Is digital copyright incompatible with technology and / or democracy?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

As it turns out, books are sold.

Not under a system of perpetual copyright, or a system with no copyright.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Not under a system of perpetual copyright, or a system with no copyright.

You said "no books are sold." Not "no books will be sold." "Are" describes now, not the unlikely event that certain radical transformations take place in the future.

Perpetual copyright would not end sales of books. It would mean that the vast majority of books that didn't retail commercial value would disappear into limbo, but the books that people still wanted to read in the distant future would be sold. With no copyright, books would not be sold, but they also probably wouldn't be written in the first place.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Computers didn't invent themselves; people created computers. And they can re-create them, as they have many times since their initial creation, to perform as required.

Unless, of course, the requirement is impossible or utterly insane.

Wait, that latter one isn't so unlikely...

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Computers didn't invent themselves; people created computers. And they can re-create them, as they have many times since their initial creation, to perform as required.

Don't assume that the way computers (and the internet) work now is the only way they can work; that's a fallacy akin to assuming a car can only work if it has a hand-crank on the engine.

I don't assume computers and an internet can't be made to be monitored--I question the ability to force existing computers into that pattern. Or the ability to push enough of them into that pattern, and "upgrade" the rest to something compliant with new "security" standards, to effectively kill unauthorized data transfers.

Where does "shut down RSS feeds" come into your idea of how data will be controlled? Where is "stop people from typing in copyrighted paragraphs to a series of blogs, which must be assembled by RSS to read the book?" (Or, more likely, "type in partial URLs to Twitter, which must be assembled with another account's other-part of the URL to get the link to the encrypted file. A third twitter account has passwords.")

If businesses are allowed to transfer data securely, individuals will also be able to do so. If there's secure data transfer, there will be unauthorized data transfers.

This could, of course, be stopped by requiring total government oversight of every data-packet on the internet. Somehow, I don't see that coming.

Overestimating the intelligence or compliance of "the public" is truly a fool's game...

The public-in-general is not going to become hackers or particularly tech-savvy. But it takes a very small percentage who *do* understand the options to make sure that everyone else knows they exist.

Very new ebook/ereader buyers just accept "you can only read books from this store on that device." After looking around even a tiny bit, they discover "there's ways to change that"--and they may or may not discover the controversy about how legal that is or isn't. But they know that the DRM (which term they may not recognize) can be removed, if one cares to bother.

That *knowledge* is all it takes to destroy the system of a gov't-controlled internet. Because as soon as the restrictions cross the line into "too inconvenient for me," the individual user goes to find the information they know is out-there-somewhere.

And while the gov't will be very quick in trying to shut down the data-cracking equivalent of wikileaks, they've shown no interest in shutting down the thousands of "CLICK HERE INSTALL SPECIAL ANT1VIRUS PR0TECTION WHICH WE SAY YOU NEED!!!" programs that infest the internet. They're not shutting down spam, which is estimated to be about 90% of all email.

When I see a serious attempt to end spam, I'll know the gov't might actually understand enough of the technology to make a serious attempt at stopping other unauthorized traffic online.

Otherwise? The torrent sites aren't using spambots to exchange links because it's not as efficient as what they have, but it's not like they couldn't switch systems.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

This could, of course, be stopped by requiring total government oversight of every data-packet on the internet. Somehow, I don't see that coming.

Actually doing that would require software able to make human level judgements at faster-than-human speeds.

Which is a terrifying thought.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Otherwise? The torrent sites aren't using spambots to exchange links because it's not as efficient as what they have, but it's not like they couldn't switch systems.

Have you ever heard about that experiment where a network researcher succeeded in tunnelling http over DNS queries?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Kirtai

Actually doing that would require software able to make human level judgements at faster-than-human speeds.

Which is a terrifying thought.

Have you ever heard about that experiment where a network researcher succeeded in tunnelling http over DNS queries?

Heard of; have friends who're looking it it closely; don't know enough tech myself to understand the issues. (Know enough tech myself to understand that if data is moving somewhere, other data can be attached to it. The rest is a matter of sorting out access, speed and reliability. And if you can see it, you have access.)

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Heard of; have friends who're looking it it closely; don't know enough tech myself to understand the issues. (Know enough tech myself to understand that if data is moving somewhere, other data can be attached to it. The rest is a matter of sorting out access, speed and reliability. And if you can see it, you have access.)

I think it was a proof of principle. Basically, if you can send data packets over any kind of connection, you can tunnel IP over it and then the whole rest of the IP stack comes with it. IP over Avian Carriers was actually done once too. Performance was lacking though

On a related note, I have to wonder if the delay in deploying IPv6 is not due to technical issues but due to it absolutely mandating IPSec support thus giving end-to-end encryption to everyone as standard.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Kirtai

I think it was a proof of principle. Basically, if you can send data packets over any kind of connection, you can tunnel IP over it and then the whole rest of the IP stack comes with it. IP over Avian Carriers was actually done once too. Performance was lacking though

Yeah, the packet loss rate's a bit high for regular use. And the antivirus protection is hard to keep current.

OTOH, edible transmission hardware's got to be a bonus in some regions.

On a related note, I have to wonder if the delay in deploying IPv6 is not due to technical issues but due to it absolutely mandating IPSec support thus giving end-to-end encryption to everyone as standard.

There's an encryption standard built into IPv6? (See me pretend I have any idea what the IP systems actually *do*. Most of my understanding of IPv4 is derived from XKCD's map.)

[plib]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Overestimating the intelligence or compliance of "the public" is truly a fool's game...

If you say so.

Presently, the public is not faced with that reality. But we are approaching it, undeniably closer every day. When the public realizes that even turning on their computers, to do the simplest things they desire to do, immediately compromises themselves and everything they know and own, the prospect of a more secure internet and computer system may seem very desirable... in fact, preferable.

When that day comes, we will see a new, secure and monitor-able internet being created... and a public that will cheer for it.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

There's an encryption standard built into IPv6? (See me pretend I have any idea what the IP systems actually *do*. Most of my understanding of IPv4 is derived from XKCD's map.)

Sort of. Very roughly, IPSec is to IP connection as SSL is to TCP connections, and since TCP run on top of IP, it can secure more of the data.

IPSec works with IPv4 but was designed for IPv6. It was mandatory for IPv6 for many years but it seems to have been changed to recommended December last year which is very interesting given the acrimony between the standard developers and government agencies.

Note: it's been a while since I looked at this.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Kirtai

Sort of. Very roughly, IPSec is to IP connection as SSL is to TCP connections, and since TCP run on top of IP, it can secure more of the data.

IPSec works with IPv4 but was designed for IPv6. It was mandatory for IPv6 for many years but it seems to have been changed to recommended December last year which is very interesting given the acrimony between the standard developers and government agencies.

Note: it's been a while since I looked at this.

The lack of security features would mean... less safety for everyone, but less expense to build/maintain?
Less ability for overseers to spy on users? (And, presumably, other security features.)
More ability for overseers to spy on users? (Etc.)
Something else?

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The lack of security features would mean... less safety for everyone, but less expense to build/maintain?
Less ability for overseers to spy on users? (And, presumably, other security features.)
More ability for overseers to spy on users? (Etc.)
Something else?

Supposedly its so manufacturers don't need to cram a load of complex crypto code into tiny, networked, embedded systems.

It seems that while IPSec doesn't have to be included in IPv6, it should be solidly secure if it is included. (once set up of course)

[MikeB1972]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan View Post
When that day comes, we will see a new, secure and monitor-able internet being created... and a public that will cheer for it.

Originally Posted by plib

Nice copyright pipe dream, Hollywood/BPH/RIAA wet dream, CIA/FBI/NSA/FSB etc. heaven.

Not going to happen. "The public" aren't that dumb, nor compliant. Plus there are still a few countries in the world where corporations aren't considered "people".

But whatever you're ingesting, I'll take some of it.

Yes, just like people would make sure that the police can't hold you without charging you with a crime - Hang on anti terrorist laws beat that one.
Or how about the public wouldn't stand for being randomly searched on a whim - ahh, no, sorry, airports have that one covered.

It's amazing what the public will accept if they have been convinced it's in their best interest (and if anyone want's to argue that both the examples above are to counter terrorism then just think that the web is the greatest propogander and communication device ever made).

The best way to sort out terrorism in an airport is hire 1 bloke per airport that looks like Kiefer Sutherland and play the 24 music over the PA system every so often

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan View Post
When that day comes, we will see a new, secure and monitor-able internet being created... and a public that will cheer for it.



Yes, just like people would make sure that the police can't hold you without charging you with a crime - Hang on anti terrorist laws beat that one.
Or how about the public wouldn't stand for being randomly searched on a whim - ahh, no, sorry, airports have that one covered.

It's amazing what the public will accept if they have been convinced it's in their best interest (and if anyone want's to argue that both the examples above are to counter terrorism then just think that the web is the greatest propogander and communication device ever made).

The best way to sort out terrorism in an airport is hire 1 bloke per airport that looks like Kiefer Sutherland and play the 24 music over the PA system every so often

Yep, Madison Avenue has got us right where it wants us.
Like lambs to the slaughter
Lemmings to the sea.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Yes, just like people would make sure that the police can't hold you without charging you with a crime - Hang on anti terrorist laws beat that one.
Or how about the public wouldn't stand for being randomly searched on a whim - ahh, no, sorry, airports have that one covered.

It's amazing what the public will accept if they have been convinced it's in their best interest

The issue isn't whether the public will agree to laws that restrict and monitor the internet--it's whether those laws will actually be effective in stopping unauthorized data transfers.

They won't, because laws aren't what controls activity on the internet. The legal system gave up on the internet when it refused to stop spam and email spoofing; demanding individual users be identified and their data be monitored would require the same of bulk-mailing companies. There are several precedents that boil down to "meh, whatcha gonna do?" that would need to be overturned or at least addressed before removing individual anonymity (and thus, lack of accountability) online.

Laws are occasionally used to go after people who use the internet when their harm is judged egregious enough. However, the current laws are ill-suited for this, and there is no attempt to adjust the technology to make breaking those laws more difficult--because that would mean making business transactions much harder.

There are laws, sort of, against spamming. They're not enforced. Too many source-points, too hard to define, too diverse in methodology, too many jurisdictional problems. The same exact issues will face any attempt to end filesharing.

OTOH, there's a bright side: if they figure out how to end spam email first, the same methods should work very nicely against illegal filesharing, and the public will cheer while they do it.