology be crippled to the level of the horse and buggy for the sake of 'the children' (and a few dozen oligopolies).
Yes, very different.
The Steam Engine didn't deliver 2+ gigs of pr0n into my newsserver every day.
We have Shipping Law,
Trade Law,
Aerospace Law,
Media Law,
Entertainment Law,
Mining & Resources Law,
Telecommunications Law,
Why not Cyberlaw?
It's not that the law is different, it's just another subject-matter specialty.
I think the author has a very good point to make. Unfortunately, the author misses it. Let us suppose that he is correct, that there should be no special new laws regarding the internet. It is just a bunch of computers linked by cable and fiber, that it is not "cyberspace" any more than telephone users create "telephonespace". There should be no special laws, because it is just people communicating. Then why does the DMCA exist? What about the CDBPTA? These are special laws.
His point is valid, but he misses the mark. All we want is a guarantee of freedom of expression. He selects a difficult case, one that many of us (myself included) do not understand. The author concludes that our misunderstanding of international and French law means that we want special rights. The people who are really pushing for special new cyberlaws are the RIAA and the MPAA. We don't want special laws, we just want our constitutional rights.
Yes, the author is right, there are people who want special rights online. However, he presents the wrong group.
transformed society in ways that never could have been imagined before. It made possible
industrial techniques and housing patterns that couldn't exist without it. The internal combustion
engine accelerated these effects.
The biggest difference between 'cyberspace' and all previous inventions (other than, to a much
lesser extent, radio and TV) is the fact that it defies geographic classification into legal
jurisdictions. For example, when I post this, am I doing it in
- Kansas (where my home is)
- Missouri (where my ISP is, at least locally)
- Virginia (where their domain is registered)
- Massachussets (where Andover.net, official Registrant for slashdot.org is),
- the physical location of the server(s) that the domain points to, if not any of the above
- Each of the sundry locations of
/. readers - All of the above, plus every single router in between
???We laugh at the hubris of the {French|German|Dutch|*} government trying to prevent servers
located in another country from carrying 'illicit' material. Until they go after DNS, routers, or other
servers that are within their borders to prevent them from moving Evil Bits from those sites.
Each of these other inventions brought with them entire agencies to police the technology. It's just
a matter of time before this one gets the same treatment.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
These mainstream people are absolutely correct and we should make it clear we support their argument in every way. There certainly are some radicals who believe that the internet requires fundimental consitutional rights to one's own home and property (4th ammendment), to freedom of speech, and legal concepts like "innocent until proven guilty" need to be overturned because the internet and computing is somehow "different and dangerous". These radicals pass laws like the DMCA.
We need to make the mainstream legal minds understand how radical these notions are and why they should support the same level of consitutional and legal protections we have enjoyed in the past. Rather than ajitating and advocating for a changes in IP law or nice sounding concepts like "code is speech" or new ideas of freedom, we first need to be able to retain the freedoms that had existed for the past 200 years, as this is what is being changed. In this, I believe we can easily find common ground with the established legal thinking behind the people who wrote that opinion piece and find common ground against the real radicals.
He's just trying to get a reaction out of people. You should ignore him. But as long as I'm posting; the only thing more pathetic than a bully who has to do it over the computer so he doesn't get his ass kicked.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
The article basically says: You know there are people who say that there should be less freedom on the internet. They're smart and reputable and they have good points.
They (correctly) assume that most people will skim over the article, not think about it but assume these legal experts do have some good points.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
One of the best points made was that the internet users calling for the need for new laws, and the technophiliacs, have a poor sense of history. This discussion proves that point.
The rise of the internet is great, but is it more of a transforming technology than was the train (overland transport), telephone (a system of contacting another user via voice-- beats IM and email), or radio? What about the birth control pill, moving pictures, sliced bread and the lightbulb? The internet is big, and changes a lot, but c'mon, is it really bigger than the pull-tab beer can?
If you treat the internet as separate and different, you are giving up protections from already establisted laws and precedents. For example, there are already laws on the books making the sending of 'junk faxes' a civil (and i think even criminal) crime, because businesses are paying for the phone line and the fax equipment.
If were were to extend this law to email, which should have been done, there would be no battle against spam right now; the issue was already settled. Obviously, the people abusing the internet for profit are the ones lobbying for separate laws (spammers, cybersquatters, scammers, virus writers, etc). And as unpopular as it may be here, even hackers- it is no more legal to break into someone's network as it is to break a window and roam around their building.
I fail to see a good argument against treating the internet as separate from an individual country.
The internet cannot be regulated by any existing government due to its non-physical existance. Sure you can say that all the servers, nodes, routers, wires, and even electrons exist physically, but the information they represent, the internet, does not. No one can claim a right to control something that they do not own.
That is akin to saying that all the air in my house is mine, and even if it leaves my house, it is still mine. Even the most braindead judge would not listen to such a charge, yet they say much the same about those subatomic particles that run our world.
Now if I take down a server, causing customers to go to another company to do business, or, if I use up large amounts of a company or persons bandwith, then I should be held liable for such. No matter what anybody says, preventing somebody the use of anything they have paid for is theft or vandalism, depending on the case.
But these lawyers and "legal experts" that desire censorship, and commercial or governmental control of the internet and other electronic networks are riding on ways of thinking that should have died with the horse and buggy. The internet does not need the legal systems so necessary in the physical world.
The students studying cyberlaw are on the right track. They realize that the electronic community is a whole new world. Hopefully more people will come to realize this.
Everyone here seems to be railing against these 'cyberskeptics', saying they're out of touch with technology, trying to stifle the net, etc. So if you're for internet legislation, here's a challenge:
Name one cyberlaw that you approve of.
DMCA perhaps? Internet Radio legislation?
OK. If that's too hard: name one law which you want to be applied everywhere except the internet.
Copyright? You want it to be legal to download MP3s but not make your own tapes? Want the freedom of speech not to apply to the net?
Sure, the internet has raised some issues with existing laws which have to be addressed (e.g. copyright, international law) - but I can't think of a single thing that I would want to be legal on the internet, and not outside it (or vice versa).
Why on earth is the whole of Slashdot arguing for more internet legislation?
A very good precedent for treating the internet is maritime law. The problem is somewhat similar. When you are in international water it is not exactly clear what law should apply to you. A large body of law exist that govern precisely those situations. A similar approach to internet might be the best.
Few industries receive as much specific attention from the law as railroads. Railroads, especially in the United States and Canada, were the only heavy transportation that mattered for decades; as a result, they affected just about every industry, the politics of the entire continent, and society in general; and the laws, even today, reflect how influential the railroads were. Ever looked at the United States Code or the U.S. state's typical statutes? American laws were customized for railroads early and often in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Special railroad laws are still all over the place. U.S.C. Title 45 (out of 50) is nothing but railroads, and that's just some of the railroad law. Among lots of other things (if I recall correctly): they get special treatment when obtaining the right-of-way; the labor laws treat railroad workers differently; and they even have separate federal retirement from Social Security. I'm sure the laws in other countries address railroads extensively also.
JurisDiction :)
So, if I understand this right , IF I pissed in your pocket and told you that it was raining , by Law , you are required to believe it?
The internet doesn't need new laws.
The internet needs new laws.
I'm sorry I can't write something more coherent.
(heh)
... are those who never use technology?
How come they never interview people in the know?
I've been programming since I was 8 and I'm not an expert but I know 10 times what these so called EXPERTS know. Oh, I know they read a book about a guy who had ideas about technology so that must make them an expert.
Stupid world we live in. I think journalists should stop selling sensationalism.
It's true, I can't deny it anymore, coming out of the closet as a public AC.
I tried technophilia, but I didn't like it, kept getting poked by all them wires and drive doo-dads and stuff.
T'weren't really no fun....
Great, now everyone who googles ` nihilistic technofetishist` is going to slashdot some sorry goff kid's website.
Um, didn't the railroads create a need for the federal government to enforce standardized time zoned. For another example of law applying to a specific information technology, what about the regulation of radio in the early 20th century to reduce interferance.
Interestingly, the same scarcity arguments apply to spam as well. It used to cost money to send junk mail. Now it doesn't. The introduction of digital technology in the mix has eliminated that expense.
Just because something's technologically possible doesn't make it right, though. I believe that spam == coercion whenever it is unsolicited: that engaging my attention without my consent is a crime. And I'd like to replace SMTP with a protocol which implements the idea that "appending to my mailbox" is a privileged operation that needs authentication and permission.
the same laws that let me buy a car and work under the hood will let me buy software and reverse engineer it. And M$ would have to supply guarantees too. And ISP's would be legally liable for service just like phone companies. Programmers would have to think aswell as just "code" crap. Can you tell i'm a netadmin who is legally liable for things that go wrong.
I'd like to say, having had my Western Digital drive fail me last month (RMA # 4804884). The real salt-in-the-open-wound occured when I was filling out the return forms -- they make you agree to the disclaimer on the return receipt : "I do not hold Western digital liable for data lost"... isn't that akin to a car manufacturer saying that if you die in a fiery wreck because of a defect in their car, it's not their fault? Or, as in the example, if the company in question makes you waive any future liablitity on their part before you can have the pacemaker implanted.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Academics do not in the main need copyright to give them financial incentives to publish. They have traditionally depended on large publishers to print and distribute their periodicals (at prices that would disgust any honest taxpayer). It is only a matter of time before the younger generation takes control of the professional associations and moves the bulk of creative and scientific academic discourse online.
Just because it has happened this way doesn't mean that this was the right way.
To suggest a bad analogy, just because I have just drove home drunk for about 30 miles doesn't mean it's a good idea. So while drawing on the past is important in order to understand how to behave in the future, it does not at all mean that we should continue doing the same thing no matter what changes are going on around us.
Considered harmful.
If this guy thinks we want special case laws to exempt the internet, then he just hasn't been paying attention. What the "cyberbuffs' have been clamoring for for years now is to get the government to STOP making special case laws for the internet. It's not the technophiles who have been making special case internet-only laws, it's the technophobes, and it shows in the nature of the laws they come up with. Stuff that is perfectly legal offline, such as fair-use photocopying a small number of pages from a reference book, or copying a music album for the purpose of changing the recording media format for personal use (like converting old vinyl records to a cassette tape form), are becoming illegal when you do the equivilent on-line version of these activites.
So I say, *YES*, please DO get the government to treat the internet the same way everything else gets treated in public life, which means undoing the crap they've passed about it in the last few years. Destroy the DMCA, the CDAs I and II, and don't lie and call piracy theft. Theft implies that the original owner has had his property taken away rather than just copied. No, I'm not saying piracy is good, just that calling it theft puts the punishment out of proportion to the degree of the crime. Treating piracy as theft is like convicting someone for murder when all he did was get into a minor fist fight and nobody died.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Back in Brown writes: "This article from today's Wall St. Journal (via MSNBC) presents the viewpoints of several legal commentators that the Internet should be treated like any other invention and not subject to novel legal interpretations. 'The steam engine ... probably transformed American law, but the "law of the steam engine" never existed.' Another quote: 'cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia."'"
In other words, Shut Up And Buy!
Insufficient perspective? Disdain for History? You're confusing a standard geek with the wanton rednecks who buy PCs at Wal-Mart along with their shotguns for next "hunt'n seez'n?" They not only insulted my intelligence with that little remarm, but insulted everything that every AC that posts here stands for as well: Know-It-All-ism and a general case of holier-than-thou-itis.
Let the AC flame posts begin (you know you can't resist...)
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Personally, I don't think there should be any "cyber"-specific laws. Fair use should be the same for books and data; child porn should be equally illegal in any medium; and producers of defective merchandise should be liable regardless of whether they sell spoons or software. But I guess starving lawyers need money too, so we should have as many new laws as possible...
>|<*:=
The US and UN authorities IGNORE National and Classification boundaries to aid and abet corporations in the abuse of their trademark powers. This is an unlawful act. They know the solution to trademark problems on the Internet.
.reg - as in apple.reg
.reg would be protected like .gov sites, so preventing passing off and any conflict with the majority of non-trademark domains. It acts as certificate of authentication.
.com domains and new protected TLDs could be used by trademarks for advertising purposes - then redirected to the .reg site e.g. apple.computer or nissan.car
You can legally use any word, words or initials to start a new business without registering a trademark - providing you are not passing off, of course. Take for example the word 'APPLE'.
"Apple" is legally used by thousands of businesses - large and small all over the world. Indeed, it is impossible that they all register themselves as trademarks - they are bound to conflict with many others, being confusingly similar. In my local phone book alone, there are at least five using this word - two garages (seems not connected), a car centre, fruit growers and a decorating firm.
"BUT", I hear you say, followed by many reasons why they cannot co-exist without conflict on the Internet.
These reasons are based on PROPAGANDA, SPIN and LIES.
Fact 1: In this vast ocean of domains on the Internet, mostly non-trademarks, a marker is absolutely essential - for people to identify it as trademark; e.g. a new protected TLD of
Just like the registered trademark symbol ® - this could serve the same purpose - to advise the public that it is legally registered and protected by law.
This
Fact 2: Given that each country has its own trademark system and can use the same words as another, the country is absolutely essential - as in apple.us.reg
Fact 3: It is illegal for one to prevent others from using their trademark. To allow this without consumer confusion or trademark conflict, it is absolutely essential that the class or subclass is included (e.g. computer) - as in apple.computer.us.reg
Can you tell the difference between apple.computer.us.reg and apple.record.uk.reg?
Of course you can. Being text based it is easier than using the phone.
Current
This is all about corrupt authorities aiding and abetting corporations to abuse the Law.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk - World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not associated with United Nations WIPO.org !
I wanted to make sure these accusations hold water, so I performed a highly scientific analysis on the Internet. From the looks of it, he characterized cyberbuffs incorrectly on each count!
Google results for:
- "insufficient perspective" - 31
- "sufficient perspective" - 293
Perspective is obviously sufficient more often than not on the Internet!- "disdain for history" - 52
- "passion for history" - 2490
For every Internet user with a disdain for history there are 500 others with a passion!- "unnecessary futurology" - 1
- "necessary futurology" - 0
Looks to me like the author made this one up. No mention of futurology being either necessary or unnecessary except for a copy of his article itself!- "technophilia" - 3,810
- "technophobia" - 10,900
This is perhaps the most shocking result of all! I guess if you're scared of technology you're more likely to use the Internet? Strange but true.I design user interfaces for a free network management application,
"Trains were not a revolution, just an evolution. People already knew how to get from point a to point b, a train just made the process faster. There's no reason laws for trains would need to be made. "
Uh, no. I don't disagree with your point entirely, but you really don't get it re trains. Yes, people "knew how to get from point a to point b", but the train did much more than make it fast. It made it *safe*. It made it so that people could travel from one end of the continental US in a few days (in relative safety) instead of months fraught with risk.
You would be just as (in)correct to say "Gutenberg didn't do anything special. People already knew how to make books. It just took a lot of monks with some time on their hands. He just made it a lot easier to get the words on to the page much more quickly."
Consider your analogies people.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
The analogy doesn't even work for trains. When the railroads were being built in the US, law was quick to change to accomadate them. For example, the law of fire negligence in West Virginia.
Where does it say anything about trains?
... probably transformed American law, but the 'law of the steam engine' never existed,"
"The steam engine
What he is talking about here is the steam engine that (for example) powered factories, equipment in mines and early powerplants in the last two centuries. Yes, using it to get from one place to another by attaching wheels (or a paddle) was one application of the steam engine.
By applying this new technology to many different problems it gave people a new way to accomplish old tasks, opened up new possibilities and entire industies were born.
Does the above sentence sound familiar? It could just as easely be applied to the internet.
Whats different about the internet is its international nature and distruction of social barriers that an unhindered global flow of information causes.
That and being still very "new" to most of the population, people are scared of it because they do not understand what it is. Just as people seeing a train for the first time may have thought of it as a monster without realising that it is a just another great advancement in human technology.
The internet is just another technological advancement and will influence laws in time just like any major invention that impacts our lives.
What post? The one you're carrying inside your rusty innards!
Trains were not a revolution, just an evolution. People already knew how to get from point a to point b, a train just made the process faster. There's no reason laws for trains would need to be made.
... apply the same law to the net as you would to physical copies of the same crap in the real world.
It could be argued that "the internet is not a revolution, just an evolution. People already knew how to communicate with one another across great distances, the internet just made the process faster. There's no reason laws for the internet would need to be made."
Do we need laws to govern the internet? I would say that it is unlikely that we do, and that at the very least we need to proceed very, very carefully. Far better to pass a needed law too late, than to pass unnecessary, and harmful, legislation too early.
Do we need to restrict speech on the internet? No, not any more than we need to in real life.
What about child pornography? Already illegal
What about commerce? Our existing interstate commerce laws, tax regimes, etc. are more than sufficient and can be applied equally to online commerce as they are to brick and morter commerce. Buying something online should be no different, legally, than picking up the phone and ordering someting by voice.
What about 'online stalking.?' No different than making obscene or prank phone calls in the real world, or verbally harassing someone in person
What about the children?!? They are in no greater danger than they are when they are out on a public street, and just like in the physical world, it is the parent's responsibility to see to their children's safety, not the government, and certainly not at the expense of my constitutional rights.
I could go on and list virtually every subject which gets raised WRT the "need" to regulate the internet, and in each case point out that the application of existing law is more than sufficient to keep society on roughly the same even keel it has generally been all along.
The problem is that the media and copyright cartels see an opportunity to grab immense power, power that the courts (and even congress) has deliberately denied them in the past. However, the ludditism of Hollywood, the digital illiteracy of congress, and the legalized bribery we call campaign financing have all come together to produce a very dangerous mixture of political cluelessness and political will that may just result in these very powers being extended, with manditory DRM technology enshringing Microsoft's desktop monopoly into law and granting those very same Hollywood Luddites veto powers over the deployment of all new consumer technologies.
This should scare the shit out of any clear thinking individual.
You can steal something, without depriving it's owner of his property.
No, you can't. That sentance is in direct conflict with the very definition of stealing, as has been rehashed here and elsewhere numerous times.
Copyright Violation is not theft. It is not recognized as theft by the law or by any of the freely accessible dictionaries online.
In fact, the only place where copyright violation is considered theft is in the minds, and newspeak, of the copyright cartels, and those who thoughtlessly echo their propoganda.
Even in a nation increasingly afflicted with fictitious legal absurdities (like equating a corporation with a real, thinking, breathing person) we haven't even gone so far as to equate copyright violation and theft.
We should not engage in the absurd, legal fiction that communication over the internet is somehow fundamentally different than communication by telegraph, telephone, fax, snail mail, or an in person meeting over lunch. Fundamentally it isn't any different, it is merely more effecient.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
What these guys seem to be saying (the MSNBC article is very sketchy) is that the laws we have NOW are sufficient, and we don't need to write new ones.
For example, without the internet would the DMCA ever have been passed? That law, bought and paid for by an industry (like most laws) is a very good example of why these guys are right.
It's already illegal to sell copies of your CDs but was previously OK to give them away, but that freedom is being taken away by new internet laws.
I saw at a different nessageboard "He who does not learn from history is doomed to be crushed under my foot." It is very true that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
We have too many damned laws already, how about we repeal a few before we write any more?
-steve
Springfield Fragfest
Artificial scarcity is an evil born of greed and power.
Examples of artificial scarcity- diamonds. Controlled almost entirely by one family, diamonds are incredibly expensive. If not for their scarcity, formerly from lack of technology but presently by legal monopoply, they would be as cheap as any other rock yet still as beautiful and useful. Their scarcity enriches one family at the expense of the entire world.
The price of silver dropped through the floor a decade or two ago, when two brothers' attempts to corner the market failed.
An item's value should is determined by its usefulness to you and its scarcity. Artificial scarcity is theift.
Certainly we ought to look first to the traditions of the physical world when figuring out how or whether to regulate behavior on the 'net. If someone sneaks into my computer without my consent, he's trespassing, and if he had reason to believe that he was unwelcome then it's illegal entry; if he had to defeat my access controls, he's breaking and entering; if he takes something then he's a thief; if he intentionally breaks something, he's a vandal; and if he alters records, he's a forger. And he should go to jail. Physically. I am astonished at the number of people who have failed to understand this simple idea.
Whereas law professors, on the other hand, are veritable renaissance men of both thought and action, always ready to escape the bounds of their cluttered, paper-stacked offices just so they may exhibit their awesome command of contemporary events in the dim hope that insular smucks like us will see their example and perhaps strive, as they, to suck the marrow out of life.
That might actually be good. It would get rid of the DMCA, e.g., and that would be worth a lot right there. Also the special classification of some cable providers as informations service providers, so that they don't need to share their lines. That would be worth deleting.
There are decent arguments that there shouldn't be any special laws. The troubles are with the special laws that have already been passed. It you want to make that argument, the first thing you need to do to prove that you are serious is to get rid of them.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
What a troll article. Proclaiming that people who may or may not have mastered a word processor are going to interpret the laws for us? The article touches on no specifics but flames away at computer users as ingnorant adlolesents. Would that be the "generation gap" troll? The "sceptics" no more exits outside the author's imagination than the blind straw men he creates to oppose them.
Those treatened by the internet revolution will continue to spew bullshit like this. Those who will loose their ability to charge per minute for telcom will flame. Those who will loose their dead tree advertising empires will flame. Software companies with no real assets beside IP that has been duplicated, bettered and finally given away by the internet enabled free software community will flame. Those who would take something as common as music from the world, and attempt to monopolize it's distribution, really the sale of your own popular culture, will flame. And they are doing it. There is a steady barrage of hostile garbage comming from all those threatened industries. Attacks on sharing, free speech, even knowledge itself are becoming so common. All the storries about evil loosers who persue strange things and end up hurting themselves by being put in jail. The whole "internet bubble", where the internet is blamed for the recent collapse of so many companies that were pilfered by their executives with the aid of their accountants and sold by Wall Street, backers all of the old empires revealed as frauds are attempting to pass the blame from their wanton acts to the victims of their crimes. "Silly people, did you think stocks in our companies were really worth anything?" the seem to ask. All they will have in the end are losses. Obsolete business models will fail and those who fight against changes will have only themselves to blame for their losses.
Sensible people will apply reasonable laws to the internet and all forms of electronic communications. Laws made for snail mail will be appleid to email that will be encrypted and then protected from interception. New interests will find a way to right.laws have become unbalenced through oligrachal domination, Copyright will be rexeamined from it's first priniples bases on the greatly reduced cost of publication. The results will be much more in line with original US copyright laws than those that the RIAA would burden us with. Reasonable laws will be made, barring civil and nuclear war and everyone becoming like Microsoft.
Oh yeah, for those pea brains who would like to call me a strary eyed school girl I'm gonna pop out my accademic stick: BA Classics, BS Mechanical Engineering, working on a masters degree in Nuclear Science. I have a keen sense of history, love the good things that technology can do for people, I vote republican for lack of better alternatives, and I think the Free Software Foundation and the Electronic Freedom Foundation are right on. Now piss off, you silly comercial trolls.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Er, no. Actually, the steam engine necessitated a lot of new laws. Mineral right laws were updated because previously-unminable lands became workable. The locomotive, a descendant of the steam engine, created the railraod, which launched corporations into their stratospheric rise and indeed gave birth to the entire body of law called "corporate law". There's a special law for retirees of the rail system (separate from Social Security) and indeed there are labor laws entirely devoted to the rail industry. (In fact a major complaint of airlines is that they have been saddled, by extension, with these older laws.)
So the analogy fails, because there is a "law of the steam engine". As technology evolves, the law must evolve with it. Whole new crimes spring into existence and old crimes assume an efficiency and scope unimagined before.
Should the principles be extended into the new realm? Of course. But answer me this: What best "fits" the discussion forums on, say, nytimes.com? Newspaper article? Broadcast? Editorial? Conversation in the public square? Conversation in a private home? The forum is clearly like each of these yet is none of them. And those areas each have quite different rules on what can said, what can be actionable, etc. So how can you say that this new mechanism, which "looks like" many old mechanisms at once, should follow the old rules? Which old rules?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
[Joseph H. Sommer] also fretted that the cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia."
Oh, ouch, like, that hurts. These lawyers are afflicted with insufficient perspective, historicism, lack of forethought, and technophobia.
I find it remarkable that they accuse us of elitism. As if we went to "ivy league" colleges, work for Wall Street firms, and weren't doing our damnedest to maintain the status quo. This article is sheer propoganda. It isn't that they want the Internet treated like every other technology, it is that they want the Internet treated like the things the law already has a handle on, and can therefore control.
Technologies aren't the same, they have different effects on society, and Internet has, and will continue to have, and enormous impact on social organiziation, free speech, intellectual property, and general enconomics.
No one can dipsute the fact that the automobile transformed American society. So why is it so futurology to suggest the same of the Internet?
Insufficient perspective? That must be why computer geeks tend to be extremely aware of environmental issues, for example. Disdain for history? I have a disdain for the things that non-geeks have done in history. Geeks figured out a way to harness the atom; non-geeks dropped two atom bombs on Japan. Sound familiar? This has been going on since technology has existed, or in other words, always. I bet someone once figured out you could use a stick to beat down a gazelle, and then someone half as smart turned around and hit another person in the head with one.
As for technophilia; I call upon these arrogant asses to eschew electricity, discard their automobile, and go churn butter and raise barns. The very fact that we're seeing anything they have to say at all means that they embrace technology as long as it's for their own purposes; IE, spreading FUD.
This article was only worthy of a notice on slashdot so that it could be flamed.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Under US law, this result seems foolish and foreign, but we in the US do not get to impose our constitution on France "
Thank you for highlighting my point (though it seems you didn't understand it). Similarly, France does not get to impose their laws on people in the U.S. Yet we have entities operating on the internet originating from all over the world. How do you regulate or legislate such a thing effectively and fairly? THAT is my point, and it is the point the author missed.
In a case seemingly involving two parties, as with France and Yahoo you can get away with saying something like "Prof. Goldsmith says that Yahoo, since it has a subsidiary in France, should no more be immune to French laws than General Motors is..." What if there was no subsidiary - as there often isn't. The "subsidiary" element of this example lends itself to a more simple analysis, but you don't have to do too much extrapolation to see that the reality of the situation is that applying the author's and his quoted sources manner of thinking becomes unworkable when you consider just how many parties could be involved in the case of internet based entities. But no acknowledgement of this is made anywhere in the article. Therefore the article does miss a major point in consideration of its topic "Cyberlaw: Cybersmart or cybersilly?" if the question to be answered is whether or not a different approach needs to be taken in regards to regulating and legislating the internet and the entities it supports.
When you say something like "the poster seems to have as much difficulty understanding the law", it serves to highlight the difficulties quite well. Which law? Whose law? Zimbabwe's? Nepal's? Ecuador's? The responder's? Mine? Which nations' laws apply to the internet and all entities participating in it? All? None? Things are a little more complicated than the author, and apparently this responder would like to consider.
So in the end the responder misses the point along with the author and his sources. However I'll give the responder bonus points for attempting to use the straw man cliche - can't hear that one enough can we? I chalk it up to just another case of attempting to over simplify something that won't bear being treated that way.
Okay, who's the idiot who modded my post above as "overrated" when it hadn't even ever been "rated" in the first place? It's illogical for the very first moderation on a post to say it's been "overrated".
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
1) Should the world be more like cyberspace...
Or
2) Should cyberspace be more like the world...
I don't like the idea of murder 1 for Packeting some guy and *Killing* his connection...
And I don't like the idea of people not getting murder 1 if they *Kill* someone's connection...
And, most people who kill people have mental disorders.
But most people that kill connections are romanian scripties.
Voila, neither works... toss the idea and stick your copyrights and your trademarks up your wazoo, open source 4 ever.
-Oogle
thing that exists in one place at a time, all along the route from when I put it in the hands
of the US Snail until it is delivered to that recipient. If that recipient makes a photocopy of a letter and
redistributes it, the copy isn't considered to be the same act of mailing. But a blog post
goes all over the place at once. It is everywhere and nowhere.
--
Fight 'wide' posts - use your own page <br>eaks!
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
cyberbuff indeed.
I am a follower of the church of technology that believes that enlightenment and ultimately ascension will come from technology.
Mankind will someday break the bounds of this rock. We will someday find and teach, and learn from other life. We will do all these things, or our lives, all our lives will never have mattered because we will simply cease to exist with no record, trace or impact.
cyberbuff my ass.
"No good deed goes unpunished"
How can you use the word "namespace" in a sentence that claims that cyberspace doesn't exist? Cyberspace exists in the same place as namespace (which you apparently have no problem comprehending).
--- Wherever you go, everyone is always connected...
A "namespace" is just a known scheme for naming a collection of entities. The books on my shelf are categorized and labeled, so they are in a namespace. But that isn't cyberspace.
There are a lot of namespaces that aren't cyberspaces. A file cabinet. A class tree. A phone book (good example). A directory tree. To some extent, the English dictionary is a simple namespace. Basically anywhere that you have a lot of information stored, there is probably a namespace there for finding the information.
Those are actually well thought out points. But they don't invalidate the concept of cyberspace in any way - I can make a good case for the existance of namespaces within the cyberspace of the Internet as well as outside of it.
alex
--- Wherever you go, everyone is always connected...
If anyone is at all interested in VR they should check out eXistenZ. It's by David Cronenberg who did Crash and Naked Lunch so you know it's bizarre. Might not be to everyone's taste but it does a good job of showing the profound weirdness created by high-quality VR systems which are likely to be widely available in the coming years. You can already buy a cheap-o VFX1 head mounted display on eBay for a couple hundred bucks. It's not too terribly impressive yet but it'll make ya think.
alex
--- Wherever you go, everyone is always connected...