Jim’s article gets picked up
The famous Doc Searls is onto Jim’s Second Superpower piece. I suspect he won’t be the only one to generate buzz about it.
The famous Doc Searls is onto Jim’s Second Superpower piece. I suspect he won’t be the only one to generate buzz about it.
Jim Moore has written a brilliant piece on what he sees as the emerging challenge to US hegemony. Blogging, texting, the Net all play critical roles in his story. There’s also an html version available. He’s on to something big.
There’s been a fair amount of critique already about Rep. Tobin’s bill in Massachusetts “to establish a crime of illegal internet and broadband access and establishing penalties therefor.” That’s a euphamism; see for yourself. There’s a lot not to like in this bill.
Given what others have already noted, I’m focused now on a tiny little part. I’m amazed at lawmakers’ continued habit of defining “internet service provider” different ways in countless bills. See what the proposed bill is doing under “communication service provider.” Consider then the CDA, the DMCA, the CFAA, all sorts of regs. How many ways can you define what is ultimately roughly the same thing? And how does that make for a good legal regime?