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."

Comments

Yeah maybe,

[2.7182]

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.

Re:Yeah maybe,

[Tackhead]

> 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.

"Real Americans don't use backups, they just email a disk image to their grandmothers and let NSA handle the archiving!"
- with apologies to Linus

internet politics

[MrSquirrel]

"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.

Re:internet politics

[mooingyak]

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.

I'd say it's more like sifting through poop: You've got to dig through tons of crap before you can find a tasty peanut.

Why Net Neurtality legislation is so important

[elrous0]

This subject really applies more to "Net Neutrality" than DRM. When big media controls the pipes, they effectively control the internet, unfortunately. We should stop that now, before it's too late and the Internet becomes every bit as locked-down as the airwaves and big media outlets.

-Eric

Re:Why Net Neurtality legislation is so important

[kfg]

Encrypting a DVD to prevent illegal copying is good.

Un, un! Lbh pna'g pbcl guvf.

KFG

Re:Why Net Neurtality legislation is so important

[Zeio]

Until we have public key voting and the ability to verify that the votes we cast were counted (verification of the vote should be able to be done online or at kiosks at City Halls, Post Offices and Police Stations) we don't even have a democratic constitutional republic.

DRM, DMCA, the Patriot Act are making aggressive progress against the rights of "The People," where there seems to be a basic assumption of guilt.

Back to the problem. 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.

Both the GOP and the Dems are screwing the public so bad with illegal junk un-constitutional legislation it hurts to watch.

Focus on how we count votes and making voting VERY transparent and verifiable online and may be able to make inroads.

Re:Why Net Neurtality legislation is so important

[kfg]

Though I was referring to the copying of copyrighted material and distrobution by a party other than the original distributor for profit.

So? Point being that encryption doesn't do anything to prevent this. Nothing.

And the customers for the pirated DVDs typically already own licensed DVD players so there is no impediment to playback.

It's key licensing fee protection, not copy protection. The list of original ten founding members of the DVD Consortium (now the DVD Forum, which sounds ever so much less like a cabal) makes interesting reading:

http://www.dvdforum.org/about-mission.htm

KFG

That's true, but...

[malraid]

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.

Re:That's true, but...

[truthsearch]

I disagree. A large portion of the millions of new blogs have been created to rant. Check the search terms and popular tags on technorati. There's a lot of political discussion going on. Google isn't the only gateway to information. Millions of people are reading political blog posts in their RSS readers every day.

Re:That's true, but...

[malraid]

Sure there are lots and lots blogs and other political discussion going on. You and I and a lot of people are doing it in this particular story. But that's a small minority, and sadly it shows on election day.

Re:That's true, but...

[PB_TPU_40]

Actually in my book, its as long as I have my firearms. The government can claim to do this that and the other thing, however with an armed populace, the goverment must still tread softly. You know what kicked off the American Revolution? The British going after an armory. Also we have a republic, not a democracy, we elect representatives to vote for us. The problem is, most representatives now days no longer care about their voters, instead the care about those willing to shell out money into their pockets. At this point as well, voting in the US doesn't do much good. If the voters vote something down, whoever's affected complains till they get their way. Case in point, Seattle's Safeco Field. Voted down twice by the voters of Washington state, yet we're paying for it anyway. Same thing for the recent governers race. She lost, and had complained till she won, immeadiately after she hiked our gas prices by 10 cents, *when it was already 2.80 a gallon*. And a better example of how messed up that was, if you look at it county by county, she only won maybe 3, however King is so big, that they can tell the rest of the state what to do. Including telling farmers they cant shoot varmits, or telling farmers how to run their farm, costing farmers money and livestock. That ordinace was repealed after a riot almost insued in downtown Seattle.

Most people dont search google for political items anyway, they watch CNN, CSPAN, FOX News, etc. I would much rater watch a debate, than read a transcript. Its the difference between reading something, and hearing the tone in their voice.

I do care about all the bull that they're doing, however complaining to your REP doesn't get anything done any more. I've tried, more people care than what you think, but also alot of those that don't care, used to but they see the system being so corrupt, they look at it as a waste of time.

On that note, I can do and say what I want, becase if they want to come and arrest me over bull, I wont just go quietly, I'll shoot back.

Re:That's true, but...

[iminplaya]

On that note, I can do and say what I want, becase if they want to come and arrest me over bull, I wont just go quietly, I'll shoot back.

And you will die. It's all good if you can accept that. That Lady Smith (:-)) of yours might slow them down for about five seconds, max. The stock pile at the Branch Davidians didn't do them much good in the end, did it? If you want to win against the government, you'd better have bigger nukes that they have.

Re:That's true, but...

[Kadin2048]

I think your example of Iraq is flawed in a number of ways. The question there is not `why didn't gun ownership topple his regime?' But `why wasn't his regime toppled, despite a populace that was relatively well-armed?'

I think the answer there is because quite a few people didn't hate his government as much as we'd like to think they did. Maybe they weren't real fond of it, but generally they didn't hate it enough to take to the streets and start shooting. People will deal with quite a lot of repression for their government, if it keeps the lights on most of the time and the water flowing and the gasoline cheap. Saddam did that, and outside of the Kurds I'm not sure if the general population was ever as rebellious as we here in the U.S. like to think they were.

Second, although I'm as big a proponent of gun ownership as anyone, the value of a single person with a gun is limited. Several people with guns is better, but still probably ineffectual in the long run. But a few thousand people with guns, acting in concert, is an army. So really, in order to make much use of your 2nd Amendment rights, you have to be able to exercise your 1st. It's the ability of people to talk and organize that makes them dangerous, particularly when they're armed.

Conversely, you can keep even an armed populace docile, if you can squash dissent early before it has a chance to grow, and you can keep people from talking about what's bothering them, and realizing that there are other people who feel the same way they do. I suspect Saddam's government operated this way quite effectively. Even if you have a gun, you're a lot less likely to do something by yourself than you are if you're standing with other people who share what you believe.

I very much doubt that the drafters of the Constitution ever thought that any one particular right would act as a check against tyranny by itself; rather, it's a combination of our rights: that of the press, of speech, of assembly, to bear arms, to not have soldiers in our homes, which together make it more difficult for a government to oppress the populace. Without any one of those, our position would be substantially weakened versus an oppressive regime; conversely none of those alone would be able to protect us.

Re:That's true, but...

[PB_TPU_40]

I wouldn't wait for them to show up at my house. The best defense is a good offense. Most dont realize this but you can immeadiately find out any warrants that have been issued for you. All you do is call 911 and tell them it is not an emergecny and request a list of any warrants issued in your name. Logistically this all is a pain in the ass. But have you noticed that minor things, and most of the BS laws, they do NOT show up at your house for, there's a solid reason for that, it is considerably more effort, time and money. 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. If it is completely assanine they can vote to acquit. Such as trying to nail you for copyright infringment for playing a CD in your computer because it gets copied into memory.

Also in refrence to Iraq comment. Please also note how insurgants are so effective against the American military. Most of the reason that the armed people in Iraq didn't do anything about Saddam is many of them were on his side. Ask any Jew about what Hitler did just after coming into power. Those who were a threat to him were disarmed while leaving those who were supportive armed. Also you state that most things aren't done with firarms. Yes alot of what we see on TV is exposives, RPGS, etc, however firefights are not uncommon. I have three friends there currently, I would be if it wasn't for a medical disqualifier, two of my friends were in firefights.

Now I'm going to avoid running completely offtopic, however I will say this, everyone looks at it as if we would fight the military. The military would actually end up divided, just like the Civil War. Reason being, there are those that truly pay attention to the oath to defend the constitution and American Citizens. There is nothing actually saying to defend the politicans or the current institution used for governemnt.

Personally I feel that the primary role of firearms are self defense, however they do serve others as well. To discount them thinking times have changed is not right. Another example is the revolution, the British had a Navy, Artillery, Cavelry, the best army in the world. We were a bunch of farmers with rifles and pitch forks. The reason we won, was because of determination, creativity, and logistics. Fighting a war far from home rarely works.

I would suggest studing American military history intensively, especially everything before the Civil War.

Not True

[Jason Mark]

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

Re:Not True

[doconnor]

How many of those top thousand sites consist of user created content, like groups.yahoo.com and www.blogger.com

Re:Not True

[zidohl]

The point is that you should be able to access this information.. If you do not want to read what the "little guy" has to say, you're simply not interested, that's your buissness and you shouldn't be forced to. As long as the information is out there and easily accessed you have a choice to read it, but if the hardware you buy will stop you from accessing this information even if you want to it becomes a freedom of speech problem.

Re:Not True

[EonBlueTooL]

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).

Yeah but there is a fair playing ground. If people want to see it then they can. You don't think myspace was put up and it just got popular. People found it interesting people wanted to go to that site. They wanted to put up their page on the internet.(Sorry for using mysapce but its a good exmaple) People are controlling themselves, no one is being told you can only go to x sites.

Anyone can make a site, anyone can put what they want on that site (I think we can all agree there are limits to everything) Any site can get popular. When anyone can succeed, and everyone has their own power that is democracy.

Where do you think google, yahoo, craigslist, microsoft, slashdot, digg, apple and dell started from. If I'm not mistaken a couple of those started in a garage. Remember that the american paradigm of opportunity is not guarunteed success, but the chance to be succesful with hard work.

Re:Not True

[Chode2235]

I agree, if you look at the income gap it has defineatly increased with the introduction of computers to businesses and individuals. Esentially there is another tool for the privlidged to use to further exploit the 'have nots'. Computers increased efficiency, increased scale and have been used to leverage inequalities between groups for insane amounts of profit. Traditional cultural elites have been able to use technology to retain and futher entrench their control.

Although technology has the potential to 'level the playing field', I think we would be kidding ourselves if we think that that has been the case with the proliferation of computers and IT. I mean, Walmart is possible because of IT and supply chain management not possible without computers.

I think 'geeks' and those who create these technologies for a living need to seriously take a look at the role that their creations are having on the world. Technology itself is ethically neutral, but the reasons and motivations behind its creation seldom are and I think 'geeks' do have an obligation to examine the ethical and moral effects of their work and creations.

Monopoly

[hummassa]

He, he:

Because radio and television broadcasting are expensive with limited frequencies available, the wealthy have dominated broadcasting.

Make that "because the wealthy have assured monopoly in the broadcasting frequencies, others could not use it". Because I don't know if you turned the dial on your radio lately, but of the 90+ possible FM radio stations, only 20+ are occupied in my city. Broadcasting equipment capable of covering short (< 40km) distance is relatively cheap (< US$ 1000 [in today's currency]) since the 1970's.

Ah, and Bruce, sorry for being a grammar nazi, but please: Effects =/= Affects.

Re:Monopoly

[Homology]

Make that "because the wealthy have assured monopoly in the broadcasting frequencies, others could not use it". Because I don't know if you turned the dial on your radio lately, but of the 90+ possible FM radio stations, only 20+ are occupied in my city.

What Pereens is talking about is that so much of the so-called "mainstream" media is owned by a few, and it is a controlling factor in reporting. So while there seems to be much choice, in reality, there is very little. The "mainstream" media serves the interests of the powerful and the rich. Look at who owns who.

The coverage of the Iraq war should give you some insights (hint: what is not widely reported).

Re:Monopoly

[MrSquirrel]

Yes, the equipment is cheap... but the broadcasting license http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_License will get you. You could set up a pirate radio station, but it's not extremely difficult to track those down. Also, how are you going to get people to listen when they can hear that one song for the fifth time in the hour?

Uh...

[everphilski]

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.

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 ... 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.

I trademark the term

[Fr05t]

... "DRMocrazy"

Next Step: PROFIT!

DRM Thoughts

[Alex P Keaton in da]

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....

Orwellian?

[HumanisticJones]

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?

Mistake in article?

[mypalmike]

"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).

exactly...

[plasmacutter]

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.

Re:exactly...

[Kadin2048]

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.

This is true, but only if people can play back data that's been encoded into one of these free formats.

I don't think it's very hard to imagine a future where the most common playback device would only play music recorded in a proprietary format: as much as I like the iPod, it's pretty close. It plays MP3 (patent encumbered, although everyone just seems to ignore that), AAC (semi-proprietary, although documented, probably patent encumbered), and Apple Lossless (proprietary, not sure if it's open or not).

Right now we don't see this as much of a problem -- after all, anyone with iTunes can encode to any of these formats. So if I wanted to make a radio show and distribute it, easy enough. But that doesn't have to be the case: suppose the next-generation of CDs weren't easily rippable, or they just came pre-encoded in one of the proprietary formats. Then there would be no need for the average consumer to have an encoder. It would be like MPEG-2 was a few years ago: you could buy a lot of pre-encoded content, but making your own was a real bitch.

Suppose also that computers by default become incapable of running code that hasn't been signed by an approval authority. Even if somebody wrote a free encoded for the non-free formats (which would probably be illegal to import and use), most people probably wouldn't be able to run it. Similarly with decoders for the free formats.

The fact that formats like Ogg Vorbis or Xiph exist won't matter if 80% of the population doesn't have an easy way of listening to them. Alternatives like that will always exist for geeks and people interested in technology, but they're pretty far from mainstream. The majority of the population lives at the whims of whatever's available on the the mass market, and given that they're allowed to vote, it's worth keeping an eye on the situation there, even if you and I and all the other people reading this on Slashdot won't be directly impacted.

Re:exactly...

[kozumik]

DRM makes filtering much easier though. If Net Neutrality is lost and DRM is implemented, that's really the perfect storm scenario. Then Telcos are given the right to filter at thier discretion and the tools to do so. For example they could block or encrypt content (downloads/streams/VOIP/etc) and require propriatary players. It'll become a standard part of service contracts that the provider can filter content and the customer has no legal recourse. They'd justify it as blocking piracy or child porn or some other absurd law and order excuse. For example, many people could sign up for cheap interent service that requires them to run DRM mail clients (to prevent SPAM supposedly) or even DRM hardware with spyware preventing any unsigned, unapproved content from working. In order for the data to even be transmitted it could require encryption and DRM keys, also forcing the reciever to be DRM'd and using the propriatary apps and formats. It wouldn't happen overnight, that would cause a backlash from the public. But if various Telcos and big media associations slowly ratchet up the DRM and filtering/censorship, people will accept it. People better wise up now before this ugliness gains too much momentum to be stopped. The scariest thing of all is that the general public is clueless on tech matters and many geeks are politcally apathetic. Bad combination.

Re:exactly...

[Kadin2048]

send your grandma some oggs today.

I would, but the upstream bandwidth of my Ouiji board is capped too low.

always ask for a refund

[alfs boner]

I have never bought anything that contained DRM, but if I did accidentally buy something, I would simply demand a refund.

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.

Re:always ask for a refund

[dick pubes]

Nonsense.

Whatever conditions appear when you play the disc are not part of your agreement to buy the disc. You bougth one copy of the DVD, you own it. No question about it.

It's still true that you cannot do everything you migth like with it. But that's because of copyright-law, and not because of any legal-sounding bullshit on the disc itself.

Copyright-law prevents you from, among other things performing the work in public and distributing copies of the work.

Parallels with the advent of print

[Quirk]

I ran a quick search and came up with the following site that attempts to study the parallels between the development of the printing press and the internet. History is replete with book burnings and the suppression of books by the power elite. The Vatican Library was thought to hold untold supressed works of great import. The questions arises as to whether we have learned from the past and have wrought a sturdy enough framework of legislation and findings in law to offer the users of the internet the opportunity for free expression.

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"

Freedom of Speech trumps DRM

[scovetta]

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.

Re:Freedom of Speech trumps DRM

[aaribaud]

I guess the idea is that once DRM is generalized, it is a trivial matter to switch from a "non-DRMed content is allowed by default" to a "only DRMed content is allowed" stance, and then, to be able to produce content that anyone can actually see, any individual would depend on DRM providers. But surely no DRM "key holder" would even only think of deciding which content deserves being DRMed and which content should be banned, err, bared, from being viewed, or even known of.

Re:Freedom of Speech trumps DRM

[AK Marc]

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)?

Simple. When "trusted computing" is out there, then everything must be signed to run. If you want to speak freely, you must sign it. That gets rid of anonymity. Don't think about how DRM now would be a problem, think about when Trusted Computing requires signed DRM on everything. For our own good, of course.

Re:Freedom of Speech trumps DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years ago, then-Intel-VP Leslie Vadasz testified before Congress about DRM. One of the things he said was that Intel had been approached by people in the content community who wanted to be able to restrict devices so that you could not forward any content -- including home video -- without their approval.

We have rejected some of the more onerous controls that have been advanced by the content community, such as:

Playback controls, which could require devices to inspect all digital content and prevent playback of any content which is not approved by Hollywood.

So: "Hollywood, may I have approval to forward a copy of my home videos of my newborn to my mother?" And they could say "No" or charge a fee for their permission!!! That was too much even for DRM arms supplier Intel to stomach.

The moral of the tale? Keep in mind that the people who asked for this sort of control over your life and your works are still around -- and probably still eager to gain this sort of unwarranted power.

Reference: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/022802vasdasz. pdf

Re:Freedom of Speech trumps DRM

[mrchaotica]

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.

DRM isn't only capable of preventing you from copying or distributing the document, it's also capable of preventing you from reading it too. This is what has the worst implications for Free Speech.

Have you ever read 1984? If you have, then you should recall that the Ministry of Truth spent quite a lot of time and effort revising history every time policy changes. Now, imagine how easy it would be if all their documents used DRM: they could just revoke the keys for the old version, and issue a new "corrected" one.

Just imagine: that leaked corporate email that proves corruption? Unreadable! Those White House recordings that provide damning evidence of some plot? Gone! That electronic map image showing that we've "always" been at war with Afghani... whoops, sorry, it shows Iraq now!

And don't think this is just fiction, by the way -- this is real, and it exists now. Research "Remote Attestation," which is part of Treacherous Computing, for more info.

Private networks will arise...

[deficite]

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.

This issue is orthogonal to DRM

[WalterGR]

A number of "Internet radio" and "streaming TV" devices and programs have become available today. Most of the products sold for this purpose only receive stations that have been enabled through the gateway site of product's manufacturer...

Imagine the problem for democracy if, when that day dawns, the manufacturers of our access devices are a few companies that have attained a market lock on Internet broadcasting, thus determining what political viewpoints the electorate can receive.

This issue is orthogonal to DRM. The problem is restricting what data sources these devices can listen to.

Simple Truth

[boyfaceddog]

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.

The Future Is Locked

[eieken]

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.

Tiered Internet isn't about Bandwidth

[spun]

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.

It's a Mandate for Spammers

[giafly]

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.

Be careful what you wish for ... You can't allow all political messages without also allowing spam and offensive content.

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.

DRM and Open Platform are separate issues

[cait56]

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.

Re:Will anyone admit that DRM isn't bad?

[umrain]

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.

DRM IS widescale IP "theft". An important part of copyright is that content expires into the public domain. DRM uses a technical loophole to gain the benefits of copyright with none of the responsibilities. In preventing protections from expiring, DRM essentially "steals" content from the public domain.

This is far more akin to the legal definition of theft than unauthorized copying has ever been.

A trustworthy expiration mechanism would go a long way towards legitimizing DRM systems, yet this is seemingly never implemented.

Re:More DRM FUD

[Aire Libre]

I respectfully disagree with your perception that this has nothing to do with DRM. Take Bruce's article, posted by Technocrat.net, for example. It got slashdotted, and we were all able to click on a link to see it. But suppose Technocrat.net had wrapped it in DRM, and the click took us to a "pay 25 cents to view it"? Or worse, we got a message saying "sorry, this article is available only to AOL customers"? Moreover, while Bruce, RMS and others may want to have their speech unwrapped, the wealthy tend to have access to additional "exclusive" speech because they can pay to finance a business model built on artificial scarcity. For example, a service that provides excellent intelligence reports on legislative initiatives in Congress, available only to those who can pay a lot -- having calculated that they can make more money charging a lot to a few than charging little to many. The very fact that others are excluded from the information adds value for those who wish to pay for it. Plus, the artificial scarcity often has nothing to do with copyrights and such. Disney, for example, has experimented with DRM designed to prevent lower income people least likely to pay full price for new DVDs from being able to watch them used or rented. Why? To eliminate competition from rental, re-sales and gift markets. Bruce is right. This is serious stuff.

Bad ordinance

[Mal-2]

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