Slashdot Mirror
Vista a Threat to Internet Freedom?
BBC columnist Bill Thompson warns readers that new DRM technology, especially that found in Vista, is damaging the freedoms that the internet was based on. "The freedom of expression that was once available to users of the Internet Protocol is being stripped away. Our freedom to play, experiment, share and seek inspiration from the creative works of others is increasingly restricted so that large companies can lock our culture down for their own profit. [...] governments and corporations around the world are making a concerted effort to dismantle the open internet and replace it with a regulated and regulable one that will allow them to impose an 'architecture of control.'"
Every year of my 30 odd years on Earth has seen me given more access to information then the year before. I am not afraid of Bill, I have more friends then he does.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
How long before some lobbyist convinces the government to make it mandatory to use an *AA approved protocol/operating system which can be used to ensure that their IP 'rights' aren't being violated?? In which case, MS (or, one or two other *AA licensees) will become the gatekeeper(s) of all data on the internet?
When they outlaw unencumbered internet protocols and operating systems, only criminals will be running them.
Doffs tinfoil hat
While I don't think that the above is (imminently) likely, it certainly seems to be the direction regulation is moving to. If you can't convince the *AAs/government/terrorist police that you're above board, your activities are to be shut down until such time ad you can prove that you conform to their expectations.
And, since the *AA's seem to be able to push through any law they can afford (which then gets pushed down the throats of the rest of the world), I'm afraid the paranoid scenario seems more and more probable.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
...or why I should care?
All I see in this article is an opportunistic activist using the launch of Vista to reiterate a general disdain for corporate hegemony with a bunch of vague platitudes and appeals to emotion.
Can I download DRM-free movies/music from bittorrent with Vista? Yes.
Can I rip and burn DVDs with Vista? Yes.
Can I buy a computer without Vista and install Linux on my own? Yes.
Does Vista prevent me from visiting Internet sites devoted to unpopular, taboo or anti-corporate sub-culture? No.
Does Vista curtail by ability to create art or publish my viewpoint for the entire world to see? No.
So, what's really behind this diatribe?
I know I am going against the groupthink here and will be modded accordingly, but how are you "giving" the culture to the company that created a movie/song/whatever?
For the most part the studios and artists that create works do not retain the copyright for those works because it is the distribution channels that have been taken over by monopolists and cartels. To equate the person who owns the copyright with the creator of a work is misguided. Do you know how much an average musician makes from the copyright on their songs? Less than nothing. In exchange for making songs and transferring the copyright to a label, most musicians sign a contract that puts them in debt. It is the only way to get their music widely distributed. Most of them make money selling trademarked t-shirts, and doing live performances. If copyright disappeared tomorrow most musicians would probably make more money.
If you want to, you create the culture and give it away.
Yeah, and have basically no chance of reaching the mainstream audience.
The world does not exist to entertain you, I know that is hard to swallow, but it is true. If you don't like the MPAA or RIAA then go outside to do something, read one of the huge number of public domain books, actually talk to other human beings instead of being glued to the screen cursing the same MPAA who finances the movies you like.
Books are an interesting example. Do you know how many books make a profit after the first 3 years? Less than 1%. If my grandmother wrote a book 40 years ago and died 20 years ago, the chances are the copyright for that book would be owned by a publishing house who would intentionally bury it, so that the work could not be freely printed and it did not compete with current offerings. The vast majority of books, TV shows, and songs are intentionally being held by companies who do not offer them for sale, effectively erasing them from public. You mention public domain books, but most books written since the 70s will likely never, ever enter the public domain and of those that do, most will be DRM'd in some way so no usable copy may ever exist.
Some of those are probably the greatest works of literature of those decades, but were too progressive for their time and were tossed in a bin. What is copyright and why does it exist? My natural human right to free speech means that if you sing a song and I hear it, I have the right to sing that song too. Copyright is an artificial restriction on that right, designed to motivate the creation and archival of more works. If the works are no longer archived and no one can see or read them and they are not for sale so no additional revenue is motivating the author's to create, why are works still copyrighted? What is the justification for restricting my free speech?
Anyone who takes the time to see how many and what artistic works are vanishing, the last copies rotting away, becomes concerned about the issue. Our artistic heritage is being buried for about 1% increase in profit. We need reform and that reform should take DRM into account.
One thing, if you don't read the entire post please don't comment on it. This is a long process but the biggest problem is people are acting like idiots about all this stuff and the companies are feeling threatened rather then realizing their actions are causing them problems.
First things you don't need a vista, music, movies, or anything else of that sort. This is important to understand before I proceed with this post because people have to understand music, movies, and the rest are elective choices, not rights that they are entitled to.
Second piracy is NOT an answer. I don't care how much you feel you're entitled to a movie or music. Stealing it instead of supporting that industry is theft, not "your right". I don't care what the RIAA or MPAA did to you, your mother, some random woman, or your dog. They own the rights to that music or movies. If you think that they shouldn't, inform your favorite singer, actor, director about alternatives. Don't support them, or what ever, but don't give them a reason to feel morally entitled to your money.
When you pirate anything you basically give the opposition a right to send you to jail, you have stolen the profits from them. You may not have stolen the music (that's up to you to decide) but they have less money than if you bought that copy outright. If you really wouldn't have bought the music, then don't download it. Why do we have DRM and lawsuits? Because people pirate movies and music and the RIAA feels a need to control this.
The exception to this rule is if there isn't a system in place where you can get the movies or music in your area then there is the one and pretty much only exception to this rule. There's not much you can do if you want to hear a soundtrack to a foreign film, but again realize that if X company buys the rights to the soundtrack you should expect to buy it at a reasonable price. (what ever the current rate is for cds. Remember the idea here is not to screw the company, the idea is to get them to realize that their tactics are wrong).
Third, start boycotting. This is the most important thing, don't steal it, don't borrow it and don't return it. Don't listen to that new Britney Spears/Enimem/Weird al cd unless you have bought it through a process that you agree with. Find a way to get music you like with out DRM, buy it that way. But at the same time if you are buying music don't start giving music away to all your friends. If they come over feel free to play it for them or loan them the disc but don't rip a copy for them, don't go and post it on bittorrent. That just shows you're helping people steal from the company and doesn't correctly support the process.
The bottom line is stop stealing these properties, and stop supporting them. That's the ONLY way you're going to stop DRM and stop the tactics of the groups. Find better groups and bands or alternative software if you're so pissed about it. But stealing them and bitching about DRM loses it's effectiveness once you have stolen the media because they actually do have to protect their media or at least find a way that people have a way to control the rights to their own property. Remember, the RIAA might steal from the artist but downloading the music also means the artist isn't getting any money. (I don't care if the artist only gets 25 cents from the RIAA, downloading that music means that 25 cents isn't being given.)