The Internet-Have We Reached A Turning Point? 256
Pyromage asks: "Given all the lawsuits (DeCSS, the censorware ones, etc.) and all the laws (UCITA, DMCA) that are essentially impacting the net right now, do you see it being the end of the net as we know it? As cheesy as it sounds, depending on how these events turn out, I can see it as the beginning of regulation and the end of privacy & freedom online, or as a solid precedent guarding the rights of people on the net. Thoughts?" Interesting question. Have any of you actually thought about how these events, which are developing as we speak, will affect the network that we all know and love?
Re:It will certianly change (Score:1)
Imminent Death of Usenet Predicted! Film at 11!
Re:Other countries exist too! (Score:1)
We Must Revolt (Score:1)
Re:Yeup. It's already over (Score:1)
Re:I thnk... (Score:1)
Re:Shaping regulations and taxes so we win (Score:1)
I pride myself on being an optimistic pragmatist. And we need to make sure that the regulations that will exist (unless politicians stop accepting corporate and holding fundraisers for executives) need to be shaped so that they don't stifle the small start-ups.
Optimism and pragmatism are both good qualities, and I share them. That is why I refuse to give ground on some of the more imporant Internet issues until it is clear that the issue has been lost. For example, I do not think that it is entirely inevitable that states and cities will be allowed to charge sales tax on purchases made from companies without some sort of physical presence in their jurisdiction. I also don't think that it is entirely inevitable that the federal government be able to enact some sort of federal sales tax on e-commerce.
Most importantly IMHO we should not allow the government to assume e-commerce is a whole new ball o' wax. It's still all about buying and selling. The fact that the buyer and seller need not be in the same physical location is the only thing that differentiates it from the same type of stuff that we have been doing for centuries. There are already tax laws for transactions that are carried out over state boundaries, why not simply use those? Thanks for the discussion.
Re:Regulation and Taxes will happen (Score:1)
What exactly leads you to this analysis? I think that it is ludicrous to think that any kind of legislation that specifically targets big business for higher taxes is likely to fly. Politics aside, why should successful businesses have to pay more taxes than less successful businesses?
Not too mention the fact that big business can afford lobbyists, fancy tax lawyers, etc., and small businesses can not.
Re:Regulation and Taxes will happen (Score:1)
These kind of regulations certainly would make it easier for startups, and I can see why you would hope that the Internet regulations lean that way. On the other hand there are plenty of people that want to make it as hard for new startups as possible :). The big businesses that you are invested in, and who you are sure will force regulation and taxes onto the Internet are among the people that do not want to make it easier for pesky new startups to pollute the waters.
Also remember that there are plenty of companies that like the fact that e-commerce is presently un-taxed, and there are also precedents for disallowing states to tax sales from businesses that don't have a presence in their state (catalogs). I would also imagine that a federal sales tax would be met with pretty heavy resistance from all sorts of people.
This does not necessarily mean that I don't believe that e-commerce will eventually be taxed, but there are all sorts of thorny issues. Part of the reason that legislators are waiting to decide these types of issues is that they would like to see the direction that e-commerce is going so that when the do start writing new tax laws they have some idea of how to do it intelligently.
We live in interesting times.
Not all failed attempts at regulation... (Score:1)
For example, look at that total failiure, the war on drugs. Billions of dollars spent on attempting to stem the flow of drugs into this country by ignoring the demand for them and just trying to shut down the supply.
I'm sure if I spent 15 minutes with a history book, I could come up with a ton of bad policies which were enacted, enforced, and never repealed, because some bureaucratic twit couldn't be bothered to admit he'd been wrong.
I think we will se the best of both worlds. (Score:1)
Yes, there will be taxes, there is no way you are going to stop that, but feel free to exlpain why there wont.
And, if, for some reason, a couple of governments do destroy a perfectly good working internet, there will always be BBS's, and packet radio, no, they can't stop me!
Where has it gone? (Score:1)
I read that while playing around on a NeXT box and thought about how kick-ass the future seemed where everything would be connected using a single global protocol.
I had so much optimism then. I still think that clearly people are using the Internet as a tool to re-shape governments and lives, but there is so much resistance to overcome it gets you down now and again.
All we want is a cheap, fast, unblocked, unfiltered connection from anyone to anyone, anywhere in the world with no laws, or regulations, or acceptable use policies, with no restrictions on content replication or modification.
Is it really too much to ask?
The net as I knew it (Score:1)
Canada (Score:1)
Maybe Greg Brunet can house ~30 people.
Re:They can only do so much (Wrong!) (Score:1)
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Re:They can only do so much (Wrong!) (Score:1)
There are certain things worth fighting for. There are things worth going to prison for. Privacy is worth fighting for, but it's not worth going to prison for, to me. Your opinion may be different, that's fine, but don't expect most people to agree with you on that one, particularly when they have nothing to hide. And that's how they look at it! Why should they go to prison so someone else can trade kiddie-porn? It's just not going to happen. Nope. They just have to harrass the Backbone providers. They are businesses, they want to make money. They won't make any trouble. It's easier for them to go along than to try and fight.
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Re:New Protocol (Score:1)
Re:Think about this (Score:1)
Re:Regulation and Taxes will happen (Score:1)
Yep, but the misunderstanding has been moderated up by the oppressive liberatarian majority on this site. Ironic, no?
You have the power already, use it (Score:1)
They can rant, but they cannot prevent. That is the long and the short of it, the fact that they cannot wish away. In a increasingly globalized world, information, trade and freedom will simply route around any restriction.
Re:Society and the internet (Score:1)
The Federal Communications Commission exists (at least in theory) to control access to those airwaves pretty much the same way the Parks Service exists to control access to Public Parks, so that a finite resource can be fairly shared. Electromagnetic spectrum is like land, they ain't makin' any more.
Broadcasters and others (like cell phone companies) are given licenses to "operate in the public interest" at particular frequencies, within certain power levels, using a particular type of signal (Amplitude Modulation, Frequency Modulation, and some variations of those) for a particular purpose (radio, television, microwave links, amateur radio, and the list goes on and on).
Until recently access to a particular slice of spectrum depended upon holding one or more of these licenses.
Now, of course, the idiots currently in charge have been auctioning off some of this irreplacable spectrum, leading to the possibility of a company that can't qualify for a license still making money by leasing that bit of spectrum to someone who can get a license.
In my strongly held opinion the government should have done the leasing themselves, but that's a rant for another time.
Letting the government be the public's steward helps prevent one type of service from being disrupted by another. Would you want to be trying to reach the Coast Guard in an emergency only to have some record company owned radio station flooding any and all frequencies with whatever it was trying to sell this week? The FCC is there to prevent that. Before it was established the prevailing sentiment in many corners of government was to have it all under control of the military, so things aren't nearly as bad as they could be.
Re:Why It's Happening (Score:1)
Tea Party... (Score:1)
Re:Regulation and Taxes will happen (Score:1)
2. It's going to be very difficult to regulate the internet effectively, again for technical reasons.
3. The main impetus for regulation will be to enforce taxation. If we pay close attention to both of these issues, we can probably forstall either one from happening.
4. The longer we delay, the harder it will be for governments to step in and change everything. The danger is greatest right now. As more people base life and business decisions on the current regime, it gets harder for the government to change things and step on all those toes.
I figured out how to stop Mattell COLD. (Score:1)
Jill E. Barad
Mattel, Inc.
333 Continental Boulevard
El Segundo, CA 90245-5012
Tell her your future is Barbie-less unless they rein in their lawyers on their Hot Wheels.
Then I went further.
I wrote to their competition and asked them if they could prove that their sites or their distributor's sites weren't on the "censored sites list"
To paraphrase Shakespeare: "The Lady Doth Protest Too Much..." Why are they so nervous about using their product to do good, unless they're using it to merely do well. By choking the competition.
I don't like secrecy. Its usually people doing things they're ashamed of.
Re:Think about this (Score:1)
against the British government today in an effort to start over, they would either be
against the wall with a blindfold on or rotting in prison.
They, uh, were up against the wall, as well as rotting in prison.
I'm not advocating random violence or anarchic revolution, but I do believe that if the laws do not reflect the will of the people, and can not be made to do so, then we do not live in any soft of a democracy, representative or otherwise, and it is time to re-examine our governmental organization.
I think that's a pretty simple concept.
--
Blue
Re:Thought about it? (Score:1)
Certainly not all of them - but what is the prevailing opinion of RMS? That he's a kook. And maybe he is, maybe unrestricted freedom and the protection thereof is just a kooky fuckin' idea. Do you have a problem with being denounced for the things in which you believe? I certainly do not. That's why they call em beliefs.
'm not kidding. I really don't see a lot of discontent out there, and what there is, often
lies within relatively single-issue groups that as often as not hate each other's guts and likely will never unite. The NARAL, the NRA, and NORML, for instance, don't typically defend each other, and my suspicion is that the intersection between the three is close to nil.
Look, lawmaking at the whim of corporations is not a historically new thing. Sometimes it works, sometimes is does not. It is not, however, on the charter for this particular US of A. If we, the big we, all of us, choose to accept it as the status quo and move forward, then that's all there is to it - our ability to rebel through legal action will be gradually reduced to zero, and then the only alternative will be violent revolution. This is a repeating pattern of human history.
Do people really believe that everyone is out to be nice? Do we really think that the USA is going to be here forever? That representative democracy is the final and ultimate form of human self-government? Come on, wake up. It's far from over, and things will change.
And so the internet, as I said, may or may not become a catalyst - it takes less than you might think to sway the balance from passive acceptance to bloodthirsty revolution. Give us one hungry winter, and it's all over.
--
blue
Thought about it? (Score:1)
Here in the US, at the very least, if everything does go wrong, we can always legally repeal laws that suck. Failing that, we can start killing people.
Will the internet be the catalyst for the next american revolution? The one where all the enlightened, open-minded, freedom loving people get real pissed off and say, "scrap this plutocratic bullshit festival, we're starting over!"
I hope so.
Here's to freedom, and to television, and to mp3s.
--
blue
freenet (Score:1)
Let's make regulation moot.
Re:Regulation and the Net (Score:1)
Actually, its all bull. Why do we believe it? They've got a gun in our face! We want to stay alive and happy, so we believe it. It all boils down to greed and there is no solution for it except for total self-anihilation. None of us want that, so we must fight to make things better, stop the opression, stop the brain washing.
Alot of people tell me that I'm going to get fucked with by the governement. This is true, and if you fight for your rights (because no-one else is going to), that you may have all your freedom taken away. I ask you this: What are you NOT willing to do protect your freedom?
I realize this is a bad place to voice my convictions, but unforunately, my pockets aren't loud enough for those who have the gun to hear. I consider my own life a small price to pay for freedom. You may take everything I own, rape and kill my family and everyone I know, my resolve will only be stronger, because I KNOW that I am RIGHT and I am FREE!
To those who are not willing to give their life, yet still value their freedom. Begin to think in a different way. Think about everything that is done by the government or a corporation and think, what will THAT do to increase their revenue. You'll start noticing that they do nothing which doesnt!
Breakin the law, breakin the law! (Score:1)
Re:They can only do so much (Score:1)
Most companies litigate because they feel they have no other options -- whether it be that they are litigating out of fear, or out of legitimate concern is irrelevant. Eventually once they realize that there is nothing to fear from the Internet, they might slowly change their business philosophies from one of paranoia to one of "glasnost", which, IMHO, is probably the best thing that could be expected under the circumstances.
Re:Gnutella and Napster (ok, mainly napster) (Score:1)
No, we're getting our 'net _back_... (Score:1)
First there was the 'net. It was a fun place to hang out. Then came the Web (I hate that term - makes it sound like a different entity - it's just a cheesy protocol hooked up to port 80) and AOL, and the 'net was flooded with non-technical kids and business people. Suddenly a place where even an advertisment for a used bicycle was seen as `commercialism' became one big commercial and the geeks were pushed aside.
Now, an interesting thing is happening. The governing bodies are attempting to rehash the prohibition/gun legislation formulas and apply them to the internet. As history has shown us, the business people will suffer (oh no) and those who are willing to subvert the system will profit massively. Hackers get their 'net back.
Summary: start reading your RFCs. It's time to play.
Cronology displacment (Score:1)
One is "Internet time" is extreamly fast.. 6 months is a lifetime.
The other is that the "online world" is still pritty young.
The Internet has not even reached "the dark ages" yet.
We (the whole human race) tend to assume the Internet as a socity have allready reached the 21 century. However socal develupment on the Internet has not yet reached this stage.
We have barbarian hords (crackers) and all form of socal strangness.
To make matters worse.. We are not just living in the Internet. The real world is trying to make the whole Internet match the fragment of real world they exist in.
You have people who think they can plop a kid and walk away and socity will rase it. They are horrifyed to find the Internet houses strange people all to willing to take on the job and corupt the child to there own whims.
Somehow thies people don't exist in the real world as far as they are conserned.
You have corprations who would put an end to anything that interfears with proffitability.
You have those who are are horrifyed to realise they can not roam about with total annonimity.
Government agentcys who think they should be able to put camras in your bathroom.
The socal norms were established long ago in the real world. We all know a camra in the bathroom is plain wrong and that if you behave rudely people will rember you. Busnesses are aware of the line as are consummers.
But on the internet people are not clear on the diffrences between an individual putting a webcam in his office and a boss doing the same.
For now many will have an idea of what rights they have on the Internet and others will violate same while exersising there own rights.
The Internet will change a great deal in the future... but this is importent.. The Internet is far from civilised...
The Internet.. is the Roam of the on-line world...
We are all barbarians at the gate...
Hak Nam (Score:1)
I know it sounds cheesy but it seems the only way.
TEOTNAWKI? (Score:2)
When clipper came out, it should have set off a major counteroffensive and propaganda campaign. The CDA should have been anticipated, and countervened by a ban on internet regulation ahead of time. The actions in the DeCSS would have been easily predicted by someone with political experience. Strategy should have been hashed out before the release of the code. Don't even get me started about how hackers have failed to educate the public about the actual virus threat (no "electronic pearl harbor" is coming, but have we gotten this message out?). Let's not talk about the image of geekdom after the 3 days of DDoS fame.
A bunch of kids with a fascination for technology cobbled the internet together, built it into an excellent working medium, and let it go. It was foolishly assumed that the net would have to be free, that no one could even *attempt* to regulate it. The lack of political experience and the absence of tactical or strategic acumen have left the geeks exactly where they love to be: slaving over the code in the basement.
Sorry, boys and girls. Decisions are made in the front office, and in congress. You lost your chance to shape and control the internet when you failed to anticipate the actions of your enemies.
At this point, privacy and freedom, as envisioned in the "information wants to be free" bromide, are extinct. A protracted electronic guerilla campaign might stand a chance of ressurecting it, but I doubt many of you have thought of the strategy and tactics necessary to carry out such an exercise.
As long as politicians and corporations can claim the public spotlight and control their image, we are fighting a losing, rear-guard action. We have been since the CDA was first proposed. No one understood this then (we beat them away, the net is now free forever!), and no one gets this now.
Oh, well. I guess that's what you get when you spend too much time playing DOOM and not enough reading Clausewitz, Sun-Tsu, Zedong, and Musashi.
At least you can still get rich by starting a dotcom.com.
America before the Europeans came... (Score:2)
Re:Regulation and Taxes will happen (Score:2)
Ahh, wishful thinking, I suppose.
-Mars
Re:Regulation and Taxes will happen (Score:2)
You mean like the 6.5% use tax on amounts over $700 spent online or outside of the state for Minnesotans? Or the 0.5% on top of that for residents of Minneapolis? They don't have a great way to be sure they are collecting it, but Minnesota already tries to collect it. This year's tax instructions carried a thinly veiled threat that if you don't file and pay the tax, and they find out, you'll be penalized. How they'll find out, I don't know, but they want to.
LetterJ
Re:They can only do so much (Wrong!) (Score:2)
I used to think this way, until something happened a few years ago. There was this guy, Mitnik I think his name was. He broke into some commercial networks and obtained some secrets. They put his ass in jail and held him there without trial or bail for over 4 years.
Last time I read the U.S. constitution that isn't supposed to happen. But it did. He had lawyers... so what! They couldn't help him.
Ever since Lincoln completely usurped state's rights in the civil war the Federal Government has had complete control of a large part of the lives of U.S. citizens. Take a look at this latest census form if you don't believe me...Privacy has gone out the window. It is a FELONY to NOT answer these questions. Of course they won't use any of this information.
My point is that if Da Man shows up and says I have to put 'this filter' or 'that black box' on my internet connection, and "Oh By The Way! Here's the invoice for said equipment and you've also got to put in a special phone line just for our use so we don't have to 'bother' you when we want access!"
I don't have a choice. I do it or they put me out of business if I'm lucky. If I'm unlucky they hold me in jail for 4-6 years without trial or bail. Next ISP owner says, "Sure, stick it right there on the rack! I don't wanna end up like Robbie!"
MOST people (in the U.S. at least...) get ISP access through commercial entities which are completely at the mercy of this stuff, cause we're accountable.
You clueless students need to go cash a reality check if you think the Government CAN'T do just what you're worried about. If there's enough popular sentiment to "protect our kids!!!" they'll do any damned thing they want.
Also if you think the government (NSA) doesn't already have the full cooperation of backbone providers and telcos in monitoring ANYTHING THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE... Come to my website I've got some oceanfront property in Kansas for sale.
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Think about this (Score:2)
Lots of groups do agree (I'm not a member of any, no need for any goverment visits at my house) and they are either persecuted by the government or investigated and imprisioned.
Well of course it is... (Score:2)
What we really need to do is start being proactive, the protest in Washington was a good start...but it was TWO YEARS after the law passed, we need to be getting on top of these things quicker. We need a good clearing house of information. A YRO newsletter or something similar would probably do the trick. But even why they are attempting to attack the freedom that has been the Internet.
Don't forget that this wonderful network of networks was formed on Open Standards. What is too stop us from hooking up just our computers with TCP/IP and forming the GeekNET? Why...nothing of course, and it would be out of touch from Government Regulations. A PRIVATELY funded network ( And to be honest I thought that was what the internet
This wonderful thing that we all have access to is
Ah well, I'm rambling now so I'll go, but I'll leave with this last thought: The Internet is in many ways an organic being, with that there is bound to be change, and eventually it will die. What we need is to produce offspring to ensure it's existince. And with that I am out.
Sgt Pepper
Lessig has many good things to say on this topic (Score:2)
Now though, the big money is involved so the politicians are all over the issue "like Oprah on a baked ham" (Simpsons). If we don't stand up and be counted then soon "protecting the children", otherwise known as making the web safe for big business, will put an end to what we've come to love.
UCITA: a step towards renting software (Score:2)
So why bother? Because companies (Microsoft especially) don't want to sell you a single copy of something. You might be happy with it, not buy another copy and cut off their revenue stream. (they fight this by releasing new versions and leaving the old ones unsupported) And they certainly don't want to give you free bug fixes because they don't make money from those either. This is why UCITA is such a big deal for them - and if a few measly consumer rights are trampled in the process, that's not their problem.
Again, pardon me if I'm restating the obvious. But if we're going to fight these stupid laws we need to understand their original goal as well as the detrimental side effects they have on the rest of us.
Yes, it is a turning point (Score:2)
However, like I said before, the web is not the entire internet. The backbone of the network has not been copyrighted. Once the geeks have all gone home and finally gotten tired of pop-up porno ads, junk postings in their USENET groups and spam in their dozen or so email addresses, we will create a new space just as lawless and wild as the web use to be. Maybe I am not imaginative enough but I doubt there are few of us out there that will see the nature of the next step in computing, networking and sharing information over the internet but it will come.
I remember that the mere idea of the internet seemed mind-boggling to me as a sat back dialing into my BBS at 2400 baud. Technology will move faster than the corporations and every new space will have a moment to breath before being consumed by money.
Look for the open spaces to breath. That is the only advice I can give.
Re:what I would like to know... (Score:2)
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:Internet Regulation by the US... (Score:2)
You may well be right, but if so, that is hardly good news. Prohibition was in force for something like ten years. Hundreds if not thousands were killed, either by government thugs (coast guard, police, FBI) or gangsters (nongovernment thugs), and hundreds if not thousands more were imprisoned, lost their homes, and so forth. Not to mention the social ramifications (higher rates of alcoholism due to the near absence of low-alcoholic content beverages such as beer and whine coupled with the plethora of more profitable high-alcoholic content moonshine liquors of various types, and the emergence of an organized crime syndicate financed from profits made possible by the criminalization of alcohol which we still have with us today, 70 years later).
How many of us will lose our homes, our livelihoods, our freedoms, and even our lives, before this "regulation is slowly lifted?" How many evil, destructive policies will be enacted, how many evil, destructive people and organizations will benefit financially, gaining even more power, before it is over.
Finally, with the full-scale assualt on nearly every aspect of our democracy and our constitutional rights, how do you know the mechanisms will even still be in place for the situation to correct itself at all? Just because the United States has flirted with constitutional disaster before and had the good fortune to emerge relatively intact, doesn't mean we'll be so lucky again.
Re:Campain Contribs for Jack Valenti (Score:2)
01/29/1999
$1,000
Gore, Al
09/14/1999
$1,000
Gore, Al
09/30/1999
$1,000
McCain, John
10/21/1999
$1,000
Bush, George W
The only guy of any consequence not on the list is Bradley. This guy doesn't care WHO wins, he just wants to try and make sure he has a little leverage, albeit small, on the guy who wins.
*sigh*
Speech CAN be a crime in the US (Score:2)
Shoot a black man.. go to jail for murder.
Shoot a black man, calling him "nigger" while you do it.. go to jail for committing the "hate crime" of murder, with a longer sentence.
Simply uttering the word "nigger" in that case, made the crime "more severe". The speech brought about additional punishment.
Is it any wonder that the US has the highest per-capita imprisonment rate in the world?
Re:I thunk... (Score:2)
Third Voice! (Score:2)
You know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of 3rd-party web annotations, like Third Voice [thirdvoice.com]. We need something like Third Voice for Real Life stuff. Maybe some day when someone is walking down the isle of a store while wearing their cybergoggles, warning messages from third parties will pop up whenever they look at SDMI products. :-)
Actually, we also need something like Third Voice, but with an open and documented protocol (so that it can be implemented on all platforms), collaborative filtering so you can skip over whatever B1FF says, and enabled by default on all web browsers. Hm...
---
Re:Regulation and Taxes will happen (Score:2)
You've got about 10 paragraphs of "givens" that I don't agree are "given".
Although I suppose you could always say education could be better, the fact of the matter is that all the countries with "better" educational systems are far behind us in virtually every segment of technology, business, and finance. All the standardized tests can show that people in the US are poorly educated, but the empirical evidence seems to indicate that we're doing just fine.
I went to public school and don't feel I was robbed of a good education, on the contrary most of the people I've met who went to private school seem to have grown up in a fairyland vacuum where everyone is rich and white and polite. Where every transgression is forgiven as a childish prank (Witness George W, running for president, unlike most other "youthful indescretion" drug users who are in jail).
And I don't buy that "competition" makes schools (or more importantly, education) better. Public schools currently compete too much, IMHO. They waste half their time teaching to the standardized test (because that's what their funding is based on!) rather than educating. They compete with each other and other school districts for funding, and more importantly for the financial impact being the "best district/school in the state" has. A good school district brings companies (and thus $$$), a bad one makes employees reluctant to transfer there.
It is also a fact that, no matter how large or small the community in which we live, we must each make choices that, for better or worse, affect our lives and the lives of those around us. Libertarian thought simply states that it's best if we're able to make those decisions for ourselves
That's the logic I don't understand. Any major decision affects other people, therefore those other people shouldn't have any input on the decision?
Quite frankly, I don't want the chemical plant owner "making the decision for himself" whether or not to dump his waste into the ground (and thus into the water table and our drinking/bathing water.
If you want to "make the decision for yourself" to send your kid to catholic school, or to get more insurance or to buy a house or have sex with an inflatable woman, knock yourself out.
If you want to make the choice not to fund the public schools that you (and everyone else) benefit from, then no the choice is only yours insofar as you and the rest of the community (the electorate) can agree it's a good idea.
And don't kid yourself that this won't have religious repercussions. If 80% of the community sends their kids/vouchers to a Catholic school, then how the hell are the Jewish or Muslim kids gonna get the education they deserve without taxpayer-sponsored religious instruction that is contrary to their beliefs? If it's not profitable to make a non-religious school in an area, it won't get built.
As someone who respects my rights (especially those so sensitive as to be enumerated in the Constitution) I find it disturbing that we're so eager to hand them all over in an eagerness to (maybe) save a few dollars. Businesses have no responsibility to protect your speech or religion or privacy. Private schools will have no issues with prayer at football games -- they can just kick you out if they don't like your attitude...
Re:Regulation and Taxes will happen (Score:2)
You're paying for the same rteason that people wihtout kids pay school taxes -- no one lives in a vacuum. The kids that go to school are the adults, voters, employees, employers, and neighbors of tomorrow.
This, ultimately is my greatest disagreement with pure libertarian thought -- that it never acknowledges the communal reality of existence in modern times...
Too US centric (Score:2)
But you assume there is only one law applicable to the net, the US one. But that's not true. The net may not be regulated all over, at least enless the US is able to confine the EU to regulate the same. And that will never happen. The EU allready does things just to do the opposite of the US... And how much the companies of the US successes to regulate it there (Not taxes, but regulations (regulations on what you are able to say and do online)), there will allways be oversea-sites running providing free infomation. The only risk is if you start to censor yourself with some blocking software... And if you do, that is a proof of the US being equal to China.
-- One party system, two party system -- what's the difference? Where did all the other parties go?
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Re:Regulation and Taxes will happen (Score:2)
Ah, so they were indeed funded by the tax coffers. They weren't privately created. My point still stands...
Re:Regulation and Taxes will happen (Score:2)
I haven't read every CATO and Reason article out there on the subject, but the ones I have read bitched about the "protest" and did not argue in favor of the WTO itself. A lot of those protestors wanted to replace the oppressive WTO with schemes even more oppressive.
Libertarians also support school vouchers because they beleive that school vouchers with privatize public education.
Some libertarians support school vouchers. A lot support tuition credits instead. Unfortunately, with vouchers you get the benefit of Republicans as allies and a lot of press coverage. With credits you're on your own.
Simillarly, I have also seen many libertarians supporting stronger copyright protection (like the DCMA).
I've found libertarians to be split on the issue of information as property. Some are completely against it (see the GNU pages for an example) while others take the opposite extreme that all information must be protected with the utmost of vigilance. Most will take the middle ground the ones own works are ones own property, but also that holders of copies of those works have property rights as well.
IN short, NO (Score:2)
And besides.. regulating the internet is like herding cats.
Re:Definitely at the climax... (Score:2)
Re:Canada (Score:2)
On another note, though.. The US *IS* a great country, and a fine neighbor.. but rather than run away, you have to MAKE NOISE! Let your politicians know how YOU want your country to be run.
Remember.. the US is supposed to be a shining example to the world of a country goverened OF FOR AND BY the people, and more and more often, it appears that the people have no control over the government. Even us Canadians have a better grip on what's going on (or so it appears). I'd say you should continue that example, all get together and 'splain to your government how it is.
And as your friendly neighbors, you'll get all the support from us canucks you can handle.
Imminent Death of the Internet Predicted! (Score:2)
Film at eleven. [tuxedo.org]
*yawn* This again? The Internet has been changing and evolving since it was created. It will continue to do so, likely forever. Yet, for some reason, people drag out these doom-and-gloom, the-world-as-we-know-it-is-going-to-end prophecies on a regular basis.
Wake me up when some real news breaks.
They can only do so much (Score:2)
The various people sueing like there is no tomorrow are doing just that - doing whatever they can to survive. I believe those companies will die out very quickly unless they embrace, not attack the internet
Re:Not all failed attempts at regulation... (Score:2)
Re:Internet Regulation by the US... (Score:2)
I never claimed it was good news.
Hundreds if not thousands were killed, either by government thugs (coast guard, police, FBI) or gangsters (nongovernment thugs), and hundreds if not thousands more were imprisoned, lost their homes, and so forth.
That was a different time. The media would jump over anything remotely close to the government's actions during the Prohibition. There will be isolated insidents but as the press converges on them they will subside. And you cannot say that the media is controled by the government. It is controled by money hungry mega-monopoly corporations. For them money = number of viewers. The easiest way to get a high number of viewers is to put the worst light on the government as possible.
Things may change though and very soon all our rights may be striped from us. I feel that this will not happen but objectively I cannot discount this fact. So I will continue to vote and do my best to be involved with the UCITA and DMCA.
Regulation and the Net (Score:2)
Taking the laws one at a time
DMCA: a biggie. This could have serious implications by "closing" standards. I think that, in the long run, it has overreached itself, and will be ruled unconstitutional (or at least parts of it) because effectively indefinitely extends copyright. In the short run it'll be bad.
UCITA: even worse. Every time I read about it I cannot believe it. Worse, I can't see what can stop it legally if it is enacted. The best that could be hoped for is that big business realises that it is terrible, and stops it. Unlikely.
DeCSS. A corker, as they are trying to enforce "no reverse engineering" where it is legal to reverse engineer.
Privacy - sorry guys, we're all statistics. Even if you use PGP you will be targetted as "that 1.8% of people who use PGP - try to sell them techy toys." Rights on the net - there are none. The net is a commercial entity: you have no right to free speech (no ISP is bound to have you, no company has to sell you connectivity), no right to privacy. Equally "they" have no rights either - use encryption, block banner ads, lie on surveys.
Remember - they (the denizens of the commercial net) are only in it for the money. All you can do is make behaviour that you find unacceptable unprofitable for them. The net is going to be a great social engineering experiment. We'll find out whose money talks the loudest - those that spend it or those that take it.
The end of the net as we know it? It's always the end of the net as we know it. Best we make tomorrow's net a better place.
the crossroads are way behind us (Score:2)
I've been on the net for almost 15 years, and it's WAY different now than it was then. Not long after I got on the net, usenet started taking off. I remember being able to read ALL of the messages in ALL of the newsgroups I cared about every day without kill files, threading or anything of the sort. Now, usenet is quickly becoming a repository for spam and illegal distribution of copyrighted material (mp3s, jpgs, warez, etc). Slashdot did a story not too long ago about whether usenet is dead yet.
I remember thinking how cool WAIS was, and how useless and redundant gopher was. I remember using beta versions of Mosaic, and thinking how useful it might be. I remember thinking how cool it was that there were more people on the net. I remember thinking how cool it was the first time I saw a URL in an ad.
I now spend a lot of time thinking how lame it is that there are more people on the net, and how cool it is to see an ad without a URL...
the signal to noise ratio of the net in general has gone down over time. for a while, it was worth a little more noise to get a little more signal, but we have long since past the point where the ratio is very tolerable. hopefully, someone will come out with some neat new technology to allow us to filter through the cruft better...until someone figures out how to abuse that too.
sigh,
Michael
Re:Internet Regulation by the US... (Score:2)
Who cares if they're in place when they work so poorly as they do?
Look at drug prohibition, for example. Started as a racist gig -- instead of fighting the black people directly, just force them all to be criminals -- and who's out there fighting against that injustice? Hmm. Anyone who does, swiftly gets branded a criminal. Or a joke. Many of us remember when the word "hacker" was primarily praise.
Is there a ray of light coming from the Internet? Perhaps. It's a good lever for the best our society has to offer, not just the worst.
Re:How about a "net out" (Score:2)
Change = turning point (Score:2)
There is nothing particularly special about this moment in time.
True, the various authorities [control addicts] have been awaking, but there are also lots more `net users who enjoy the freedom they find here.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't fight the straightjackets that others would like to fit us in. Of course we should. This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
We are becoming a World Wide Web (Score:2)
Both are extremely consumerism oriented, however, I think there are some appreciable differences:
Re:E-Commerce and Government are Destroying the Ne (Score:2)
//rdj
OT perhaps: but in reply to a previous post (Score:2)
I have to take issue with your statement that the media would jump all over anything remotely close to the government's actions during prohibition.
Here in the US we are currently undergoing a period of prohibition. The drug warriors are all up on their high-horses riding down your rights. Your rights have been, and are currently being, eroded very seriously in the name of the war on drugs.
The media has chosen to ignore these abuses quite handily. No TV station has yet had the balls to stand up and say that seizure of property on the suspicion that drug money may have been involved AND placing the burden of proof to reclaim the property on the person from whom it was seized is wrong. It's pretty clearly wrong, the Founding Fathers would have had fits over it, but our media does not have the stones to say it.
That is only one example.
Now if anyone knows why the media is so quiet on the subject I'd love to hear it. I'm really quite perplexed myself. I've figured the media as corporate stooges for ages, but I can't for the life of me figure out why corporate money wants our property rights eroded in this way? What are they getting?
Absimiliard
--------------------------------------
All sigs are lame, but mine is the lamest!
History teaches us... (Score:2)
Once people unite against corporations, things will change. We shall use all peaceful means to overcome tyranny, and succeed.
---
Internet may not be US only, but... (Score:2)
Your country doesn't have to "follow the US lead" -- once the Net becomes something of real value in your country there will be a company or government agency there ready to claim control of it. The natural impulse of any organization is to grow and accrete more power. The problem has only surfaced in the US first because the Net has moved beyond novelty here and into the daily lives of many more people.
The US has its own spate of stupid laws, but we've already seen stupid laws passed in otherwise democratic places like Australia. Yes, RIAA and MPAA both end in "Association of America", but don't you think that companies like BMG will move to protect their interests when the time comes? (And right now they can sit back as the RIAA fights most of their battles for them.) In places where there is already strong control of existing media, it will be a natural to extend this to the Internet. Even though we all know how difficult this is technically, if something is illegal it still gives the government a pretext to arrest people they don't like.
Like I said, the impulse is everywhere, lying just under the surface. You won't end up with America's stupid laws -- you'll have a whole set of your own unless you watch out. Even if your country happens to be highly enlightened and all your personal liberties are preserved, if other countries around you are not, then it won't be much of a "World Wide" web, will it?
Re:Society and the internet (Score:2)
You're right. E-commerce is nice and convenient, but it certainly hasn't changed my life.
The best thing about the internet is the unlimited free flow of ideas, and that really can't be stopped, just by the nature of how the hardware works. You can implement all the filters you want, but people will find a way to get the information somehow. It's like trying to clean up a huge oil spill with paper towels, from the point of view of those who want to control the internet. Even the Chinese seem to be letting in some sites that are questionable to their governments' ideals...it's impossible to find them all anyway.
We haven't really reached a point where the international nature of the internet actually puts any governments' power at risk, but that day may come, in a form I can't really think of today. Maybe then we'll see mandatory government filtering of, say, an entire country's domain.
I think the real risk is not Orwellian type threats (not in the near future anyway), but the type of thing we've always seen: limiting people's ability to "break the law", and thus prevent large scale "disobediance", limiting activity to a relatively small group of people. If no one knows about you and your cause, your free speech rights don't bother the government or any other institution.
On the upside, we've all seen the limited success of "controlling" mp3s by the RIAA, etc. It really can't be done. So I'm pretty optimistic about our future. We just need to keep in mind it's not the technology that changes things, it's how we use it.
Are we really sure either way? (Score:2)
My first thought is, 'no of course not--don't be stupid!' My second though is a bit more uncertain.
I've always figured that as new aspects of the internet come about, they'll be more and more regulated. The web is already far more regulated than the more basic, primitive, and older aspects. (IRC, usenet, etc.) Usenet, for instance, is so fundamentally unregulable that it's pretty much free of danger as long as it sticks around.
But then I look at the things that _have_ fallen by the wayside over the years, anon.penet.fi being a big one. The idea that an ISP is fundamentally not responsible for user content is another (especially with most service moving from academic to commercial providers) The lack of international laws to deal with abuse, and as a result, the 'vigilante justice' that's been working fairly well up until now.
Things are changing. Things are changing RIGHT NOW more than I would have expected possible four years ago. Companies, lawmakers, and meddlers won't rest until they get control over things again, to their satisfaction. I don't know how it's going to happen but already control that seemed impossible is starting to appear (and freedom that seemed inevitable is starting to falter).
Death of the internet? Never. It's already so entrenched that in one form or another, it's going to be as ubiquitous as electricity and running water is today. (and yes, neither of those are universal) However, death of the internet as an informal, loosely regulated, anarchistic world may be starting to come about.
Pity. The worst thing is, aside from keeping 'talk' and IRC clients alive, I can't see any way of stopping it.
Campain Contribs for Jack Valenti (Score:2)
These are only for the 2000 elections. In the previous election he made over 32 donations.
Source: www.opensecrets.org
Valenti, Jack
Washington, DC 20005
Motion Picture Association
01/29/1999
$1,000
Gore, Al
03/10/1999
$500
Frost, Martin
06/10/1999
$500
Watts, J C
09/07/1999
$250
Restore America PAC
03/01/1999
$500
Lofgren, Zoe
08/04/1999
$1,000
Hatch, Orrin G
08/17/1999
$1,000
Democratic Leader's Victory Fund 2000
06/07/1999
$500
Casey, Patrick Raymond
03/10/1999
$500
Lone Star Fund
06/23/1999
$500
Clyburn, James E
10/07/1999
$1,000
Hyde, Henry J
10/07/1999
$1,000
Hyde, Henry J
05/26/1999
$1,000
Conyers, John Jr
09/14/1999
$1,000
Gore, Al
09/30/1999
$1,000
McCain, John
10/21/1999
$1,000
Bush, George W
Don't write it off as U.S. only (Score:2)
Beyond that there is the attempt to regulate content residing outside the US (or your country of choice) by holding the big ISP and backbone hosts responsible for the content they allow users to view. This can have the effect of chopping the `Net up into national nets. Multinational companies and national governments aren't going to care if the objectional material is only available on-line in Lower-Outbackastani.
And beyond that is the arm-twisting the US does to other governments to get them to echo the US legal directions. Plus mutual backscratching between governments where country A regulates something they don't care about one way or another but contry B does, just to get country B to regulate something they way country A feels it should be.
Consider the sate of radio in its early, unregulated days. A few people thought that it would have the same sort of impact the many here feel the Net has. Radio was regualted in the US as a "limited resource" (available frequencies), but in other countries other reasosns were given. (The UK and licenses for radios and TVs). Public decency, protecting against "insurrectionist" talk, halting the spreading of illegal and dangerous information (US Senate bill 486) - the list goes on. All of these are reasons for governments to attempt to regulate and control the Net.
Now, if a IP packet modem that used the unregualted spread spectrum bands were to be marketed, and come into common use, one could see the appearance of an alternative backbone within populated areas of land masses. Everyone passes others packets on down the line, in a distributed web-like network arather than the current trunk and branches. Much harder to apply pressure to the backbone when it's a large number of small sites all over the place.
WRONG! (Score:2)
Us geeks could always use a tunneling protocol over the net. Or special pages that require decryption plug-in which will ask for the average flying speed of an unladened European swallow, or for the name of the CPM debugger, before granting access.
The only reason why the CPHack, DeCSS, and my case [sorehands.com] have been issues is because non-geeks find out and have access to that information.
Re:Yeup. It's already over (Score:2)
But don't get discouraged, the change is more illusion than reality. The fact that the Internet doubles in size very fast has meant that the majority of the population at any given time are newbies. Another large fraction have gotten through the newbie stage and have become dismayed by how many more newbies have come along and ruined things. But in reality, things have stayed about as messed up as they ever were. The "change" most of you are experiencing is just the change in yourself relative to the state of the Internet.
And things may actually stabilize in the forseeable future. Eventually the flood of newbies must end. The global population can't grow as fast as Internet users. So things may actually get better. Maybe someday people won't even post warnings about blue star stamps to the whole world on Usenet.
In reality the Internet is still a place you can go, get some data from a satellite (SOHO) orbiting at the L1 point between the earth and sun in near real-time, and discover new comets the pro's overlooked as they whiz past the surface of the Sun. (here's how) [esa.int] And that's awsome!
E-Commerce and Government are Destroying the Net.. (Score:2)
Society and the internet (Score:2)
To many transactions are made over the net for the law not to regulate. Consumer protection is one of the many issues I see here. Taxation is another thing, but governments have always found new ways to make money... for those of you who own cell phones you pay a tax for the right to use the airwaves because the government decided it owned them ... nice isn't it ?
So what about the internet ? Why would anything be different ?
Taxation of sale transactions over the internet will be a reality as the economy moves more into ecommerce ... and it has to be that way. The government will face loss of revenus if it doesnt to that and will have to raise taxes in one way or the other.... the only democratic and socialy responsive way to do it is to tax thoses transactions otherwise (if the government has to raise the income tax)you place the burden over the whole population and allow a certain class of people to escape their contribution to society.
As for the many who disagree with my point of view I think you should look at the issue as more of a society problem and stop hiding behin the idealism of a free internet.
One last comment: corporations making fortune selling things online was not what the internet used to be about...so I fail to see how the argument of preserving the internet as it was should apply here...
Imagination is more important than knowledge. --- Albert Einstein
Re:Other countries exist too! (Score:2)
You are right to point out that other countries exist too, but they aren't as independent as you make out. What happens in the US often spreads to other countries. I suspect the EU will follow the US's lead in a lot of this, for example
And, don't forget, the Internet itself ties countries more closely together. Regulations in the US will in practice effect how US-based websites do business in all the countries they serve - i.e. everywhere. Imagine you are (say) Yahoo! and you decide to comply with one of these new laws. Its unlikely that you'll choose not to comply for customers outside the US. That's assuming you can tell which customers are from where. That's assuming that the US laws even allow websites to not comply when dealing with non-US users.
So yes, of course other countries exist on the net. But in practice, a lot of these new rules will de factor end up applying outside the US too, for better or worse.
Re:Net Regs will happen (Score:2)
And the reality is that there will be governmental regulation. Too many corporations are spending way too much money for this not to happen.
I'm constantly amazed by this and similar thoughts that are expressed on /.. Assuming that you don't want the "corporations" taking over the net, then how exactly do you propose to stop them? Government regulation is an effective tool by which "we the people" can control corporate behavior. Lawsuits are an effective way for people who are abused by corporations to prevent future abuses. Neither of these are apparently acceptable to the rabid /.-er.
So how exactly are you going to change the corporations? By writing angry posts to /. discussion? Yeah, I can hear the mighty corporations quivering in their boots... The community will be more effective if it uses the mechanisms our society already has in place to achieve its end, rather than trying to ferment some sort of revolution that isn't going to happen and isn't supported by the majority of your fellow countrymen.
The usual IMHO disclaimers apply, of course ;-)
But sadly, IP is changing - and for the worse (Score:3)
Yes, but it's NOT staying the same. The clock is already ticking.
Imagine this: The FBI sets up a "Reichstag Fire", and tells Congress that they NEED to be able to track IP addresses in real-time.
The idiots on the IPv6 commitee have handed them the solution on a silver platter. All Congress has to do is pass a law which not only mandates that all ISP's use IPv6, but that they also provide the mechanisms to allow the FBI to track these connections, and listen in, if possible, in real time.
Think it can't happen? You'd be wrong. Congress just gave the telco's over $200 million to do something similar with digital phone connections; after passing a similar law back in the mid 90's.
There's nothing to stop them from doing it with IPv6; though the ISP's would bitch and moan as loudly as the phone companies, until they got enough money to do this.
So soon you'll be able to kiss your internet anonimity goodbye.
Re:Other countries exist too! (Score:3)
Re:Regulation and Taxes will happen (Score:3)
they will zealously defend their interests, through the creation of regulations and laws.
Libertarians are against regulations and laws that infringe upon life, liberty and property. We will agree with you on this one.
They will demand the regulation of the Net, they will insist on laws, and it will happen.
Libertarians are against the regulation of the net. The only laws applying to it should be for the express purpose of guaranteeing peoples rights to life, liberty and property. Including the property rights of Free Software.
Taxes are also inevitable.
Libertarians are against taxes. Some are against them completely. Others will relent to basic and necessary taxation. But you do make a statement that libertarians will take issue with: hey should be really low for small business and startups...but not for big companies. Actually, beyond the mischaracterization of libertarians, this is one of the few things in your post I disagree with. Everyone must be treated equally.
such as requiring open access to broadband pipes.
If the broadband pipe was funded through taxes, then libertarians will agree with you. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "broadband pipes" though. If you mean access to a companies privately constructed backbone, I'll have to disagree.
Overall, you don't have any disagreements with libertarians. It's a shame that you think them hostile to freedom.
Re:Turning point -- Yes, but in our favor! (Score:3)
People have an innate preference to do all kind of stuff when it benefits them. I don't see what's so special about sharing (in this context).
I think I have a much lower opinion of human nature than you do.
IMHO, people follow their instincts. Most intellectual property laws follow against people's instincts
Don't mistake your instincts for the people's instincts. You are not typical at all and your viewpoint is the minority viewpoint. I may not agree with specific IP laws, but I think that at least the concept of IP follows natural instincts pretty well (besides, I can derive most of IP from the freedom of contract).
So, in the end, producing Intellectual Property isn't going to make any money. All jobs will be service jobs
Oh, yeah? That's a major reality check failure. Maybe you'd like the world to work this way (though I can't imagine why), but it's not going to happen.
Kaa
Turning point -- Yes, but in our favor! (Score:3)
People have an innate preference to share with others when it benefits them. This is why Free Software works, and why programs like Napster and other file sharing protocols work. Same cause, although different legalitiy...
IMHO, people follow their instincts. Most intellectual property laws follow against people's instincts, and the only think that protected them in the past was the copying cost (ie for books and movies that cost a lot to copy on paper and film).
We're going to see legal disobedience on a large scale, on the basis of what comes naturally. You can't fight that , no matter how many laws you make. Even then, smart people will find a way - they always have and always will.
So, in the end, producing Intellectual Property isn't going to make any money. All jobs will be service jobs - people are paid to create for a specific purpose or situation (like doctors and scientists and sysadmins are paid today).
We're going to win. It's just a matter of time.
-BBK
Internet Regulation by the US... (Score:3)
I wish it wasn't so but the powers that be don't understand anything about the ramifications of regulating anything tech let alone something the US doesn't own.
Re:The Lawsuits are NOT the issue... (Score:3)
Example: We need to keep people from buying portable music players which support SDMI. We could place information online about how to order stickers which say:
WARNING This product uses SDMI. SDMI is designed to maintain the music industry's monopoly over marketing and promotion of music. SDMI product have been known to restrict where you can obtain your music from, degrade the quality of independently produced mp3 music, require waisting of drive space to lissen to mp3s, and prevent you from letting your friends lissen to your music. We strongly discurage you from buying this product without further research. WE suggest instead that you learn about SDMI and purchas an mp3 player which dose not support SDMI.
People all over the country would order these stickers, distribute them at LUGs / protets
The problem is designing an efficent, cheap, and legal way of distributing such stickers. I think the most effective way would be via an affiliat program at some online sticker retaler. Perferably a retailer who would be willing to lower the unit price if large numbers of people ordered identical stickers.
Re:Turning point -- Yes, but in our favor! (Score:3)
I have to disagree here. I think at some point in the future, because of technological progress, IP will be the only thing that makes money (well, service too). Real property (other than real estate) will mostly become worthless. Why? Because, we will someday actually enter the information age (no, we're not there yet). The information age will begin when Star Trek-like replicators are invented, using nano-tech. Once that happens, the only thing worth money, will be design blueprints for the creation of objects. Want a car? Download the design plan you want, feed it into the replicator, and presto! Car made while you wait. Meanwhile, a small fee goes back to the creator of the design, and perhaps a small fee for the dirt-utility that supplies the basic matter from which your car was made.
IP, hopefully in the form of copywrite protection, rather than patent-type protection, will rule as long as we are in a capitalist economy. It will become the only property worth anything, particularly on Wall Street.
Re:Thought about it? (Score:3)
I'm not kidding. I really don't see a lot of discontent out there, and what there is, often lies within relatively single-issue groups that as often as not hate each other's guts and likely will never unite. The NARAL, the NRA, and NORML, for instance, don't typically defend each other, and my suspicion is that the intersection between the three is close to nil.
What we see, for instance, is that most folks today consider the state of the union to be pretty good. They're happy. They're reasonably well-off. They're not openly at war, and the situations in Iraq and Kosovo are probably pretty far from their minds. Many seem willing to accept more restrictions on their rights -- in particular, on speech and firearms -- in return for (allegedly) security and safety, and dismiss any protests as extremism, and protesters as kooks. I doubt you'll see a mass uprising anytime soon.
Re:Regulation and Taxes will happen (Score:3)
The good way is for business to regulate themselves and spend a few bucks working to prevent themselves from being riped off instead of spending a lot of bucks lobbying congressmen and other legislators. An example of this is would be like with napster or decss. Instead of trying to sue everyone who has anything to do with the software why not give people an incentive to go buy the movies / albums? Why not make it easy for everyone to watch DVD's on their computers? Wouldnt the money spent on this lawsuit be better spent developing software to do this very thing? And if a 17 (?) year olf guy in norway can do it, how hardwould it be for techs at Sony?
As far as music goes, why not lower the price of CD's? I mena i cant think of an album out there right now that's woth 16-18 bucks when i really only want one song. Of course Im gonna fire up Napster and go get that one song. Of course Im stilll tryign to figure out why downloadign a song from napster is bad and yet recording it from the radio is ok.
Of course the only way to ensure this happens in a positive way is to speak out. And posing at
They're not realy out to screw anyone, they just trying to make a bunch of money, and the only way to make sure they dont do this at our expense is to stand up against them in a resonable manner and with *lots* of people behind you. And, the only way to get people behind you is to reason with them and explain all the facts in a clear mannner.
After all, aren't the best decisions made when people have the best information in front of them.
Reaching the crossroads. (Score:3)
For a while, the internet was ruled by geeks and corporations could not stop us.
Now, corporations have taken control (and on occassion rightly so).
What is happening, is that regular media, and non-geeks have been paying attention and realizing what is going on. They realize that this actually effects them, and not just some geek's problem.
What has happened with the Mattel/MSI/CyberPatrol issue here, is that it had become more mainstream. People are waking up and realizing that some company abusing up a little guy, is not just some crackpot or some hacker. But they are starting to realize that they might be next.
Things will turn when the press will actually print the truth, and not rehash company press releases. Or is that what people not on the net complain about too? :)
Question... (Score:3)
How is the UCITA different from a license file that is needed to run Matlab, SAS, Mathematica, etc.? These can be computer specific and expire after a certain amount of time. The fact that the program checks for its license on another computer is no different from how Matlab works (with a license server). I see no problem with a software vendor making licenses for a specific computer. Also, isn't this how digital satelite works?
I'm not looking to change opinions, but an informed response that can tell me how UCITA will affect me: I use Linux at home, Netscrape 4.7, StarOffice, Sybase, Apache, some inetd stuff--all of which I have a license to use already. I read EULAs (believe it or not) and avoid programs which have agreements I don't like. I don't install the software to reverse-engineer a copy of it, but try to write one that does what I want it to.
As for the rest of the discussion.. everyday is a turning point in cyberspace. Remember the good old days, just last decade when only college types had access and there was no slashdot? With every innovation comes problems. More people are online (innovation) meaning that the courts are now getting involved (problem). Growing pains is what this is called. Solving them will provide more innovation causing more problems. I personally like challenges and innovation.
Just remember whose livelihood you may be tampering with when you misunderstand the word free (ie B*ll G*t*s always gets paid, but junior coder may loose a job). If you don't like a particular practice of a member of the internet community, boycott. You may find yourself in the majority and win or you may find yourself in the minority (like most of us here on slashdot) and have to suck it up.
End? No. (Score:4)
What we are seeing is restriction of absolute freedom in certain areas in exchange for higher profitability for certain entities. These businesses, governments, and special interest groups have their own requirements for their ideal web. Needless to say different peoples' ideals are quite different. As different groups attempt to determine what strength they have in this medium and new area of both our cultures and our laws, they will push the boundaries. The same behaviors have occurred every time a new frontier crops up.
Is the time of the Mecca of absulute privacy and freedom over? It never really existed, honestly. We have always used real information about people on the net. If you want to be listened to seriously, you often have to let people know who you really are. You can lie convincingly, and that was just as good. The same principle applies now. Certain information is required and certain freedoms are limited to use many new aspects of the internet. This has been happening from Day One, but now corporations are doing it through lawsuits instead of individuals killfiling you on usenet. All we are seeing is the reactions changing according to the perceived severity of the situation from the "aggrieved" party's side. If you can lie convincingly in the new ways, it is still just as good as real information and privacy.
Like all frontiers, the web will continue to "civilize" as more people seek to get rich, put in the hard work, make it their home, and proceed from the founder generation to the ones that take this frontier for granted. Things will change, but barring an international action of draconian nature, freedom and privacy will remain. Our perceptions of them are what will change.
B. Elgin
New Protocol (Score:4)
Basic protocol design:
Client sends out a broadcast regexp request to match. Servers respond (within reason) with all matching requests. Certain file extensions (implemented as loadable extension modules) can load up part of the file into memory for regexp matching as well (such as an id3 tag for mp3).
Client queries the servers which contain what it wants, for configuration compatability (in case a server has such strict security opts turned on that it won't allow you to connect, etc) and free bandwidth. The most efficient path is chosen.
A person who has a client has a server running at the same time. In their default configuration, they are encouraged to link to their friends that are outside the current network - preferably, way far away. When a client doesn't find what it wants, it will start following links on other people's systems - within reason. It won't trace very far in, and only will follow links on very idle systems. This is due to the nature of obscuring the destination. Each client on a net, when accessing a link on another computer, gets not an IP and port, but a number to refer to the link - they can't see where they're going. The relevant information gets sent to the computer with the link, which correspondingly forwards it (redoing encryption if mandated by either side of the connection). Links an be nested within each other - for example, a packet could go to XXX.XXX.XXX.21, link 3, XXX.XXX.131.42, link 1, XXX.XXX.XXX.101, and then stop there and download.
The user doesn't tell it where to search; the client keeps bookmarks of where the user has been finding things and prefers to use those links, subject to bandwidth and cpu constraints of the servers along the way. However, in 3, university-scale hops, you could get nearly anywhere in the nation, in theory. And have no clue where you're going to. (and, the only way to figure out where you're going to is confiscation of every hard drive along the way, I.e. completely infeasable for a recording industry/motion picture industry/other large corporate entity crackdown)
Additionally, I've worked out how to a) make the packets appear to be from the wrong computer, b) have the destination address be to the wrong computer, c) have both computers randomly rearrange ports at regular intervals, and d) have no recognisable contents in the packet that would give it away as being from an antioch system, and all the while having it function normally.
Note, that a) and b) require the program be run as root, b) and d) require extra cpu, and c) either require a supplied service info daemon on both ends, or on the end(s) which doesn't have one, more cpu and have to be run as root. Again, that will be configuration dependant; most people will probably choose to stick to the default configuration.
Planned encryption is GPG, or a rouch variant of it, but its support has not been implemented in our currently skeletal code.
All in all, it should be virtually impossible to firewall or track down. In fact, it should be possible, running as root, to even ensure anonymity over the local subnet, but that part of the protocol is still tentative and probably won't be implemented till after our first beta release.
Anyways, I just thought I'd share
- Rei
Yes, and things are good. (Score:5)
But, take a step back and look really hard. Know what I see? I see a bunch of corporate types who are doing nothing but making total asses out of themselves. In all of the above cases, only one did the internet come out on top. Why? Because we raised such a stink that there was nothing else that the money grubbers could do but to give in.
Things still are not over on the DeCSS front, nor the MP3 front, nor the Mattel front. We are being monkey wrenches in their corporate culture - a culture that says "money is all that counts!" and "you have no rights if it costs me a buck!" We are being attacked and we are fighting back. And ya know what? They are paying attention.
We are being told that we can't do stuff that has been done for years (reverse engineering). How are they going to stop us from doing that? They are going to have about as much success in keeping your typical hacker from doing any sort of RE as President Regan had with the moral majority type Meese Police laws back in the 80s.
I don't know about anyone else, but I personally have so much time on my hands to further monkey wrench corporate america that it is not even funny - and what is great is I never have to leave my house to do it. And neither does anyone else. Simply keep doing what you are doing. Keep coming up with great software like we are. Let them spend all their money and effort playing their little SLAP games.
This reminds me of an episode of Andy Griffith that I saw the other day. Barney Fife went to tell some road side vendors they were going to have to move. They were both bigger than he was and were very intimidating. He said something that we should all keep in mind: "You two may be bigger than I am, but just remember something - this badge represents a lot of people who are are bigger than the both of you."
And we are. You and I outnumber Mattel like crazy.
We outnumber Amazon, eToys, and the RIAA. It is time for every one of us to either put up or shut up. It is simple as that.
Regulation and Taxes will happen (Score:5)
First of all, grok this: there is too much money invested in the Net by big players and too many newbies who think they actually have privacy on the Net. I own shares in a number of corporations which are investing heavily in the Net, and they will zealously defend their interests, through the creation of regulations and laws. This is a done deal. One can complain about it, but it will happen.
Secondly, the growth of the Net implies the existence of many more clueless newbies. They will demand the regulation of the Net, they will insist on laws, and it will happen. We can shape this debate or we can fight the valiant fight against it and lose. And we will lose if we choose to fight instead of mold it in a better form.
Taxes are also inevitable. They should be lower than for bricks and mortar, but they are necessary for cities, counties, and states to pay for basic services such as roads (used by UPS to deliver your goods), rail (ditto), airports (ditto), police (to arrest the fraud mongsters), jails (to lock up the Free Net activists in), and courts (to find them guilty and protect the monied interests from having their credit cards stolen). They should be really low for small business and startups, to encourage creation of new things, but not for big companies.
This is the reality. If you want, I'll bet anyone $10 that there will be Net taxes (not on ISPs, but on sales and e-commerce) for municipal, county, and states, in existence by 2010. And there will be regulations.
We can help ensure that only the good regulations survive - such as requiring open access to broadband pipes. Or we can rail against the wind and lose.
Re:You're forgetting... (Score:5)
Bzzt. Wrong answer.
I recently saw the results of a study the UN did to determine which countries have the most freedom. They covered many different areas, from speech and religion, to the economy and the way minorities are treated.
Guess where the US placed? Not even in the top ten. Sweden was number one.
---