Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
DRM would be more like having speed limits but having car manufacturers artificially prevent the cars from going over 65mph.
creation science book
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.
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.
One day people will learn the folly of Winbloze, Linux Rules!
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!!
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
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
sig?
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.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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).
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.