Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 183
Netizens-Digest Thursday, October 15 1998 Volume 01 : Number 183
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Public or private for the future of the Internet? -pt2
[netz] New US Copyright Law
Re: [netz] Public or private for the future of the Internet?
[netz] About the hush surrounding the privatization of Internet functions
Re: [netz] Public or private for the future of the Internet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:06:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Public or private for the future of the Internet? -pt2
Part II of response to
Responding to Jamal Shahin <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk> who wrote:
>"Technological Development"
>At the minute, the Internet can only effectively be used for
>communication by ASCII speakers, what about the rest of the world? I
>think you would know more than me on this point, and would appreciate,
>if you have the chance, a pointer to the RFCs dealing with this. The
>last time I checked, some 80% of communication was carried out in
>English over the Internet. Has this changed? Is the scientific community
>interested in changing this?
This is an important issue that does have to considered. However,
I would like to know more why you say that
>At the minute, the Internet can only effectively be used for
>communication by ASCII speakers, what about the rest of the world? I
I know of newsgroups on Usenet in many languages, and also of the
use by people speaking many different languages of the Internet.
It is important that the Internet make it possible to write in
a multitude of languages, but I thought there is the effort to
make this possible.
I was happy to be able to post my proposal in two languages
and would have been happy to have had the ability to post it in
several more.
I agree this is an issue that must be examined.
>"Communication"
>I feel that your view of the Internet as a vehicle for global
>communication is wonderful, but I'm not sure how to contextualise it. I
>see the Internet as part of "reality", if you like. It is merely another
>mechanism for communicating, like the fax and the phone and regular
>mail. Okay, it "collapses" space and time, and does other things to our
>perception of RL, but, in the end, it doesn't *destroy* space and time,
>only realign our conception of it.
>Therefore, the Internet is a tool, which should be used _as precisely
>that_. It helps us communicate quickly and effectively, but doesn't
>*revolutionise* communication. I would agree that it is changing
>communication patterns, but not in a revolutionary way. I will still
>write letters and 'phone people, and, yes, *see* people.
>Communication in itself is wonderful, but there has to be an aim for
>communication. I would not have used email to contact you unless I had
>something to say to you. The same goes for all those people who use
>usenet and write emails to their friends and colleagues.
In so far as we are talking about a proposal for how to administer
the essential functions of the Internet in a more international
way, it is necesssary to figure out what is the essential function
fo the Internet. I have propsed and maintain that it is
communication. Therefore we must keep that in the forefront of the
conversation. To administer the essential functions of the Internet,
it is crucial to determine what is the general function that
is key, and what are the more particular functions.
By focuing on communication as the general function, we can make
all the particular functions possible. But the opposite is
not true. If we lose sight of communication as the essential function,
we jeopardize communication.
I explain this more in the testimony I submitted to Congress on
March 7, 1998. It is available at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other
Because the Internet uses tcp/ip which requires a minimum from
all the participating networks and users, it makes it possible
for those with a 386 computer to be able to communicate with
those who use the most advanced and expensive computers, etc.
If on the contrary, the requirements of security and copyright
protection were imposed on all on the Internet, and the kind
of advanced equipment these requirements might make necessary,
this could obsolete many machines which now can be connected,
and cutoff many users from around the world.
>If the killer application on the Internet is email, then spam is the
>killer problem. And most spam is commercial. Do you see my point?
Can you explain further. I do feel that the commercial pressures
have spread the spam on the Internet and that is an abuse and
harmful to the integrity of the Internet as a communications system.
Once NSI was allowed to start charging for domain name registrations
it allowed multiple registrations for similar entities,
didn't check the validity of the name and telephone number for
registrations, etc.
People began hoarding domain names, etc.
This has all caused the problems that now need to be solved.
>Kind regards,
>Jamal
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:18:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] New US Copyright Law
I thought the down side of this legislation should be considered. The
following is forwarded from the Red Rock Eater Mailing list. I would point
out that it has been my experience that copyright in general represents an
attack on the producer of a creative work because it is the means by which
a publisher or distributer gets the major share (like 85% or more) from
the sale of copies of the work.
- ---------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 20:52:09 +0000
>From: Eric Eldred <eldred@mediaone.net>
An emergency alert.
The U.S. Congress on Wednesday, October 7, 1998,
passed the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act."
As of 10/11 it was waiting for the signature of
the President, who has already said he will sign it.
I have taken my web site down and urged everyone
to email president@whitehouse.gov to veto the act,
if they want a digital library on the Internet.
The important aspect of the Act is that it will
prevent from entering the public domain most works
first published after 1922. Thus those of us
volunteers such as in Project Gutenberg who scan
and post full texts of books will be denied access
to those works, and be unable to continue with
our work of presenting a free global public library.
The Act was passed without public debate, without
news coverage, under a suspension of the rules,
by voice votes, without even a quorum. You may
read all about it at http://thomas.loc.gov if you
search under S505.
In my opinion the significance of the Act is that
it transfers a huge amount of rights and monies
from the public to special private interests. If
there is anything such as American cultural
imperialism it only strengthens it by force of law.
One argument for the act is that it is required
in order to normalize free international trade that
countries have the same copyright terms. However,
the act will not implement that, since European
terms are after the death of the author, while
U.S. terms until recently were dated after first
publication. Secondly, there seems no reason why
European terms should not be shortened instead of
U.S. terms lengthened.
The Act will increase copyright terms by 20 years.
That means up to 95 years after first publication.
I can't think of a single author who lived that long.
Clearly, the act will benefit only distant heirs,
or, more likely, the large publishers who own most
of these copyrights. It would hardly encourage new
authors--can you think of anyone who would refuse
to publish a book because the term was only 70 years
after her death, instead of 90?
By the way, the act was named after the late
Representative Sonny Bono by request of his wife,
who was appointed in his stead. Rep. Mary Bono
stated that he and she wished copyright to last
forever, but that would be in violation of the
Constitution, she was told, so she would settle for
forever minus one day. Although Sonny Bono is not
particularly known for a great amount of intellectual
property, evidently his widow wishes to be enriched
even in the distant future by royalties from any
of his songs or works.
Nobody spoke up for the public and the consumer.
No one reminded the legislators that the American
people have a Constitutional right to all works
protected by copyright. Copyright is and ought
always to be a sacred contract between an author
and the public. When the fixed, limited term
expires, the rights revert to the public. Only
this way can the public use the ideas for the
free public discussion necessary for an informed
democratic republic such as ours.
I see this act as part of a larger movement
aimed squarely at the book as we know it and
the Internet as we have constructed it.
In the future, the e-book will be a software
product that will be protected not by copyright,
but by a shrinkwrap license and by hardware
locks. The "reader" will not be able to own
the book, but will only be licensed to consume
it as "pay-per-view". Scholars will find that
books that are not commercially successful will
just evaporate--libraries will not be able to
function in the way they have been accustomed
to.
To facilitate production of this type of book,
NIST (U.S. National Institute for Standards
and Technology) sponsored an "e-book" conference
this week in Maryland. At the conference the
large publisher Microsoft announced a proprietary
format for e-books, a combination of HTML and
XML islands that will withstand copying.
The World Wide Web will be turned into something
like "pay-per-view" television. Books will not
be available for free nor will purchased books
be able to be copied or resold. Consumers will
be allowed to consume products if they pay for
them, but non-profit producers or home self-
publishers will be crowded out of the e-markets.
We are being presented with some clear alternatives.
If we are going to do anything to use the Internet
to promote democracy and human rights and literacy
and intelligent discussion, then we need to fight
actively all attempts such as the bone-headed
Bono Act that restrict the power of the web. Our
government must not be allowed to listen only to
lobbyists for large publishers, and use its power
of criminal enforcement only in their behalf. If
the government wishes to aid the Internet, let it
keep its hands off.
Those of us who wish to promote a free global
public library must redouble our efforts. We will
need to beg rich people to buy up the rights to
copyrighted works and donate them for free posting
to the web. We will need to financially support
a competitive free space on the web that makes
works available. We will need to encourage all
means for small producers to publish from their
own web sites.
Please note that I am not opposed to a reasonable
copyright term. However, 95 years seems ridiculous.
And I am not opposed to selling books over the net.
Indeed, Internet technology can only facilitate
that, and aid protection by copyright alone--there
is no need for additional criminalization nor locks.
And I am not opposed to businesses making money.
I am opposed, however, to businesses crying for
special protection at the expense of the public.
Finally, it is quite true that many American workers
are employed in businesses that produce copyrighted
works. However, it remains to be explained why
if they are so successful they need this added
protection. In fact, the protection seems to be
granted only so as to enable U.S. firms owning
these copyrights to dominate companies in other
countries. Thus the end effect is to encourage
an American cultural imperialism of a capitalist
consumer society, at the expense of the public
places in a democratic global society.
I hope you will aid me in publicizing these remarks.
- --
"Eric" Eric Eldred Eldritch Press
mailto:EricEldred@usa.net http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Public or private for the future of the Internet?
In article <199810141844.OAA22673@panix3.panix.com> Ronda Hauben wrote:
>The Inspector General's Report called for the U.S. Dept of Justice
>to investigate the anti trust violations such a corporate form
>represents. It is taking government functions, with none of the
>protections that go with government. It is a very abusive use
>of power.
>What I realized in reading the OIG Report is that there are over
>4 billion IP numbers. 2 billion ofthem are already allocated leaving
>2.3 billion. If this new coporate entity that is being considered
>by the NTIA to give control of these key functions to --
>if this corporate entity decides to charge a $50 annual fee
>to maintain the IP numbers, it will gross $100 billion.
>And consider the impact on the Internet if this organization
>decides to issue IP numbers to certain people but not to others.
It's my understanding based on what I've read of the NSI/IANA proposal
that the new organization would not be acting as a registry or
registrar of IP numbers, DNS names, etc. This comes straight from the
proposal.
ARTICLE IV: POWERS
Section 1. GENERAL POWERS
b) The Corporation shall not act as a Domain Name System Registry or
Registrar or IP Address Registry in competition with entities
affected by the policies of the Corporation. Nothing in this
Section 1(b) is intended to prevent the Corporation from taking
whatever steps are necessary to protect the operational stability
of the Internet in the event of financial failure of a Registry or
Registrar or other emergency.
Furthermore, it's my understanding that they want to split the
functions of registrar and registry. Registrars would be free to
operate as they wish, with regards to charging, etc. They could
compete commercially (or noncommercially), offering custom registrar
services, perhaps bundling them with other services, such as web
hosting, etc. On the other hand, registries would operate on a
cost-recovery basis.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:22:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] About the hush surrounding the privatization of Internet functions
Following is a comment on the testimony I submitted to Congress
and response that was posted on Usenet:
Ronda (ronda@panix.com) responding to:
Mentifex (mentifex@scn.org) wrote:
: If the free, democratized Internet from before the year 2000 survives,
: we can all thank Ronda Hauben "ronda@panix.com" who spoke up for us:
I didn't think it was exactly speaking up for any "us".
The Internet fortunately makes it possible to speak for oneself
about one's own views and it would be helpful to hear more folks
discussing this issue.
It is currently before the U.S. Congress and the more public
discussion the more the Congress will have a basis to understand
what the issues and implications are of what is being
contemplated.
Actually after going to the hearing on Wednesday, October 7, 1998
I realized that it was appropriate to change the final paragraph
of my testimony, and sent the change to the staffer by Friday,
which he said was the date for the final submission for the record.
I've put * before * and after the change to mark it:
The change read:
The Internet is the symbol and manifestation of hope for people
around the world. As more and more people communicate on a
worldwide basis, the foundation is increasingly set to find
peaceful and productive ways to solve the many serious problems
that exist in the world today. Also, however, this vision has its
enemies. But the U.S. Government has the proud distinction of
being the midwife of the achievement of achievement of the 20th
Century represented by the development of the Internet. *If there
are those in the U.S. Government who recognize the importance and
respect that comes from giving birth to the communications system
that has spread around the world with such amazing tenacity and
determination, they must find the means to treat the decisions
and changes needed to further develop the Internet with the proper
care and concern. *
(full testimony at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other )
I recognize that there is also a need for those online who
comprehend the importance of the Internet to figure out how
be part of what influences the decisions that are being made.
I am trying to understand why there is such a hush about
this issue online. Why isn't there the needed debate and
discussion?
It's not as if the transfer of the *policy decisions*
over what happens with allocation and cost for IP numbers,
domain names, what happens with the root server system
and the protocols is a matter that is to be taken lightly
or to be unexamined. Yet the only folks talking about this
that I have found in general are those with their hands
outstretched for a piece of the public pie.
Yet the transfer represents putting what is momentous
power into private hands of what has appropriately up
to now been in public hands.
Guess my experience on Usenet up to now, and my reading of
the discussion on newsgroups like FA.space or NET.news
from the early ARPANET and early Usenet has helped me to
see that out of the discussion comes a way to deal with
the problems.
So I wonder why there is so little discussion online of this
issue of the U.S. govt proposal to transfer to a private
entity these essential functions of the Internet.
Norbert Wiener often warned of the tremendous power
and responsibility that came with the development of
the computer. The U.S. Govt is now proposing to
transfer control over millions of computers to a
private corporation, and yet very few folks online and off
seem to be feel there is a need to discuss what the
implications of this are and whether it is wise or setting
the basis for unbridled abuse.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
also in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:47:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Public or private for the future of the Internet?
Responding to Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
In article <199810141844.OAA22673@panix3.panix.com> Ronda Hauben wrote:
>>The Inspector General's Report called for the U.S. Dept of Justice
>>to investigate the anti trust violations such a corporate form
>>represents. It is taking government functions, with none of the
>>protections that go with government. It is a very abusive use
>>of power.
>>What I realized in reading the OIG Report is that there are over
>>4 billion IP numbers. 2 billion of them are already allocated leaving
>>2.3 billion. If this new coporate entity that is being considered
>>by the NTIA to give control of these key functions to --
>>if this corporate entity decides to charge a $50 annual fee
>>to maintain the IP numbers, it will gross $100 billion.
>>And consider the impact on the Internet if this organization
>>decides to issue IP numbers to certain people but not to others.
>It's my understanding based on what I've read of the NSI/IANA proposal
>that the new organization would not be acting as a registry or
>registrar of IP numbers, DNS names, etc. This comes straight from the
>proposal.
But the new organization will be setting the policy for the registry.
This is a more immense concentration of power. Not only will the
new registry for IP numbers be part of this new private corporation,
the board of directors of this private corporation will be setting
policy for itself.
Isn't this the dream of big corporate entities that they are
responsible *only* to themselves, while protected by the
government.
>ARTICLE IV: POWERS
>Section 1. GENERAL POWERS
>b) The Corporation shall not act as a Domain Name System Registry or
> Registrar or IP Address Registry in competition with entities
> affected by the policies of the Corporation. Nothing in this
> Section 1(b) is intended to prevent the Corporation from taking
> whatever steps are necessary to protect the operational stability
> of the Internet in the event of financial failure of a Registry or
> Registrar or other emergency.
But this corporation will set the policy governing the registry
and resistrar.
And the IP and DNS councils are part of this corporation and under
the board of directors of it.
Where is the social obligation or computer science expertise in
this corporation to be in control of such functions of the Internet?
>Furthermore, it's my understanding that they want to split the
>functions of registrar and registry. Registrars would be free to
>operate as they wish, with regards to charging, etc. They could
>compete commercially (or noncommercially), offering custom registrar
>services, perhaps bundling them with other services, such as web
>hosting, etc. On the other hand, registries would operate on a
>cost-recovery basis.
This is only, in my understanding, with regard to the Domain Name
System, *not* with regard to the IP allocation, etc.
And there is a very low cost involved for giving out domain names,
so where is the competition?
And why should there be any competition? This is like setting up
competition for registering my automobilie or getting a driver's
license. It is an administrative function and needs to be
handled responsibly in the way that one can hold government
responsible for, but *not* some private competitors.
Also, there need to be perhaps better language in the RFC's
governing domain name registrations so that there is someone
verifying the name and phone number of who applies for a
domain name. And it seems that it wasn't possible to get
multiple domain names to hoard, etc. before NSI was allowed
to charge for them. Also the yearly maintainance fee that
NSI (or any registry) may be allowed to charge is a toll
for no service.
The abuses have to be stopped, not spread and institutionalized
in a private corporation with unbridled power.
> --gregbo
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #183
******************************
