DRM and Democracy 211
jar writes to tell us Bruce Perens has a short editorial on why DRM could have an impact on much more than just our record collections. From the article: "Within the last century, electronic communications have increasingly become the vehicle of democratic discourse. Because radio and television broadcasting are expensive with limited frequencies available, the wealthy have dominated broadcasting. The Internet and World Wide Web place into the common man's hands the capability of global electronic broadcasting. [...] In order to protect democratic discourse in the future, the Internet must remain a fair and level playing field for the distribution of political speech. The full capability of the Internet must remain available to all, without restriction by religious, business, or political interests."
Yeah maybe, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah maybe, (Score:5, Funny)
"Real Americans don't use backups, they just email a disk image to their grandmothers and let NSA handle the archiving!"
- with apologies to Linus
Re:Yeah maybe, (Score:2)
Re:Yeah maybe, (Score:2)
It required some strange TSR to work with modern (2000) video cards, but it just kept working. Even after I switched to WinXP, I was able to load the software on to a Windows 3.1 machine I had laying around to keep updating it.
To this day I still have yet to find a PDA watch which works as nicely as that one.
internet politics (Score:5, Funny)
Like: 'bush is teh gh3y.' "no, gore pWnz u." 'bush/cheney ftw.' "you stole my election!"
[ANALOGY TIME] Finding political speech on the internet is like finding poop in the toilet: it's easy to find, but you don't want to see it.
Re:internet politics (Score:2, Informative)
Re:internet politics (Score:2, Funny)
I'd say it's more like sifting through poop: You've got to dig through tons of crap before you can find a tasty peanut.
Re:internet politics (Score:2)
You've got to dig through tons of crap before you can find a tasty peanut.
I don't think "tasty" is the appropriate word for describing a peanut that has been sitting under tons of crap.
Re:internet politics (Score:2)
How short sighted of you. What if you'd been crawling through a gigantic desert of shit for days in search of sustenance? I imagine a peanut would make good eatin' at that point.
What the fuck? Why won't this analogy break? We're pushing it as hard as we can and it just won't give! It's too fucking accurate!
Re:internet politics (Score:2)
Compared to the crap it sure is.
Re:internet politics (Score:2)
Re:internet politics (Score:2)
Have you copyrighted and DRM'd that line, or can I steal it as a forum sig line?
Slashdot-News for turds, stuff that splatters? (Score:2, Funny)
This is what we've been reduced to...New slogan:
Slashdot: News for turds, stuff that splatters
Why Net Neurtality legislation is so important (Score:5, Insightful)
-Eric
exactly... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sorry but as much as I am against DRM I don't think his example regarding internet radio streams holds water.
for one existing laws do the same thing without DRM. Major internet and satellite radio streaming companies already require contractual agreements and presumably the proprietors of the streams can "filter out" politically undesirable speech.
for another the guy seems to completely ignore open formats which will remain so either by virtue of the GPL or by virtue of the lack of a DRM specification (such as MP3) in the standard. while major outlets may end up drm'ed to hell, there will always be a format allowing people to make an internet stream on their own.
Re:exactly... (Score:2)
In fact, one could easily argue that the way the NY TImes hides content behind registrations and passwords has more impact on democractic speech. DRM in this case is just another scare word. Surprised terrorists and child porn were not mentioned as well.
Rega
Re:exactly... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is true, but only if people can play back data that's been encoded into one of these free formats.
I don't think it's very hard to imagine a future where the most common playback device would only play music recorded in a proprietary format: as much as I like the iPod, it's pretty close. It plays MP3 (patent encumbered, although everyone just seems to ignore that), AAC (semi-proprietary, although documented, probably patent encumbered), and Apple Lossless (proprietary, not sure if it's open or not).
Right now we don't see this as much of a problem -- after all, anyone with iTunes can encode to any of these formats. So if I wanted to make a radio show and distribute it, easy enough. But that doesn't have to be the case: suppose the next-generation of CDs weren't easily rippable, or they just came pre-encoded in one of the proprietary formats. Then there would be no need for the average consumer to have an encoder. It would be like MPEG-2 was a few years ago: you could buy a lot of pre-encoded content, but making your own was a real bitch.
Suppose also that computers by default become incapable of running code that hasn't been signed by an approval authority. Even if somebody wrote a free encoded for the non-free formats (which would probably be illegal to import and use), most people probably wouldn't be able to run it. Similarly with decoders for the free formats.
The fact that formats like Ogg Vorbis or Xiph exist won't matter if 80% of the population doesn't have an easy way of listening to them. Alternatives like that will always exist for geeks and people interested in technology, but they're pretty far from mainstream. The majority of the population lives at the whims of whatever's available on the the mass market, and given that they're allowed to vote, it's worth keeping an eye on the situation there, even if you and I and all the other people reading this on Slashdot won't be directly impacted.
Re:exactly... (Score:3, Funny)
I would, but the upstream bandwidth of my Ouiji board is capped too low.
Re:exactly... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why Net Neurtality legislation is so important (Score:4, Insightful)
DRM, DMCA, the Patriot Act are making aggressive progress against the rights of "The People," where there seems to be a basic assumption of guilt.
Back to the problem. If you don't know how the votes were tallied and that the elected officials were really the ones who won and have more than two parties allowed in each election (for all intents we have a two party exclusive system here in the US) we are going to keep getting these empty suit politicians.
Both the GOP and the Dems are screwing the public so bad with illegal junk un-constitutional legislation it hurts to watch.
Focus on how we count votes and making voting VERY transparent and verifiable online and may be able to make inroads.
Re:Why Net Neurtality legislation is so important (Score:2)
Re:Why Net Neurtality legislation is so important (Score:2, Funny)
Un, un! Lbh pna'g pbcl guvf.
KFG
Re:Why Net Neurtality legislation is so important (Score:2, Insightful)
So? Point being that encryption doesn't do anything to prevent this. Nothing.
And the customers for the pirated DVDs typically already own licensed DVD players so there is no impediment to playback.
It's key licensing fee protection, not copy protection. The list of original ten founding members of the DVD Consortium (now the DVD Forum, which sounds ever so much less like a
Re:Why Net Neurtality legislation is so important (Score:2)
That's true, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's true, but... (Score:2)
Re:That's true, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That's true, but... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:That's true, but... (Score:2)
Let's not forget the influence just a few thousand people can have. It only took a few thousand complaints (and from only one organization) to get the FCC to fine the famous superbowl nipple incident. It took the differenc
Re:That's true, but... (Score:2)
Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
No... yeah of course those three are going to be popular because they are common. Plenty of people make uncommon searches. But the thing about diverse searches is
Re:Politics unifies the people. (Score:2)
Not just that ... (Score:2)
That, and (for example) when I really want to read about politics I generally h
Re:That's true, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That's true, but... (Score:2)
And they'll be sure to mention the damage you did to the little robo-sidekick they sent in to subdue you at your funeral.
I think America's "armed populace" might be just an illusion today. You might as well be running around with hammers and pitchforks for all the good your arms will do you should the goverment turn its army on you.
Take a look at the fighting Iraq. They ar
Re:That's true, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's true, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
And you will die. It's all good if you can accept that. That Lady Smith (:-)) of yours might slow them down for about five seconds, max. The stock pile at the Branch Davidians didn't do them much good in the end, did it? If you want to win against the government, you'd better have bigger nukes that they have.
Re:That's true, but... (Score:2)
Actually, it took exactly one year and a bunch of diesel fuel and fertilizer.
The government learned after that.
Re:That's true, but... (Score:2)
Bad ordinance (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why those in power boil the frog. In order for them to get what they desire, there must be no flash point, no single act so heinous that the populace says "hey wait a minute!".
The fact is that when the shit hits the fan, you won't be able to fend off a tank with your shotgun. Certainly you can fend off one cop, or fight a dozen to a standoff, but if you're wanted bad enough and your location is known, you won't be on the loose for very long. You may just be sieged until you have to come out or starve, or you may have the authorities go Waco on you. Or you could just be "disappeared" and declared an "enemy combatant".
Did you know David Koresh used to walk to Wal-Mart three or four times a week? If authorities had wanted to arrest him, they could have. Instead they wanted to set a loud example, knowing full well it could go to hell in a handbasket the way it did. The War on Terra is just a logical extension of this existing policy. Both parties are responsible for putting us frogs in the water and heating it up. It's just that one of them lately has been so blatant about it -- it may yet work, or they may get tossed out for the moment. As soon as the furor dies down, it's back to politics as usual, and power grabbing as always.
Of course there is a difference in which groups get scapegoated by those in power, and there is a small handful on both sides who truly believe they are doing what is best for all concerned, but ultimately, money talks and all else walks. We don't have a voice. The bankrupting of the middle class (have you checked debt loads lately?) and of the country itself mean that dissenting voices will be too busy scrounging up enough money to "put food on their children" and not have time to cause problems for government.
Face it, your gun is only going to help you fight off your equally starving neighbor. You won't be putting up any significant resistance to air strikes, commando raids, or even SWAT teams.
Mal-2
Re:That's true, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the answer there is because quite a few people didn't hate his government as much as we'd like to think they did. Maybe they weren't real fond of it, but generally they didn't hate it enough to take to the streets and start shooting. People will deal with quite a lot of repression for their government, if it keeps the lights on most of the time and the water flowing and the gasoline cheap. Saddam did that, and outside of the Kurds I'm not sure if the general population was ever as rebellious as we here in the U.S. like to think they were.
Second, although I'm as big a proponent of gun ownership as anyone, the value of a single person with a gun is limited. Several people with guns is better, but still probably ineffectual in the long run. But a few thousand people with guns, acting in concert, is an army. So really, in order to make much use of your 2nd Amendment rights, you have to be able to exercise your 1st. It's the ability of people to talk and organize that makes them dangerous, particularly when they're armed.
Conversely, you can keep even an armed populace docile, if you can squash dissent early before it has a chance to grow, and you can keep people from talking about what's bothering them, and realizing that there are other people who feel the same way they do. I suspect Saddam's government operated this way quite effectively. Even if you have a gun, you're a lot less likely to do something by yourself than you are if you're standing with other people who share what you believe.
I very much doubt that the drafters of the Constitution ever thought that any one particular right would act as a check against tyranny by itself; rather, it's a combination of our rights: that of the press, of speech, of assembly, to bear arms, to not have soldiers in our homes, which together make it more difficult for a government to oppress the populace. Without any one of those, our position would be substantially weakened versus an oppressive regime; conversely none of those alone would be able to protect us.
Re:That's true, but... (Score:2)
Re:That's true, but... (Score:2)
Actually I agree with much of what you mentioned; I also think that the so-called `realist' school of foreign policy and realpolitik are shortsighted and will be treated unkindly by history, since they represent a selling-out of essential values in return for short-term gains, without consideration of the strategic and practical importance of those values. (Or at least underestimating them.)
O
Re:That's true, but... (Score:2)
Re:That's true, but... (Score:2)
http://www.democracygame.com/ [democracygame.com]
You cant expect me to resist a plugging opportunity this rich can you?
Not True (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not True (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not True (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not True (Score:2)
Re:Not True (Score:2, Insightful)
Not True Indeed (Score:2)
When you look at the distribution of wealth (or knowledge, or access, or whatever), you find that since the internet these gaps have grown bigger...
For wealth this is certainly true in the US. I'm not sure that is the case for knowledge in general, or "access" or anything else.
I don't believe you. Please provide support for this assertion. The numbers I've seen put the top 1000 sites as closer to 70%
Re:Not True (Score:2)
QED
The fact that this stifles individual voices and destroys the effective value of the individual just shows all the better that it's a real democracy, and is a shining example of why the U.S. isn't one, but is rather a republic with a specific charter protecting individual rights.
By the way, giving the little guy a voice is pretty
Re:Not True (Score:2, Interesting)
Although technology has the potentia
Monopoly (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah, and Bruce, sorry for being a grammar nazi, but please: Effects =/= Affects.
Re:Monopoly (Score:5, Interesting)
What Pereens is talking about is that so much of the so-called "mainstream" media is owned by a few, and it is a controlling factor in reporting. So while there seems to be much choice, in reality, there is very little. The "mainstream" media serves the interests of the powerful and the rich. Look at who owns who.
The coverage of the Iraq war should give you some insights (hint: what is not widely reported).
Re:Monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. But not exactly "saturated", (Score:2)
Re:Monopoly (Score:2)
What percentage of those are owned by Clear Channel [corpwatch.org]?
>Broadcasting equipment capable of covering short ( 40km) distance is relatively cheap ( US$ 1000 [in today's currency]) since the 1970's
and its deployment has been passionately opposed by the incumbents, who've gotten the the government to shut down such "pirate" operations withno evidence of interference.
No ClearChannel down here, but we do have Globo (Score:2)
I trademark the term (Score:4, Funny)
Next Step: PROFIT!
DRM Thoughts (Score:3, Funny)
Orwellian? (Score:3, Informative)
Mistake in article? (Score:3, Informative)
I believe the PERFORM act was introduced by Feinstein(D) and Graham(R), not Boxer(D).
Re:Mistake in article? (Score:2)
Re:Mistake in article? (Score:2)
Of course, their enemies are the underground villianous organization, P.I.R.A.T.E. - "People Indiscriminately Ripping All They Enjoy". This is a job for the Man from U.N.C.L.E.
(that's "United Network Command for Law and Enforcement" - for a thrill look up THRUSH).
always ask for a refund (Score:2, Interesting)
Anything with DRM should have a message on it similar to the "WARNING: SMOKING KILLS" warning. I don't want a small label I have to search for - it should be big, clear, and standardised. The exact same logo/warning message should appear on every product. Something like "Warning: This product uses Digital Rights/Restrictions Management" would do the job.
Anyway, if anyone accidentally
Re:always ask for a refund (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever conditions appear when you play the disc are not part of your agreement to buy the disc. You bougth one copy of the DVD, you own it. No question about it.
It's still true that you cannot do everything you migth like with it. But that's because of copyright-law, and not because of any legal-sounding bullshit on the disc itself.
Copyright-law prevents you from, among other things performing the work in public and distributing copies of the work.
Re:always ask for a refund (Score:2)
Parallels with the advent of print (Score:5, Interesting)
From the site:"The purpose of this web page [rand.org] is to serve as a focal point for investigations of the parallels between perhaps the two greatest qualitative jumps in communications capabilities of the last millennium - printing and internetted computers"
Further the same site has referenced a number of relevant papers:
" There is a wealth of information available on and off the Web that talks about printing and/or the Internet and/or their social and cultural implications. Since the interest of this web site is in the parallels between printing and the Internet and what they might tell us about policy about the Internet, only a small subset of such papers will be relevant [rand.org] to that understanding. Though even the concept of what is relevant will evolve, there are at least two general topics that should remain relevant:
understanding the parallels and divergences between printing and the Internet
understanding the history and impact of printing"
Re:Parallels with the advent of print (Score:2)
As to more recent writings on the subject I'm aware of none. I ran another search but came up empty handed. Were I to pursue the subject I'd be more interested in copyright law and court findings. For example if strong DRM were to allow media outlets to effectively gag dissent by claiming copyright over content, much as patent trolls attack technological innovation.
Unfortunately my own readings are even more out of date. If I were to cite one author who be
Freedom of Speech trumps DRM (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, if non-DRMed content was made illegal, then that would change things dramatically, but I don't see how that would **ever** happen.
DRM is a Bad Thing(TM), but I don't see it threatening democracy as the article suggests.
Re:Freedom of Speech trumps DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freedom of Speech trumps DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Freedom of Speech trumps DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple. When "trusted computing" is out there, then everything must be signed to run. If you want to speak freely, you must sign it. That gets rid of anonymity. Don't think about how DRM now would be a problem, think about when Trusted Computing requires signed DRM on everything. For our own good, of course.
Re:Freedom of Speech trumps DRM (Score:2)
Re:Freedom of Speech trumps DRM (Score:2)
All it takes is the major channels of distribution to not distribute non-DRM-ed content. Not so farfetched. And in terms of legal limits, do you think every country in the world has the same (even if diminishing) respect for freedom of speech that the US has? The places that need it the most are the places least likely to have it.
FTA/S: "The full capability o
Re:Freedom of Speech trumps DRM (Score:3, Informative)
DRM isn't only capable of preventing you from copying or distributing the document, it's also capable of preventing you from reading it too. This is what has the worst implications for Free Speech.
Have you ever read 1984? If you have, then you should recall that the Ministry of Truth spent quite a lot of time and effort revising history every time policy cha
Re:Freedom of Speech trumps DRM (Score:2)
Have you ever heard of a printer? Or a camera? Or testimony? Or handwritten notes?
Private networks will arise... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Private networks will arise... (Score:2)
This issue is orthogonal to DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
This issue is orthogonal to DRM. The problem is restricting what data sources these devices can listen to.
Freedom of the Press (Score:2)
If Bruce wants to have freedom on the Internet, he can build his own.
I wish I were being funny.
Simple Truth (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Simple Truth (Score:2)
The Future Is Locked (Score:2, Insightful)
A system that works best for recording and tracking each and every individual transfer of creative work will serve to diminish that work. A system that works to give that creative work to its audience in its purest form, without restrictions will both reward the audience and the creator (though the artist will not be nearly as financially supported by his work).
We would have never seen many of Da Vinci's works if he
Re: (Score:2)
It's a Mandate for Spammers (Score:2, Insightful)
Be careful what you wish for
Politics and spam already get confused. For example I was recently involved with a news mailin
More DRM FUD (Score:2)
No "Net neutrality" might be a threat to this--maybe. But DRM? No way.
Re:More DRM FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
DRM and Open Platform are separate issues (Score:4, Interesting)
The issue of subsidized players is quite distinct from DRM.
A very strong argument can be made that devices that deliver content MUST be open to playing non-DRM-constrained content from ANY source.
In fact I believe the FCC mandated this for radios and TVs. Basically a TV or radio station was not allowed to distribute players that would receive only their frequency.
It would be an excellent idea that anyone who creates a DRM would be required to allow anyone who publishes content to make use of that DRM. Publishing someone else's material would of course be illegal, just as stamping DVDs without someone else's material is.
But to imply that DRMs are incompatible with free speach is simply stretching things a bit too far. Ensuring that all players will continue to play non-DRM material is all that is required to preserve the essence of public discourse. Letting small publishers use the Big Boy's DRMs would be nice, but certainly not essential.
Re:DRM and Open Platform are separate issues (Score:2)
Hundreds of thousands of blogs... (Score:2)
"The Wealthy"? (Score:2)
The state of commercial FM is pretty poor, but it has little to do with "the wealthy", a phrase that conjures up mustachioed capitalists in top hats. In fact, if more radio stations were owned by genuinely wealthy individuals, they could afford to try something different, instead of slavishly playing formula music.
As usual when we encounter leftist code-speak, there's an ugly truth hidden underneath. In this case, the truth is that radio stations, which are not w
Re:It has already begun (Score:2)
And your suggestion for a non-profit search engine would be...? Perhaps you like the EU initiative, that has the government providing it? Nope. How about something like wikipedia? Oh, right, it would have completely died without financial support from companies that make money.
No, you're better served when people compete for your use of their search engine offerings. If you don't like Google, use any of several others. Except we all know that Google actually works
Re:It has already begun (Score:2)
And when they don't coincide, the companies providing the inferior service lose customers. The moment that Yahoo or MSN really and truly, for the average user, provide a demonstrably better search experience, they'll see a shift. And then right back when Google refines theirs. The incentive for improvement is huge, financially. And the costs of providing suc
Re:It has already begun (Score:2)
I remember when everyone switched from Yahoo to Google; it seemed like practically overnight everyone was using this new, white, funny-named search engine. They switched because Google gave better search results -- it seemed almost eerily good at turning up what you were looking for in the first few hits.
Despite Brin's protestations, I have no doubt that Google is in business to make money. They've made a lot of it, and t
Re:It has already begun (Score:2)
Explain Microsoft then.
I'm not joking or being a troll, but I don't really equate Microsoft with quality service. They make products that I have to use (and they work most of the time and help me make a living), but I don't really see them as the poster boy for "world's best customer experience".
Same with oil and gas companies... I can't remember the quality of service I got at the last gas station because human interacti
Tiered Internet isn't about Bandwidth (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Will anyone admit that DRM isn't bad? (Score:3, Informative)
DRM IS widescale IP "theft". An important part of copyright is that content expires into the public domain. DRM uses a technical loophole to gain the benefits of copyright with none of the responsibilities. In preventing protections from expiring, DRM essentially "steals" content from the public domain.
This is far more akin to the legal definition of t
Re:Will anyone admit that DRM isn't bad? (Score:2)
Take electronically sealed documents as an example. DRM is critical to the use of such documents in the real world. Right now, I don't digitally sign my work (required by law in my state, as in practically all) because of the requirements on the document once sealed. I'm sure it can be done, but it would take either (money) or (research time), neither of which I'm willing to devote in enough quantity, ro that will justify the expense.
Still, with DRM, I will someday be able t