Flushing the Net Down the Tubes 329
netcetra writes "From a post by on CircleID by Phillip J. Windley: 'Doc Searls has written a brilliant piece framing the battle for the Net at Linux Journal. ... if you take the time to read just one essay on the Net and the politics surround it this year, read this one.' Quote from Doc himself: 'This is a long essay. There is, however, no limit to how long I could have made it. The subjects covered here are no less enormous than the Net and its future. Even optimists agree that the Net's future as a free and open environment for business and culture is facing many threats. We can't begin to cover them all or cover all the ways we can fight them. I believe, however, that there is one sure way to fight all of these threats at once, and without doing it the bad guys will win. That's what this essay is about.' Also see additional background on the piece on Doc Searls blog."
Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:5, Interesting)
How many companies can I badmouth before they shut me up by suing me?
How longer can I criticize the government before I get sent to Guantanamo?
Widespread lawbreaking indicates a problem with the laws, and not with the crime. This is why copyright law is so ineffective. It's also the reason that drug law doesn't really work.
In this case, however, more power is moving away from inviduals faster than it's coming to them. Of those who take that power back, by whatever means, more and more of them will be made to suffer.
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:4, Insightful)
How longer can I criticize the government before I get sent to Guantanamo?
A hell of a lot of people do both EVERY DAY on the internet. The majority of people aren't getting sued or sent to Guantanamo Bay. It doesn't appear that there will be a large amount of people going to either place.
Coercing people by threat of litigation or wrongful imprisonment IS wrong. But that doesn't really have anything to do with the internet. It's a problem in American society, that has moved onto the internet. You can't solve it for the internet only though, without solving it for the rest of society.
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
Running a personal wiki or having a photo-share server for friends seems like a technical imposibility to most lay people because of this. The truth is, most of it can be done with easy to use software today. It should be trivial for the end user. Run an installer and start going. I seem to remember dreams of this being what the internet was for - back in the day... Remember when having a webcam wasn't mainly just for IM?
Yes I know that script kiddies have made this idea a playground for malware and things need to be blocked upstream for authentication-less ports sometimes. I do firmly believe that if everyone knew it was initially prety much their right to add their info to the internet, MS would have never been so lax and security would have had the focus by all of us that it should have gotten. The software that enables a home desktop to be a server would be way more mature due to popularity. In some ways, IM epitomizes this need to share with eachother.
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:2)
She's a lot better off doing that, too, because the software requires maintenance that most people don't want to learn about or bother with.
We should understand tha
Nope, I wouldn't argue any of those numbers ARE... (Score:5, Interesting)
2.2M represents less than 1% of the population, and the reality is it is a small percentage of repeat offenders.
You want widespread?
Copyright violation is being estimated by the media industries to be occuring on the rate of millions of offenses per day. Millions of users are logged onto P2P networks primarily for copyright infringement purposes (I said primarily, not exclusively).
Minor excess speeding tickets hit a large percentage of the population (upwards of 40% depending on jurisdiction and technologies being applied). That will definitely go up in the UK if/when they roll out those beautiful new speed cams.
Drug crimes hit a large percentage of the population. Sure, lots of people are in jail for violent crimes. But 1 person in 30 in the USA are in jail are because of drug crimes, the majority of those for simple possession. Estimates range, but the low estimates for teenage illicit drug use (one-time or more) is at around 25%.
Those are widespread numbers. Violent crimes (I'm sorry 12,000 murders is not a lot in a population of 280 million) are not. You just hear about the violence a lot whenever you listen to Fox News or whenever the police or government are trying to take your rights away. Even with the drug violence, long term violent crime rates continue to decline.
and yet another take on infringement vs. murder (Score:2, Interesting)
Conversely, copyright infringement doesn't limit the supply. In fact the opposite is true, the more infringement the greater the supply. Sure i might not want to
Bull (Score:4, Interesting)
The great majority (90%+) of violence is assault.
The great majority (90%+) of assaults are against one's spouse.
The great majority (90%+) of battered wifes does NOT separate, press charges, or otherwise go away from their assailants.
Violence IS a repeat crime. Murder is when a violent person makes a mistake and goes overboard.
Re:Nope, I wouldn't argue any of those numbers ARE (Score:2)
I sure hope that's 1 in 30 inmates, not 1 in 30 Americans. Where did you get that data?
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, anecdotally I'd say that at least a third of the population condones non-commercial copyright infringement (and I'm being conservative in my estimate, and taking into account the propaganda of the RIAA).
The point is, when an act is accepted by a significant proportion of the population, chances are that act is ethical -- in fact, it can be argued that ethics only exist relative to the population. So yeah, if murder and copyright infringment were performed at the same rate, then either both would be acceptable, or neither would. Of course, if a third of the population condoned murder, we'd have a society more similar to the Roman Empire (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Your use of absolute numbers are meaningless, and borderline FUD -- 12,000 out of 12,000 means something completely different than 12,000 out of 296,000,000.
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, more recently, the anti-communist witch-hunts of the 1950s?
Or, currently, the systematic violations of your rights that occur at airports every time that you want to make a trip on a commercial airline?
Or the killing of non-human animals for sport?
Or the killing of pre-natal children?
Or the forced indocrination of religion on post-natal children (in church , Sunday-school, etc.)?
Or the idea that it's OK for a government to take a huge chunk of your income and spend it on things to which you are ethically opposed (like war, or Welfare (or both, depending on your point of view))?
Or the idea that Britney Spears has talent and deserves her fame?
Or the idea that it's O.K. for stupid football games to repeatedly preempt a great T.V. program like Firefly, eventually leading to the latter program's demise?
Wait, I appear to be drifting off-topic.
The point that I'm trying to make is that a popular belief is not always ethical, especially by my standards, which are the only ones that I care about anyway.
That's why the U.S. government was created as a republic, not a democracy, and why we have a Supreme Court to curb the excesses of a supposedly popularly-elected Congress.
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
You are missing his point. The world's ethics are not set by you, or me, or any individual. They are the current mood of the population. Sure, now the whole concept of slavery seems barbaric, but back in the day, slavery was deemed acceptable/ethical. That's the whole point!
We can look back and wag our fingers about how awful our ancestors were, and not just slavery, but witch burning, any number of religion-based attrocities (nobody expects ...), animal welfare, treatment of indigenous people, the list is probably endless, but at the time, most of the actions were deemed acceptable. As I understand it, if we burnt someone at the stake, we thought we were saving their soul!
I'd say that by definition, the popular vote defines the popular ethical values. Just be thankfull that we have moved on from the time when having different ethical values from the norm might mean you were burnt at the stake for heresy!
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:5, Interesting)
Bravo to you for taking cultural relativism to its absurd extreme. The idea has moved from a challenge to be open minded, to the conclusion of all of philosophy. Gone are thousands of years of thought on what mankind could acheive, and we, in our profound wisdom, have replaced it with the "philosophy" that what is moral is what the majority of people say is moral.
Slavery isn't acceptable, no matter what time or what place. I don't care if 90% of people agree to it, those 90% are wrong. Whether you take a utilitarian, or absolutist, or just about any doctrine I can think of besides cultural relativism, it's wrong.
"News for nerds" -- aren't nerds supposed to be in favor of logic and reason? No sound logic or tenable reason can arrive at many of the junk ideas that float around here. You tell me how humanity is better by saying "what's moral is what we think is moral" -- give me some sort of reason based argument that isn't premised on "it makes us feel better."
It's this line of thinking that allows extremism, hatred, and tyranny. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and even those originating the ideas of relativism would accept that.
The popular myth of racism (Score:3, Interesting)
ZNet Commentary
Not Everyone Felt That Way September 12, 2005
By Tim Wise
When I was a kid, I remember my maternal grandmother defending Richard Nixon for the crimes of Watergate, because, as she put it: "He didn't do anything any worse than what every other President did." Knowing, even at six, that this was hardly a morally compelling justification for one's actions, even if true, I recall how it infuriated me to hear it over and over again, w
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:3, Insightful)
The absence of ethics isn't itself a form of ethics. And ethics isn't a "mood".
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:2)
1 - (1 - 0.007)^70 = 38.8% is the figure you are looking for assults which can reoccur.
and less than 0.279% for murders (which can't)
And that's over your 70 year lifetime
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:3, Insightful)
"No matter how you slice it, dice it, or spin it, it all boils down to the fact that copyright infringement involves the acquisition of something of value, without the permission of, or compensation to, its original creator(s). People who want change in the business models used by the content providers NEED TO STOP FUNDING THE CURRENT MODEL."
This makes a great deal of difference. The creators never owned the copy that the
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:3, Interesting)
Only a minority of the slave keeping population seemed to object at the time. Ethics and morality change judging the past by todays standards it ludicrous. IMO, grandparent or whatever is spot on.
Maybe one day the pressures created by the ease of commiting piracy will lead to a more mature society with much more freely available enjoyment.
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:2)
Moriality tends to be more arbitrary in its constituent values, and often must be bostered by religion or other form of mass credulity.
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:2)
And what did the slaves think?
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you are mixing your example a bit here ...
Is slavery ethical ... we currently don't think so. Was slavery deemed ethical back in the day, well I'm sad to say that I think it was! Gradually the idea of slavery became less and less acceptable until it was eventually outlawed, but it was obviously an accepted part of society for many years, not least in africa where the various tribes would take slaves from each other
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, before we do that, let's look a little deeper. Copyright used to last only 14 years. Now it is 70ish years beyond the death of the creator. It has been extended and expanded well beyond it's useful function, and is a horrid aberration of its original intention.
Murder today only applies to the willful killing of a human being. Should this law be extended the way copyright law has been extended
If ALL those things were now considered to be murders, then you would definately have a murder rate comparable to the rate at which copyright infringement occurs.
If all that were true, then yes
To properly answer your question, I would successfully argue that both laws were bad.
While I will agree that this argument initially sounds ludicrous
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:3, Informative)
It has been a long time, a very long time, since copyrights expired after only fourteen years.
In 1831, U.S. copyrights wwre extended to twenty-eight years. in 1909, renewals to twenty-eight years. In 1976, the U.S. adopted the Berne formula of life plus fifty years. Copyright Timeline [cni.org]
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:2)
Just because 0.00004% of the population might get murdured in a given year doesn't mean that the laws aren't needed to maintain the government's monopoly on violence, but the original poster was pointing out that when the behavior of the people is out of whack with the action of the government, the government is at fault first, then the people, not the other way around.
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:2, Insightful)
Regards,
Steve
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
What percentage of the 18 - 40 year old public (roughly the heart of the burglary market, I would guess) engages in burglary?
What percentage of the 18 - 40 year old public engages in copyright infringement?
At least an order of magnitude difference there, right?
If murder were at the same rate as copyright infringement, would you argue that both were bad laws, neither were bad laws, or only one?
Both. I'll avoid the straw man you've set up by mixing the moral issue of murder with the legal matter of homicide. Ask yourself this - in societies where the percentage of the population that engages in homicide reaches double digits, isn't it obvious that the laws are broken? South Africa, Tombstone, Yugoslavia, Boston in the 1770's, Nicaragua, South Central LA, The Gangs of New York, Paris before The Revolution - in every case homicide became commonplace because the laws were enforced inconsistently and/or prejudicially. What is more wrong in those cases; fighting for your way of life or letting the injustice stand? We celebrate the people who committed homicide in the name of The American Revolution. So yes, when homicide becomes as commonplace as copyright infringement is today, it loses it's objective, absolute "wrong"-ness.
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:2)
Better numbers and all that.
When I meet a single person... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe there is something wrong with the law. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen NO creative thinking about IP rights. There's a lot of talk, but very little serious progress.
Maybe history is a guide. For example, did you notice how libraries made all publishers go bankrupt? Not.
Did you notice that television and video tape recorders utterly destroyed the movie industry? Not.
I don't download music. However, if I did, it is obvious to me that I would get interested and would buy more CDs.
I had several very bad experiences with the music industry and their marketing methods. The industry is extremely adversarial toward its artists and its customers. Over time, that caused me to listen to music less and less. What I'm seeing however, is that music industry leaders want to fix their problems without fixing the problems they create for me.
The world is dominated by people who believe that interacting with other people requires fighting. In fact, the only real solutions to social problems come from thinking.
Re:When I meet a single person... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you vigilant?
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:4, Insightful)
In the old days of mom and pop ISPs, when profit margins were (relatively) high, and the Internet was more of a wild frontier, the ISPs often fought tooth and nail to keep from giving away even the most innocuous of customer data to anyone. These days, however, the mom and pop ISP is virtually nonexistent, and the margins in the ISP business are not sufficient to allow any ISP to protect the rights of its clients.
The Internet is still the most "free" of all available media, but that status is definitely under threat. As more powerful and wealthy interest groups bring more pressure on ISPs and other content publishers, the more difficult it will be for the average Joe to find a place where his voice can be freely expressed online.
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:3, Interesting)
Huh? Never has there been such a place with so little editorial responsibility. Unless you want to run around putting up posters, the simplest way to spread information that is too controversial, quaint or even illegal to end up at any publisher is to put it on a website, send it out by email, irc/dcc, post to newsgroups, whatever.
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. (Score:2)
It's not difficult or expensive to stop people hosting their own stuff at home. Instead of an ISP blocking inbound port 25, 80, 443, etc, they could block *everything* inbound barring a few exceptions. The vast majority of people do what on the Internet?? Read email, surf the web and chat via IM. None of those need to allow an inbound SYN packet on *any* port. Well, maybe the IM client
freedom aint anything if no one hears (Score:2)
Informaiton only counts to the extent people hear it. If WalMart can spend 100 MM dollars telling people how happy employees are, and mistreated employees can spend 0.01, whoose message gets heard
This article SHOULD have more comments, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
...but it is obvious that even the large readership of the slashdot community is either ill informed, indifferent, or uncertain about this issue. Even the article posted at 230am has more activity! This should frighten you!
Make no mistake...the governance of the Internet and the fight for its control is the most important issue currently at stake. Period. Wars will subside, politicians will be replaced, the world will keep turning. However, if the core principles driving the Internet are not preserved, we as diverse citizens of all nations will forever have lost something magnificent.
I have been on the Internet for a long, long time. I remember BBSes at pathetic baudrates, when emails didn't travel between ISPs, when there weren't any advertisements online whatsoever. Those of you that remember these changes and are able to see the Internet --- not as it is nor for what it has become, but for what it must be --- please educate the masses. It must exist as a free, uninhibited enity and REMAIN independent of the infrastructure through which it is accessed. Should the day come when borders and binding structure is imposed upon the Internet, we will all have truly lost the most important medium for communcation, commerce, and culture ever created.
Re:This article SHOULD have more comments, but... (Score:2)
Or maybe it's just because the essay's been Slashdotted.
I sense a great disturbance in the force (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Well... (Score:2)
Greed... (Score:5, Interesting)
That and pride are the two things causing the current dark ages of the internet.
And make no mistake, we are in what future scholars will call the dark ages. We have this wonderful tool for communication which would enable vast networks of not just information, but concepts and ideas to be shared globally. And we are letting ( yes, letting ) big companies/governments take control and destroy this wonderful tool. All to satisfy some board of share holders, or some CEO's pride.
Whether they see us as the depth of the dark ages, or the beginning is the question I worry about.
Re:Greed... (Score:2, Funny)
And those scholars will be in what future scholars will call the mauve ages.
Re:Greed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Further, it isn't just technology that is interconnecting. The entire world is interconnecting. China, EU, and the US are all so dependent upon each other that any sort of conflict between them is unthinkable to the point that loss of one could lead to a collapsing (or at least crippled) society in the others.
Look, I am not saying that everything is rosy colored and wonderful, but point to a time in history that was better. Do you long for the brutal dictatorships that existed almost exclusively up until the past few centuries? Do you miss the wonderful days of the industrial revolution when it was common place to die early and lose a hand in hazardous machinery? Maybe you miss the days of American expansion westward and European colonialism that chewed up the natives they got in the way. Do you long for the days when a married woman couldn't own property, much less vote? Maybe you miss the good old days of New Deal, complete with withering racism and World War. Maybe your nostalgia only reaches back a couple days and blindly forgets the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the ever present and very real threat of nuclear annihilation, and starvation in the millions that afflicted pretty much everyone on the Asian content. If this is the Dark Ages, what the hell exactly was everything that came before this time?
This is only "The Dark Ages" is you are a jaded liberal who has some how managed to shrink his view of history down to the past 6 years or so. Stop, take a deep breath, and realize that 6 years is a hiccup in the grand scheme of things. Further, even in those 6 years things have gotten better despite Bush's ham fisted blundering. Further still, things are better now then they were at any other time in history.
Honestly, take a deep breath and realize that the world isn't so bad. You can post angry rants on Slashdot, you clearly have an Internet connection, chances are you can vote, and I imagine you probably are not starving. Those four things alone make this time in history better then all the times before it. Relax and don't let today's day to day politics get you all worked up and taint your view of history in the long term.
Re:Greed... (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose it all depends on whether you look at the glass as being half full or half empty. In this day and age we have the power and the technology to ensure that nobody is starving, that nobody has to die from poverty or war or famine. All it takes is a little money and little will.
Re:Greed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't take my comment that liberals think the world is coming to an end as a statement against liberals. My point was more that liberals are more inclined to look for the doom and gloom over the past few years and declare that the world is about to come to an end. Pick a broad liberal ideal; civil rights, health care quality/coverage, infant mortality/life expectancy, hunger, tolerance, wages / hours, whatever, it is better today then it was 50 years ago. We are even more well off if you look a 100 years back. Look 200 years back and the difference is so stark that it isn't even a meaningful comparison. The liberals are winning.
If anyone has reason to cry doom and gloom it is actually the right wing folks. All of their 'morality' issues are being hacked to pieces. There is more sex for non reproductive purposes, greater acceptance of homosexuals, proportionally fewer marriages, more broken homes, and all of the bread and butter of a conservative platform. Hell, the fact that we are at the point where we can even have a gay marriage debate is rocking conservatives to the core. Just 15 years back, talking about gay marriage would illicit roughly the response of talking about bestiality.
I suppose it all depends on whether you look at the glass as being half full or half empty. In this day and age we have the power and the technology to ensure that nobody is starving, that nobody has to die from poverty or war or famine. All it takes is a little money and little will.
There certainly is more that could be done, but the relics of the past do not easily die. There is no amount of money, technology, and will that could make North Korea a happy place unless by 'happy place' you mean 'war zone'. War and famine are political problems. No one in this world should starve. Not only do we have more then enough food for everyone, but we are trying to get that food to the people. Somalia is a perfect example of this. Somalians are not starving because the rest of the world is unwilling to feed them. Somalians are starving because short of going in guns blazing, we can't we can't keep our aid out of the hands of warlords. In fact, this very dilemma is what resulted in the US invading Somalia. We wanted to give them food. We had the food and the means to get it there; we just needed to keep warlords from taking it. If you recall, things didn't go so well when we tried to intervene (IE see Black Hawk Down).
So sure, we could certainly do more, it just boils down to disagreement as to how to do more (does globalism hurt or help?), and the problems with humans some times sucking no matter how much power and technology you have. The larger point is that even though we certainly screw up, fail politically, and in general act like the imperfect humans that we are, we are still steam rolling forward. Things are getting better. A political charged look at the best 6 years might make you think differently, but the second you look at this era from a historical point of view, it quickly becomes clear which direction things are headed. Now is a great time to be alive.
Re:Greed... (Score:2)
You might want to google senator Rick "man on dog" Santorum. He made that exact comparison recently.
Re:Greed... (Score:4, Insightful)
On most of those fronts, we are in poorer shape than we were in 1970. Tolerance is a little better now. Health 'coverage' is up, but in 1970, you could afford routine care on just your wages.
Literacy is down. Truth in government is down. Government spending has gone to the point of self destruction. The government asserts that it can lock you up forever without a trial and without even access to lawyers. The PATRIOT Act's effects still haven't been fully understood. Civil rights, in other words, have never been in worse shape in this country. Average wages and living standards in this country are WAY down.... a small segment of the population is doing very well, while most folks struggle harder and harder with each passing year. Infant mortality is way up. Hunger is way up.
This country is broke, way past broke, and it's only the largesse of strangers(foreigners buying dollars, mostly) that allows us to continue functioning at all.
Re:Greed... (Score:3, Informative)
Were you alive in 1970? I was 8 years old and I remember it. Tricky Dick was president, Vietnam was in full swing. Inflation was at 6%, heading to 13% by mid-decade. If you were black and lived in the South in 1970, you'd have a different idea of the state of tolerance today. You might want to talk to somebody who was working in 1970 to find out about paying for health care. Routine care was covered by insurance - and we spend less o
Re:Greed... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think both you and the grandparent are right: to me you seem to be discussing different things. Indeed we are seeing great advantage, but if mankind is still alive 750 years ahead in time, the humans living in that age will think we were a bit silly and 'medieval'.
If grantparent would have made the same argument in the middle ages, you could have succesfully made the same sort of counter argument: "Look at the cities, our churches! We have the Word of our Lord now! And we have a justice system!"
IMHO gra
Re:Greed... (Score:2)
when people stop caring for their freedoms, handle more and more power to government/church/corporations without receiving it back, in other words, when people get tired of thinking for themselves, this is the beggining of a dark age.
nobody, except a few, cares anymore if the reason for a war is the greed of a few corporations and their puppet-president, nobody cares if the consolidation of large corporations would hurt them by allowing price fixing and monopolistic pratices, n
Re:Greed... (Score:3, Insightful)
Toys.
Where is any mention of _culture_?
Aren't we in a war right now on the excuse that our nation can march in and replace another nation's 4,000 years of culture with our own as easily as Epcot Center would replace one national exhibit with another? Barbarians. Our leaders don't have a clue what culture _is_ or that it exists as a force to recognize.
And they hate science on top of it. Anyone with cable now has access to documentaries on the ma
Umm, not sure what 'net you are on (Score:3)
So what's the dark age you are talking about? What is destroying the net
Re:Greed... (Score:2)
Where do you think this "wonderful tool" came from?
Re:Greed... (Score:2)
Oh, but no one remembers the finer points of whose money it was that got the whole thing started. That always seems to be the least relevant point for some reason. I wonder why...
this is just silly (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look throughout history, in all cultures, if people find something to be useful, no amount of government or corporate intervention or regulation will dissuade those people from doing what they want. Despite most citizens not giving a shit about voting in government elections, very few people will stand by and allow a government or corporation to take away something they want. It just does not happen. This happens all over the world, in all cultures, and when this stand-off becomes a big enough event, it makes the news as a "revolution".
So no, the internet isn't going to be flushed down the tubes by ISPs or whatever, because consumers will not allow it.
Re:this is just silly (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, statements like this illustrate exactly why this will happen. The problem is the "consumer" attitude people have these days. Newsflash: "consumers" are cattle. Make no mistake: the "consumers" will not only allow this, they'll let themselves be deluded into thinking they like it. Witness the people even here on Slashdot who talk about how the DRM on iTunes is "okay because it
Re:this is just silly (Score:2)
Really? Aside from pounding your fist, shouting, and cursing on Slashdot, what have you actually done about it? Angry cattle are still cattle.
Re:this is just silly (Score:2)
Re:this is just silly (Score:2)
Big words. Too bad they don't mean anything.
For starters, if they did, you wouldn't feel the need to pepper your statements with profanity.
Then, there's your tacit request for support, ("Now, who's with me") and the utter lack of any specificity. If they don't treat you as a "customer
Re:this is just silly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:this is just silly (Score:2)
Let's look at this as a logic problem:
Re:this is just silly (Score:2)
Oooooo.....
Can I have your baby?
Re:this is just silly (Score:3, Insightful)
Read some history books. Apartheid, Slavery, The War of The Northern Aggression (and its aftermath), Native Americans, The Strikebreakers (the early 1900s ones), The East India Trading Company, The Aborigines. Heck, I don't even know much history and I can rattle off that list of corporate backed and long-lived oppression. Those things lasted decades, ce
Searls overstates his case (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Searls overstates his case (Score:2)
Everyone knows that fiercely competitive ecosystems never get slaughtered down to the last species. The internet will survive!
Re:Searls overstates his case (Score:3, Insightful)
Once, we had DSL choice here in Southeast Texas. There were at least three companies with DSLAMs (DSL modems) around Beaumont. Then SBC went crying to the FCC, paid off both major parties, and got permission to block anyone else from using their facilities and to remove wholesale prices that local ISPs used to resell DSL services. So now, DSL service runs only about twice as fast as ISDN for about the same price as the RoadRunner service (avg. 6Mbps),
Slashdotted Already (Score:2)
You mean the **AA? (Score:3, Insightful)
**AA Didn't Drive Bittorrent (Score:2)
Not true. Bittorrent was created to solve the problem of serving a single file to many users, without overloading the server the file resides on. It was used for perfectly legitimate purposes long before it started getting popular as a means to illegally distribute media. The RIAA had nothing to do with its creation.
Your point is right, though. If it wasn't for the bad guys, we wouldn't have a lot of the good
City, Where Are You? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's called City Come a Walkin. [communitywiki.org] It was published in 1980. William Gibson had some nice things to say about it. [darkecho.com]
The problem, in the book, is the problem we're seeing here. Some rich club mob wants to take over the Internet. They want to control the communications system, and they want to be the gatekeepers of what all will go over the wires. And they're using it to leech off of, and eventually control, society.
Cities have a way of becoming self-aware. In the book, we meet San Fransisco: City. And we meet Sacramento, briefly. (She looks like a prostitute, apparently.) Chicago's also got a soul- in a living man. New York. Phoenix. The major cities- They start to take on a life of their own.
And they fight as hard as they can against the network controllers. But... "When the city comes a walkin' we'll all be obsolete."
I don't want to spoil it.
Demonizing CEO Whiteacre? (Score:5, Interesting)
Somehow, Searls extracted some hideous meaning from these comments. He wants to ask Whiteacre a bunch of deep questions about the Net and freedom. I don't think Whiteacre could answer any of them; nor should he.
Re:Demonizing CEO Whiteacre? (Score:5, Insightful)
We'll see about that.
They pay for transport to their local provider. That it isn't SBC does not matter.
What SBC seems to want to do is to require everyone to be their customer in order to carry their traffic on SBC's network.
Look at it as if it were telephone traffic. In that case, it is as if they would not complete any telephone calls unless the calling party and the called party were both customers of theirs.
Or, more accurately, they want to charge long distance tolls. I guess for your $30 per month, you will be able to connect to your local town without paying additional fees. If you want to connect to the next town, you're gong to have to pay more.
I never understood the rationale for franchise fees other than just another way to stick it to the public.
Re:Demonizing CEO Whiteacre? (Score:2)
Perhaps a better analogy is a road or highway. Imagine SBC owning a stretch of highway. Imagine they start tracking vehicles, so they can invoice couriers and other commercial users for a 'cut'
I Have ADD (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I Have ADD (Score:3, Informative)
Grassroot MANs Are the Solution (Score:2)
The control freaks often get control. (Score:5, Insightful)
The control freaks often get control. In the past, their power over the Internet has been limited by their extreme technical ignorance. Now, more and more, they are hiring technically knowledgeable people to corrupt and diminish the freedom.
If the healthy people don't assert their authority, the corrupters will debase the Internet as they debase everything else they touch.
The ceaseless activity of those whose only life is money and who want to make one more dollar has already caused limits to VOIP, for example. The communications companies want to protect their easy profits. They use VOIP, but they don't want us to do it without their permission or without their profit.
The Net? (Score:2)
In America... (Score:2)
1. Nobody else in the world worries about Freedom in the way Americans do - like it was something divine, more important than anything else. What we in the rest of the world think about freedom is simply that we can live our daily lives without too many restrictions and without fear. What I think about the American obsession with Freedom (TM) can be summed up thus: If you're starving, all you can think of is food; if you're thirstin
Re:In America... (Score:2)
We haven't lost much. . . yet. And many people haven't noticed or don't care because various issues don't appear to affect them personally. Our liberty has been nibbled away around the edges. But there are always some who are affected and some who do care. And they fi
Re:FREEDOM! (Score:2)
People forgets what the internet is (Score:2)
Because it is so simple and basic, it is very close to the very definition of communication, and in order to stop it from working it would be neccesary to stop communication at all. I mean, you can inplement TCP/IP over pigeon transport or whatever means of communication is available to you (telephone , radio, messengers, snail mail, etc)
At the minimum, this days bussiness
Tubes? (Score:2)
Could someone condense it? (Score:2)
Re:Could someone condense it? (Score:2)
The Internet may be forced to devolve into Cable TV, so we need to read George Lakoff's book and start talking about the Internet as a place in order to save it.
(...tongue firmly in cheek. OK, so I agree about the devoling part.)
What a windbag (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe this guy should leave computers alone and go far away and do something completely different for a year. Great way of clearing the head. Perhaps he'd get some new perspectives on life and find he'd gotten a better writing style too.
Bob Young, who recently stepped down at Red Hat, made a very important point the other day. The present generation of lawmakers may be clueless about IT, but they are reaching retirement age now. The next generation is a lot more knowledgeable about IT having grown up with it for most of their adult lives. Over the next 5-10 years, expect lawmakers to show a more sophisticated approach to IT legislation and a lot less indulgence towards big corporations and cartels trying to pull a fast one. If this is true - a big if but not unlikely - then Searl's dire predictions are not going to happen.
This guy is a hack! (Score:3, Funny)
I mean, he loses credibility in the first sentence.. "This is a long essay. There is, however, no limit to how long I could have made it.". Of course there is a limit!
We all know that the number of computer bits that man could ever possibly compute [physicsweb.org] is 1.35x(10^20), so his essay could *never* be more than that long, or else it would neve rbe completed.
Foolish!
Danger, Internet Robinson. (Score:3, Interesting)
The Internet is wonderful and useful, because it is free. It's freedom is a fragile thing. Forces of ignorance and outright evil are attempting to gain control so they can profit, at public expense of course. If they succeed, freedom will be a collateral casualty. The war is fought at the most elementary level, human language. Those who convincingly define the issues can frame the debate in a manner that assures victory. The other side has won victories by defining the Internet experience in terms of content = property = scarce resource. We have content providers, content carriers, and consumers. And this is the wrong way to view the Internet. The Internet is a commons, where everyone can have their place and publish anything they want. We have to change the debate now! Stop letting these forces define the issues by getting there first and defining them the way WE want, or we'll lose the Internet! Write your congressperson! Join the EFF today!!!
That's how the article sounded to me. Very black and white. I think some of this is justified, but I object to several things here. First off, the tone of the thing: the article makes up a category with two pigoenholes, stuffs everyone into one or the other, declares one to be right and the other to be wrong, and exhorts the "right" side to go to war to defend us. It's as if the forces on the "wrong" side know very well they are in the wrong, but have made a conscious decision to be evil because evil is profitable. Except they don't know they're wrong, or evil. They are convinced they are right. The response is good intentions lead to hell, and they ought to know better, and therefore they are still evil. But we don't know all that. What seems dangerous to me is this "if you're not with the Internet, then you're against it" attitude that could push a lot of neutrals to the "wrong" side. Worse is singling out some and tarring them as evil-- could anger multifaceted entities with genuinely sympathetic views if this is done in error.
Second is the presumption that the freedoms and Internet are fragile. The implication is that it wouldn't be so fragile if we weren't so dumb, and I don't buy that. There are simply too many people with too much at stake to allow the Internet to fail, or to be given over to a narrow consortium of interests, or turned into a morass of censorship and patronizing guidance of consumers to products. Many people are too smart to be hoodwinked into going along with such dastardly schemes, and too smart to swallow those lines about it being "for own own good". This illustrates a basic problem with liberals and democrats. They evidently don't see that most people can see these dangers too, and go way out trying to "educate", not realizing that they are actually insulting our intelligence. Most everyone who has experienced DRM quickly perceives what a bad deal it is, and if they don't, need only hear what would be possible if not for DRM and what used to be possible to conclude on their own that they've been had. Ironic that well meant but snobby and elitist efforts to save us from being turned into cattle and suckers talks down to us as if we already are. And ironic that their efforts to strengthen the freedoms and Internet through "better" govt regulation may actually be the greatest danger facing the Internet.
So what should we be doing? Fighting evil, or educating, or inventing and debating? Or just relax because it'll all turn out all right in the end? Do no harm....
More of a dimwit speech than an impressive essay (Score:2)
* lack of structure: half the time I don't know why he suddenly starts talking about something
* biased semantics: calling us the chosen ones, the underdogs and the other guys sharks and goliaths is very florid, but when somebody aims for my ego, I usually assume that he doesn't have the arguments to aim for my mind
* supposition: he talks a lot about what companies (ve
War (Score:2, Insightful)
I personally believe the internet is worth fighting for, perhaps not physically, but logically.
Mirror (Score:3, Informative)
Please Enlighten Me O Ye Saviors of Freedom (Score:2)
Re:Timing? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Getting rid of the trash. (Score:2, Funny)
Not to mention TWO, TOO and TO.
Don't forget about YOU'RE, YOUR and YORE.
Oops, almost forgot ITS and IT'S.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Re:Getting rid of the trash. (Score:2)
Re:Getting rid of the trash. (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all, it's impossible to force everyone to do anything. Second, it's impossible to massively delete every single site on the Internet. Third, even if you got every "web-host" to assist you, you still wouldn't get half the sites because they're hosted directly on the owner's machine. Fourth, web sites are not the Internet. There's IRC, Usenet, email, ftp, and about a million other protocols -- there's even still gopher!
Finally, and most importantly, your entire idea is wrong.
Re:Getting rid of the trash. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Getting rid of the trash. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. Block port 80. boom - most of the sites on the internet are gone.
And that is exactly the sort of thing TFA is talking about. Pay us, or your site goes bye-bye.