Siva Vaidhyanathan: Copyright as Cudgel
We make a grave mistake when we choose to engage in discussions of copyright in terms of "property." Copyright is not about "property" as commonly understood. It is a specific state-granted monopoly issued for particular policy reasons. While, technically, it describes real property as well, it also describes a more fundamental public good that precedes specific policy choices the state may make about the regulation and dispensation of property. But we can't win an argument as long as those who hold inordinate interest in copyright maximization can cry "theft" at any mention of fair use or users' rights. You can't argue for theft.
Read the whole thing. It's very good.
Wednesday, 31 July 2002
Sunday, 28 July 2002
Hacking, hijacking our rights
Dan Gillmor writes with anger and clarity:
If you or I asked Congress for permission to legally hack other people's computers, we'd be laughed off Capitol Hill. Then we'd be investigated by the FBI and every other agency concerned with criminal violations of privacy and security.
Then again, you and I aren't part of the movie and music business. We aren't as powerful as an industry that knows no bounds in its paranoia and greed, a cartel that boasts enough money and public-relations talent to turn Congress into a marionette.
If you or I asked Congress for permission to legally hack other people's computers, we'd be laughed off Capitol Hill. Then we'd be investigated by the FBI and every other agency concerned with criminal violations of privacy and security.
Then again, you and I aren't part of the movie and music business. We aren't as powerful as an industry that knows no bounds in its paranoia and greed, a cartel that boasts enough money and public-relations talent to turn Congress into a marionette.
Saturday, 27 July 2002
That was quick
Less than a week after I point out how to prosecute DRM vigilantes under federal law, they buy themselves an exemption.
Wednesday, 24 July 2002
Glut is good
Isenberg explains why telecommunciations are in crisis, even though communications is still growing.
...in an Internet world, a network owner has no special advantage in adding value to their network, say, over somebody who owns a few servers at the edge and buys connectivity.
This single fact makes the telephone-company business model obsolete. It also makes the Internet the huge success, the integral part of our lives that it is today.
Think about all the killer applications of the last decade -- email, instant messaging, web browsing, streaming audio, ecommerce, Internet telephony -- you don't have to be a network owner to host these apps. Indeed not a single one was brought to market by a telephone company or a cable company.
...in an Internet world, a network owner has no special advantage in adding value to their network, say, over somebody who owns a few servers at the edge and buys connectivity.
This single fact makes the telephone-company business model obsolete. It also makes the Internet the huge success, the integral part of our lives that it is today.
Think about all the killer applications of the last decade -- email, instant messaging, web browsing, streaming audio, ecommerce, Internet telephony -- you don't have to be a network owner to host these apps. Indeed not a single one was brought to market by a telephone company or a cable company.
Tuesday, 23 July 2002
EPIC's DRM Comments
EPIC's DRM Comments are very clear anda good read. I really liked this point, until they used the p-word.
Consumers enjoy online entertainment because it is convenient and easy to access and share digital content. Consumers enjoy the freedom of listening, reading or watching from the comfort and privacy of their own home. Unfortunately, in the absence of legitimate services the online demand is manifested largely through piracy.
Consumers enjoy online entertainment because it is convenient and easy to access and share digital content. Consumers enjoy the freedom of listening, reading or watching from the comfort and privacy of their own home. Unfortunately, in the absence of legitimate services the online demand is manifested largely through piracy.
We need to rip them off because we can't pick hits
Musicians explain to Congress how the music cartel treats them:
Music attorney Don Engel estimated that record companies routinely "underpay 10 to 40 percent on every royalty" and dare artists to challenge it without killing their careers.
The industries only defence was to flaunt their incompetence in their star-picking rôle
The industry also released an economic analysis that showed fewer than 5 percent of signed artists produce a hit record. Likewise, for every hit, the industry loses $6.3 million on albums that fail.
Time to let a marketplace decide who is to be a star, and who is to be paid, instead of this corrupt system.
Music attorney Don Engel estimated that record companies routinely "underpay 10 to 40 percent on every royalty" and dare artists to challenge it without killing their careers.
The industries only defence was to flaunt their incompetence in their star-picking rôle
The industry also released an economic analysis that showed fewer than 5 percent of signed artists produce a hit record. Likewise, for every hit, the industry loses $6.3 million on albums that fail.
Time to let a marketplace decide who is to be a star, and who is to be paid, instead of this corrupt system.
Jerome K Jerome on coding
Jerome K Jerome's advice on bicycles from 100 years ago or so, still applies to present-day technologies:
There are two ways you can get exercise out of a bicycle: you can "overhaul" it, or you can ride it. On the whole, I am not sure that a man who takes his pleasure overhauling does not have the best of the bargain. He is independent of the weather and the wind; the state of the roads troubles him not. Give him a screw-hammer, a bundle of rags, an oil-can, and something to sit down upon, and he is happy for the day. He has to put up with certain disadvantages, of course; there is no joy without alloy. He himself always looks like a tinker, and his machine always suggests the idea that, having stolen it, he has tried to disguise it; but as he rarely gets beyond the first milestone with it, this, perhaps, does not much matter. The mistake some people make is in thinking they can get both forms of sport out of the same machine. This is impossible; no machine will stand the double strain. You must make up your mind whether you are going to be an "overhauler" or a rider.
There are two ways you can get exercise out of a bicycle: you can "overhaul" it, or you can ride it. On the whole, I am not sure that a man who takes his pleasure overhauling does not have the best of the bargain. He is independent of the weather and the wind; the state of the roads troubles him not. Give him a screw-hammer, a bundle of rags, an oil-can, and something to sit down upon, and he is happy for the day. He has to put up with certain disadvantages, of course; there is no joy without alloy. He himself always looks like a tinker, and his machine always suggests the idea that, having stolen it, he has tried to disguise it; but as he rarely gets beyond the first milestone with it, this, perhaps, does not much matter. The mistake some people make is in thinking they can get both forms of sport out of the same machine. This is impossible; no machine will stand the double strain. You must make up your mind whether you are going to be an "overhauler" or a rider.
Monday, 22 July 2002
Hermeneutics or Heresy?
I've been following the Differential Hermeneutics thread that AKMA has started, and I think I can see what he is getting at, but I'd like to pose a concrete example (being a memetic engineer).
After our trip to church at Easter Andrew and Christopher are firmly convinced that Jesus was resurrected as the Easter Bunny. They claim that this truth was revealed to them in Sunday School that day.
How should I handle this particular interpretation? I hesitate to point Andrew to the Bible directly, and I am aware that Ishtar may be having the last laugh that Mithras is denied (yes, I've been reading a History of Babylonia recently, after Graves' Greek Myths and Gaiman's American Gods, so my interpretations are differentially coloured too).
After our trip to church at Easter Andrew and Christopher are firmly convinced that Jesus was resurrected as the Easter Bunny. They claim that this truth was revealed to them in Sunday School that day.
How should I handle this particular interpretation? I hesitate to point Andrew to the Bible directly, and I am aware that Ishtar may be having the last laugh that Mithras is denied (yes, I've been reading a History of Babylonia recently, after Graves' Greek Myths and Gaiman's American Gods, so my interpretations are differentially coloured too).
Built on Love, not money?
Investors May Have Repudiated the Internet, but Consumers Have Not
They're starting to notice that it's not 'us and them', just lots more of us...
...with 61 percent of American adults using the Internet, up from 46 percent two years ago, analysts and media executives say the medium is beginning to change consumer expectations of what mainstream culture should offer. Consumers who were once content to sit back and absorb what was beamed at them are demanding more control over how and when they consume movies, television, newspapers and music.
They're starting to notice that it's not 'us and them', just lots more of us...
...with 61 percent of American adults using the Internet, up from 46 percent two years ago, analysts and media executives say the medium is beginning to change consumer expectations of what mainstream culture should offer. Consumers who were once content to sit back and absorb what was beamed at them are demanding more control over how and when they consume movies, television, newspapers and music.
EFF: Fair Use and DRM
In EFF: Fair Use and DRM Fred says:
[...]it seems unlikely that any DRM technology (at least one that will be embraced by the copyright industries for their products) will be able to accommodate the full range of fair use.
If this is true, the question then becomes whether some quantum of fair use should be sacrificed in order to stem the disruption caused by new technologies to existing media company business models. Or, to put it more bluntly, should the public be required to give up some measure of fair use in order to solve the "piracy" problem?
Wrong question, Fred. The question is 'should the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments to the US Constitution be overturned so publishers can maintain their chokehold on the market by seizing your computer?'.
Those amendments excerpted for reference:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;[...]
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be [...]deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
[...]it seems unlikely that any DRM technology (at least one that will be embraced by the copyright industries for their products) will be able to accommodate the full range of fair use.
If this is true, the question then becomes whether some quantum of fair use should be sacrificed in order to stem the disruption caused by new technologies to existing media company business models. Or, to put it more bluntly, should the public be required to give up some measure of fair use in order to solve the "piracy" problem?
Wrong question, Fred. The question is 'should the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments to the US Constitution be overturned so publishers can maintain their chokehold on the market by seizing your computer?'.
Those amendments excerpted for reference:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;[...]
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be [...]deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Research: File Traders Buy Records.
Research: File Traders Buy Records.
More supportive data for the mediAgora thesis that people will buy things they hear:
10.1% of 12-17-year-olds who actively download music from the Internet did not purchase a single CD or cassette in the last 12 months.
Or 90% 12-17-year-olds did purchase CDs even though they actively download music from the Internet. In other words, the record industry is having excellent penetration in a market where most of its audience doesn't have a paying job. As for the other 10% can you honestly assume all would have bought CDs if there were no file trading?
More supportive data for the mediAgora thesis that people will buy things they hear:
10.1% of 12-17-year-olds who actively download music from the Internet did not purchase a single CD or cassette in the last 12 months.
Or 90% 12-17-year-olds did purchase CDs even though they actively download music from the Internet. In other words, the record industry is having excellent penetration in a market where most of its audience doesn't have a paying job. As for the other 10% can you honestly assume all would have bought CDs if there were no file trading?
Brain Rot
Brain Rot
Thought-provoking article on educational software thanks to Aaron:
I'm not saying that educational software should encourage mistakes, or have outright flaws, such as buttons that are confusingly labeled and crash the program. But I am saying that programs should be rich enough to allow both right and wrong paths to be followed, and followed in a more than superficial way.
Software can be divided into page-turning vs. simulation-based. Page-turning software, which is very common, allows the student to following only certain pre-determined paths through screens that have been laid out in advance by the authors. Breaking out onto more creative paths is impossible, because there is nothing to break out into: It's a closed box.
Simulation software in contrast has a set of rules and algorithms (the laws of physics; sociological models; geometrical relationships; etc.). It is able to apply these rules to a fairly open-ended set of inputs. Simulation software is inherently more difficult to write; not surprisingly there is little of it out there. In fact, good simulations are so difficult to create that one could almost name all the examples that have ever been done. Page-turning software is incredibly easy to make, and there are countless thousands of titles available, virtually all of very low quality.
Interestingly, while violent video games may be evil, they are largely simulation-based. No page-turning software could hold anyone's attention for the hundreds of hours that video games capture our children. In a good video game, you have a huge world to roam about in, complete with back alleys, multiple levels, and great detail in all the parts. The only problem is that you have to keep killing people to see the next back alley.
Thought-provoking article on educational software thanks to Aaron:
I'm not saying that educational software should encourage mistakes, or have outright flaws, such as buttons that are confusingly labeled and crash the program. But I am saying that programs should be rich enough to allow both right and wrong paths to be followed, and followed in a more than superficial way.
Software can be divided into page-turning vs. simulation-based. Page-turning software, which is very common, allows the student to following only certain pre-determined paths through screens that have been laid out in advance by the authors. Breaking out onto more creative paths is impossible, because there is nothing to break out into: It's a closed box.
Simulation software in contrast has a set of rules and algorithms (the laws of physics; sociological models; geometrical relationships; etc.). It is able to apply these rules to a fairly open-ended set of inputs. Simulation software is inherently more difficult to write; not surprisingly there is little of it out there. In fact, good simulations are so difficult to create that one could almost name all the examples that have ever been done. Page-turning software is incredibly easy to make, and there are countless thousands of titles available, virtually all of very low quality.
Interestingly, while violent video games may be evil, they are largely simulation-based. No page-turning software could hold anyone's attention for the hundreds of hours that video games capture our children. In a good video game, you have a huge world to roam about in, complete with back alleys, multiple levels, and great detail in all the parts. The only problem is that you have to keep killing people to see the next back alley.
Friday, 19 July 2002
New law to help us fight DRM
Congress just passed this bill, which could be used to prosecute companies who invade our computers with DRM - we all use our computers for interstate and foreign communication; it won't take many of us to aggregate $5000 in damage, and just look at those aggravating circumstances. If were Sony Records I'd be nervous.
SEC. 101. AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES RELATING TO CERTAIN COMPUTER CRIMES.
(a) DIRECTIVE TO THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION- Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall review and, if appropriate, amend its guidelines and its policy statements applicable to persons convicted of an offense under section 1030 of title 18, United States Code.
(b) REQUIREMENTS- In carrying out this section, the Sentencing Commission shall--
(1) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy statements reflect the serious nature of the offenses described in subsection (a), the growing incidence of such offenses, and the need for an effective deterrent and appropriate punishment to prevent such offenses
(2) consider the following factors and the extent to which the guidelines may or may not account for them--
(A) the potential and actual loss resulting from the offense;
(B) the level of sophistication and planning involved in the offense;
(C) whether the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial benefit;
(D) whether the defendant acted with malicious intent to cause harm in committing the offense;
(E) the extent to which the offense violated the privacy rights of individuals harmed;
Title 18 sec 1030 includes this clause:
Sec. 1030. - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(a)Whoever -
(5) (A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
(B) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
(C) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage;
(2) the term ''protected computer'' means a computer -
(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication;
(8) the term ''damage'' means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information, that -
(A) causes loss aggregating at least $5,000 in value during any 1-year period to one or more individuals;
SEC. 101. AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES RELATING TO CERTAIN COMPUTER CRIMES.
(a) DIRECTIVE TO THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION- Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall review and, if appropriate, amend its guidelines and its policy statements applicable to persons convicted of an offense under section 1030 of title 18, United States Code.
(b) REQUIREMENTS- In carrying out this section, the Sentencing Commission shall--
(1) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy statements reflect the serious nature of the offenses described in subsection (a), the growing incidence of such offenses, and the need for an effective deterrent and appropriate punishment to prevent such offenses
(2) consider the following factors and the extent to which the guidelines may or may not account for them--
(A) the potential and actual loss resulting from the offense;
(B) the level of sophistication and planning involved in the offense;
(C) whether the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial benefit;
(D) whether the defendant acted with malicious intent to cause harm in committing the offense;
(E) the extent to which the offense violated the privacy rights of individuals harmed;
Title 18 sec 1030 includes this clause:
Sec. 1030. - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(a)Whoever -
(5) (A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
(B) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
(C) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage;
(2) the term ''protected computer'' means a computer -
(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication;
(8) the term ''damage'' means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information, that -
(A) causes loss aggregating at least $5,000 in value during any 1-year period to one or more individuals;
EarthLink wins spammer suit
EarthLink wins spammer suit
Another good precedent. Defeating spam through exisitng laws looks more promising.
Another good precedent. Defeating spam through exisitng laws looks more promising.
DRM Is Theft
Reports on the Commerce Department Workshop are appearing everywhere.
Grant Gross has written a good account of the workshop, and an outline fo the debate. The Register reprinted this, and CNET had an account by Declan, who put up photos too, as well as a story on Kuro5hin & Slashdot (oddly, an identical one). Most of them printed the "DRM is Theft" slogan of NT Fair Use. I'd like to quote none other than Jack Valenti in support of this idea:
The single centralizing principle on which this whole rostrum rests is this: If you cannot own, if what you own cannot be protected, you don't own anything and that goes for Clint Eastwood or the most obscure person in this industry or anybody in any industry. If what you own cannot be protected, you own nothing.
[...]
The last sentence of the fifth amendment, and I urge all of you law students to read it again, because the fifth amendment is not merely that you can't testify to incriminate yourself. The last sentence says you cannot take anybody's private property, not even the Government, without giving them just compensation for it. It is that "takings" clause that is the heart and muscle of this memorandum by Professor Tribe.
DRM takes control of your computer, and hands it over to those who would sell you music and movies. It's not just the First and Fourth amendments any more.
Grant Gross has written a good account of the workshop, and an outline fo the debate. The Register reprinted this, and CNET had an account by Declan, who put up photos too, as well as a story on Kuro5hin & Slashdot (oddly, an identical one). Most of them printed the "DRM is Theft" slogan of NT Fair Use. I'd like to quote none other than Jack Valenti in support of this idea:
The single centralizing principle on which this whole rostrum rests is this: If you cannot own, if what you own cannot be protected, you don't own anything and that goes for Clint Eastwood or the most obscure person in this industry or anybody in any industry. If what you own cannot be protected, you own nothing.
[...]
The last sentence of the fifth amendment, and I urge all of you law students to read it again, because the fifth amendment is not merely that you can't testify to incriminate yourself. The last sentence says you cannot take anybody's private property, not even the Government, without giving them just compensation for it. It is that "takings" clause that is the heart and muscle of this memorandum by Professor Tribe.
DRM takes control of your computer, and hands it over to those who would sell you music and movies. It's not just the First and Fourth amendments any more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
