With the means of distribution for such content removed or made economically nonviable, such action would be very effectively prevented.

HR 4077 will have this effect.

Try reading what Lessig has written. If you place this act in context, it is a step towards a final situation that will leave you guys unable to post anonymously and collaboratively.

but if you are wrong, then the enforcement options provided under HR 4077 reflect a minimum of what will be needed so that the people can exercise their consumer choice.

Removing people’s choice does not ensure that they have a choice. Kinda the opposite in fact. HR 4077 represents a minimum needed to shore up an outmoded business model, stifle innovation and restricting consumer and artistic freedom.

I read it.

The counterculture was a product of social and economic change, not a driver of it. It has since been successfully commodified.

The idea of a new counterculture does not account for the chilling effects of universal DRM embedded in technology and law. If the RIAA/MPAA can get P2P outlawed, hardware and software that isn’t locked to DRM will be next. After all, by distributing an OS like Linux that you can remove the DRM from by recompiling, you are INDUCE-ing copyright piracy. Without access to the means of production, distribution or consumption, where and how will the counterculture flourish?

your logic may be clear, simple, and inescapable to drivers of trablants and ladas, but we don’t quite agree.

but fair enough. we don’t have to agree on everything, but perhaps we can agree that it is best to let the people decide.

the problem paul huges is that the people will not be able to decide if you do not permit DRM technologies to exist and you do not allow the minimum level of effective enforcement that HR 4077 aims to provide.

it seems to us that NOTHING in HR 4077 will prevent a copyright owner from offering their own, original content for free, or under minimum copyright restrictions such as creative commons.

it will however, enable others (less visionary than you) to exercise the minimum level of control over their property needed in the digital age.

if you are right paul hughes, then in 10 years no one will want to pursue to enforcement options available under HR 4077 and it will not matter what Congress writes into it.

but if you are wrong, then the enforcement options provided under HR 4077 reflect a minimum of what will be needed so that the people can exercise their consumer choice.

In terms of WORLD use, Linux is gaining a greater percentage of the marketplace on the desktop. As for the back-end server market it is AHEAD of Microsoft. The reason is that Linux is still more difficult to use and install than Windows, so logically its going to spread faster through technically adept circles. Each day, Linux’s marketshare grows, and Microsoft Diminishes. We are now seeing the same thing with Internet Explorer and its competitors. In the last 3 months, Microsoft has watched as Firefox has eaten into it’s market share by a wide margin. I”m not aware of the figures, but Firefox is on course to become the dominant browser on the internet.

Mojo, did you read my Counter Culture 2.0? If you have, I would like to see your rebuttal. I think I have clearly outlined how non-DRM memes will spread further, faster and wider than DRM memes. The logic is clear, simple and inescapable. Non-DRM media will overtake DRM media. It’s only a matter of time. My prediction is that within 10 years that the dominant pop culture of the modern world will be predominantly non-DRM.

They “understand”… all too well. They understand what they are paid to understand, and what others are paid to make them understand.

“(5) The security and privacy threats posed by certain peer-to-peer networks extend beyond users inadvertently enabling a hacker to access files. Millions of copies of one of the most popular peer-to-peer networks contain software that could allow an independent company to take over portions of users� computers and Internet connections and has the capacity to keep track of users� online habits…
(6)The public should be educated about the security and privacy risks associated with being con-nected to certain peer-to-peer networks.”

If this is the logic behind the bill, shouldn’t Congress also be considering a campaign to educate the public about the security risks involved in running a Microsoft operating system?

And despite all of the rhetoric about the dangers of the peer-to-peer networks, it looks like the actual teeth of the bill essentially seek to re-write penalties for copyright violations by individuals. The just want to more strongly encourage “businesses that run publicly accessible peer-to-peer file sharing services” to implement more controls (apparently mis-understanding the very nature of peer-to-peer networks as nearly uncontrollable by any single source and generally not run by businesses).

This sure indicates a sad state of understanding of the technology world in general, and copyright issues in the digital age in particular, on the part of Congress.

Not being able to work in the open on music (etc.) distribution on the Internet undermines what makes the Internet work so well: things happening in the open. I think even “free” things, blocked out of the open, have a lot less value and use.

Being both a musician and an Internet tech developer, it’s discouraging to imagine either endeavor being relegated to a black market.

The very concept “library” was the first nail in the coffin of so-called “intellectual property”. “Peer-to-peer” is an apt designator for the “we’re all in this together” movement that blurs the line between artist/audience.

Love.