<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Geist vs Goldberg</title>
	<atom:link href="http://saunderslog.com/2008/03/18/geist-vs-goldberg/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://saunderslog.com/2008/03/18/geist-vs-goldberg/</link>
	<description>A daily round table on the tech industry with experts and callers from all over the globe. Join us as we pick apart the news and get to the meat of what\'s happening out there.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 03:41:52 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Russell McOrmond</title>
		<link>http://saunderslog.com/2008/03/18/geist-vs-goldberg/#comment-657604</link>
		<dc:creator>Russell McOrmond</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:44:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://saunderslog.com/2008/03/18/geist-vs-goldberg/#comment-657604</guid>
		<description>I thought I would reference my own contribution to this debate: http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4594


Mark Goldberg is promoting the myth that the best way to deal with speech that our society has decided should be illegal is through large powerful intermediaries able to claim they are enforcing this policy. This is typical of the old-media "dumb terminals, smart network" thinking of the sector that he represents and consistently lobbies on behalf of. This is the type of thinking that new media "smart terminals, dumb network" end-to-end thinking replaces.

It is laws that deal with the persons controlling the source terminal, and possibly the sicknesses that create demand at the destination terminal, not intermediaries, which is how we will ultimately solve these problems. Granting power to intermediaries that has been, is, and always will be abused is not a viable solution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought I would reference my own contribution to this debate: <a href="http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4594" rel="nofollow">http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4594</a></p>
<p>Mark Goldberg is promoting the myth that the best way to deal with speech that our society has decided should be illegal is through large powerful intermediaries able to claim they are enforcing this policy. This is typical of the old-media &#8220;dumb terminals, smart network&#8221; thinking of the sector that he represents and consistently lobbies on behalf of. This is the type of thinking that new media &#8220;smart terminals, dumb network&#8221; end-to-end thinking replaces.</p>
<p>It is laws that deal with the persons controlling the source terminal, and possibly the sicknesses that create demand at the destination terminal, not intermediaries, which is how we will ultimately solve these problems. Granting power to intermediaries that has been, is, and always will be abused is not a viable solution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
