By adding "giving up privacy" to the text the mass medias know they will increase the fuel on the flames burning in the minds of the masses on subjects they have little to no understanding (both the media and the masses). The medias know this simply because they built the bonfire before fanning the flames. The same uninformed masses feel they are "well informed" on subjects, because the mass medias tell them they are regardless of level of knowledge or understanding the mass medias possess on any given subject.
Throwing in buzzwords like "privacy" links completely unrelated stories together in the minds of the masses and increase following of various medias. This linkage of unrelated stories makes the unrelated issues one big issue in the minds of the masses. Sensationalizing of the medias sells. Retracting incorrect information after the fact, be it four days later in the least viewed spaces of the newspaper or 3am on news channels makes it legally unchallengeable and morally acceptable to the reporters involved in an escalating and alarming trend to sell the story to as many people as possible and get the story right sometime later when no one is paying attention.
The mass population does not care if the story is right, as long as it gives them something to be irate about and the mass medias are more than happy to cater to those needs. The damage being done by the mass medias is of no concern to them. In fact, they depend on the same damage they are instigating. The damage being done will continue to feed the mass media's sources for more stories to intentionally slant to feed the masses. The loop does not seem to have any logical end, which will ensure the mass medias an ever-increasing market share and the investors an ever increasing income each year.
Slashdot is caught in an uncomfortable position. Its viewership among those searching for "a fringe hobbyist site" (thanks Gurlia) has been dropping at a rate that should alarm the maintainers of the site. Its viewership among the panicky mass population is not growing fast enough. On one hand, Slashdot can respect its roots and cater to a few thousand users. On the other hand, it can push itself into the limelight, race on a daily basis to the story with the highest levels of controversy among the mass population (with the intention of getting stories right at some later date) and cater to millions of users. Financially, the decision is simple.
The court opinion stated that items should not be banned as long as "the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes." How exactly you come to the conclusion that this implies that the Supreme Court of the United States is saying that a tool should be available to the public "as long as it is possible to use it in a legal way, regardless of the actual uses..." is beyond me.
That simply is not what the opinion says. In order for Napster to use this argument and refer to this opinion from the Supremes, Napster would need to show not only that the technology can be used in a legitimate manner (as you suggested), but also Napter would need to show that the majority of the actual physical use of the technology is legitimate.
The real problem here, is that Napster can not prove that. While it is true that there are legitimate uses for Napster like technologies, any technology like this in a college atmosphere will be abused. A simple poll in many college campuses will give the RIAA plenty to discredit any argument Napster makes such as this.
As often is the case, the technology itself is not illegal, the use of the technology is.
This is where I am against the RIAA's use of the court system. Instead of protecting their property using the laws that exist, they are lobbying for a bigger blanket to allow them to "protect" themselves easier.
Instead of sueing 300,000 Napster users, Metallica thinks it would be easier to sue the access providers. Knock out 100,000+ law suits in one case, make big bucks and move on. And don't forget, Metallica is not the driving force here, simply the face to the movement. The lawyers are the ones that want those big checks...
It is OK for you to record off the radio and play for your self until the tape wears out. It is not OK for you to copy that tape and give it out in any format whatsoever. At least to the best of my understanding.
When I think foward, trying to understand why big corporations want legislature such as the DMCA, UCITA other recently passed legislation, I do not think that obsolete technology is what they have in mind. Quite the opposite.
Big corporations are already accustomed to paying annual licensing fees. I think the manufactures that are supportive of the current movement in copyright law is trying to tone that model down to the end user.
Rather than selling office suites or software, they now maintain ownership even if you happen to get the media. I think in the long run, the plan on the table is that there will be no media. I think it will start with distribution across the wire, and eventually be replaced with no distibution whatsoever. What better way to control their 'rights' to their copyright than to control the access altogether.
I think we will see big corporation supportive of next generation Internet access to bring large bandwidth to the masses. I think that is all part of the big picture for the future.
Instead of going to your local store to 'rent' software, of course, by dropping your $50-$1,000to buy the pretty box with the CD's inside, you would access this through one of the readily available ASP's that are available in the new corporate world. Instead of installing the software, you will run it on their servers. You will pay a annual or monthly fee to 'rent' time to use the software.
To big business, this model will be ideal. No longer will they need armies of IT professionals to maintain their software. The cost of their software AND their overhead in their IT department can be reduced to one annual contract with one or two ASP's, and every computer on their network will be covered. Big business will gladly trade people on payroll for a larger annual contract with outside sources. Why? It costs a *lot* of money to employ people, a lot more than their salaries. When approached with this model, big business will be inclined to pay larger fees for outsourcing their products to ASP's than they are currently willing to spend of software alone. Their cutbacks in their IT departments will more than make up for the additional overhead of software, the bottom lines will be better, shareholders make more money and everyone is happy. Especially the software manufacurers that are now recieving more money than they ever have per year, and that income will come year after year, forever.
The average consumer does not understand terms like 'cost of ownership' as intimately as the majority of the readers here do. They will not understand that paying $30 a month forever is more expensive than putting out $300 for software they can take home and 'own' (in their own minds, at least, they have a tangible product, so they own it).
The manufacturer's, however, understand this problem all to well. They realize that instead of offering a $300 package, they would prefer the residual long term payout. Kinda like a loan, but the consumer is not buying anything. They will have the best of both worlds. No one uses their product or infringes on their copyright without their knowledge, and they have a promised income.
Once this distribution method becomes a reality, and I firmly believe it is growing to that point as we speak, we will see more and more software moving to this business model.
The PR departments for these companies will love the entire process. They will be all to eager to explain to the average consumer that their software will never be obsolete. They will always have the most recent copy of the software. They will never have to suffer through an upgrade again. And they can access their software from every PC, PDA and toaster oven on the planet. As explained above, I think that selling this model to big business will be a no brainer. Once a couple of large corps are hooked, the rest will fall in line in order to remain competitive.
And, if all this pans out as I think some manufacture's hope it will, do not fool yourself into believing for a second that it will not propogate to other industries. Movies and music industries would be thrilled to have a method to turn a $100 per year customer into a $19.95 per month customer that owns nothing.
Your favorite movie or song track will always be available regardless of what changes technology take in the future. Your collection will never be threatened by fire, the elements, or theft. That will all be promised by the manufacturer.
And it will simply be an added bonus to these manufactures to cut out every distribution step between them and the end consumer. Will prices fall? Sure, but not nearly enough to cover the change in price between insert your favorite movie production house and the video store on your street where you bought your last movie. The average consumer will see they can save $5 on this movie buying into this system over paying the guy down the street for 'yesterdays' technology that degrades in time and may be lost forever if their house burns to the ground...
The number of times the system has been used is not the point. The point is the system itself and the potential that lies in a system like this for abuse.
Anyone watch 'Cops'? I have seen an enforcement officer pull up to a car where two people are talking, take them into custody and search their persons. Why? They are talking in an area known for its drug traffic, so obviously, they meet the burden of probable cause. The fact they are guilty makes everything fine in the eyes of its viewers. The fact that two people taken into custody simply because they are conversing in a place known for its drug traffic does not dawn on the average viewer that something has gone wrong. A criminal was removed from the street. The fact that constitutional rights were disregarded is immaterial.
A system like this, however, is even worse. Why?
Lets consider the need for a 'warrant'. OK, so to use this to target one individual a warrant needs to be obtained, and then they can only study one individual. Fine. This works out. Down the line as the technology improves, they begin to probe more. Instead of searching for one person, they code into the system to search for the target person, and certain keywords. This will be an easy step to make, since the courts already have given the power to use the technology. Does anyone know that this happens? Not on your life. Does the FBI begin to open more files based on "anonymous tips". I would be willing to bet so.
Now, lets consider the current 'defacto standard' of the executive branch of reasonable probable cause. While scanning the packets for the targeted individual, the start seeing an increasing number of encrypted packets in mail as concerned, law-biding citizens begin to protect their digital information. Do these go to the individual being investigated? Are they going to an accomplice of the individual? Don't know, but we should capture them and analyze them to determine what these packets are. These individuals have something to hide, because they are taking 'extraordinary' steps (that will be the word they use in court to defend their actions, if they ever are caught using this information) to hide obviously illegal activates from law enforcement. The simple fact that these extraordinary steps are being taken will be viewed as sufficient probable cause to investigate further. Again, no one will know, but the case files opened with an anonymous tip at the Bureau will be increasing and the Bureau will hold press conferences showing off their latest and greatest conquests in the name of upholding the law.
The system can process gigabytes of data an hour. With today's modern storage, no one will ever know if the box they carry in is capable of storing exabytes of data. Well, now the data needs to be stored and studied off-site, since the broadband users are becoming more prevalent in our society. The simple explanation will be that creating a system like this capable of analyzing the information in real-time and remaining portable is a technological impossibility. A much more thorough analysis can be provided in the facilities in Washington, and will only look at data that is in direct relation to the warrant and the targeted individual. Problem is, no one knows what data they actually are analyzing. If the data can be sifted through this data looking for information related to the targeted information, how large a leap is it for this same system to look for other trends, keywords, etc. It does not cost the taxpayers any money, and additional man-hours are not needed to do this research. The new cases opened in the weeks following the investigation were all a direct result of law biding citizens providing anonymous tips. The fact that this system is in use has nothing to do with the increasingly concerned anonymous citizen of the country.
And one day, we will be asking ourselves with the technology that is available today, how does one actually deliver a tip to the FBI that is anonymous, since they have tapped the phones, can trace snail mail and have video record of any person within 500 feet of any Bureau office? Yet, with all this technology, an amazingly increasing number of law biding conscientious citizens are managing to provide the anonymous tips to remove criminals from the streets, so everything is alright, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
By adding "giving up privacy" to the text the mass medias know they will increase the fuel on the flames burning in the minds of the masses on subjects they have little to no understanding (both the media and the masses). The medias know this simply because they built the bonfire before fanning the flames. The same uninformed masses feel they are "well informed" on subjects, because the mass medias tell them they are regardless of level of knowledge or understanding the mass medias possess on any given subject.
Throwing in buzzwords like "privacy" links completely unrelated stories together in the minds of the masses and increase following of various medias. This linkage of unrelated stories makes the unrelated issues one big issue in the minds of the masses. Sensationalizing of the medias sells. Retracting incorrect information after the fact, be it four days later in the least viewed spaces of the newspaper or 3am on news channels makes it legally unchallengeable and morally acceptable to the reporters involved in an escalating and alarming trend to sell the story to as many people as possible and get the story right sometime later when no one is paying attention.
The mass population does not care if the story is right, as long as it gives them something to be irate about and the mass medias are more than happy to cater to those needs. The damage being done by the mass medias is of no concern to them. In fact, they depend on the same damage they are instigating. The damage being done will continue to feed the mass media's sources for more stories to intentionally slant to feed the masses. The loop does not seem to have any logical end, which will ensure the mass medias an ever-increasing market share and the investors an ever increasing income each year.
Slashdot is caught in an uncomfortable position. Its viewership among those searching for "a fringe hobbyist site" (thanks Gurlia) has been dropping at a rate that should alarm the maintainers of the site. Its viewership among the panicky mass population is not growing fast enough. On one hand, Slashdot can respect its roots and cater to a few thousand users. On the other hand, it can push itself into the limelight, race on a daily basis to the story with the highest levels of controversy among the mass population (with the intention of getting stories right at some later date) and cater to millions of users. Financially, the decision is simple.
The court opinion stated that items should not be banned as long as "the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes." How exactly you come to the conclusion that this implies that the Supreme Court of the United States is saying that a tool should be available to the public "as long as it is possible to use it in a legal way, regardless of the actual uses..." is beyond me.
That simply is not what the opinion says. In order for Napster to use this argument and refer to this opinion from the Supremes, Napster would need to show not only that the technology can be used in a legitimate manner (as you suggested), but also Napter would need to show that the majority of the actual physical use of the technology is legitimate.
The real problem here, is that Napster can not prove that. While it is true that there are legitimate uses for Napster like technologies, any technology like this in a college atmosphere will be abused. A simple poll in many college campuses will give the RIAA plenty to discredit any argument Napster makes such as this.
As often is the case, the technology itself is not illegal, the use of the technology is.
This is where I am against the RIAA's use of the court system. Instead of protecting their property using the laws that exist, they are lobbying for a bigger blanket to allow them to "protect" themselves easier.
Instead of sueing 300,000 Napster users, Metallica thinks it would be easier to sue the access providers. Knock out 100,000+ law suits in one case, make big bucks and move on. And don't forget, Metallica is not the driving force here, simply the face to the movement. The lawyers are the ones that want those big checks...
It is OK for you to record off the radio and play for your self until the tape wears out. It is not OK for you to copy that tape and give it out in any format whatsoever. At least to the best of my understanding.
When I think foward, trying to understand why big corporations want legislature such as the DMCA, UCITA other recently passed legislation, I do not think that obsolete technology is what they have in mind. Quite the opposite.
Big corporations are already accustomed to paying annual licensing fees. I think the manufactures that are supportive of the current movement in copyright law is trying to tone that model down to the end user.
Rather than selling office suites or software, they now maintain ownership even if you happen to get the media. I think in the long run, the plan on the table is that there will be no media. I think it will start with distribution across the wire, and eventually be replaced with no distibution whatsoever. What better way to control their 'rights' to their copyright than to control the access altogether.
I think we will see big corporation supportive of next generation Internet access to bring large bandwidth to the masses. I think that is all part of the big picture for the future.
Instead of going to your local store to 'rent' software, of course, by dropping your $50-$1,000to buy the pretty box with the CD's inside, you would access this through one of the readily available ASP's that are available in the new corporate world. Instead of installing the software, you will run it on their servers. You will pay a annual or monthly fee to 'rent' time to use the software.
To big business, this model will be ideal. No longer will they need armies of IT professionals to maintain their software. The cost of their software AND their overhead in their IT department can be reduced to one annual contract with one or two ASP's, and every computer on their network will be covered. Big business will gladly trade people on payroll for a larger annual contract with outside sources. Why? It costs a *lot* of money to employ people, a lot more than their salaries. When approached with this model, big business will be inclined to pay larger fees for outsourcing their products to ASP's than they are currently willing to spend of software alone. Their cutbacks in their IT departments will more than make up for the additional overhead of software, the bottom lines will be better, shareholders make more money and everyone is happy. Especially the software manufacurers that are now recieving more money than they ever have per year, and that income will come year after year, forever.
The average consumer does not understand terms like 'cost of ownership' as intimately as the majority of the readers here do. They will not understand that paying $30 a month forever is more expensive than putting out $300 for software they can take home and 'own' (in their own minds, at least, they have a tangible product, so they own it).
The manufacturer's, however, understand this problem all to well. They realize that instead of offering a $300 package, they would prefer the residual long term payout. Kinda like a loan, but the consumer is not buying anything. They will have the best of both worlds. No one uses their product or infringes on their copyright without their knowledge, and they have a promised income.
Once this distribution method becomes a reality, and I firmly believe it is growing to that point as we speak, we will see more and more software moving to this business model.
The PR departments for these companies will love the entire process. They will be all to eager to explain to the average consumer that their software will never be obsolete. They will always have the most recent copy of the software. They will never have to suffer through an upgrade again. And they can access their software from every PC, PDA and toaster oven on the planet. As explained above, I think that selling this model to big business will be a no brainer. Once a couple of large corps are hooked, the rest will fall in line in order to remain competitive.
And, if all this pans out as I think some manufacture's hope it will, do not fool yourself into believing for a second that it will not propogate to other industries. Movies and music industries would be thrilled to have a method to turn a $100 per year customer into a $19.95 per month customer that owns nothing.
Your favorite movie or song track will always be available regardless of what changes technology take in the future. Your collection will never be threatened by fire, the elements, or theft. That will all be promised by the manufacturer.
And it will simply be an added bonus to these manufactures to cut out every distribution step between them and the end consumer. Will prices fall? Sure, but not nearly enough to cover the change in price between insert your favorite movie production house and the video store on your street where you bought your last movie. The average consumer will see they can save $5 on this movie buying into this system over paying the guy down the street for 'yesterdays' technology that degrades in time and may be lost forever if their house burns to the ground...
The number of times the system has been used is not the point. The point is the system itself and the potential that lies in a system like this for abuse.
Anyone watch 'Cops'? I have seen an enforcement officer pull up to a car where two people are talking, take them into custody and search their persons. Why? They are talking in an area known for its drug traffic, so obviously, they meet the burden of probable cause. The fact they are guilty makes everything fine in the eyes of its viewers. The fact that two people taken into custody simply because they are conversing in a place known for its drug traffic does not dawn on the average viewer that something has gone wrong. A criminal was removed from the street. The fact that constitutional rights were disregarded is immaterial.
A system like this, however, is even worse. Why?
Lets consider the need for a 'warrant'. OK, so to use this to target one individual a warrant needs to be obtained, and then they can only study one individual. Fine. This works out. Down the line as the technology improves, they begin to probe more. Instead of searching for one person, they code into the system to search for the target person, and certain keywords. This will be an easy step to make, since the courts already have given the power to use the technology. Does anyone know that this happens? Not on your life. Does the FBI begin to open more files based on "anonymous tips". I would be willing to bet so.
Now, lets consider the current 'defacto standard' of the executive branch of reasonable probable cause. While scanning the packets for the targeted individual, the start seeing an increasing number of encrypted packets in mail as concerned, law-biding citizens begin to protect their digital information. Do these go to the individual being investigated? Are they going to an accomplice of the individual? Don't know, but we should capture them and analyze them to determine what these packets are. These individuals have something to hide, because they are taking 'extraordinary' steps (that will be the word they use in court to defend their actions, if they ever are caught using this information) to hide obviously illegal activates from law enforcement. The simple fact that these extraordinary steps are being taken will be viewed as sufficient probable cause to investigate further. Again, no one will know, but the case files opened with an anonymous tip at the Bureau will be increasing and the Bureau will hold press conferences showing off their latest and greatest conquests in the name of upholding the law.
The system can process gigabytes of data an hour. With today's modern storage, no one will ever know if the box they carry in is capable of storing exabytes of data. Well, now the data needs to be stored and studied off-site, since the broadband users are becoming more prevalent in our society. The simple explanation will be that creating a system like this capable of analyzing the information in real-time and remaining portable is a technological impossibility. A much more thorough analysis can be provided in the facilities in Washington, and will only look at data that is in direct relation to the warrant and the targeted individual. Problem is, no one knows what data they actually are analyzing. If the data can be sifted through this data looking for information related to the targeted information, how large a leap is it for this same system to look for other trends, keywords, etc. It does not cost the taxpayers any money, and additional man-hours are not needed to do this research. The new cases opened in the weeks following the investigation were all a direct result of law biding citizens providing anonymous tips. The fact that this system is in use has nothing to do with the increasingly concerned anonymous citizen of the country.
And one day, we will be asking ourselves with the technology that is available today, how does one actually deliver a tip to the FBI that is anonymous, since they have tapped the phones, can trace snail mail and have video record of any person within 500 feet of any Bureau office? Yet, with all this technology, an amazingly increasing number of law biding conscientious citizens are managing to provide the anonymous tips to remove criminals from the streets, so everything is alright, isn't it?