FCC Commissioner Lauds DRM, ISP Filtering

snydeq writes "Ars Technica's Nate Anderson and InfoWorld's Paul Venezia provide worthwhile commentary on a recent speech by FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate (PDF), in which she praised DRM as 'very effective' and raised a flag in favor of ISP filtering. Anderson: 'Having commissioners who feel that the government has a duty to partner with and back educational classroom content from the RIAA; who really believe that ISP filtering is so unproblematic we can stop considering objections; and who think that universities worry about file-swapping because tuition might be raised to pay for the needed "expansion of storage capabilities" (huh?) isn't good for the FCC and isn't good for America.' Venezia: 'Leave the ISPs out of it — it's not their job to protect a failing business model, and a movement toward a tiered and filtered Internet will do nothing to stem the tide of piracy, but will result in great restrictions on innovation, freedoms, and the general use of the Internet. There's nothing to be gained down that path other than possibly to expand the wallets of a few companies.'"

Her email address

[Tubal-Cain]

[e-mail]

Re:Her email address

[Killer Orca]

Anyone who is going to email her should also do so before she leaves in '09, not after.

Has he seen how successful it's been in Australia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in .au the government is scaling back it's plans for filtering due to being laughed at by anyone who knows anything about the internet.

In a recent call for ISPs to participate in live tests of their system the biggest ISP here said no, it's stupid. The second biggest said OK, but we won't block all that you want us to, and the third biggest said we'll participate fully just to show you how dumb you're being.

It seems that the point was finally driven home and now the government is trying to back down without losing face.

Re:I need to get out of here.

[Tubal-Cain]

These people [wikipedia.org]. (Map [wikimedia.org])

On the bright side, Peter I Island and Marie Byrd Land seem untaken (although there is probably a reason for that).

Re:It's almost as if

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

We're entering some sort of technological dark ages - the honeymoon period is now over.

The mainstream regulation committees have taken interest in these type of subjects and as usual, the ignorance/commercial interests is/are beginning to shine through.

Nah, not really. Those self same interests have been shining bright for over a decade. [cnet.com]

Re:Her email address

[Tubal-Cain]

She wasn't elected. She was appointed. :-(

Some interesting assertions in TFA

[A. Bosch]

"[T]he U.S. lost 373,375 jobs due to piracy, and federal and state governments lose $2.6 billion annually through unrealized tax revenue." Based on what? Every act of stealing a song doesn't mean the person stealing would have purchased the song, for example.

Re:Very effective in what universe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone is already on top of that. http://www.baconsalt.com [baconsalt.com]

Re:DRM is effective

[MostAwesomeDude]

And http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/DRM [freedesktop.org] as well.

Re:Her email address

[Afforess]

So? I will still factor in that some idiot appointed (G. W.) her.

What you can do to help:

[arhhook]

Let me point people to the Save The Internet [freepress.net] movement and encourage people to send a letter to their representatives with what they think. The template letter is as follows:

* Subject:. Required.

Dear [Decision Maker],

Please personalize your message
Countless Americans rely upon an open Internet in their daily lives. Our elected leaders must protect our basic right to communicate from those who want to take it from us. Please join with me and 2 million others to demand that Congress protect the free-flowing Internet from blocking, censorship and discrimination by phone and cable companies. This is not an issue of left against right but of right over wrong. To allow companies to interfere with our Internet access is a stark violation of the principles of openness and nondiscrimination that have been the bedrock of U.S. communications policy for more than 70 years. It's up to Congress to protect innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State ZIP]

And will be automatically sent to your representatives depending on where you live. If you feel strongly, please help take action.

Re:Her email address

[Anonymous Coward]

they end DRM support. This has happened time and time again, and one merely has to look as far as Wikipedia for numerous examples.

FYI, if you're going to make a statement like that, either provide a link to the wikipedia page you are talking about, or better yet, cite the specific cases you are referring to.

Either way, the person you are writing to (or their staff) can do further research.
In the real world, you actually have to use facts to support an argument.

Re:Her email address

[Anonymous Coward]

"She was sworn in as FCC Commissioner on January 3, 2006, and renominated by President Bush for a full 5-year term on June 20, 2007" http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/tate/

So why would she leave in 09?

Re:Her email address

[Thaelon]

Here's mine.

I am writing you in response to your recent speech which you erroneously claim DRM is "very effective" and hail ISP filtering as a good thing.

First of all, DRM does not work and never will. In fact it reduces the quality of works and punishes only legitimate buyers.

See the recent PC game, Spore for example. It contains one of the most vicious, obnoxious and reprehensible forms of DRM on the market. Hundreds of legitimate users have experienced problems with it. The interesting part? It's the most downloaded (illegally) game of 2008 and it was only released in September. So not only did the DRM completely and utterly fail to prevent illegal copies, it punished legitimate users exclusively. And that's the most DRM will ever accomplish.

As for ISP filtering of the internet, I cannot possibly conceive of how you think this is possible, let alone wise. History is full of censorship attempts that blocked harmless things by accident, while still allowing unbelievably bad content through. One only needs to think about it for a few moments to realize how futile it is. Can one organization think of, document, and block every possible permutation of every possible objectionable thing that six billion people can come up with? Absolutely not! It's completely absurd to even think it's possible. And what do you get in return for this inaccurate, false positive ridden half-measure? Slowdown of internet traffic from 10% to 80%.

In short, neither DRM nor ISP censorship can ever be effective. DRM exists only to prop up dying business models that didn't evolve with the rest of society. ISP filtering only exists so that politic ans can say they're doing something "for the children" to get elected. I actually am doing something for the children. I'm writing an uninformed, un-elected ignorant human being in a position of power to let them know that they're wrong. In defense of the digital content and information on the internet that they'll hopefully be able to access with no restrictions when they need it. It's the responsibility of parents to supervise what their children see on TV and the internet, I see it as my responsibility to preserve the fully functional, uncensored, high speed internet for them to use.

You had it, then you lost it

[klx]

What a frustrating email. The first 85% is great -- Spore is such a perfect poster child for DRM, and your writing style is cogent and engaging.

Then you go and fuck up the whole thing by directly insulting the addressee. You're supposed to butter her up, or dig deep for ways to excuse her ignorance, or, at worst, pelt her with hilariously veiled insults.

Insulting whatserface negates the value of your otherwise convincing letter. Even if you send copies to your congresscritters, you're still more likely to come off as a supercilious jackwipe than you would have if you'd just left that part out.

Re:please, post feedback

[Afforess]

"
Dear Consumer,

Thank you for contacting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This is an automated message to confirm that we have received your correspondence. We will review your information to determine how we can best serve you.

If you need to send additional information, you may reply back with this email, leaving the case number (example: CIMS0123456789) in the subject line, or contact us at our toll free phone number 1-888-Call-FCC (1-888-225-5322) and reference the case number.

The Federal Communications Commission "