(i) The link itself IS part of the content of the page. What is referenced to is not. There is a difference in a link called "abortion" to a anti-abortion website and a link called "abortion" to a pro-abortion website: it represents the view of the author of the page in the sense that is states what (s)he agrees with. This is exactly why the DeCSS case still stands when this idea is sunk: the link is different from what is linked to. The link is yours, what you link to could be of someone else.
(iii) Even if smart tags are disabled by default, they can still be enabled, thus allowing others to modify your content. This is copyright infingement.
(iv) Even if others can provide smart tags, this still means that those others can infringe your copyright.
The problem here is not capitalism, but the large range of options to create monopolies. A few of the most obvious:
1. Software patents that are so broad they encompass an entire type of application software (one-click shopping springs to mind). Especially large companies can prevent any newcomer to enter the field.
2. Legislation that prohibits use of information (DMCA), combined with limited availability of software: you buoght the DVD, but you are not allowed to view it, because you have linux.
3. Using copyrights and closed formats (Word vs. WordPerfect)
The problem here is information: it is a scarce resource by law; not by nature. However, capitalism also works if ideas and other information is not thus restricted. After all, if I get/take an idea from you, you still have the idea. Only the concept of "intellectual property" makes it theft. If "intellectual property" doesn't exist, new business models should be used to make money of information. Some examples:
Artists may want to make free demo's, and only distribute their work if they've been paid by the interested part of the public.
Software companies can make more money by providing service for a good product, than by making&releasing bugfixes.
Medicines will still be developed, because the development of those medicines is already (partially) funded by the public. Examples of successfull medicine development without intellectual property rights can be found in Cuba.
As an additional bonus, right after development medicines can also be bought by the poorest customers, which will help preventing mutations in virusses/bacteria that will render the medicine useless.
All these solutions have one thing in common: providing information is not the same as providing a product, but is providing a service. Services of course, also have to be paid for. The biggest problem here is that it requires a drastically different business model.
Apart from the fact they'd get nothing useful (well maybe some money but a gov't has lots of that, and never enough), it's not going to stop Echelon. After all, on the internet information is free to spread, and thus to obtain. Anyone may read it (if they can find it or get it to go through their routers).
On the internet, there's only one way to protect data: encryption. Often, this is not needed (e.g. when posting on/.). But also, it is nescessary for buying online, sending messages from a country like Iran, China, etc.
Echelon is useful to see how information flows. And if people don't use encryption, you also may get some interesting data.
As long as the information stream is not controlled, people will use the extra information to make better informed decisions, which can only be better.
There only is a real thread if the information is censored, incomplete,... But then again, propaganda is always dangerous. Not only in a new medium.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, I don't agree:
(i) The link itself IS part of the content of the page. What is referenced to is not. There is a difference in a link called "abortion" to a anti-abortion website and a link called "abortion" to a pro-abortion website: it represents the view of the author of the page in the sense that is states what (s)he agrees with. This is exactly why the DeCSS case still stands when this idea is sunk: the link is different from what is linked to. The link is yours, what you link to could be of someone else.
(iii) Even if smart tags are disabled by default, they can still be enabled, thus allowing others to modify your content. This is copyright infingement.
(iv) Even if others can provide smart tags, this still means that those others can infringe your copyright.
The problem here is not capitalism, but the large range of options to create monopolies. A few of the most obvious:
1. Software patents that are so broad they encompass an entire type of application software (one-click shopping springs to mind). Especially large companies can prevent any newcomer to enter the field.
2. Legislation that prohibits use of information (DMCA), combined with limited availability of software: you buoght the DVD, but you are not allowed to view it, because you have linux.
3. Using copyrights and closed formats (Word vs. WordPerfect)
The problem here is information: it is a scarce resource by law; not by nature. However, capitalism also works if ideas and other information is not thus restricted. After all, if I get/take an idea from you, you still have the idea. Only the concept of "intellectual property" makes it theft. If "intellectual property" doesn't exist, new business models should be used to make money of information. Some examples:
Artists may want to make free demo's, and only distribute their work if they've been paid by the interested part of the public.
Software companies can make more money by providing service for a good product, than by making&releasing bugfixes.
Medicines will still be developed, because the development of those medicines is already (partially) funded by the public. Examples of successfull medicine development without intellectual property rights can be found in Cuba.
As an additional bonus, right after development medicines can also be bought by the poorest customers, which will help preventing mutations in virusses/bacteria that will render the medicine useless.
All these solutions have one thing in common: providing information is not the same as providing a product, but is providing a service. Services of course, also have to be paid for. The biggest problem here is that it requires a drastically different business model.
Apart from the fact they'd get nothing useful (well maybe some money but a gov't has lots of that, and never enough), it's not going to stop Echelon. After all, on the internet information is free to spread, and thus to obtain. Anyone may read it (if they can find it or get it to go through their routers).
/.). But also, it is nescessary for buying online, sending messages from a country like Iran, China, etc.
On the internet, there's only one way to protect data: encryption. Often, this is not needed (e.g. when posting on
Echelon is useful to see how information flows. And if people don't use encryption, you also may get some interesting data.
regards,
Oscar
As long as the information stream is not controlled, people will use the extra information to make better informed decisions, which can only be better.
... But then again, propaganda is always dangerous. Not only in a new medium.
There only is a real thread if the information is censored, incomplete,
A little government and a little luck are necessary in life; but only a fool trusts either of them.
-- P.J. O'Rourke