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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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!!

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

"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: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

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.

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: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: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.