Slashdot Mirror
DRM and Democracy
jar writes to tell us Bruce Perens has a short editorial on why DRM could have an impact on much more than just our record collections. From the article: "Within the last century, electronic communications have increasingly become the vehicle of democratic discourse. Because radio and television broadcasting are expensive with limited frequencies available, the wealthy have dominated broadcasting. The Internet and World Wide Web place into the common man's hands the capability of global electronic broadcasting. [...] In order to protect democratic discourse in the future, the Internet must remain a fair and level playing field for the distribution of political speech. The full capability of the Internet must remain available to all, without restriction by religious, business, or political interests."
But probably not. The truth of the matter is that there will be a 100 petabyte flashdrive that people hand around that has ALL of music on it and the issue will be moot.
"the Internet must remain a fair and level playing field for the distribution of political speech."
Like: 'bush is teh gh3y.' "no, gore pWnz u." 'bush/cheney ftw.' "you stole my election!"
[ANALOGY TIME] Finding political speech on the internet is like finding poop in the toilet: it's easy to find, but you don't want to see it.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
the issue is that most people (in the US at least) don't care about democracy. They use the Internet to search for thinds that require little actual thinking. Right now top searches for Google are: the omen, french open, and father's day. The issue is that people just don't care. People don't care that their liberties are taken away as long as the can watch the game on tv and look for porn on the net.
please excuse my apathy
While in a theoretical world, this makes sense, in reality this isn't what's happened. When you look at the distribution of wealth (or knowledge, or access, or whatever), you find that since the internet these gaps have grown bigger, and while the big players may be new, the truth is out of the billions of sites online, the top thousand sites get 99.99% of the traffic. How's the democracy? How's that "power to the people"? While new technologies may come out that gives the "little guy" a voice for a while, this period goes away quickly as either entrenched companies jump into the fray (i.e. Microsoft/Apple/Dell) or new companies spring up (i.e. Google/Ebay/Amazon). -Jason Gravity Switch
Through profit oriented search engines and governments firm grip on the political voices that we can find the chances of keeping the Internet free is imposable. The Internet is not a place for freedom anymore it is just another place to blast us as a population will propaganda.
Ah, and Bruce, sorry for being a grammar nazi, but please: Effects =/= Affects.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
the issue is that most people (in the US at least) don't care about democracy. They use the Internet to search for thinds that require little actual thinking. Right now top searches for Google are: the omen, french open, and father's day.
... if we all made the same diverse searches ... wait for it ... they woudln't be uncommon or diverse anymore! Just because the most popular searches are brain-dead doesn't mean everyone is brain-dead, it just means that there is a common thread among people.
No... yeah of course those three are going to be popular because they are common. Plenty of people make uncommon searches. But the thing about diverse searches is
... "DRMocrazy"
Next Step: PROFIT!
How long until they DRM our thoughts? I mean with singing sensation Meatloaf trying to lay claim to the phrase "Bat out of Hell" http://www.playfuls.com/news_0000516_Meatloaf_My_B at_Out_Of_Hell.html
I am going to trademark "like um" and then be rich, I am talking crazy boy band rich....
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
While not quite on the level of taking over language and slowly redfining it so that it becomes imposible to put into words bad thoughts about the current system, the idea that companies and governments could control the net crosses into that. We've already seen the government deciding to re-classify materials resulting in libraries suddenly missing books. What will happen when they can do this with the internet too? Who in the future will be able to debate the mistakes of our day when there is no record of them open to the public?
"DMCA does it today, Barbara Boxer's PERFORM act, and the WIPO broadcasting treaty will soon add to the burden."
I believe the PERFORM act was introduced by Feinstein(D) and Graham(R), not Boxer(D).
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
While the broadcasting treaty raises much concern, the only reference to DRM has to do with proprietary formats being limited.
I'm sorry but as much as I am against DRM I don't think his example regarding internet radio streams holds water.
for one existing laws do the same thing without DRM. Major internet and satellite radio streaming companies already require contractual agreements and presumably the proprietors of the streams can "filter out" politically undesirable speech.
for another the guy seems to completely ignore open formats which will remain so either by virtue of the GPL or by virtue of the lack of a DRM specification (such as MP3) in the standard. while major outlets may end up drm'ed to hell, there will always be a format allowing people to make an internet stream on their own.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Anything with DRM should have a message on it similar to the "WARNING: SMOKING KILLS" warning. I don't want a small label I have to search for - it should be big, clear, and standardised. The exact same logo/warning message should appear on every product. Something like "Warning: This product uses Digital Rights/Restrictions Management" would do the job.
Anyway, if anyone accidentally buys a product with DRM, they should be entitled to a refund. It is for all intents and purposes a defect, if you thought the product you were buying was a movie/music that you could use however you like.
Listen p*ssy. I'm sure your the same homo that posted earlier about alf's boner and you just want to remain anonymous fo
I fail to see how a tiered internet is relevant for democracy.
Even if part of bandwith became 'premium', that would have negligible impact on the possibility of transmitting political material and speech.
I am sure that in the visionary and conceptual world of symbolism and imagery, that someone is binarily 'forced to communicate with lower effect' (i.e. at lower kbps) is a major obstacle to democracy.
In reality, the impact would firstly be negligible unless you want to stream video, in which case you should in any case pay for it. Secondly, there are already costs attached to communication - the costs of setting up a TV station, including recording and transmitting, are already massive. Even the cost of getting a high-traffic site hosted is very high. Surely the argument for why traffic should not cost anything or else it would be an obstacle to democracy, is mirrored by an argument for why hosting should not cost anything or it would spell instant dictatorship?
From the site:"The purpose of this web page is to serve as a focal point for investigations of the parallels between perhaps the two greatest qualitative jumps in communications capabilities of the last millennium - printing and internetted computers"
Further the same site has referenced a number of relevant papers:
" There is a wealth of information available on and off the Web that talks about printing and/or the Internet and/or their social and cultural implications. Since the interest of this web site is in the parallels between printing and the Internet and what they might tell us about policy about the Internet, only a small subset of such papers will be relevant to that understanding. Though even the concept of what is relevant will evolve, there are at least two general topics that should remain relevant:
understanding the parallels and divergences between printing and the Internet
understanding the history and impact of printing"
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
I'm sorry, but I left my tin-foil at home on my dresser today. How exactly would DRM suppress freedom of speech (at the heart of the democratic process)? I can understand the TV/radio issue because they are finitely available resources, but the Internet is not the same. Let's say video/audio goes DRMed WMV/WMA, and maybe some DRMed DOC/HTML format becomes popular, too. So what? You can't copy/distribute out what other people (the companies) give you. Nothing stops you from distributing your own (non-DRMed) content.
Of course, if non-DRMed content was made illegal, then that would change things dramatically, but I don't see how that would **ever** happen.
DRM is a Bad Thing(TM), but I don't see it threatening democracy as the article suggests.
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
If the internet gets destroyed by a bunch of idiots that don't understand the internet, I don't think people will just turn around, bend over, and drop their pants. Instead, I think people will just create their own networks. Think of the "good" old days BEFORE the internet.
As much as you seem to think otherwise, the Internet is not US-centric. This information will be stored in a multitude of other places. We're talking China, Russia, Iran, Australia, Brazil, Venezuela, the Ukraine, France, Austria, Uganda, Jordan, Canada, Japan, Sweden, Argentina, Denmark, Turkey, Slovakia. Of course, that's just a smattering of places where such information will be stored.
People in those countries will save news articles posted online. They will save other content. Perhaps if things get really nasty, the US gov't might take out systems in such nations. By that point we'd likely see people printing off such documentation, and stashing it in safer locations. Or they must just disconnect their systems from publically-accessible networks.
Even if the US citizenry fail to protect their history, others in the world won't.
democracy has been "replaced" by kleptocracy
probably because you haven't registered for the mailing list
+1 fashionably cynical
This issue is orthogonal to DRM. The problem is restricting what data sources these devices can listen to.
The Online Slang Dictionary
Apple iTunes Store has been selling DRM music for several years now. And the world is still here. People love their iPods and their DRM music.
Linux Tvorvalds has said, "I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux!" http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2003042401126O SKNLL>
Basically, mainstream America is fine with DRM. Implemented properly, it's a reasonable part of a solution to a the real problem of widescale IP theft.
My viewpoint may be one standard deviation off of normal Slashdot opinion, but this IS where mainstream America is.
If Bruce wants to have freedom on the Internet, he can build his own.
I wish I were being funny.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
If people own something they have the right to protect their items from beings stolen. I'm sure theft is very clearly defined in the law - all types of theft. On the other hand, there is nothing in the world that says people must use DRM. If you think it is an abomination, don't use it and don't buy things with DRM. But here is a question for all of you who think your liberties are threatened buy big business and DRM; when was the last time you baked your own bread or grew your own potatoes or made your own ketchup? Convenience will keep people coming back for more. I will buy my music in whatever format I find most convenient, and so will you.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
Indeed it is, here is an old article I wrote about this same subject. From the article:
A system that works best for recording and tracking each and every individual transfer of creative work will serve to diminish that work. A system that works to give that creative work to its audience in its purest form, without restrictions will both reward the audience and the creator (though the artist will not be nearly as financially supported by his work).
We would have never seen many of Da Vinci's works if he had access to technology that imposed expiration dates on his writings. We know he used encryption in his work, so just allow yourself jump a step further.
Meet new people, and kill them.
Of course, if non-DRMed content was made illegal, then that would change things dramatically, but I don't see how that would **ever** happen.
Really? Are you truly that naive?
Historically, such unreasonably restrictive legislation is passed after an arranged attack upon some national icon. Of the two events you've likely heard of before, one happened in Germany in the 1930s, and the other on September 11, 2001, in the US. There are other similar events, like the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964.
Of course, there doesn't even need to be an attack. A widely-hyped spree of arrests of supposed "militants" or "extremists" can often be enough to scare the general public into buying into the idea that they're under threat. Or as we saw in 2002 and 2003, politicians frequently saying that some nation has "weapons of mass destruction" for long enough will have a similar effect.
A smart media company or association can quite easily use even a plan they're not directly involved with to their benefit. Tell people, even if completely incorrectly, that "terrorists" listen to un-DRM'ed audio files, and soon enough you'll get a large number calling for limitations on such material. Or hell, pay off the right politicians at the right time, and such legislation could be slipped in without much debate, let alone knowledge of it being included.
The worst part is that people such as yourself won't even realize what has happened. You'll all be so bummed out by the barrage of ooh-so-scary media reports that you won't be capable of rational thought. By the time you realize that you've been fooled (often years later), it'll be too late.
I'd take one good Apple over an orchard of wormy nasty little (wannabe) apples any day!
... must remain available to all, without restriction by religious, business, or political interests.
So let's talk about politics. What should it do with pizza? democratize it, or republicanize it?
That is not what we are talking about. Everyone here is fine with the fact that people pay more for more bandwidth. The problem is that the Internet is like a lot of interconnecting kingdoms. Each kingdom wants to make the citizens of every other kingdom pay to cross it's borders. The problem is that to get anywhere, you have to cross dozens of kingdoms. Right now, you just pay the kingdom you live in, your ISP. And the places you go, they pay their own kingdom. And the kingdoms have a deal: Kingdom A lets Kingdom B's traffic cross it's borders and vice versa.
What the tiered internet is all about is extorting more money out of you and the places you want to visit. Anytime you want to visit someplace outside your kingdom, you will have to pay extra. Most backbone level ISPs are owned by media companies. So, say you use AOL. Any time you want to access something not owned by Time/Warner, you wil have to pay a premium or suffer slowdowns or outright blockages.
Will you even be able to find speach critical of Time/Warner? Doubtful. Will you be able to find political speach that potentially damages Time/Warner's interests in Washington? Highly unlikely. Do you see the frightening problem here? I sure hope so.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re: In order to protect democratic discourse in the future, the Internet must remain a fair and level playing field for the distribution of political speech. The full capability of the Internet must remain available to all, without restriction by religious, business, or political interests.
... You can't allow all political messages without also allowing spam and offensive content.
Be careful what you wish for
Politics and spam already get confused. For example I was recently involved with a news mailing about economic policy, and this triggered spam filters. Why? Because there's a heck of a lot of spam advertising cheap loans, comparing rates, and my email compared interest rates too. But you couldn't unblock my democratic mailing without also unblocking some of that spam.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
Apple iTunes Store has been selling DRM music for several years now. And the world is still here. People love their iPods and their DRM music.
no people tolerate and conume their DRM music because the government, media, and huge multinationals have been threatening them with lawsuits and imprisonment and brainwashing them into "guilt" with propaganda and outright lies for 7 years.
You can't judge weater people like it when it is the only "legal" option out there. That would be like saying people in iraq "loved" saddam because he was the only "choice" for a leader.
Basically, mainstream America is fine with DRM.
while most americans are not familiar with the name of DRM, they consider it's effects to be nothing less than a plague. I can't tell you how many "mainstream" people have requested my help to rid them of the restrictions imposed by DRM they had ignorantly purchased.
This brings up another good point.. how can america be "fine" with something they know little about. There are not consumer protection laws which mandate companies tell them. As it is now most of them don't know the restrictions even exist until after the purchase is made, and it will only get worse as products come out with "Revocation" and "selective output control" built in.
Implemented properly, it's a reasonable part of a solution to a the real problem of widescale IP theft.
and the idea that it can be "implemented properly" can be filed under the same fallacy as supply side economics.
just as supply side economics cannot succeed because of the invariable human nature that is greed and moral hazard, "properly implemented" drm cannot succeed because of the fact that all DRM schemes are merely security through obscurity.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Of course there will be common threads shared amongst all of the people in a country. In a democracy or republic, that common thread should be politics.
Let's take the United States as an example. If it truly were a solid democratic republic, then people would be searching for information regarding the Iraqi debacle. They'd be searching for information regarding the Enron scandal. They'd be reading about any number of other political matters.
The fact that searches regarding Fathers' Day are at the top of the lists shows that everyday politics don't matter to the general American population. Frankly, that's a sign of two things: first, an ignorant (if not outright stupid) populace, and second, a seriously ill democracy or republic.
No "Net neutrality" might be a threat to this--maybe. But DRM? No way.
Penny - plain text accounting
The issue of subsidized players is quite distinct from DRM.
A very strong argument can be made that devices that deliver content MUST be open to playing non-DRM-constrained content from ANY source.
In fact I believe the FCC mandated this for radios and TVs. Basically a TV or radio station was not allowed to distribute players that would receive only their frequency.
It would be an excellent idea that anyone who creates a DRM would be required to allow anyone who publishes content to make use of that DRM. Publishing someone else's material would of course be illegal, just as stamping DVDs without someone else's material is.
But to imply that DRMs are incompatible with free speach is simply stretching things a bit too far. Ensuring that all players will continue to play non-DRM material is all that is required to preserve the essence of public discourse. Letting small publishers use the Big Boy's DRMs would be nice, but certainly not essential.
"Will you even be able to find speach critical of Time/Warner? Doubtful."
If they also use this incredible power to censor everything on the internet to fix the spelling, then I'm for it.
this is the same person who advocates elimination of the Element 1 test (CW) for U.S. amateur radio service - IOW, a 'dumbing down' of testing requirements for high-frequency radio privileges for U.S. operators...
/.
his ideas, including those about 'open source' are dangerous, and a dangerous pollution and muddling of the concept of free software in the public mind...
i am sick and tired of reading anything about or by Perens here on
When you look at the distribution of wealth (or knowledge, or access, or whatever), you find that since the internet these gaps have grown bigger...
For wealth this is certainly true in the US. I'm not sure that is the case for knowledge in general, or "access" or anything else.
I don't believe you. Please provide support for this assertion. The numbers I've seen put the top 1000 sites as closer to 70% of HTTP and HTTPS traffic, with the rest distributed across many sites.
How's the democracy? How's that "power to the people"?
I'm not sure what you mean by these statements. If 99.999% of all people think eating babies is wrong. Does that mean democracy has failed in some way? I'd say it has failed when it a significant number of people are living in poor conditions or being denied their basic, human rights.
The internet should probably be considered a public utility in the future and as such all speech should be free on it and all people should be able to have a voice. That does not mean there is a problem if most of those voices are ignored out of indifference.
This is what we've been reduced to...New slogan:
Slashdot: News for turds, stuff that splatters
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
I'm certainly heartened to hear that the DRM mandate and broadcast flag have engendered enemies other than just the EFF and FSF -- not that I'm panning either organization in any way, but it's nice to see a more `mainstream' organization bringing the issue out of the technology closet.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
the spectrum licensing is secured by monopoly by the big media. Only big media outlets (in the US, big & medium in the case of cable) have the right to use the spectrum, when actually the spectrum is enough for everybody to use.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
When you look at the distribution of wealth (or knowledge, or access, or whatever), you find that since the internet these gaps have grown bigger, and while the big players may be new, the truth is out of the billions of sites online, the top thousand sites get 99.99% of the traffic. How's the democracy? How's that "power to the people"?
and, then, at the very end, he signs with a link to his web-site where he hawks his own business! If the Internet doesn't work for "the little guy" why do you bother?
Oh, the irony of it all!
So the proper answer to a bad ordinance is to drop the "i" and open up with the ordnance?
This is why those in power boil the frog. In order for them to get what they desire, there must be no flash point, no single act so heinous that the populace says "hey wait a minute!".
The fact is that when the shit hits the fan, you won't be able to fend off a tank with your shotgun. Certainly you can fend off one cop, or fight a dozen to a standoff, but if you're wanted bad enough and your location is known, you won't be on the loose for very long. You may just be sieged until you have to come out or starve, or you may have the authorities go Waco on you. Or you could just be "disappeared" and declared an "enemy combatant".
Did you know David Koresh used to walk to Wal-Mart three or four times a week? If authorities had wanted to arrest him, they could have. Instead they wanted to set a loud example, knowing full well it could go to hell in a handbasket the way it did. The War on Terra is just a logical extension of this existing policy. Both parties are responsible for putting us frogs in the water and heating it up. It's just that one of them lately has been so blatant about it -- it may yet work, or they may get tossed out for the moment. As soon as the furor dies down, it's back to politics as usual, and power grabbing as always.
Of course there is a difference in which groups get scapegoated by those in power, and there is a small handful on both sides who truly believe they are doing what is best for all concerned, but ultimately, money talks and all else walks. We don't have a voice. The bankrupting of the middle class (have you checked debt loads lately?) and of the country itself mean that dissenting voices will be too busy scrounging up enough money to "put food on their children" and not have time to cause problems for government.
Face it, your gun is only going to help you fight off your equally starving neighbor. You won't be putting up any significant resistance to air strikes, commando raids, or even SWAT teams.
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
The other point is people who are interested in politics online aren't just going to search for "politics" ... they are going to put in "Republican" or "Democrat". Right there, you have halved the popularity of politics vs. "Father's day". Or "Enron" or one of the slang words referring to the debacle further divides the search popularity. Politics is so diverse it won't show up as a top ranking "key-word".... its just numbers.
... that's different.
That, and (for example) when I really want to read about politics I generally have my news sources lined up. I don't need to search for a basic key word every day to check up on the GOP. Whereas when I want to check up on the latest microcontroller offerings from COMPANY_X or something I heard from a coworker, or find a gift for mother's day
Must all be authored by "the wealthy"... And a whopping 0% of them are utilizing DRM. The sky already fell and hit Mr. Perens on the head strongly.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Correct. You've just helped define the Long Tail of search. That yellow part of the graph? That's where almost everybody is. That's where the gold is. That's where leveraging diverse information in Web 2.0 apps lets you make powerful stuff.
The article is very poorly reasoned, equating all political speech to copyrighted material.
Typical half-baked blogshit.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Just look at the cable box and apply that concept to the internet to see where a loss of Net Neutrality and DRM would go.
Imagine if today's non-discriminating DSL/Cable modem was replaced with a filtering DRM box, and the providers were allowed to filter by law. Content could be keyed/encrypted and only approved content transmitted. That could be included in customer agreements so the user has no legal recourse or right to complain technically.
Also, simply one comapny boosting revenues by up-sells and filtering would force other companies to immediatly do so as well. Already the telco internet executives envy the cellular market for it's upsells, bandwidth conserving filtering, and constant fee gouging business model. Every cellular business guy I know is always talking about the cellular model being "like the internet, only with fees" and it's specifically becasue they control content and there is no Neutrality regulation. Look at how Verizon hobbled bluetooth on handsets to prevent users from using thier own ringtones, forcing them to buy from Verizon. And they even failed ot disclese that to customers and got sued for it. That's the company we want controlling internet content?
People must be crazy to even consider it.
Filtering and toll booths would be so easy becasue the internet infrastructure is a vital natural monopoly at many points which makes it ripe for abuse if regulations are lacking. The fiber backbone is quasi-monopolistic in many ways as only a few major providers control the vast majority bandwidth supply, which is limited and so each is guarenteed a hunk of the market regardless of how unethical practices may become if deregulated. Also the cost of infrastructure is so great that no new competitors other than the existing companies like ATT, Verizon, etc may participate.
Each would benefit tremendously from up-sells and increased margins on toll-gated content. There is no major telcom advocating Net Neutrality nor are there likely to be one, so that should tell people what the free-market oucome would be sans regulation. Filtered content and DRM enabled boxes.
It's crazy people are even debating Net Neutrality as though we can afford to lose it.
So.... We don't have to worry about our rights because other countries and market forces will do it for us??
Kewl! Let them do the schlep work of defending my rights, I've got pron to view. Can they vote for me too?
I love the free market and outsourcing. Maybe we can outsource national defense next?
In fact, that's the first statement I've read in this whole inane thread that actually gets it. Certainly the parent didn't. To quote the 19th-century statesman Otto Von Bismarck:
"Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made."
See? In political discourse, as in politics itself, folks usually just throw whatever they've got at the fan; and whatever sticks ... well, that's what gets included in the history books.
But it's always been a messy process.
Oh. And for the record: bush is teh gh3y.
The state of commercial FM is pretty poor, but it has little to do with "the wealthy", a phrase that conjures up mustachioed capitalists in top hats. In fact, if more radio stations were owned by genuinely wealthy individuals, they could afford to try something different, instead of slavishly playing formula music.
As usual when we encounter leftist code-speak, there's an ugly truth hidden underneath. In this case, the truth is that radio stations, which are not wealthy but cash-strapped, have to deliver market share. And that the bulk of the population likes bad music and bad Howard Stern imitations.
Hmmm. "The wealthy dominate fast food; that's why we can only get greasy burgers and fries."
In capitalism, most wealth is working hard to generate more wealth; therefore it matters little whether the capital of a radio station came from one millionaire or a thousand pension investments: either way it will probably be used to maximize return, which will create aesthetically unpleasing results.
He has a good point - because DRM can easily be used for much more than controlling whether you can copy a CD or DVD.
Imagine this: At some point in the not too far future you can only watch the programs you have paid for - 'pay per view'. OK, fair enough, one might say, this is a bit like going to the cinema, and the upside is, you don't have to pay for things you don't care to watch. But most people's outlook on life, their political views, their religion and entire culture is overwhelmingly shaped by what they see on tv; and if we in the future can only watch what the tv company allows us to watch, there is a huge danger that most of the population will only be fed the political and religious views of whoever owns the information provider.
We have that situation to some extent already - at least in the US - but people can still pick up independent or even foreign channels and thus have a real chance to not be totally boxed in. But what if you can only watch what you are allowed to watch? In the beginning 'allowed to' would be about having paid for the program, but it wouldn't stay limited to that for very long. And that is what DRM is really about, if you ask me: mindcontrol.
Hah! So, when do you leave for New Hampshire?
I'm aware net neutrality should be on the books, but it currently has a broadcast flag attached to it, which defeats the purpose.
It's only when the market doesn't do it's job that there should be a net neutrality law on the books. Until there's a problem there shouldn't be any laws passed regulating anything. As an ISP subscriber I won't accept my isp of downgrading or reducing the speed of any content because a website/provider won't pay extra for higher speeds to my door. I too pay for access and if the isp will slow down content from curtain providers then they are penalizing me as well and they'll hear about it from me! I'd raise hell and if they didn't stop it then they'd loose me as a customer. At the same tyme I'd be vocal about they're doing and let others know how they operate. Maybe I'd even file a lawsuit against them.
FalconShould there be a Law?
That could be included in customer agreements so the user has no legal recourse or right to complain technically.
If someone signs such an agreement then they get what they deserve. Everyone who signs a contract or service agreement is responsible for knowing what they are signing. If they don't like a clause of the agreement then they can either renegotiate or go somewhere else. Then if there are enough people who refuse to agree then someone else should come in to provide what the people want. That's how a free market works. Of course fat pipes, or broadband, generally is restricted to landlines, phone or cable lines today. However those are monopolies and the local authorities should have the power to regulate them. When wireless broad band is more widely available, mobile is even better, then this shouldn't be as much of a concern as long as competition isn't being restricted.
It's crazy people are even debating Net Neutrality as though we can afford to lose it.
What's crazy is having a law restricting liberty when there is no clear and obvious need for it. While net neutrality sounds good I'd rather wait for there to be a problem before having a law. Prior restraint and all that. Actually instead of more laws on the books, I'd like to see less, to see laws already on the books removed, such as drug laws. And abolish the FCC!
FalconShould there be a Law?
If you don't know how the votes were tallied and that the elected officials were really the ones who won and have more than two parties allowed in each election (for all intents we have a two party exclusive system here in the US) we are going to keep getting these empty suit politicians.
Years ago I was deputised to register people to vote and we were given a list of 47 parties that had or may of had candidates on the ballot. While the Democrats and Republican parties are the main or big ones in the US for all intents and purposes there are a lot more parties than just the two. As for myself I've voted for dems and reps as well as Libertarians, Reform, and maybe one or two Green candidates. With the exception of 2000 I've voted for the Libertarin candidate for president since 1992, when I voted for Ron Paul. The one election I didn't vote for the Libertian candidate was in 2000, then I specifically voted against Bush.
Focus on how we count votes and making voting VERY transparent and verifiable online and may be able to make inroads.
Agreed!!!
FalconShould there be a Law?
Free State Project?
If only it were Vermont instead, I won't need to drive through another state to get to the coast.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Take a look at the fighting Iraq. They aren't accomplishing much with handguns and rifles. It seems that all the "incidents" where any sort of blow was struck against the US relied primarily on explosives, grenades, rpgs, etc. This simply isn't the sort of stuff America's armed populace has.
True but an armed insurrection can gain those arms when the opponent is armed with them. Explosives can be made in small quanitites easily and these as well as small arms can then be used on military targets carrying more. I know this as when I was in high school a friend and I were able to make nitro in the chem lab and when in the army I was one of my unit's eod, explosives ordinance disposal, experts. I was frequently able to setup charges as well as dispose of them, my CO sent me to get training on explosives and other things every few months. I was then expected to show others in my unit how to do it as well.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Also should that actually end up in court infront of a jury, one thing that alot of people dont realize is that the jury can also look at the validity of the law.
All too true, but unfortunately all too many people in the US don't kow about jury rights and nullification. Actually some politicans, prosecuters, and judges try to make sure people on jury either don't know about them or are told they can't use them. Recall the case, Raich v. Ashcroft a few years back in CA? After the state passed the medical marijuana initiative the feds busted a group on drug charges and when the trial started the judge specifically told the jury they couldn't use state law as a basis for an acquittal.
Ask any Jew about what Hitler did just after coming into power.
After Hitler and the NAZIs came to power they tried to get European Jews to leave Europe before any camps were opened. In 1933 the NAZIs signed The Haavara Agreement with Jewish leaders wherein Jews were encouraged to move to Palestine. Because the British didn't want more Jews settling there the NAZIs trained Jews in fighting and gathering intelligence to be used against the British.
FalconShould there be a Law?
There is an even more insidious problem with this picture. To quote Simon & Garfunkel in The Boxer "A man hears wants he wants to hear and disregards the rest". There is a tendency, especially among the hard right to watch, listen and read only what reinforces their already warped
views. What if the "pay per view" model was extended into news programming as well? How many FOX "News" fans would ever choose to pay for ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC much less CSPAN, Link or PBS. Now I realize they don't watch much else anyway, it is pretty obvious. But this would pretty much lock that in by removing the rare opportunity for them to blunder on something besides the rancid propaganda Fox feeds them. Now on the other hand if I could remove my meager contribution to FOX "News" as a revenue stream for Rupert Murdoch by breaking it out of my DTV package, well I would be much happier. I do watch it every now and then when I think my blood pressure may be a bit low. Honestly, I try to get my information from a variety of truly "balanced" and even some disagreeable unbalanced sources, but explicitly paying for Fox "News" would be kinda of like paying for an Ann Coulter book, not likely to happen here.
Matthew
...should be your title.
If you want to do TV or radio broadcasts, you have to spend a LOT of money to get through the FCC. This means that the barrier to entry is so high, that the government might as well just write a receipt for each station that says "Permission to Monopolize" on the top of it.
Government is the problem, NOT the solution!
Fortunately the Net has leveled the playing field a bit.
Libertas in infinitum