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
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. :-(
You know, I normally agree to this kinda of sentiment hardily, but after reading what this woman has say on the subject, I feel the need to paraphrase Freud... Sometimes a cocksucker is just a cocksucker. I mean, the little voice in my head that read in it older-WASPy-woman voice actually mumbled a bit, having to talk around the big publishing-industry cock in her mouth.
Yes, it's crude and coarse, but pretend civility that passes as public discourse has gotten us to the point where people like this are taken seriously. Personally, I think being a bit lewd and even rude are far preferable to letting shit like this be taken seriously.
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!
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!
The problem is, it is the geek who isn't taken seriously. The mod-up to +5 simply makes him "one of the boys."
I wasn't trying to impress anyone. If you think crudeness is wrong in trying to satirize elements of our society, then I recommend you don't read Swift.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.