3 ms·

These meshnet projects are interesting, and I wish them well. But... we (democratic republic countries) already have governmental structures that allow for cha

by ap22213 15y ago

These meshnet projects are interesting, and I wish them well. But... we (democratic republic countries) already have governmental structures that allow for changing laws. Let's just organize and change the laws. Aside from the industry-paid demagogues' rhetoric of 'STEALING' on the internet, we have to objectively think about this problem. We, the public, define the laws. We define what 'stealing' is. If a majority of the population is violating the so-called law, and it's hard to identify the specific victims of the law or even particular damages, then it's probably not a useful law anymore. Instead of jumping into a subversive massive campaign to overthrow the existing system, let's just use the tools that have been created to deal with these types of situations. The simple fact is that the Internet and digital content has dramatically changed the way that intellectual property works, and the laws haven't kept up.

ap22213 15y ago
Let's imagine that some big corporation invented a way to produce free energy, and at the same time, they also influenced current laws to ensure that their patents would never expire. Would we build all sorts of back-channel technological methods to use these patents anyway so that we may avoid jail and fines? Or, would we simply say, "hey - sorry the idea of 100 year patents just doesn't make sense any more. We're changing the law."
rjbond3rd 15y ago
I like your civic-minded approach. But isn't it a bit idealist while the laws are written by the lobbyists of entrenched multi-billion-dollar businesses? I sincerely hope that's not the case in your country but it's definitely the case in mine. It seems to me it's the (possibility of) technological circumvention itself which renders the laws outdated. If that's true, then the laws will always lag behind to the point of absurdity (as appears to be the case now). Suing grandmothers, software patents, suing farmers downwind of the pollen of patented plants, etc. Where's the hope of changing those laws which are backed by multi-billion-dollar industries until lobbyists and campaign contributions are banished from our law-making process?
- nl 15y ago
  But isn't it a bit idealist while the laws are written by the lobbyists of entrenched multi-billion-dollar businesses? I sincerely hope that's not the case in your country but it's definitely the case in mine. Fixing that problem isn't impossible. There are a significant precedents where people have forced governments to act against corporate interests (eg, the environmental movement). Even things like the Tea Party show that the major US parties can be co-opted by people power. Yes, the Tea Party has mostly been co-opted itself, but look how many entrenched players that removed in such a short period of time. I'd suggest that is a reasonable model to study for anyone interested in creating a pro-consumer political movement.
charlieok 15y ago
Changing the law is certainly a worthy goal, and I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from working on that. Same goes for improving the technology. Making the internet more resistant to censorship, throttling and monitoring by design, is a very worthy goal.

by ap22213 15y ago

ap22213 15y ago

Let's imagine that some big corporation invented a way to produce free energy, and at the same time, they also influenced current laws to ensure that their patents would never expire. Would we build all sorts of back-channel technological methods to use these patents anyway so that we may avoid jail and fines? Or, would we simply say, "hey - sorry the idea of 100 year patents just doesn't make sense any more. We're changing the law."

rjbond3rd 15y ago

I like your civic-minded approach. But isn't it a bit idealist while the laws are written by the lobbyists of entrenched multi-billion-dollar businesses? I sincerely hope that's not the case in your country but it's definitely the case in mine. It seems to me it's the (possibility of) technological circumvention itself which renders the laws outdated. If that's true, then the laws will always lag behind to the point of absurdity (as appears to be the case now). Suing grandmothers, software patents, suing farmers downwind of the pollen of patented plants, etc. Where's the hope of changing those laws which are backed by multi-billion-dollar industries until lobbyists and campaign contributions are banished from our law-making process?

nl 15y ago
But isn't it a bit idealist while the laws are written by the lobbyists of entrenched multi-billion-dollar businesses? I sincerely hope that's not the case in your country but it's definitely the case in mine. Fixing that problem isn't impossible. There are a significant precedents where people have forced governments to act against corporate interests (eg, the environmental movement). Even things like the Tea Party show that the major US parties can be co-opted by people power. Yes, the Tea Party has mostly been co-opted itself, but look how many entrenched players that removed in such a short period of time. I'd suggest that is a reasonable model to study for anyone interested in creating a pro-consumer political movement.

charlieok 15y ago

Changing the law is certainly a worthy goal, and I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from working on that. Same goes for improving the technology. Making the internet more resistant to censorship, throttling and monitoring by design, is a very worthy goal.