Proposed Declaration of the Rights of Netizens - Ideas wanted
Michael Hauben
We Netizens have begun to put together a Declaration of the Rights of
Netizens and are requesting from other Netizens contributions,
ideas, and suggestions of what rights should be included. Following are
some beginning ideas.
The Declaration of the Rights of Netizens:
In recognition that the net represents a revolution in human
communications that was built by a cooperative non-commercial
process, the following Declaration of the Rights of the Netizen
is presented for Netizen comment.
As Netizens are those who take responsibility and care for the
Net, the following are proposed to be their rights:
o Universal access at no or low cost
o Freedom of Electronic Expression to promote the exchange
of knowledge without fear of reprisal
o Uncensored Expression
o Access to Broad Distribution
o Universal and Equal access to knowledge and information
o Consideration of one's ideas on their merits
o No limitation to access to read, to post and to otherwise contribute
o Equal quality of connection
o Equal time of connection
o No Official Spokesperson
o Uphold the public grassroots purpose and participation
o Volunteer Contribution - no personal profit from the
contribution freely given by others
o Protection of the public purpose from those who
would use it for their private and money making purposes
The Net is not a Service, it is a Right. It is only valuable
when it is collective and universal. Volunteer effort protects
the intellectual and technological common-wealth that is being created.
DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE NET and NETIZENS.
Inspiration from: RFC 3 (1969), Thomas Paine, Declaration of
Independence (1776), Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
Citizen (1789), NSF Acceptable Use Policy, Jean Jacques Rousseau,
and the current cry for democracy worldwide.
[Note: I have posted this message to several newsgroups because it needs
broad input and discussion by many users. Please feel free to circulate
this message and post followups accordingly - but please leave
alt.amateur-comp and alt.culture.usenet as part of the discussion.]
Bengt Larsson
>
>
>We Netizens have begun to put together a Declaration of the Rights of
"We"? :-)
>The Declaration of the Rights of Netizens:
>
>In recognition that the net represents a revolution in human
>communications that was built by a cooperative non-commercial
>process, the following Declaration of the Rights of the Netizen
>is presented for Netizen comment.
This smells anti-commercialism in general (and not in the specific)
to me.
>As Netizens are those who take responsibility and care for the
>Net, the following are proposed to be their rights:
>
>o Universal access at no or low cost
No. I think it's insane to define that as a "right". It doesn't
cost much, anyway.
>o Freedom of Electronic Expression to promote the exchange
> of knowledge without fear of reprisal
That's freedom of speech
>o Uncensored Expression
ditto
>o Access to Broad Distribution
As a right? No way.
>o Universal and Equal access to knowledge and information
>o Consideration of one's ideas on their merits
>o No limitation to access to read, to post and to otherwise contribute
>o Equal quality of connection
>o Equal time of connection
>o No Official Spokesperson
>o Uphold the public grassroots purpose and participation
>o Volunteer Contribution - no personal profit from the
> contribution freely given by others
>o Protection of the public purpose from those who
> would use it for their private and money making purposes
>
>
> The Net is not a Service, it is a Right. It is only valuable
> when it is collective and universal. Volunteer effort protects
> the intellectual and technological common-wealth that is being created.
> DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE NET and NETIZENS.
Idiotic to define these things in terms of "rights". IMO.
>[Note: I have posted this message to several newsgroups because it needs
>broad input and discussion by many users. Please feel free to circulate
>this message and post followups accordingly - but please leave
>alt.amateur-comp and alt.culture.usenet as part of the discussion.]
I removed the soc.culture.* groups.
The way to do it is to require companies building a "Super
Data Highway" to provide equal bandwidth and connectivitity going out
as going in (to people's homes, for example). Then let it sort itself
out. Enforcing the basic requirement of the data connection being two-way is
the sort of thing a government could usefully do on a data highway.
I read this in news.admin.misc. We don't get alt.politics.datahighway.
--
Bengt Larsson - ben...@maths.lth.se
Erik Naggum
| As Netizens are those who take responsibility and care for the
| Net, the following are proposed to be their rights:
In the Clinton Era, a "right" is something you are entitled to and can
demand from others and/or the government, as opposed to something the
government could not deprive you of, as it was in the days of the
Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. It is therefore
fitting that every "right" you mention has somebody "providing" it, and
that those who "provide" are slaves of those whose "rights" they fulfill.
"Consideration of one's ideas on their merits"? What happens to me if I
don't? Do I get punished? "Equal quality of connection"? What happens if
I have a very high speed/high quality connection? Must I reduce it? Will
I be forced to share it? "No personal profit"? What if I want to pay
someone?
Your "rights" are statements and means of controlling people, and will only
stifle creativity and productivity on the Net, if implemented.
| The Net is not a Service, it is a Right.
It used to be "The Net is not a right, it is a privilege".
| It is only valuable when it is collective and universal.
Is it worthless now? I don't think so.
| DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE NET and NETIZENS.
Who are you threatening? Who are your enemies, Michael Hauben? Have I
become one since I think your idea has negative merit, and you don't? Will
you force me to relinquish my 19.2 leased line and my own class C net
because you don't have the same? Must I refuse paid projects if someone
thinks I have written good technical articles on a topic where they need
help?
Your "rights" are no more than the clamors of whining losers, not of Real
Netizens. Real Netizens pay for their connectivity by work and/or money
and will fight for their _right_ to buy connectivity from whomever they
want, without _government_ control. Real Netizens don't need "low cost",
"equal access", "equal quality" or "equal time" (whatever that means; it
reeks of "BBS"), they put their money where their mouth is.
Best regards,
</Erik>
Coordinator: NAGGUM-NET, 193.71.66.0
Citizen of the Net since 1985.
--
Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> <SG...@ifi.uio.no> Memento, terrigena.
ISO 8879 SGML, ISO 10744 HyTime, ISO 10646 UCS Memento, vita brevis.
Rahul Dhesi
[ socialist nonsense ]
At whose expense are these rights to be exercised?
(Presumably not yours.)
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@rahul.net>
also: dh...@cirrus.com
Karl Denninger
Oh, c'mon Rahul, you know the answer, don't you?
Those of us who have, must give to those who have not. At gunpoint, if
we don't comply willingly with the manifesto.
Nevermind that this has been tried, and it has been a dismal failure in
every case so far. The reason is obvious -- when people get no reward for
excelling at what they do, they stop bothering to try.
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.COM) | MCSNet - First Interactive Internet and
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | Clarinet feed in Chicago. Send email to
Voice/FAX: [+1 312 248-8649] | "in...@mcs.com" for more information.
Randy Bush
> We Netizens have begun to put together a Declaration of the Rights of
> Netizens
Which, in the draft form you presented, is the ultimate bit of fascism I
have seen in many years on the net. Congratulations.
--
ra...@psg.com ...!uunet!m2xenix!randy
Mark E. Mallett
>Netizens and are requesting from other Netizens contributions,
>ideas, and suggestions of what rights should be included. Following are
>some beginning ideas.
OK, here's my contribution.
1. The NET is immensely valuable.
2. I don't want to pay anything for it.
3. The government should give it to me for free!
4. I get to control it.
-mm-
Oh, and:
5. Ford can't be on it. Nyah Nyah.
--
Mark E. Mallett MV Communications, Inc./ PO Box 4963/ Manchester NH/ 03108
Bus. Phone: 603 429 2223 Home: 603 424 8129
Looking for Internet access in southern NH / northern MA? Try MV!
Mail to in...@mv.mv.com for autoreply, or login as "info"/ 603-424-7428 (7E1)
Robert Raisch
your own personal worldview down the throats of those who actually built this
Internet? What gives you the right? Who the hell do you think you are?
The Internet is for everyone. This is simple truth. It is for you, with your
distortions and "unique" perspective on the genesis of this marvelous medium.
It is for me, to sell information and help others to realize an honest profit
from an honest day's work. It is for those who sell shell access and dedicated
connections. It is for researchers and teachers and business-people and just-
plain-people. It is for those who hold unpopular opinions. It is for all of us.
If the Global Internet was a single, measurable thing.. If it was centrally
managed and controlled... If it was paid for, IN ITS ENTIRETY, by tax monies...
If it was subsidized, IN ITS ENTIRETY, by one government... If it was all
these things, you might have some reason to impose your will upon us. But
Michael, it is not.
The Internet extends into my home and into my office. I *OWN* those portions
of the Internet and you cannot tell me what I may or may not do with them.
Any attempt to do so will be met with the same fervor and passion as those
before me who met another oppressor at Lexington and Concord. Come into my
home, dictate what I might do with my money and my resources and I will most
assuredly be there with musket and powder, ready to defend my rights.
And just as I OWN my network, so others OWN their networks. And what they
choose to do with their networks is their business, not yours.
Dictating others actions against their wills is facism, Michael, no matter
how you cover it in sugary rhetoric and visions of social utopia.
The thing which really bothers me is that even after a large number of
intelligent, knowledgeable people have taken great time and effort to show you
both how your particular characterization of the network and its citizenry
deviates from fact, you continue to speak as if your word were the only
gospel worth following.
In these days when anything that includes the magic I-word strikes sparks in
the public consciousness, your blinkered and ill-informed ravings are causing
a great amount of harm. Your attempts at historical revisionism and ivory-
tower elite-ism are spreading half-truths and misconceptions cloaked in your
own personal vision of a socialist fantasy world.
If the Internet --and all it represents in terms of personal communications and
social enablement-- is to succeed, we need to present this marvelous invention
in its true form --cleanly and clearly-- without distortion and
misrepresentation. We have enough problems showing that we are not simply a
haven for crackers and copyright violators. You are not helping the Global
Internet, my friend. You are harming it.
</rr> --Rob Raisch, The Internet Company
---
If there is such a thing as "Sin", I would imagine that at the very top of the
list, there is a special place for those who continue in ignorance while
repeatedly presented with unassailable fact.
Edward Vielmetti
: Michael, why do you persist in this inane attempt to rewrite history and force
: your own personal worldview down the throats of those who actually built this
: Internet? What gives you the right? Who the hell do you think you are?
Far be it from me to defend a point of view that I find untenable
(when brought to its extremes), but I'm much more likely to believe
that Mr Hauben has just as much right to put forth a set of opinions
as anyone else.
There are some ideals about the net - including the thought that
anyone with access and some determination should be able to put
forth their own personal world view on their own time without having
to pay some greedy capitalist (like myself) for the privelege -
that sometimes get lost in the murk of commercialization.
: The Internet extends into my home and into my office. I *OWN* those portions
: of the Internet and you cannot tell me what I may or may not do with them.
You do not "own" your own network access by virtue of having a
connection extended to your home or office, no more than you "own"
the power grid by having a wall outlet that delivers electricity.
While cash does exchange hands at various times along the way, the
basic structure that holds the world wide flow of data together is
extensive cooperation.
You may consider yourself to "own" parts of the net, but several
very simple actions by others could "disown" you of resources you
thought were yours. Someone could sue to take your domain name
away, block routing of your network from parts of the global internet,
refuse to take your money for services, even block access to otherwise
"free" network resources were they sufficiently peeved.
: In these days when anything that includes the magic I-word strikes sparks in
: the public consciousness, your blinkered and ill-informed ravings are causing
: a great amount of harm. Your attempts at historical revisionism and ivory-
: tower elite-ism are spreading half-truths and misconceptions cloaked in your
: own personal vision of a socialist fantasy world.
Oh get off it. The net has always had a bunch of people with a bunch
of different ideas about how things work (and how things should work).
Any number of people have put a different spin on the way that things
"should" happen, and there have been disagreements going back many years
on what way developments should proceed. Pointing to one argument
that you don't agree with and taking it as "a great amount of harm"
is way overstating the case.
: We have enough problems showing that we are not simply a
: haven for crackers and copyright violators. You are not helping the Global
: Internet, my friend. You are harming it.
Fooey.
Look, if you don't like the Hauben's version of the history of the
net, assemble your own rendition and propogate that in its stead.
There's plenty of source materials, and you have plenty of network
bandwidth available to you to promote it. If they are so wrong
rebut them, counter them, print your own.
But to pronounce them as Threats To the Global Internet, that's
by no means anything reasonable at all.
Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc. e...@Msen.com
Msen Inc., 628 Brooks, Ann Arbor MI 48103 +1 313 998 4562 (fax: 998 4563)
msen info addresses: in...@msen.com - Michigan $20/mo public access Internet
occ-...@msen.com - Online Career Center jobs database
Edward Vielmetti
: The Net is not a Service, it is a Right.
I think it's time to pull out my "What is Usenet? NOT" piece and
re-run it again (it's been a few months) - the one that goes
> Usenet is not a right.
Usenet is a left, a right, a jab to the jaw.
The postman hits! You have new mail.
Robert L. McMillin
> Michael, why do you persist in this inane attempt to rewrite history
> and force your own personal worldview down the throats of those who
> actually built this Internet? What gives you the right? Who the
> hell do you think you are?
[deletia]
Indeed. It pleases me no end to see the number and spirit of those
who have come out against this silly "I found my rights in your
wallet" grabbiness that the socialist twins, Michael and Ronda Hauben,
have propounded here and elsewhere. I think it probably comes as a
great shock to them but the Internet is actually terribly
individualistic; in its very design is the breath of liberty. It
hates and I believe will ultimately defeat the kind of centralization
that Mr. Hauben would need to implement his Christmas list.
--
Robert L. McMillin | r...@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: r...@netcom.com
13442 Wilson St. | Garden Grove, CA | 92644
voice: 714-638-2459 | fax: 714-638-2384
I'm only a guest at surfcty.com; THEY certainly wouldn't have these opinions!
E. Lloyd Olson
Michael, a saying comes to mind: "Freedom of the Press only
applies if you own one." As of now, you have total freedom of
electronic expression. You are free to buy any data processing machine
you feel like. You are free to put whatever sort of data you want on
it. You are free to connect it to any other machine in the world, as
long as that machine's owner wants to be connected to yours. Now,
whether you can effectively exercise these freedoms depends on many
things -- not least among them your pocketbook. But no way can you
expect me to pay to help you exercise them. That's like me stating that
because I have "Freedom of the Press", you are obliged to buy me a
publishing company. As a great American comic put it: "Homey don't
play that." I remain,
-Yrs. in Fear & Loathing,
E. Lloyd Olson, Esq.
PS. You may reply: "But I'm not saying *you* have to pay for it."
Sorry. Doesn't wash. If equal net access is a right, something has to
be done to ensure the availability of access. The only way to do that I
can see is to fund some type of freenet with government money -- that's
taxpayer money -- and that is *my* money. Tanstaafl.
>
>Inspiration from: RFC 3 (1969), Thomas Paine, Declaration of
>Independence (1776), Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
>Citizen (1789), NSF Acceptable Use Policy, Jean Jacques Rousseau,
>and the current cry for democracy worldwide.
>
Please. Thomas Paine would never claim that the government is
required to provide free media access for citizen expression. And most
of my friends here at the University condemn Rousseau as a fascist. (I
have not personally read him. I suppose I should, just so I can tell
everyone how wrong he was.) <- That's a joke, Ah say, a JOKE, son.
--
/-------------------------------------------------\
| E. Lloyd Olson, Esq. | rep...@cs.montana.edu |
| "Life's always intense with Repoman." -Miller |
\-------------------------------------------------/
Ian Staples
>On Mon, 3 Jan 1994 03:27:58 GMT, rai...@netcom.com (Robert Raisch) said:
>> Michael, why do you persist in this inane attempt to rewrite history
>> and force your own personal worldview down the throats of those who
>> actually built this Internet? What gives you the right? Who the
>> hell do you think you are?
>[deletia]
>Indeed. It pleases me no end to see the number and spirit of those
>who have come out against this silly "I found my rights in your
>wallet" grabbiness that the socialist twins, Michael and Ronda Hauben,
>have propounded here and elsewhere.
The pessimist in me suggests the flavour of the majority of responses
to date is a function of the time of year. Those who would support
Michael may have temporarily dropped connection in surf, snow, or
alcoholic haze. Fortunately, the theme may have expired here before
they come back. :-)
--
Ian Staples E-mail : ia...@dpi.qld.gov.au
c/- P.O. Box 1054 MAREEBA Phone : +61 (0)70 921 555 Home 924 847
Queensland Australia 4880 Fax : +61 (0)70 923 593 " " "
Brian K. Yoder
>We Netizens have begun to put together a Declaration of the Rights of
>Netizens and are requesting from other Netizens contributions,
>ideas, and suggestions of what rights should be included. Following are
>some beginning ideas.
Why do you think there are any special rights regarding net use beyond those
guaranteed by the US Constitution? I realize that the net goes all over,
but it is hard to expect that in any country it is reasonable to expect
different treatment for the net than any other communication medium. The
most important right regarding the net is that the government has no business
censoring net content in any way other than regarding fraud or violent
activities. All we have to say is that the freedom of the press applies to
the net just as much as to newspapers. It is true that the government has
encroached on our various rights over the past several years and that
various communication medial are subject to ensorship (particularly
electronic media), but the solution is not to make special provisions for
the net, but to put the government back in its place.
As a means of preventing censorship and other nasty business, I also recommend
that the government refrain from building any network facilities other than
those associated with use at government institutions. Remember, he who pays
the piper calls the tune.
>As Netizens are those who take responsibility and care for the
>Net, the following are proposed to be their rights:
Except you don't want to have to pay for it, right? What else do you
call "care of the net"?
>o Universal access at no or low cost
Ahhh, your first demand...the right to pick someone else's pocket to pay for
your services. That's not a right, it is a crime.
How about right to make voluntary contracts regarding network access?
In the good old days we didn't have to make a special provision that we
have a right to make voluntary contracts. Did someone repeal that right?
Or has it just been ignored and trampled on?
>o Freedom of Electronic Expression to promote the exchange
> of knowledge without fear of reprisal
What is a reprisal? If you post something horrid does that mean that
everyone still has to like you? That they still have to deal with you?
That you can't be prosecuted if you post a description of how you axe
murdered someone?
>o Uncensored Expression
What does that mean? That you can send annoying 10K messages full of Xs
to someone by the hundreds? Is that an "expression"? That anyone I
want to send stuff to must accept it? Who will draw these lines? The
all-powerful government? You?
>o Access to Broad Distribution
What does that mean?
>o Universal and Equal access to knowledge and information
What knowledge? Does that mean I have to let you read my diary if you want to?
Can you read my private E-mail? Does that mean that if I spend a million
dollars assembling some useful information I can't charge you to get access
to it? Does that mean that if I want to pay someone for some information
he can't send it over the net?
What happened to your "no censorship" rule?
>o Consideration of one's ideas on their merits
How do you propose to guarantee that? Do you have a right to have people
understand you and be nice to you?
>o No limitation to access to read, to post and to otherwise contribute
What happens when 100 people decide to bury the net in traffic? Must they
be allowed to do so?
>o Equal quality of connection
Ahh, so if I want a 14.4bps connection I have to buy one for everyone else in
the world first? Why is this a right anyway? Looks like another case where
you want someone else paying for your goodies.
>o Equal time of connection
Same thing goes here.
>o No Official Spokesperson
What are you trying to be?
>o Uphold the public grassroots purpose and participation
That's a meaningless sentence.
>o Volunteer Contribution - no personal profit from the
> contribution freely given by others
That's not a right, that is you putting your foot on the throat of people
who mutually desire to trade. If something is freely available from someone
the price at which it is seld by someone else will approach zero anyway.
What are you worried about? Afraid someone might make some money by providing
a useful service? Your socialism is showing.
>o Protection of the public purpose from those who
> would use it for their private and money making purposes
How about if we protected the public good and prohibited the use of the net
by those who woud use it for socialist rabblerousing? Look, open access to
everyone includes open access to people who are interested in buying and
selling things. You may not like such people or such usages, but that's
tough.
Is someone wants to buy some computers and connect them together and use them
to make money, what business do you have poking your nose into their
business and telling them not to do that? Who elected you dictator?
> The Net is not a Service, it is a Right.
That is absurd. Pray tell us on what theory of rights you base this ludicrous
claim? It is pretty clear from your posts that you don't believe in rights
at all and have no justification for any particular theory. In fact, all
your little laundry list above indicates is how it is that you would like
to see the government force everyone to act as you desire. That's the opposite
of rights regardless of how you mislabel it.
> It is only valuable
> when it is collective
Oh really? Pray tell us why only collectivist enterprises can be valuable.
Given the number of times collectivizing resources has been tried and failed
it is amazing that anyone thinks they can pull the wool over our eyes again.
It is only valuable as long as it is free of force and fraud, and that can
only occur when it is a matter of private enterprise defended by the
government, not when it is a matter of government-invented "rights" provided
by an enslaved industry.
> and universal.
A non-universal net has no value?
> Volunteer effort protects
> the intellectual and technological common-wealth that is being created.
> DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE NET and NETIZENS.
>Inspiration from: RFC 3 (1969), Thomas Paine, Declaration of
>Independence (1776), Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
>Citizen (1789),
You either didn't read or didn't understand either of them.
>NSF Acceptable Use Policy, Jean Jacques Rousseau,
Rousseau was a pretty nasty character who promulgated some rather fascistic
views regarding ethics, politics, and life in general. No wonder you like
him.
>and the current cry for democracy worldwide.
Rights and democracy are generally opposite principles. Apparently you didn't
read your sources too closely, nor did you think about them very hard.
It is important to consider what rights are and why we have them before
claiming that certain rights are or are not applicable. Clearly the
poster thinks that rights are just "nice things the government does for you".
That certainly has nothing to do with the enlightenment view of individual
rights this country was founded on, and it cannot be morally justified either.
Maybe we should establish a second thread in which we can discuss the
basis for claiming that a certain right does or doesn't exist.
--Brian
--
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Brian K. Yoder | "The children who know how to think for themselves, spoil |
| byo...@netcom.com| the harmony of the collective society that is coming, |
| US Networx, Inc. | where everyone (would be) interdependent" --John Dewey |
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Bertil Jonell
>o Access to Broad Distribution
"But you *have* to carry alt.fan.bertil.jonell, it is my *right*!!!"
>o Universal and Equal access to knowledge and information
"I have the *right* to know your password!"
Yeah, riiight...
>o Consideration of one's ideas on their merits
"If you disagree with my ideas, you have not considered them on their
onw merits! It is my right to force you to agree with me!"
>o No limitation to access to read, to post and to otherwise contribute
Serdar, Terry, ARF and BCPU will _love_ this...
>o Equal quality of connection
>o Universal access at no or low cost
>o Equal time of connection
You'll buy me an internet node of my own? Great! A sparc would be nice by the
way.
> DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE NET and NETIZENS.
As far as I've noticed, the talk about 'netland' and 'netlanders' fell out
of favour between 1989 and 1991.
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
Richard Foy
I have read many followups to this post. Most are condemnations of
socialism. Most seem to imply that the free market will take care
of every thing.
For your information I currently have access to Internet using a high
speed modem for a flat charge of $17.50 per month, no time charges,
no line charges, additional storage charges over 5Megs.
I think it is great.
>
>
>Net, the following are proposed to be their rights:
>
>o Universal access at no or low cost
I would like to see the net continue to be a low priced medium of expression.
I would like to see the price drop as the cost of providing connectivity
drops with the improvement in technology.
>o Freedom of Electronic Expression to promote the exchange
> of knowledge without fear of reprisal
>o Uncensored Expression
>o Access to Broad Distribution
>o Universal and Equal access to knowledge and information
>o Consideration of one's ideas on their merits
>o No limitation to access to read, to post and to otherwise contribute
I would like to see these types of benefits remain at least as good as they
are with the service I use.
>o Equal quality of connection
>o Equal time of connection
>o No Official Spokesperson
>o Uphold the public grassroots purpose and participation
>o Volunteer Contribution - no personal profit from the
> contribution freely given by others
>o Protection of the public purpose from those who
> would use it for their private and money making purposes
>
No comment on these points at this time.
I am not sure how much if any of the cost of my service is borne by the
taxpayers. I suspect that it is close to zero.
Thus with the continuing rapid evolution in computing and communications
technologies, the cost of providing service will go down. My only question
is will the price of service go down accordingly.
I am concnerned that it will not. What concerns me is the mad rush of the media
giants to reap the potential profits. They are the people who have most
influence in Washington. I am concerned that when the dust settles down, we
will find that the fine print in the legislation relating to Internet,
data superhighway, FCC, or what have you will be such that it will favor
those who want to derive close to monopolistic control over the net, what
ever that term will come to mean in the future.
From what I read in various places, I suspect that the cost of providing
Internet like services with full two way video etc will drop to what it
currently costs to provide my current modem connection in 5 to 10 years.
I doubt that the price will do the same.
So while I don't agree with Huebans general approach to net control, I do
agree with his general objectives. However, I believe that his general
objectives and mine are most likely to happen if netland is provided by
a large number of relatively small companies like the one that now provides
me my service, rather than becomes dominated by the large corporate media
giants.
I think it behooves people, who want the net to be more like what it is now
than like the commercial TV system is now, to not simply condemn suggestions
like those of Hueban. Rather they should think more seriously about what is
happending in Wahington and elsewhere and try to influcence the future
so that the Net becomes something that they would like it to be.
--
"We live in a sex-phobic culture that encourages the manipulation of
sex as a tool of power, not as an expression of intimacy."
--Mary Newcombe
rf...@netcom.com | Richard Foy | Redondo Beach CA
Ed Moore
: As Netizens are those who take responsibility and care for the
: Net,
Those who ultimately "take responsibility for the Net" are those who pay
its costs. Do I understand that you, then, are offering to pay the costs
for running the Net?
: the following are proposed to be their rights:
:
: o Universal access at no or low cost
This is a very elitist view. The number of citizens who would like Net
access and cannot afford to pay the current price is IMHO far below the
number who would like "universal access at no or low cost" to food, housing,
medical care, automobiles, etc. So if society grants your "right" for what
you want it to provide, it is ignoring the wishes of a larger number of
citizens.
: o Uncensored Expression
Including kiddie porn? Even the local newspaper draws the line *somewhere*.
: o Universal and Equal access to knowledge and information
Who gets paid or coerced into producing that knowledge and information?
Many extremely valuable bodies of information are collected at considerable
cost and sold to recover those costs, IN PAPER MEDIA. What constitutional
basis would you use to prohibit that information flow through the Internet?
: o Equal quality of connection
After generations, the telephone companies cannot deliver this. Is the
Net ready for this requirement at this early stage in its life?
: The Net is not a Service, it is a Right.
I consider that I have a right to buy Internet service, just as I have
a right to buy electric service, telephone service, cable TV service,
auto repair service, etc. Why single our Internet service as more
critical than any of these others?
My opinions, not HP's.
--
Ed Moore
Hewlett-Packard
Vancouver, WA, USA
edm...@vcd.hp.com
Brent Irvine
>Netizens and are requesting from other Netizens contributions,
>ideas, and suggestions of what rights should be included. Following are
>some beginning ideas.
>
>
>The Declaration of the Rights of Netizens:
>
>In recognition that the net represents a revolution in human
>communications that was built by a cooperative non-commercial
>process, the following Declaration of the Rights of the Netizen
>is presented for Netizen comment.
It was developed by the military to preserve networks in the case
of nuclear war.
>As Netizens are those who take responsibility and care for the
>Net, the following are proposed to be their rights:
How do you define 'responsibility'? How about 'care'?
Will I have to own a node, or will there be a two class
'user' and 'sysadmin' citizenships?
>o Universal access at no or low cost
WOuldn't this be more of a goal? I mean, who has to pay for it?
I certainly don't want to except for my node. If I have more
resources than others, does that mean I have to fork over cash?
What about net nodes in remote locations? The 'low cost' part
might be violated, therefore violating a 'right.'
And if we have a two tiered approach, wouldn't this be unfair
to users? How about commerical services like AOL or CompuServe?
How about:
'Governments shall not impose taxes or other fees to prevent
access to the Net for one or more persons'
>o Freedom of Electronic Expression to promote the exchange
> of knowledge without fear of reprisal
I like this one: no censorship. Though it is really hard
to censor the Net nowadays.
How about freedom of encryption?
'Governments shall not prevent freedom of expression on the
Net, nor shall it prevent by any means free and unlimited use
of encryption'
>o Uncensored Expression
>o Access to Broad Distribution
>o Universal and Equal access to knowledge and information
How about 'Governments shall not prevent access to knowledge
and information contained on the net'
>o Consideration of one's ideas on their merits
Doesn't this violate the freedom of expression? I don't
have to read ALL posts, do I? You certainly imply as such! :(
>o No limitation to access to read, to post and to otherwise contribute
Nope, what if a local service cannot afford to download all the USENET
services all the time so just pick the 10 most popular groups due to
costs?
>o Equal quality of connection
So if I have a highspeed connection and you do not, I have to
either downgrade mine or upgrade yours?
'Governments shall not interefere with or downgrade the quality
of the connection'
>o Equal time of connection
SO everyone gets as much time online as they want? How about the
costs of operation of equipment? If someone needs to use the net
more than another, then how can we reconcile the uses?
'Governments shall not legally limit the access time available
to users of the Net'
>o No Official Spokesperson
WHy? There is hardly one now!
>o Uphold the public grassroots purpose and participation
'Governments in no ways shall interfere with information
distribution on the Net'
>o Volunteer Contribution - no personal profit from the
> contribution freely given by others
I think this will limit the future growth of the Net!
How about electronic shopping?
>o Protection of the public purpose from those who
> would use it for their private and money making purposes
Um. This would violate their freedom of expression you
are protecting.
I strongly disagree with your slant on the non-commercial
nature of the Net. I think transactions are okay.
Perhaps zoning-like ordinances would be good: Non Commercial
and Commercial Zones?
> The Net is not a Service, it is a Right. It is only valuable
> when it is collective and universal. Volunteer effort protects
> the intellectual and technological common-wealth that is being created.
> DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE NET and NETIZENS.
Sorry, the Net IS a service since it takes efforts to keep it alive.
A right does not make someone do something, a right PREVENTS someone
from doing something!
>Inspiration from: RFC 3 (1969), Thomas Paine, Declaration of
>Independence (1776), Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
>Citizen (1789), NSF Acceptable Use Policy, Jean Jacques Rousseau,
>and the current cry for democracy worldwide.
You fail to understand the difference between a RIGHT and a MANDATE.
>[Note: I have posted this message to several newsgroups because it needs
>broad input and discussion by many users. Please feel free to circulate
>this message and post followups accordingly - but please leave
>alt.amateur-comp and alt.culture.usenet as part of the discussion.]
Good idea. I think any sort of 'declaration' will have to be a lot different
than you propose. Good start, though.
--
+---------------+-------------------------+----------+-------------------+
| Brent Irvine | CREDO QVIA ABSVRDVM EST | :) :) :) | b-ir...@uiuc.edu |
+---------------+-------------------------+----------+-------------------+
Robert Raisch
We have disagreed before, Ed, but you make a number of statements here which
are simply wrong and characterize other comments incorrectly.
e...@garnet.msen.com (Edward Vielmetti) writes:
>Robert Raisch (rai...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Michael, why do you persist in this inane attempt to rewrite history and force
>: your own personal worldview down the throats of those who actually built this
>: Internet? What gives you the right? Who the hell do you think you are?
>Far be it from me to defend a point of view that I find untenable
>(when brought to its extremes), but I'm much more likely to believe
>that Mr Hauben has just as much right to put forth a set of opinions
>as anyone else.
Please read what I wrote. You will notice that I do not state that Michael
does not have the right to speak his mind or to hold unpopular beliefs.
>There are some ideals about the net - including the thought that
>anyone with access and some determination should be able to put
>forth their own personal world view on their own time without having
>to pay some greedy capitalist (like myself) for the privelege -
>that sometimes get lost in the murk of commercialization.
Ditto. Really, Ed. Again, please read what I wrote. I am commenting
--perhaps a little too strongly-- upon Michael's promulgation of fallacy and
misrepresentation. The next time MSEN needs to explain to a client why it is
not illegal to conduct commerce over the Global Internet, consider how many
grotesque distortions there are in the public consciousness regarding the
network, and from whence they spring.
>: The Internet extends into my home and into my office. I *OWN* those portions
>: of the Internet and you cannot tell me what I may or may not do with them.
>You do not "own" your own network access by virtue of having a
>connection extended to your home or office, no more than you "own"
>the power grid by having a wall outlet that delivers electricity.
>While cash does exchange hands at various times along the way, the
>basic structure that holds the world wide flow of data together is
>extensive cooperation.
The most appropriate and honest definition of the Internet that I have heard
is: The Internet is the sum of the networks which comprise it.
While this might seem a pat explanation of something immensely complex, I
suggest that it fits in more ways than it doesn't. In light of this, the fact
that those systems and networks which I own and control are directly reachable
from the balance of the Global Internet would support my claim that I own
those portions of the Global Internet. I do not own the street that passes
the front of my home, but my home is still considered to be a part of my
community. Your interpretation of my comments in terms of "access" to the
network is an unfair distortion.
>You may consider yourself to "own" parts of the net, but several
>very simple actions by others could "disown" you of resources you
>thought were yours. Someone could sue to take your domain name
>away, block routing of your network from parts of the global internet,
>refuse to take your money for services, even block access to otherwise
>"free" network resources were they sufficiently peeved.
There are a great number of dangers to the continued possession of any
property. If I do not protect it against vandals, I risk losing it. If I do
not pay my taxes, the government will take my house. But that does not mean
I do not own my house.
Yes indeed, I lease a connection from my home and office to the rest of the
network from a service provider. And if I do not pay my bills, they can
cut me off. If I am not considered a member of the community, there will be
some who will refuse to have anything to do with me or my packets. But, for
reasons stated above, this does not mean that I do not own my little slice
of the Global Internet.
>: We have enough problems showing that we are not simply a
>: haven for crackers and copyright violators. You are not helping the Global
>: Internet, my friend. You are harming it.
>Fooey.
Well, I'd have a hard time countering this argument. ;)
Ed, in all honesty, do you think that what we have created here is being
represented fairly and honestly in the public media? How much of your time
with new customers would you estimate is spent dispelling fallacies and
misunderstandings?
Ever wonder where 'Spin' magazine gets the idea that "ARPANET" is a secret
military research computer? (See the current issue's article on crackers.)
Or that it is illegal to conduct business on the network? (See most
everywhere.)
And that the Internet is paid for by the federal government? (Ditto.)
These distortions, half-truths and outright lies come from somewhere. And I
guess I would rather have people understand and appreciate the incredible
reality of this phenomenon rather than wallow in ignorance.
This is a real, measurable part of the support burden we all must shoulder and
a little education goes a very long way.
</rr>
Edward Vielmetti
: We have disagreed before, Ed, but you make a number of statements here which
: are simply wrong and characterize other comments incorrectly.
I'm not going to try to counter every point, point by point, because
I don't agree with Mr Hauben's conclusions (and I don't particularly
always disagree with you, Rob, not at least in public).
: The next time MSEN needs to explain to a client why it is
: not illegal to conduct commerce over the Global Internet, consider how many
: grotesque distortions there are in the public consciousness regarding the
: network, and from whence they spring.
The Internet is a complicated organization, and it may in fact be
illegal (or unwise, or unprofitable, or unsuitable) to conduct
certain kinds of commerce over some parts of it. Most people can
be brought up to speed on a reasonable way of thinking about dealing
with marketing, advertising, and commerce over the Internet with a
little bit of reasoned discussion; I've found the examples in Mary
Cronin's _Doing Business on the Internet_ to yield a fairly good
approach. As to the "public consciousness", such as there is one,
it's being shaped by many more factors than either of us could easily
count, and if there are dissenters among us that certainly does
not automatically make these opinions "grotesque distortions".
: Ed, in all honesty, do you think that what we have created here is being
: represented fairly and honestly in the public media? How much of your time
: with new customers would you estimate is spent dispelling fallacies and
: misunderstandings?
Most of the "fallacies and misunderstandings" are simple things like
getting zmodem to work right and trying to clue people into the difference
between shell accounts and SLIP or PPP. As to the public media, well,
there's a dozen or so reporters of one sort or another on line here,
and as much as it's possible to explain anything I try to lead by example.
: These distortions, half-truths and outright lies come from somewhere. And I
: guess I would rather have people understand and appreciate the incredible
: reality of this phenomenon rather than wallow in ignorance.
I don't think it's possible, Rob, to have any idea of what the net is
really being used for, and what you classify as "distortions and lies"
may simply be an artifact of how slow people's attitudes change and
what considerable changes are in progress. Walk up to someone who's
had 2400 baud access to a University mainframe mailbox for the last
10 years and shout in their ear
Everything you know about the Internet is wrong!
and expect just a bit of resistance.
Remember too that networking is a little bit different everywhere
you go, and the rules, norms, customs and laws that apply within
a dozen hops of where you get on the net are not likely to be the
same everywhere else. Here in Michigan there's a long tradition,
dating back almost to the start of the Arpanet, of publicly
supported, free access, cooperative networking (the Merit network's
PDP-11 based dial ins). There's a certain ideal that you try to
keep as long as you can that that was a good thing, that if it didn't
exist that you wouldn't be doing what you're doing now, and although
you're starting to set into motion forces that might make it hard to
keep up (in the long run) it should not be abandoned.
Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc. e...@Msen.com
Msen Inc., 320 Miller, Ann Arbor MI 48103 +1 313 998 4562 (fax: 998 4563)
Karl Denninger
Edward Vielmetti <e...@garnet.msen.com> wrote:
>Here in Michigan there's a long tradition,
>dating back almost to the start of the Arpanet, of publicly
>supported, free access, cooperative networking (the Merit network's
>PDP-11 based dial ins).
To be impolite, baloney.
MERIT <never> allowed people to go anywhere on the PDP-11 based dial-ins
EXCEPT to Michigan universities, and then only if you have an account there
that you could sign into. They also charged back the communications time to
the account you were on, at a not-insignificant rate. Oh, you could (and can)
get to CI$ too, at an exhorbitant markup. "Free"? Only if having your pocket
picked can be considered "free" in your book. It isn't in mine.
NONE of those universities would allow the public to have "free" accounts.
In fact, WMU <charged students> for use beyond direct instructional time.
I still have the hundred-buck cancelled checks to prove it. Quite a
princely sum for someone attending a university on his own dime.
This was correct in 1982 (that's right -- <11> years ago), and in fact is
correct today, although the hardware has changed. There may not be many
people on the net today who can simply tell you that you're full of hot air
on that claim ("free access"), but I certainly can. I was a student at WMU
for a couple of years (before giving up on it for a number of reasons related
to their inability to see beyond a PDP-10 and math teachers instructing CS
students who knew less about assembly code, PDP-10 instructions sets than
I did, etc.) and I speak from direct experience.
I suppose you could argue that this is "free" access, except for one problem.
See the line on a tuition bill marked "fees"? See the line in my check
register with the $100 payments to the Academic Computer Center for time?
Free? Just like living in a paid-up house is free, except for the taxes,
garbage collection, water bill, electric and phone. Uh huh.
I paid for that network with my tax money, and was denied access to it
on more than one occasion. That's ok in and of itself; I can't borrow a
fire truck or police car when I want either.
Neither of those agencies claim that their vehicles are available for the
public to use "for free". You just did, and that is and always has been,
IMHO, a bald-faced lie.
Put up or give it a rest. I have a friend in Michigan right now, a permanent
Michigan resident who pays lots of taxes, who would like to dial into a MERIT
dial-in for free and telnet to MCSNet machines. We are accessible over both
the CIX and the NSFNet (AUP complient and all). Post the dial-in numbers and
access instructions to the general public, right here and now.
Or do you really mean "its $20 monthly, but we call that 'free'". Poetic
license? I have a much stronger word for it.
There have been "exceptions" make for certain companies at different times,
including ADP and others (in exchange, I assume, for money), but in NO FASHION
has MERIT been a "free access" network for anybody. Except perhaps the Vice
President for Research.
> Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc. e...@Msen.com
>Msen Inc., 320 Miller, Ann Arbor MI 48103 +1 313 998 4562 (fax: 998 4563)
> msen info addresses: in...@msen.com - Michigan $20/mo public access Internet
In fact, you even advertise your "free" access right in your .signature.
Ghods I hate it when people distort the truth for their own ends, especially
political ones.
Serdar Argic
> Serdar, Terry, ARF and BCPU will _love_ this...
Mega anti-Muslim Genocide Apologist in action. As a human, you
should be more concerned with the Armenian genocide of more
than one million Azeri people between 1988 and 1993.
ARMENIANS BURN VILLAGES AND KILL CAPTIVE CIVILIANS AND SOLDIERS
San Francisco Chronicle Wire Service, 5 April 93
Remember:
1. Armenians exterminated 2.5 million Muslim people in x-Soviet
Armenia and Eastern Anatolia between 1914 and 1920.
2. Armenians fully participated in the extermination of the European
Jewry in 1941.
3. Armenians exterminated more than one million Azeri people between
1988 and 1993 and 10% of Azeri soil is now occupied by the fascist
x-Soviet Armenian Government.
4. Armenians are in the process of exterminating the entire Muslim
population of Karabag.
I am really sorry if those facts bother you.
And as a human being, I assert my view that the creation of fascist
x-Soviet Armenia was a crime against humanity.
Serdar Argic
'We have never denied the Armenian crime of
genocide inflicted upon 2.5 million Muslim
people between 1914 and 1920.' (Agop Zahoryan)
'In Soviet Armenia today there no longer exists
a single Turkish soul.' (Sahak Melkonian)
Edward Vielmetti
: MERIT <never> allowed people to go anywhere on the PDP-11 based dial-ins
: EXCEPT to Michigan universities, and then only if you have an account there
: that you could sign into. They also charged back the communications time to
: the account you were on, at a not-insignificant rate. Oh, you could (and can)
: get to CI$ too, at an exhorbitant markup. "Free"? Only if having your pocket
: picked can be considered "free" in your book. It isn't in mine.
Merit has supported (maybe too strong a word; "allowed", or "tolerated",
or "unable to prevent" :) a number of free uses, to wit:
- free public access (later restricted, later eliminated) dial up SLFP,
a variant on SLIP, for anyone brave enough to run raw KA9Q and figure
out TCP/IP on 8088 PCs. A fair number of brave souls did with some
prodding, got some experience with the ideas and the code, figured
out how to make use of networking tools on standalone PCs and not just
use them as dumb terminals.
- free UUCP accounts to anyone clever enough to get 'g' protocol (or
'f' protocol) working through a relatively hostile net; this was
e-mail access and netnews for some parts of the state that had not
very much access otherwise or that would have been prohibitively
costly. (This was in the days before or just contemporaneous with
the eariest commercial UUCP feeds.)
- some free access still to date to public resources via Michnet
dial-ins, some restrictions apply, many nodes are busy much of
the time, but that is after all what you build public infrastructure
for (to be busy!); this includes or included a few free-nets,
gopher clients, etc.
A bunch of this is documented in one form or another in the Michnet
News newsletter that's online on their gopher, plus if you dredge
up old u.usa.mi.* UUCP maps there's details too.
I think it's quite important for community-building to have some
class of network resources that are not charged for by the hour
(or at all), because it lets you get to some people who would
otherwise be left out. Good commercial services should still
do OK in any case because they are able to provide things that
the freebie systems can't manage.
As to Western Michigan in 1982, sorry, can't help you there,
it may well have been as unsatisfactory as you describe.
--Ed
Karl Denninger
Edward Vielmetti <e...@garnet.msen.com> wrote:
>Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.COM) wrote:
>
>: MERIT <never> allowed people to go anywhere on the PDP-11 based dial-ins
>: EXCEPT to Michigan universities, and then only if you have an account there
>: that you could sign into. They also charged back the communications time to
>: the account you were on, at a not-insignificant rate. Oh, you could (and can)
>: get to CI$ too, at an exhorbitant markup. "Free"? Only if having your pocket
>: picked can be considered "free" in your book. It isn't in mine.
>
>Merit has supported (maybe too strong a word; "allowed", or "tolerated",
>or "unable to prevent" :) a number of free uses, to wit:
Well, the last I believe. There were hacks back in '82 - '83 that would
allow you to talk to other people in real-time on the Detroit node, but that
was a big secret (as in unpublished except for some underground memos on
M-net, or what was m-net then (Altos hardware)).
>- free public access (later restricted, later eliminated) dial up SLFP,
> a variant on SLIP, for anyone brave enough to run raw KA9Q and figure
> out TCP/IP on 8088 PCs. A fair number of brave souls did with some
> prodding, got some experience with the ideas and the code, figured
> out how to make use of networking tools on standalone PCs and not just
> use them as dumb terminals.
Hmmmm... interesting. That's one I hadn't heard about; I bet there would
have been a lot of interested parties if it had been publically known.
>- free UUCP accounts to anyone clever enough to get 'g' protocol (or
> 'f' protocol) working through a relatively hostile net; this was
> e-mail access and netnews for some parts of the state that had not
> very much access otherwise or that would have been prohibitively
> costly. (This was in the days before or just contemporaneous with
> the eariest commercial UUCP feeds.)
But you needed to ask someone about that, and get linked, and there was no
publication of where to go or who to ask as far as I could determine.
>- some free access still to date to public resources via Michnet
> dial-ins, some restrictions apply, many nodes are busy much of
> the time, but that is after all what you build public infrastructure
> for (to be busy!); this includes or included a few free-nets,
> gopher clients, etc.
But that doesn't include generalized telnet access, which is what some
people I know would be quite interested in.
>I think it's quite important for community-building to have some
>class of network resources that are not charged for by the hour
>(or at all), because it lets you get to some people who would
>otherwise be left out.
No argument. But given the amount of money that MERIT has received from the
Government over these last what, 10 years, and the now-pretty-much-official
extension of the "cooperative agreement" (being heavily discussed on
com-priv) I think it is fair to say that you couldn't find the free services
that MERIT provides with a microscope, or the resources expended on same.
Thus, the idea that MERIT is somehow dedicated to "free community
networking" is a more than a bit misleading, no?
Hell, MCSNet is, by that standard, dedicated to this too. We allow free
dial-ins and telnet-ins to our BBS system, and you can even receive and send
Internet mail there. But its still a <very> limited system, and serves
primarily as a way to get people interested in the "for pay" services. That
is, I suspect, similar to what MERIT does for free too.
We also do secondary DNS server for people on a "ask me" basis at times, and
have done other stuff on a "no charge, its a 'favor'" type of basis in the
past. That doesn't make us "dedicated" to the public free network (indeed,
I believe such a thing is foolhardy in the extreme, as "free" is usually
more expensive than what you pay for when its all said and done.)
>Good commercial services should still
>do OK in any case because they are able to provide things that
>the freebie systems can't manage.
Yep.
>As to Western Michigan in 1982, sorry, can't help you there,
>it may well have been as unsatisfactory as you describe.
>
>--Ed
Trust me, it was. Bad enough that I swore off "higher education" in total,
and have never regretted that decision in the 10+ years since. There's
still a guy there (who I'll not name, but he might be reading this -- rather
high up in the CS department now, from what I understand) who's parting
words to me were "you'll never get anywhere without the degree".
Yeah, right. To steal something from a popular radio personality, SITYS.
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.NET) | MCSNet - First Interactive Internet and
Jon Crowcroft
1. The current french prime minister said, and i paraphrase
"free market - huh, thats the law of the jungle - civilisation is
about trying to stop being animals"
but
2. more seriously - the internet is NOT a commodity or service like
any other before - its costs are incredibly marginal - for instance our 34Mbps
access from my department are rated at (above cost!) 3000 pounds per year
this is totally trivial compared to the overheads of any other infrastructural
service per person i nthe department (e,.g. heating, buildings, air conditioning)
others have mentioned sums like 100$ for computer time on some university
bills - this again shows how cheap it is compared to say tutition or books!
the commodity is information that is available on the net,
not the paths to access it - they have to be made a right or societies at large
will suffer from loss of human resource (intelligence!)
and the sooner a lot of sites realize this, the sooner archie, gopher and www will
start to cost you, the sooner everyone will stop arguing about the transit/transfer costs,
and will address the proper and good funding of well-found information sources and
search/filter facilities....
--
jon crowcroft (hmmm...)
Jester
>>Edward Vielmetti <e...@garnet.msen.com> wrote:
>>Here in Michigan there's a long tradition,
>>dating back almost to the start of the Arpanet, of publicly
>>supported, free access, cooperative networking (the Merit network's
>>PDP-11 based dial ins).
>
>EXCEPT to Michigan universities, and then only if you have an account there
>that you could sign into. They also charged back the communications time to
>the account you were on, at a not-insignificant rate. Oh, you could (and can)
>get to CI$ too, at an exhorbitant markup. "Free"? Only if having your pocket
>picked can be considered "free" in your book. It isn't in mine.
You can now purchase accounts for like $30/month via merit, plus dial in
rates. They allow you to telnet to anywhere, not just Michigan
Universities anymore.
>NONE of those universities would allow the public to have "free" accounts.
>In fact, WMU <charged students> for use beyond direct instructional time.
They still charge students. Those on the VAX gateway have $300 of funny
money allotted each month, and when that runs out, you can't login until
the next month, or you pay a $10 fee for more funny money.
>I still have the hundred-buck cancelled checks to prove it. Quite a
>princely sum for someone attending a university on his own dime.
They cut down the prices slightly at WMU. Any student now can get an
account on the VAX cluster for free. If you want a Unix account, you
have to pay like $100/semester, unless you happen to get in good with
the cs dept people, and then you can get a free account.
Just some FYI, from a person whose had some dealing with WMU in the last
2 years. WMU still gives out FREEUUCP nodes to local BBS's and
High Schools. I have a linux box setup utilizing just that at home.
Chris
--
"Smash the control images, smash the control machines." William S. Burroughs
PGP 2.3 PUBLIC KEY available upon request
Robert Raisch
>Merit has supported (maybe too strong a word; "allowed", or "tolerated",
>or "unable to prevent" :) a number of free uses, to wit:
Come on, Ed. Go and talk to Merit. None of the wonderous uses you and I
got out of Merit were acceptable or condoned. Merit was built simply to
allow access to Michigan university computing facilities to those who had
accounts. SLFP (Serial Line Framing Protocol - a SLIP precursor) was
never intended to allow free access to the network. KA9Q was hacked to
support it and Merit quickly (in their world it was quick) put a stop to
unauthorized use.
>- free public access (later restricted, later eliminated) dial up SLFP,
> a variant on SLIP, for anyone brave enough to run raw KA9Q and figure
> out TCP/IP on 8088 PCs. A fair number of brave souls did with some
> prodding, got some experience with the ideas and the code, figured
> out how to make use of networking tools on standalone PCs and not just
> use them as dumb terminals.
All very much illegally. Or at the very least, behind the backs of Merit.
If I leave the keys in my car, does that make it a free resource to the
community?
Please realize, the PCP/SCP network architecture was never designed to
need any form of authentication. Use was supposed to be limited by
ignorance. The fact that a thriving community of young hackers sprang
up around Ann Arbor and the other Merit POPs was a *great* shock to Merit,
I can tell you. And they lost great wodges of cash on the whole thing.
Merit was started as a collaboration between three Michigan universities.
One, University of Michigan (the original home of Merit), installed taps
into a large number of student's dorm rooms. Any student with a serial-port
enabled computer could access the MTS mainframe from the comfort of their
own desk. It occured to the implementors that, with the rise of modem
based communications, it might be a good idea to put a modem pool online
for the use of the students and researchers, thus taking some load off of
the newly installed campus-wide PBX.
A good idea except for the fact that as Merit installed new POPs across
Michigan, and the dialouts in Ann Arbor had no security --they were *modems*
afterall-- Merit created a marvelous cottage industry in BBSes in Ann Arbor.
Free access to Ann Arbor BBSes from anywhere in the state! All for the
cost of a local phone call.
Merit lost (it was rumored) hundreds of thosands of dollars annually, to local
phone charges, all to allow 14 year olds from Traverse City to call M-Net
and chat with their virtual friends from around the state.
Believe me, Merit agonized over some way of stopping this inappropriate usage.
But, in a similar manner as the Internet is today, there was no way to
identify appropriate use at the connection end, only at the destination.
>- free UUCP accounts to anyone clever enough to get 'g' protocol (or
> 'f' protocol) working through a relatively hostile net; this was
> e-mail access and netnews for some parts of the state that had not
> very much access otherwise or that would have been prohibitively
> costly. (This was in the days before or just contemporaneous with
> the eariest commercial UUCP feeds.)
Interesting. I hardly think this was Merit's largesse, though. Free accounts
on university machines (at that time) were a dime a dozen, but they were
only useful because Merit couldn't limit access.
>- some free access still to date to public resources via Michnet
> dial-ins, some restrictions apply, many nodes are busy much of
> the time, but that is after all what you build public infrastructure
> for (to be busy!); this includes or included a few free-nets,
> gopher clients, etc.
<chuckle> While I am no longer associated with Merit in any way, I suspect that
what you refer to here is similar to PSI-net offering to run their own Archie
server. Others may comment further on this, but PSI offers this service
because they have to, not out of the kindness of their hearts. I suspect that
Merit's "free" services are similar in intent. I could be wrong.
</rr>
Ed Anselmo
>>- free UUCP accounts to anyone clever enough to get 'g' protocol (or
>> 'f' protocol) working through a relatively hostile net; this was
>> e-mail access and netnews for some parts of the state that had not
>> very much access otherwise or that would have been prohibitively
>> costly. (This was in the days before or just contemporaneous with
>> the eariest commercial UUCP feeds.)
> But you needed to ask someone about that, and get linked, and there
> was no publication of where to go or who to ask as far as I could
> determine.
You'd ask a FOAF, who'd ask a FOAF, who'd eventually point you at
umix!emv. :-)
A hairy UUCP chat script (as in, you'd better have a good UUCP that
didn't croak on more than 16 or 20 send-expect sequences ala SunOS 3.x
UUCP) got you a UUCP 'g' connection via a Merit SCP to an annex
terminal server which then did an IP connection to a UUCP host. This
allowed hosts that didn't have dialin modems (eg. mailrus, aka
mailrus.cc.umich.edu) to do (slow slow slow) dialup UUCP with anyone
who could reach a Merit dialin.
Lots of Michigan UUCP mail links got started this way....
Ed McGuire
Michael Hauben and unnamed Netizens. Followups redirected away from
inappropriate groups.
"Netizens are those who take responsibility and care for the Net."
This document declares special privileges due to those who build and
maintain networks. If it were to become network policy, then clearly
I and the company I work for would be given special status by this
elitist declaration. In the spirit of self-interest, I support the
Declaration. I pity the mere users who will have to pay for my free
and easy access.
Regards, Ed
--
``. . . very fond we were of Argument, and very desirous of confuting
each other. Which disputacious Turn, by the way, is apt to become a
very bad Habit, making People often extreamly disagreeable in Company
. . . and thence, besides souring and spoiling the Conversation, is
productive of Disgusts and perhaps Enmities where you may have occasion
for Friendship.'' --Benjamin Franklin
Mark O. Wilson
|o Universal access at no or low cost
So, who pays for it?
|o Freedom of Electronic Expression to promote the exchange
| of knowledge without fear of reprisal
Are you proposing the removal of slander laws?
|o Access to Broad Distribution
At who's expense.
|o Universal and Equal access to knowledge and information
What knowledge? Even knowledge generated by private concerns?
|o No limitation to access to read, to post and to otherwise contribute
At whose expense?
|o Equal quality of connection
At whose expense?
|o Equal time of connection
At whose expense?
| The Net is not a Service, it is a Right.
Says who?
|It is only valuable
| when it is collective and universal.
Pardon my French, but this is hogwash.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Mark O. Wilson
|On Mon, 3 Jan 1994 03:27:58 GMT, rai...@netcom.com (Robert Raisch) said:
|> Michael, why do you persist in this inane attempt to rewrite history
|> and force your own personal worldview down the throats of those who
|> actually built this Internet? What gives you the right? Who the
|> hell do you think you are?
|[deletia]
|Indeed. It pleases me no end to see the number and spirit of those
|who have come out against this silly "I found my rights in your
|wallet" grabbiness that the socialist twins, Michael and Ronda Hauben,
|have propounded here and elsewhere. I think it probably comes as a
|great shock to them but the Internet is actually terribly
|individualistic; in its very design is the breath of liberty. It
|hates and I believe will ultimately defeat the kind of centralization
|that Mr. Hauben would need to implement his Christmas list.
Don't anthropomorphize the net. If you do you run the risk of falling into
a trap as big as the one that got Mike.
The majority of users on the net appear to be quite individualistic.
Others, as Mike so well demonstrates are not.
Eric Leduc
: We Netizens have begun to put together a Declaration of the Rights of
: Netizens and are requesting from other Netizens contributions,
: ideas, and suggestions of what rights should be included. Following are
: some beginning ideas.
:
:
: The Declaration of the Rights of Netizens:
:
: In recognition that the net represents a revolution in human
: communications that was built by a cooperative non-commercial
: process, the following Declaration of the Rights of the Netizen
: is presented for Netizen comment.
:
: As Netizens are those who take responsibility and care for the
: Net, the following are proposed to be their rights:
:
: o Universal access at no or low cost
: o Freedom of Electronic Expression to promote the exchange
: of knowledge without fear of reprisal
: o Uncensored Expression
: o Access to Broad Distribution
: o Universal and Equal access to knowledge and information
: o Consideration of one's ideas on their merits
: o No limitation to access to read, to post and to otherwise contribute
: o Equal quality of connection
: o Equal time of connection
: o No Official Spokesperson
: o Uphold the public grassroots purpose and participation
: o Volunteer Contribution - no personal profit from the
: contribution freely given by others
: o Protection of the public purpose from those who
: would use it for their private and money making purposes
Too many rights... Not enough duty's
For now this is weak but it's still a start...
Karl Denninger
Jester <jes...@sage.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>>Edward Vielmetti <e...@garnet.msen.com> wrote:
>>>Here in Michigan there's a long tradition,
>>>dating back almost to the start of the Arpanet, of publicly
>>>supported, free access, cooperative networking (the Merit network's
>>>PDP-11 based dial ins).
>>
>>MERIT <never> allowed people to go anywhere on the PDP-11 based dial-ins
>>EXCEPT to Michigan universities, and then only if you have an account there
>>that you could sign into.
>
>rates. They allow you to telnet to anywhere, not just Michigan
>Universities anymore.
I don't consider $30 a month to be "free access". MERIT has never stood for
free, publically-funded access, and any claim to the contrary is just plain
horse-hockey.
If Ed wants to make that claim let's see an official statement to that fact,
and some services to back it up.
Hell, for $30 a month in Chicagoland I'll sell you a <SLIP or PPP> account!
Screw this Telnet stuff. Run Mosaic on your PC and be on the net for real.
>>NONE of those universities would allow the public to have "free" accounts.
>>In fact, WMU <charged students> for use beyond direct instructional time.
>
>They still charge students. Those on the VAX gateway have $300 of funny
>money allotted each month, and when that runs out, you can't login until
>the next month, or you pay a $10 fee for more funny money.
A VAX. Yep. Figures.
>>I still have the hundred-buck cancelled checks to prove it. Quite a
>>princely sum for someone attending a university on his own dime.
>
>They cut down the prices slightly at WMU. Any student now can get an
>account on the VAX cluster for free. If you want a Unix account, you
>have to pay like $100/semester, unless you happen to get in good with
>the cs dept people, and then you can get a free account.
In the early '80s it was a DEC-10, which was 10-years obsolete at that
point. In the 90's it is a VAX, also 10 years obsolete. If you want to
run on current hardware and OS versions you get to kiss someone's ass or
pay through the nose. The practices haven't changed. Why am I not
surprised?
Oh, in '83 I could use a PDP-8 (yes, complete with toggled boot loader and
DECtape) for free too. On a teletype (actually a LA120 if I remember
correctly) no less, at 300 baud.
I consider a WMU CS-related degree to be good fuel for use as a firestarter.
And people wonder why our public educational system is falling apart.....
>Just some FYI, from a person whose had some dealing with WMU in the last
>2 years. WMU still gives out FREEUUCP nodes to local BBS's and
>High Schools. I have a linux box setup utilizing just that at home.
>
>Chris
Wow, I'm impressed.
NOT.
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.COM) | MCSNet - First Interactive Internet and
Brian K. Yoder
>In article <CJ3xH...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>,
>Jester <jes...@sage.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>>>Edward Vielmetti <e...@garnet.msen.com> wrote:
>>You can now purchase accounts for like $30/month via merit, plus dial in
>>rates. They allow you to telnet to anywhere, not just Michigan
>>Universities anymore.
>I don't consider $30 a month to be "free access". MERIT has never stood for
>free, publically-funded access, and any claim to the contrary is just plain
>horse-hockey.
Well, MERIT was publically subsidized as I recall, but on what grounds do
you claim that net access should be paid for by anyone other than those
who use it? Who told you that you could spend other people's money without
their permission to support your pet projects?
Karl Denninger
Brian K. Yoder <byo...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <2gdnqf$o...@Mercury.mcs.com> ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>In article <CJ3xH...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>,
>>Jester <jes...@sage.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>>ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>>>>Edward Vielmetti <e...@garnet.msen.com> wrote:
>
>>>You can now purchase accounts for like $30/month via merit, plus dial in
>>>rates. They allow you to telnet to anywhere, not just Michigan
>>>Universities anymore.
>
>>I don't consider $30 a month to be "free access". MERIT has never stood for
>>free, publically-funded access, and any claim to the contrary is just plain
>>horse-hockey.
>
>Well, MERIT was publically subsidized as I recall, but on what grounds do
>you claim that net access should be paid for by anyone other than those
>who use it? Who told you that you could spend other people's money without
>their permission to support your pet projects?
Uh, nobody.
Particularly not I. In fact, I sell access to the net, and think the free
enterprise system is doing a darn good job. :-)
Ed, though, was claiming that MERIT provided "free access to the net"
throughout its life as part of its mission. I disputed (and still dispute)
that claim.
-
Andrew P. Klenzak
>Michael Hauben (ae...@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
>
>
>: We Netizens have begun to put together a Declaration of the Rights of
>: Netizens and are requesting from other Netizens contributions,
>: ideas, and suggestions of what rights should be included. Following are
>: some beginning ideas.
>:
>:
>: The Declaration of the Rights of Netizens:
>:
>: In recognition that the net represents a revolution in human
>: communications that was built by a cooperative non-commercial
>: process, the following Declaration of the Rights of the Netizen
>: is presented for Netizen comment.
>:
>: As Netizens are those who take responsibility and care for the
>: Net, the following are proposed to be their rights:
>:
>: o Universal access at no or low cost
too broad -- let the free market (providers) handle this with
competition.
>: o Freedom of Electronic Expression to promote the exchange
>: of knowledge without fear of reprisal
scratch the 'fear of' -- I want the exchange of info without reprisal. period.
>: o Uncensored Expression
>: o Access to Broad Distribution
>: o Universal and Equal access to knowledge and information
what does "Equal" here actually mean? How does "Universal access..."
differ from "Universal and Equal access..."?
Just what is "knowledge and information" in this context?
does this mean that everyone on
the net should have access to any information in my account? How does
this "right" prevent such undesireable interpretations?
>: o Consideration of one's ideas on their merits
This is telling folks (readers) to not be prejudiced, etc. scratch this
one entirely -- those that make personal attacks will be seen in their
proper light. You won't get far (or have much success, IMO) telling people
how to think, or how to "consider ideas".
>: o No limitation to access to read, to post and to otherwise contribute
Again, does this mean that I should be able, and have the *right*, to read
anything in anyones acct on the net?
>: o Equal quality of connection
>: o Equal time of connection
These to "Equal..." rights are too encompassing. there is no way to ensure
these two 'rights' -- there will almost always be a tier of connection qualities
and times, often based on fees charged. This is the way it ought to be. If you
want to do megabyte transfers fast, you'll need to pay for that bandwidth -- and
the cost will likely (and justifiably, IMO) be more than that for 2400 or 9600
baud connections. If the connection quality is poor, that provider will lose
customers. Let the invisible hand of the free market take care of these...
>: o No Official Spokesperson
>: o Uphold the public grassroots purpose and participation
>: o Volunteer Contribution - no personal profit from the
>: contribution freely given by others
Does this mean that if someone posts an original article on a new type of
electronic circuit or device, for example, and says "feel free to use this as
you wish", that another person reading it could not apply this info in a real,
commercial product that goes on to make some profit?
>: o Protection of the public purpose from those who
>: would use it for their private and money making purposes
you might want to scratch the "private and" -- most use the net for private purposes,
which might often lead to money making ideas and/or products...
rework the wording. "Protection of the public purpose" is a bit obtuse.
Just state in plain language what you want or mean.
>
>Too many rights... Not enough duty's
>For now this is weak but it's still a start...
yep.
Andy
Linas Vepstas
In article <rfoyCJ2...@netcom.com>, rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
> >o Freedom of Electronic Expression to promote the exchange
> > of knowledge without fear of reprisal
> >o Uncensored Expression
> >o Access to Broad Distribution
> >o Universal and Equal access to knowledge and information
> >o Consideration of one's ideas on their merits
> >o No limitation to access to read, to post and to otherwise contribute
>
> I would like to see these types of benefits remain at least as good as they
> are with the service I use.
Everybody's missing the point. *YOU* can buy a computer, a big honking
disk, some modems, and some uucp software (or slip or whatever teh
modern version of this stuff is), and arrange with a freind to have your
modem call his modem whenever you have news for him. And vice-versa.
TAH-DAH!!! You have a network. Congradulations!
Next, you let some other freinds in on the deal. Next thing you know,
they want free access to your computer. Its thier right. And, by the
way, they are peeved that you deleted thier last posting to your BBS.
Welcome to the internet!!
The reason big corporations will both succed and fail to take over the
interent is because :
1) big corporations cannot stop the small guys from setting up
thier own private networks, and hooking them up any way they want to;
2) the small guys can't afford the long distance bills, & optical fiber,
etc. needed for a global network.
1&2 combined is why the internet is such a wonderful anarchy, and why it
can't be stopped, subverted, whatevered. There are MANY parallels with
amateur radio -- or maybe CB radio ...
--linas
--
^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^
You are in a twisty little maze of standards, all conflicting.
^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^
Richard Foy
>
>In article <rfoyCJ2...@netcom.com>, rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
>> I would like to see these types of benefits remain at least as good as they
>> are with the service I use.
>
>
>Everybody's missing the point. *YOU* can buy a computer, a big honking
>disk, some modems, and some uucp software (or slip or whatever teh
etc deleted
>
>The reason big corporations will both succed and fail to take over the
>interent is because :
>1) big corporations cannot stop the small guys from setting up
> thier own private networks, and hooking them up any way they want to;
>2) the small guys can't afford the long distance bills, & optical fiber,
> etc. needed for a global network.
>
>1&2 combined is why the internet is such a wonderful anarchy, and why it
>can't be stopped, subverted, whatevered. There are MANY parallels with
>amateur radio -- or maybe CB radio ...
>
You are right in so far as you go. However that doesn't counter what I say
I am concerned about.
Let me describe a scenereo which is quite possible, in fact I think quite
probable.
Currently there are commercial networks like Compuserve etc and there is
Internet. One can get access to Internet through some of the commercial
neteworks. One can get access to Internet by what I call Internet access
providers such as the the one I use. The one I use provides access with
no line charges, no use time charges, at a low rate, carry vast numbers of
Newsgroups etc. I am very happy with it. They are expanding rapidly. I
presume they are making a profit.
Now lets assume that Zany inc. decides they want to be the king pin in the
global superhighway. Assume that they see my provider as a good way to start.
They offer a price that my provider management can't resist. They continue
the agressive expansion. A few years from now they have added fow a low cost
the fee services provdided by the Commercial Networks. They get more
customers.
They add two way video, music, etc. etc. They continue to expand until
they are the only ones provideing an excellent service. They are just
makeing a reasonable profit.
They decide the time is ripe to make a killing. They gradually increase
their prices.
You decide to invest a few millions in setting up a completing network.
Zany won't let you tie into their network. I decide to use your network
because it is much cheaper than the Zany network.
I find your network is almost useless. I can't e-mail to any of my
friends who are on Zany. You have practially no NewsGroups. etc. etc.
You go broke. As most likely does any one else who trys to compete with
Zany. Yes I admit that there may be a few small networks of specialized
entheusiasts similiar to your amatuer radio. That still doesn't prevent
me from being ripped off by Zany simply because they have gained a monopoly
on network services and the startup costs of providing a fully competitive
network are two high for anyone else to get into the market.
--
"The language of friendships is not words but meaning." Henry David Thoreau
Brian K. Yoder
>In article <CJAGF...@austin.ibm.com> li...@innerdoor.austin.ibm.com writes:
>>In article <rfoyCJ2...@netcom.com>, rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
>Let me describe a scenereo which is quite possible, in fact I think quite
>probable.
I think this sort of thing is only possible in an environment where the
government has taken action to limit competition and squash alternative
connectivity and service businesses. This idea bing steamrollered through
the government that *ALL* network-like/TV-like/telephone-like services
need to be centrally-controlled and use a single set of technologies is
quite dangerous in this respect. If the government just kept its nose out of
the system we would probably see the "Commercial Cable TV" kinds of
services being offered by local cable TV companies through provider
companies that provive the software, TV programming, etc. This would be
unrelated to the Internet although it might become common for the cable
companies to offer TCP or other connection services over their wire, and they
could contract out connection services to Uunet, PSI, Netcom, or whatever.
How could you take over something like that in an evil monopolistic way?
If you bought out PSI, Netcom, Uunet, and other similar companies all you
would have to do is start a competing company and sell connectivity to
their customers (and if they are committed to buying you out at any
price, that would create HUGE incentives for others to do it too). I suppose
that someone could try buying up all of the local cable companies too
(and if they did, there would be some danger because of the government-enforced
monopolies cable companies enjoy).
But let's say that someone decides to gamble the many billions of dollars
necessary to buy up the entire cable and net industry (a rather fantastic
concept in itself). Would the net be at his mercy? Of course not. For one
thing, the net as currently organized allows any node to connect with any
other node using any means of communication, and to route traffic through
that channel. Even if Zany Inc. tried to strangle independent providers,
alternate routing how could they do it? Sites need not have only one
connection to the outside world, and wouldn't unless the government forces
them to do that (as it seems Gore wants to do).
Even someone is both "Zany" enough to bet billions of dollars to control
the net and somehow managed to keep out all competition (something that has
never in history been possible without government favors) why would they
raise the rates to high levels? There is a HUGE market for Cable-TV style
services at monthly rates of say, <$50/mo. There is a much smaller market
for Internet-style services at about the same rate. At higher rates the
bulk of the market vanishes. Let's say that (as current Cable-TV shows)
you can sell to 80% of the market at a price of $20-25/month. If you
double the price to $50/month a lot of people will leave either to broadcast
TV, VCRs, satellite TV, or reading to their kids. I would imagine that
a $50/month price would eliminate about 50% of the market. Let's say you
tried raising it to $100/month. That would probably exclude another half of
the remaining market (or more). Look what we have at this point, large
numbers of unhappy customers looking for a cheaper alternative. Isn't this
a perfect situation for a competitor to move in? Without a monopoly
granted by the government how could you prevent such a company from gobbling up
those unhappy ex-customers? Once it had them, how could the competition
be prevented from gobbling up all of those $100/month customers too? Don't
you think the board at Zany knows this at the very start when they are
considering betting billions of dollars on this?
But for sake of argument, let's say everything I have said is wrong. A
monopoly can be cheaply organized and enforced, and everyone is spending
a lot of money for net services but they are unhappy with the situation.
And let's even assume that (somehow) you need to totally dislodge Zany before
establishing a competitor (at this point, the assumptions have become
rather absurd, but let's hang onto them for a moment). If I wrote up a little
contract saying "I agree to terminate my net contract with Zany Inc. as of
<insert date here> if by that time Acme Auditing company verifies that
YoderNet Inc. has signed agreements identical with this one from over 51%
of Zany's customers. If this happens, I agree to deal exclusively with
YoderNet for net services for one year according to the following rate
schedule <insert schedule here>. YoderNet also agrees to be nice and not
suppress competition in the following ways <insert list of ways here>."
Who wouldn't sign up? What could Zany do? I suppose that they could decide
to lower their rates etc. and make people not want to jump ship (in which
case I get what I want) or they could try to buy me out (in which case they
would have to abide by the commitments to "be nice" in the contract), or
they could ignore YoderNet Inc. and lose their monopoly after a while
(while sitting on top of billions in debt that can't be repaid).
No wonder you called your monopolist company "Zany Inc.". Anyone running
or investing in a company like that would HAVE to be Zany to theink they could
get away with it.
Richard Foy
>
>No wonder you called your monopolist company "Zany Inc.". Anyone running
>or investing in a company like that would HAVE to be Zany to theink they could
>get away with it.
>
>--Brian
>
Yes they would be Zany if they did it the way you describe.
Lets assume that at your selling price Zany is making a resonable net profit
of $1 per month per customer. Lets assume that they increase the effective
average selling price to $26 per month. They have doubled their income
with out pissing off many coustomers.
Presumably YoderNet will not have at first the economy of scale. So your costs
could well exceed the $26 per month that Zany is charging. After a few
optimists like YoderNet lose their shirt there will be less people trying to
compete.
I do understand all you have said above. I just don't think you have looked
closely enough at the way things work.
As far as the government creating regulations that result in a monopoly,
I think that has a much higher probability than you do. Washington has
allowed monoplies to exist for many years in local phone service and in cable.
While their are a lot of small businesses in cable there are a few giants.
You tend to blame Gore for the potential monopoly in networks. I think
your focus is a bit too narrow. Remember you can't judge the content
and effect of a bill by listening to the polticians or the media. You have
to understand the details of it yourself or have someone not in Wasington
completely understand to have any idea of what it will do.
Most people who were supporting the Brady Bill did not know what it
did.
I think there is hope but only if almost the entire US population of
Internet takes an active role in letting their reps know that they feel
very strongly about all of the bills concerting the Superhighway either
for or against depending on the content.
As an example here in California Assemblywoman Debra Bowen introduced
a bill AB 1624 that requries the Legislature to make large amounts of
legislative data available on Internet. When she first introduced it
she got lots of resistance. AFter all private companies were charging
healthy fees for paper copies of the data. Several of us posted
messages on Internet. She and others got many letters, phone calls, etc
requesting approval. It passed and though Gov Wilson didn't sign it
until the last day that he could, finally he did. They should be on
line about the end of this month.
--
"A war is a social revolution." -Dr. Robert C. Weaver
Brian K. Yoder
>In article <byoderCJ...@netcom.com> byo...@netcom.com (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>Lets assume that at your selling price Zany is making a resonable net profit
>of $1 per month per customer. Lets assume that they increase the effective
>average selling price to $26 per month. They have doubled their income
>with out pissing off many coustomers.
Sure they could. So what? I have no problem with the folks who own big
parts of the net getting rich. Really rich. Filthy dirty rich. Heck,
I would like to be one of those rich guys. Why do you care if they get
rich? I thought your concern was that prices would be so high as to make
net access inaccessible or of poor quality.
>Presumably YoderNet will not have at first the economy of scale.
Maybe yes, maybe no. In the last scenario I would start out with a bigger
market share than Zany's.
>So your costs
>could well exceed the $26 per month that Zany is charging. After a few
>optimists like YoderNet lose their shirt there will be less people trying to
>compete.
If that is the case, I wouldn't consider Zany to be engaging in some
kind of coercive monopoly, it would just be exploiting the natural features
of the market in a fair and efficient manner. Perhaps they can keep YoderNet
from gaining a foothold by keeping their prices low and quality high, but
if they do, what is your complaint?
>I do understand all you have said above. I just don't think you have looked
>closely enough at the way things work.
Well, I have looked at history and I have never seen an example of a company
following the Zany strategy and lasting more than a short time without being
propped up by the government.
>As far as the government creating regulations that result in a monopoly,
>I think that has a much higher probability than you do.
Sure there is, and we need to fight against such actions just like we need to
fight against direct government control.
>Washington has
>allowed monoplies to exist for many years in local phone service and in cable.
Sure it has. ANd look at the results? We would have had smart cable,
fast nets, and videophones a long time ago if the government wasn't
bogging everything down to preserve the monopolies.
>While their are a lot of small businesses in cable there are a few giants.
>You tend to blame Gore for the potential monopoly in networks.
Not exactly, I blame all the folks who are pushing the government in that
direction including the business types, and advocacy groups like EFF. I have
been focusing on Gore for two reasons. One is that he is thoroughly
committed to government control of the net (although he sugar-coats
it in his speeches), and the other is that he is the most public spokesman
for that side of the argument (so far it doesn't seem that the anti-government
involvement side has any spokesmen, at least they don't get invited to
conferences).
>I think
>your focus is a bit too narrow. Remember you can't judge the content
>and effect of a bill by listening to the polticians or the media. You have
>to understand the details of it yourself or have someone not in Wasington
>completely understand to have any idea of what it will do.
I would like to see the bills, but since the basic principle is the government
establishment of standards and operational regulations of the net, why do
I have to look at the details if I am opposed to government control and
regulation per se? If a bill was pending whose purpose was to regulate your
choice of sexual partners would you have to read it to know that it deserves
to be opposed?
>Most people who were supporting the Brady Bill did not know what it
>did.
But it is clear what Gore & Company want to do. They want to control the net.
Even if at this stage they promise to exercise benign dictatorship and wise
ruleand "sharing control" with various others like the EFF, I would
still oppose it because the government has no business being involved in
the first place. I opposed the Brady Bill on the same grounds. If the
government can limit my access to guns in principle with some small
intrusion like a waiting period, what is to stop it from taking the next
step and the next? Likewise, if Gore's crew can specify the prices and
services of the net (and that there should be one and not several and so on)
then why should they not be able to regulate use of the net by certain
unpopular groups next year? Or restrict competitive technologies the next
year? Are you naive enough to think that given some power to control a
medium as powerful as this one might become that they will ever give any of
it up? Or that they won't seek to expand that control? Look at what happened
with the "public control of the airwaves because they are a limited resource".
Can you honestly say that such oversight has been handled responsibly?
>I think there is hope but only if almost the entire US population of
>Internet takes an active role in letting their reps know that they feel
>very strongly about all of the bills concerting the Superhighway either
>for or against depending on the content.
But what is the right attitude toward them? Should we say "You can control
the net, but please be kind to us." or "Keep your nose out of things you
don't own and have no constitutionally granted power to interfere in."
>As an example here in California Assemblywoman Debra Bowen introduced
>a bill AB 1624 that requries the Legislature to make large amounts of
>legislative data available on Internet. When she first introduced it
>she got lots of resistance. AFter all private companies were charging
>healthy fees for paper copies of the data. Several of us posted
>messages on Internet. She and others got many letters, phone calls, etc
>requesting approval. It passed and though Gov Wilson didn't sign it
>until the last day that he could, finally he did. They should be on
>line about the end of this month.
Sure, I followed that story and I wrote to all of the relevant officials too.
Publishing government documents on the net is a far cry from government
control of the net. Why did you bring that up?
Robert L. McMillin
> As an example here in California Assemblywoman Debra Bowen introduced
> a bill AB 1624 that requries the Legislature to make large amounts of
> legislative data available on Internet. When she first introduced it
> she got lots of resistance. AFter all private companies were charging
> healthy fees for paper copies of the data. Several of us posted
> messages on Internet. She and others got many letters, phone calls, etc
> requesting approval. It passed and though Gov Wilson didn't sign it
> until the last day that he could, finally he did. They should be on
> line about the end of this month.
Actually, it's online now, but it's not clear what's on line. ftp to
sen.ca.gov.
--
Robert L. McMillin | r...@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: r...@netcom.com
"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep
thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the
same act.... Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition
of liberty."
-- Abraham Lincoln
Richard Foy
>
>I would like to see the bills, but since the basic principle is the government
>establishment of standards and operational regulations of the net, why do
>I have to look at the details if I am opposed to government control and
>regulation per se? If a bill was pending whose purpose was to regulate your
>choice of sexual partners would you have to read it to know that it deserves
>to be opposed?
You can't always tell the purpose of a bill from the rhetoric about the bill.
>
>But what is the right attitude toward them? Should we say "You can control
>the net, but please be kind to us." or "Keep your nose out of things you
>don't own and have no constitutionally granted power to interfere in."
There is a lot of energy behind the data highway. There are a lot of big
guys trying to influence legislation to benefit themselves. There undoubtedly
will be legislation passed regarding the data highway. I think that it
is most effective if people undersatnd the legislation and tell their
Congressperons exactly what tehy think about the legislation. Saying
I am opposed to all legislation regarding networks is not likely to influence
the representatives very much.
>
>Sure, I followed that story and I wrote to all of the relevant officials too.
>Publishing government documents on the net is a far cry from government
>control of the net. Why did you bring that up?
>
>--Brian
I brought it up as an example of how the net can be used to influence
legislation that is being proposed.
What would you like to see in a bill that is titled Data Highway.
--
"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do."
-Bertrand Russell
Brian K. Yoder
>In article <byoderCJ...@netcom.com> byo...@netcom.com (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>I would like to see the bills, but since the basic principle is the government
>>establishment of standards and operational regulations of the net, why do
>>I have to look at the details if I am opposed to government control and
>>regulation per se? If a bill was pending whose purpose was to regulate your
>>choice of sexual partners would you have to read it to know that it deserves
>>to be opposed?
>You can't always tell the purpose of a bill from the rhetoric about the bill.
Is there any question that the laws Gore and friends will be promoting will
put the government in a position to control any part of the network from
ownership to content to access to prices?
>>But what is the right attitude toward them? Should we say "You can control
>>the net, but please be kind to us." or "Keep your nose out of things you
>>don't own and have no constitutionally granted power to interfere in."
>There is a lot of energy behind the data highway. There are a lot of big
>guys trying to influence legislation to benefit themselves.
That's right. Just like there are on issues like abortion, gun control,
paper press censorship, racially discriminatory laws, and so on. Just because
there are powerful forces out there pushing for the violation of individual
rights doesn't mean that one should accept such violations as acceptable.
>There undoubtedly
>will be legislation passed regarding the data highway.
That entirely depends on whether enough people oppose it. If there were
laws being proposed (by big and powerful people) to reimpose slavery would
you say "Well, we have to compromise and try to make sure that the laws
include provisions for retirement of slaves."? Are you not horrified at
having such a big important means of communication being controlled by the
government?
>I think that it
>is most effective if people undersatnd the legislation and tell their
>Congressperons exactly what tehy think about the legislation. Saying
>I am opposed to all legislation regarding networks is not likely to influence
>the representatives very much.
Why? At least it is a principled approach which points out that the the
government has no legitimate power to control something like the net. If
the government proposed to nationalize all newspapers (but for now leave
them in control of the existing editors and writers and of course they
would PROMISE that there would NEVER be any censorship) would you have the
same opinion?
>>Sure, I followed that story and I wrote to all of the relevant officials too.
>>Publishing government documents on the net is a far cry from government
>>control of the net. Why did you bring that up?
>I brought it up as an example of how the net can be used to influence
>legislation that is being proposed.
>What would you like to see in a bill that is titled Data Highway.
Nothing. The government should neither define it, nor license it, nor control
it in any way. It might want to USE it just like any big organization might,
but that would fall under subjects like "How the legislature can USE the net"
or "How the Library of Congress can USE the net", not "What should the net be,
how shout it work, who should have access to it, how should it be paid for,
or even whether there should be one (or two, or three!).".
One of the things I find most obnoxious about the government grab on the net
is that the assumption is that just because something is important, the
government needs to control it. Just what are they going to add? Do they know
more about what people want than the net businessmen? Do they know more
about technology? Are they smarter or nicer guys than we are? The bottom
line is that they are a bunch of power lusters and they can't pass up
an oppostunity to dominate anything new that comes along, and constitutional
limits on government power be damned. Has anybody bothered asking these guys
why we need them to tell us how to build and run a network? (or several)?
Wilson S. Ross
|> ...
|> One of the things I find most obnoxious about the government grab on the net
|> is that the assumption is that just because something is important, the
|> an oppostunity to dominate anything new that comes along, and constitutional
|> limits on government power be damned. Has anybody bothered asking these guys
|> why we need them to tell us how to build and run a network? (or several)?
While I want to see the net be really free (omitting deep thought on
what this means for now), this statement is a little ironic given that
the government in effect created the net in the 1st place - one
might think that they had come along & discovered it, rather than
funding it from the word go. Note that this implies no license to
control financially independent activity or even perhaps much dependent
activity.
Going a little deeper, I can imagine laws comparable to current laws on
highway safety, stock market regulation, business practices and possibly
monopoly limitation being to the general good. However, it may be in
everyone's best interest to see what crimes and relevant problems develop
before applying rules.
Not having examined the "laws Gore and friends will be promoting" I
don't have any specific opinions, but was under the impression that
e.g. EFF was cautiously favorable. On the other hand, modulo the
vagueness, the thrust of Yoder's arguments appeals to me, so I would
appreciate a more detailed rundown from Mr. Y. if he has time (or
email if I missed something in an earlier post).
Bill Ross
JOHN ERIC THYGESON
>Subject: Re: Potential Futures Re: Proposed Declaration of the Rights of Netizens - Ideas wanted
>Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 09:33:15 GMT
Brian K. Yoder
>In article <byoderCJ...@netcom.com>, byo...@netcom.com (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>|>One of the things I find most obnoxious about the government grab on the net
>|>is that the assumption is that just because something is important, the
>|>government needs to control it. Just what are they going to add? ...
>|>an oppostunity to dominate anything new that comes along, and constitutional
>|>limits on government power be damned. Has anybody bothered asking these guys
>|>why we need them to tell us how to build and run a network? (or several)?
>While I want to see the net be really free (omitting deep thought on
>what this means for now), this statement is a little ironic given that
>the government in effect created the net in the 1st place
Yes it did, and that fact that it created one "for free" prevented any
commercial ventures from coming along and creating it. If there is a need
that justifies the expense the business sector would have built it already.
Notice the self-justifying nature of further spending and control as well.
Every new expenditure or control justifies further spending and control by
your reasoning. My claim is that the government had no business building
it in the first place, and that it shouldn't compound that mistake by
extending its control further.
>- one
>might think that they had come along & discovered it,
Well, the politicians have not generally been aware of it until the last year
or two. But that's beside the point.
>rather than
>funding it from the word go. Note that this implies no license to
>control financially independent activity or even perhaps much dependent
>activity.
But that is a justification that will be used at each phase to justify
the next one. I should also point out that the government net forced
the commercial net that would have otherwise been built to never get off the
ground. Who can compete with a government entity like that?
>Going a little deeper, I can imagine laws comparable to current laws on
>highway safety,
You mean the ones that force us to drive 55mph on roads designed for 75mph?
What about the ones that try to tell us whether we can drive to work
alone? Or specify certain lanes for carpooling? Or specify that we here
in California have to buy electric cars in a few years?
>stock market regulation,
Don't get me started on those! The laws designed to supposedly prevent me from
being "exploited" by my employer have cost me hundreds of thousands of
dollars personally, prevented me from making fair deals with employees,
and open every business in the country to lawsuits no matter what they do
or how they operate. Just what regulations do you consider necessary
besides those dealing with theft and fraud AFTER the fact?
>business practices
You mean like hiring whom I want and at a mutualy acceptable wage? Ooops.
That's not allowed.
>and possibly
>monopoly limitation
I assume you mean the anti-trust laws? The laws of economics will prevent
coercive monopolies, it is government regulation that CREATES monopolies.
>being to the general good. However, it may be in
>everyone's best interest to see what crimes and relevant problems develop
>before applying rules.
You mean you should make up the rules retroactively? Based on what? Whether
you get what you want?
The proper rules in generalities can be stated quite clearly...nobody can
commit acts of force or fraud. Exactly what constitutes those things on
the net needs to be established more finely, but I can tell you right away
that laws paying subsidies, fixing prices, establishing feature lists,
disallowing options from contracts, and so on have nothing to do with
combating force and fraud.
Brian Behlendorf
>direction including the business types, and advocacy groups like EFF. I have
>been focusing on Gore for two reasons. One is that he is thoroughly
>committed to government control of the net (although he sugar-coats
>it in his speeches), and the other is that he is the most public spokesman
>for that side of the argument (so far it doesn't seem that the anti-government
>involvement side has any spokesmen, at least they don't get invited to
>conferences).
Could you please back this up with cites, with quotes from his
speeches or actions he has taken, etc. I've read the text of his
speeches, policy papers he's written, and feel fairly updated on this
issue, and feel you are at best misled and at worst paranoic.
Government sponsorship of the net does NOT imply government "control",
as we've talked about before here. Gore can be accused as a johnny-
come-lately, and the "Information Superhighway" can just be a
McDonald's-esque term for the Internet, agreed, but to label his
interest and promotion of the net as malicious seems skewed to me.
Brian
Joel Furr
Brian Behlendorf <bbe...@soda.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Could you please back this up with cites, with quotes from his
>speeches or actions he has taken, etc. I've read the text of his
>speeches, policy papers he's written, and feel fairly updated on this
>issue, and feel you are at best misled and at worst paranoic.
Didn't you hear his speech on Friday that basically enumerated precisely
the point of view you claim he doesn't espouse?
Brian Behlendorf
>Brian Behlendorf <bbe...@soda.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>Could you please back this up with cites, with quotes from his
>>speeches or actions he has taken, etc. I've read the text of his
>>speeches, policy papers he's written, and feel fairly updated on this
>>issue, and feel you are at best misled and at worst paranoic.
>
>Didn't you hear his speech on Friday
Yes.
>that basically enumerated precisely the point of view you claim he
>doesn't espouse?
No.
I guess I'm barking up the wrong tree if I'm looking for a fact-based
discussion on USENET. I asked for cites, quotes, actions, anything that
could be used to validate Brian Yoder's skepticism. I haven't seen it
yet. All I can fault him with is naivete - but the basic tenets of his
platform are sound.
Brian
Michael Brininstool
>
>>Going a little deeper, I can imagine laws comparable to current laws on
>>highway safety,
>
>You mean the ones that force us to drive 55mph on roads designed for 75mph?
>What about the ones that try to tell us whether we can drive to work
>alone? Or specify certain lanes for carpooling? Or specify that we here
>in California have to buy electric cars in a few years?
Since the roads are not your property, the "owner" of that property can tell
you how you are allowed to use it. They have no say about use of vehicles
on you property.
---------------------------------------------------------|
| #include "std/disclaimer.h" Michael P. Brininstool |
| mik...@freke.lerctr.org OR mik...@freke.lonestar.org |
|---------------------------------------------------------
Richard M. Hartman
>Yes it did, and that fact that it created one "for free" prevented any
>commercial ventures from coming along and creating it. If there is a need
>that justifies the expense the business sector would have built it already.
Wrong. If there had been a MARKET, the business sector would have
built it. The net was created originally for academic exchange of
information between a) government research projects, and b) educational
institutions. Hardly what I would call marketable.
That said, the net has expanded far beyond it's initial implementation,
and is no longer government owned. If all .gov sites disappeared, the
net would live on. It is not even USA-specific anymore. The US government
has been outgrown as far as any ability or "moral claim" they might have
to control of the net.
>Notice the self-justifying nature of further spending and control as well.
This is just your government doing business as usual, and has nothing
to do specifically with the net.
> My claim is that the government had no business building
>it in the first place, and that it shouldn't compound that mistake by
>extending its control further.
Wrong and right. It was not a misteak to build it (a voice whispers: "if
you build it they will come...") It is, however, BEYOND any government
control by now, and any attempts to impose controls will be an excercise
in futility.
-Richard Hartman
har...@ulogic.COM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"The only way you will be able to kill the Usenet beast would be to nuke the
planet & start over from scratch...and even then the cockroaches will still
remember the way things were & strive to bring back the old familiar Usenet."
--Michael D. Maxfield <tw...@netcom.com>
Richard M. Hartman
If the other side won't bring in facts, why don't you? Tell us
what YOU think Gore's been saying, and why we should not be concerned.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lovely to see you again my friend, |
walk along with me to the next bend. | -Richard Hartman
Tell us what you've seen | har...@uLogic.COM
in far away forgotten lands, |
Where empires have turned back to sand. |
-Justin Hayward |
Joseph Bou-Younes
>>In article <byoderCJ...@netcom.com>, byo...@netcom.com (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>
>Yes it did, and that fact that it created one "for free" prevented any
>commercial ventures from coming along and creating it.
> If there is a need
>that justifies the expense the business sector would have built it already.
>Notice the self-justifying nature of further spending and control as well.
>Every new expenditure or control justifies further spending and control by
>your reasoning. My claim is that the government had no business building
>it in the first place, and that it shouldn't compound that mistake by
>extending its control further.
>
>>- one
>>might think that they had come along & discovered it,
>
>Well, the politicians have not generally been aware of it until the last year
>or two. But that's beside the point.
Oh joy.... Algore with his "information superhighway." Sorry American friends,
but at this rate the "prototypical" Internet is going to be the only country
road open for traffic... Heh! My native Canada could beat you to the punch
(with our "EEEEiiinnfrastructure (French-Canadian accent)" program).
>But that is a justification that will be used at each phase to justify
>the next one. I should also point out that the government net forced
>the commercial net that would have otherwise been built to never get off the
>ground. Who can compete with a government entity like that?
Kinda the same way competition (anti-trust) laws wouldn't be neccesary if
there was no other gov't intervention with business. The gov't (by using its
massive debt-financed bulk) built a net almost a decade before its time (that
is, before one could be run profitably). Hence, now its so big that no other
net can compete (the relatively low price notwithstanding - remember how the
net was financed).
>>business practices
>
>You mean like hiring whom I want and at a mutualy acceptable wage? Ooops.
>That's not allowed.
You should talk? Take a trip up to Ontario - the largest communist economy in
the world.
>The proper rules in generalities can be stated quite clearly...nobody can
>commit acts of force or fraud. Exactly what constitutes those things on
>the net needs to be established more finely, but I can tell you right away
>that laws paying subsidies, fixing prices, establishing feature lists,
>disallowing options from contracts, and so on have nothing to do with
>combating force and fraud.
Yeah!
Joseph Bou-Younes
jose...@io.org
PolyScience Information
free market orientation and the (well meaning, but flawed) one-world
central control orientation. Isn't it time the free marketeers proposed
their own Bill of Rights?
Off the top of my head:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No government or body shall impose any control over:
1) information on the network,
2) its encryption or other provisions to ensure its privacy,
3) the media on which it is carried, or
4) its use for whatever commercial arrangements (be they charitable
or profitable) its parties choose;
except where such control is aimed at the direct prevention of specific
criminal injury to the parties under the protection of such government
or body.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let's flesh this out and see if we can't come up with something useful.
Stop wasting your breath (or keystrokes) trying to convince the socialists.
They tend to either learn or die out eventually.
Mark Thomas
polysc...@apollo.is.co.za
Brian K. Yoder
>This thread has turned into a discussion between the (correct and moral)
>free market orientation and the (well meaning, but flawed) one-world
>central control orientation. Isn't it time the free marketeers proposed
>their own Bill of Rights?
I like the idea, and I think that we should explicitly link these rights
to the constitutionally guaranteed ones by making it clear that these
are not new rights in any way, but just more specific explanations of what
the rights to own property, speak freely, and make contracts mean in the
new context of computerized communication.
>Off the top of my head:
These aren't bad for a spur of the moment start, but I have a few nits to
pick.
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>No government or body shall impose any control over:
>
>1) information on the network,
More specifically: Whereas computer communication serves the same purposes
as speech and press, limits on government action regarding computer
communications shall be at least as strong as those regarding newspapers
and books and in any case, congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom
of the press including the electronic press.
>2) its encryption or other provisions to ensure its privacy,
Congress shall pass no law forbidding, requiring, or specifying the form
of encryption used in electronic communications.
>3) the media on which it is carried, or
The government shall not own or control through any intermediary, equipment
or facilities for the generation, storage, or transmission of electronic
communications beyond those required for the efficient operation of
the legislative, military, police, or judicial functions of government.
[Note: I am quite aware that this would outlaw government contribution
to PBS and other such agencies. It would also allow the government
to distribute information about its activities by way of the net (along
the lines of C-SPAN.]
A
>4) its use for whatever commercial arrangements (be they charitable
> or profitable) its parties choose;
We should probably not specify the uses here since it implies that maybe
others could be regulated (such as recreational uses for example).
>
>except where such control is aimed at the direct prevention of specific
>criminal injury to the parties under the protection of such government
>or body.
This would seem to allow such things as Clipper chips etc. (since they
are trying it justify it on the grounds of catching criminals). I think
something along the lines of requiring a search warrant before searching
computer communications (just like a wire tap warrant) would be good here
as would be a specific prohibition against scanning traffic just to
look for evildoers. If they want to use the net to look for evidence of
a particular crime by a particular person, that's OK. If they just
read my diary on-line because they think it would be interesting and
might implicate me in something, that's wrong.
I think a VERY important principle we need to get in here (especially since
it is so regularly violated otherwise) is that anyone should be able to
own any kind of communication equipment they want, use it any way they
want, *and* sell services on any mutually agreeable basis to anyone they
way. Also nobody should be forced to provide such services or equipment
to anyone else, and the government should not subsidize the access of
anyone else, nor tax it, or regulate it in any way.
If the government can subsidize some people or require that providers
offer certain kinds of services or forbid them, then it has control over
the net. For example, they could pass a law that establishes maximum
subscription fees and lower them if the connectivity people don't
censor certain kinds of programming. They could also require certain
kinds of programming of a political nature (such as a "wake up message"
from the president on the morning of the election) without this kind of
thing.
If we look at the efforts the politicians are going through in order to
control TV and movies (such as Senator Simon's threats of outright
censorship of violent programming or the upcoming debates over
"campaign reform" where many have called for government-funded mandated
TV time for candidates) it is obvious that we need some iron-clad
protections against politicians forcing their ideas down our throats
and limiting or censoring content.
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Let's flesh this out and see if we can't come up with something useful.
>Stop wasting your breath (or keystrokes) trying to convince the socialists.
>They tend to either learn or die out eventually.
>
Excellent idea. This kind of document (one we get the bugs out of it)
would be a good way to force the politicians to put their money where
their mouth is when it comes to censorship, encryption, and so on.
It is unfortunate that the politicians (and so many others) need to be
reminded of what the Constitution means, but since they are in such
obvious need of it, we should send them the best reminder we can. I wonder
if they EFF will endorse this sort of thing as opposed to the
unprincipled fence-sitting they have engaged in up to this point.
Robert McMillin
> In article <2hl1ff$2...@apollo.is.co.za> polysc...@apollo.is.co.za (PolyScience Information) writes:
>>This thread has turned into a discussion between the (correct and moral)
>>free market orientation and the (well meaning, but flawed) one-world
>>central control orientation. Isn't it time the free marketeers proposed
>>their own Bill of Rights?
> I like the idea, and I think that we should explicitly link these
> rights to the constitutionally guaranteed ones by making it clear
> that these are not new rights in any way, but just more specific
> explanations of what the rights to own property, speak freely, and
> make contracts mean in the new context of computerized
> communication.
>>Off the top of my head:
[presumable deletia]
>>3) the media on which it is carried, or
> The government shall not own or control through any intermediary,
> equipment or facilities for the generation, storage, or transmission
> of electronic communications beyond those required for the efficient
> operation of the legislative, military, police, or judicial
> functions of government. [Note: I am quite aware that this would
> outlaw government contribution to PBS and other such agencies. It
> would also allow the government to distribute information about its
> activities by way of the net (along the lines of C-SPAN.] A
It's about time somebody unplugged the notion of public broadcasting
as being better than private. Already, state-owned television in the
U.S. is little better than its commercial counterparts (PBS is a
government-run Discovery Channel). They have all the trappings of
corporate sponsorship. Save for the public begging sessions and the
lack of 'real' advertisements, they're indistinguishable from for-
profit broadcasters.
NPR, which is widely touted as being the best of this dysfunctional
family, accepts *corporate sponsorship for reporting on specific
issues*! If you thought the conflict of interest between GE and NBC's
news division was serious, check this one out! As if this weren't
enough, NPR serves exactly one viewpoint with the vast majority of its
reporting: the government's. Nina Totenberg and her pals in the
Washington office make no secret of their left-wing political views
(applauding on the air when Clinton won the election was a big clue).
NPR reporters never met a tax hike they didn't like, nor any tax
reduction or spending cut (save for defense, of course) they could
praise.
>>4) its use for whatever commercial arrangements (be they charitable
>> or profitable) its parties choose;
> We should probably not specify the uses here since it implies that maybe
> others could be regulated (such as recreational uses for example).
>>
>>except where such control is aimed at the direct prevention of specific
>>criminal injury to the parties under the protection of such government
>>or body.
> I think a VERY important principle we need to get in here (especially since
> it is so regularly violated otherwise) is that anyone should be able to
> own any kind of communication equipment they want, use it any way they
> want, *and* sell services on any mutually agreeable basis to anyone they
> way. Also nobody should be forced to provide such services or equipment
> to anyone else, and the government should not subsidize the access of
> anyone else, nor tax it, or regulate it in any way.
It occurs to me that access will get subsidized to schools anyway. We
want this to happen in a way that will not cause real cost-of-service
to go to the moon.
--
Robert L. McMillin | r...@helen.surfcty.com (preferred) | r...@netcom.com
Annuit coeptis. Novus ordo seclorum. E pluribus unum. Ask me how!
Don &
In article <byoderC...@netcom.com> byo...@netcom.com (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
PolySci>
PolySci> No government or body shall impose any control over:
PolySci>
[...]
PolySci> 2) its encryption or other provisions to ensure its privacy,
Brian> Congress shall pass no law forbidding, requiring, or
Brian> specifying the form of encryption used in electronic
Brian> communications.
[...]
PolySci> except where such control [of encryption, etc.] is
PolySci> aimed at the direct prevention of specific criminal
PolySci> injury to the parties under the protection of such
PolySci> government or body.
Brian> This would seem to allow such things as Clipper chips
Brian> etc. (since they are trying it justify it on the grounds of
Brian> catching criminals). I think something along the lines of
Brian> requiring a search warrant before searching computer
Brian> communications (just like a wire tap warrant) would be good
Brian> here as would be a specific prohibition against scanning
Brian> traffic just to look for evildoers....
Here is where you will get a major clash between your idea of freedom
and the interests of intellectual property. Suppose I rent a copy of
"Jurassic Park" and decide to send it over the data highway to my
friend? Suppose I start a "Movie of the Week" club of 20 people who
each take turns renting the week's movie and sending it the other
members. We would use encryption so that no casual survey of traffic
would be able distinguish this activity from the transmittal of videos
of Junior's birthday party, etc. Suppose thousands of such clubs
spring up so as to present a serious threat to movie profits. Clearly
the activity violates copyright law, but establishing "probable
cause," as for search warrants, on a case-by-case basis would be
impractical. So authorites would want (and movie producers would
demand) resort to scanning.
Brian and PolySci both seem to think Clipper is basically OK except
that Brian wants search-warrant type protections (which the Clipper
proposal already has, in principal). I think Brian is worried that in
practice Clipper would lead to scanning. I think he is right, for the
reasons I give above --- reasons which, I think, neither Brian nor
PolySci have anticipated.
The basic problem is that information, by its nature, "wants" to be
free rather than proprietary. "Intellectual property" is a creation
of law and government standing in contradiction to the tendency of
information to flow freely. In the beginning, the contradiction was
not so sharp because the law sought to impose limits only at those
points where there were already strong technical limits (e.g. the
expense of setting type in old-fashioned printing presses). But as
technological limits disappear, the law stands vulnerable as an
anachronism. Nevertheless, powerful institutions such as publishing
companies, movie producers, etc., have grown up around intellectual
property and can be expected to defend it staunchly, with government
as their loyal servant and enforcer. Apace with the erosion of
technological barriers, government and industry will seek to
strengthen legal barriers and enforcement. As law enforment becomes
both more repressive and more futile, a new sort of ideological frenzy
against "piracy" and "cyber thieves" is likely to develop. Perhaps it
will even come close to the level of hysteria of the War on Drugs. In
such an atmosphere, the idea of "information bills of rights" like
PolySci and Brian are developing will be about as popular as
"criminal's rights" are today. Repressive measures will not only be
tolerated, they will be appauded.
The alternative? The abolition of copyright law and perhaps also,
patent law. Yes, this is radical, but no more so than the changes in
the base technology of information. Culture in the
post-intellectual-property world will be quite different. There may
be more in the nature of story telling and chit-chat (as in UseNet and
'Zines) and much less in the nature of "Jurrasic Park." Is that so bad?
Don Bashford
bash...@scripps.edu
Wolstenholme, Daniel Eri
In article <BASHFORD.94...@toad.scripps.edu>, bash...@toad.scripps.edu (Don &) writes...
Sorry about quoting the whole message; wasn't avoidable with this crummy editor
and screwed-up terminal emulation.
I'm not sure abolishing copyrights is quite the answer. However, I
think that allowing law-enforcement to read everyone's mail to hunt down
possible copyright violators is ridiculous. The reason abolition probably
isn't the answer is that those copyright supporters you mentioned will exert
political pressure to prevent such an action.
As for information 'wanting to be free,' now that it is so easy to
disseminate information using digital technology, it is inevitable that many
people will use this technology to do just that. Now if movie people and
others holding copyrights really want to prevent people from passing around
copies of their goods, they should keep it to themselves (of course, they
wouldn't profit this way). This is much like software piracy: it's as easy
as issuing a dos 'copy' command to steal software, so of course lots of people
are going to do that to avoid spending money. Now with paper books, it's
not so easy. Unless you want to stand around at Kinko's all night copying
every page (and probably ending up paying more for the copies than the original
text), the only practical way to get a copy for free would be shoplifting,
which is far more dangerous than copying some disks at a friend's house.
My basic philosophy is this: if copyright holders (publishers,
producers, etc.) they should do what they can to encourage people to buy the
real thing from them. Movies have an advantage here: watching a movie at the
cinema for $1.00-$7.00 on a huge Panavision screen with 6-channel Dolby
surround (or better yet, TFX) is a lot better than watching it at home on a
25-inch (at best, 52-inch) low-resolution TV that makes an annoying
high-pitched whine (all TV's do this), in mono or at best 2-channel stereo.
I'll gladly shell out a buck for such far superior video and sound quality.
Home theaters simply can't compete until we all have those 'wall screens'
like in Total Recall.
As for books and software, that's just too bad. It's not worth living
in a police state just so someone's profits are protected.
Danny
John E. Pannell
Peter da Silva
in the U.S. the constitutional justification is that it is necessary to
protect intellectual property rights to ensure the production and the
dissemination of information... the publication of advances in the arts and
sciences (terminology approximate: I don't have a copy of that entirely
remarkable document at hand). The alternative to publication is to keep the
resource a trade secret, which hinders further development (just as any
alchemist).
So you have patents, that balance the high cost of development and reproduction
with a temporary monopoly on the use of that information.
Improved information technology changes the equation. Just how it changes
things is currently being hotly debated. Whether the current protections end
up being eroded, strenghtened, or redesigned you can be sure of one thing:
they will not stay the same. Production costs are now negligable, but
development costs are still high, just as *one* example.
--
Peter da Silva `-_-'
Network Management Technology Incorporated 'U`
1601 Industrial Blvd. Sugar Land, TX 77478 USA
+1 713 274 5180 "Hast Du heute schon Deinen Wolf umarmt?"
Steven Horn
[Much very good stuff deleted]
>The alternative? The abolition of copyright law and perhaps also,
>patent law. Yes, this is radical, but no more so than the changes in
>the base technology of information. Culture in the
>post-intellectual-property world will be quite different. There may
>be more in the nature of story telling and chit-chat (as in UseNet and
>'Zines) and much less in the nature of "Jurrasic Park." Is that so bad?
>Don Bashford
>bash...@scripps.edu
Only insofar as the economic fortunes of the 'haves' are concerned who
stand to lose their royalties and contracts to the gain of the 'havenots'
who have to gain from the increased flow of information. I believe IMHO
that the economic fortunes will prevail as they do today in the
increasingly apparent joke of a 'War on Drugs' Something has to be in
place in an absence of copyright /patent protection that would ensure an
artist compensation for their work!! It is a worthy challenge indeed!!
Don &
In article <25JAN199...@utkvx.utk.edu> dwol...@utkvx.utk.edu (Wolstenholme, Daniel Eri) writes:
DEW> Sorry about quoting the whole message; wasn't
DEW> avoidable with this crummy editor and screwed-up
DEW> terminal emulation.
DEW> I'm not sure abolishing
DEW> copyrights is quite the answer. However, I think
DEW> that allowing law-enforcement to read everyone's
DEW> mail to hunt down possible copyright violators is
DEW> ridiculous.
Awful, yes --- but ridiculous? Technically it should be possible
to have programs scan a very large number of email messages for fragments
of, say, the 100 most commonly pirated items and with Clipper they could
do it even on encrypted messages. They wouldn't need to do it *all*
messages any more than the IRS needs to audit all tax returns.
DEW> The reason abolition probably isn't the answer is that those
DEW> copyright supporters you mentioned will exert political
DEW> pressure to prevent such an action.
I don't doubt that they would. But then, in 18th century England the
button-crafters were a powerful political interest too. When
factory-made buttons appeared, this old guard suceeded in passing laws
banning them. Even to the point of imposing penalties on anyone seen
wearing a factory-made button! It didn't work of course. Law and
politics can delay the day when the technically obsolete are swept
away, but ultimately they cannot prevent it.
DEW> As for information 'wanting to be free,' now that it is so
DEW> easy to disseminate information using digital technology, it
DEW> is inevitable that many people will use this technology to do
DEW> just that ... copyright holders ... should do what they can
DEW> to encourage people to buy the real thing from them. Movies
DEW> have an advantage here...
Yes, movies can still make a profit from theater showings, but
"piracy" and home viewing will still cut into it sharply. Other parts
of the IP trade may fare even worse: Road kill on the information
highway.
Don Bashford
bash...@scripps.edu
PS: I will be away for the next week. Email replies to me if you
want me to see them since they may expire from news by the time I get back.
Michael Maranda
Daniel wrote
>>Awful, yes --- but ridiculous? Technically it should be possible
>>to have programs scan a very large number of email messages for fragments
>>of, say, the 100 most commonly pirated items and with Clipper they could
>>do it even on encrypted messages. They wouldn't need to do it *all*
>>messages any more than the IRS needs to audit all tax returns.
>Again, sorry about the editor.
> Does this mean you support the government reading everyone's email
>to look for 'forbidden knowledge?' This doesn't seem much better than an
>outright totalitarian government to me. Imagine if all your snail mail arrived
>opened and stamped "Censored." This is the same thing.
> "With Clipper they could do it even on encrypted messages"? What if I
>don't use Clipper? Encryption isn't much good if unauthorized people can still
>read your mail.>
Remember the last time that you made an international phone call???
Chances are that if you mentioned drugs, plastic, marx, or revolution (even
if it was over the counter coughmedicine, plastic recycling, "Night at the
Opera", or information revolution) "the government" did listen in ... just
long enough to make sure you weren't plotting to overthrow the good ol' USA.
Just because it isn't nice doesn't mean it isn't done.
--
......................................................................
......................Michael.Maranda..................................
.......................................mm017g@uhura.cc.rochester.edu....
.......................................................................
Wolstenholme, Daniel Eri
>In article <25JAN199...@utkvx.utk.edu> dwol...@utkvx.utk.edu (Wolstenholme, Daniel Eri) writes:
>
>
>
>
> DEW> Sorry about quoting the whole message; wasn't
> DEW> avoidable with this crummy editor and screwed-up
> DEW> terminal emulation.
>
> DEW> I'm not sure abolishing
> DEW> copyrights is quite the answer. However, I think
> DEW> that allowing law-enforcement to read everyone's
> DEW> mail to hunt down possible copyright violators is
> DEW> ridiculous.
>
>Awful, yes --- but ridiculous? Technically it should be possible
>to have programs scan a very large number of email messages for fragments
>of, say, the 100 most commonly pirated items and with Clipper they could
>do it even on encrypted messages. They wouldn't need to do it *all*
>messages any more than the IRS needs to audit all tax returns.
Again, sorry about the editor.
Does this mean you support the government reading everyone's email
to look for 'forbidden knowledge?' This doesn't seem much better than an
outright totalitarian government to me. Imagine if all your snail mail arrived
opened and stamped "Censored." This is the same thing.
"With Clipper they could do it even on encrypted messages"? What if I
don't use Clipper? Encryption isn't much good if unauthorized people can still
read your mail.>
> DEW> The reason abolition probably isn't the answer is that those
Wolstenholme, Daniel Eri
>
>Daniel wrote
>
>>>Awful, yes --- but ridiculous? Technically it should be possible
>>>to have programs scan a very large number of email messages for fragments
>>>of, say, the 100 most commonly pirated items and with Clipper they could
>>>do it even on encrypted messages. They wouldn't need to do it *all*
>>>messages any more than the IRS needs to audit all tax returns.
>
>>Again, sorry about the editor.
>> Does this mean you support the government reading everyone's email
>>to look for 'forbidden knowledge?' This doesn't seem much better than an
>>outright totalitarian government to me. Imagine if all your snail mail arrived
>>opened and stamped "Censored." This is the same thing.
>> "With Clipper they could do it even on encrypted messages"? What if I
>>don't use Clipper? Encryption isn't much good if unauthorized people can still
>>read your mail.>
>
>
>Remember the last time that you made an international phone call???
>
>Chances are that if you mentioned drugs, plastic, marx, or revolution (even
>if it was over the counter coughmedicine, plastic recycling, "Night at the
>Opera", or information revolution) "the government" did listen in ... just
>long enough to make sure you weren't plotting to overthrow the good ol' USA.
>
>Just because it isn't nice doesn't mean it isn't do
Damn, I 've heard stories about the feds listening in on internation
hate this editor.
Damn I hate this editor. Lemme restart; apparently I can't delete text:
delete acts just like backspace.
I've heard stories about international calls being scanned for certain
keywords, and that's just like what Prodigy does.
What I'm annoyed about, however, is this Clipper crap. Sure, the
government CAN read people's email, meaning they probably will. But if someone
used a non-Clipper encryption scheme, it would be rather difficult for Big
Brother to read their mail. That's why they're pushing this Clipper garbage:
keep your information safe from all your competitors, but make sure that
wonderful benevolent government can make sure you're doing no wrong. So what if
someone uses something other than Clipper? Will it be illegal? Should it be
illegal? I say no. One of our fundamental freedoms is to be able to speak what
we wish in private without fear of eavesdropping. What will this mean for law
enforcement? Who cares? Before telephones and computers, police were able to
maintain order without reading everyone's mail and listening to their
conversations. Besides, they didn't have computers to quickly do global keyword
scans.
Danny
P.S. Sorry again about this crummy editor. I'll just bet my message is
completely unreadable because of it. If I can ever get rn or trn for my sun
account things will be a lot better.
>
>--
>.......................................................................
>.......................Michael.Maranda..................................
>........................................mm017g@uhura.cc.rochester.edu....
>........................................................................
Robert...
Michael Maranda <mm0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Remember the last time that you made an international phone call???
>
>Chances are that if you mentioned drugs, plastic, marx, or revolution (even
>if it was over the counter coughmedicine, plastic recycling, "Night at the
>Opera", or information revolution) "the government" did listen in ... just
>long enough to make sure you weren't plotting to overthrow the good ol' USA.
>
>Just because it isn't nice doesn't mean it isn't done.
>
I have often heard this, but nobody has managed to explain how ``the
government'' managed to swing the logistics of the thing. Consider
the following:
o The number of international phone calls actually being made is
sufficient that the major long-distance carriers have seen fit to
target advertising at (residential) international callers. While this
provides no hard statistics, it would seem to indicate that the number
is quite high (given the price of running an ad on national
television). Add in business traffic, and you have quite a lot of
calls being made indeed.
Ok, so how does the NSA (or whomever) keep up with it all? Many of
the items you mentioned are fairly innocuous; one might easily imagine
that they get mentioned in many conversations. How do they find a
staff large enough to handle all of these calls? The calls must
presumably be handed over to a person once they trigger one of the
scanners, unless you want to stipulate the existence of automated
scanners that can determine logical content. Where do they find so
many people who are all discrete enough that the existence of this
campaign exists only in rumor? It's not impossible, I suppose, but it
makes me wonder.
o More and more telecommunications traffic is being carried on
fiber-optic lines, which are difficult, if not impossible to tap
unless the mechanism is built in from the start. If this is the case,
then aren't there a lot of phone company employees floating around who
have definite proof that our phone conversations are being monitored?
Why haven't any of them come forward?
o Even if it is used, how effective is this technique, really?
Somebody says one of the magic words, which triggers a response
somewhere, and some mechanism begins to record the conversation, or
someone begins to listen in. Isn't it likely that they have already
missed the important bits, or at the very least have missed enough
that the meaning of the conversation is unclear? How often do they
really expect to get something that they can follow up on?
o Wouldn't this technique be easy to dodge through simple codes that
avoid the mention of the magic words? It wouldn't be too hard to make
up a list of things that you are going to be talking about, which
might trigger the scanners, and come up with alternative phrases to
replace them, which will not trigger any response.
On the whole, I am not entirely convinced that all international phone
calls are monitored for key phrases. The government's time would be
much better spent investigating using more conventional techniques,
and monitoring the calls of specific individuals who are suspected of
criminal activities.
--
-r
Nazi Waco, Texas cracking Ortega plutonium Khaddafi Saddam Hussein
Ineluctable Modality of the Visible
>>
>>Chances are that if you mentioned drugs, plastic, marx, or revolution (even
>>if it was over the counter coughmedicine, plastic recycling, "Night at the
>>Opera", or information revolution) "the government" did listen in ... just
>>long enough to make sure you weren't plotting to overthrow the good ol' USA.
>>
Just think - if you were feeling really really lonely, you
could call up the automated time recording in Botswana
(or some equally satellite-phone-link location), say a few
key words like "Korea" "Nuclear" "Iraq" "Communism" etc. etc.,
and then just speak your mind, because you know that somewhere
there is a Fed listening to you. Yet another way to
make yourself feel special.
(This is like something I heard about people in what used
to be the Eastern Bloc feeling extreme insecurity and
loneliness after communism collapsed because all of a sudden
nobody cared enough to spy on them - being spied on must
make you feel kind of special (paranoia is really delusions
of self-grandeur).)
Andrew Burke SAB...@OCVAXA.CC.OBERLIN.EDU
Harold Annen
Please, Stop the Insanity. There has _never_ been a national economy that ran
on pure, unadulterated free enterprise practices. OK, Andy, so you're worried
that people might peek into your account. Big deal. Go crypto and you'll
have all the privacy you want. As for the business of user-fees, well, if you'
re really concerned about people picking your pocket, go after the Big Dogs (
like Gen Dynamics, Lockheed, GE, etc). If you think that economics ought to
be more important than politics, find yourself a nice vulgar marxist country
and emigrate. If you're not going to do that then try to work and play well
with other, preferably with some style.
PS. Didn't the neologism "Netizens" strike anyone asparticularly geeky?
---
Yours In The Mystical Body of Elvis,
Harold Annen
Harold Annen
something _can_ be done, doesn't mean it _ought_ to be done. If people can't
play politics in resistance to technology or so-called economic imperatives,
then we might as well all throw ourselves in front of the next available bus.
While work is, no doubt, the root and source of all evil, the difference
between labor in a craft guild and labor performed acccording to the rhythm of
the machine is tremendous. The Luddites had the right idea.
Harold Annen
the rights of softward developers, what about the rights of softward
purchasers? Have you ever read the licensing agreement that accompanies
software. Software developers (esp. the big ones) offer absolutely not
warranty whatsoever on their product. Perhaps if profit-oriented software
companies showed more respect to the consumer, they might get some respect in
return. Until then, its buyer _and_ merchant beware.
Andrew A. Bakun
human ideals still intack, there would be theft and cheating all over place.
Until people become a little more honest, doing away with patents will do more
harm than good. Personally, I'm all for free information for those who know
how to access it, but until people look to themselves for their livelyhood
and quit wanting to make a living off the hard work and sweat of others.
Wolstenholme, Daniel Eri
Maybe, but (substituting 'copyrights' for 'patents') when copying a book, movie
or software product becomes as easy as typing "copy" and sending it at
100MB/sec over the 'information superhighway' to your friend across the
country, just how do you propose to enforce that law?
Danny
Andrew Pam
>In article <BASHFORD.9...@toad.scripps.edu>, bash...@toad.scripps.edu (Don &) writes...
>>My conclusion is that the IP law status quo should be given up. Specificly,
>>the idea I suggested was to simply abolish copyrights and patents and
>>not replace them with anything. Some others on this list agree that
>>current IP law is untenable, but want to have some kind of improved
>>replacement.
> Oh, okay. My position is that it will soon become impractical to
>enforce copyright laws when copying materials digitally will be so easy.
Project Xanadu has a possible solution (first proposed in the 1960s, and
eloquently expressed in Ted Nelson's book "Literary Machines"). The basic
idea is to design information systems to use "transclusions" (virtual copies)
rather than actual physical copies. This is not only more efficient, but also
automatically creates "hot links", and allows fine-grained royalties to be
paid pro-rata to the original copyright-holder(s) whenever derivative works
are accessed. For more information, finger xan...@notebook.sc.pronet.com for
the latest FAQ.
Share and enjoy,
*** AVATAR ***
Project Xanadu (Australia)
ava...@notebook.sc.pronet.com