Berners-Lee Speaks Out Against DRM, Advocates Net Neutrality

narramissic writes "Speaking before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Tim Berners-Lee advocated for net neutrality, saying that the Web deserves 'special treatment' as a communications medium to protect its nondiscriminatory approach to content. Berners-Lee's more controversial statements came on the topic of DRM, in which he suggested that instead of DRM, copyright holders should provide information on how to legally use online material, allowing users the opportunity 'to do the right thing.' This led to an odd exchange with Representative Mary Bono who compared Berner-Lee's suggestion to 'having a speed limit but not enforcing the speed limit.'"

Comments

Why can't

[cayenne8]

...Mary Bono do some snow skiing...and do us ALL a favor?

Re:Why can't

[jcr]

I agree. It's bad enough when a show-biz bubblehead gets elected, but when his widow gets to inherit his job because people feel sorry for her, it just makes me want to hurl.

-jcr

Re:Why can't

[ePhil_One]

Cher is a congresswoman now?

Re:Why can't

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking the same thing. Why can't there be a tree for her, too?

Re:Why can't

[Anonymous Coward]

What if, just saying, in an attempt to find out more about DRM and what the masses think, Mary Bono visits Slashdot (on a recommendation from some source). Naturally she'll find this thread. And the very first thing she'll see in response to the post is essential "Die Mary Bono. Die like your husband died."

That's so classy Slashdotters. Now I see why this is THE place to go for great news, great commentary and stuff that matters!

Re:Why can't

[Yvanhoe]

Just hurl then. That's what we call a "political voice" nowadays.

Re:Why can't

[Bemopolis]

Which is why Slashdot needs to have DRM.

Re:Why can't

[senatorpjt]

Hey, it's not our fault that she deserves to die.

Re:Why can't

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, Cher would be a congressman.

Re:Why can't

[Alsee]

It's bad enough when a show-biz bubblehead gets elected, but when his widow gets to inherit his job because people feel sorry for her, it just makes me want to hurl.

As nauseating as that may be, isn't that less nauseating than the general population of "legitimate" legislators making the same comments and same arguments and voting exactly the same way... other legislators who don't get quoted on it in the mainstream media simply because they aren't the show-biz bubblehead widow with a special and obvious tie to the issue?

-

Flawed analogy

[mgkimsal2]

DRM would be more like having speed limits but having car manufacturers artificially prevent the cars from going over 65mph.

Re:Flawed analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

which exists now, btw. some cars are "regulated" to a lower top speed than what they are technically capable of.

Re:Flawed analogy

[wonkavader]

"having car manufacturers artificially prevent the cars from going over 65mph"...

Using a rate limiter velcroed to the dashboard.

Which obscured the driver's vision.

And stopped the car completely when it turned onto non-toll roads.

Re:Flawed analogy

[symes]

'having a speed limit but not enforcing the speed limit.'"

Bono's just plain daft. The faster you drive the more likely you will inflict serious harm. The more drm-less mp3s you download the more likely you are to bore people senseless talking about your bulging mp3 collection.

Re:Flawed analogy

[dgatwood]

Not quite. A theoretical open DRM that never prevented you from doing things that were legal would be like what you describe. His reply should have been something like this: "DRM in any practical sense assumes that ALL copying is illegal, regardless. It is the practical equivalent of having a limiter set at 15 MPH because anywhere you drive, 15 MPH will be within the speed limit. This prevents a lot of legal use as well, though, and I'd imagine that 15 MPH limiter will go over really well on the beltway." That's a reference that they'd all understand....

Re:Flawed analogy

[PenGun]

Motorcycles are usually electronically limited to 300 kph. It's an effete Euro thing .....

Re:Flawed analogy

[mmurphy000]

Wish I had points to mod you up. Instead, I'll just extend your edition of the analogy, as it'd be like...

• ...if major car manufacturers had lobbied Congress to create the Driving Millennium Conformance Act (DMCA), which made it illegal for people to modify their limiters to actually drive within the speed limit but higher than the limiter-imposed 15 MPH.
• ...if major car manufacturers were lobbying Congress actively to require 15 MPH limiters on all cars regardless of manufacturer (let alone actual speed limits).
• ...if Motor Car Association of America (MCAA) were suing people who didn't own cars for driving over the speed limit.

Re:Flawed analogy

[squidfood]

That's a reference that they'd all understand....

"Moreover, Congress LIKES voluntary compliance on things like pollution standards... as long as it's for corporations. Why the double-standard?" They'd understand that argument, though they wouldn't like it.

Re:Flawed analogy

[maxume]

Of course, rather than bitching about it people would just not buy the stupid cars.

DRM is bad as law and easily ignored as customer hostility.

Re:Flawed analogy

[ender-]

Motorcycles are usually electronically limited to 300 kph. It's an effete Euro thing .....

Except that is not a law [at least in the US]. It's the manufacturers who got together and agreed to do this because they were afraid laws would be passed, perhaps even more restrictive than their voluntary limit.

Re:Flawed analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to own a car to drive one over the speed limit.

Re:Flawed analogy

[darkonc]

I'd say that DRM is more like having a limiter on your car that presumes that:

1. It knows what the speed limit is, and:
2. it is illegal to go either over the speed limit or more than 15MPH below the speed limit.

In other words:

• once you hit a highway with a speed limit of 65MPH, you would be forced to go between 50MPH and 65MPH. If traffic forced you to go below 50MPH, your only option would be to come to a complete and immediate stop.
• Note that in the city (where speeds near 30MPH are more common), this will mean that you will be allowed to go betwwen 15MPH and 30MPH.
• If weather, road conditions and/or visibility problems would otherwise require that you drive below the normal, stated speed, it would still prevent you from 'breaking the law' (read: drive at a safe speed).
• Once you chose the 0MPH option out of the 50/0 option, it would immediately slam on the brakes and bring you within the law (i.e. stopped) as quickly as possible. (If you are towing a trailer, it had better have good brakes or you're gonna be fishtailing all over the road ... the RIAA's solution to this will probably be to ban all trailers [[ which will cause serious problems for the trucking industry]]).
• When you decide to resume a "legal" speed, the governor will floor the gas, and attempt to (once again) bring you in compliance with (it's interpretation of) the law. If you do not achieve 50MPH within 15 seconds (e.g. towing a heavy load up a hill), it will then slam on the brakes again.

Some results:

• Have you ever heard of stop/go traffic.... well, b-b-b-baby, y-y-y-you just ain't seen n-n-n-n-nothin' yet!
• although technically legal, towing trailers will disappear because of safety concerns.
• monster bumpers will become the norm.
• Tire manufacturer stocks will go through the roof.
• Body repair shops will experience massive market growth.
• parallel parking (especially) will require zen-like concentration
• The art of 'cruising' will disappear.
• sub-compact cars will disappear (into the pavement).
• The RIAA (Road Improvement Association of America) will lament the sudden downturn in national driving skills.
• Insurance rates (and deductibles) will skyrocket.
• etc., etc., etc.

Re:Flawed analogy

[mgiuca]

Of course, being velcro, it's rather easy to peel off, and everyone knows how to do it. But it's against the law, and if the cops catch you driving with your rate limiter removed, you're screwed.

(Though they are now offering "pre-litigation" settlement options).

Re:Flawed analogy

[jez9999]

My baby girl has her own blog! [fearthepenguin.net]

I was really looking forward to reading it, but it's just a set of empty directories. :-(

Re:Flawed analogy

[Alsee]

Of course, being velcro, it's rather easy to peel off, and everyone knows how to do it. But it's against the law, and if the cops catch you driving with your rate limiter removed, you're screwed.

Actually it is perfectly legal to drive with the limiter removed. The law makes it criminal to reach out and remove it... even if you keep the car in your garage or drive it in your back yard. If someone else reached out and pulled the rate limiter off when you weren't looking, you're legally A-OK driving the car on the public highways with the rate limiter removed.

And by the way, the same law also makes it criminal to "traffic" in any piece of paper with instructions saying how to reach out and pull it.

-

Speed limits

[Darthnice]

There is a speed limit. I obey the speed limit. The police enforce the speed limit. They don't install a speed limiter in my car that keeps me from driving faster than the posted limit.

Re:Speed limits

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a speed limit. I obey the speed limit. The police enforce the speed limit. They don't install a speed limiter in my car that keeps me from driving faster than the posted limit.

That's because there are plenty of local municipalities that depend on the funds created by speed traps and their enforcement of them. I'm not quite sure how the judges that preside over those cases can claim impartiality when a portion of their wages come directly from those violations.

Re:Speed limits

[pinkstuff]

Not yet anyway... pays not to give them such ideas! :)

Re:Speed limits

[ottffssent]

In particular, there is a speed limiter in your car, in all liklihood. It's probably set at somewhere between 100 and 140 mph. So it's not even an issue with added expense, etc. A simple software tweak would keep you from going faster than 75 (the fastest posted speed limit I know of in the US, though parts of Montana or somesuch may be faster).

Speed limits aren't enforced, with rare exceptions (speed traps). In general, only egregious violations (== unsafe driving) are pursued. Applying this model to copyright would result in the regime that existed prior to all the hooha about DRM: large duplicating rings are busted, but the little guy gets ignored.

Re:Speed limits

[Petrushka]

Indeed. And -- just to make it even more explicit -- copyright law enforces copyright. Bono is nuts.

Re:Speed Limits

[oddaddresstrap]

regardless of the speed limit, almost all motorists will drive roughly the same speed on the same road

Don't know if it's still the case, but this used to be more or less the actual definition of the speed limit in California. The authorities could put up whatever signs they wanted, but you could get out of a ticket if you could show that, if cops weren't around, traffic moved at the same speed you were ticketed for. You had to pay a traffic engineering company to do a study or something like that.

Re:Speed Limits

[shofutex]

I'm sure it has less to do with the drivers than the idiot pedestrians. Driving around Blacksburg is like playing Frogger...

Re:Speed limits

[caluml]

I obey the speed limit.

What if you disagree with the speed limit for a certain part of road? What if your local authorities keep lowering the limits?

Re:Speed limits

[vux984]

In particular, there is a speed limiter in your car, in all liklihood. It's probably set at somewhere between 100 and 140 mph.

Do you have a source for that?

In all the cars I've ever owned, from Acura Integra's to VW Golfs to Porsche 911s I have never encountered a 'speed limiter'.

Several of the cars did have 'rev limiters' which prevented the engine from going too far past the red line. But those are there to prevent over revving in 1st/2nd, not to limit speed in 5th or 6th. Most cars can't even reach their red line in top gear, so the rev limiters aren't really an 'artificial' limit.

Re:Speed limits

[Moofie]

Mercedes and BMW both have electronic limiters that restrict most of their cars to 155mph.

Re:Speed limits

[gpw213]

I used to have an '87 Chevy that had a speed limiter that kicked in right around 115 mph. The engine was running fine, and right at that magic threshold it started sputtering and the speed fell off a bit, and suddenly it was fine again. And no, it was nowhere near redline.

Currently I have an Eagle Talon, which reportedly has a limiter at 145, but I have never put that to the test! If I hadn't read about it, I would have never known.

The justification I remember reading for these speed limiters was that it prevented the car from going faster than the tires were rated for. I don't know if that is really true, though.

Re:Speed Limits

[PhotoGuy]

Research has shown that regardless of the speed limit, almost all motorists will drive roughly the same speed on the same road, indicating that most people have common sense and will find a "max safe" speed that they're comfortable with. Some people will speed, some will go far slower.

Unfortunately, the "max safe" speed that some people are comfortable with, isn't necessarily the speed at which they are *safe*. You might be a perfectly competent driver, and stay within your means. There are an *awful* lot of people out there that are feeling comfortable with their driving speeds, but are a danger to themselves and everyone on the road. So an "artificially low" flat limit is required to try and rein such people in.

I really believe that if the powers that be started enforcing reckless driving statutes - ticketing people for weaving in and out of traffic, not using signals, etc -

I notice one of the wreckless driving things you do not mention (possibly by innocent omission), is tailgating. I find most drivers that claim they are perfectly safe, and bitch about the low speed limits, tend to be the worst tailgaters around. And that is one of the most dangerous things on the road.

My response to tailgaters is to simply slow down: not out of spite, but to leave more room between me and the can in front of me. If a kid dashes out on the road and the person in front of me slams on the brakes, I'm going to slow down far more gradually to keep the asshole behind me from hitting me. (There's a reason why it's pretty much universal that if you're behind someone and you hit them, it's *your* fault. There's *always* opportunity to give yourself enough room to stop and not hit the car in front of you. If you choose not to give yourself that room, that's your problem; well, unless you happen to kill the kids in the car in front of you in an accident.)

Re:Speed Limits

[nyet]

No, the most dangerous thing in the road (other than the obvious "wreckless"[sic] driving) is people like you holding up traffic in the fast lane, thereby forcing people to make dangerous passes on the right.

I won't tailgate you, but i will flash my highbeams until you get out of the way and stop causing traffic congestion.

Re:Speed limits

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a speed limit. I obey the speed limit.

I don't, I like to go faaaast!

The police enforce the speed limit.

Screw 'em

They don't install a speed limiter in my car that keeps me from driving faster than the posted limit.

Not yet, but they're gonna in order to stop me! They won't be sensible and just install one in my car. To stop me and my brethren they'll put 'em in ALL the cars! But we'll figure out how to remove the limits, and off we go! Whereas you lawabidies will be stuck with it. Doesn't seem quite right, somehow.

Why do you respect the law when the law displays nothing but contempt for you? It makes me sad what people will put up with, even defend. The social contract is broken. We're on our own now.

We'll have to remember to be good to each other if civil society is to survive the death of law.

Re:Speed Limits

[gbutler69]

Sorry, you fail at evolution. You are wrong! I go *exactly* the speed limit in the FAST lane (as you like to call it), and I have assholes like you climbing up my ass. Why? You shouldn't need to go any faster. In fact, if you are, you are breaking the law. JACKASS!

Re:Speed Limits

[nyet]

No, you are still impeding traffic, causing congestion, and endagering others. The law is there to generate revenue for the local police (since they are woefully underfunded ia conventional taxation), not to keep your sanctimonious ass "safe". The law also says slower traffic should stay left. That means YOU.

Try your idiotic stunt in Germany on the autobahn and you'll probably cause a fatal accident.

Re:Speed Limits

[spagetti_code]

A little off topic admittedly, but...

Here in NZ, the Automobile Assoc did a survey of all members to find
out the types of driving that concerned them the most.

Turns out there were two ranked waaaaay above all others:

41% said they hated tailgaters
42% said they hated slow drivers.

hmmmm an interesting correlation.

Re:Speed limits

[bloobloo]

That seems quite sensible really. T rated tyres are rated up to 118 mph, V to 149 mph etc.

Re:Speed Limits

[Cederic]

There's *always* opportunity to give yourself enough room to stop and not hit the car in front of you.

Unless the car in front of you just pulled out from the lane to your left (or right, if you're in the wrong country) into the gap that you had left. At which point you may no longer have adequate room to brake.

It's quite possible that at the same time another car has pulled out behind you, meaning that any sudden braking action would cause him to collide with you from the rear.

You no longer have opportunity to give yourself enough room. Sure, in 20 seconds time you'll be fine - but that window of vulnerability exists.

Of course, that's assuming the other drivers don't want you to hit them. There's a lot of that going on at the moment..

Re:Speed limits

[Picard_1701]

Except... they do. I think most cars in the US have the governor set at 140 km/h, well above the legal limit, but it is done. Not to poke holes in your analogy, it's a good one, but it conflicts with reality, badly. W

Re:Speed limits

[SenseiLeNoir]

a lot of cars sold in Europe have speed limiters set at 155mph. My jag has one, even though it can technically go faster.

And yes, I tried on a straight track (not on the road), the car woudl refuse to budge beyond 155 on its own power.

Re:Speed Limits

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

OTOH, if we all drove at speeds that were safely below the speed limit, the police wouldn't benefit. If we actually treated the limit as a *gasp* limit, then the roads would be safer. As it stands, I get tailgated if I drive only 10km/h over the speed limit in certain areas.

Re:Speed limits

[Grishnakh]

You're correct. My Integra definitely does not have a limiter. However, it is limited to around 120-130 mph by horsepower; the engine just isn't powerful enough to go faster (remember, air resistance increases exponentially with speed).

Many people, it seems, learn that their car, or even many cars, have speed limiters, and then assume that all cars have these limiters, and this just isn't the case.

Re:Speed Limits

[Grishnakh]

Unless the car in front of you just pulled out from the lane to your left (or right, if you're in the wrong country) into the gap that you had left. At which point you may no longer have adequate room to brake.

I'm pretty sure there's exceptions for things like this.

I heard about someone else in my state who had a road-rager tailgate him, get pissed when he slowed down, then pull around and in front of him, and slam his brakes on, causing this person to rearend him and sustain serious injuries. The police impounded the road-rager's truck, read the data from the ECU, and found that he had indeed slammed his brakes on to intentionally make this person rearend him. He was convicted of attempted murder and sent to prison.

Generally, the person colliding from the rear is at fault, but there are exceptions for unusual circumstances.

speed limit?

[rizzo420]

rep. bono's analogy that not using DRM and rather educating users is like not enforcing speed limits is just bogus. DRM is more like having a lock on your car that prevents your car from going any faster or slower than the speed limit except for slowing down to turn or stop. DRM is not a means of enforcement. it's a means of control.

DRM comapred to speed limit.

[1101z]

Well in Mrs. Bono's analogy it DRM would be having a speed limit and building cars that could not go faster then the speed limit, and where the car manufacture deciding when and where you could drive your car.

Re:DRM comapred to speed limit.

[garcia]

And who you can resell it to.

Re:DRM comapred to speed limit.

[Shadow99_1]

Actually taking that last part ("the car manufacturer deciding when and where you can drive your car") a bit farther sounds a lot like the RIAA:

Ford (pure example now) decides that their trucks can no longer be used offroad (say they get some bad press for rollovers or something), they enforce it by making their trucks unable to go offroad (limiter that detects something other than 'road material' under the truck). The sales of new Ford trucks plummets after the announcement (some people still buy them because they like Ford's, but anyone else wanting to use their truck as before decides to go elsewhere or use previous ford trucks before the limiter). Ford decides this loss of sales is due to 'evil consumers' who feel newer cars aren't needed and complains to the government that they can't do business anymore if this continues and stresses the lost jobs, money, and (most directly) pay offs (sorry, 'contributions') to campaigns. In turn government passes a law allowing Ford (as well as other companies, because it's easier to give power to every similar group than make it specific) to 'remove' trucks of their own making from the market that are deemed 'unsafe'. Now Ford goes out and 'busts' people by finding them bypassing the limiters and using older trucks and fines them. Once found they are given legal notice of their 'wrong doing' and taken to court by Ford to get the truck back and then to charge the offender with 'damages'. Of course in their efforts to find off-roading Ford owners they accidently get a few Dodge, Chevy, GMC, Nissan, etc owners. But the net effect is considerably more people made into 'examples' every day and even worse public opinion of Ford from past owners.

Re:DRM comapred to speed limit.

[Bastard of Subhumani]

And whether you can repaint it a different colour.

Taking a step back

[HomelessInLaJolla]

If we take a step away from the particular details of whatever argument he's made, let's consider the following:

Berners-Lee, speaking before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet in the U.S. House of Representatives...said the Web as a communications medium deserves "special treatment" to protect its nondiscriminatory approach to content. Does anyone else notice that the very fact that we have a US HoR Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet (complete with all of the money that its respective members have a hand in distributing, regulating, or privately investing) makes it impossible for there to be a nondiscriminatory approach?

Sure, the subcommittee can recognize that the federal government won't pass laws regulating content and then, in the next week, they can dump billions in social security funds into private investment brokerages which invest in only organizations which maintain pro-Mormon, pro-Catholic, pro-Abortion, pro-Prohibition, pro-War websites. Or they can go home and privately invest only in companies which are pro-Duracell, pro-Pepsi, or pro-Guatemalen. Or they can wait for the next spending bill to come along and selectively filibuster any measures which are pro-Smoking, or pro-Cheetos, or pro-Ford.

Let's not allow the trees to obscure the forest. The only way to achieve net neutrality is to divest the government of their power to direct the flow of a significant portion of the GDP. As long as the federal government directly collects a significant portion of the GDP in tax money, and indirectly regulates the remainder, "net-neutrality" is nothing but lip service.

Re:Taking a step back

[Anonymous Coward]

You may be right about the government regulating the nation through money, but this just doesn't cut it at the net neutrality level. The government is the only organization that can ensure net neutrality. Without some sort of oversight, any company could violate neutrality without worrying about the laws. In this case at least the committee's not your bad guy ;)

Re:Taking a step back

[HomelessInLaJolla]

The government is the only organization that can ensure net neutrality It wasn't always this way though we haven't known anything different in our lifetime. With resignation I agree with your sentiment: when playing within a rigged system it is necessary to follow at least some of the rules and adhere to some of the guidelines.

Still, though, I would much rather see a complete decimation of the federal stranglehold on financial control of the nation. It would be better for the entire nation to spend a year in collapse and rediscover the virtue of decentralization than for the world to continue careening on the current crash course with inevitable disaster. How long before the Feds truly p--s off someone who is powerful enough to engineer a real worldwide calamity? Every day the feds consolidate more and more power, money, and control. It is only a matter of time before some Senator, or foreign ambassador, or military contractor somewhere steps on someone's toes in (accidentally, of course) precisely the wrong way.

Without some sort of oversight, any company could violate neutrality without worrying about the laws If the 'net were truly managed as a free system, though, would anyone hear a lone tree falling in the forest? Near ubiquitous government control only ensures one thing: a single subcommittee causes a thousand trees to fall at a time.

at least the committee's not your bad guy True. Each member of the committee constitute their own special kind of bad guy. :-)

Re:Taking a step back

[Anonymous Coward]

No, nobody else noticed because it's a load of crap.

God! I hate it when some libertarian tries to link everything and is opposite to big bad gov'ment. They're just as bad as commies, and for the same reason: they're incapable of seeing that their philosophy (with which, I might add, I largely agree) just doesn't work in practice.

In case you haven't noticed, neutrality is not a natural state for the 'net. There's load of companies between you and the site you're accessing who'd love to get a share of the money they're making through you (or the reverse), be it ad or plain spending. And if there wasn't the big bad regulations, or the threat thereof, that's exactly what they'd do. And it's not like you could "vote with your dollars" and switch to somebody that doesn't, because they'd all do it, and most people wouldn't see the difference.

So get off your philosophical high horse and get a sniff of reality.

Re:Taking a step back

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever dude...

If it wasn't for the feds wasting large amounts of hard-earned taxpayer money into stupid projects, there wouldn't even be a net to begin with.

Re:Taking a step back

[grcumb]

Let's not allow the trees to obscure the forest. The only way to achieve net neutrality is to divest the government of their power to direct the flow of a significant portion of the GDP. As long as the federal government directly collects a significant portion of the GDP in tax money, and indirectly regulates the remainder, "net-neutrality" is nothing but lip service.

Right, because leaving things entirely in the hands of the multi-national corporations is guaranteed to ensure that they'll have a sudden change of heart and never implement the predatory practices they've always inclined towards whenever they thought they could get away with it.

Okay, seriously: I'm not disputing the fundamental validity of what you're suggesting. In theory, it makes perfect sense. But there's just no practical means of implementing that idea. Take away the influence that spending provides, and you take away most of the government's ability to exert its influence.

So yes, Net Neutrality can be said to comprise some hypocrisy, with the government saying, 'Do as I say, not as I do.' That may be galling to all of us at least some of the time, but ultimately, we have to accept that at least some neutrality is being enforced, and most of the worst transgressors are being kept in check.

As Churchill famously said, Western democracy is not a good form of government, but it's the best we have at the moment.

bad analogy

[javilon]

having a speed limit but not enforcing the speed limit

It would be more like enforcing the speed limit by legislating that car wheels have to be squared!!

RIAA Theme Song regarding Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've Got You Babe"

gah

[Hemogoblin]

You've unleashed the Slashdot car-analogy fiends! You fool!

Re:gah

[roystgnr]

No kidding. The admin posting this article is like a broken traffic light which just lets everyone into the intersection at once.

Re:gah

[gfreeman]

No kiadding. It's enough to drive you carazy.

Unenforced speed limit?

[Bradmont]

Have a speed limit but don't enforce it? It would be just like here in Canada!

Re:Unenforced speed limit?

[Lockejaw]

s/Canada/America/

Re:Unenforced speed limit?

[pixelpusher220]

or only enforce it between 9 & 5 on weekdays ;-)

I used to cross between Buffalo and Detroit regularly and at 5pm, the cops all went home. 80-90mph (not kmh) was the norm and 100+ wasn't unheard of for regular traffic speeds...

Re:Unenforced speed limit?

[Malc]

I think you've been watching too much CBC recently. I had a couple of several hundred dollar fines and points on my license for doing 142 in 100 zone, and two years later, 135 in a 100 zone. I was younger and stupider... thank goodness they didn't catch me when I used to drive 160-170 on the 401 between London & Toronto. That would have been a criminal conviction for doing more than 50 over the posted limited. Oh wait, the 142 offence was when I drove that fast - I was leaving London and hadn't got up to speed yet. I was lucky (in more ways than one).

Re:Unenforced speed limit?

[iago-vL]

Let me guess.... Alberta?

I just moved to Calgary this year, and I'm rather glad I don't have to drive on the highways here. Especially in this icy weather..

Re:Unenforced speed limit?

[djasbestos]

Works pretty well for the Autobahn. The Germans (well, those who live in Bavaria, at least) always bitch about Austria because Austrian cops have radar guns.

For once "education" is in fact needed

[MikeRT]

The only way that copyright law will really work is if the public respects it, and right now the public doesn't. It has nothing to do wtih prices or the actual law; most people don't even think about that as hard as that may be for most slashdotters to think about. It's because the public has been conditioned to think that no one is getting screwed, when in fact the creators are getting screwed. DRM is not going to fix what is fundamentally a social problem, and it's not like speeding. Damn, sometimes I hate analogies. You know what it's like? Having a very important part of the law that we teach people doesn't really have any moral component to it. Yes, it does. When you don't buy a band's album, but download it anyway, you're just an asshole. If you can't afford it, so what? If you can't afford even $20 for a CD, you sure as hell are too cheap on average to buy merch or go see them live. So yes, we need education and enforcement. Young people need to be taught that it's not a victimless crime to systematically break this law, and then there need to be fines and jail terms in place for many of the offenders.

Re:For once "education" is in fact needed

[Lockejaw]

For reasons of fairness, people also need to be taught that it's not a crime -- it is a tort (which has a victim by definition). Since it's a tort, it is up to the victim, not the police, to enforce this law.

Re:For once "education" is in fact needed

[csplinter]

Nah it's the price for me. I love having a music collection more valuable than I can afford right now. Music needs to become about an order of magnitude cheaper before I could consider going completely legal. I'm sure there are others that feel the same way.

Re:For once "education" is in fact needed

[HerrEkberg]

Yes, let us put young people in jail for listening to music that they wouldn't have bought anyway. That must surely teach them to respect the righteousness of the law.

Re:For once "education" is in fact needed

[ScrewMaster]

Actually, I think it's more a perception (largely correct) that the big copyright holders are screwing both the creators and the buyers. Certainly that's the case when it comes to music, and given the creative accounting for which Hollywood is so famous, that likely applies to the movie industry as well. Consequently, you are right, copyright infringement is not victimless, but the victims are generally not the people that the RIAA/MPAA types would like us to believe. Much of the verbiage those outfits spew on that topic is downright disingenuous.

Now I do believe that one should pay for what one receives, and I've no problem buying music, but I'd just rather buy from a source that is as close as possible to the creator. That way, as much of my money as possible goes to the creative elements of our society rather than the parasitic ones. Take iTunes: yes, Apple gets very little of the vast stream of raw dollars pouring into it's DRM-constricted throat, but the people actually producing that music don't get even that much. The rest is picked off by businesses that have litte raison d'être in the Internet age.

But that is nothing new in and of itself. Middlemen generally suck, when you get right down to it. But pinning down who, exactly, is a "victim" is not always so black-and-white, and given that many of the "victims" here are organizations that have criminally abused their own customers it's hard to work up much sympathy.

In truth, the recent corruption of IP law in this country is turning a nation of people into victims, in many ways. Think about that for a moment. Something isn't right, and it can't all be laid at the feet of P2P technology and downloaders.

It amazes me to hear people like you rambling on about "jail terms" for civil violations like copyright infringement. Apparently you've bought into the idea that downloading a song is somehow the moral equivalent to a violent crime. It's not, never has been, and copyright law never said so. Heaping on more penalties isn't the solution. Besides, copyright infringement is already against the law, and given the extreme penalties that could already be (mis)applied to an individual I don't see how tougher laws would help.

A freer-market is the solution, one that is not controlled by a handful of abusive corporations. That would be better for both the content creators and their customers. Bad for the middlemen, but odds are we won't miss them.

Re:For once "education" is in fact needed

[shark72]

"For reasons of fairness, people also need to be taught that it's not a crime -- it is a tort (which has a victim by definition). Since it's a tort, it is up to the victim, not the police, to enforce this law."

In the United states, it's both. This is what the "severe civil and criminal penalties" phrase means on the FBI warnings on DVDs, but I'm guessing most people reading this get their movies via BT with the FBI warning redacted.

If anybody's interested, here's the relevant section of US copyright law that covers criminal infringement and penalties. With the bar being only $1K retail value, it's pretty easy for your average kid with a share directory to cross into criminal territory (that's only a thousand songs) but so far, copyright holders have limited themselves to civil suits in the case of garden variety file sharers.

The police can and do enforce S506, but it's typically for instances where the infringement is north of $50K or so. News of criminal convictions shows up on Slashdot from time to time.

Re:For once "education" is in fact needed

[Bullet-Dodger]

Yes, we do need more education about copyright but your view of it is completely one-sided. It's very possible that people would be less respectful of copyright if they were taught more about it. You, it seems, have been conditioned to think that copyright exists solely for the benefit of the creator. It doesn't. It exists for the benefit of society.

The deal was that content creators would get a limited period of control as an incentive to create works that would then go into the public domain. Increasing the time limit tenfold, and continuing to increasing it so that nothing will ever enter the public domain is clearly breaking that deal. When companies have used a loop-hole (that infinity-1 qualifies as "limited") to completely violate the sprit of a law, is it really surprising that people don't respect it?

Re:For once "education" is in fact needed

[PietjeJantje]

Why do copyright holders screw the creators? No one is forcing the creators with a gun to their head to buy their world wide distribution service. Usage of a distribution chain isn't a birth right. If I have a store in Fruits&Vegetables, I've to market the store and make a local living. Or, I can choose to join Evil Fruits&Vegetables Corp and have my apples distributed worldwide. On their terms, yes, but it would still be my choice. Why would I choose that? Because I want to be a millionaire and rule the world. In other words, these creators are just as greedy as the guys they sold out to.

Re:For once "education" is in fact needed

[westlake]

The only way that copyright law will really work is if the public respects it, and right now the public doesn't.

"The public" is not all of one mind.

Not everyone has a computer with tetra bytes of storage. Broadband service. Not everyone can afford the 200 pack of DVD-Rs.

Not everyone loves the Geek for stealing a copy of a movie he had to buy or rent or go without.

Until its mutilated release on broadcast tv or basic cable.

The Geek is far too quick to mod down as Flamebait the bare suggestion that his defense of copyright infringement is nothing more than a self-serving assertion of a middle class entitlement. Social Welfare for the iPod generation.

Re:For once "education" is in fact needed

[amRadioHed]

It's because the public has been conditioned to think that no one is getting screwed, when in fact the creators are getting screwed. Actually, I think realize that the creators of the music are getting scrwed and the consumers are of the music are getting screwed. The RIAA likes to give it to both ends.

Re:For once "education" is in fact needed

[geekoid]

If you can't afford something, then you can't have it.
If I can't afford to buy a guitar, it doesn't mean I can go out a take one illegally because they cost more then I am willing to pay.

Of course, it is balantly obvious to everyone that's just an excuse so you can get free shit.

Re:For once "education" is in fact needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, dumbass, the beauty of it is that he CAN get 'free shit' without being able to afford it.

If I break into a store and take a guitar, the owner of the store has one less guitar than he used to.
If I download "Stupid Hollywood Shit 3: Shit Harder" on BT, nothing of any intrinsic worth has changed hands.

Got it?

Re:For once "education" is in fact needed

[reversible physicist]

Now I do believe that one should pay for what one receives, and I've no problem buying music, but I'd just rather buy from a source that is as close as possible to the creator. That way, as much of my money as possible goes to the creative elements of our society rather than the parasitic ones. Take iTunes: yes, Apple gets very little of the vast stream of raw dollars pouring into it's DRM-constricted throat, but the people actually producing that music don't get even that much. The rest is picked off by businesses that have litte raison d'être in the Internet age. Independent artists can easily get their music onto iTunes and keep almost all of the revenue. For example, anyone selling their CD's (even home made ones) through CDBaby can have their music appear on iTunes, Rhapsody, Yahoo, etc. for no extra charge. The independent artist gets 91% of all revenue that comes to CDBaby from digital sales of their music.

Re:For once "education" is in fact needed

[ScrewMaster]

Why do copyright holders screw the creators?

Because until recently, they could. If you wanted your music published, there were only a few ways to go. That has of course changed. The music outfits would like, very much, to return to those days.

Re:For once "education" is in fact needed

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe it's the fact that the music CDs themselves are too expensive. It's just the fact that they want to charge us twenty dollars for it. I'd rather just save a penny or two. Besides, you must also take in to consideration the fact that most CDs have about one or two good songs on them. Now I personally don't buy very much music but I do buy the occasional CD from my favorite bands. I would have to say, that the most music people download are those individual songs that you can't get without buying an entire CD that has only that one good song on it. You must also realize that we're not screwing the bands over, but their record companies. They're the ones making theses insane profits when the bands are getting like a dollar when one of their CDs sell. I doubt not buying your music is going to stop the bands from playing.

Re:For once "education" is in fact needed

[Alsee]

If anybody's interested, here's the relevant section of US copyright law [copyright.gov] that covers criminal infringement and penalties. With the bar being only $1K retail value, it's pretty easy for your average kid with a share directory to cross into criminal territory

Actually you underestimate that law.

506. Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000

Note that the $1000 minimum only applies to part (2). Part (1) has no such limit.

Criminalizing infringement for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain sounds reasonable.... criminal copyright penalties were established to address genuine commercial piracy enterprises that may still be economically attractive and viable even in the face of purely financial civil damages.

However the N.E.T. act contained a trick. (Legislation often contains hidden legal gotchyas when you have industry lawyers literally writing the text of bills.) The N.E.T. act slipped another clause into section 101 (re)definition of legal terms. In particular it adds teh (re)definition:

The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.

So the new CRIMINAL copyright infringement penalties.... penalties intended to apply only to genuine commercial piracy enterprises... they apply when you receive or expect to receive other copyrighted works. In other words, CRIMINAL penalties and PRISON SENTENCES apply if you infringe so much as a single copyright on a single file with $zero dollar value, if you also receive or expect to receive any other copyrighted work. And anyone who uses P2P at all does receive or expect to receive other copyrighted works.

So effectively anyone who has ever used P2P is automatically GUILTY OF CRIMINAL copyright infringement and faces up to a year in prison... anyone who has used P2P and infringed "1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500" is a felon facing up to 5 years in prison. Up to ten years on a second offense... even if both the first and second offense were for a single file with $zero dollar value.

A very substantial percentage of the entire US population is guilty of criminal copyright infringement and is by law supposed to be in prison right now. Many millions of felons. If this law were to actually be fully enforced and all of violators imprisoned, the entire nation would grind to a halt instantly. If this law were to actually be enforced the entire government would be literally overthrown by an outraged population... an overthrow that would happen within a two-digit measure of hours.

-

Re:For once "education" is in fact needed

[ScrewMaster]

No argument from me on that score. The fact that iTunes not only handles a huge percentage of the major labels sales and accepts submissions from independent artists is not lost on the RIAA types. Quite possibly it gives them nightmares (one can only hope) but more importantly I think you've hit on the real reason they dislike iTunes so much. Not only does iTunes control their distribution to a degree they currently find unacceptable (what was that? A contract you say? Talk about poetic justice) but Apple also sells music over which they hold no copyright and (*gasp choke*) pays the artist. If I were an RIAA or studio exec, I'd be sweating bullets right about now.

Sometimes empires are lost overnight, but often it takes longer and nothing lasts forever. This is a chink in their armor: all we can do is watch as the cracks slowly widen.

Re:For once "education" is in fact needed

[ka-klick]

I agree with much of this post but would like to expand and nuance on this segment:

Now I do believe that one should pay for what one receives, and I've no problem buying music, but I'd just rather buy from a source that is as close as possible to the creator. That way, as much of my money as possible goes to the creative elements of our society rather than the parasitic ones. Take iTunes: yes, Apple gets very little of the vast stream of raw dollars pouring into it's DRM-constricted throat, but the people actually producing that music don't get even that much. The rest is picked off by businesses that have litte raison d'être in the Internet age. I am a (fairly new) completely independent artist that distributes via CD Baby. I also opted for most forms of digital distribution that they offer. They are a middle man, but in this food chain, they take their proper place as a service provider and take a cut, of anything they help me sell, but I'm free to sell completely direct as well, keeping 100% of the profit of a direct sale. So, if you want to provide support as close as you can, look for artists who are doing what we can on our own as much as possible. To break it down for you:

iTunes sale w/ CD Baby artist: Apple takes it's cut, CD Baby gets 9% of the rest and I get 91%
Buy a CD at a show via cash or check: I get 100% of profit.
Buy a CD at a show w/ a credit card: CD Baby get's 9% (if I use their "swiper") and I get 91%
Buy a CD via CD Baby website: CD Baby gets $4 from each sale, I get whatever I priced it higher (for normal priced CDs).

So, don't completely discount the idea of getting music via iTunes because the artist is getting less than they deserve. If they choose to use a reasonable distributor, they will be doing OK, if not maybe the artists should start looking around (wtg BNL).

Anyway, I just got my iTunes links from CD Baby today, so they're not quite live yet, but if anyone is interested, you can click on my website above and it'll get you to a place you can get my CDs.

Re:For once "education" is in fact needed

[ScrewMaster]

To expand a little on your expansion, when I said, The rest is picked off by businesses that have litte raison d'être in the Internet age I was referring to the old-line music publishers that have been at the root of so much hate and discontent recently. Middlemen can certainly provide a valuable service so long as they, as you say, take their proper place. Those people think they are some indespensible God-given national resource that needs to be protected at all costs.

Looking back, it seems to me that most of this can be laid at the feet of artists giving up the rights to their music in exchange for the dubious services provided by the music publishers. Given the onerous contractual obligations many musicians labor under, it's not surprising that many of them are choosing the path you are taking. Power corrupts, and the power the music companies traditionally held over the artists (and consumers!) corrupted them pretty thoroughly.

Ideally, I'd say that artists should retain copyright to their own works, and sell distribution rights to whomever they choose. Let those who would distribute and promote our music compete to give the artist the best terms. That's the way it works in pretty much every other industry: the supplier sets the price based upon whatever criteria he wants, and buyers decide if the price is right. If you're just starting out, your music will be worth only so much, but if your work proves popular, it is worth more. That's how it should work: that's the way it seems to be going.

The way the music industry has operated for the past century or so is just ... bent.

Weird choice of argument

[Adambomb]

Bono questioned if his idea would prevent mass stealing of copyright materials. "Is that not the equivalent of having a speed limit but not enforcing the speed limit?" she asked.
[...]
"What is the enforcement for speeding?" he said. "The enforcement for is not that the car grinds to a halt. [Instead of DRM] I'm inclined to make software to allow people to do the right thing first." Why on earth did he choose to turn aside that argument in lieu of taking it head on? This is an EXCELLENT analogy to turn to his own uses imo. Speed limits in almost any country I know of seem to have a good 10 units of measure (km/h or mp/h) leeway it seems as to whether the speed limit is enforced or not. This seems to me to be an excellent analogy to the black and white way the **AA's attempt to enforce the DRM rules currently versus the grey area that SHOULD exist with regards to fair use.

Can someone enlighten me as to why he would choose to avoid that point? Is there some precedent that makes this dangerous to his argument?

IANAL as per most such posts, but if one could point out why that analogy would have been a bad thing I'd love to know.

(ps slick with the s/deep/dept/)

Re:Weird choice of argument

[poopdeville]

He didn't avoid the point. His response was that DRM prevents legal instances of copying, whereas speed limits don't prevent legal driving. It could have been phrased better, but he was on the spot and had to respond to a really stupid analogy.

Re:Weird choice of argument

[mgiuca]

Can someone enlighten me as to why he would choose to avoid that point? Is there some precedent that makes this dangerous to his argument?

Yes, that precedent is slashdot and it's ever-raging car analogies.

Sarcasm aside, I fully agree with you.

Not only does it highlight the disparity between enforcement of copyright laws versus safety laws (ie. there is a lot more focus on laws to make billions off sucker^H^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers than laws to stop people from dying). But also, this "speed limit" analogy is precisely in the favour of anti-DRM. She is absolutely right, we have speed limits, the law enforces speed limits. Why can't we have copyright law, and enforce it (through the law itself).

Speed Limits

[zerocool^]

Well, here in Virginia, it seems that the speed limit serves only to fund the police.

Honestly, if the speed limit were posted as a suggested top safe speed, I think we'd still be ok.

Research has shown that regardless of the speed limit, almost all motorists will drive roughly the same speed on the same road, indicating that most people have common sense and will find a "max safe" speed that they're comfortable with. Some people will speed, some will go far slower. But when a speed limit is lowered below this "natural speed", it only serves to line the coffers of the Police, filling their quotas.

For instance, here in Blacksburg, they've just recently decreased the speed limit of Patrick Henry Drive from 35 to 25. This road is four clearly marked lanes, has a sidewalk on both sides, a bike lane, and is clearly lit with streetlights on both sides of the road. Why is it 35? I dunno, but I can tell you there have been a lot more police on it since then.

I really believe that if the powers that be started enforcing reckless driving statutes - ticketing people for weaving in and out of traffic, not using signals, etc - and stopped enforcing speed limits, we'd have fewer accidents and everyone would be happier (fewer "speed traps"). But then, I'm a firm believer in less police and that police should "Keep the peace", not "enforce the law".

It'll never happen, though, cause old people are the only ones that vote anymore (cause it's all they have left to look forward to, other than death and the daily delivery of the mail), and they all drive at 15mps regardless of the speed limit (causing more problems than people who speed).

~Wx

The Steve Jobs Quip

[ratm999]

I kind of like the Bono's quip about Steve Jobs: "With great respect to Steve Jobs, he's trying to sell hardware, first and foremost," she said. "I wonder if he would feel the same way about his patents being on the Internet free of patent protection."

Re:The Steve Jobs Quip

[ttyRazor]

of course that's still a bad analogy since there's no technological protection on the patents themselves, just the purely legal protection over implementing those patents.

Re:The Steve Jobs Quip

[ScrewMaster]

What's she's really saying is that if there were some technological measure that could be widely implemented to prevent any and all copyright or patent infringement, it should be forced on us.

I'm not impressed with this woman. I agree with one of the earlier posters ... I think she should take a skiing holiday. We might get lucky.

Re:The Steve Jobs Quip

[steelneck]

His patents _are_ on the internet, the PTO publishes them, and they are free to download... Please do not mix the immaterial that we cannot either see or touch with physical things that goes as property. Yea, there is no such thing as "inetellectual property" it is a contradiction in terms.

Re:The Steve Jobs Quip

[SpecBear]

I find it amusing as well. First off, Jobs never suggested removing copyright protections, he just advocated getting rid of DRM. Big difference. Copyrighted work is still protected by copyright law, with or without DRM.

Secondly, any and all patents that Steve Jobs has are already available on the Internet for free . They're right out there for anyone who wants to read them, copy the ideas, and infringe on his patents. How on earth does the man sleep at night?

Mary Bono is Clueless

[jeevesbond]

Look at how part of the conversation went:

Bono questioned if his idea would prevent mass stealing of copyright materials. "Is that not the equivalent of having a speed limit but not enforcing the speed limit?" she asked.

"What is the enforcement for speeding?" he said. "The enforcement for is not that the car grinds to a halt. [Instead of DRM] I'm inclined to make software to allow people to do the right thing first."

But Bono said strong protections for digital content are needed. "With great respect to Steve Jobs, he's trying to sell hardware, first and foremost," she said. "I wonder if he would feel the same way about his patents being on the Internet free of patent protection."

She just made herself look stupid, what was she thinking with that last comment?

1. Get owned by Tim Berners Lee for making an analogy that makes no sense;
2. Panic, then throw up a smokescreen by ranting about patents and what a great bloke Steve Jobs is;
3. ...
4. Profit (campaign funds from Apple)!

Re:Mary Bono is Clueless

[Sam Ritchie]

what was she thinking with that last comment?

I don't know. Apple's patents are all available on the internet free of technological copying restrictions. What's protecting them is that fact that copying [the ideas in] the patent is unlawful, ie they have exactly the same protection as hypothetical DRM-free Sonny & Cher MP3s.

Re:Mary Bono is Clueless

[poopdeville]

I'm emailing her about it as I type this. I suggest other Californians do the same. She has betrayed an unheard of level of ignorance on the subject of "intellectual property" and should seriously reconsider her position. People in the 45th Congressional district should email her as well.

http://www.house.gov/formbono/issue.htm

Re:Mary Bono is Clueless

[Alsee]

I'm emailing her about it as I type this.

Yeah... good luck with that.

She's the same psycho that addressed Congress with this gem:

Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is also Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.

Pesky Constitution... lets make a laughable attempt to do exactly what it says we are prohibited to do. Maybe next year.

-

Re:Mary Bono is Clueless

[LordVader717]

they have exactly the same protection as hypothetical DRM-free Sonny & Cher MP3s

Not to mention the countless DRM-free records and CD's published in the past.

Speed Limit Analogy

[hey!]

My knee jerk reaction to the "speed limit" analogy was "Oh, god, here come the tubes again."

But actually it's a pretty interesting analogy.

You don't have to have cars engines cut out, you just have to require governors be installed that limit the speed to, say , 65MPH. If you visited a place like Montana, you could have the governor adjusted upward. If you were driving on a private speedway, you could set it as high as your car would go. But if you were caught driving over the governor limit on a public road, you'd be subject to severe penalties.

What makes this interesting is that the argument for installing governors on cars is stronger than the argument for enforcing DRM.

WHAT IS ACCOMPLISHED:
DRM enforcement: increase copyright holder's profits.
Speed governors: saves lives, reduces strategic dependence of foreign oil, reduces insurance costs.

COSTS:
DRM enforcement: restricts users from doing some things that they have a legal right to do.
Speed governors: restricts users from doing things ONLY if they are clearly illegal.

IMPACT ON FREEDOM:
DRM enforcement: restricts fair use of information for critical, educational and political purposes
Speed enforcement: prevents police from arbitrarily stopping/fining people.

I'm not saying I'm for putting speed limiters on cars. I'm just saying anybody who sees DRM as an appropriate way of enforcing the law should also be for limiting how fast cars can go.

Re:Speed Limit Analogy

[Penguinshit]

186,282.397 miles per second; it's the law.

Re:Speed Limit Analogy

[GiovanniZero]

Yeah, it would be great if your car dynamically knew how fast you could go based on where you were. Well...unless my wife were pregnant...or I was being chased by "car pirates" trying to take my life, or any other emergency situation.

Of course this could never malfunction and make your car grind down to 25 mph on the highway.

Oh, I thought of another one: passing old cars on hills.

PS hey!: I read your disclaimer :)

Re:Speed Limit Analogy

[hey!]

This is an excellent example of a phenomenon a management consultant friend of mine likes to point out. Most people when faced with an alternative, will focus solely on the intended benefits of their preferred alternative, and solely on the intended costs of their less preferred alternative.

So -- Lets say for a moment it's a good idea to drive 90mph with your pregnant wife in the passenger seat. Let's say that you can drive like a hollywood stunt driver on public streets without endangering other folks. Let's grant all the positives for letting cars go as fast as they are mechanically capable. Would you be statistically safer?

Probably not.

I'm not for putting speed governors on cars. I'm for setting reasonable speed limits and enforcing them consistently. I think that would be a better option. But it is possible to argue reasonably for putting speed governors on cars. I'm not sure that's true of DRM, but if it is true of DRM, it is more true of speed governors.

Of course this could never malfunction and make your car grind down to 25 mph on the highway.

FUD. If it were true, then it should be happening now. I know for a fact that some cars limit the top speed in software. So far as I know there haven't been cases of this.

Re:Speed Limit Analogy

[GiovanniZero]

Of course this could never malfunction and make your car grind down to 25 mph on the highway. FUD. If it were true, then it should be happening now. I know for a fact that some cars limit the top speed in software. So far as I know there haven't been cases of this.

Actually the current system for limiting a car's speed is not dynamic. It's preset to a specific speed, for instance 110 mph.

A system that dynamically governs your car's speed has not been invented. What would it use? Maybe it would use RFID tags that were embedded in the road. I'm sure no one could put a spoof tag in the road and of course we can't guarantee that your car will be able to read it in adverse conditions, which would cause problems when you're coming off a 25mph residential street on to a 75 mph highway. So RFID tags are out, but put up any system and there will be problems.

The current manufacture installed governor system works because it is inherently uncomplicated whereas any dynamic system would have a lot of room for error.

If the world were perfect it would make sense to perfectly enforce rules but the world is not perfect and it's better to leave an imperfect gray area to deal with it. There are too many strange and different situations that might need you to go faster than 25 on a residential road to try to blanket force everyone to go the speed limit.

If we, as a society, treat everyone as children that can't be trusted they will act like children and we will not be able to trust them.

Re:Speed Limit Analogy

[isometrick]

Not that I disagree with the rest of your post, but:

FUD. If it were true, then it should be happening now. I know for a fact that some cars limit the top speed in software. So far as I know there haven't been cases of this. I think you misinterpreted.

The OP mentioned at the beginning of the post:

Yeah, it would be great if your car dynamically knew how fast you could go based on where you were. This would be a great deal more complicated than a hard limit set in a car's internal software, especially with possible security concerns. I don't think any cars have dynamic speed governors ... at least yet.

Re:Speed Limit Analogy

[Dachannien]

186,282.397 miles per second; it's the law.

And it's a good thing, too. Have you checked your gas mileage at 0.9c lately?

Re:Speed Limit Analogy

[Penguinshit]

It's astronomical...

Re:Speed Limit Analogy

[codevark]

Tired, just feel like blithering...

If the roads were smart (yes, a big IF), the car/road would do some quick calculations involving the weight/power of your vehicle and the section of road you were about to be driving on and the other cars around you, and just not let you do anything stupid/dangerous (NASCAR tracks would obviously use a less strict equation).

Even better, if I could get in my car, say "work", and nap for 15 minutes while it drove me there by itself...

DRM on the other hand, as it appears to be evolving, is about as consumer-friendly as BMI/ASCAP coming down on the little coffeshop across the road because one of the unpaid local musicians performing at their weekly open mic night *might* perform a song by a registered artist who has been tricked into believing that BMI/ASCAP is actually looking out for the artists and isn't an obsolete 1930s juggernaut empowered by the US government, collecting money from artists and "violators" alike, yet rarely ever doing anything for artists unless they are considered "worthy" of remuneration (already in *The Machine*).

Maybe the "artists" have such bad hearing that they can't tell the difference between their original multitrack recordings and some crappy mp3 floating around. Maybe people content to listen to crappy mp3s deserve to get the music for free. If John publishes his own music on the web, and I like it, and John wants $1/song for high-quality digital versions, I'll probably buy some songs, and might give one to a friend so that they can decide whether or not to pay $1/song. But if John demands that I buy all of his songs at $2/song, and warns me that if I share any of these songs I'll be sent to Guantanamo, I will laugh at John (I know John, so I can do that and get away with it).

Me? I give everything away for free cause it's my life someday I will die and if I want to be remembered the more people who hear me the better. Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law. Jam The Web!

(thanks for reading me)

Re:Speed Limit Analogy

[Leuf]

A system that dynamically governs your car's speed has not been invented.

Eh? What is cruise control if not optional dynamic speed governing?

If we're ever going to have autopiloted cars then we're going to have to have a way of telling the car how fast it should be going on whatever road its on. I believe they've done tests on such a thing with special lanes with something embeddded in the road, I don't know if it was RFID or what.

But getting back to the gp's point. Of course any legislature loves to go on about stupid things as if the world is going to end while doing nothing about things that would save lives but be unpopular. This is not new.

Patent protection quote

[phasm42]

I wonder if he would feel the same way about his patents being on the Internet free of patent protection.

You can freely view patents online.

Re:Patent protection quote

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that the important part of the quote is, "free of patent protection."

Re:Patent protection quote

[nevali]

View them? Yes. Sell something infringing upon them without expecting to end up in court? No. Her point being: if they weren't protected by law, the would-be holders wouldn't be terribly happy about them being freely viewable (I'm sure many aren't happy about it as it is, but you have to pick one: patent protection or trade secret)

Re:Patent protection quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but her point is a weak one. Here's the relevant part of what I wrote to her:

To start with, Apple patents are already available on the internet, for all to see through the US Patent Office website. Patents afford Apple rights analogous to what Copyright law gave copyright holders, even *before* the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. To wit: unauthorized uses of a patented idea are torts. But mere use of the idea is not enough -- Apple could have licensed that idea to another manufacturer, for instance.

However, unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted material is a tort and a crime. But mere reproduction is not sufficient -- the USC allows for what is called "fair use." Copyright law already afforded copyright holders more protection than the patent system ever did. Apple seems to be doing just fine without DRM to protect their patents, don't you think?

Re:Patent protection quote

[FunWithKnives]

No one is claiming that copyright should not be enforceable by law. Patents are enforced retroactively; we don't have officers breaking down the doors of "inventors" who did a slack job of searching for prior art. If Soulless Corporation A decides to create a web-based content delivery system (disregarding the fact that software patents are Satan), Soulless Corporation B cannot stop them. What they can do is sue the hell out of Soulless Corporation A once they have implemented that system.

DRM is preemptive and non-discriminatory. Whether you are attempting to use your newly purchased song in a legal, fair-use compliant way or not, you are uniformly shafted.

Her speed limit "analogy" was not well thought out either. If you break a speed limit, you run the risk of being caught. If you are caught, you must pay a fine. DRM is nothing like this. It is the equivalent of all cars being manufactured with a set top speed that cannot be changed, no matter the situation.

DRM cannot be compared to patent law or speed limits. If not to spread FUD and misinformation, then I really don't understand why Mrs. Bono decided to use those specific "analogies", because in short, they both suck.

"Special treatment" not required

[snowwrestler]

There's already a standard treatment available--common carrier. ISPs were subject to this regulation when everyone connected to the Internet over phone lines. Now, thanks to the 9th Circuit Court, cable ISPs are not subject to this regulation. And rather than restore it via legislation, Congress is instead considering stripping it from telephone-line ISPs as well.

Common carrier is an essential part of all of our transportation networks. The reason you can go to Kinkos and send a package, regardless of what's in it, is common carrier. The reason you can make phone calls to Cingular with a Verizon cell phone is because of common carrier. Without it the transport company can refuse or degrade service as they please.

Re:"Special treatment" not required

[ifakemyadd]

What's interesting, though, is that although the content can't be blocked on a common carrier, it can still be charged to the sender at different amounts. I.E. a long distance phone call doesn't cost the same as a local phone call, though 'common carrier' is still at play. Does this suggest that the legislation should reflect discrimination cannot block, only limit?

Re:"Special treatment" not required

[jez9999]

This is an extremely good point. Common carrier doesn't seem to impose any restriction on the carrier(s) discriminating using price. Whilst it would stop packets' QoS being degraded, they could still charge you extra to visit, say, Google (or more likely charge Google extra). Perhaps Net Neutralist legislation is needed to stop this price discrimination, which (whilst bad enough for phones) would be disastrous for the internet.

Re:"Special treatment" not required

[ifakemyadd]

Perhaps the point is not clear, or so. Tiered pricing systems are good for phones, or any realtime application, since the application can then gain realtime priority via higher tiers. I doubt the tiered system would be so disastrous either. Or at least lack of neutrality legislation. If I get pissed off when my connection to google gets too slow, and a different ISP doesn't use a tiered system that has a path to google, by god I'm gonna switch. And if I'm willing to switch, that means there's a market. And where there's a market, there will be somebody there willing to make money from it.

As a more direct response, common carrier doesn't have to discriminate using price because its realtime. Instead, it just denies access (like when cingular gives me the 'call failed, network busy' error). So if we wanted to not price discriminate the internet similarly to common carrier pricing, I suppose we could just deny people access altogether, as your similarity to the common carrier suggests. But I beg to differ.

Hmmm

[V_Pundit]

Funny about that comment. I know lots of places which have speed limits that they don't really enforce. I wonder if it's anything like having immigration laws that you don't enforce . . .

RIAA Speed Limit Enforcement

[twitter]

If the RIAA wrote laws about speeding they would look like this:

• You could only purchase a RIAA approved automobile, which was incapable of speeding and included a fee for speeding.
• It would be against the law to roll up the windows, cut off the parachute shaped spoiler, or replace the solid rubber wheels on that vehicle, because that would increase the chance you would speed.
• The hood would be welded shut and only RIAA authorized, indoctrinated, licensed and bonded mechanic would be allowed to look under the hood.
• Depictions of pistons in cylinders and other anti-speeding circumvention paraphernalia would be against the law.
• Walking, bike riding, public transportation, carpooling and water craft would be against the law. It's hard to speed with them but they would be considered an anti-speeding circumvention because they avoid automotive fees.
• Everyone would pay a small fee for speeding with every gallon of gas purchased, which triples the cost.
• The road would contain speed bumps every 20 yards.
• Ownership of 99% of all roads would revert to RIAA companies.
• There would be a camera with police authority for full body cavity search on every corner to catch the speeders.
• Innocent people who pay their speeding tickets early will get a significant rebate.
• The penalty for speeding would be $250,000 or life. Those accused of speeding would be thrown out of school immediately.
• Before driving, you would be forced to view the RIAA/FBI speeder warning to remind you of the steep penalties speeding carries.
• Speed limits would not be posted, there would be no central repository of speed limits and your vehicle would not have a speedometer. The only way to know that you were speeding would be notification of your crime in writing by an RIAA member company.
• None of these laws would apply to RIAA members, their family or anyone they thought well of.

Everyone knows that automobiles are just a repository for speeders and the RIAA deserves it's cut of the action.

As crazy as the above appears, it's not nearly as damaging as copyright laws that do the same things are. The above would only inhibit your ability to get from A to B. Copyright laws make it hard for you to share your culture, or quote it to make a point and limits your mind.

Re:RIAA Speed Limit Enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

well, that's 40 minutes of your life you'll never get back.

Poor analogy

[Sciros]

It's not like having a speed limit and not enforcing it. DRM is like having a speed limit of 65mph and installing electronic governors on every car that limit it to a top speed of 65mph. If instead of DRM the RIAA and MPAA just ticketed people for $75 when they discovered they were violating copyright, then we'd have a better comparison.

Background information on the Bonos

[Aeron65432]

For those of you who don't know, Mary Bono is the widow of Sonny Bono, as in Sonny and Cher, and the politician who yes, died while skiing in Nevada. More importantly, she is the namesake of Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act which dramatically increased the duration of copyrights, which may explain her opposition to free and open formats and architecture.

Re:Background information on the Bonos

[Anonymous Coward]

It is kind of ridiculous that in the US, which poses as the supposed posterboy of democracy, someone with a direct personal financial interest can actually initiate and push through a piece of legislation, that is aimed to provide personal financial benefit.

Politicians should be barred from this. It is not only completely un-ethial, it is outright criminal.

Since Mary Bono likes analogies: this is like a leader of organized crime is trying to preach law and order to a petty thief.
Please show some decency Mary Bono, resign, before your voters press charges against you for misusing and abusing the power they provided you for the interest and good of the public. Not for Mary Bono and her friends in the entertainment industry.

Re:Background information on the Bonos

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, why is this MAFIAA lobbyist in Congress?
Or is this the trend?

In congress, you have some looking out for the hardware patents (Steve Jobs), some looking to look the other way about software monopolies (Gates), some wanting to make the Copyright laws infinite (Plus DRM) and return to Medieval publishing law(Many MAFIAA reps), those that want to protect patents on natural processess, ...., and the people are represented by ... ?

Information wants to be bought?

Re:Background information on the Bonos

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot one juicy piece of information:

"In her official 2005 filing, Bono stated that her income from royalties and dividends was between US$402,000 and US$3.3 million."

Here and here

What a surprise...

Re:Background information on the Bonos

[poopdeville]

Interesting. I though Sonny Bono was the namesake of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.

Going to have to partially agree Mary Bono

[Jack Sombra]

"This led to an odd exchange with Representative Mary Bono who compared Berner-Lee's suggestion to 'having a speed limit but not enforcing the speed limit.'"
That is an accurate description of Berner-Lee's suggestion, he is saying it should be still illegal but that pretty much nothing should be done if people break the law nor should anything be done to prevent them breaking the law

DRM is not the solution but neither is Berner-Lee's sugestion

Re:Going to have to partially agree Mary Bono

[passiveNecro]

i don't think it is an accurate description at all. With a speed limit a driver is told the limit and then chooses to obey it or to break. If the driver is caught breaking the limit they then face fines. the model Berners-Lee suggested seems to reflect this. If users are aware of what they are allowed to do (the speed limit) they are considered responsible if they do otherwise (claiming not to know the speed limit is not an excuse for speeding)

Re:Going to have to partially agree Mary Bono

[erbmjw]

If I have read the quotes correctly it seems that Berner-Lee suggested that education was the priority not preventative full-scale lockdown; this type of lockdown is a violation of the doctrine of fair-use {fair dealing}. Mary Bono countered that his concept was against enforcement of copyright; but it is not, he advocates a system that only refutes preventative full-scale lockdown it did not either directly or indirectly address enforcement of copyright. Please note enforcement of copyright was and is intended to be a reactive measure available to the copyright holders as a response against improper/illegal actions taken by others.

Re:Going to have to partially agree Mary Bono

[LordVader717]

Let's see:
Enforcement of speed limits: Police watch out for offenders, and fine people who break the law.
Enforcement of copyrights: Known copyright infringements are punished according to relevant copyright laws.

That's how it's done, and always has been. The RIAA will still have a legal basis for suing single mothers-of-three for a zillion dollars, which seems to be their favourite hobby.

Call me cynical, but

[TheWoozle]

I think politicians are all in favor of a "toll-road on the Internet" because just like with state highways, there is money to be had in bribes and kickbacks for the politician(s) who give a particular toll-road company the operating contract.

Congrats

[47Ronin]

Well, at the very least it's nice to know that there are more than two people actually in the room listening to proposals. Have you ever seen the room BEHIND the person on the mic? Nearly all those chairs are EMPTY most of the time!

15 mps

[StreetStealth]

Fifteen meters per second, eh? Grandma's driving did become a bit more reckless in her old age...

Re:15 mps

[jez9999]

Actually, no. It's only ~30mph. :-P

Not really

[Tony]

Really, he's suggesting that we shouldn't have cars that only let you go the minimum speed limit.

Using Mary Bono's analogy, DRM is more like a car that will only let you go 20kmh, even on the freeway. If we continue this analogy, people should get arrested for breaking copyright.

This analogy is really quite good: almost everyone speeds. There are very few people who only go the posted limit. Very few are really caught. Those caught are handed a minor rebuke, unless they do it a lot. Police let most speeders go by, as they are only speeding by a little bit. They wait to catch the big ones, the fellow doing 120kmh in a 90kmh zone.

Mary Bono should listen to herself talk. I bet she breaks the speed limit.

Bono's Patent Comment

[nameer]

FTFA: But Bono said strong protections for digital content are needed. "With great respect to Steve Jobs, he's trying to sell hardware, first and foremost," she said. "I wonder if he would feel the same way about his patents being on the Internet free of patent protection."

Umm... They are, at www.uspto.gov. There is no "patent protection" keeping people from the information. If Steve wants to enforce his patents, he can file a civil suit, but the information in the patents themselves is available to all.

Re:Bono's Patent Comment

[Cal Paterson]

Yes, but the stuff on www.uspto.gov clearly IS subject to patent protection. Mary Bono is talking about being both on the internet and being free of patent protection.

www.uspto.gov only meets one of those criteria.

Re:Bono's Patent Comment

[IamTheRealMike]

Like so many others you're deliberately misreading the sense of what she said. It's obvious that she means "How would Steve Jobs feel if his companies work was not protected?", ie, there was no legal enforcement of patent protections for software. And say what you like about Apple but Jobs protects his companies 'creative works' very strongly, both through patent enforcement and by tying MacOS X to a hardware purchase. It's a perfectly reasonable point to make - either Jobs believes copyright needs to be enforced mechanically because the police/courts can't do a good job, in which case he should be pro-DRM, or he doesn't, in which case they should stop requiring licensing of their patents and OS X should not try and verify it's running on a Mac.

If DRM is enforcement, it is *private* enforcement

[Geof]

It's one thing for the police to enforce the law. It's quite another for private companies and individuals to do so. If DRM is enforcement, then it's private enforcement: companies interpreting and applying the law according to their own standards, and without oversight.

Of course, as you correctly point out, DRM itself is not enforcement. It takes people to enforce a law. Devices can only enable and prohibit specific behavior, but that's a far cry from the active human reasoning required to apply the law.

I have often seen copy protection and DRM measures described as "speed bumps" for pirates, which is a much more accurate characterization. Although again, these speed bumps are private, interfering in a public space (i.e. restricting legitimate activities of the public).

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have to educate a lot of folks in order to get them to see that sharing is wrong, is the problem really a matter of education?

I mean, what if I proposed that we "educate" people that it's my *RIGHT* to be paid continually for something I did once? Perhaps a "teacher right" that gives teachers a share of the revenue their students make from their teachings? After all, that would surely encourage people to teach each other, right? What could possibly go wrong?

P.S. You owe me big time for reading this post.

Driving LESS THAN the speed limit is illegal too!

[PRMan]

It's not even the same as that, because driving more than 20 MPH lower than the posted speed limit is illegal.

If DRM is as good as dead, what's the solution?

[niteblade]

Every time the subject of DRM comes up, its seems like there is a good 10-1 if not 20-1 ratio of 'DRM will NEVER work' to any other response. Well that's fine in theory, but without DRM do the copyright holders just hope and pray that people won't copy? Sure, there are ways to strip DRM right now, but what the RIAA/MPAA are trying to do is at least hold on to their core/non techie market (meaning no one would realistically think they would stop all copying but as long as they can stop a large % that's good enough).

It seems most people on here frequently mix up 'free as in open source' with 'free as in beer' - two distinct concepts. I'm curious what the people who think DRM's death is inevitable/will never work think will keep the movie/recording industry alive. Why wouldn't a non-DRM market simply implode - and the industry as a business would die. Another way of putting it - does non-DRM material have a place in capitalism? If so, how? By relying on people's good will? Sorry, I don't see that as a realistic answer. By in large people purchase because that HAVE to not because they WANT to. Tell me how I'm wrong on this.

-NB

Re:If DRM is as good as dead, what's the solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Music has been copyable for at least 100 years, DRM didn't exist until about 10 years ago. The vast majority of music sold today has no DRM. Yet somehow, the industry's managed to survive.

Re:If DRM is as good as dead, what's the solution?

[niteblade]

One could argue music had a built in DRM up until recently - 30 yr ago could anyone copy records? What about 20 yr ago - you could copy your buddy's analogue tape but the process ended there (a copy of a copy sounded like crap). With the internet it isn't uncommon for individuals to possess thousands of songs, copied from people they've never met. Bob

Re:If DRM is as good as dead, what's the solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of us desperately home that the movie and music industries will in fact implode.

I didn't think it was that hard to figure out. We don't want, or need the cartels. AND we will still have music, and movies and TV shows.

We may not have 500 channels of each anymore, but in all seriousness, who cares?

Get this, it's going to be a big shock. Sit down. Ready? Music existed BEFORE copywrite. OMG!!!!!!11!!!! It's true. So did plays, and books and public performances. SHOCKING. More so, most of the artists involved didn't get ANY MONEY for their effort. They did it because they WANTED TO. The history of earth is filled with cultures that freely and widely traded information, culture, art and music. It's also filled with culture s that died off because they didn't share thier culture.

CRAZY!

So, in short, we want the cartels to crash, we want the "industry" to die. We want to opt OUT of the culture for money paradigm. Culture is free. It's always going to be free. Its just a matter of how much it's going to costs the capitilists to realize that. You can lock up culture. But you can't do it forever. Culture is information, and in the digital age, information spreads at the speed of electrons. Weirdly, without slowing down or stealing from other electrons...

The amazingly funny part is, if the RIAA had never become the greedy cartel they are today, this would likely never have been a major issue, and the current crop of "artists" with 1m$/yr drug habbits would still be allowed to set examples for our youth.

As it's going right now, those "artists" and the cartel that supports them is going to collapse, eventually. Because, no matter the level of mis-information, people are easily convinced that they should not have to pay for culture. Or at the least, not have to pay alot for it.

No one complained when you could pick up an album for 10$. Suddenly it's 20$ and revenue goes down. Welcome to capitalism you stupid fucks. We played by your rules for the last 50 years. Now it's our turn. And guess what? We don't even have to lobby to get our way. We just take it. And then we really piss you off, because not only did we take some for ourselvs, we give it away to anyone else that wants it. How dare we.

Re:If DRM is as good as dead, what's the solution?

[geekoid]

A) Copyright is a privledge granted by congress, and not a right. If technologies emerge to pass it freely, then copyright will need to change.

B) It has been proven that most people will pay for content online even if they can get it free. Look at Apples online sales.

C) The market has the last word, always. If there is no longer a market for buying music and movies, then the industries go away. People will still make music and movies, it will just be different.

D) If it turns out the market doesn't want to pay, Offer a service that can't be redeemed online as a value add to buy the physical media. Tee shirt, tickets, reward points, autograpgs, whatever.

controversial?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is speaking out against DRM controversial? Speaking out about DRM is the new black these days. It's so overdone, it's passe. Next thing you know, we're gonna see Paris Hilton speaking out against DRM. Give me a break. I wanna see people start speaking out FOR DRM.

Representative Mary Bono's limits

[Anonymous Coward]

Representative Mary Bono (and other law-makers) should be very careful with their statements and analogies, since they expose their own limitations very, very fast. No legislation can put a speed limit on this.

legislative nature

[ifakemyadd]

Speed limit laws protect a different group of 'citizens' than DRM. In general, I think the speed limit is there to protect others present on the road. DRM, and copyright, are present to protect ownership. But laws in general are preventative only in that there are repremands for actions. Artists are only granted copyright through the law, so I think the most effect method of maintaining that mentality is through methods that operate as the law does. This being said, I see watermarking technology will eventually replace DRM, and I think the mentality Burners-Lee references is that very issue. Copyright is only a right after something has been copied. And the best deterrent will most likely reflect the very nature in which copyright is granted.

List of what you can do

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Purchace license to play
2) Download
3) Playback on a single platform (# of time dependent on license)

Looks like tons of fun to be had by all!

Felony charge for uploading an Academy screener

[westlake]

For reasons of fairness, people also need to be taught that it's not a crime -- it is a tort (which has a victim by definition). Since it's a tort, it is up to the victim, not the police, to enforce this law.

Think again.

(AP) - LOS ANGELES-A man was charged with copyright infringement for allegedly uploading the computer-animated film "Flushed Away" after getting a copy from an Oscar voter.

Salvador Nunez Jr., 27, faces up to three years in prison if convicted of the felony count. He was scheduled to appear in court March 1. He was charged Thursday.

Prosecutors alleged he obtained a copy of the movie after it was sent in advance to his sister, an Oscar voter and member of The International Animated Film Society.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences received a tip in early January that someone put "Flushed Away" on the Internet, and an investigation found Nunez uploaded it on Dec. 23, according to a federal complaint.

A digital watermark identified it as an Academy screener film.

When interviewed by FBI agents, Nunez acknowledged he uploaded "Flushed Away" and the Oscar-nominated film "Happy Feet" onto the Internet, court documents said. However, investigators found only a copy of "Flushed Away" in his computer hard drive.

"Flushed Away," won four prizes on Feb. 11 at the Annie Awards, honoring achievements in feature film and television animation.

In 2003, the MPAA banned the distribution of screener copies over concerns about bootlegging, but partly lifted the ban after complaints from filmmakers, producers and independent production companies.

It was not immediately known whether Nunez had an attorney. His home phone number was not listed. US man charged with uploading Oscar movie copy of 'Flushed Away' onto Internet

Flushed Away was released on DVD February 20, 2007. Theatrical release November 3, 2006.Flushed Away

There is much of interest in this story.

But nothing could be more significant than the decision to prosecute the uploader on the felony charge.

Re:Driving LESS THAN the speed limit is illegal to

[fourchannel]

It's not even the same as that, because driving more than 20 MPH lower than the posted speed limit is illegal. That's not quite true. It depends on, for a few things, the state you're in, interstate vs. municiple streets, etc.

For example: I can bring my car to a dead stop, legally, on a city street. If I go to the interstate, I must go at least 40 mph.

This has nothing to do with sensible driving, but the legality of it. If I drove 40 mph on the interstate I would greatly endanger everyone from going painfully slow.

A Reply to the Senator's Speed Limit Comment

[webheaded]

Actually, that would be like having a speed limit and putting speed inhibitors on everyone's car to force them to do that speed. Having the rules there and busting people when they don't follow them is exactly how things have been done for the past 200 or so years. Since when did it become necessary to prevent people from doing illegal things by limiting what they can do? You're free to break the law if you please, but you WILL be punished. The punishment in itself is a deterrent, beyond that you can do what you want, but you will pay when you get caught. DRM does not prevent people from stealing music, because they will do it no matter what you do; DRM prevents legitimate customers from using their music the way that they please.

Re:If DRM is enforcement, it is *private* enforcem

[honkycat]

... and these speed bumps are on the interstate... er, I mean, the Information Superhighway

The proper retort.

[tres3]

"Would you prefer to have a beautiful eight lane superhighway with a 20 MPH speed limit? Of course people are going to break that one!"

I agree with Mary Bono. Remove the speed limit.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mary Bono who compared Berner-Lee's suggestion to 'having a speed limit but not enforcing the speed limit."

Exactly. The people are ok with that too. We will hear and respect the (government's/corporation's) opinion of how to handle our (vehicles/licensed IP), but ultimately we would like to decide for ourselves what is fair and reasonable without being branded as criminals should we feel that the (government/corporation) is wrong.

Speedlimit analogy quite apt

[buss_error]

This led to an odd exchange with Representative Mary Bono who compared Berner-Lee's suggestion to 'having a speed limit but not enforcing the speed limit.'"

This is a very good analogy. If you live in Texas, you'll note very few moving violation stops are ticketed on intercity highways (in major cities like Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio. Not so much in smaller towns like Corpus Christi, Amarillo, El Passo, and such).

This is because of the danger to the officer and the small numbers of officers available. What I see on these highways are perhaps 4% driving 85 (or more) in a 55, perhaps 70% doing 60 or 65 in a 55, 4% doing less than the minimum speed limit, and 22% doing 55 +- 3mph.(horseback guess) It doesn't seem to matter too much if the highway is strictly patrolled or not, these numbers seem to hold fairly steady.

This ties in to honesty in other areas of life in my experience. The "honor system" snack tray at work for instance. I see one guy taking snacks and never paying for them[0]. The majority put in the price of the chips. A small minority will put in a buck when the snack is only 75 or 85 cents. Two will put in a buck for anything, even if it's listed at 50 cents.

In like wise, I see copyright infringement in the same ratios. Most people cheat a little bit every now and again, but basically are honest. A small minority are ALWAYS honest, never paying a cent less nor a cent more than required, and a small number that always cheat, and a small number that always overpay.

I can understand those that cheat every now and again. Have you ever seen a movie you thought was so bad that the ticket was a rip off? If you could preview the movie, you'd have known ahead of time it was worthless. Same for songs. Who downloads songs that hates it? (If it isn't for someone else.)

What copyright holders are afraid of is that being able to download and share content means they are held accountable for their product. If it's really bad, only a few will pay for it. If it's just bad, only a small minority will pay for it. If it's good, the majority will pay for it, but perhaps not as much as the copyright holders would like to extort ^W price it at. They fail to understand that this already happens . They are called "reviews" and "word of mouth".

What copyright holders fail to appreciate is that frequently the home copyright infringer will not be able to reproduce the quality and cachet of the real McCoy, and that good entertainment in and of itself is valued and valuable. Just for instance, on all my systems, there are perhaps two audio tracks that I have not purchased the original of, and those are likely hanging around because I didn't get around to deleting them yet. For every song I enjoy, I make it a point to buy the CD. For every movie not out of copyright that I like, I buy the tape or DVD if available. (And many are not available, but I'd buy them in a flash if they were.)

Why? Because the real item has a cachet the unlicensed copy lacks. Original packaging. Top quality. Freedom from fear that I might be found out and sued. Security in knowning that even if I am sued, I own the licensed work, and likely won't be found guilty (US fair use/media shifting exceptions). I'll leave aside the enlightened self interest that would demand pay for a work valued. For the most part, I don't think RIAA an MPAA understand honesty as the rest of the world does.

The real pity of copyright owners is that every single DRM scheme to date fails to target the real threat. They focus on the home infringer, the technologically unsophisticated. None target the sophisticated, knolegable, and well financed infringer. The guy that can crank out millions of copies that are not licensed. These are the products most people will unwittingly buy, and these are the very same things that are the largest threat to copyright holders incomes.

They are targeting those that are within 3 MPH of the speed limit, and ignoring

Re:Speedlimit analogy quite apt

[kellererik]

If I could, I'd give you an "interesting" (out of mod-points, sorry). I agree one hundred percent. I spent insane amounts of money in the old Napster-Days, because I found so many artists I never heard of before. Fast forward to now. I'm not interested if people trying to sell me crippled stuff and I couldn't care less if they try to do so online or on CD, their bad, not mine. I happily ignore those artists, means I don't buy, I don't download (legally or otherwise), ignorance is bliss. ;-)

By her logic...

[EaTiN cOfFeE bEaNs]

This led to an odd exchange with Representative Mary Bono who compared Berner-Lee's suggestion to 'having a speed limit but not enforcing the speed limit.
By her logic, that's like saying that DRM is like putting a speed camera every 100 yards or so on every road in the country. It's not practical, and it doesn't work!

speaking of which..

[Anonymous Coward]

why did the chicken cross the road?

Bad Anology from Tree Fodder

[Whiteox]

Poor Analogy!
DRM for Cars would be that you could never loan (or sell) your car to anyone. Or maybe 7 times if it is an Apple!

background on Mary Bono

[nandnor]

for anyone who doesn't know the backstory, she is the widow of faux hippie turned politician Sonny Bono, who is best known for:

The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998--alternatively known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act or pejoratively as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act--extended copyright terms in the United States by 20 years. Before the act (under the Copyright Act of 1976), copyright would last for the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship; the act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and 95 years respectively. The act also affected copyright terms for copyrighted works published prior to January 1, 1978, increasing their term of protection by 20 years as well. This effectively 'froze' the advancement date of the public domain in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this act, no additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still copyrighted in 1998 will enter the public domain until 2019...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_ Term_Extension_Act

and here's something from her entry in Wikipedia:

Bono said in May 2006 that she depended on royalties from Sonny Bono's estate to supplement her US$165,200 congressional salary in order pay her son's college expenses. In addition, in 2006, it was reported that she had received $30,000 from the later-indicted Jack Abaramoff.[7][8] In her official 2005 filing, Bono stated that her income from royalties and dividends was between US$402,000 and US$3.3 million

Insert your punchline here!

Re:Driving LESS THAN the speed limit is illegal to

[TemporalBeing]

It's not even the same as that, because driving more than 20 MPH lower than the posted speed limit is illegal.

That's not quite true. It depends on, for a few things, the state you're in, interstate vs. municiple streets, etc.
For example: I can bring my car to a dead stop, legally, on a city street. If I go to the interstate, I must go at least 40 mph.

Not quite true either...if you are doing more than 15 MPH under the speed limit on nearly any road, then you are pretty much required anywhere (no matter what kind of road) to have your hazards on (at least in the US). Typically, this is 40 MPH on highways (since speed limit is 55), but it varies (50 MPH when speedlimit is 65; 55 MPH when it is 70).

However, if you are going faster than the speed limit (how fast depends on state laws - some states are 1 MPH over (e.g. PA), others give some room for approximation (e.g. NJ, VA, MD)) then they have the right to ticket you. The same is also true if you are not going fast enough and are not using your hazards.

However, typical practice is that the speeds they will ticket you at are (a) not going fast enough with relation to the posted speed limit without having your hazards on, and (b) going significantly faster (15MPH+) over the average speed of traffic.

As always - usual disclaimer - IANAL or a cop.

Net neutrality == government regulation!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no way to enforce "neutrality" without odious regulation.

Anyone really think that will improve the internet?

Re:Net neutrality == government regulation!!!!

[ScrewMaster]

The old AT&T and the Regional Bell Operating Companies were heavily regulated. It worked well for a long time, but the original laws were written by a government that truly wanted a reliable phone system for an entire nation. They succeeded in that, because those regulations (such as the Telecommunications Act of 1934) were actually pretty decent. The problem is that things are qualitatively different today, with a government that is heavily influenced by corporate money, and a Congress with a habit of labeling onerous laws with names that belie the law's true intent. You can bet your bottom dollar that any "Net Neutrality" legislation that gets passed, at least during this Administration, would be anything but.

The unfortunate truth is not that the Internet must be "neutral" with regards to packet transmission: it can't, really. The real question is who decides what prioritization and filtering occurs, and for what purpose. The problem is that there's a whole lot of wiggle room here, and no amount of lawmaking will be able to account for everything a sleazy ISP can pull off.

Re:Driving LESS THAN the speed limit is illegal to

[dryeo]

So in a blizzard, white out conditions with the Freeway a sheet of ice you're not allowed to slow down?
Around here the speed limit includes something about road conditions.

'having a speed limit but not enforcing the speed'

[Pope Raymond Lama]

I just try to imagine someone enforcing the speed limit in the same way DRM enforces copyright: at very least, all cars having an automatic sensor with camera and OCR software that would read the transit speed signs, and just slow the car down until it complies. Very safe and usefull, indeed!

Mary who ?

[Anonymous Coward]

who's this lady ?
U2 singer's mom ?

doesn't she know sir tim was the one who said...
"let there be web". and the web it was.

We *don't* enforce the posted speed limit.

[Etherwalk]

It's a ridiculous analogy because the speed limit is one of the most flagrant examples of idiotic instutitional untruths perpetrated in this country. At least, in most states, the posted speed limit isn't the limit, it's the limit minus ten. 55mph means 65mph, 65 mph means 75mph, and 75mph means no federal funding for your road.

Re:The punchline?

[bfree]

From the wikipedia article mentioned in the parent:

Mary Bono, speaking on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, said:

Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. . . . As you know, there is also [Motion Picture Association of America president] Jack Valenti's proposal for the term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.

And people elect this woman?

*YOU* are probably breaking the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

Going the speed limit in the left lane is now against the law in many places. It's more dangerous than speeding in the left lane, and police ticket for it.

People will "do the right thing"

[Uncle Scoopy]

Wow! I didn't know TB-L was such a serious drug abuser. Didn't he used to be connected to reality? I hope he can get treatment.

"education" of purpose of copyright monopoly

[openright]

when the copyright publishing monopoly is 10-20 years, innovation is possibly increased due to the extra incentive.

when the copyright publishing monopoly is 80-1000 years, innovation and creation by extension is suppressed, information collection and exploitation increases. With such a infinite term, the publics trust and respect in such a copyright system approaches zero. With such a infinite term, the owners will tend to be long-living companies with government influence. And of course with such a tyranny, any trust is further eroded.

The victim from a 100 year or so copyright is the public.

I thought slashdot had the worst car analogies

[Anonymous Coward]

Mary Bono? Is she related to that offensive tax-dodging, right-wing narcisist who uses eradicating 3rd world debt (at others expense) as a platform to hawk his derivative ear-cack?

No matter, the comparison to copyright infringement and motoring speed limits is absurd. Anybody making such an ill-informed comparison should be excluded from all future debates on the subject.

Re:If DRM is enforcement, it is *private* enforcem

[cowscows]

I think we can all agree that the proper compromise is to have intelligent robots enforcing the laws.

Better analogy

[jgoemat]

This led to an odd exchange with Representative Mary Bono who compared Berner-Lee's suggestion to 'having a speed limit but not enforcing the speed limit.

DRM is not like arresting people that are guilty of doing something, it is like preventing them from doing it (or other things they are allowed to do) in the first place. Comparing it to speeding, it would be like this:

1. You cannot drive over 55 MPH, period. You may try to pass someone doing 50 mph, but you had better leave plenty of room since you can only go 55. As a matter of fact, if you attempt to go over 55, your car might just shut off.
2. You are licensed for driving 55 MPH on highways. When you attempt to enter an interstate, you might just find that your license is no longer valid and your car turns itself off.
3. When you want to drive your wife's car, you have to transfer your license to that car. When you want to drive your car again, you have to transfer the license back to it. If the internet isn't available, your car might not be able to get a license and you can't even start it. If her car is in a wreck and you can't deactivate your license, you may not be able to get your car licensed again.
4. You find out when you come home that the DRM doesn't work with your garage, and your car shuts down before you enter it, placing itself in park so you can't even push it in.

Flawed analogy for California in the real world

[Anonymous Coward]

once you hit a highway with a speed limit of 65MPH, you would be forced to go between 50MPH and 65MPH. If traffic forced you to go below 50MPH, your only option would be to come to a complete and immediate stop.

Nah, that's not how it works in California. The basic speed law of the state of California means that if traffic slowed down, the "max" speed limit is now lowered to the safest max speed it's safe to drive

So, if the car in front of you is going 5mph, the speed limit is 5mph, and if you hit his back bumper, you've "broken the speed limit" and can be cited.

Re:Flawed analogy for California in the real world

[darkonc]

like DRM cares about what the real law is?

Religion: Scientology

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Bono , reveals that her religion is Scientology.
Scientology uses copyright to attack heretics: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/atack/

Anonymous Coward, my friend, how long has it been since we cowered?

Re:If DRM is enforcement, it is *private* enforcem

[Anonymous Coward]

It's one thing for the police to enforce the law. It's quite another for private companies and individuals to do so. If DRM is enforcement, then it's private enforcement: companies interpreting and applying the law according to their own standards, and without oversight.

More than that. The police enforce the law, but they AREN'T allowed to go snooping around inside your home, car, etc. unless they have proper justification (a warrant, hearing screaming as if someone is being killed, etc.)

The Government having to justify ITS actions to us, rather than the other way around, is what makes the difference between a free country and a police state.

With DRM it gets even more interesting. Remember that things that can be the subject of copyright are, by definition, speech. So copyright is artificial monopoly on free speech, albeit a monopoly that has limits and can be challenged in court.

DRM is like having someone stationed in your home (or your computer) to enforce prior restraint of the press (all of your equipment that's capable of copying / playing the bits) on the presumption that you are guilty until (never) proven innocent. It offends the principles behind the Constitution and Bill of Rights (if not always the technical wording) in so many ways it is hard to know where to begin.