The topic of music business models is interesting. The comments discussion would be a lot more interesting if it wasn't interspersed with random commentary about ethnic stereotypes.
For technically-literate folk who are concerned about voting systems -- do you know what your county is doing?
About a year ago, I went with a group of voters on a tour of the Travis County, Texas election office. We were the first group to have ever asked for a tour.
One reason that county governments make such iffy technology procurement decisions is that the main information source they have is the vendors themselves. The more technically-literate citizens get involved in the voting process, the more opportunities for better local decisions.
In the old days, elections were supervised by citizens from both parties watching the counting. These days, it's meaningless to watch someone press the "count" button. Citizens who want to help assure fair elections should start to monitor the technology purchasing and implementation process.
See The Wisconsin Technology Network for an update. An earlier version of the bill did require that voting software be available to the public. But the version that passed requires that the code be put in escrow, and be made available only with a non-disclosure agreement in limited circumstances.
It's entertainment budget, like movies in theaters and magazines. If there was a service that offered drm-free content in a different format I'd walk away from the iTunes library in a heartbeat, no regrets.
The problem and solution are a little bit different. Politicians are motivated not only by what makes them look good. They are motivated by passing bills. They are motivated by the ability to reach a "compromise" among the different "sides". And most of all, they are motivated by political pressure. During the negotiations over the DMCA, the technology/consumer electronics vendors were "carved out" by an exemption for manufacturers. The public interest groups in 1995 probably had a smaller constituency than they do today. So, to the politicians, a "compromise" meant carving out the manufacturers and doing what the content industry said they wanted. Therefore, the solution isn't just doing a better job of explaining why the DMCA is tactically inefficient (although that doesn't hurt). The solution is also to high-tech vendors from taking a carveout (since their market is diminished by the limitations in the use of their products), and to have a more active public interest / consumer lobbying voice. When I did volunteer public interest lobbying against the so-called SDMCA in Texas -- a state-level bill that made it a crime to modify your computer in an unauthorized manner -- the tech groups agreed not to take a carveout, and the tech and public interest groups continued to work together throughout the process. Adina Levin Director ACLU-TX Cyberliberties Project
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by Adina Levin.
Can BestNetTech please moderate comments
The topic of music business models is interesting. The comments discussion would be a lot more interesting if it wasn't interspersed with random commentary about ethnic stereotypes.
Find out what your county is doing
For technically-literate folk who are concerned about voting systems -- do you know what your county is doing?
About a year ago, I went with a group of voters on a tour of the Travis County, Texas election office. We were the first group to have ever asked for a tour.
One reason that county governments make such iffy technology procurement decisions is that the main information source they have is the vendors themselves. The more technically-literate citizens get involved in the voting process, the more opportunities for better local decisions.
In the old days, elections were supervised by citizens from both parties watching the counting. These days, it's meaningless to watch someone press the "count" button. Citizens who want to help assure fair elections should start to monitor the technology purchasing and implementation process.
Unfortunately, the bill that passed doesn't mandat
See The Wisconsin Technology Network for an update. An earlier version of the bill did require that voting software be available to the public. But the version that passed requires that the code be put in escrow, and be made available only with a non-disclosure agreement in limited circumstances.
I do use iTunes but consider it money down the dra
It's entertainment budget, like movies in theaters and magazines. If there was a service that offered drm-free content in a different format I'd walk away from the iTunes library in a heartbeat, no regrets.
motivation for politicians
The problem and solution are a little bit different.
Politicians are motivated not only by what makes them look good. They are motivated by passing bills. They are motivated by the ability to reach a "compromise" among the different "sides". And most of all, they are motivated by political pressure.
During the negotiations over the DMCA, the technology/consumer electronics vendors were "carved out" by an exemption for manufacturers. The public interest groups in 1995 probably had a smaller constituency than they do today. So, to the politicians, a "compromise" meant carving out the manufacturers and doing what the content industry said they wanted. Therefore, the solution isn't just doing a better job of explaining why the DMCA is tactically inefficient (although that doesn't hurt). The solution is also to high-tech vendors from taking a carveout (since their market is diminished by the limitations in the use of their products), and to have a more active public interest / consumer lobbying voice.
When I did volunteer public interest lobbying against the so-called SDMCA in Texas -- a state-level bill that made it a crime to modify your computer in an unauthorized manner -- the tech groups agreed not to take a carveout, and the tech and public interest groups continued to work together throughout the process.
Adina Levin
Director
ACLU-TX Cyberliberties Project