Some people will never understand the internet or the potential for it to become the tool by which we come together as a species, or whatevs. In any event, I post some pictures of the DRM future that just may be on the horizon if Fair Use goes the way some groups want Net Neutrality to go.

Some masterpieces are just totally inappropriate for sensitive eyes and ears. And by sensitive, I don’t mean children, I mean those religious loons of all sorts that can not abide seeing their icons portrayed in a way that differs from their own personal vision. The irony of idolatry is lost on so many.

Whoah now, Jesus. You may be dead and all but bulges are not allowed.

Here we have given David a sporty little bathing suit as befits the style of the time. We encourage future generations to alter their internet archives to upgrade the banana hammock to a full pair of shorts and eventually to a suit that exposes only the most modest toes and fingers.

It was about time someone gave this man a pair of shades and a set of nuthuggers.

Some of you may wonder about the exact point of this seemingly fucking lame post. These icons of enlightenment and so many others are really, really old. Like older than your mom old. The actual generations of the future will likely only ever see them as flickering images on their eyelids or super-duper High Definition 3-d televisions, provided they aren’t too busy watching Ow My Balls. Hell, I’ve never seen anything by Da Vinci in real life. I have seen replicas and stuff in travelling museums by him and other masters of art, but I’ve never experienced the majesty of the Sistene Chapel, experienced the enigma of Mona Lisa, the Hidden City, Ankor Wat, those nifty churches and citadels carved into the living rock in Ethiopia or the School of Athens. I have seen videos of the results of religious fanatics that destroy icons that don’t fit their view of the world. I have seen great works of stone and iron destroyed by those that refuse to allow others to coexist.

Some of you might think I am exagerrating the situation but I say, Free and Fair or Fuck it. If we can’t let the greatest acheivement of our species unleash it’s full potential, we might as well burn it like we did the Library of Alexandria or the Library of Celsus. We certainly haven’t learned anything in the last 2000 years.

Ok, I really should be working right now but I just saw a news article that I thought really needed to be commented on. As mentioned in my post about SACD’s earlier, it appears that sometimes companies go too far in trying to protect their copyrights and impinge on a persons fair use rights (see the entirety of the DMCA).

So far, consumers have been without a reliable voice in congress arguing for their position. Well it appears that finally, at least at first glance, that someone is trying to introduce a bill that restores some sort of control to the consumers.

I saw from the Washington Post blog on technology that Representatives Rich Boucher and John Dolittle introduced legislation called the FAIR USE (a ridiculous acronym - Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship).

It certainly seems like a step in the right direction. You can check out the full text of the bill here: HR 1201 (PDF).

• ability transmit a work over a home or personal network
• skip commercials
• for use in a library or classroom
• to extract public domain works
• to “gain access to a work of substantial public interest solely for the purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, or research”

I like it, but using my amazing legal knowledge (none since I am not at all lawyerly) I see that there are some loopholes that I think may end up making it effectively useless. Consider this paragraph that is supposed to contain a modification to the DMCA:

The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) [of the DMCA] shall not apply to … an act of circumvention that is carried out solely for the purpose of enabling a person to transmit a work over a home or personal network, except that this exemption does not apply to the circumvention of a technological measure to the extent that it prevents uploading of the work to the Internet for mass, indiscriminate redistribution; (emphasis added)

This loophole, of allowing the technology for the purpose of prevention of online distribution indicates to me, that all DRM will be able to continue as is. Almost every copyrighted work that is DRM’d is done so to prevent it from ‘getting on the internet’ or some such nonsense.

Who decides why DRM was added to something? It is added to prevent copying but copying on your network is allowed but copying on the internet is not? How can you possibly engineer a solution that would prevent TCP/IP distribution on the internet but still allow it on your local subnet. It doesn’t make sense.

While I recognize that sentence was added to increase the likelihood that the legislation would pass. I feel that it still allows too much DRM on the copyrighted materials.

Also, it includes a note that circumvention is allowed “to skip past … personally objectionable content in an audiovisual work.” Will this allow more online stores that cater to individuals who would like to edit out certain sections of works and sell them online? Are we allowing people to continue to neuter works of art to fit their personal taste?

Anyway, it really is starting to seem like Steve Jobs “Open Letter” did do something to shake up the whole landscape. Interesting stuff.