Slashdot Mirror
FCC Commissioner Lauds DRM, ISP Filtering
snydeq writes "Ars Technica's Nate Anderson and InfoWorld's Paul Venezia provide worthwhile commentary on a recent speech by FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate (PDF), in which she praised DRM as 'very effective' and raised a flag in favor of ISP filtering. Anderson: 'Having commissioners who feel that the government has a duty to partner with and back educational classroom content from the RIAA; who really believe that ISP filtering is so unproblematic we can stop considering objections; and who think that universities worry about file-swapping because tuition might be raised to pay for the needed "expansion of storage capabilities" (huh?) isn't good for the FCC and isn't good for America.' Venezia: 'Leave the ISPs out of it — it's not their job to protect a failing business model, and a movement toward a tiered and filtered Internet will do nothing to stem the tide of piracy, but will result in great restrictions on innovation, freedoms, and the general use of the Internet. There's nothing to be gained down that path other than possibly to expand the wallets of a few companies.'"
dtaylortateweb@fcc.gov
pshyeah, tell that to the pirate bay!
Leave the ISPs out of it â" it's not their job to protect a failing business model
Yeah... and congress doesn't like the competition.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Former FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate has announced she is retiring in 2009 and is looking forward to serving on the board of the RIAA as their new "Token Ex-Government Paid Mouthpiece" Director.
"...There's nothing to be gained down that path other than possibly to expand the wallets of a few companies."
That's precisely the reason the government would back it. Governments have created corporations and have conducted wars for exactly that reason.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Are people allowed to settle on Antartica?
We're entering some sort of technological dark ages - the honeymoon period is now over.
The mainstream regulation committees have taken interest in these type of subjects and as usual, the ignorance/commercial interests is/are beginning to shine through.
I record my sleeptalking
Don't feed the troll.
Here in .au the government is scaling back it's plans for filtering due to being laughed at by anyone who knows anything about the internet.
In a recent call for ISPs to participate in live tests of their system the biggest ISP here said no, it's stupid. The second biggest said OK, but we won't block all that you want us to, and the third biggest said we'll participate fully just to show you how dumb you're being.
It seems that the point was finally driven home and now the government is trying to back down without losing face.
But he speaks the truth, the actions of one of President Bush's appointees is the ultimate damning evidence of Obama's lack of enpivbtenment!
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Why would anyone here seriously expect otherwise? I mean this as a serious question. Aside from blind optimism, why would you expect anything else from the people at the top of the "stakeholder" food chain.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
DRM is very good at what it does: preventing us from using our legitimately purchased items.
Maybe with the new administration it could be a rule that an FCC employee who is involved in regulation cannot work for a telecommunications company or one of their contractors or agents, for 10 years prior, or 10 years after employment.
It's reaching, I know, but it's a dream I have. Real honesty, and no more corporate ass-kissing.
The CTIA and their minions have a special place in Hell.
...the ultimate damning evidence of Obama's lack of enpivbtenment!
Hey! Wait a minute! Obama has always been enpivbtened!
That is all.
Don't YOU lot start on internet filtering now, we're only just managing to slow the push for this here in Oz! If there's a push for it in the US, then our esteemed, clueless leader is going to say that there is more evidence it should be implemented here!
I intend to live forever, or die trying. - Groucho Marx
But kinda of hard to swallow.
Simply stop giving the people that back this shit your money. Put your money where your mouth is.
Before I purchase any product, I look it up on the web and see if it has DRM, if it does, I don't purchase it. When my ISP starts filtering my connection(throttling is one thing, censorship is something entirely different), I will disconnect. When I cannot look up DRM on products because I no longer use the Internet, I'll just have to assume its there.
Why pay for it when it doesn't work anymore?
Remember, managers don't have to know anything about their field; they just need to know "management stuff".
In recent news, the RIAA has appealed to congress for a national bailout. Congress realizes that they have a failing business model, but believe that if the industry was given a "couple" billion dollars everything would change.
> But he speaks the truth, the actions of one of President Bush's appointees is the ultimate damning evidence of Obama's lack of enpivbtenment!
Indeed. It's a clbuttic case. I can only buttume we will soon insbreastute an internet filtering program that rivals the Australians.
I have had the unfortunate need to try to contact the friendly FCC lately, due to unwanted phone calls (they are the communications commission, after all). I can tell you that they are every bit as frustrating to work with as the DMV, minus the efficiency and courteous service.
Though the most frustrating aspect of the FCC, from my vantage point, is their lack of concern for accountability of phone customers. If you compare phone registration to domain name registration, you'll find that phone registration has all the built-in obfuscation that computer spammers have dreamed about. Toll-free numbers, in particular, have protected identity information.
If you get a call from a toll-free number, you have no good mechanism to determine the owner of the number. There is no central whois-like registry for this number, and the companies that sell the numbers are under no obligation to share information on who is using the numbers they sell.
Want to lodge a complaint with the FCC? Fill out their automated form, and you'll see an automated response later. It won't likely address your complaint. And if you call their own number (888-call-fcc), you'll wait for some time and then receive no help.
Frankly, KMart is a shining example of customer service in contrast to the FCC.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
From her speech: "Overall, the U.S. economy lost $58 billion in output that would have been realized if piracy had not occurred. In addition, the U.S. lost 373,375 jobs due to piracy, and federal and state governments lose $2.6 billion annually through unrealized tax revenue."
That is total BS. Piracy != losses; most (or at least many) people who pirate would not otherwise purchase the product. She needs to go take Economics 101 and realize that if you make something free (which is what piracy does), the demand is going to skyrocket beyond what it would normally be at any reasonable price level.
Statements like this are dangerous because if people really believe piracy caused $58 billion of damage to the economy, then they will be willing to spend similar sums of money in order to combat piracy.
In fact, maybe she realizes that this is total FUD, and just wants to justify an exorbitant budget for her department in order to "combat piracy."
As I said: where's an economist when you need one?
I guess the MAFIAA lobby is very strong. Obviously politicians have no idea of the real world and are told what to say by their staff.
-- Cheers!
I praise Bacon as being very nutritious and good for weight loss, especially in large quantities. It should be blended into all health foods and general bread.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
One look at the tags on this story reminds me why I almost never bother with comments anymore.
Like most Slashdot readers, it's hard for me to imagine statements this blatantly stupid and biased coming from a sitting government official.
But SERIOUSLY, notwithstanding some really bright, reasonable, articulate people, it feels like this place is up to the gills in 8th graders. "Whore" and "bitch" are the kind of words I remember seeing on bathroom walls. I get emotional about some of these things too, but how can anyone take this site seriously with those kinds of responses?
bureacracy is just damage to route around
block the servers, we make it p2p
block the ports, we make it http
sniff the packets, we mask it as as form gets and posts
throttle our connection, we just download slower fractional pieces and assemble in alternative channels
a billion media hungry, poor, and, most importantly, technically astute young people. far more technically astute, far more numberous, and a lot more motivated than your hired tech guns. you can't pay someone to do well enough what we do for free from passion
go ahead, sue us. if you can find us. go ahead, bankrupt some poor dumb college kids. like those you catch are anything but dumband clueless. go ahead, reap the bad pr. nothing stops, full steam ahead
game on, ignorant dinosaurs. its the extinction of your outmoded business models and your laws based on philosophies from the 1800s understanding of media
whether your realize it, or fight it, or whatever, you lose, no matter what you do. you just don't know it yet
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"[T]he U.S. lost 373,375 jobs due to piracy, and federal and state governments lose $2.6 billion annually through unrealized tax revenue." Based on what? Every act of stealing a song doesn't mean the person stealing would have purchased the song, for example.
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains.
'Leave the ISPs out of it â" it's not their job to protect a failing business model, and a movement toward a tiered and filtered Internet will do nothing to stem the tide of piracy, but will result in great restrictions on innovation, freedoms, and the general use of the Internet. There's nothing to be gained down that path other than possibly to expand the wallets of a few companies.'
QFT
I wonder how much lobbyist money she took from the RIAA to say those things?
It is not just the business model that is failing, it is the government model that is failing as well. Remember that the DMCA was passed by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and signed by Bill Clinton, why only pick on the Republicans when the Democrats have an equal share of the blame?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Its crucial that we not only allow operators to manage their networks, but to not tie their hands with prescriptive regulations. And make no mistake, net neutrality as network management is sometimes referenced in Washington and among political discussants, if implemented in its strictest form, will tie the hands of network operators. Digital fingerprinting and watermarking would not be possible if net neutrality is enforced in its harshest form.
I'm pretty sure New_Movie.avi would still contain their precious watermarks, regardless of how they throttled your connection. Unless, of course, they are hoping the ISPs reroute "unauthorized" destinations and protocols to their own servers.
Go ahead and try, all that will happen is that services will use rotating ports and encryption to get around filters. Good luck, let the arms race begin.
I knew it had to be... Australia's (Rudd) government has been IGNORING the country's technical experts (eg, on the topic of Net Filtering) for a long time now... I had wondered why... What's in it for Australia to filter the Internet?
I understand that the prime minister's wife is Catholic (could this be a factor?)
Businesses might (before our Aussie $ dropped in value by ~30% recently) have wanted Australians' Internet experience to be SLOW, ie, so the more impatient amounst us would stop looking for bargains, eg, in larger cities or overseas or on eBay... but those bargains have "soured" after the Aussie dropped...
Now, I see our Aussie gov't beginning to show signs of American nonesense all over again... (Wasn't the Iraq invasion enough?!?)
Australia still seems to fear disagreeing with the Bush administration... Hopefully, Obama's rise to power (early in January) will give Australians a more intelligent approach to Internet facilitation (as opposed to the opposite).
I'm still waiting for the Australian gov't to notice places - like France - where Internet is unlimited, cheap, fast (16 MB/sec - fast, at least, by Aussie [ADSL-1 - if you can get it] standards) & can come with whole-of-Nation unlimited phone calling (so they -feel- like a Nation) & some [pay] TV channels, as well.
They're still pandering to -useless- Telstra and -sinking- USA... ie, rather than looking for bright ideas elsewhere.
We tired of overpriced, monopolistic Telstra and really don't need to follow the USA into mega-deficits.
We don't need SLOWER Internet, in the name of "filtering" and we don't need to be told what we can & cannot use our Internet for, for the most part. Those who download kiddy-porn or use the Internet to foster race-hatred do, but the rest of us should not have our Internet slowed by "filtering" activities, when it's so easy to beat the filters.
PS: Did you know that it costs upwards of Au $10,000 for a "license" to be a (legal) ISP in Australia?!? That's anti-compertitive!
Groups who would cooperate to bring fast[er] Intenet to their Australian neighborhood -fear- being fined for not having such costly licenses before they "Car-Pool" their groups' Internet accounts.
The FCC is by far one of the more corrupt of the Govt. agencies out there. Remember, the FCC was established to prevent interference between (then) radio broadcasters. Today's FCC has actually encouraged interference, by allowing the radio stations to run a digital broadcasting system that operates on their neighbors' frequency! They have totally screwed up cell phones, cable TV, broadcast TV, the Internet and just about everything else they have been allowed to touch! There has never been an engineer as an FCC Commisissioner, even though much of what they regulate is physics based. They all are lawyers!
Under their tutalige, (and in concert with a corrupt Bush administration) the United States has wound up with the costliest, slowest, most content regulaged Internet of all the first world countries. The Communications Act of 1996 was GUTTED by them! There is virtually NO competition for Internet in the USA! We have three non-compatible cell phone systems here in the USA; and even where systems ARE compatible, unlike the rest of the world, you can not take your phone from one carrier to another and use it! Instead, perfectly good phones clutter our landfills!
Our Digital TV system is a JOKE-just wait until next February to see how bad THAT is going to be (Hint: the digital coverage of TV stations is only about 60% of their current analog coverage, resulting in lots of coverage gaps). The AM broadcast band has been destroyed by an FCC that has allowed all sorts of interfering electronic devices to create digital grunge without licensing or oversight. Finally, the only thing that talks at ther FCC is MONEY!! Why else would under 35 TV stations be able to occupy TV channels five and six after digital, when a new FM band that could accomodate EVERY ONE of the 5000 plus AM stations could make MUCH BETTER use of this precious spectrum (another hint: channels 2-6 are USELESS for DTV)!
The FCC needs to be abolished and replaced with a non-partisan agency primarily run by engineers. For far too long, the FCC has allowed the foxes (the very licensees they regulate) run the hen house. It's time to put this dog to sleep!
Sent via Fax: 1-866-418-0232
Dear Commissioner Taylor Tate:
As president of a small software company in New Hampshire I am quite aware of the critical place that copyright law plays in protecting my company's software and intellectual property.
I just read the PDF of your speech last week at Penn (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287150A1.pdf), and I must say that this it is a striking piece of work.
It seems laden with misinformation, half truths, fear, uncertainty and doubt. It's hard to see where to begin, but I will raise four points:
1) You spend a good third of the speech citing truly frightening statistics about the losses borne by creators of intellectual property. I would appreciate support for the numbers that you mention - the US Chamber of Commerce figure is particularly suspect, as it appears to refer to various other studies that ultimately rely on that original CoC figure.
As a taxpayer, I ask you to provide the raw data for these statistics your argument relies on.
2) I'm astonished that you include auto and fashion industry losses as ones of copyright. Certainly counterfeit products could be guilty of trademark infringement or outright fraud, and drug counterfeiting might be criminal.
But it seems sloppy rhetoric to use such a broad brush in your talk.
3) You then go on to cite efforts to use technology to minimize copyright violations. These watermarking and fingerprinting measures allow copyright holders to easily and reliably identify their content on public web sites. This, too, strikes me as a good way to make effective use of the current DMCA to take down the offending material.
However, these seem to undermine the thesis of your talk that, "We have to do something about this!"
4) The final part of your speech goes on to stump for greater education, at the expense of scaring the bejesus out of the audience, and completely ignoring (or worse, trampling) the right of Fair Use.
In short, this was a red-meat speech that strives to stir up all the bogeymen of the "bad Internet".
As a taxpayer and small-C conservative, I was hopeful that a federal government employee might present a more balanced view, especially to a university audience who could understand the nuances, of the current state of the law and a more thoughtful view of the national policy might be.
I would appreciate a response, especially on the raw data for the statistics you cite.
Best regards,
Rich Brown
Hanover, NH USA
As usual the government won't do shit and she'll worm her way into a different high position. I hope this bitch dies in a fire.
Nice way to invalidate any conceivable merit the rest of your argument had.
stop giving the people that back this shit your money. Put your money where your mouth is.
The problem with this is that it's *not* a solution.
What happens when you do this is that they say "hey our sales are down, we need more DRM and government restrictions - send some more lobbyists to Washington to buy some more laws."
And drop in sales is attributed to "piracy", whether it's really the cause or not.
how can our government possibly lose face when it is already a joke?
-- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
Let me point people to the Save The Internet movement and encourage people to send a letter to their representatives with what they think. The template letter is as follows:
* Subject:. Required.
Dear [Decision Maker],
Please personalize your message
Countless Americans rely upon an open Internet in their daily lives. Our elected leaders must protect our basic right to communicate from those who want to take it from us. Please join with me and 2 million others to demand that Congress protect the free-flowing Internet from blocking, censorship and discrimination by phone and cable companies. This is not an issue of left against right but of right over wrong. To allow companies to interfere with our Internet access is a stark violation of the principles of openness and nondiscrimination that have been the bedrock of U.S. communications policy for more than 70 years. It's up to Congress to protect innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State ZIP]
And will be automatically sent to your representatives depending on where you live. If you feel strongly, please help take action.
A) she has excellent research available on the subject the effectiveness of DRM and ISP filtering
or
B) she is grossly misinformed and spouting off like an idiot
or
C) she knows what she says isn't true, but she's saying it to push the riaa agenda.
They're using their grammar skills there.
There are some things it is a pleasure to leave behind in high school.
Trash talk from a nerd is one of them.
Talk of blowjobs isn't "insightful." It is adolescent.
Beavis and Butt-Head. You have given no reason why any one over the age of consent should take you seriously.
The biggest misscomception is this one;
There's nothing to be gained down that path other than possibly to expand the wallets of a few companies
During the heyday of napster, CD sales were up. When the exposure to music was severely limited and incompatible (DRM) formats were introduced, sales fell. DRM does to music sales what hardware dongles do to software sales. It reduces piracy, exposure, and sales while increasing costs.
I don't do dongles or DRM.
The truth shall set you free!
i think most of us would really like to see the non-automated response you get, if you get one. regarding drm, i wrote to my congressman and senator... never heard anything from either of them. :-(
Man... Mod OT if you must, but uh I think we could all use a little something, something to defuse the situation. That's just a tad inflammatory if I do say... Kudos to you Mrs. Deborah Taylor Tate, troll of the year.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/photos/ppdtt.jpg
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
A bathroom wall is pretty much exactly where this woman belongs.
Consider that "whore" is not necessarily idle name-calling. Because of the statements she's made, we can either assume that she actually is that stupid, or that she's been swayed by lobbyists -- maybe that she's actually paid by the RIAA, or has some stake in them.
Which would make her a whore, regardless of her gender. The fact that she's a public servant makes her that much more deserving of every profanity we can throw at her.
Of course, the full extent of our disgust doesn't fit into the tags, so it's been condensed to "bitch" and "whore"... which is why you have to actually read the comments.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
All your base are belong to Google.
Just look at China.
The real danger isn't necessarily that they'll be able to win -- it's that they'll be able to convince the majority that it's a good thing, so there won't be as much resistance as you imagine.
But consider the technical trends lately... Alright, yes, mask it as form gets and posts. What happens when ISPs actually start censoring sites? What happens when IPv4 runs out, and we still refuse to upgrade -- so we are all behind NATs, so no one can expose port 80 unless they're one of the approved few?
I don't want to wait until we get to that point -- to where the only real way to take back control will be through more and more direct and blatant acts of sabotage ("borrowing" an approved server to coordinate hole-punching), or receding farther and father underground (using ham radios to coordinate hole-punching)...
No, I like my Internet mostly the way it is -- I get 100 mbit fiber to my house at a reasonable price, and while the policy says otherwise, I can pretty much use it how I want. I would much rather see them keep doing what they're doing -- laying more fiber, actually investing my money in new infrastructure, and keeping far enough ahead that as fast as I can download, I won't be lagging anyone else.
That is one of many reasons I voted for Obama. And yes, I know about Biden's record, but even if he sticks to that, better a pro-neutrality President and an anti-neutrality VP than an entire anti-neutrality party.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Wow. I can't believe what an echo chamber it is in here.
First of all, why would the FCC care one whit about the anti-DRM movement? As far as their concerned this is the same stuff that cable companies have been putting on their lines for years for movies and pay channels. Why is this any different for them?
So what's the big deal. They think "ah, just move the cable industry model to the internet and you now have streaming TV and movies, great!" And again, i don't actually see a problem with this... until they try to stop you from being able to record on your VCR or something and destroy the cable legacy user model we have today. That's where the problem is and that's what you should be arguing against.
Now again, this whole bittorrent thing eats into their business. First off, they're basically there to support industry. They don't care about us as consumers, they just want to control the content that we can see and view. I mean really, in this day and age, what else do they do? Manage airwave frequencies? Um... yeah... that would take about 10 people for the whole US if that's all they did.
So they're basically the morals gatekeeper to keep us from seeing Janet Jackson's boob. The whole bittorrent thing really eats into that control. I can DL anything from Bambi to 2 girls 1 cup with out any form of content control... and so can any unsupervised 5 yr old. O M G!~
From their point of view, internet filtering is great and DRM is totally old news. So unless you're a religious organization that can whip your people into having orgies of indignation at the drop of a hat, they don't care about your rights as an individual or your rights as a consumer. They only care about your rights to pony up money for the latest Hollywood flick... and maybe about how messed up if little Timmy hears a swear word or sees a (gasp) boob.
Look for other people to protect your rights, the FCC is about limiting, not protecting. Don't expect any different. I hate to say it, but congress and the courts are the path to protecting your rights, not the FCC.
d
all language nazi's will burne in heil!
How is it piracy if Warner Brothers releases it?
You're parsing that wrong. I think you parsed it like as if she's saying Warner Brothers is combating a new kind of piracy where the pirates add watermarks.
She's actually saying that Warner Brothers is releasing those watermarks as a way to combat piracy.
That is, it's not: /Warner Brothers/Is countering/Piracy by watermarking/ /Warner Brothers/Is countering piracy/by watermarking/
It is:
I'm not really sure what the appropriate notation is. Maybe I should've just used punctuation. It's a bit like the joke of helping your uncle Jack off a horse...
and I assume Universities will be forced into installing this black box on their network monitoring all their traffic
No, they can't actually force this to happen. However, they do try to legally pressure some universities into doing this. The smarter universities tend to actually protect their students, by quashing any fishing expeditions by MAFIAA members.
For example, less than 1% of the
Olympic coverage viewed this past summer was pirated.
So what? Most of us didn't watch it on purpose out of protest.
I suspect this one had much more to do with the fact that Olympic coverage was available in a convenient, free format from the Internet.
In other words, it really has nothing to do with whether it was DRM'd, and everything to do with the fucking basics of the free market -- provide a product that people find valuable, at a price they're willing to pay.
Her reasoning is that VOIP and video is more important because big companies want to turn the Internet into cable TV and Phone.
Perhaps. But she's only using them because they're the typical example given to explain to laymen the need for low-latency, low-bandwidth traffic.
Unfortunately, the constant mention of TV completely undermines that argument. TV is never completely "live", and both YouTube and torrents show that high-quality TV requires a lot of bandwidth -- yet doesn't care much about latency.
The mention of TV is actually an argument for network neutrality.
That is, unless she's suggesting that only the ISP's chosen IPTV network be prioritized, and that it take priority over things like YouTube and BitTorrent. In which case, it's also the perfect ad-absurdum argument for net neutrality -- if she would outright say how disturbingly anticompetitive she would like to make the Internet, that would be a great educational tool for anyone still skeptical.
Oh, and keep in mind -- you don't actually need to use hyperbole here. What she's saying is incredible enough by itself. These do nothing to help your case:
Aren't you a fucking lawyer?! You should know this!... because that isn't weird in a 1984 kind of way... She should stick to her own profession instead of thinking she knows things about computers.... She can not comprehend the Internet as a communication tool used by all, she can only see money to be made.. the more I read the more you sound like a fucking RIAA sleeper agent.... This women should be charged with Treason.... I hope this bitch dies in a fire.
Does she deserve all that? Maybe.
But these statements are overly inflammatory even where you're right, and you're not, always. When you're wrong, it just makes you look like a jackass, which makes it less likely anyone will take the time to read your comment.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Whatever government shill, why do you fuck off back to your recording company now? Thanks bye.
No it's you who can't grasp it. She says quite plain a simply.
"For example, in South Korea, Warner Brothers is combating piracy of its DVDs by releasing a watermarked version online, instead of a DRM-protected DVD."
They're releasing the DVDs online themselves and then claiming people have pirated them. If you release your own product on the internet then it's not piracy.
Read what I said next time, jackass.
The United State's only real export anymore is intellectual property. As manufacturing, real estate, and raw material exports decline export more and even violent protection of Intellectual Property.
The real chiller is so few can control intellectual property that you'll see a new patent-holding aristocracy who's knights and private armies wear suits and wage war in courts...
aww shit too late...
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Even corporate drones might catch on that "hey, games the don't have DRM are outselling ones that do!"
btw, PCGamer includes DRM info in its reviews. I'm sure other magazines do, too. It has now become the most important part of any review for me. I read that before even considering the rest of the review.
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
What a frustrating email. The first 85% is great -- Spore is such a perfect poster child for DRM, and your writing style is cogent and engaging.
Then you go and fuck up the whole thing by directly insulting the addressee. You're supposed to butter her up, or dig deep for ways to excuse her ignorance, or, at worst, pelt her with hilariously veiled insults.
Insulting whatserface negates the value of your otherwise convincing letter. Even if you send copies to your congresscritters, you're still more likely to come off as a supercilious jackwipe than you would have if you'd just left that part out.
They're releasing the DVDs online themselves and then claiming people have pirated them.
Again, that's not what I'm seeing here. Read that quote you so helpfully provided again. Now again, slowly. Maybe it will sink in.
Warner Brothers is combating (piracy of its DVDs) by (releasing a watermarked version online, instead of a DRM-protected DVD).
In other words: Warner Brothers is combating the phenomena where people pirate the DRM-protected DVD by abandoning that scheme, and taking it online.
You've somehow, perversely, read that wrong, even when it's been pointed out to you. You've read it as:
Warner Brothers is combating (piracy of its DVDs by releasing a watermarked version online, instead of a DRM-protected DVD).
That's a much more cumbersome sentence -- is English your first language? "Plain a simply", obviously not.
It's also possible that you've confused what Warner is doing -- since they've said they are doing this instead of releasing a DRM-protected DVD, I can only assume that it's not that they're watermarking a rip and posting it on thepiratebay, so they can blame other people. No, it seems far more likely that they are selling a downloadable, un-DRM'd, but watermarked format, so that if people then choose to distribute it on thepiratebay, they can be tracked.
Read what I said next time, jackass.
Oh, very mature. But the same to you -- rather than taking the time to read my post, and find out what I was trying to say, you instead repeated yours, only with more name-calling.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Here's an email I sent recently to a geek list I'm on, regarding the FCC transition chiefs:
(note: kudos to NYCountryLawyer for pointing these people out in response to one of my earlier posts on another story)
Here's a take on new tech I rather like:
Access providers want to track what everyone is doing online and use it for their commercial advantage. They're developing prioritization technology that will be like a cellphone layer on the internet - able to bill differently for different uses. They're working closely with law enforcement and Hollywood in ways that will make internet use unpredictable and heavily-surveilled. The greatest engine of free speech and democratic outreach the world has ever seen is being co-opted by telephone companies. This isn't good for our future.
Who said it?
Susan Crawford, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School. (and founder of OneWebDay)
So what?
She has a new job; she'll be working with Kevin Werbach.
Who's he?
Kevin Werbach, assistant professor of legal studies and business ethics at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and organizer of the annual Supernova technology conference.
Yeah - but what's he got to say?
I put together the first Supernova conference six years ago because, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, we all knew something was happening here, but we didn't know what it was. My conviction was that underneath all the changes - business becoming increasingly distributed, users becoming more knowledgeable, old industry models collapsing, and everything and everybody becoming networked - is one fundamental phenomenon: decentralization.
At Supernova, we bring together business, government, and technology thought leaders to understand how decentralization and pervasive connectivity are changing our world.
Alright, that sounds fine - so these two are working together. What are they working on?
They'll lead the Obama FCC transition team with the responsibility of advising the incoming administration on policy, budget and personnel matters.
Ideally the ostrichness of the current administration will soon be a thing of the past.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Correlation does not imply causation.
Apparently, the speaker was tasked to test the audience to identify fallacies in the speech like generalization, straw man, and red herring. In addition, so little evidence was used to back up assertions, the speaker was to attempt to draw conclusions without evidence. Needless to say, the audience failed to setup a critical thinking firewall, MS service exception, and instead drank the RIAA flavored koolaid.
How can someone so factually clueless as Deborah Taylor Tate ever get to be in charge of anything, let alone something so critical as the FCC?
If this isn't an indicator that the system is totally broken and badly needs repair, then nothing is.
If the RIAA wants to keep me from downloading music, all they have to do is make sure that the only people making music are the "Artists" that appear on MTV's "people to promote" lists. I have yet to even consider the music of Madonna, Brittney Spears, Creed, Coldplay, Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit, Metallica... the list goes on and on.
"Gosh, nobody is buying our music! It must be piracy! It can't be the fact that the shit we're spitting out like a diseased chorizo grinder is as likely to be listenable as the sounds of chainsaws mating."
RIAA/MPAA? ProTip: All that merchandise of yours that I didn't buy? It wasn't because I downloaded it like a naughty pirate. It was because you were too busy shoveling shit onto the shelves to notice it wasn't worth the effort of getting it -free- let alone buying.
is weak
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it