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

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.

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 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: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.

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.

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: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.