I guess this is where my main criticism of the file-sharing/P2P industry lies. If we want to win the battle, we can't be cought fighting ourselves. The RIAA/MPAA is extremely well funded, well lawyered, and has the law on their side. We have the internet and network-effects on ours. But when we fractionate our market with petty disputes, the powerful weapon of network effects are no longer helping us.
With the current legal landscape, the RIAA will probably win if they choose to sue any of the companies involved (assuming, of course, if they can exercise jurisdiction!). The long and short of it is that Kazaa will be viewed similarly to Naster, and so Brilliant Digital will probably be seen as contributing to that "problem".
After all, the US is a member of WIPO, and as such, is somewhat required to engage in these IP-law "harmonization" practices. Other countries will also be doing the same thing for our laws (extrateritorial DMCA jurisdiction... what has the world come to!).
I think that it is a toss-up whether or not a judge will grant the FOIA request, considering that teh camera network is in DC. The police could easily claim that the camera network must remain a state secret for national security concerns, and cite Sept.11th. If a judge will allow the CIA to keep invisible ink secret, then this camera FOIA request will surely be denied.
If the SSSCA passes in the US, we will see the following effects:
1. Cost of new hardware/software goes up to compensate for the inclusion of the DRM: thes things cost money to create, and you know that the copyright-crazy MPAA/RIAA cartel will demand that you licence the DRM rather than having an open standard.
2. Open Source dies a slow death: as the government eventually realizes that they can't force open source operating systems and other software to include DRM effectively, without criminally punishing the developers.
3. The electronics industry will be at the beck-and-call of the entertainment industry: since the "copyright holders" have the sole right to choose what DRM they want to use, the tech industry will need to design their products to confrom to the entertainment industry's marketing decisions.
4. As the former three effects take place, the pace of progress will slow, and the intended result (after all, well-regulated copyright exists to promote the progress of science and the useful arts ( U.S. Constitution, Sec.8, P.8)) will be frustrated.
5. Those who really want to get at the DRM-protected content, and have the ability to do so, still will.
The SSSCA is a tremendously short-sighted, economically harmful, stupid thing to legislate. For the US or for Europe.
Oh, and don't forget, the SSSCA was brought to you by the progenators of the "Mickey Mouse Argument":)
While I certianlly do support more consolidation on the filesharing front (anything to stymie the RIAA/MPAA cartel), I think that a supporters of P2P conducting DOS attacks against each other is a little counterproductive. Yes, in this case it seems to have been effective at stimulating an increase in the network effects of the Gnutella system, but I worry that future attacks will only damage the usefulness of the system. We have enough to worry about what with the SSSCA.
Actually, it probably will work. Consider that the vast majority of consumers are not sophisticated, slashdot reading, power users. Also consider that the SSSCA isn't primarily directed at individuals. Yes, there will be individuals that will break the law, that is a given. However, by and large, corporations will obey regulations if they are being watched. And don't think that the government needs to be the one to watch the corporations. The DMCA includes civil penalties, so the watchpeople will be the movie studios. To think that the SSSCA is some benign law that won't affect the internet as we know it, is a short sighted view.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess this is where my main criticism of the file-sharing/P2P industry lies. If we want to win the battle, we can't be cought fighting ourselves. The RIAA/MPAA is extremely well funded, well lawyered, and has the law on their side. We have the internet and network-effects on ours. But when we fractionate our market with petty disputes, the powerful weapon of network effects are no longer helping us.
With the current legal landscape, the RIAA will probably win if they choose to sue any of the companies involved (assuming, of course, if they can exercise jurisdiction!). The long and short of it is that Kazaa will be viewed similarly to Naster, and so Brilliant Digital will probably be seen as contributing to that "problem".
After all, the US is a member of WIPO, and as such, is somewhat required to engage in these IP-law "harmonization" practices. Other countries will also be doing the same thing for our laws (extrateritorial DMCA jurisdiction... what has the world come to!).
I think that it is a toss-up whether or not a judge will grant the FOIA request, considering that teh camera network is in DC. The police could easily claim that the camera network must remain a state secret for national security concerns, and cite Sept.11th. If a judge will allow the CIA to keep invisible ink secret, then this camera FOIA request will surely be denied.
If the SSSCA passes in the US, we will see the following effects: 1. Cost of new hardware/software goes up to compensate for the inclusion of the DRM: thes things cost money to create, and you know that the copyright-crazy MPAA/RIAA cartel will demand that you licence the DRM rather than having an open standard. 2. Open Source dies a slow death: as the government eventually realizes that they can't force open source operating systems and other software to include DRM effectively, without criminally punishing the developers. 3. The electronics industry will be at the beck-and-call of the entertainment industry: since the "copyright holders" have the sole right to choose what DRM they want to use, the tech industry will need to design their products to confrom to the entertainment industry's marketing decisions. 4. As the former three effects take place, the pace of progress will slow, and the intended result (after all, well-regulated copyright exists to promote the progress of science and the useful arts ( U.S. Constitution, Sec.8, P.8)) will be frustrated. 5. Those who really want to get at the DRM-protected content, and have the ability to do so, still will. The SSSCA is a tremendously short-sighted, economically harmful, stupid thing to legislate. For the US or for Europe. Oh, and don't forget, the SSSCA was brought to you by the progenators of the "Mickey Mouse Argument" :)
While I certianlly do support more consolidation on the filesharing front (anything to stymie the RIAA/MPAA cartel), I think that a supporters of P2P conducting DOS attacks against each other is a little counterproductive. Yes, in this case it seems to have been effective at stimulating an increase in the network effects of the Gnutella system, but I worry that future attacks will only damage the usefulness of the system. We have enough to worry about what with the SSSCA.
Actually, it probably will work. Consider that the vast majority of consumers are not sophisticated, slashdot reading, power users. Also consider that the SSSCA isn't primarily directed at individuals. Yes, there will be individuals that will break the law, that is a given. However, by and large, corporations will obey regulations if they are being watched. And don't think that the government needs to be the one to watch the corporations. The DMCA includes civil penalties, so the watchpeople will be the movie studios. To think that the SSSCA is some benign law that won't affect the internet as we know it, is a short sighted view.