Berners-Lee Speaks Out Against DRM, Advocates Net Neutrality 187
narramissic writes "Speaking before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Tim Berners-Lee advocated for net neutrality, saying that the Web deserves 'special treatment' as a communications medium to protect its nondiscriminatory approach to content. Berners-Lee's more controversial statements came on the topic of DRM, in which he suggested that instead of DRM, copyright holders should provide information on how to legally use online material, allowing users the opportunity 'to do the right thing.' This led to an odd exchange with Representative Mary Bono who compared Berner-Lee's suggestion to 'having a speed limit but not enforcing the speed limit.'"
Flawed analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Speed limits (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM comapred to speed limit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Flawed analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Using a rate limiter velcroed to the dashboard.
Which obscured the driver's vision.
And stopped the car completely when it turned onto non-toll roads.
bad analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be more like enforcing the speed limit by legislating that car wheels have to be squared!!
Re:Flawed analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite. A theoretical open DRM that never prevented you from doing things that were legal would be like what you describe. His reply should have been something like this: "DRM in any practical sense assumes that ALL copying is illegal, regardless. It is the practical equivalent of having a limiter set at 15 MPH because anywhere you drive, 15 MPH will be within the speed limit. This prevents a lot of legal use as well, though, and I'd imagine that 15 MPH limiter will go over really well on the beltway." That's a reference that they'd all understand....
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Speed Limits (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, here in Virginia, it seems that the speed limit serves only to fund the police.
Honestly, if the speed limit were posted as a suggested top safe speed, I think we'd still be ok.
Research has shown that regardless of the speed limit, almost all motorists will drive roughly the same speed on the same road, indicating that most people have common sense and will find a "max safe" speed that they're comfortable with. Some people will speed, some will go far slower. But when a speed limit is lowered below this "natural speed", it only serves to line the coffers of the Police, filling their quotas.
For instance, here in Blacksburg, they've just recently decreased the speed limit of Patrick Henry Drive from 35 to 25. This road is four clearly marked lanes, has a sidewalk on both sides, a bike lane, and is clearly lit with streetlights on both sides of the road. Why is it 35? I dunno, but I can tell you there have been a lot more police on it since then.
I really believe that if the powers that be started enforcing reckless driving statutes - ticketing people for weaving in and out of traffic, not using signals, etc - and stopped enforcing speed limits, we'd have fewer accidents and everyone would be happier (fewer "speed traps"). But then, I'm a firm believer in less police and that police should "Keep the peace", not "enforce the law".
It'll never happen, though, cause old people are the only ones that vote anymore (cause it's all they have left to look forward to, other than death and the daily delivery of the mail), and they all drive at 15mps regardless of the speed limit (causing more problems than people who speed).
~Wx
"Special treatment" not required (Score:5, Insightful)
Common carrier is an essential part of all of our transportation networks. The reason you can go to Kinkos and send a package, regardless of what's in it, is common carrier. The reason you can make phone calls to Cingular with a Verizon cell phone is because of common carrier. Without it the transport company can refuse or degrade service as they please.
Re:DRM comapred to speed limit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:For once "education" is in fact needed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:For once "education" is in fact needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I do believe that one should pay for what one receives, and I've no problem buying music, but I'd just rather buy from a source that is as close as possible to the creator. That way, as much of my money as possible goes to the creative elements of our society rather than the parasitic ones. Take iTunes: yes, Apple gets very little of the vast stream of raw dollars pouring into it's DRM-constricted throat, but the people actually producing that music don't get even that much. The rest is picked off by businesses that have litte raison d'être in the Internet age.
But that is nothing new in and of itself. Middlemen generally suck, when you get right down to it. But pinning down who, exactly, is a "victim" is not always so black-and-white, and given that many of the "victims" here are organizations that have criminally abused their own customers it's hard to work up much sympathy.
In truth, the recent corruption of IP law in this country is turning a nation of people into victims, in many ways. Think about that for a moment. Something isn't right, and it can't all be laid at the feet of P2P technology and downloaders.
It amazes me to hear people like you rambling on about "jail terms" for civil violations like copyright infringement. Apparently you've bought into the idea that downloading a song is somehow the moral equivalent to a violent crime. It's not, never has been, and copyright law never said so. Heaping on more penalties isn't the solution. Besides, copyright infringement is already against the law, and given the extreme penalties that could already be (mis)applied to an individual I don't see how tougher laws would help.
A freer-market is the solution, one that is not controlled by a handful of abusive corporations. That would be better for both the content creators and their customers. Bad for the middlemen, but odds are we won't miss them.
Re:Flawed analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
"Moreover, Congress LIKES voluntary compliance on things like pollution standards... as long as it's for corporations. Why the double-standard?" They'd understand that argument, though they wouldn't like it.
If DRM is enforcement, it is *private* enforcement (Score:4, Insightful)
It's one thing for the police to enforce the law. It's quite another for private companies and individuals to do so. If DRM is enforcement, then it's private enforcement: companies interpreting and applying the law according to their own standards, and without oversight.
Of course, as you correctly point out, DRM itself is not enforcement. It takes people to enforce a law. Devices can only enable and prohibit specific behavior, but that's a far cry from the active human reasoning required to apply the law.
I have often seen copy protection and DRM measures described as "speed bumps" for pirates, which is a much more accurate characterization. Although again, these speed bumps are private, interfering in a public space (i.e. restricting legitimate activities of the public).
Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean, what if I proposed that we "educate" people that it's my *RIGHT* to be paid continually for something I did once? Perhaps a "teacher right" that gives teachers a share of the revenue their students make from their teachings? After all, that would surely encourage people to teach each other, right? What could possibly go wrong?
P.S. You owe me big time for reading this post.
Re:Mary Bono is Clueless (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know. Apple's patents are all available on the internet free of technological copying restrictions. What's protecting them is that fact that copying [the ideas in] the patent is unlawful, ie they have exactly the same protection as hypothetical DRM-free Sonny & Cher MP3s.
Re:If DRM is as good as dead, what's the solution? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:For once "education" is in fact needed (Score:3, Insightful)
The deal was that content creators would get a limited period of control as an incentive to create works that would then go into the public domain. Increasing the time limit tenfold, and continuing to increasing it so that nothing will ever enter the public domain is clearly breaking that deal. When companies have used a loop-hole (that infinity-1 qualifies as "limited") to completely violate the sprit of a law, is it really surprising that people don't respect it?
Re:For once "education" is in fact needed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Speed Limit Analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually the current system for limiting a car's speed is not dynamic. It's preset to a specific speed, for instance 110 mph.
A system that dynamically governs your car's speed has not been invented. What would it use? Maybe it would use RFID tags that were embedded in the road. I'm sure no one could put a spoof tag in the road and of course we can't guarantee that your car will be able to read it in adverse conditions, which would cause problems when you're coming off a 25mph residential street on to a 75 mph highway. So RFID tags are out, but put up any system and there will be problems.
The current manufacture installed governor system works because it is inherently uncomplicated whereas any dynamic system would have a lot of room for error.
If the world were perfect it would make sense to perfectly enforce rules but the world is not perfect and it's better to leave an imperfect gray area to deal with it. There are too many strange and different situations that might need you to go faster than 25 on a residential road to try to blanket force everyone to go the speed limit.
If we, as a society, treat everyone as children that can't be trusted they will act like children and we will not be able to trust them.
Re:For once "education" is in fact needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Because until recently, they could. If you wanted your music published, there were only a few ways to go. That has of course changed. The music outfits would like, very much, to return to those days.
Re:Flawed analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
(Though they are now offering "pre-litigation" settlement options).
Re:Flawed analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually it is perfectly legal to drive with the limiter removed. The law makes it criminal to reach out and remove it... even if you keep the car in your garage or drive it in your back yard. If someone else reached out and pulled the rate limiter off when you weren't looking, you're legally A-OK driving the car on the public highways with the rate limiter removed.
And by the way, the same law also makes it criminal to "traffic" in any piece of paper with instructions saying how to reach out and pull it.
-