Beta
×

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!

The Internet Under Siege

michael posted more than 12 years ago | from the remember-the-internet dept.

The Internet 181

Gorgonzola writes: "Lawrence Lessig has written an accessible article in Foreign Policy on the threats to freedom on the internet, including the threat the DMCA poses to open and free software. Nothing new to Slashdot regulars, but good to see something appear in an influential magazine like Foreign Policy. An article mentioning the Sklyarov case like this one does, is going to draw a lot more attention from policymakers to the problems the DMCA and other legal troubles are posing to online freedom than your average rant on a board like this, how well reasoned it may be."

cancel ×

181 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2566626)

Eat it, kids.

Re:fp (-1)

kahuna720 (56586) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566726)

mmm, edible fp...my favorite.

<P>

Remember the 80s (bbbaaaaaa, baaaaaaa)? (-1)

Big_Ass_Spork (446856) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566875)

Everybody Wang Jimbo tonight,
[Everyone have funbo tonight]
Everybody Wang Jimbo tonight,
[Everyone have funbo tonight]
...
[Unmemorable lyrics here]

WRONG WRONG WRONGWRONG WRONG WRONGWRONG WRONG WRONGWRONG WRONG WRONGWRONG WRONG WRONGWRONG WRONG WRONGWRONG WRONG WRONGWRONG WRONG WRONGWRONG WRONG WRONGWRONG WRONG WRONGWRONG WRONG WRONGWRONG WRONG WRONGWRONG WRONG WRONG

and yep: WRONG

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Grakef (443124) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566627)

First Post

oh come on (-1)

Anomymous Coward (303315) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566629)

how many times do we need to see michael posting YRO articles after the censorware.org debacle?

Michael isn't a censor (0, Troll)

spun (1352) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566703)

Just because Michael took down the censorware.org web site doesn't make him a censor. It just makes him a self serving control freak.

Re:Michael isn't a censor (-1)

The Turd Report (527733) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566811)

You have obviously never had your IP subnet banned by slashdot. Slashdot is censorware.

censorship is evil, until... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2567030)

You have that power yourself...

Isn't it amazing how your prespective changes for being suppresed until you have the power to suppress the idiots who annoy, disagree with you...

As the saying goes, absolute power corrupts, power _______________ (fill in the blank)

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

darth dickinson (169021) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566630)

HSHSHH

Buck futter! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2566632)

Suck it Trebeck! ;-)

Accessible? (5, Funny)

fobbman (131816) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566633)

"Lawrence Lessig has written an accessible article in Foreign Policy..."

Give it time. /. effect seldom misses.

Re:Accessible? (0, Offtopic)

TandyMasterControl (136043) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566749)

You're as mad as Hell and you're going to continue taking it like the rest of the sheep until you lose the fear of being shot in the streets by riot police.

Remember Genoa.

the effect of knowlege laws... (4, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566635)

the only effect is that it generates a huge underground that replaces what the laws take away. and forces people to become criminals. (Prohabition in the 20's)

The only use for any information control laws is to make a very few filthy rich at the expense of the general populace.

difference between this and prohibition (4, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566760)

The Internet runs on fat pipes, and access to those pipes can be throttled. You can weasel your away around all you want, but ultimately whoever can control a router between you and the backbone controls your ability to speak. Right now, cable providers have terribly restrictive TOS, such that in some ways I'd almost prefer dialup if I could really get 56k instead of never quite making it to the full 33.6k.

Unfortunately, the same entertainment industry we rail at for the DMCA and the like largely owns broadband to the home, (I guess ATT has some cable.) and they set the TOS. So far I haven't tried peer2peer, and I know that they've at least left port22 inbound open. But they could interpret their contract to shut down EVERY incoming port, if they so desired.

I wouldn't feel too flush with civil disobedient power, especially with a business friendly administration in place. Otherwise, we're going to have to start rebuilding the old home BBS network.

I agree that the real power of the Internet will emerge as peer2peer comes into its own, and flexes its muscles. But at the moment, the entertainment industries are POWERFUL and would just as soon turn the Internet into another broadcast medium, like the Vast Wasteland called TV.

Give up? No way. But choose battles carefully and keep an eye to the desired end.

Re:difference between this and prohibition (5, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566808)

you'rfe only limited because the general masses aren't smart enough to find different ways in.

Myself and 10 others have built a "internet" using wireless technology. we span over 10 square miles riht now with pockets of free-public access.

we do not announce who we are, to keep the broadband providers from opressing us. if we become big enough they will probably try to shut us down, but hopefully by then we'll have long distance and more redundant connections to thwart any attempts.

acess is always available... you just have to be clever enough to find it.

Wireless (2)

dpilot (134227) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566924)

I guess you've taken my 'rebuild the BBS network' and done me one better. Great.

Next...

From what I hear, the next rev of 802.11 is something like 5 times faster. 11Mbps is pretty neat for what wireless is doing today, but not so hot when trying to rebuild the Internet we knew and loved. Robert Cringely had an article on taking wireless and hooking it to a high-gain antenna to make a line-of-sight connect well beyond normal range. Stuff like that is next.

What happens when two wireless bases have overlapping coverage?

Re:difference between this and prohibition (1)

modemboy (233342) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566842)

While this is a possibility, it seems that in the current economic state the broadband providers are barely hanging on. They aren't likely to do anything to further alienate paying customers. In the future hopefully we will finally get some competition in broadband ensuring that no providers alienate their customers. Oh how I hate monopolies.

Re:difference between this and prohibition (1)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 12 years ago | (#2567195)

Your kidding right? I switched to cable from adsl and never looked back - 8 megabits (and I frequently get that) for 25$ per month is heaven on earth :).

It is true - they seem to filter things like Kazaa (I don't know this for a fact) - but I can still talk to Kazaa people on @home.

Re:difference between this and prohibition (0)

Doug Neal (195160) | more than 12 years ago | (#2567282)

If and when broadband ISPs get that restrictive I think there could be a market for selling people IP addresses and address ranges accessible through IP-over-IP tunnels. A friend of mine has an ADSL connection with one IP address, but has routed a whole class C subnet to his house over a tunnel and all his computers have "real" internet IP addresses with no restrictions at all. This could have been done even if the ISP had blocked all incoming connections...

Re:the effect of knowlege laws... (-1)

The WIPO Troll (267426) | more than 12 years ago | (#2567177)

THE OFFICIAL TACO-SNOTTING FAQ [slashdot.org]
By The WIPO Troll [slashdot.org]

What is "Taco-snotting?"

"Taco-snotting" is a term used by one
Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda [cmdrtaco.net] , owner of the popular technology website Slashdot [slashdot.org] , to refer to the practice of sucking off a homosexual man (or unwilling heterosexual; CmdrTaco doesn't care, and is rumored to actually prefer rape) and blowing the semen back out his nose onto his partner's (or victim's) face or body. Usually a long, bubbly stream of milky-white semen is left on CmdrTaco's face, dribbling out of his nose, down his cheek: hence the term, "Taco-snotting."

Good Lord. Why have I been receiving emails from CmdrTaco asking me if he can Taco-snot me?

I'm guessing you've received an email similar to the following:
From: malda@slashdot.org [mailto]
To: wipotroll@hotmail.com
Subject: Hey, baby - jion me in a taco-snott! :)

Hey, baby!

Ever done a taco-snotting with anothar fellow geek? Its more fun then trolling Slashdot, trust me! all that talk you troll with about homasexual incest and stuff got me all horny and hot for you! Is it serius? Please tell me that itt is! If you want to get with me and my Slashdot bois, drop me an emale!

ps- Please replie to me at horny_rob_6969@hotmail.com. I'd rather the guys at VA Linux are not seen this. :) :)

--
CmdrTaco (malda@slashdot.org [mailto] )
You most likely forgot to uncheck the "Willing to Taco-snot" checkbox in your account preferences. Whenever CmdrTaco gets bored (and who wouldn't, running a site like Slashdot all day), he roams through the Slashdot database, penis in hand, looking for people who might enjoy being Taco-snotted. How he determines this is anyone's guess; but if you have a homosexual-sounding nickname, you're in trouble. So this time, he found you. Lucky you.
CmdrTaco has probably already got the hots for your wad, and he's probably already been lurking outside your bathroom window for weeks with a camera, some tissues and lube. There's no escaping a geek in heat, so it's probably too late for you, but you can possibly rectify this situation. To remove yourself from CmdrTaco's sights, log into your Slashdot account, go to your user page, click on
Messages, and uncheck the box next to "Willing to Taco-snot." Maybe he'll ignore you. Probably not.

I can't stop receiving these emails from CmdrTaco!?

Probably not. If you indulge him in a Taco-snot or two, he
might leave you alone. You might also want to look into mail filtering, restraining orders, or purchasing a heavy, blunt object capable of warding off rampaging homosexual geeks in heat. Trust me, when they charge... oh, the humanity. If he gets you, and you let him Taco-snot you, he might end up tying you up in his basement to use you as his sex slave for the rest of your life (or until he accidentally drowns you in spunk in a vile practice known as a "circle-snot").

What is a "Circle-snot"?

A "circle-snot" is a Taco-snotting
circle-jerk, another practice common among homosexual geeks. This is when CmdrTaco, CowboiKneel, and Homos get together and Taco-snot each other repeatedly with their gooey, hot, and sticky cum -- spooging their dicks all over each other's faces and pasty-white bodies until they're all covered head to toe with man juice. Roblowme usually provides plenty of extra lubricant; he owns a limo service and has ample supplies of motor oil and axle grease.
To complete this perverted orgy, fellow geeks Michael, Timothy, and Jamie often join in, dressed in black Gestapo uniforms, jack boots, and leather gloves. The whole group then proceeds to snot each other's spunk and whip each other's pudgy asses with riding crops and chains until their pasty-white geek bodies are sweaty and exhausted from all the passionate, homosexual revelry.

Eww. Have you ever been Taco-Snotted?

Unfortunately, yes. I first met CmdrTaco at an
Open Source Convention [geocities.com] . He invited me back to his room for a game of Quake, but when I got to there, he jumped me and tied me to his bed, stripping me. After taking his "Commander" out of his pants and made me suck him, he performed his vile Taco-snotting ritual on me three times over the next two hours, bringing me to orgasm, then snotting my own jizz back onto my face, in my mouth, then again on my belly.
CmdrTaco invited several of his Open Source (or rather, "Open Sauce" -- man sauce) Convention buddies over to continue the snotfest. Linux Torvalds raped my ass with his "monolithic kernel," and Anal Cox used his "network stack" in a multitude of unspeakable ways on and in every orifice in my body.
How did I finally escape? After about 16 hours of countless homosexual atrocities perpetrated against my helpless body, they all finally went to sleep, sweat-soaked and exhausted. I was left there, covered in geek jizz-snot, chained to the bed, with fat, pasty white fags lying around and on top of me. Fortunately the spooge coating my entire body worked wonderfully as a lubricant; I was able to squirm my way out of the handcuffs and slip out the back door. I'm just glad I survived the ordeal. These geeks had a
lot of built-up spunk in their wads -- I could've easily been drowned!

That's horrible. Does Jon Katz get involved in this? I thought he was a paedophile, not a homosexual.

Actually, Jon Katz is a homosexual paedophile. He's also a coprophiliac, and, many suspect, a zoophile. Jon Katz is somewhat of a loner and doesn't involve himself in circle-snots. Mr. Katz usually engages in a game called "Katz juicy-douching" with his harem of little-boy slaves: a vile practice which involves administering an enema to himself of the little boy's urine (forced out of them with a pair of pliers), spooging the vile muck from his ass back into the enema bag, then squirting and slathering the goo all over himself, and the little boy's chained-up and naked bodies. Unwilling boys are further tortured with the pliers until they comply and allow Mr. Katz to juicy-douche them for the rest of their lives.
As I already said, Mr. Katz is
also a zoophile. As if the sexual escapades with the helpless little boys aren't enough, Jon usually enjoys his juicy-douches best when his penis is firmly planted in a female goat's anus. He is also rumoured to get off on watching his little boys eat the goat's small, bean-like turds.

...Are you getting hard writing this?

Why, yes. :) Join me in a WIPO-snot? I promise I won't try and rape you or kidnap you and make you my sex slave or anything. I'm not like CmdrTaco or Mr. Katz; I only enjoy snotting on willing partners.

What's that screaming I hear coming from your basement?

Oh, that's just my little sister; I got her chained up down there. In fact, I just finished snotting all over her body. You should see her squirm when I spooge on her belly, lick it up, and snot it all over her face! She's such a feisty little 14 year-old bitch. Of
course she's my sex slave, she's my sister. What else would she be good for? So, join me in a WIPO-snot?

No, thanks. I'm already CmdrTaco's boi toi.

________________________________________

$Id: tacosnotting.html,v 1.6 2001/11/15 02:51:52 wipo Exp $

The root of the problem. . . (1, Insightful)

czardonic (526710) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566642)

. . .is not necessarily that politicians don't understand the threat of DMCA like legislation to freedom (of speech, etc). Rather, it is that they have been put in the position of protecting our intrests, or protecting theirs. Face it, the status quo will always have a voice in society. Politicians (or most of them), are not going to bite the hand that feeds them (cash rich lobbies) to protect what has successfully been characterized as a hacker/pirate fringe.

not the status quo (2)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566690)

It is the interests that paid the politicians the most money.


Ever see The Distingueshed Gentleman with Eddie Murphy? It is a documentary on Washington politics.

Re:not the status quo (2, Insightful)

kingos (530288) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566787)

I don't get this political system, as I am not American. How can you guys allow such an obviously flawed system to exist?

The person with the most money wins - the person who is payed buy the companies with the most money wins - the companies with the most money win

This obviously makes the politicians cater to the needs of the big companies rather than the people. I know I am not saying anything new here, but why hasn't there been a greater effort to stop or get rid of this?

No wonder you only get 2 weeks holiday a year! :)

Re:not the status quo (2)

Happy Monkey (183927) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566831)

How can you guys allow such an obviously flawed system to exist?
The person with the most money wins


To an extent, this is true in the vast majority of governments, but cause and effect are often reversed (the winners get the most money). But the reason it's true to such an extent in the US is that it crept up on us, and it has only become fully apparent recently. Governmental inertia is immense, and the current trajectory is in favor of more money influence.

Re:not the status quo (2, Informative)

Sylver Dragon (445237) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566911)

I don't get this political system, as I am not American. How can you guys allow such an obviously flawed system to exist?

Its quite simple really, we haven't seen anything else we like.

Spekaing for myself, I see it as such:

1)Communism (I think that the USSR showed us that this idea worked as well as a lead ballon.)

2)Totalinarism (As I recall from my history classes, this is what a bunch of people died to get rid of here.)

3)Socialism (Not bad on paper, but losing 70% of my paycheck to taxes doesn't sound fun, not to mention, that most of the stories I've heard, put the social services in such states as almost completely lacking.)

4)Les Faire Capitalism(sp?)(We gave this a good go here, got us the Rockefellers, and oppresive work conditions.)

5)Pure Democrocy (Logisticlly impossible, and can easily cause oppression of the minority. Not to mention.)

That leaves us with what we have left, a corrupt, money driven govenment, with loads of self-serving representative. The only way we can control it, is by banding together as needed and giving the politicians a reason to do, or not do, something.(i.e. Small Business Association.) Its not great, but at least it forces the politicians to hide what they are doing, and lets me be responsible for my well being.

Of course, we have ended up with some bad laws, but what govenment hasn't? But at least we have a mechanisim in place to get rid of them. And failing all else, we have the ability to preform a bloody revolt, as last resort.

But this is just my view of home.

Re:not the status quo (1)

kingos (530288) | more than 12 years ago | (#2567050)

But at least we have a mechanisim in place to get rid of them.

If money really does buy the election, then how do you have the mechanism to get rid of them? No one will legistlate against the bad laws, because they are kept in power by the companies that want those laws!

And as for the other alternative, well most countries have the ability to perform a bloody result, no matter what type of government they have

I think the biggest flaw with the US campaign system is that people can donate anonymously. Didn't it ever occur to anyone that politicians might be influenced by money from criminal/illegal sources?

Re:not the status quo (1)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 12 years ago | (#2567170)

Er, they can't donate anonymously. Donations are regulated, 'specially "hard" money (money sent to aid a specific candidate), which is quite limited.

Interested? See opensecrets.org [opensecrets.org] .

In any event, as somebody noted -- it's not so much that money means winning, it's that winning means money.

Re:not the status quo (4, Informative)

czardonic (526710) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566945)

why hasn't there been a greater effort to stop or get rid of this?

There has, but the people with the most money won.

The problem with our system (with any system, really) is that it has gradually become a perversion of what it was intended to be. Consider the paradox that is the American political system: In order to serve the people, politicians need votes, and in order to get votes they need publicity, and in order to get publicity they need money, and in order to get money the need the support of monied private interests, and these private interests have no allegiance to the people that the politicians represent. In order to serve the people, politicians must peddle influence to parties that dissserve the people

Re:not the status quo (1)

dj_flux (66385) | more than 12 years ago | (#2567212)

Well put. As long as people with power are willing to screw others for their own gain, no social or political system will succeed as designed. It's a fundamental flaw of human nature.

Speaking of which (2)

10e 999 (128948) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566654)

What is the current status of the Skylarov case? Is there a website regularly posting updates about it? Did he return to the MotherLand or is he still chillin' in NoCal? Anyone have any new information?

Re:Speaking of which (-1)

The Turd Report (527733) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566829)

I hope that spamware author stays in jail. I am tired of people like him enabling spammers by writing web harvesting software for them.

Rants too insignificant, eh? (-1, Redundant)

sjhs (453964) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566656)

Well, then, I propose we start an Internet Rant Project. We'll setup a wiki and everyone on the internet can together compose a giant rant that everyone can see.

;-)

FP BABABYABAY (-1, Offtopic)

earlNEXABIT (534776) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566673)

I gots ta fp, baby. Nexabit 64000 where are you?

What about the Internet Privacy Law? (2, Interesting)

AnimeFreak (223792) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566678)

The bill that became law in 1995 (signed by Bill Clinton). What role does it play in the DCMA era? Is the law still valid?

I am canadian, I don't follow american law too much. :/

Explains a lot about the MP/RI-AA (2, Interesting)

GISboy (533907) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566681)

As Niccolò Machiavelli described long before the Internet, "Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime, and only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those who would prosper under the new."

Price gouging, foisting inferior products/bands on consumers, ripping off artist, directors, consumers.

Explains so much...when you fear for your life and livelyhood because you can't compete anymore you fight like hell with words and deeds.

(Jafar voice)Hummm, Interesting (/off).

Sue this! (-1, Offtopic)

asm4fun (535058) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566682)

Lbh fhpx, Nqbor!

OT: Paramount Theatre website requires IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2566693)

For those of you living in the Seattle area, you may want to contact The Paramount as their website blocks access from non-IE browsers. I tried to connect to theparamount.com [theparamount.com] and got this message:

The STG [Seattle Theatre Group, parent company of The Paramount and The Moore Theatre -me] website works with Netscape version 4.0 and 6.01 and Internet Exlorer [sic] versions 4.0 and 5.0. Please upgrade your web browser and come back to enjoy our website. Thank you!

I was using Moz0.9.5 under Linux. I tried Netscape 4.77 and got the same message. When I tried Konqueror with the identifier string changed to "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98)", it worked fine.

I sent an email to webmaster@theparamount.com and to isen@axisweb.com (Axis is their web design company, 'isen' is Axis' Director of Operations).

Please send email to them if you care.

Re:OT: Paramount Theatre website requires IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2566771)

What did you write in your mails?

What I sent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2566882)

Subject : Error message at www.theparamount.com

Greetings,

I was disappointed to receive the following error upon attempting to visit
the www.theparamount.com domain:

-----
The STG website works with Netscape version 4.0 and 6.01 and Internet
Exlorer [sic] versions 4.0 and 5.0. Please upgrade your web browser and
come back to enjoy our website. Thank you!
-----

I was using the Mozilla browser, v0.9.5, upon which Netscape 6.2 is based.
My operating system is Debian GNU/Linux 2.2r4. I attempted to visit the
site using Netscape 4.77 and received the same message.

Then I tried the Konqueror web browser. This browser has the capability
to change the information that the browser sends to a web server in order
to identify itself. I changed this setting to "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible;
MSIE 5.5; Windows 98)", and I was able to browse the page just fine.

Can you change your policy, please, so that people don't feel excluded?
It is my opinion that you should simply code the website to published W3C
standards, then you won't have to worry about which version of which
browser is being used.

Besides, it's not like the site is particularly complicated. I can't see
the advantage of telling certain users that they can't browse your site,
especially when I had no troubles using a "non-compliant" browser.

Internet access is a basic right (2, Insightful)

Walter Bell (535520) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566695)

In this day and age, when so much business work, interpersonal communication, and research is done on the Internet, it is hard to imagine what it is like to not have Internet access. Often politicians talk the talk about the "digital divide," spewing rhetoric about how the lower classes have little exposure to technology; but when it comes time to vote, they hand out checks to the Baby Bells with no strings attached - business as usual. It seems like letting large private companies (who all have a vested interest in controlling consumers in every way possible) control Internet access is just asking for trouble.

The time has come for the population to stand up and demand universal, unrestricted Internet access from our government. I would no longer balk at paying 1/3 of my salary in taxes if it meant that this country could start moving into the 21st century. (Observe the higher quality of life in Canada and the proliferation of subsidized Internet access over there. The two are related.) Freedom of speech means nothing if the government is not willing to provide its citizens with access to the predominant form of expression in the so-called "Information Age."

Besides a more educated, more globally competitive populace, what else would this achieve? It would reduce transaction costs in general and put many parasites out of business. Many distributors and other undesirable middlemen would be out of business because people will learn to buy direct. If your neighborhood is devoid of useful businesses, you can order everything online - problem solved. Payday loans will become a thing of the past as consumers find decent rates from online bankers who actually need to compete with each other.

Universal, unrestricted Internet access would work wonders for our society, promote competition and more efficient markets, and put some of that wasted money we pay in taxes to good use.

~wally

Re:Internet access is NOT a basic right (2, Insightful)

atrowe (209484) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566735)

A "basic right", as you put it, is something that is manditory for survival.

Basic Rights are:
Food
Water
and shelter

Unmetered Internet access is nothing more than a luxury. I know it may seem hard for *you* to live without such "necessities" as Jon Katz and Napster, but in the grand scheme of things, these are nothing more than another way to pass the time.

While it would be nice to have a nice fat fibre pipe going to my flat, in no way is my government under obligation to provide me with such. This rings especially true when there are so many around the world who are forced to do without their real basic rights of food, water, and shelter.

Before you write your representative demanding your God-given right to free 'net access. Think about those less fortunate, who would trade a lifetime of Internet usage for a single bowl of rice.

Internet access is NOT a basic right (1)

runlvl0 (198575) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566815)

Um hmm...

I see, and who is to PROVIDE you "food, water, and shelter" (much less, internet access!)? Me? Rights are basic and inalienable, as the passage once ran, and include life, liberty, and the pursuit (note, only the pursuit, not the achievement) of happiness. Anything which has to be provided for by yourself or someone else (food, internet access, et al.) is properly the province of economics and trade, not a natural "right."

Re:Internet access is NOT a basic right (1)

aethera (248722) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566834)

For a mensa, you ought to realize that these are not basic rights, but basic necessities. Jefferson outlined basic rights as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Your three basic necessities would all fall under the first category of basic rights, necessities of life.

This "think of the starving children" line is getting stale. Is rice more of a priority for some than 'net access? Certainly. But one of my great hopes for the internet is that it starts to level the playing field between the rich and the poor. Instead of helping to rich to stay that way, like the current market structure, the Internet may allow the truly creative or industrious to suceed.

The barrier between now and this potential future is obviously the current rich and powerful, people who will strive to retain their power by controlling and limiting access to such a potentially destabilizing factor as the internet and unfettered access to knowledge.

Re:Internet access is NOT a basic right (2)

interiot (50685) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566891)

It depends on how you define what a "basic right" is. In the US, some consider a free press to be a basic right... a cornerstone of democracy.

This is a further stretch, but... One could say that the internet is just part of freedom of the press. In that by allowing everyone to broadcast their opinion, freedom of press is more guaranteed.

Re:Internet access is NOT a basic right (1)

Swaffs (470184) | more than 12 years ago | (#2567127)

"-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity."

But poor spelling is ok?

Re:Internet access is NOT a basic right (2, Insightful)

Darth Turbogeek (142348) | more than 12 years ago | (#2567160)

A "basic right", as you put it, is something that is manditory for survival.
Basic Rights are:
Food
Water
and shelter

---

The only "rights" we have is what those who rule grant the huddled masses. We dont have rights. We have privledges. And it really annoys me when poeple simply stamp and shout saying they have RIGHTS!!!

For example, while for an infant, you have the pirvedge of a mother or father whom feeds you. This is not a right. There are laws in place to make sure that this pivedge is not taken away, but the point remians - your parents could well deny you food and shelter and you could have no recourse. The law of course says something about that, but it dont affect you when your dead.

A right is something to be taken for granted. A privledge is something to be fought for / achieved. The USA have a misnamed document called the Bill of Rights that were a hard won set of privledges.

A right is not something I need to struggle for. A privledge is. Are our privledges worth fighting for? Some are and some arent. It's really up to yourself to work out which ones are worthwhile.

Right now, it is our privledge to have anonymous web and everything that comes with that. Is that worthwhile fighting for, to keep that? Worth keeping the privledge of free speech?

I think so. Because once a privledge is removed, it's hard to get it back

Re:Internet access is a basic right (3, Insightful)

coupland (160334) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566762)

Observe the higher quality of life in Canada and the proliferation of subsidized Internet access over there. The two are related.


What have you been smoking? Are you assuming that just because something is available in Canada that means it's subsidized by the government? We're not on crack here, nor are we "paying 1/3 of [our] salary in taxes" to provide subsidized internet access. We also don't wear toques in the summer or eat back bacon


Canada (and Sweden, Finland et-al) are more wired than the USA because we have longer winters (no, not all 12 months) and this means people spend more for internet access during the months you'd prefer not to go outside. It's not because the government buys us a T1...

Re:Internet access is a basic right (1)

cruelworld (21187) | more than 12 years ago | (#2567082)

Excuse me, but back-bacon kicks ass.

Re:Internet access is a basic right (3, Insightful)

tzanger (1575) | more than 12 years ago | (#2567130)

We're not on crack here, nor are we "paying 1/3 of [our] salary in taxes" to provide subsidized internet access. We also don't wear toques in the summer or eat back bacon

Hmmm... You're obviously not "making enough" to be in the 33% tax bracket. And yes, the government is subsidizing net access. Some of us wear toques in the summer (as they do in the U.S., it appears to be a "cool" thing to do) and back bacon kicks ass.

Canada (and Sweden, Finland et-al) are more wired than the USA because we have longer winters (no, not all 12 months) and this means people spend more for internet access during the months you'd prefer not to go outside.

Interesting theory, but I thought it was due to the Chretien government wanting to do for information access what Mackenzie did for transportation. At least I think it was Mackenzie.

For a Canadian, you sure don't sound like one.

Re:Internet access is a basic right (1)

Hidyman (225308) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566765)

I think that giving it as a basic right would probably end up causing even more legislation, which in my opinion is almost NEVER a good thing.

Yes, In an ideal world equal access to the consciousness of the world seems like a good thing. Now if you can get the computer companies to give everyone a computer, you might have something.

Re:Internet access is a basic right (2, Insightful)

coupland (160334) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566824)

Furthermore, I gotta say that while I can tolerate ignorant Americans, Americans who think they're smart because they know that Canada is "up thar yonder" just fail to impress me. Don't make sweeping statements about our political system if you've only read about it in "Democracy for Dummies..."

Re:Internet access is a basic right (2)

Arandir (19206) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566884)

Freedom of speech means nothing if the government is not willing to provide its citizens with access to the predominant form of expression in the so-called "Information Age."

If taxpayer funded internet access is necessary for freedom of speech, then let's not stop at TCP/IP. I want my newspapers delivered for free. I want cable TV without having to pay for it. I want to be able to walk into any bookstore and not have to pay for anything. I want the latest music albumns delivered to my mailbox daily at no charge. Heck, I want the government to broadcast my every utterance for free on all radio and television stations.

Universal, unrestricted Internet access would work wonders for our society, promote competition and more efficient markets

Universal, unrestricted access to all print media would also work wonders for our society.

Re:Internet access is a basic right (1)

liquidsin (398151) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566986)

It would reduce transaction costs in general and put many parasites out of business. Many distributors and other undesirable middlemen would be out of business because people will learn to buy direct.

Well, something in there made sense. I'd love to see parasites going out of business (read as RIAA). The RIAA is a relic. They existed to help market the music, but they're no longer needed. That's just my two cents.

Oh yeah, by the way, I'm Canadian and I pay for my own internet access! Listen up government...the people demand subsidized DSL! {sarcasm mode off}

you fucking KARMA WHORE!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2567028)

jesus christ moderators, get a clue.

This post is saying nothing new, it sounds like a classic Signal 11 karma whoring post.

This guy is obviously a new karma whore, just take a look at his posting history. Always a post-as-mini thesis, with no follow ups or replies to other things. The account number looks like it's a newly created id. These are classic signs of a karma whore at work.

Moderators please don't be so stupid as to mod some stuff up because there's 4 or 5 long paragraphs. This is Anne Marie redux.

Re:you fucking KARMA WHORE!! (1)

Walter Bell (535520) | more than 12 years ago | (#2567101)

I post what I believe in. And I happen to believe in socialized internet access (as well as socialized health care, utilities, and software development funding).

If you would like to discuss my comment, please post a sensible reply instead of a baseless accusation.

Thanks.

~wally

Re:you fucking KARMA WHORE!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2567140)

you can change your username as many times as you want, Anne Marie/Sig 11/whoever you are, but you can't change your writing style (bloated, pseudo-intellectual, and smug). That gives you away more than anything else.

You have that knack of talking out of your ass like a know it all that most karma whores seem to have. And almost every one of your posts is tailor made to be modded up.

The gig is up bitch. I've exposed you for the fraud you are. Time to get a new slashdot uesrname asshole!!

Re:Internet access is a basic right (1)

squarooticus (5092) | more than 12 years ago | (#2567114)

This is so ridiculously deluded from a libertarian perspective, I'm not even going to touch it, other than to tell people to think about whether they REALLY want to pay for other peoples' network access.

A solution for one problem (2)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566705)

On the DMCA takedown provision, we should provide liquidated damages to victims of wrongful take downs. That is, if a company does have someone's service cut (either web server or connection) disconnected, wrongfully, the party should be required to pay either $10K or actual damages plus attorney fees. This would make companies a little more careful on whom they try to shut down.

The DMCA will delete this post. (2, Insightful)

Fucky Badger (535691) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566707)

My secret message to Dimitry Sklyarov:

Vsyah basha osnoba - preenadpyehzhat nam.

On July 17, 2001, the FBI arrested Dmitry Sklyarov, a Russian computer science student for an alleged violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). He delivered a speech in a Las Vegas hotel regarding Adobe eBooks entitled:

"eBook Security: Theory and Practice" The application addressed in the speech bypasses Adobe eBooks security only if you have previously purchased the eBook. Furthermore, it allows the purchaser to backup their eBook, read the eBook on a platform other than Windows and is useful to the Blind. Adobe had him arrested.

Since when are people arrested for pointing out a flaw? We believe this law, which enforces a WTO Treaty, should be reviewed and challenged. Free Speech allows someone to critize and/or demonstrate flaws within corporate products.

Programmers speak in Code.

The intimidation has already begun. The Public Libraries are next.

Rather than Rah-Rah, Look for Substance (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2566710)

For those of you not familiar with Larry Lessig, he's the equivalent of Jon Katz, except he writes much better. Typically his articles/books contain self-coined buzz words, and rallying cries, but lack substantial arguments.
He's a lawyer that has never practiced, and his Computer Science training is specious at best (a couple of undergrad classes at Penn.) Thus, before everyone gets a hard-on that a Stanford professor and a major magazine is pushing your political agenda. Please take a look at the article and see if it really goes somewhere. Here are some examples of Lessigism in practice.

"This commons was built into the very architecture ..." Typical Lessig style. He uses a term-of-art with legal significance, but does not develop it or analyze it properly. His intent is to get everyone to agree that no country should regulate a commons. He even implies that "commons" are unregulated. He tries to illustrate this point by turning to patent law. Mr. Lessig is wrong on two counts.

First, commons are regulated. Most parks and public properties have rules of use, and offer fines for those transgressing those uses. Mr. Lessig fails to point out any commons that does not have a regulation scheme. Please go to your nearest public park for an example of a regulated commons.

Second, the patent law scheme that Mr. Lessig says threatens the Internet is not a US creation. The GATT imposes IP protection on its signatories. TRIPS expands the provision. Both are international regulatory conventions, not US conventions. No country was forced to sign either document.

Mr. Lessig also rants about software patents, but mistakes several facts. Far before State Street and Excell, the cases Mr. Lessig implicitly sites for the crime of patenting business methods, inventors were able to achieve software patents by writing the claims to the machine. This was true even for the Member States that now make up the EU. Mr. Lessig, and most anti-IP pundits, seem to make this out to be a new creation.

Its true that most people will empathize with the plight of Skylarov. Hopefully, these situations will help keep the laws in check. However, Mr. Lessig continues to post information that is only substantiated in his unresearched view of the world.

Duh...the only thing under siege is... (2)

efuseekay (138418) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566724)

the www.foreignpolicy.com website at the moment.

I have a resolution (3, Funny)

dozing (111230) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566727)

The best solution to our problems would be voting for a politician who knows about technology and open source. To that end I am calling my congressman and encouraging him to vote yes on resolution 453 which would make "cowboy neal" an option on every voting card in the United States.

Yeesh (2)

zpengo (99887) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566730)

Why must everything be "under siege" these days? Slashdot is seeming less and less like a tech magazine and more and more like a bunch of rebellious teenagers sitting in there basement writing manifestoes about government conspiracies.

Sorry to go against the party line kids, but I'm just getting tired of all this talk of oppression, big brother, etc., etc., etc., and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Re:Yeesh (1)

jxa00++ (322387) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566794)

I probably would tend to agree with you to a certain extent BUT it is good that we are talking about and susequently raising wider issues. I would have never known what the damn RIAA stood for if not some of the discussions round here the past few years.

What bought this home to me was having drinks last weekend with some of my non techie friends, the "burning cds" issue and poor Sony, BMG..etc came up conversation due to this guy who worked at Sony whining about lost Britney sales.

What amazed me was the fucking level of cluelessness of some of my supposedly intelligent friends about how little they knew of the wider issues.

Keep talking...and no i am not a teenager of in my basement...

Re:Yeesh (3, Insightful)

Happy Monkey (183927) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566847)

"Foreign Policy" magazine is hardly a group of basement-bound teenagers spouting the Slashdot party line.

Re:Yeesh (1)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566918)

Wow... i feel like hi-jacking a plane and smashing it into the whitehouse/congress/parliament. Its the only way to get my freedom back and... oh, no.. _bugger_ if i crash it in there then i die so i won't get my freedom back... maybe if i was to use some sort of remote control... no, it might go wrong and someone could get hurt, AHHH i could use a trained duck, yes, all the duck would need to do, is hide in the cockpit, then, when the time is right - jump out, the pilots will be confused at the duck and run away leaving said duck to re-program the navigation system with the new co-ordinates for aformentioned buildings... This duck could be trained relatively cheaply in underground facilities, and would only need rudamentry flying abilities (which it already has - beeing a duck and all) it would also be able to peck a hole in the window and jump out of the plane and fly away before impact...

A very troubling bit to me... (5, Insightful)

Eryq (313869) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566744)

...is where he described how companies are invoking the DMCA to protect themselves from criticism.
a British pharmaceutical company invoked the DMCA in order to force an ISP to shut down an animal rights site that criticized the British company. Said the ISP, "It's very clear [the British company] just wants to shut them up," but ISPs have no incentive to resist the claims.

Consider the ramifications if applied widely. To call attention to, say, meat products in McDonald's supposedly-vegetarian food (as in India). To Nike's sweatshops. Even if the information is true, the ISPs might prefer to yank it rather than verify that it violates copyright. And, since you're obviously a troublemaker, they might cancel your account completely.

So welcome to the DMCA future, where an unsubstantiated accusation carries punishment even without a conviction -- so long as the accusation is coming from a moneyed source.

(Actually, given that people accused of crimes often have their reputations ruined, even after acquital, perhaps it's just a logical extension of the world today. But it still sucks.)

Eeeuhh (1)

Maskirovka (255712) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566757)

An article mentioning the Sklyarov case like this one does, is going to draw a lot more attention from policymakers to the problems the DMCA and other legal troubles are posing to online freedom than your average rant on a board like this, how well reasoned it may be."

Some of these people have more respect for good grammar and punctuation too. I can't imagine why.

Venue (2)

Zen Mastuh (456254) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566763)


So many of us have lost our patience but have no additional outlets or avenues (already wrote the congresscritters, don't own any weapons of mass destruction...). Now the venue is becoming larger and--hopefully--the public will become aware of the creeping fascism. 'Cept if the five remaining media companies successfully spin this to prove to the masses that freedom is indeed slavery and war is indeed peace, etc...



Anybody have a rock I can crawl under 'til the dust settles?

We're losing our rights... Now what? (5, Insightful)

dominion (3153) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566767)

It seems like for all the time I've been on Slashdot (at least 3 years now), there's been this constant discussion around whether we're losing our rights or not...

I want this discussion to end. Not because it's not a valid discussion, but because conclusions have already been made.

Yes, we are losing our rights.

Where are we losing them from? Some say government, others say industry, and some insist that we're not losing our rights at all.

I'm not interested in arguing with those who insist everything's just fine.

There needs to be a basic analysis of how anarchic cultures like that of the internet and that of the free software movement interact (and many times, are at odds with) with heirarchical structures like the state and the capitalist marketplace.

Ultimately, power corrupts, and any strong concentration of power moves towards greater concentration. In other words, "Welcome to the new economy, same as the old economy."

Our rights are lost as corporations consolidate, create bigger lobbies, and government bends over backwards to accomodate them. Things like DMCA don't come out of anywhere, and if corporations and the "power elite" (C.Wright Mills) truly believed in a free marketplace, then DMCA would never have been created.

So, you have us, the idealistic internet users, techies, free software advocates, etc., up against the biggest economic superpowers the world has ever known.

What do we do? How do we fight this?

Well, in one way, we've been doing really well in the realm of creating alternatives. Free software work, it works well, and it's not dependant on the NASDAQ for it's survival. Very good.

In other realms, we haven't done all that well. There's been talk about creating a "tech" lobby, but it's never really materalized. And could it even stand up to the hegemony of the lobbies that are already entrenched in Washington DC?

The EFF is a wonderful organization, but look at what they're up against. Look at how hard it is for the ACLU to influence lawmaking, and they've got a support base that's much larger than the EFF. The ACLU has written scathing reports on the threats to civil liberties that the USA-PATRIOT ACT (and the even scarier Illinois version), yet these are being pushed through without any consideration.

I think in order to properly preserve our rights, and more importantly, greatly *EXPAND* them, we need to abandon all notions that the market and the state are on our side, in any way shape or form.

Think in terms, not of what we want to oppose, but what we want. How should intellectual property be handled? Is it really *wrong* to reverse engineer something? Should a law stop us? If a law makes something illegal, can we create a technical solution to make it impossible to regulate (ie, gnutella/freenet?). What about a large project to create an internet service provider collective with incredibly cheap internet access? What about free internet access for everybody? Don't think we can do it? The hell we can't!

And furthermore, does this only affect us, or does it affect everybody? Why are we only preaching to the choir? How do these issues tie in to other issues that affect people?

Think about it. I hate to use the cliche, but we're gonna have to fight back. Sitting around on Slashdot, complaining about how we're losing our rights doesn't solve anything.

Maybe we should, to use the old syndicalist slogan, start building the new world in the shell of the old...

Dominion

Re:We're losing our rights... Now what? (2, Informative)

matthewn (91381) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566846)

Now what? Vote wisely, dammit! Go ahead, mod me down, say it's the overly-simplistic/obvious/cop-out answer, toss around all that bullshit about how votes don't matter. I don't care. You're wrong.

This is happening because there has not been a strong Populist movement in the US since the 1920s, and the reason for that is twofold: (a) not enough people voting, and (b) not enough people THINKING about WHO they are voting for and WHY.

Maybe you think money has so colored American politics that your vote is destined to be canceled out by Votes of the Wrong Kind. You're wrong there, too. Money buys exposure, money buys TV time, money buys billboards, but money ain't putting a gun to your head forcing you to be taken in by slick campaigns. Money doesn't turn off your brain. And money doesn't force you to push the little voting pin in next to some millionaire corporate shill's name.

So read your damn sample ballots cover to cover. Write outraged ("outraged"!=angry/spiteful/immature) yet eloquent letters to your reps when they do stupid things like vote for the DMCA. Above all, STOP ELECTING THESE MORONS WHO ARE WILLING TO TRAMPLE ALL OVER YOUR FREEDOM.

Re:We're losing our rights... Now what? (3, Insightful)

krmt (91422) | more than 12 years ago | (#2567023)

Ah, but isn't that the problem though? Voting alone doesn't do it. If you and you alone are the one dissenting voice in the ballot box, there's no way any congressman is going to respect you. You've got to command a bloc of votes, like the religious right. They may not command the majority, but they are a substantial presence in this country and as such they wield a lot of power.

What needs to happen, as the parent talked about (great post there BTW) is that we need to form some kind of consolidated power bloc. The EFF isn't enough, we need a movement. The state and businesses aren't on our side because they don't see us as being anything other than marginal. We, as people concerned with our rights in the digital age, do need to do more than what we've been doing. Unfortunately, I'm at a complete loss as to what that is.

My brother, who's big in to political activism, just attended a seminar by a congressional staffer on the subject of grassroots influence. The staffer said you have two options: either assemble a lot of people together to influence public opinion or work on a campaign, get they guy elected and then get your voice heard from within. I think we need more of the former. We need to get people out there, talking about what's going on from our point of view, and we have to get them to see that it affects everyone, not just the geeks. I don't know how to mobilize this sort of thing though, and that's the problem. Like the parent said, what now?

Re:We're losing our rights... Now what? (1)

Techi (529851) | more than 12 years ago | (#2567074)

It would need to start with several localized organizations, brought together by a national/international forum. Once the local organizations become more well known, so will the forum, which can then become more centralized. Once leadership develops from this, our influence can move up through the ranks. Anyone interested, send me a message at techi@sunflower.com.

Re:We're losing our rights... Now what? (5, Insightful)

Soko (17987) | more than 12 years ago | (#2567165)

Nice post. Good points for discussion:

I want this discussion to end. Not because it's not a valid discussion, but because conclusions have already been made.

Yup. Every time you use and/or improve an Open Source software package, you're drawing that conclusion nearer. As one William H. Gates III put it, "There is a particular approach that breaks the cycle (of freely developed software being commercialised) called the GPL that is not worth getting into today, but I don't think there is much awareness about how so-called free software foundations designed that to break that cycle."

Bill's right - we're breaking the system by accepting the validity (some would say neccesity) of giving away our time and intellectual resources to create things that cannot be forced into artificial scarcity, any who wish to use the fruits of this labour can do so - as long as they agree to only use it for the same purpose. IMHO, Richard Stallman didn't forsee or count on this, it's just a happy accident it turned out this way. There are many people who are (understandably, IMHO) terrified of the GPL - they think that they won't be able to put bread on the table if all software were open sourced, thier creativity would be squashed due to lack of funding and the world as they know it would generally come to an end. And as luck would have it, they're right.

The EFF is a wonderful organization, but look at what they're up against. Look at how hard it is for the ACLU to influence lawmaking, and they've got a support base that's much larger than the EFF. The ACLU has written scathing reports on the threats to civil liberties that the USA-PATRIOT ACT (and the even scarier Illinois version), yet these are being pushed through without any consideration.

I think in order to properly preserve our rights, and more importantly, greatly *EXPAND* them, we need to abandon all notions that the market and the state are on our side, in any way shape or form.


I'm Canadian, and can serve as a willing nom-de-plume for publishing code that's not allowed in the US. See how much US laws affect the process in reality? The laws the state makes are ineffectual, unless they can succesfully stifle communications in some way. And those are usually circumvented in short order, aren't they?

Think about it. I hate to use the cliche, but we're gonna have to fight back. Sitting around on Slashdot, complaining about how we're losing our rights doesn't solve anything.

Fine. Don't fight though - just continue on your merry OSS way then, but purposefully move along your way. Never mind the threats hurled at you, nor the corpses of any combatants you see along the way. To paraphrase someone, if you see damage, route around it. If we all move towards a goal with purpose, and never shy from obtaining the goal, who's to stop us?

Maybe we should, to use the old syndicalist slogan, start building the new world in the shell of the old...

Nope. We will just slowly replace the old world piece by piece, and push anything that doesn't fit in off the edge. The GPL puts software into the commons, kicking and screaming if needs be. Some will definately suffer huge economic losses - very unfortunate, but when you tear down a world to replace it with another, however slowly and carefully, damage happens. The world has already changed - the first bricks of the wall that has been built between a user, thier data and the ways to communicate thier data have already been chipped off. It is this scarcity of easy, inexpensive communications channels that has kept our world from being more about one to one than many to many. When we take control of these channels, and open them to any and all who have the curiosity to try, we put more people on the other side of the wall, and more bricks are chipped off. Eventually, the wall will give. We just need to make sure it comes down on the right heads.

As I've said before, we are the competition to the old economy - and competition at this level at times can get very, very ugly.

Soko

Only so helpful (2, Insightful)

twilight30 (84644) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566777)

Hm. While I liked the piece, I have to wonder how effective this is going to be. OK. It's significant that this kind of article made it into FP in the first place -- the journal is notoriously biased to the conservative.

However, the closing part of Lessig's argument, that American lawmakers should not regulate in an extra-territorial fashion, nor give tools to that effect to other entities, just will not work. Your government already has numerous laws pointed to enforcing American mores on other nationals. Time and again, your government has refused to modify those laws in the face of persistent criticism, particularly from your allies in Canada, the European Union, and Australia.

What exactly convinces Lessig this will be any different?

Let's think about this. (2)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566783)

The DMCA doens't threaten 'the internet'. IT threatens people from using the internet to legally disseminate information. IT's not specific to the internet.

In the case of an actual copyright violation, parts of the DMCA make sense. It's just overly broad, with some bad sections. It's bad law, for sure.
But it doesn't threaten the internet.. it threatens the actions of individuals and businesses.

It's like making a press stop printing a certain book , or a store from selling that book, because the information inside it is stolen.

Lessig in this week's Newsweek as well (3, Informative)

Masem (1171) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566784)

In conjunction with his new book, Newsweek this week had a brief interview with him, mostly covering similar concerns; again, not enough space to convey everything that is wrong, but a very good read for JQPublic. (Eg, he likens how before the Internet, talking about Star Trek amoung friends was concidered benign, now you have to play on PAramont's rules if you use the Internet).

Re:Lessig in this week's Newsweek as well (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2567033)

Here's the URL for this week's newsweek article. I found it somewhat ironic that it was from newsweek.msnbc.com.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/655756.asp

Oh, yeah, AMEN to this: (2, Insightful)

GISboy (533907) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566805)

The Internet has not only inspired invention, it has also inspired publication in a way that would never have been produced by the world of existing publishers.

F'n A!

This is what I have been saying for the longest time, even in several discussions elsewhere.

One particular reply said, in effect: "So, broadband/the interentet is good only for stealing".

Ummm, no. I suppose in a way I alluded to that is one "infringing use" but the rapid dissemination of *information* and *content* is what the net is all about.

Now my brain is kinda fried after a long day, but the article said exactly what I am saying now.
Information/content has to be thought of in nebulous terms, unfortunately, and that throws people off (and pisses them off, too. Referring, of course to the RI/MP-AA).

If my train of thought leaves the station, the point is a network does not care "what is transmitted" only that a 'reasonable effort is made to get it to it's destination'.
Therein lies the danger to the MP/RI-AA...content and information in the form of video, audio, text, images, html, voice, data of all kinds.

Data is data. Binary, text...all data, correct?
Video? Data. Audio? Data. Text? Data.

All of the MP/RI-AA's "precious resources" are becoming commodities, plain and simple, just like air and sunshine, but, they are fighting like hell to "cut off our air supply" and keep people in the dark to keep themselves in business.

Like I said before, it explains a lot.

freedom of speech. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2566820)

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right on the net. Heres a recent article from the BBC on how an ISP has dropped a client because the content of his website. bbc article [bbc.co.uk]

Censorship and Russia... (4, Insightful)

Zach` (71927) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566822)

That many people are now robbed of their right to free speech may utlimately cause a renaissance for free speech. I've heard stories from Russia, how during the Breshjnev period, there were lots of underground theater groups. Profound books were written, criticizing the regime. Protest singers were among the most popular artists. There was this guy singing about the wolfs, running through the woods with the wolfs biting at his heels. The song was really about the regime.

Because of the censorship, they had to hide their messages, using creative images and fables. The people knew instinctively that these messages were important and they craved them.

Then Glasnost came about, and eventually the Iron Carpet came down. Suddenly the people were free. Starved of free speech, there was a short flurry of popular political activity, with large political meetings, marches and what not.

Then things settled down, and one day they woke up. All this new stuff they had been denied all these years was now available. What a disappointment it must have been to them to discover that although the political messages in the western press might be of a different color, most of the stuff was ads, tabloid reporting on celebrities, porn, worthless fiction, stupid game shows, and soap operas. We fought all these years to hear the message from the other side, and all they have to tell us is "Drink Coca Cola?"

If I was Russion, I'd drown myself in vodka, too.

And what has this to do with the DMCA? Just the fact that it will force U.S citizens to be vigilant (break the DMCA laws) in order to have their free speech. By being in opposition to the ruling regime (the megacorps), U.S citizens can enjoy the excitement of getting their free speech, in spite of the regime. Now it's worth something. Hard to come by free speech is valuable. Gratis free speech is worthless.

now hold on, whats wrong with porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2567242)

goddamn man, those people are artists and
deserve respect as much as anyone else.

First (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2566825)

First Anonymous coward post!
Tricky, very tricky Mr. Taco man.
I love what you've done with the front page.
Nice delay for us non-logged in types.

Oh, and what's this Taco-snot thing I've been hearing about? Sounds like fun.

The DMCA sucks... (1, Flamebait)

Jin Wicked (317953) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566828)

I recently had someone on Angelfire linking directly to one of my drawings on my site, effectively costing me bandwidth which I really can't afford since my host lets me squeak by every month to begin with. The drawing was very obviously being linked to on my server, and you could even see where I signed the artwork, and when I e-mailed Angelfire (Lycos) asking them to remove the image (because it was costing me bandwidth), first they told me I had to file a copyright infringement request or some B.S. according to DMCA procedure. Then when I complained about that being stupid, they sent a nasty letter to the site owner saying to remove it or they'd delete her site. I couldn't find a link to e-mail the site owner or I would have myself. I can change the filenames, but usually people are understanding about either putting the image on their own space and giving me a mention, or removing it entirely. The Lycos guy said "for future reference, a written name at the bottom of an image is not enough evidence to claim copyright." WTF? And people wonder why a large portion of my drawings are pictures of me. Apparently my signature on it isn't enough to prove I created the image. I understand that Photoshop can be used to edit things very well, but come on, it matched every other drawing on my site and it's a picture of ME!



I can't see how this nonsense is beneficial to anyone without a team of people at their disposal to make these "formal requests." All I wanted was to save myself a little bandwidth, and now I have to research the DMCA and fill out some non-existent form to do it? Nothanks!

Re:The DMCA sucks... (1)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566873)

Why didn't you just use the HTTP referer to bar requests from other sites or even write a script that randomized the image filename and inserted it into the html?

Re:The DMCA sucks... (1)

Jin Wicked (317953) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566953)

Because I have no idea how to do that, that's why, and the one thing I've tried doesn't work. And that would screw with my EBay auctions and message board images. :/

Hello? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2566838)

Won't you be my taco-snotting friend?

It depends on where you live (1)

WillSeattle (239206) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566848)

Yes, the DCMA is very threatening to rights, but let's remember that the world "owns" the Net. In Canada they have the Internet Privacy Act, which gives one real rights to privacy, and in the EU (Europe) they have much stronger privacy rights, in fact they are outlawing cookies there.

So in some ways it doesn't matter. The Net will, as it has since it was created, reroute and heal the damage.

-

Today America, Tomorrow the World (1)

Prizm (52977) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566850)

As I read this article, I noticed the author kept coming back to the fact that "America started the internet ....". I'm just wondering how long before America starts enacting other acts (DMCA-like) which will further tighten our grip on other nations and their practices.

Mental image of the MP/RI-AA (3, Insightful)

GISboy (533907) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566890)

Pardon my sillyness, but I can't seem to get this image out of my head.

If you remember the "Beggin' Strips" commercial: I kept picturing that dog's nose saying "It's DATA! data-data over here, data-data over there...What's this?! I can't read!

The MP/RI-AA is the "dog" chasing the smell of bacon/data (i.e. wielding the DMCA, lawsuits and general nastiness) and "they can't read" the writing on the wall, as it were, with code being free speech (or falling under the 1st Amen.)

Honestly, I think the idea applies more to the MPAA than the RIAA, because of DeCSS's implications.
Napster issues aside (and I am not touching that one) consider mp3, though.
Mp3's are not illegal. Consider taping a program to ripping an mp3 being approximately the same.
You are not stealing your own music, but you are "shifting" its form for later/different use.

(I hope that made sense. Enterprise is on, gotta go)

Again on my Internet Privacy Law issue (1)

AnimeFreak (223792) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566920)

In the post, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23793&cid=2566 678 [slashdot.org] , I mentioned on what does the Internet Privacy Law have in relation with the DCMA. Yet I just found this on a website just a few short minutes ago...
If you are affiliated with any government organization, anti-piracy organization or any other related group you are not permited to proceed to the following webpages or access any of the files on this webserve. (Affiliation includes but is not limited to: Employees and former Employees.) If you continue you are not agreeing to these terms and you are violating code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act signed by President Bill Clinton, 1995. Meaning you revoke the righ to threaten/prosecute any person(s) affiliated with this website. Thank you.
Would that work under the DCMA?

Re:Again on my Internet Privacy Law issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2567206)

If only it were that easy.

The disclaimer you quoted isn't worth the LEDs it's printed on. Not surprisingly, it's popular at warez and hacking sites. If anything, that disclaimer does more harm than good, because it's essentially an admission of guilt (not to mention an LEA-magnet). They might as well just come right out and say "This site contains illegal material." When they do get busted, they sure won't be able to pretend they didn't know they were doing something wrong.

Underground is underground for a reason. If you could keep the government out of a site just by saying so, we'd all be having a party over at fresh-credit-cards.com, and the guy down the street would be running a brothel with "No Law Allowed" tacked on the door.

It doesn't work that way.

FBI Internet-tap plus unsecured DNS = trouble (2)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566980)

The DMCA is just one of many problems threatening free speech. Another is the FBI Wiretap of the entire Internet [foxnews.com]
The new FBI plans would give the agency a technical backdoor to the networks of Internet service providers' like AOL and Earthlink and Web hosting companies, Baker said. It would concentrate Internet traffic in several central locations where e-mail and other web activity could be wiretapped.
coupled with the Internet's unsecured DNS [slashdot.org] .

The FBI could surreptitiously censor subtly or DOS sites that criticize the government, for example.

Do something about it (1)

benjaminbishop (245276) | more than 12 years ago | (#2566999)

Write congress. Sign the DMCA abolition petition @ this link [petitiononline.com]

Stephen King, author, dead at 55 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2567080)


I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

CmdrTaco's horrible secret (1.6!) (-1)

The WIPO Troll (267426) | more than 12 years ago | (#2567113)

THE OFFICIAL TACO-SNOTTING FAQ [slashdot.org]
By The WIPO Troll [slashdot.org]

What is "Taco-snotting?"

"Taco-snotting" is a term used by one
Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda [cmdrtaco.net] , owner of the popular technology website Slashdot [slashdot.org] , to refer to the practice of sucking off a homosexual man (or unwilling heterosexual; CmdrTaco doesn't care, and is rumored to actually prefer rape) and blowing the semen back out his nose onto his partner's (or victim's) face or body. Usually a long, bubbly stream of milky-white semen is left on CmdrTaco's face, dribbling out of his nose, down his cheek: hence the term, "Taco-snotting."

Good Lord. Why have I been receiving emails from CmdrTaco asking me if he can Taco-snot me?

I'm guessing you've received an email similar to the following:
From: malda@slashdot.org [mailto]
To: wipotroll@hotmail.com
Subject: Hey, baby - jion me in a taco-snott! :)

Hey, baby!

Ever done a taco-snotting with anothar fellow geek? Its more fun then trolling Slashdot, trust me! all that talk you troll with about homasexual incest and stuff got me all horny and hot for you! Is it serius? Please tell me that itt is! If you want to get with me and my Slashdot bois, drop me an emale!

ps- Please replie to me at horny_rob_6969@hotmail.com. I'd rather the guys at VA Linux are not seen this. :) :)

--
CmdrTaco (malda@slashdot.org [mailto] )
You most likely forgot to uncheck the "Willing to Taco-snot" checkbox in your account preferences. Whenever CmdrTaco gets bored (and who wouldn't, running a site like Slashdot all day), he roams through the Slashdot database, penis in hand, looking for people who might enjoy being Taco-snotted. How he determines this is anyone's guess; but if you have a homosexual-sounding nickname, you're in trouble. So this time, he found you. Lucky you.
CmdrTaco has probably already got the hots for your wad, and he's probably already been lurking outside your bathroom window for weeks with a camera, some tissues and lube. There's no escaping a geek in heat, so it's probably too late for you, but you can possibly rectify this situation. To remove yourself from CmdrTaco's sights, log into your Slashdot account, go to your user page, click on
Messages, and uncheck the box next to "Willing to Taco-snot." Maybe he'll ignore you. Probably not.

I can't stop receiving these emails from CmdrTaco!?

Probably not. If you indulge him in a Taco-snot or two, he
might leave you alone. You might also want to look into mail filtering, restraining orders, or purchasing a heavy, blunt object capable of warding off rampaging homosexual geeks in heat. Trust me, when they charge... oh, the humanity. If he gets you, and you let him Taco-snot you, he might end up tying you up in his basement to use you as his sex slave for the rest of your life (or until he accidentally drowns you in spunk in a vile practice known as a "circle-snot").

What is a "Circle-snot"?

A "circle-snot" is a Taco-snotting
circle-jerk, another practice common among homosexual geeks. This is when CmdrTaco, CowboiKneel, and Homos get together and Taco-snot each other repeatedly with their gooey, hot, and sticky cum -- spooging their dicks all over each other's faces and pasty-white bodies until they're all covered head to toe with man juice. Roblowme usually provides plenty of extra lubricant; he owns a limo service and has ample supplies of motor oil and axle grease.
To complete this perverted orgy, fellow geeks Michael, Timothy, and Jamie often join in, dressed in black Gestapo uniforms, jack boots, and leather gloves. The whole group then proceeds to snot each other's spunk and whip each other's pudgy asses with riding crops and chains until their pasty-white geek bodies are sweaty and exhausted from all the passionate, homosexual revelry.

Eww. Have you ever been Taco-Snotted?

Unfortunately, yes. I first met CmdrTaco at an
Open Source Convention [geocities.com] . He invited me back to his room for a game of Quake, but when I got to there, he jumped me and tied me to his bed, stripping me. After taking his "Commander" out of his pants and made me suck him, he performed his vile Taco-snotting ritual on me three times over the next two hours, bringing me to orgasm, then snotting my own jizz back onto my face, in my mouth, then again on my belly.
CmdrTaco invited several of his Open Source (or rather, "Open Sauce" -- man sauce) Convention buddies over to continue the snotfest. Linux Torvalds raped my ass with his "monolithic kernel," and Anal Cox used his "network stack" in a multitude of unspeakable ways on and in every orifice in my body.
How did I finally escape? After about 16 hours of countless homosexual atrocities perpetrated against my helpless body, they all finally went to sleep, sweat-soaked and exhausted. I was left there, covered in geek jizz-snot, chained to the bed, with fat, pasty white fags lying around and on top of me. Fortunately the spooge coating my entire body worked wonderfully as a lubricant; I was able to squirm my way out of the handcuffs and slip out the back door. I'm just glad I survived the ordeal. These geeks had a
lot of built-up spunk in their wads -- I could've easily been drowned!

That's horrible. Does Jon Katz get involved in this? I thought he was a paedophile, not a homosexual.

Actually, Jon Katz is a homosexual paedophile. He's also a coprophiliac, and, many suspect, a zoophile. Jon Katz is somewhat of a loner and doesn't involve himself in circle-snots. Mr. Katz usually engages in a game called "Katz juicy-douching" with his harem of little-boy slaves: a vile practice which involves administering an enema to himself of the little boy's urine (forced out of them with a pair of pliers), spooging the vile muck from his ass back into the enema bag, then squirting and slathering the goo all over himself, and the little boy's chained-up and naked bodies. Unwilling boys are further tortured with the pliers until they comply and allow Mr. Katz to juicy-douche them for the rest of their lives.
As I already said, Mr. Katz is
also a zoophile. As if the sexual escapades with the helpless little boys aren't enough, Jon usually enjoys his juicy-douches best when his penis is firmly planted in a female goat's anus. He is also rumoured to get off on watching his little boys eat the goat's small, bean-like turds.

...Are you getting hard writing this?

Why, yes. :) Join me in a WIPO-snot? I promise I won't try and rape you or kidnap you and make you my sex slave or anything. I'm not like CmdrTaco or Mr. Katz; I only enjoy snotting on willing partners.

What's that screaming I hear coming from your basement?

Oh, that's just my little sister; I got her chained up down there. In fact, I just finished snotting all over her body. You should see her squirm when I spooge on her belly, lick it up, and snot it all over her face! She's such a feisty little 14 year-old bitch. Of
course she's my sex slave, she's my sister. What else would she be good for? So, join me in a WIPO-snot?

No, thanks. I'm already CmdrTaco's boi toi.

________________________________________

$Id: tacosnotting.html,v 1.6 2001/11/15 02:51:52 wipo Exp $

It's not a case of when, but how and how severe (1)

foqn1bo (519064) | more than 12 years ago | (#2567116)


I for one have been rather worried that eventually the US government is going to get greedy/stifling and attempt to regulate the internet more and more. And unfortunately it seems obvious that this is a rather growing trend. Of course one country can only do so much to a global network, although that isn't quite the most powerful argument when applied to the United States considering how it thrusts its foreign policy all over the map.

So the big question is what is going to happen when it goes too far? How are the internet masses going to respond? I know that already groups of Universities are conspiring to build their own 'internet sequel' which has faster connections and better planning (but that is quite smaller in scale). What about the rest of the world? Hackers? Can anyone actually envision a scenario where a large enough segment of the internet population revolts to the effect that it can persuade the governments of the world to act otherwise?

The internet is in many ways(not factoring in the commercial backbones but instead focusing on content, lack of ownership, networking)a rare expression of anarchy in our world. All governments are by definition the antithesis of anarchy and thus diametrically opposed. It is no surprise then that governments are constantly trying to find ways to limit, tax and otherwise regulate it. Anarchy almost always falls apart at the seams. But cyberspace is a successful anarchy because it came into being and matured when no overseeing government existed to regulate it, and its very fabric is weaved of complete and utter interdependance. I wonder whether this will in the long run make a difference.

foreignpolicy.com = NWO/Illuminati shill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2567118)

need I say more?

Registrant:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (FOREIGNPOLICY2-DOM)
1770 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
US

Domain Name: FOREIGNPOLICY.COM

Lessig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2567122)

For what it's worth, Lessig wrote an article for the dead tree version of wired mag arguing that copyright laws for software should be re-written. The gist is that software is a creative work that others should be able to learn from. He proposes the analogy of a work of literature or film that can be studied and analyzed versus source code for software which is perpetually hidden. Pithy, bold quote from the article is "Software gets ninety-five years of copyright protection. By the time the MacOS finally falls into the public domain, no machine will be able to run it."

I dunno, seemed kinda, sorts relevant.

Slashdot is turning into USENET! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2567277)

Flamewars abound. Trolls are lurking under every post. This site has gotten to be just garbage. The constant MS bashing from people who do nothing but recompile their kernel all day are the main cause - get off the net kiddies.

Splashdot - News for turds. Stuff that splatters.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>