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.'"
Why can't (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As nauseating as that may be, isn't that less nauseating than the general population of "legitimate" legislators making the same comments and same arguments and voting exactly the same way... other legislators who don't get quoted on it in the mainstream media simply because they aren't the show-biz bubblehead widow with a special and obvious ti
Flawed analogy (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(Though they are now offering "pre-litigation" settlement options).
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Bono's just plain daft. The faster you drive the more likely you will inflict serious harm. The more drm-less mp3s you download the more likely you are to bore people senseless talking about your bulging mp3 collection.
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....
Re:Flawed analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
Wish I had points to mod you up. Instead, I'll just extend your edition of the analogy, as it'd be like...
Re: (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.
Driving LESS THAN the speed limit is illegal too! (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not even the same as that, because driving more than 20 MPH lower than the posted speed limit is illegal.
Re:Driving LESS THAN the speed limit is illegal to (Score:4, Informative)
For example: I can bring my car to a dead stop, legally, on a city street. If I go to the interstate, I must go at least 40 mph.
This has nothing to do with sensible driving, but the legality of it. If I drove 40 mph on the interstate I would greatly endanger everyone from going painfully slow.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite true either...if you are doing more than 15 MPH under the speed limit on nearly any road, then you are pretty much required anywhere (no matter
Re:Driving LESS THAN the speed limit is illegal to (Score:2)
Around here the speed limit includes something about road conditions.
Re:Flawed analogy (Score:4, Interesting)
- It knows what the speed limit is, and:
- it is illegal to go either over the speed limit or more than 15MPH below the speed limit.
In other words:-
once you hit a highway with a speed limit of 65MPH, you would be forced to go between 50MPH and 65MPH. If traffic forced you to go below 50MPH, your only option would be to come to a complete and immediate stop.
- Note that in the city (where speeds near 30MPH are more common), this will mean that you will be allowed to go betwwen 15MPH and 30MPH.
- If weather, road conditions and/or visibility problems would otherwise require that you drive below the normal, stated speed, it would still prevent you from 'breaking the law' (read: drive at a safe speed).
- Once you chose the 0MPH option out of the 50/0 option, it would immediately slam on the brakes and bring you within the law (i.e. stopped) as quickly as possible. (If you are towing a trailer, it had better have good brakes or you're gonna be fishtailing all over the road
... the RIAA's solution to this will probably be to ban all trailers [[ which will cause serious problems for the trucking industry]]).
- When you decide to resume a "legal" speed, the governor will floor the gas, and attempt to (once again) bring you in compliance with (it's interpretation of) the law. If you do not achieve 50MPH within 15 seconds (e.g. towing a heavy load up a hill), it will then slam on the brakes again.
Some results:Re: (Score:2)
I was really looking forward to reading it, but it's just a set of empty directories.
Speed limits (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Speed limits aren't enforced, with rare exceptions (speed traps). In general, only egregious violations (== unsafe driving) are pursued. Applying this model to
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a source for that?
In all the cars I've ever owned, from Acura Integra's to VW Golfs to Porsche 911s I have never encountered a 'speed limiter'.
Several of the cars did have 'rev limiters' which prevented the engine from going too far past the red line. But those are there to prevent over revving in 1st/2nd, not to limit speed in 5th or 6th. Most cars can't even reach their
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, I tried on a straight track (not on the road), the car woudl refuse to budge beyond 155 on its own power.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people, it seems, learn that their car, or even many cars, have speed limiters, and then assume that all cars have these limiters, and this just isn't the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re:If DRM is enforcement, it is *private* enforcem (Score:2)
Re:If DRM is enforcement, it is *private* enforcem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if you disagree with the speed limit for a certain part of road? What if your local authorities keep lowering the limits?
speed limit? (Score:2)
DRM comapred to speed limit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ford (pure example now) decides that their trucks can no longer be used offroad (say they get some bad press for rollovers or something), they enforce it by making their trucks unable to go offroad (limiter that detects something other than 'road material' under the truck). The sales of new Ford trucks plummets after the announcement (some people still buy them beca
Taking a step back (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, the subcommittee can recognize that the federal government won't pass laws regulating content and then, in the next week, they can dump billions in social security funds into private investment brokerages which invest in only organizations which maintain pro-Mormon, pro-Catholic, pro-Abortion, pro-Prohibition, pro-War websites. Or they can go home and privately invest only in companies which are pro-Duracell, pro-Pepsi, or pro-Guatemalen. Or they can wait for the next spending bill to come along and selectively filibuster any measures which are pro-Smoking, or pro-Cheetos, or pro-Ford.
Let's not allow the trees to obscure the forest. The only way to achieve net neutrality is to divest the government of their power to direct the flow of a significant portion of the GDP. As long as the federal government directly collects a significant portion of the GDP in tax money, and indirectly regulates the remainder, "net-neutrality" is nothing but lip service.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because leaving things entirely in the hands of the multi-national corporations is guaranteed to ensure that they'll have a sudden ch
Re: (Score:2)
The government is the only organization that can ensure net neutrality
It wasn't always this way though we haven't known anything different in our lifetime. With resignation I agree with your sentiment: when playing within a rigged system it is necessary to follow at least some of the rules and adhere to some of the guidelines.
Still, though, I would much rather see a complete decimation of the federal stranglehold on financial control of the nation. It would be better for the entire nation to spend a year in collapse and rediscover the virtue of decentralization than for t
bad analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be more like enforcing the speed limit by legislating that car wheels have to be squared!!
gah (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Unenforced speed limit? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If I can't afford to buy a guitar, it doesn't mean I can go out a take one illegally because they cost more then I am willing to pay.
Of course, it is balantly obvious to everyone that's just an excuse so you can get free shit.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 th
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
"The public" is not all of one mind.
Not everyone has a computer with tetra bytes of storage. Broadband service. Not everyone can afford the 200 pack of DVD-Rs.
Not everyone loves the Geek for stealing a copy of a movie he had to buy or rent or go without.
Until its mutilated release on broadcast tv or basic cable.
The Geek is far too quick to mod down as Flamebait the bare suggestion that his d
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"For reasons of fairness, people also need to be taught that it's not a crime -- it is a tort (which has a victim by definition). Since it's a tort, it is up to the victim, not the police, to enforce this law."
In the United states, it's both. This is what the "severe civil and criminal penalties" phrase means on the FBI warnings on DVDs, but I'm guessing most people reading this get their movies via BT with the FBI warning redacted.
If anybody's interested, here's the relevant section of US copyright l [copyright.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you underestimate that law.
506. Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or
Felony charge for uploading an Academy screener (Score:2)
Think again.
(AP) - LOS ANGELES-A man was charged with copyright infringement for allegedly uploading the computer-animated film "Flushed Away" after getting a copy from an Oscar voter.
Salvador Nunez Jr., 27, faces up to three years in prison if convicted of the felony count. He was scheduled to a
Weird choice of argument (Score:2)
Bono questioned if his idea would prevent mass stealing of copyright materials. "Is that not the equivalent of having a speed limit but not enforcing the speed limit?" she asked.
[...]
"What is the enforcement for speeding?" he said. "The enforcement for is not that the car grinds to a halt. [Instead of DRM] I'm inclined to make software to allow people to do the right thing first."
Why on earth did he choose to turn aside that argument in lieu of taking it head on? This is an EXCELLENT analogy to turn to his own uses imo. Speed limits in almost any country I know of seem to have a good 10 units of measure (km/h or mp/h) leeway it seems as to whether the speed limit is enforced or not. This seems to me to be an excellent analogy to the black and white way the **AA's attempt to enforce the DRM rules currently versus the grey area that SHOULD exist with regards to fair use.
Can someone e
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that precedent is slashdot and it's ever-raging car analogies.
Sarcasm aside, I fully agree with you.
Not only does it highlight the disparity between enforcement of copyright laws versus safety laws (ie. there is a lot more focus on laws to make billions off sucker^H^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers than laws to stop people from dying). But also, this "speed limit" analogy is preci
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
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the "max safe" speed that some people are comfortable with, isn't necessarily the speed at which they are *safe*. You might be a perfectly competent driver, and stay within your means. There are an *awful* l
Re: (Score:2)
Try your idiotic stunt in Germany on the autobahn and you'll probably cause a fatal accident.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure there's exceptions for things like this.
I heard about someone else in my state who had a road-rager tailgate him, get pissed when he slowed down, then pull around and in front of him, and slam his brakes on, causing this person to rearend him and sustain serious injuries. The police i
Re: (Score:2)
Here in NZ, the Automobile Assoc did a survey of all members to find
out the types of driving that concerned them the most.
Turns out there were two ranked waaaaay above all others:
41% said they hated tailgaters
42% said they hated slow drivers.
hmmmm an interesting correlation.
Re: (Score:2)
Mary Bono is Clueless (Score:2)
Look at how part of the conversation went:
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Not to mention the countless DRM-free records and CD's published in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... good luck with that.
She's the same psycho that addressed Congress with this gem:
Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is also Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that ne
Speed Limit Analogy (Score:4, Interesting)
But actually it's a pretty interesting analogy.
You don't have to have cars engines cut out, you just have to require governors be installed that limit the speed to, say , 65MPH. If you visited a place like Montana, you could have the governor adjusted upward. If you were driving on a private speedway, you could set it as high as your car would go. But if you were caught driving over the governor limit on a public road, you'd be subject to severe penalties.
What makes this interesting is that the argument for installing governors on cars is stronger than the argument for enforcing DRM.
WHAT IS ACCOMPLISHED:
DRM enforcement: increase copyright holder's profits.
Speed governors: saves lives, reduces strategic dependence of foreign oil, reduces insurance costs.
COSTS:
DRM enforcement: restricts users from doing some things that they have a legal right to do.
Speed governors: restricts users from doing things ONLY if they are clearly illegal.
IMPACT ON FREEDOM:
DRM enforcement: restricts fair use of information for critical, educational and political purposes
Speed enforcement: prevents police from arbitrarily stopping/fining people.
I'm not saying I'm for putting speed limiters on cars. I'm just saying anybody who sees DRM as an appropriate way of enforcing the law should also be for limiting how fast cars can go.
Re:Speed Limit Analogy (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And it's a good thing, too. Have you checked your gas mileage at 0.9c lately?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So -- Lets say for a moment it's a good idea to drive 90mph with your pregnant wife in the passenger seat. Let's say that you can drive like a hollywood stunt driver on public streets without endangering other folks.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course this could never malfunction and make your car grind down to 25 mph on the highway. FUD. If it were true, then it should be happening now. I know for a fact that some cars limit the top speed in software. So far as I know there haven't been cases of this.
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
Re: (Score:2)
FUD. If it were true, then it should be happening now. I know for a fact that some cars limit the top speed in software. So far as I know there haven't been cases of this.
I think you misinterpreted.
The OP mentioned at the beginning of the post:
Yeah, it would be great if your car dynamically knew how fast you could go based on where you were.
This would be a great deal more complicated than a hard limit set in a car's internal software, especially with possible security concerns. I don't think any cars have dynamic speed governors ... at least yet.
Patent protection quote (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DRM is preempti
"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: (Score:2)
Poor analogy (Score:2)
Background information on the Bonos (Score:2)
Call me cynical, but (Score:2)
Congrats (Score:2)
Bono's Patent Comment (Score:3, Informative)
Umm... They are, at www.uspto.gov. There is no "patent protection" keeping people from the information. If Steve wants to enforce his patents, he can file a civil suit, but the information in the patents themselves is available to all.
Re: (Score:2)
www.uspto.gov only meets one of those criteria.
Re: (Score:2)
A Reply to the Senator's Speed Limit Comment (Score:2, Interesting)
The proper retort. (Score:2)
Speedlimit analogy quite apt (Score:2)
This is a very good analogy. If you live in Texas, you'll note very few moving violation stops are ticketed on intercity highways (in major cities like Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio. Not so much in smaller towns like Corpus Christi, Amarillo, El Passo, and such).
This is because of the danger to the officer and the small numbers of officers av
background on Mary Bono (Score:4, Informative)
The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998--alternatively known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act or pejoratively as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act--extended copyright terms in the United States by 20 years. Before the act (under the Copyright Act of 1976), copyright would last for the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship; the act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and 95 years respectively. The act also affected copyright terms for copyrighted works published prior to January 1, 1978, increasing their term of protection by 20 years as well. This effectively 'froze' the advancement date of the public domain in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this act, no additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still copyrighted in 1998 will enter the public domain until 2019...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_ Term_Extension_Act [wikipedia.org]
and here's something from her entry in Wikipedia:
Bono said in May 2006 that she depended on royalties from Sonny Bono's estate to supplement her US$165,200 congressional salary in order pay her son's college expenses. In addition, in 2006, it was reported that she had received $30,000 from the later-indicted Jack Abaramoff.[7][8] In her official 2005 filing, Bono stated that her income from royalties and dividends was between US$402,000 and US$3.3 million
Insert your punchline here!
Re:The punchline? (Score:2)
And people elect this wo
'having a speed limit but not enforcing the speed' (Score:2)
Better analogy (Score:2)
DRM is not like arresting people that are guilty of doing something, it is like preventing them from doing it (or other things they are allowed to do) in the first place. Comparing it to speeding, it would be like this:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not impressed with this woman. I agree with one of the earlier posters
Re: (Score:2)
I find it amusing as well. First off, Jobs never suggested removing copyright protections, he just advocated getting rid of DRM. Big difference. Copyrighted work is still protected by copyright law, with or without DRM.
Secondly, any and all patents that Steve Jobs has are already available on the Internet for free [uspto.gov] . They're right out there for anyone who wants to read them, copy the ideas, and infringe on his patents. How on earth does the man sleep at night?
Not really (Score:2)
Using Mary Bono's analogy, DRM is more like a car that will only let you go 20kmh, even on the freeway. If we continue this analogy, people should get arrested for breaking copyright.
This analogy is really quite good: almost everyone speeds. There are very few people who only go the posted limit. Very few are really caught. Those caught are handed a minor rebuke, unless they do it a lot. Police let most speeders
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Enforcement of speed limits: Police watch out for offenders, and fine people who break the law.
Enforcement of copyrights: Known copyright infringements are punished according to relevant copyright laws.
That's how it's done, and always has been. The RIAA will still have a legal basis for suing single mothers-of-three for a zillion dollars, which seems to be their favourite hobby.
Re: (Score:2)
B) It has been proven that most people will pay for content online even if they can get it free. Look at Apples online sales.
C) The market has the last word, always. If there is no longer a market for buying music and movies, then the industries go away. People will still make music and movies, it will just be different.
D) If it turns out the market doesn't want to p
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)