×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FCC Commissioner Lauds DRM, ISP Filtering

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the by-some-definition-of-"effective" dept.

Government 217

snydeq writes "Ars Technica's Nate Anderson and InfoWorld's Paul Venezia provide worthwhile commentary on a recent speech by FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate (PDF), in which she praised DRM as 'very effective' and raised a flag in favor of ISP filtering. Anderson: 'Having commissioners who feel that the government has a duty to partner with and back educational classroom content from the RIAA; who really believe that ISP filtering is so unproblematic we can stop considering objections; and who think that universities worry about file-swapping because tuition might be raised to pay for the needed "expansion of storage capabilities" (huh?) isn't good for the FCC and isn't good for America.' Venezia: 'Leave the ISPs out of it — it's not their job to protect a failing business model, and a movement toward a tiered and filtered Internet will do nothing to stem the tide of piracy, but will result in great restrictions on innovation, freedoms, and the general use of the Internet. There's nothing to be gained down that path other than possibly to expand the wallets of a few companies.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

217 comments

I laud eating shit! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26054597)

A couple weeks ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I had to take a piss. As I entered the john, Barack Obama -- the messiah himself -- came out of one of the booths. I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was busy and in any case I was sure the secret service wouldn't even let me shake his hand.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated, hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still warm from his sturdy ass. I found not only the smell but the shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat, stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd -- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as his cock -- or at least as I imagined it!

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd always been a liberal democrat and had been on the Obama train since last year. Of course I'd had fantasies of meeting him, sucking his cock and balls, not to mention sucking his asshole clean, but I never imagined I would have the chance. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of Barack Obama, the chosen one.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it smelled.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big half nigger cock, beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily, sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My only regret was that Barack Obama wasn't there to see my loyalty and wash it down with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with the rich bitterness of shit. It's even better than listening to an Obama speech!

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six orgasms in the process.

I often think of Barack Obama dropping solid gold out of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could, and at least once did, bring to a grateful democrat.

Her email address (5, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054601)

dtaylortateweb@fcc.gov

Re:Her email address (5, Informative)

Killer Orca (1373645) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054693)

Anyone who is going to email her should also do so before she leaves in '09, not after.

Re:Her email address (3, Interesting)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054713)

Any idea about the stance of her probable replacement?

Re:Her email address (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054939)

Any idea about the stance of her probable replacement?

Depends on if that replacement is appointed before or after January 20th ;)

Re:Her email address (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26054711)

Don't clog her intertubes.. without regular RIAA press releases, how else will she know what to say?

Re:Her email address (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26054787)

If I can just fight the urge to abuse proxied SMTP nodes to anonymously send her the above troll [slashdot.org] 's story 600 times...

Re:Her email address (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055287)

I recommend sending pictures of the goatse guy instead, along with some text along the lines of 'this is exactly how your speech made us feel...'

Re:Her email address (5, Interesting)

Afforess (1310263) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055241)

I wrote her an email. Thanks for the address. It follows, verbatim: "Dear Deborah Taylor Tate, I recently became aware of your support of DRM (Digital Rights Management) and ISP (Internet Service Provider) filtering. I am deeply disappointed in your decision and will factor your policies choices, among other things, in with my vote in the next national election. In any case, I urge you to drop your support of DRM and ISP filtering because of the numerous economic and constitutional issues they raise. ISP filtering is akin to having the USPS read all of your mail before delivering it to you, "For national security purposes." Is that really necessary? Is the average American guilty until proven innocent? DRM is a sneaky way of saying "Ha, I lied, you only rented that movie, you don't really own that copy." When they decide that not enough people care about the product (This decision is completely arbitrary, by the way), they end DRM support. This has happened time and time again, and one merely has to look as far as Wikipedia for numerous examples. Although, on a more positive note, I am glad that you at least make decisions at all, and don't equivocate, like some politicians we know. A discontented American Citizen, Cameron McAvoy."

Re:Her email address (5, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055531)

Great, because after reading the tags on the story, I am /positive/ that she'll get plenty of insightful, well-thought-out email from the slashdot crowd.

DRM is effective (5, Insightful)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054603)

pshyeah, tell that to the pirate bay!

Re:DRM is effective (3, Interesting)

cavefrog (1015175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054781)

Well, at least this [drm.org] type of DRM is effective. As for the other type, she couldn't be more wrong.

Re:DRM is effective (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26054877)

Well they can't stop us from recording a high-quality video/recording of the media being played using a high-def video camera/mic (except for games). As long as they can't stop us from humanly viewing it, it can still (although crudely) get distributed, just to make a point if necessary.

amen! (4, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054605)

Leave the ISPs out of it â" it's not their job to protect a failing business model

Yeah... and congress doesn't like the competition.

In other news... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26054631)

Former FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate has announced she is retiring in 2009 and is looking forward to serving on the board of the RIAA as their new "Token Ex-Government Paid Mouthpiece" Director.

Re:In other news... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26054769)

Deborah Taylor Tate is pants.

Re:In other news... (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055025)

Former FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate has announced she is retiring in 2009 and is looking forward to giving her full attention to giving blowjobs to RIAA executives, and apologizes for having divided her time between being a corporate shill and cashing her government paycheque.

Graffiti on the Men's Room Wall (1, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055893)

Former FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate has announced she is retiring in 2009 and is looking forward to giving her full attention to giving blowjobs to RIAA executives

There are some things it is a pleasure to leave behind in high school.

Trash talk from a nerd is one of them.

Talk of blowjobs isn't "insightful." It is adolescent.

Beavis and Butt-Head. You have given no reason why any one over the age of consent should take you seriously.

English (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26054653)

Bonus points for anyone who can translate that to English.

Re:English (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26055871)

I'd love to post it, but due to the extreme repetitiveness of the onomatopoeias produced when performing fellatio, it trips the lameness filter.

Hitting the Nail Headwise (5, Insightful)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054673)

"...There's nothing to be gained down that path other than possibly to expand the wallets of a few companies."

That's precisely the reason the government would back it. Governments have created corporations and have conducted wars for exactly that reason.

Re:Hitting the Nail Headwise (3, Funny)

xlotlu (1395639) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054857)

Let me fix that:

"...There's nothing to be gained down that path other than possibly to expand the wallets of a few companies."

That's precisely the reason the government would back it. Corporations have created governments and have conducted wars for exactly that reason.

Re:Hitting the Nail Headwise (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26055035)

I've really come to believe that some of this is an ideological problem. Some people seem to believe the rich people and successful businesses, by being successful, have shown themselves to be smarter and to have better judgment than the rest of us. "After all", they think, "If I were smart enough to make massive amounts of money, I would!"

For as long as the wealthy are doing well, the people who think this way also think that, ideally, we should hope that the rich get richer. Since the wealthy are so smart and have such great judgment when it comes to financial matters, they're best equipped to manage money. Society will be most benefited by having as much money as possible concentrated in the hands of the greatest financial geniuses.

And then when the wealthy start to fail, they think, "Well these people are the best of the best. If the smartest people with the best judgement are failing, then it must mean that the system has been broken by someone. We need to fix this! Whoever is ruining things, we should stop them!"

I may be stating the obvious, but I've only recently discovered that this is how some people think. Crazy, huh?

I need to get out of here. (5, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054691)

Are people allowed to settle on Antartica?

Re:I need to get out of here. (3, Funny)

autocracy (192714) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054759)

Who would stop you?

Re:I need to get out of here. (4, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054921)

These people [wikipedia.org] . (Map [wikimedia.org] )

On the bright side, Peter I Island and Marie Byrd Land seem untaken (although there is probably a reason for that).

It's almost as if (5, Insightful)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054699)

We're entering some sort of technological dark ages - the honeymoon period is now over.

The mainstream regulation committees have taken interest in these type of subjects and as usual, the ignorance/commercial interests is/are beginning to shine through.

Re:It's almost as if (4, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055049)

We're entering some sort of technological dark ages - the honeymoon period is now over.

The mainstream regulation committees have taken interest in these type of subjects and as usual, the ignorance/commercial interests is/are beginning to shine through.

Nah, not really. Those self same interests have been shining bright for over a decade. [cnet.com]

Re:It's almost as if (1)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055101)

Sure, but you'd have to agree that they've been getting more and more audacious with their nonsense as the years have progressed. It is getting worse. We are regressing. (Australian Resident speaking here)

Re:It's almost as if (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055801)

Just means we gotta fight harder.

For once, they're on our playing field. They could deploy 10,000 servers to filter out the Internet, and all it takes is one bored college kid to find a way to circumvent those servers.

This is not a game of numbers or money but brains - an area the government is decidedly lacking.

wish for bush now? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26054703)

MAkes you wish for bush eh? Obamma was supposed to be so enpivbtened eh? Wake up call..

Re:wish for bush now? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054719)

Don't feed the troll.

Re:wish for bush now? (4, Funny)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054749)

But he speaks the truth, the actions of one of President Bush's appointees is the ultimate damning evidence of Obama's lack of enpivbtenment!

Waiting to be enpivbtened. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26054991)

> But he speaks the truth, the actions of one of President Bush's appointees is the ultimate damning evidence of Obama's lack of enpivbtenment!

Indeed. It's a clbuttic case. I can only buttume we will soon insbreastute an internet filtering program that rivals the Australians.

Re:wish for bush now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26055483)

...the actions of one of President Bush's appointees is the ultimate damning evidence of Obama's lack of enpivbtenment!

I always felt that his campaign slogan, "Enpivbtenment You Can Believe In" flebbicd indrevertcide.

Has he seen how successful it's been in Australia? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26054743)

Here in .au the government is scaling back it's plans for filtering due to being laughed at by anyone who knows anything about the internet.

In a recent call for ISPs to participate in live tests of their system the biggest ISP here said no, it's stupid. The second biggest said OK, but we won't block all that you want us to, and the third biggest said we'll participate fully just to show you how dumb you're being.

It seems that the point was finally driven home and now the government is trying to back down without losing face.

Re:Has he seen how successful it's been in Austral (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26055379)

Wow, I posted as a AC, didn't get the Gender of the person I was abusing correct on the subject, and looking back on it used some pretty bad grammar in my post.

And it gets modded up to 4 and marked informative.

Stupid (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26054755)

The story is tagged with bitch and whore, but not cunt? Wake up, Slashdot!

Why not? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054767)

Why would anyone here seriously expect otherwise? I mean this as a serious question. Aside from blind optimism, why would you expect anything else from the people at the top of the "stakeholder" food chain.

Re:Why not? (1)

cromar (1103585) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055081)

I want to stay informed. There's some leeway here and if we keep making enough noise we may eventually get our way and have competent technology leadership in the government. Plus, when people start to see how poorly the prevailing corporate ideas of the IP goons are going to work out (think worse case scenario 10 years from now), we can say "We told you so." (Seriously though if people see why the current IP system is ridiculous there will be a body of discussion waiting to educate those who want to read it.)

To be fair... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26054771)

DRM is very good at what it does: preventing us from using our legitimately purchased items.

Maybe another K-Street restriction needed (5, Interesting)

ishmalius (153450) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054795)

Maybe with the new administration it could be a rule that an FCC employee who is involved in regulation cannot work for a telecommunications company or one of their contractors or agents, for 10 years prior, or 10 years after employment.

It's reaching, I know, but it's a dream I have. Real honesty, and no more corporate ass-kissing.

The CTIA and their minions have a special place in Hell.

Re:Maybe another K-Street restriction needed (5, Insightful)

syzler (748241) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054983)

So you want people who know nothing about the internal workings of the Internet to decide whether or not to regulate parts of the internet? How exactly does this help the US people? My experience from working at an ISP/Telecommunications company is that the actual engineer types usually are against regulations, filtering, DRM, etc; and it is the bean MBA types that push this type of thing down our throats. By forbidding the engineering types from working for the FCC until their knowledge is horribly out of date, you would be effectively making the FCC rely on outside "expert" witnesses put forth by the MBA types of the companies with agendas.

Re:Maybe another K-Street restriction needed (2, Interesting)

ishmalius (153450) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055143)

Sounds good, but from what I can see, that never happens. Only the political lawyer/MBA scum seem to be involved.

Re:Maybe another K-Street restriction needed (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055257)

So you want people who know nothing about the internal workings of the Internet to decide whether or not to regulate parts of the internet? /blockquote

Doesn't that describe the FCC/Congress already? At least now they won't get paid extra for their ignorance.

Re:Maybe another K-Street restriction needed (1)

Alpha830RulZ (939527) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055259)

I think 10 years is too much, for the same reason that I think non-competes need to be restricted; you shouldn't be able to ban somebody from working in an industry forever, just because they worked for one entity in the industry. But I can see two to three years easily.

Oh FFS! (3, Interesting)

cailith1970 (1325195) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054839)

Don't YOU lot start on internet filtering now, we're only just managing to slow the push for this here in Oz! If there's a push for it in the US, then our esteemed, clueless leader is going to say that there is more evidence it should be implemented here!

Simple solution. (4, Insightful)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054871)

But kinda of hard to swallow.

Simply stop giving the people that back this shit your money. Put your money where your mouth is.

Before I purchase any product, I look it up on the web and see if it has DRM, if it does, I don't purchase it. When my ISP starts filtering my connection(throttling is one thing, censorship is something entirely different), I will disconnect. When I cannot look up DRM on products because I no longer use the Internet, I'll just have to assume its there.

Why pay for it when it doesn't work anymore?

Re:Simple solution. (2, Insightful)

symbolic (11752) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055315)

That's pretty much it. When you remove the means of sustenance (money), it will eventually die.

Re:Simple solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26055521)

Really? Tell that to the American car manufacturers, who didn't understand that the Americans didn't want big, gas-guzzling SUVs and are still wanting our money, however they have to get it.

Re:Simple solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26055881)

The problem isn't that they still want our money. The problem is that they're still getting it.

Re:Simple solution. NOT. (2, Insightful)

schon (31600) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055681)

stop giving the people that back this shit your money. Put your money where your mouth is.

The problem with this is that it's *not* a solution.

What happens when you do this is that they say "hey our sales are down, we need more DRM and government restrictions - send some more lobbyists to Washington to buy some more laws."

And drop in sales is attributed to "piracy", whether it's really the cause or not.

Perhaps another meme from the Reagan era (5, Interesting)

smchris (464899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054893)

Remember, managers don't have to know anything about their field; they just need to know "management stuff".

National Bailout (5, Funny)

iVasto (829426) | more than 5 years ago | (#26054941)

In recent news, the RIAA has appealed to congress for a national bailout. Congress realizes that they have a failing business model, but believe that if the industry was given a "couple" billion dollars everything would change.

Re:National Bailout (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055109)

No, wrong, bad. The companies are not the industry. If these companies fail due to an industry paradigm shift, tough shit; leave it, new companies will capitalize on the new business model. Tell congress to shoot itself in the balls.

Re:National Bailout (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055825)

Giving the RIAA a bailout would be more like giving a union money rather than giving a business or industry money.

The FCC is another out-of-touch bureau (5, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055005)

I have had the unfortunate need to try to contact the friendly FCC lately, due to unwanted phone calls (they are the communications commission, after all). I can tell you that they are every bit as frustrating to work with as the DMV, minus the efficiency and courteous service.

Though the most frustrating aspect of the FCC, from my vantage point, is their lack of concern for accountability of phone customers. If you compare phone registration to domain name registration, you'll find that phone registration has all the built-in obfuscation that computer spammers have dreamed about. Toll-free numbers, in particular, have protected identity information.

If you get a call from a toll-free number, you have no good mechanism to determine the owner of the number. There is no central whois-like registry for this number, and the companies that sell the numbers are under no obligation to share information on who is using the numbers they sell.

Want to lodge a complaint with the FCC? Fill out their automated form, and you'll see an automated response later. It won't likely address your complaint. And if you call their own number (888-call-fcc), you'll wait for some time and then receive no help.

Frankly, KMart is a shining example of customer service in contrast to the FCC.

Re:The FCC is another out-of-touch bureau (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055095)

I had a similar situation recently with spam text messages on my cell. From everything I could find, it appeared the messages were the sort the FC would deal with, but a week or two later I got a form letter saying after investigating they don't think this was the sort of matter they would handle. That's all. No explanation of why this wasn't something they handle when all the info I could find on their site says people you have no prior business relationship with can't send you spam text messages, just like they can't send you spam faxes (because it shifts costs on to you). I don't text people, so my plan doesn't cover any of them for free, therefor each one costs me a little bit and I don't need pr0n on my phone, thank you very much.

Where's an economist when you need one? (4, Insightful)

justinlee37 (993373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055029)

From her speech: "Overall, the U.S. economy lost $58 billion in output that would have been realized if piracy had not occurred. In addition, the U.S. lost 373,375 jobs due to piracy, and federal and state governments lose $2.6 billion annually through unrealized tax revenue."

That is total BS. Piracy != losses; most (or at least many) people who pirate would not otherwise purchase the product. She needs to go take Economics 101 and realize that if you make something free (which is what piracy does), the demand is going to skyrocket beyond what it would normally be at any reasonable price level.

Statements like this are dangerous because if people really believe piracy caused $58 billion of damage to the economy, then they will be willing to spend similar sums of money in order to combat piracy.

In fact, maybe she realizes that this is total FUD, and just wants to justify an exorbitant budget for her department in order to "combat piracy."

As I said: where's an economist when you need one?

Re:Where's an economist when you need one? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26055125)

If the numbers are true, the industry should be willing to plop down $20 or $30 billion to stop piracy. They'd get their money back with interest according to my calculations.

Re:Where's an economist when you need one? (3, Insightful)

Alpha830RulZ (939527) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055293)

She needs to go take Economics 101 and realize that if you make something free (which is what piracy does), the demand is going to skyrocket beyond what it would normally be at any reasonable price level.

You might consider a visit there yourself. It's ignorant to say that piracy != losses. Of course it equals losses. You'd have to be fucking daft to think that -noone- who pirates would not have bought the material, had piracy not been available. Some of the users would have bought the material, some wouldn't have. In econ 101, you'd learn about a demand curve, whereby more people want a good at a lower price than a higher price, but the curves are generally found to be smooth, with a slope between 0 and 1.

What econ 101 teaches you is that a realistic estimate of the losses does not equal the retail price times the number of pirated copies.

Re:Where's an economist when you need one? (1)

Bastiandantilus (1409389) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055345)

Not a coder? piracy != losses because piracy losses. It sure isn't equal, sure as hell isn't equal dollar of product pirated to dollar of loss. Also, you have an econ fail there: free gray market goods have nothing to do with the demand curve, that's called 1) market failure and in your case 2) slashdot failure.

Re:Where's an economist when you need one? (1)

nobodymk2 (1137293) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055431)

Not if people use piracy in order to fully preview the material they are getting. keep in mind the RIAA could care less about the internet or computer programmers.

Re:Where's an economist when you need one? (1)

amirulbahr (1216502) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055399)

What econ 101 teaches you is that a realistic estimate of the losses does not equal the retail price times the number of pirated copies.

You'd have to be daft to not realise that that is not what he meant by:

Piracy != losses; most (or at least many) people who pirate would not otherwise purchase the product.

Re:Where's an economist when you need one? (1)

justinlee37 (993373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055599)

Alright, that's true, technically I should have said piracy != the amount of losses that they are reporting. I didn't edit enough before posting (it is just /. after all). My point still stands, though. And the people quoting those bloated losses are professionals -- I'm just an undergraduate!

Re:Where's an economist when you need one? (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055343)

Combat piracy? Maybe the pirates just need to fight back?

Grab those pirate hats and eyepatches and protest outside of her office! :)

Re:Where's an economist when you need one? (1)

nobodymk2 (1137293) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055443)

Someone needs to graph RIAA net profits from 1990-today (down) along with Piracy (up) and DRM controls (up). They are losing both authors and customers and sell the same stupid music in high-def (even though it was never recorded in any remotely high-fidelity format and there is no HD standard).

Lobby (3, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055041)

I guess the MAFIAA lobby is very strong. Obviously politicians have no idea of the real world and are told what to say by their staff.

Very effective in what universe? (4, Funny)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055103)

I praise Bacon as being very nutritious and good for weight loss, especially in large quantities. It should be blended into all health foods and general bread.

Why I don't read comments anymore (1, Insightful)

financialguy (680124) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055173)

One look at the tags on this story reminds me why I almost never bother with comments anymore.

Like most Slashdot readers, it's hard for me to imagine statements this blatantly stupid and biased coming from a sitting government official.

But SERIOUSLY, notwithstanding some really bright, reasonable, articulate people, it feels like this place is up to the gills in 8th graders. "Whore" and "bitch" are the kind of words I remember seeing on bathroom walls. I get emotional about some of these things too, but how can anyone take this site seriously with those kinds of responses?

Re:Why I don't read comments anymore (1)

Huwawa (923056) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055755)

"Whore" and "bitch" are the kind of words I remember seeing on bathroom walls.

That's how many people react when the people they pay (through taxes) to be "experts" on issues related to technology say things that are so disingenuous and Luddite.

neutrality / regulation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26055229)

They way this woman and other net-neutrality opponents refer to the concept is revealing; to them it's regulation. In a way, this is true. Yet this is a situation in which regulation of consumer behavior is inversely proportional to regulation of corporate behavior. To me, net-neutrality always seemed like the deregulation approach, since it means fewer regulations on me (and every other internet user).

I also love how alleged piracy is always just piracy to these people. This bitch should burn.

welcome to the age of the internet (5, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055281)

bureacracy is just damage to route around

block the servers, we make it p2p

block the ports, we make it http

sniff the packets, we mask it as as form gets and posts

throttle our connection, we just download slower fractional pieces and assemble in alternative channels

a billion media hungry, poor, and, most importantly, technically astute young people. far more technically astute, far more numberous, and a lot more motivated than your hired tech guns. you can't pay someone to do well enough what we do for free from passion

go ahead, sue us. if you can find us. go ahead, bankrupt some poor dumb college kids. like those you catch are anything but dumband clueless. go ahead, reap the bad pr. nothing stops, full steam ahead

game on, ignorant dinosaurs. its the extinction of your outmoded business models and your laws based on philosophies from the 1800s understanding of media

whether your realize it, or fight it, or whatever, you lose, no matter what you do. you just don't know it yet

Some interesting assertions in TFA (3, Informative)

A. Bosch (858654) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055327)

"[T]he U.S. lost 373,375 jobs due to piracy, and federal and state governments lose $2.6 billion annually through unrealized tax revenue." Based on what? Every act of stealing a song doesn't mean the person stealing would have purchased the song, for example.

Is this the change we need? (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055333)

'Leave the ISPs out of it â" it's not their job to protect a failing business model, and a movement toward a tiered and filtered Internet will do nothing to stem the tide of piracy, but will result in great restrictions on innovation, freedoms, and the general use of the Internet. There's nothing to be gained down that path other than possibly to expand the wallets of a few companies.'

QFT

I wonder how much lobbyist money she took from the RIAA to say those things?

It is not just the business model that is failing, it is the government model that is failing as well. Remember that the DMCA was passed by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and signed by Bill Clinton, why only pick on the Republicans when the Democrats have an equal share of the blame?

From the speech (2, Insightful)

FrostDust (1009075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055335)

Its crucial that we not only allow operators to manage their networks, but to not tie their hands with prescriptive regulations. And make no mistake, net neutrality as network management is sometimes referenced in Washington and among political discussants, if implemented in its strictest form, will tie the hands of network operators. Digital fingerprinting and watermarking would not be possible if net neutrality is enforced in its harshest form.

I'm pretty sure New_Movie.avi would still contain their precious watermarks, regardless of how they throttled your connection. Unless, of course, they are hoping the ISPs reroute "unauthorized" destinations and protocols to their own servers.

Let them filter! (2, Insightful)

fluffykitty1234 (1005053) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055359)

Go ahead and try, all that will happen is that services will use rotating ports and encryption to get around filters. Good luck, let the arms race begin.

USA is Australia's souce for interest in FILTERING (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26055383)

I knew it had to be... Australia's (Rudd) government has been IGNORING the country's technical experts (eg, on the topic of Net Filtering) for a long time now... I had wondered why... What's in it for Australia to filter the Internet?

I understand that the prime minister's wife is Catholic (could this be a factor?)

Businesses might (before our Aussie $ dropped in value by ~30% recently) have wanted Australians' Internet experience to be SLOW, ie, so the more impatient amounst us would stop looking for bargains, eg, in larger cities or overseas or on eBay... but those bargains have "soured" after the Aussie dropped...

Now, I see our Aussie gov't beginning to show signs of American nonesense all over again... (Wasn't the Iraq invasion enough?!?)

Australia still seems to fear disagreeing with the Bush administration... Hopefully, Obama's rise to power (early in January) will give Australians a more intelligent approach to Internet facilitation (as opposed to the opposite).

I'm still waiting for the Australian gov't to notice places - like France - where Internet is unlimited, cheap, fast (16 MB/sec - fast, at least, by Aussie [ADSL-1 - if you can get it] standards) & can come with whole-of-Nation unlimited phone calling (so they -feel- like a Nation) & some [pay] TV channels, as well.

They're still pandering to -useless- Telstra and -sinking- USA... ie, rather than looking for bright ideas elsewhere.

We tired of overpriced, monopolistic Telstra and really don't need to follow the USA into mega-deficits.

We don't need SLOWER Internet, in the name of "filtering" and we don't need to be told what we can & cannot use our Internet for, for the most part. Those who download kiddy-porn or use the Internet to foster race-hatred do, but the rest of us should not have our Internet slowed by "filtering" activities, when it's so easy to beat the filters.

PS: Did you know that it costs upwards of Au $10,000 for a "license" to be a (legal) ISP in Australia?!? That's anti-compertitive!

Groups who would cooperate to bring fast[er] Intenet to their Australian neighborhood -fear- being fined for not having such costly licenses before they "Car-Pool" their groups' Internet accounts.

The FCC is corrupt to its core! (4, Interesting)

Newer Guy (520108) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055401)

The FCC is by far one of the more corrupt of the Govt. agencies out there. Remember, the FCC was established to prevent interference between (then) radio broadcasters. Today's FCC has actually encouraged interference, by allowing the radio stations to run a digital broadcasting system that operates on their neighbors' frequency! They have totally screwed up cell phones, cable TV, broadcast TV, the Internet and just about everything else they have been allowed to touch! There has never been an engineer as an FCC Commisissioner, even though much of what they regulate is physics based. They all are lawyers!

Under their tutalige, (and in concert with a corrupt Bush administration) the United States has wound up with the costliest, slowest, most content regulaged Internet of all the first world countries. The Communications Act of 1996 was GUTTED by them! There is virtually NO competition for Internet in the USA! We have three non-compatible cell phone systems here in the USA; and even where systems ARE compatible, unlike the rest of the world, you can not take your phone from one carrier to another and use it! Instead, perfectly good phones clutter our landfills!

Our Digital TV system is a JOKE-just wait until next February to see how bad THAT is going to be (Hint: the digital coverage of TV stations is only about 60% of their current analog coverage, resulting in lots of coverage gaps). The AM broadcast band has been destroyed by an FCC that has allowed all sorts of interfering electronic devices to create digital grunge without licensing or oversight. Finally, the only thing that talks at ther FCC is MONEY!! Why else would under 35 TV stations be able to occupy TV channels five and six after digital, when a new FM band that could accomodate EVERY ONE of the 5000 plus AM stations could make MUCH BETTER use of this precious spectrum (another hint: channels 2-6 are USELESS for DTV)!

The FCC needs to be abolished and replaced with a non-partisan agency primarily run by engineers. For far too long, the FCC has allowed the foxes (the very licensees they regulate) run the hen house. It's time to put this dog to sleep!

Re:The FCC is corrupt to its core! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26055669)

The world would be tons better if engineers ran it.

They don't, they are even impeded by lawyers.

The problem is that the smart people that get excited over how things actually work are derided and outcast by the stupid people that follow every fashionable beck and call of their idiot parents. The smart people go on to become engineers and the stupid people go on to become lawyers and businesspeople.

I envy the blissfully ignorant, as at least they can't see their own demise looming.

Re:The FCC is corrupt to its core! (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055803)

I've kind of gotten this thing against the government supporting civil agencies to control other civil entities, and it seems the only thing the FCC does is just that.

It's illegal to 'steal cable', it's not just unlawful, it's a federal offense. Cable companies, corporations, provide consumers with a service. They don't have to go to civil court if they discover signal theft, they get the fast track of federal support, the taxpayers paying for the litigation.

WTF parts... (0, Flamebait)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055415)

It's interesting that a lawyer can know so much about this. She's obviously the most experienced person to know about this stuff..

For example, in South Korea, Warner Brothers is combating piracy of its DVDs by releasing a watermarked version online, instead of a DRM-protected DVD.

How is it piracy if Warner Brothers releases it? Aren't you a fucking lawyer?! You should know this!

For example, leading digital
fingerprinting company Audible Magic expects a turn-key system to cost around $100,000 for a large university this year.

and I assume Universities will be forced into installing this black box on their network monitoring all their traffic, because that isn't weird in a 1984 kind of way..

For example, less than 1% of the
Olympic coverage viewed this past summer was pirated.

So what? Most of us didn't watch it on purpose out of protest. Correlation doesn't equate causation.

Some campuses have taken measures to create their own tools to combat piracy. The University of Florida is a great example. Once they realized the huge cost that piracy was creating on campus, they developed their own tool to combat illegal file sharing. This tool, called âoeRed Lambda,â helped bring the Universityâ(TM)s number of infringement claims to almost zero, and the infrastructure and bandwidth savings were so great that the University was awarded a taxpayer award for the savings generated.

So rather then buy a $100,000 system they rolled their own and got paid for doing it? Nice to see those taxes aren't going to waste.

Digital fingerprinting and watermarking would not be possible if net neutrality is enforced in its harshest form.

They don't work now, she even says so in the pdf that watermarking doesn't work and what does network neutrality have to do with this at all.

She should stick to her own profession instead of thinking she knows things about computers.

If net neutrality is implemented in its strictest form, with carriers not being able to distinguish between any packets, prioritizing more time-sensitive traffic such as video and VoIP traffic, we will have lost much of the innovation that makes the internet great, and may lose what progress we have made.

The reason the internet is what it is because it is network neutral. They'd be no Google if it wasn't for network neutrality as well as many other companies.

Her reasoning is that VOIP and video is more important because big companies want to turn the Internet into cable TV and Phone.

She can not comprehend the Internet as a communication tool used by all, she can only see money to be made.. Typical really, she is a lawyer after all..

Take for example materials that have been created by companies such as IKeepSafe. One recent initiative taken was the creation of a new online adventure: âoeFaux Paw and the Dangerous Download.â This book and animated adventure helps explain to kids why piracy is bad, and encourages them to only download from trusted, legal sites.

Yes lets brainwash the kids, that'll ensure your cashcow internet is a success. Don't download from our competitors stores, only our trusted website.

I am grateful that government has acted in an appropriate manner, incorporating
piracy education requirements in the Higher Education Opportunity Act.

Why? You're the FCC Commissioner however the more I read the more you sound like a fucking RIAA sleeper agent and "incorporating" isn't the word I would use, "slipped in" sounds more appropriate.

Some of you probably attended public schools that were connected to the internet through a program administered by the FCC, the âoeE-rate programâ which provides $ 2.25 billion per year to help connect schools and libraries to the internet. In addition to this, many states have their own funds to help connect schools. I am proud that I can say that my home state, Tennessee, was the first state to have 100% of its
schools connected to the web. But beyond the connectivity that is possible, these funds could give us an opportunity to help further âoedigital and media literacy,â such as education about piracy, by tying education requirements to these funds.

Yes, any chance to brainwash the kids, don't let them have the government's money unless the media corporations say it's ok..

This women should be charged with Treason, she's a RIAA lawyer using her position to help private corporations control the government and its policies.

As usual the government won't do shit and she'll worm her way into a different high position. I hope this bitch dies in a fire.

Re:WTF parts... (4, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055611)

As usual the government won't do shit and she'll worm her way into a different high position. I hope this bitch dies in a fire.

Nice way to invalidate any conceivable merit the rest of your argument had.

Four points as response (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26055499)

Sent via Fax: 1-866-418-0232

Dear Commissioner Taylor Tate:

As president of a small software company in New Hampshire I am quite aware of the critical place that copyright law plays in protecting my company's software and intellectual property.

I just read the PDF of your speech last week at Penn (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287150A1.pdf), and I must say that this it is a striking piece of work.

It seems laden with misinformation, half truths, fear, uncertainty and doubt. It's hard to see where to begin, but I will raise four points:

1) You spend a good third of the speech citing truly frightening statistics about the losses borne by creators of intellectual property. I would appreciate support for the numbers that you mention - the US Chamber of Commerce figure is particularly suspect, as it appears to refer to various other studies that ultimately rely on that original CoC figure.

As a taxpayer, I ask you to provide the raw data for these statistics your argument relies on.

2) I'm astonished that you include auto and fashion industry losses as ones of copyright. Certainly counterfeit products could be guilty of trademark infringement or outright fraud, and drug counterfeiting might be criminal.

But it seems sloppy rhetoric to use such a broad brush in your talk.

3) You then go on to cite efforts to use technology to minimize copyright violations. These watermarking and fingerprinting measures allow copyright holders to easily and reliably identify their content on public web sites. This, too, strikes me as a good way to make effective use of the current DMCA to take down the offending material.

However, these seem to undermine the thesis of your talk that, "We have to do something about this!"

4) The final part of your speech goes on to stump for greater education, at the expense of scaring the bejesus out of the audience, and completely ignoring (or worse, trampling) the right of Fair Use.

In short, this was a red-meat speech that strives to stir up all the bogeymen of the "bad Internet".

As a taxpayer and small-C conservative, I was hopeful that a federal government employee might present a more balanced view, especially to a university audience who could understand the nuances, of the current state of the law and a more thoughtful view of the national policy might be.

I would appreciate a response, especially on the raw data for the statistics you cite.

Best regards,

Rich Brown
Hanover, NH USA

What you can do to help: (3, Informative)

arhhook (995275) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055799)

Let me point people to the Save The Internet [freepress.net] movement and encourage people to send a letter to their representatives with what they think. The template letter is as follows:

* Subject:. Required.

Dear [Decision Maker],

Please personalize your message
Countless Americans rely upon an open Internet in their daily lives. Our elected leaders must protect our basic right to communicate from those who want to take it from us. Please join with me and 2 million others to demand that Congress protect the free-flowing Internet from blocking, censorship and discrimination by phone and cable companies. This is not an issue of left against right but of right over wrong. To allow companies to interfere with our Internet access is a stark violation of the principles of openness and nondiscrimination that have been the bedrock of U.S. communications policy for more than 70 years. It's up to Congress to protect innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State ZIP]

And will be automatically sent to your representatives depending on where you live. If you feel strongly, please help take action.

either one of three situations (4, Interesting)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26055827)

A) she has excellent research available on the subject the effectiveness of DRM and ISP filtering

or

B) she is grossly misinformed and spouting off like an idiot

or

C) she knows what she says isn't true, but she's saying it to push the riaa agenda.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...