Piracy is the Creation of the Content Industy II

The content industry tirelessly whines how piracy is costing them business, but they never seem reflect on their own deceptive business practices to essentially steal from the consumer.  On this issue Marcus Crab wrote: "... the biggest driver of piracy is a lack of legitimate offerings." in his post post: "How To Turn A Legitimate Buyer Into A Pirate In Five Easy Steps".

If companies that sell content wish to complain about piracy, then they need to demonstrate some honesty and integrity on their part.  First, no misleading ads. Second, the ability of the consumer to return content that does not meet their needs. Through their blatant disregard of the consumer, it is the content industry that is promoting piracy.

Piracy is the Creation of the Content Industy

The content industry is creating piracy. How so? Well - the content industry has been actively changing the law to make formerly legal activities criminal in nature. It is time to re-orientate our thinking on this.  Just because there is a "law" does not mean that the "law" should be considered just.

Recently, I posted SOPA/PIPA Follow-Up, Fox News Wants Examples of Media Bias, Steven Titch on SOPA and PIPA for Non-Techies, and Eliminate Piracy Now! in which I raised demonstrated that the content industry has been lobbying to change the copyright law to their benefit and that they are not interested in "compromise".

Mike Masnick, at TechDirt, made a much more extensive analysis in "How Much Is Enough? We've Passed 15 'Anti-Piracy' Laws In The Last 30 Years". Mike notes that the content industry, despite the passage of 15 pieces of favorable legislation, continues to complain that more needs to be done to stop piracy.  Mike concludes with "All we've seen is expansion after expansion after expansion, always using questionable claims of rampant infringement that is supposedly destroying industries. Each time, the various industries would create a moral panic about why this law was absolutely needed. Forgive us for being a bit skeptical. We've seen this game pretty damn frequently."

In reviewing the comments left by readers, I noted that several readers made comments that require further exposure. Cicero raised the issue of property rights. One of the foundations of property rights is that they emerge out of scarcity. Seems to me, that if you have an infinite resource (digital content) then, logically, the (ersatz) property right (to digital content) vaporizes.

TtfnJohn raised the issue of technological advancements. Seems that the content industry believes that advances in technology give them additional rights. Why should it? I would advocate that the content creators are NOT entitled to any new "rights".

Lets look at the example of a paper book. You can take that book anywhere, you can read it anytime, and you can sell it. So why should the development of a new technology give the content creators the "right" to deprive the reader of the ability to read the book out-of-region, to limit your ability to view content at your leisure, or to prevent you from selling it, or to even "brick" your devices.  The content industry should not have a "right" to deprive, at their will, a person of their property rights.

Along the theme expressed above Mike Masnick coincidentally wrote: "MPAA: Ripping DVDs Shouldn't Be Allowed Because It Takes Away Our Ability To Charge You Multiple Times For The Same Content."

To conclude, it is the content industry that is creating the pirates that they claim are destroying their industry. The content industry can solve the piracy problem by compromising with a restoration of the copyright law as it was originally envisioned and recognizing the property rights of those who buy content to freely use it.

SOPA/PIPA Follow-Up

Mike Masnick and Steve Forbes had interesting follow-up posts.  Mike Masnick posted a cartoon by Ruben Bolling which once again demonstrates how graphics can be much more descriptive than written narrative. Mr. Bolling even observes an interpretative twist that I have overlooked. That is how can the content industry claim "theft" if the content was created knowing that it would have fallen into the public domain had the law not changed???!!!

Tom the Dancing Bug by Ruben Bolling

Mr. Forbes in "Don't Soft-Soap SOPA" makes certain critical observations. One, that the current public outrage has only "temporarily derailed" the continued the growing trend in eliminating civil liberties in the quest to protect a special interest group. Mr. Bolling, in the cartoon above, illustrates this in the background. Mr. Forbes goes on to say:"SOPA's and PIPA's unwritten agenda seemed to be to throttle the Web for its drastic - and very unwelcome - upending of the traditional way business is done in the entertainment world.  Hollywood has fought every technological advance tooth and nail since the early days of television."

Mr. Forbes goes on to suggest some compromises and alternative approaches using private market solutions rather than government regulation. My quibble with Mr. Forbes' conclusions is that he does not mention rolling back copyright to a more reasonable time duration, to protect the private property rights of the content buyers, or to expand the concept of "fair-use".

Fox News Wants Examples of Media Bias

Well, I had a good example concerning SOPA/PIPA so I emailed them. Seems that Fox News turned off their email, so my email was kicked-back as undeliverable.  So I am posting a modified version below in the hope that a bored Fox News analyst may actually stumble across this post while surfing the net.

TO Fox News:  Concerning your 4:45 PM Segment on 1/22/2012. Could you please get someone on who actually knows something about copyright, property rights, and the constitution to appear on Fox News.

Recently, on Fox News, a three person panel of clueless so-called pundits had a superficial. discussion concerning why the politicians did not understand the implications or SOPA/PIPA.  The panel itself, however, did not evoke any comprehension concerning the nature of copyright.  The only redeeming comment, they at least did comprehend that these proposed laws went to far.

During that discussion the panel tossed out the obligatory, but incredibly dumb, question "How can we bring the two sides together". The content industry has progressively moved the fulcrum point to the "right" by lobbying Congress to pass laws that give the content industry special privileges and depriving the public of their civil liberties. I have yet to hear the content industry, in the spirit of compromise, to give-up some of their special privileges or to return copyright to its original duration and scope.

You can NOT negotiate with someone who consistently demands give me more, give me more, give me more. The FOX News panel seemingly failed to comprehend this oppressive trend and blindly swallowed the content industry propaganda.

The Fox News panel also made the gratuitous and obligatory statement  concerning "stealing". Once again the esteemed panel neglected to think this through. The activity of piracy is actually "infringement" it is NOT "stealing" .  When you commit theft, you are depriving the owner of their property.  Simplistically, piracy is the use of content in an unauthorized fashion. It is not theft.

U-tube animation illustrating the distinction.  Copying Is Not Theft

The content industry has been pushing the "theft" angle because it makes for good sound bytes, is simple, and evokes sympathetic emotions.  But there is an obvious counter-intuitive argument; it is the content industry that has actually been doing the "stealing" by changing the law.  By changing the law, the content industry is making formerly legal activities criminal. By changing the law, the content industry is eliminating the public domain.  By changing the law, the content industry is abolishing fair use.  The so-called pundits at Fox News are seemingly oblivious to this repugnant "land-grab" by the content industry. Time for Fox News to stop mindlessly regurgitating content industry propaganda and get a person who has real knowledge on their news panels to add some real fair and balanced analysis.

There is a simple solution to the piracy issue. Restore copyright to its original intent, piracy will be reduced. Formerly legal activities will once again become legal. Legality is what both sides seek. Now will the content industry agree to this compromise?

Steven Titch on SOPA and PIPA for Non-Techies

Following a link from The Technology Liberation Front I ran across the a post from Steve Titch "SOPA and PIPA for Non-Techies" on the Reason Foundation webpage.  His post very clearly articulated that our legal system is now focusing on passing laws that criminalize everyday activities. To paraphrase, lawmakers are criminalizing everyday activities rather than insist that law enforcement actually investigate a case against a suspected criminal.

SOPA and PIPA are the latest and most egregious example of an alarming political trend: instead of strengthening enforcement against actual crimes, lawmakers instead criminalize everyday activities that by nature lend indirect support. Rather than demanding police build a case against real money-launderers, Louisiana lawmakers made cash transactions illegal.  Instead of finding a drunk driver guilty, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the defendant could sue the bar owner who sold him the drinks. Congress couldn't muster the political will to pass a law against Internet poker, so it made it illegal for a licensed bank to transfer funds to a licensed gambling site.

Additionally many of these new laws also require that third parties act as an extension of law enforcement.  As an onerous example CNET posted an article:  "Federal rules on campus file sharing kick in today". In short, universities would be required to spy (wiretap) on student internet traffic for infringement. No due process or warrant. At the Republican Debate of January 19, 2012 Ron Paul spoke out in opposition to this type of legislation.

Eliminate Piracy Now!

Reducing piracy is simple. Restore copyright law to what existed in 1790.  The expansion of piracy has not been caused by the consumer becoming evil, but by the content industry being able to purchase favorable legislation from Congress that criminalizes formally legal behavior.  In a sense "piracy" is the public relations creation of the content industry to make themselves out to be "victims".  Below is a graphic from Wikipedia demonstrating this trend. So if the content industry can create evil thieving "pirates" through the passage of self-serving legislation, the legislation can be modified to eliminate the evils of piracy too.  It goes both ways.

Our legal system is meant to provide a level playing to conduct business.  It was not meant to provide one group (content industry) special rights while at the same time diminishing the rights of another group (consumer).  The consumer, when they purchase content acquire a property right to use that content.  The public domain, also has a property right to content! Time to restore those rights.

CNN Piracy Propoganda - Back in the USSR

CNN's Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room had a very disturbing segment concerning piracy. The segment was reminiscent of old style Soviet Union propaganda. Unfortunately, it seems that the segment has yet to be posted, so no link. Here is a link to an earlier story: Anti-piracy bill meets Web-freedom backlash.  TechDirt has greater detail and analysis here.  Essentially, today's Situation Room segment was a sob story highlighting how those in the entertainment industry are suffering greatly from wanton piracy that needs to be controlled to protect the starving artists.

I believe in very limited copyright/patent privileges and do not believe in so-called "intellectual property".  However, this post will not be digging into the concern over the legality or non-legality of piracy but of the purposely unstated consequence of what a so-called "war" against piracy will mean. To be fair and balanced, Wolf Blitzer should have delved into the concerns reviewed below.

We are supposed to be a Nation based on laws.  Implicit in that context are things such as "due process" and innocent until proven guilty.  The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution states: "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."  The so-called "war" on piracy will be a nullification of the Fourth Amendment.

Beyond the obvious Fourth Amendment there is the issue that the law should apply equally to everyone.  But the trend in the so-called "war" against piracy is to eliminate the rights of the consumer in-order to protect the revenue stream of the content industry. Simply put, the content industry will be allowed, without a warrant, to monitor you and take whatever unilateral actions they deem appropriate against you.

Update (12/9/2011): Since originally posting TechDirt came out with the following: Constitutional Scholars Explain Why SOPA & PROTECT IP Do Not Pass First Amendment Scrutiny.  Laurence Tribe notes that:"...it delegates to a private party the power to suppress speech without prior notice and a judicial hearing. This provision of the bill would give complaining parties the power to stop online advertisers and credit card processors from doing business with a website, merely by filing a unilateral notice accusing the site of being “dedicated to theft of U.S. property” – even if no court has actually found any infringement.".

In the "old" days, it used to be that the police had to obtain a warrant to search your premises, had to collect evidence, and then had to present that evidence to a court to obtain an arrest warrant. This of course was then followed by a slow irritant of a trial by jury. In the interests of economic efficiency these impediments and the need for courts are being eliminated. Not only that, but if you believe that you are innocent, you will have to go through a tortuous, tedious, and expensive process to prove that!

The content industry is eliminating the consumer's property rights. Funny how the content industry wants to protect their property, but is figuratively "stealing" your property.  The Concept of Sale Is Under Attack.

Then there is the "Broken Window Fallacy".  The content industry claims that pirating costs the industry money and puts people out of work.  It does not. What happens is that people still use that money to buy other things, which other people have to manufacture.  There is no net loss to the economy.  The only loss is to the content industry. And if we are good capitalists (as most people claim to be); if an industry can't make money, too bad. It goes out of business.

As a conclusion, developing research and anecdotal evidence is demonstrating that piracy does not hurt sales! So, if piracy does not actually hurt sales, why must the US public be stripped of their civil rights and live in a police state to supposedly protect the revenue stream of a selected industry?  Time put an end to this onerous "land grab".

Speed Cameras and So-Called "Intellectual Property"

One may not think that concerns over speed cameras can be associated with the inappropriate protection of so-called "intellectual property", but they can. The association is the implementation of "automated" justice.

A Washington Times editorial on speed cameras writes: "The editorial writes: "Traditional law-enforcement duties are best performed by men, not machines. This is the case in Maryland, where speed cameras continue to pronounce the innocent guilty, regardless of mounting evidence that the measuring devices are faulty.  ... In a May 24 letter, Mr. Warrington explained his interest in addressing reliability problems was not ensuring justice but “how we can optimize the productivity of our camera.”" (emphasis added)

Concerning the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA) Larry Downes wrote in CNET that: "It creates vague, sweeping new standards for secondary liability, drafted to ensure maximum litigation. It treats all U.S. consumers as guilty until proven innocent. If passed, the bill would give media companies unprecedented new powers to shape the structure and content of the Internet.... He argues that SOPA effectively introduces new monitoring requirements for all websites that allow user content, even comments posted to blogs. Rightsholders, Sohn wrote, need only "a good faith belief that a Web site is 'avoiding confirming' infringement, and they can demand that payment systems and advertising networks cease doing business with the Web site.""

Like the speed camera silently monitoring traffic, the ISPs are under ever increasing pressure to monitor (spy on) user traffic for the sole purpose of maximizing some entity's assertion for profit, not for ensuring justice. Furthermore, the concept of "due process" is being diminished through the imposition of "automated" justice.

"The America Invents Act" - Another Non-Solution

Obama just recently signed into law "The America Invents Act", which is another piece of useless legislation that will adversely affect the economy in the long-run. Click here for a brief summary of the "The America Invents Act". My essential concern with this bill is that it is an administrative band-aid; not a fundamental re-thinking concerning what deserves to be eligible for patent protection.  Business plans, software, cloud concepts, and natural products such as genes should not be eligible for receiving patent protection. Eliminate the eligibility for these types of activities to receive patent protection and allow the concept of prior-art to have a a real effect on the decision making process; the workload of the patent office will drop dramatically.

When this type of legislation to protect so-called "intellectual property" is passed into law, it damages the free market system. This type of legislation is essentially designed to protect dying business models that should be allowed to gracefully exit the economy.  Mike Masnick  noted that "Nearly all of the good ideas were excised in the process, and you can tell that's true by the fact that no actual tech company appeared with the President at the signing. Instead, it was chemical and pharma companies -- old school legacy industries that are trying to "protect" old businesses, not innovate with the new."

Lets dig a bit deeper into the Mike's comment that innovative companies weren't at the signing ceremony. By coincidence, the September 26, 2011 issue of Forbes had the following article: "Out Sourced Forever, Why Amazon can't make the Kindle in America" by Stephan Denning. (Unfortunately this article does not yet appear to be available on the Forbes website at this time.)  The significance of Mr. Denning's article is that as we loose our capacity to manufacture high tech product here in the US, that the creators of those products will leave the US to work in the attractive overseas markets. In other words, brain drain.

If innovation is moving overseas, that means that patents will also be moving overseas.  If we continue in the US to pursue a "strong" patent regime it won't take long for the overseas companies to start seeing the monetary benefits of formulating their own "strong" patent system. In the end, we will loose when we have to start paying these companies exorbitant licensing fees. The hand writing is on the wall, neither our politicians nor business leaders seem to be aware that they are pursing a suicidal policy by insisting on "strong" patent protection. Be careful of what you ask for. It may bite you.

As a final jab. The political right taunts the phrase: "“That government is best which governs least.” ( I actually agree with the phrase). Derived from that logic, the political right assets that the government stay out of our personal lives and the economy. The political right then goes on to say that entitlement programs for the poor are "bad", regulations are "bad", and that consumer protection is "bad".  If all these things are "bad" why do we need welfare and protection for private businesses? My take; if a business cannot compete in the free-market without government protection, too bad. It goes out-of-business.

Rick Santorum - A Corporate Shill?????

Well, I finally get to combine the fight against so-called "intellectual property" with our current economic malaise and the upcoming presidential election.  Rick Santorum appeared on the Republican straw-poll debate in Ames, Iowa. Basically his presence (and remarks in subsequent post-debate interviews) was exemplified by his whining about the lack of camera time.  I guess that the lack of camera time could be considered good news.

His presence at the debate reminded me that there is some history that would make him a poor selection for a presidential candidate.  Back in 2005, according to the Democratic Underground.com, Santrorum introduced a bill  "that would prohibit federal meteorologists from competing with private companies such as AccuWeather and The Weather Channel. He wants the weather service to surrender much of its data only to private industry, not the public."  The quick counter point is that the Weather Service is not providing "free" weather reports, the public has paid the Weather Service for this service through their tax dollars, therefore we are entitled to it.  Fortunately this bill failed to gain any traction. For some more information see the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Press Mentions: May, 2005.

One of my major ongoing criticisms of our elected officials is that they seem to have lost sight of working on behalf of the American people. The Weather Service receives its funding from our tax dollars and we are entitled to that data.  For Santorum's to claim that the Weather Service should be prohibited from competing with a private company smacks of corporate protectionism.  If a business cannot compete, then it has no business being in business. This incident may now be "old" and be relatively isolated but it does raise questions concerning who Santorum would represent should he be elected President.

Sand Castles

We went to the beach after the Memorial Weekend crowds left.  While walking on the beach we saw several sand castles in the tidal zone.  Soon to be washed away.

A lot of time and effort went into creating these pieces of intricate art work.  I'm sure that many people who visited the beach enjoyed seeing the sand castles. This casual trip to the beach documents that people will create without the expectation of ever getting paid.  The fulfillment comes from the creativity itself.

Saving the Patent Office II

Well I guess Fox News read the New York Times article "U.S. Sets 21st-Century Goal: Building a Better Patent Office" and simply regurgitated it this evening. Bret Baier of "Special Report" unimaginatively reported that the USPTO could be "fixed" through the traditional implementation of streamlining, technological improvements, more staff, etc. Unexplored was the critical issue of patent quality.

Saving the Patent Office

The New York Times has once again published an intellectually challenged superficial story that fails to delve into what is wrong with the patent system. In "U.S. Sets 21st-Century Goal: Building a Better Patent Office" the Times seems to consider the problems with obtaining a patent to be essentially administrative in nature.  The Times writes: "The delays and inefficiencies are more than a nuisance for inventors. Patentable ideas are the basis for many start-up companies and small businesses. Venture capitalists often require start-ups to have a patent before offering financing. That means that patent delays cost jobs, slow the economy and threaten the ability of American companies to compete with foreign businesses. ... Much of the patent office’s decline has occurred in the last 13 years, as the Internet age created a surge in applications. In 1997, 2.25 patents were pending for every one issued. By 2008, that rate had nearly tripled, to 6.6 patents pending for every one issued. The figure fell below six last year."

While antiquated and inefficient administrative concerns may play a roll, the Times failed to dig deeper.  The Times notes that: "Much of the patent office’s decline has occurred in the last 13 years, as the Internet age created a surge in applications."(emphasis added).  It was not the internet that created the surge in applications, but a lousy court decision (State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group, 1998) which opened the door for numerous patents on abstract concepts, specifically allowing patents of business methods. Since 1998 the scope of what people believe can be patented has continued to expand to the point that entire concepts have become patented. Patents are even being granted on natural products such as genes.  Consequently, the US Patent Office is being flooded with patent applications that would never have been granted prior to the State Street decision.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a webpage concerning "bad" patents, which makes for an excellent read.

Also, given the existing absurdity of patent law today, there is a growing body of research that demonstrates that patents actually retard progress rather than promote progress.  The reason is simple, by being able to patent concepts the patent holder asserts that any competition using a vaguely similar method constitutes an infringing activity and promptly sues the competitor.  So much for free-market principles.

Building a better patent office is not simply a case of modernizing the USPTO office or adding more staff as the Times would have us believe.  The patent system itself needs to be overhauled to eliminate the ability to patent business methods, abstract concepts, and natural products.

Obama's Supposed "Open" Govenment

Obama projects an image that his administration is "open" to the suggestions of anyone willing to contribute.  As an example of the process, TechDirt reported that: "The White House Wants Advice On What's Blocking American Innovation".  Back in February 2010, Obama appointed a Deficit Reduction Commission to assist him with making the "tough" financial decisions that a President would have to make.  

What leads to this post, is the TechDirt post: "Why Is President Obama Setting Up IP Enforcement Committees Rather Than IP Effectiveness Committees?" In that post, Mike Masnick writes: "Of course, if President Obama were serious about improving American innovation and creative output (and living up to the Constitution), he would have put together intellectual property effectiveness committees, rather than enforcement committees." (emphasis added).

Since Obama was elected there seems to be, at least for me, a growing disjunct between what Obama says and his actual actions.  Mike, for example noted, that instead of questioning the necessity of laws related to so-called "intellectual property" that Obama is moving directly towards enforcement.  This is an overt display that Obama is taking direct action to support favored special interests at the expense of the American people.

Even though Obama appointed a Deficit Reduction Commission, it seems that this was really hollow public relations theater to make it appear that his administration was listening to the American people.  In my post: "Obama - The State of the Union - Deficit Reduction Commission" I noted that Obama essentially dismissed the recommendations of the the Deficit Reduction Commission. Instead of making the tough decisions to balance the budget  as promised, Obama is pursuing so-called "investments" to camouflage from the public his continued direct overt action of continued deficit spending.

It would appear that Obama's assertion of an open government willing to listen and act on the recommendations of others is nothing more than "hot-air".

Super Bowl - Groupon - Crowd Sourcing

The Super Bowl, of all places, raised two issues related to trends trends in economics and corporate governance.  In the first instance, the New York Times raised the issue of: "Did Groupon Cross the Line in Super Bowl Ad Debut?" In that ad, Groupon blatantly uses the suffering of Tibetans as a commercial marketing gimmick.

Here is a substitute reference link to replace links that are no longer available: Nobody Liked Groupon’s Super Bowl Commercials, Least of All China.

Like many I was shocked. When I read the New York Times' article, it reiterated my belief that the real shock was how morally corrupt our advertising is. All that Groupon did was take an advertising concept to an extreme logical conclusion.

There is an old joke where a guy asks a woman if she will sleep with him for $1 million dollars and she responds with an affectionate yes. He comes back with an offer of $1 and the woman is offended and with moral indignation: "NO! What kind of woman do you think I am." His response was the classic line of "We already established that, now we are just haggling price."

Peter Principle had a somewhat terse response: "The utter vacuity and moral nihilism of 21st century corporate capitalism on full public display."

The Dilbert Cartoon below also provides an pithy summation.

At lunch time, CNBC news also reviewed the Groupon ad. But they also raised another unexpected issue, that of user generated content (crowd sourcing).

David Faber asks Miles Nadal (of MDC Partners, the guest speaker) the question of what happens to professional advertisers if amateurs can produce ad content. Mr. Nadal skillfully parries the question.

Why is Mr. Faber's seemingly innocuous question important? In today's economic system, though we profess to follow free-market principles, those who are classified as professionals attempt to "lock-out" amateurs. Copyright law and patent law have morphed into mechanisms to protect business monopolies and discourage "amateurs" from generating new innovative content. Whether Mr. Faber was intending to go down that path with his question, I do not know. But the point is that the free-market should not protect a corporate income stream. If people seek to produce content for free, great.

10/16/2019 UPDATE: Underlying reference links no longer functional. The CNBC video clip that I had is no longer available.

Freedom to Tinker

One of my major concerns with the US corporate trends today is eliminating the concept of "sale".  By that I mean that when corporations "sell" you a product, especially electronic products, they claim that they are only licensing you the use of that product.  Not only that, but they also claim, to have post "sale" control over how the purchaser may use the product.  Basically, this an extension of the theory that so-called "intellectual property" gives the product creator exclusive control. From my point of view, this is garbage, when you sell a product you transfer ownership of the product to the purchaser.

As one illustration of leasing and post sale control, Mike Masnick wrote: "Jailbreaking Your iPhone? Legal! Jailbreaking Your Xbox? 3 Years In Jail!". In that article Mike writes: "First, let's take a step back, and realize just how ridiculous this situation is. If you buy a piece of electronic equipment, should you ever deserve jailtime for then modifying it? With most things you buy, you have every right to then make changes to it. Yet, when it comes to gaming consoles, suddenly that can get you jailtime. The culprit? Of course, it's the ever-present DMCA, and its anti-circumvention clause, which lets any device maker put in some "technological protection measures," and suddenly it's illegal to modify what you thought you legally owned."

The New York Times, however, still seems to anxious promote the concept that tinkering with  electronics is somehow wrong. Very similar to the theme of old horror movies that there are some things that man is not meant to know.  Today the Times wrote a very troubling "man is not meant to know" story. In "With Kinect Controller, Hackers Take Liberties" the Times writes "Mr. Kreylos is part of a crowd of programmers, roboticists and tinkerers who are getting the Kinect to do things it was not really meant to do."(emphasis added). The obvious implication, experimenting with something you bought to find out what its capabilities are is something the common person should NOT be able to do? Seems a bit arrogant of the Times.

The Times goes on to write: "Companies respond to this kind of experimentation with their products in different ways — and Microsoft has had two very different responses since the Kinect was released on Nov. 4. It initially made vague threats about working with law enforcement to stop “product tampering.”  But by last week, it was embracing the benevolent hackers." (emphasis added).  So you buy a product and experiment with it, you are now deemed a miscreant for using the product in an unauthorized manner? Exactly were does a company obtain the power to tell you how you may use your product?  Well at least Microsoft seems to have finally comprehended that maybe the innovation offered by the experimenter might be positive.

The title of this Times puff piece caries a derogatory implication "Hackers Take Liberties".  This article could just as easily been titled "Microsoft Embraces Innovative Uses of the Kinect Controller by Garage Experimenters".  A bit long and not very catchy for a headline, but I hope you get point.

At least the Time's also gratuitously writes: "Microsoft and other companies would be wise to keep an eye on this kind of outside innovation and consider wrapping some of the creative advances into future products, said Loren Johnson, an analyst at Frost & Sullivan who follows digital media and consumer electronics. ....  But other companies whose products have been popular targets for tinkering have actively encouraged it. One example is iRobot, the company that makes the Roomba, a small robotic vacuum cleaner. That product was so popular with robotics enthusiasts that the company began selling the iRobot Create, a programmable machine with no dusting capabilities."

Companies when they "sell" a product no longer retain an ownership privilege.  Consequently, companies should not have a post sale capability to prohibit innovation. If we want an economy and society that can benefit by innovation, we need the freedom to tinker.

PS: There is a website "Freedom to Tinker".

Chinese Wrests Supercomputer Title From U.S.

I never expected to be remarking on China, but the news still keeps on coming. The US is noted as being a technological powerhouse, so it is difficult to make the case that the US is "Losing It". But each insistence of another country surpassing the US in some sort of technological aspect is an indicator. The title for this post comes from the New York Times article: "Chinese Wrests Supercomputer Title From U.S." The Times writes: "A Chinese scientific research center has built the fastest supercomputer ever made, replacing the United States as maker of the swiftest machine, and giving China bragging rights as a technology superpower."

To be consistent with the the theme of my prior posts concerning the coming brain-drain for so-called US "intellectual property"; the Times notes that: "And typically, research centers with large supercomputers are magnets for top scientific talent, adding significance to the presence of the machines well beyond just cranking through calculations."

The Times even notes the disturbing use of "proprietary" technology. "The United States has plans in place to make much faster machines out of proprietary components and to advance the software used by these systems so that they are easy for researchers to use. But those computers remain years away, and for now, China is king". (emphasis added) I even believe that the introduction of HDTV to the American consumer was purposely "delayed" by the content producers for several years to develop a DRM (proprietary) standard. HDTV technology existed and could have been deployed but was purposely withheld. The use of proprietary technology is a distraction from furthering technological progress.

I never meant to write this much concerning China, but the news is out. I hope that our Congress people are paying attention.

China and US Fiscal Responsibility

The New York Times today carried "Chinese Telecom Giant in Push for U.S. Market". This article is also similar to the article: "What China Seeks in Chesapeake Shale Deal". In each of these articles, the Times raises the issue of national security: "Some in Congress and the national security establishment fear that Huawei’s close ties to the Chinese military might allow China to tamper with American communications gear." and "China’s $2.2 billion investment Chesapeake Energy involves a potential transfer of technology and intellectual knowledge to Beijing that some people in Washington may find uncomfortable, and that unease could trip up the deal." My concern is that our Congress people do not seem to make the connection that deficit spending is a national security issue.

If our Congress people find the transfer of US technology to Beijing to be potentially uncomfortable, balance the budget. What do our politicians expect China to due with our IOUs? As the Time's articles indicate, China will be buying US assets. And we have given China that money through deficit spending. According to the China Daily, China's holdings of treasury bonds rose slightly to $846.7 billion in July after two months of declines, the US Department of Treasury reported on Thursday."

Balancing the US budget in economic tough times is not simply a question of employment, it is also a national security issue. Time for our politicians to recognize this linkage and to act in a fiscally responsible manner.

PS: Protectionism is not the answer. US corporations buy foreign corporations and Chinese corporations should have the same entitlement.

Verbal Hypocrisy

The recent firing of Juan Williams by NPR once again illustrates an astonishing dichotomy between what people say and what they actually do. The liberal left advocates free speech, yet they seem to be fall all over themselves in shouting down (censoring) anyone they deem to be expressing "right-wing" sentiments.  Olbermann Slams O'Reilly For 'View' Comments: 'Bigot And Islamophobe'. Court throws out Streisand's invasion of privacy lawsuit.  So much for freedom of speech.

So that I am "fair and balanced", the "right-wing" claims to be the champion of the free market and to insist that the free market will blossom if the government will only get out of the way and stop all that onerous regulation.  Seems that the "right-wing" unabashedly views freedom as a license to steal.  Witness the rise of the ponzi like Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO) and the subsequent foreclosure crises. Not to mention disingenuously embracing regulations such as Copyright Term Extension Act and the Bayh–Dole Act.  I guess actually making money through real entrepreneurial work is to old-fashioned.

Hand Writing on the Wall

A pleasant surprise from TechDirt noting that China is getting on-board with so-called intellectual property. TechDirt, in the article, "Once Again, Be Careful What You Wish For: China Learning To Use Other Country's Patent Systems" writes: 

"For years and years, US executives, politicians and diplomats have been berating China for "not respecting intellectual property." And, all along, we keep warning that those same folks are not going to like it if China actually did what they're asking it to do. ... Just wait until American companies, whose execs complained about China "not respecting intellectual property," start getting sued in East Texas for violating Huawei's patents."

I recently wrote on this developing issue "China and Chesapeake Energy - A Precursor to the Demise of the US?".  The US may be "top dog" for now, but constructing "bulkheads" (ACTA) to prevent the erosion of US intellectual property will eventually be self-defeating. Bulkheads in the long-run eventually succumb to natural forces. This will become a lesson in being careful of what you ask for.