Politicians are rich. They are lawyers and business men. Getting elected costs a lot of money and they don't use their own. They are therefore indebted to the other rich people and corporations that paid for their campaigns, even if they are not already biased by their own personal and business interests. On issues that do not directly affect them and their sponsors it is obviously possible to influence them. However the biggest influence on them, other than their sponsors, is the mass media which is also controlled by corporations.
Politicians need have little regard for letter writing campaigns and the like, since they cannot harm them. What matters is the position of the mass media on the issue and how much money is available to finance their next campaign. These are the only things that are going to significantly influence them.
This presents us with severe problems on this particular issue. We have no money (by these standards) and our opponents are very rich and have sponsored many politicians. Even worse the
mass media not only support our opponents, they
are in most cases directly owned by them. They
are part of the "content" industry.
Comparing this with situations like that faced by
the NRA is erroneous. The politicians and their
sponsors, and the mass media for that matter, do
not have any strong vested interest in that issue. The main customers of the manufacturers of
handguns and assault rifles are the police and military after all, who are not affected by such
legislation, but any residual corporate interest
is on the NRA's side. It is easy to push politicians in a particular direction, with a relatively small amounts of money, if the people pushing in to other direction are equally weak.
On this issue however the politicians, the corporations and the media are united in pushing this forward. It should also be noted that corporations working together have at least as much power as the government to effect
change. It is likely that the SSSCA/CBDTPA is
just chest beating by the "content" industry to make sure that the tech industry gets on with
implementing TPCA/Palladium in a timely manner.
And it seems to be working.
It seems likely that it will be easier for the
"content" industry to take the path of least resistance and introduce this through
the back door using the wintel monopoly. Any legislation will come later as a follow up to force smaller players (e.g. free software) into the fold or out business. But even if they took
the legislative approach, rather than implementing
it through a "gentleman's agreement" between corporations, our influence is still close to nil.
This scenario has benefits for everyone, not
just the "content" industry. The large players in the tech industry, like Microsoft, benefit through the massive amount of market control it gives them and barriers to entry it erects for competitors. There are considerable benefits to the government as well in terms of enhanced ability to monitor and censor the net. Of course the ordinary man in the street loses a lot but that is what politics is all about. Given that everyone with any power is agreed that pervasive DRM is a good thing it would incredibly naive to thing any amount letter writing by the few people who understand and care about the issue will have any effect.
If this was a different issue which did not
involve strong vested interests on the parts of the politicians, corporations and media then some
of the suggested strategies might work. Buying votes (if you can raise the money) or influencing
the mass media are the most effective methods. Writing letters to newspaper editors is probably
a better use of your time than writing to the
politicians directly. Get the mass media behind you and most of the politicians will follow. But even writing directly to politicians could work
if there is no significant opposition to your
cause.
In the final analysis targeting a particular politician and getting them voted out of office
will not work in our case where you have strong
(rich) opponents. Any politician who gives his
career in defense of Disney will be garunteed
a kushy directorship and their opponent will be
easily bought to replace them. Politicians are
rich people and would rather suffer an election
defeat than bite the hand that feeds them.
On this issue (and many other important ones) we
cannot hope to win. Attempting to evade or subvert
the law using code is at least theoretically possible although it will be difficult. Changing
the political system is a task even more difficult
than winning this one battle. The outlook is bleak and while circumstances may significantly change the path, we can be assured that the outcome will
be to the benefit of our opponents, not our own.
Sorry, this piece didn't phase me a whole lot.The DMCA may have won, but the SSSCA hasn't. I remember one comment along the lines of "we got tons and tons of messages expressing their disgust at the SSSCA, but not a single message in favor of it." Sitting quitely and 'writing code' is not the answer. If anything, what he's suggesting will cause bs like the SSSCA to make greater claims for the need to tightly control how computers work.
This is politics. Just because a piece of legislation is suggested doesn't mean there is any intent to enact it. The protagonist here are the "content" industry and the tech industry, and the question is not whether pervasive DRM will be implemented but only how it will be done. This legal maneuvering is just chest beating by the "content" industry to make sure that the tech industry gets on with implementing TPCA/Palladium in a timely manner and the "content" industry gets plenty of input into the process. And it seems to
be working.
Corporations working together have at least as much power as the government to affect
change. They will take the path of least resistance and introduce this through the back door using the wintel monopoly. Any legislation will come later as a follow up to force smaller
players (e.g. free software) into the fold or out
business. This scenario has benefits for everyone, not just the "content" industry.
The large players in the tech industry, like Microsoft, benefit through the massive amount of market control it gives them and barriers to entry it erects for competitors. There are considerable benefits to the government as well in terms of enhanced ability to monitor and censor the net. Of course the ordinary man in the street loses a lot but that is what politics is all about. Given that everyone with any power is agreed that pervasive DRM is a good thing it would incredibly naive to thing any amount letter writing by the few people who understand and care about the issue will have any effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Politicians are rich. They are lawyers and business men. Getting elected costs a lot of money and they don't use their own. They are therefore indebted to the other rich people and corporations that paid for their campaigns, even if they are not already biased by their own personal and business interests. On issues that do not directly affect them and their sponsors it is obviously possible to influence them. However the biggest influence on them, other than their sponsors, is the mass media which is also controlled by corporations.
Politicians need have little regard for letter writing campaigns and the like, since they cannot harm them. What matters is the position of the mass media on the issue and how much money is available to finance their next campaign. These are the only things that are going to significantly influence them.
This presents us with severe problems on this particular issue. We have no money (by these standards) and our opponents are very rich and have sponsored many politicians. Even worse the mass media not only support our opponents, they are in most cases directly owned by them. They are part of the "content" industry.
Comparing this with situations like that faced by the NRA is erroneous. The politicians and their sponsors, and the mass media for that matter, do not have any strong vested interest in that issue. The main customers of the manufacturers of handguns and assault rifles are the police and military after all, who are not affected by such legislation, but any residual corporate interest is on the NRA's side. It is easy to push politicians in a particular direction, with a relatively small amounts of money, if the people pushing in to other direction are equally weak.
On this issue however the politicians, the corporations and the media are united in pushing this forward. It should also be noted that corporations working together have at least as much power as the government to effect change. It is likely that the SSSCA/CBDTPA is just chest beating by the "content" industry to make sure that the tech industry gets on with implementing TPCA/Palladium in a timely manner. And it seems to be working.
It seems likely that it will be easier for the "content" industry to take the path of least resistance and introduce this through the back door using the wintel monopoly. Any legislation will come later as a follow up to force smaller players (e.g. free software) into the fold or out business. But even if they took the legislative approach, rather than implementing it through a "gentleman's agreement" between corporations, our influence is still close to nil.
This scenario has benefits for everyone, not just the "content" industry. The large players in the tech industry, like Microsoft, benefit through the massive amount of market control it gives them and barriers to entry it erects for competitors. There are considerable benefits to the government as well in terms of enhanced ability to monitor and censor the net. Of course the ordinary man in the street loses a lot but that is what politics is all about. Given that everyone with any power is agreed that pervasive DRM is a good thing it would incredibly naive to thing any amount letter writing by the few people who understand and care about the issue will have any effect.
If this was a different issue which did not involve strong vested interests on the parts of the politicians, corporations and media then some of the suggested strategies might work. Buying votes (if you can raise the money) or influencing the mass media are the most effective methods. Writing letters to newspaper editors is probably a better use of your time than writing to the politicians directly. Get the mass media behind you and most of the politicians will follow. But even writing directly to politicians could work if there is no significant opposition to your cause.
In the final analysis targeting a particular politician and getting them voted out of office will not work in our case where you have strong (rich) opponents. Any politician who gives his career in defense of Disney will be garunteed a kushy directorship and their opponent will be easily bought to replace them. Politicians are rich people and would rather suffer an election defeat than bite the hand that feeds them.
On this issue (and many other important ones) we cannot hope to win. Attempting to evade or subvert the law using code is at least theoretically possible although it will be difficult. Changing the political system is a task even more difficult than winning this one battle. The outlook is bleak and while circumstances may significantly change the path, we can be assured that the outcome will be to the benefit of our opponents, not our own.
This is politics. Just because a piece of legislation is suggested doesn't mean there is any intent to enact it. The protagonist here are the "content" industry and the tech industry, and the question is not whether pervasive DRM will be implemented but only how it will be done. This legal maneuvering is just chest beating by the "content" industry to make sure that the tech industry gets on with implementing TPCA/Palladium in a timely manner and the "content" industry gets plenty of input into the process. And it seems to be working.
Corporations working together have at least as much power as the government to affect change. They will take the path of least resistance and introduce this through the back door using the wintel monopoly. Any legislation will come later as a follow up to force smaller players (e.g. free software) into the fold or out business. This scenario has benefits for everyone, not just the "content" industry.
The large players in the tech industry, like Microsoft, benefit through the massive amount of market control it gives them and barriers to entry it erects for competitors. There are considerable benefits to the government as well in terms of enhanced ability to monitor and censor the net. Of course the ordinary man in the street loses a lot but that is what politics is all about. Given that everyone with any power is agreed that pervasive DRM is a good thing it would incredibly naive to thing any amount letter writing by the few people who understand and care about the issue will have any effect.