5 ms·
It's called counter-revolution. Many revolutionary movements are eventually co-opted by elites (often the elites of the overthrown system) for their own purpos
by clarkmoody 8y ago
It's called counter-revolution.
Many revolutionary movements are eventually co-opted by elites (often the elites of the overthrown system) for their own purposes. Sometimes the new system put in place after the counter-revolution is worse than the system the original revolution sought to overthrow.
The cypherpunks foresaw the dystopian surveillance state decades before the reality and tried to get out in front of it via cryptography. But the raw economics of central service network effects completely destroyed a distributed, control-your-own-keys world. Going forward there are always proposals for a state-controlled "third-key" on all encryption.
Likewise, the gatekeepers of the old system (record labels, Disney, etc), have always used the state to enrich themselves. The Internet caught them off guard and they tried to fight it in the early 2000s with lawsuits for file sharing, which hurt their public image greatly. But centralized services came to dominate distribution once again. And now we're seeing obvious self-enrichment with these "reforms."
- DCKing 8y agoI think it politicizes the early internet too much to call it a revolution in the political sense. The early internet was a place of experimentation with new communication, but I think it goes way too far to call it a 'movement'. By its nature it attracted a bunch of people with particular political persuasions. But it wasn't only people of those persuasions, and neither was the entire thing an instrument for those people and their persuasions. Technology allowed for newer and richer forms of communication, and things just happened from there. And this is where we are now, sadly.
- clarkmoody 8y agoNot political, no. A technological revolution, in the disruptive sense. We can look to other disruptive technologies over time to see how the entrenched / favored industries handled the change. The story is mostly the same, but the players are different. The mercatilist impulse is to freeze economics to ensure current levels of profit via state fiat. Even companies that start out revolutionary/scrappy/innovative become conservative after they acquire large market share. It's more important to maintain profit levels, quarterly earnings, and share price than it is to make a risky attempt at another disruptive innovation. Unfortunately, that impulse too often leads them to lobby the legislature or crown.
- noir_lord 8y agoTechnological change and disruptions seem to be accelerating I wonder if we'll get to the point where the large entrenched interests simply can't keep up. It takes time to buy politicians (at least until PaaS - Politician as a Service becomes a thing).
- ABCLAW 8y agoThis isn't a fight between elites and the proles - most people who are framing the result today as such have not read the text of article 11 and 13. And I don't blame them, most articles on the matter conspicuously refuse to link the text, for some reason. This is a fight between titans of industry in two different verticals. Content is upset that publishing is getting all of the money - and a brief examination of the valuations in those respective industries shows they're probably right on that front. Is this the optimal tool to right those scales? Probably not, but it certainly isn't constructed to kick Grandma's bakery and blogroll website off the internet at the behest of Big Bread. To the extent that Articles 11 and 13 have problems (and they do) they should be addressed, but the fearmongering makes it very difficult to actually talk about those issues and their context properly.
- Semaphor 8y ago> most articles on the matter conspicuously refuse to link the text, for some reason. Julia Reda (German MEP for the Pirate Party) had most of the up to date info for the whole fiasco since it started. And she also provided new versions of the texts whenever they became available.
- ABCLAW 8y agoYes, her work is commendable in bringing information to the public. I don't quite agree with her tone or conclusions in this matter, but I'm glad there are solid IP-centric advocates like her as MEPs. Unfortunately, a ton of articles basically copy her opinions or findings without the source material, so they get distorted.
- pera 8y agoThey reworded Article 11 and 13 (now 15 and 17) so many times that I wouldn't be surprised if "most people" haven't read the final text... In my opinion the original version with the amendments was simply insane; the work of technologically illiterate lawmakers in conjunction with copyright lobbyists. The final version makes an awkward attempt to fix some of the criticism by simply making things more vague, so each member state can decide how draconian they want to go with its enforcement. Calling the political discourse that opposes these articles "fearmongering" is disingenuous.
- adrianN 8y agoI don't think cryptography can win against legislation. There are no technological solutions to social problems.