Who's Best to Anticipate Future Problems and Solutions?

According to Mr. Andrews it is a gaggle of science fiction writers meeting as a group called SIGMA.  This theme appears in an article titled: "Sigma: Summing Up Speculation".  This article appeared in the September 2012 issue of Analog.  While I would agree with that premise, Mr. Andrews’ article is ultimately flawed. How so?

Technological progress is multidimensional. Mr. Andrews has only focused on the narrow application concerning the technology itself, not on how it would profoundly affect society. One disturbing example, the Patriot Act.  In that example, the focus is on pre-guessing a "technological" response to prevent/recover from a future terrorist act. What is missing, despite gratuitous references to Libertarians, the Arab Spring, and even the Gestapo, is that the Patriot Act (plus other legislation) is moving the US towards a police state. Out smarting the terrorists is vitally important, but a free thinking group, such as SIGMA should also be contemplating the effect of fighting terrorism or other "wars" on society itself.

Not only that, but Mr. Andrews, according to his article has consulted extensively with the Department of Homeland Security.  As such, I would have expected him to be very aware and sensitive to how security agencies need to operate in a free-society.  TechDirt writes; "We're still completely perplexed at how anyone in Congress could recognize that the NSA has refused to tell Congress how often it's violated the privacy of Americans without a warrant under the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) -- and then still vote to renew it."  Mr. Andrews appears oblivious to this issue.  Do we really need a police state?

I would have thought that a gaggle of free-thinking Science Fiction authors (some of whom are Libertarians) would have been adverse to the application of technology to deprive citizens of their civil liberties in the name of "security". Below are some topical bullet points, that I would have expected SGMA to consider and make recommendations on.

1. The concept of "sale" is being eliminated. Many manufactures of electronics claim that they retain ownership of the devices that you "buy".
2. Manufactures are taking "control" of your electronic equipment. They can brick it at any time they wish. They also “sell” devices that must be in contact with “home” in order to work.
3. Manufacturers are now abusing so-called "intellectual property" by using legal sledge hammers to stifle competition and innovation.
4. The ability to reverse engineer stuff is being eliminated
5. The Government is forcing some third parties, such as ISPs, to spy on their users (warrantless wiretapping).
6. Due process is being eliminated. Through the DMCA and the delayed SOPA/PIPA, take-down notices can be issued without proof. We are moving from the concept of innocent until proven guilty, to where innocence has to be proved even if the accusations are false.
7. Formerly legal activities are now being made illegal.

I would hope that the next time SIGMA meets that it will take a more holistic and Libertarian view. Outguessing the terrorists is a laudable goal, but it must NOT come at the expense of civil liberties or the freedom to pursue advances in the arts and sciences.

PS: Another version of this post appears on the Fantasy and Science Fiction forum website.

Romney’s: “A Better America Begins Tonight”

Romney gave an excellent speech tonight.  “A Better America Begins Tonight” One can only hope that Romney is not imitating Obama's rhetorical game of distraction and deception. This speech was unusually positive, Romney stated: "Tonight is the beginning of the end of the disappointments of the Obama years and the start of a new and better chapter that we will write together". But in prior speeches Romney has called for a stronger military and a "surge" in the "war" to protect so-called "intellectual property". This has left me with the impression that Romney is just another "big" government politician claiming to be just the opposite.

In this speech Romney, like Sanatorium's speech prior to Sanatorium's withdrawal, seems to have usurped Ron Paul's message of liberty. Romney stated: "I have a very different vision for America, and of our future. It is an America driven by freedom, where free people, pursuing happiness in their own unique ways, create free enterprises that employ more and more Americans."

Mr. Romney asks: "I want to hear what’s on your mind, hear about your concerns, and learn about your families. I want to know what you think we can do to make this country better…and what you expect from your next President."

Mr. Romney, I hope that your staff, when trolling the web finds this blog. Bluntly, restore liberty by repealing many of the laws that are taking away our liberties, such as the Patriot Act. Restore copyright and patent law to what was originally envisioned. As a business professional, I would hope that you realize that copyright and patent laws are now obstructing business, stifling innovation and discouraging entrepreneurship. You have made assertions that China is "stealing" US so-called "intellectual property", but China owns much of the US debt so they can simply buy that technology while US companies squabble in court over who owns what, instead of innovating.

Mr. Romney, if you mean what you imply in this message, unwind the laws that have reduced civil liberties in the name of "national security" and the protection of so-called "intellectual property." You say that America's future is driven by freedom. I hope that you are not mimicking Obama's razzle dazzle techniques of rhetorical manipulation.

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".

Social Media is Your Friend

As a child of the internet guinea-pig generation, I have a moderate data trail that --although not particularly embarrassing-- I wish I had some way to erase. These days I know a little bit better, and have a supply of pseudonyms in use. The knowledge that once my data is out there is a constant reminder that, no matter what the fine print that no one reads next to the "I Accept" button might say, nothing belongs to me once it is posted on the internet. Social Media (Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and so forth) has created a space where far too many people let their guard down. By "Friending" or "Grouping" or "Following" other users, it creates a sense of privacy and control over your internet self that is misleading at best.
In reality it is a system in which you use what amounts to an interactive email platform to talk to people you already talk to in Real Life and people you met briefly at a party but weren't interested in enough to get a phone number. In exchange the platform overlords use what they know about you (because you have succumbed to the very human narcissism that is creating a profile) and your friends and your location and your registered Likes in order to decide which ads to put on your screen. Then, when the third parties got involved and started making games and trivia and secret questions your friends can answer about you? Suddenly there are gift cards on sale at VoldeMart for online games in which you pay real money for virtual objects that can be endlessly replicated.
I still post pictures on media sites. I blog inconsistently, and I micro-blog, and I post updates and one-liners to a collection of friends and acquaintances and lesser-known randoms and people from work who are only there out of a sense of obligation. There are upsides, such as the old teachers and childhood friends I wouldn't otherwise have any contact with. But why do I need it? I don't fit in their lives anymore and reading about theirs is interesting but irrelevant. It's like following a reality star, albeit one I once knew in real life and who is unlikely to crash a premiere. Every once in awhile I realize that even with my lame attempts at internet self-preservation in place, I am only digging myself deeper into the hole of lost data.
I had friends who weren't on any media. They had email, maybe one fake profile on the internet they never used. I was jealous of their anonymity. Who has that kind of restraint? One by one they fell prey. I can find them all online now.
My point? I'm not sure. I'm as guilty as everyone else. Maybe my point is to talk to your kids, early and often, now that we know the dangers of the internet. Not just about the perverts and the RIAA, but also that every piece of themselves that they place online is a piece they will never get back. Remember that there are endless ways to mine data now and they are only the beginning of an entire generation trained to operate with one foot in the internet at all times. Check your social media privacy settings as often as you can, and if you want to be the first to play with a promising new site, don't let them know who you really are. Does this sound like a cut & paste chain letter you would expect to find on some obscure friend's status message? Maybe. It's late and I'm probably being verbose with my conspiracies. Unfortunately it's true. Don't be scared to use the internet for your own advantage, just be premeditated and know that the internet is using you right back. In the future, the only thing you can own is what you don't put on the internet.

http://icanstalku.com

Snippets from Forbes

The April 11, 2001 issue of Forbes had worthwhile comments concerning copyright.  Lewis DVorkin in the article "The soul of media: For Forbes, it’s editing" observed that "On the Web today, knowledgeable people can publish content for next to nothing. With the tools of social media, those same people can build followings for next to nothing."

In recognition of this trend, Mr. DVorkin goes on to say "Forbes is adapting to this world while still adhering to what made us a trusted business news provider. Our full-time staff of experienced editors and reporters is now both covering the news and recruiting hundreds of qualified contributors — in effect, curators — to create the content our voracious audience requires. Forbes is “editing” these curators by hand picking them (just as we do our full-time staff) based on their credentials." A refreshing acknowledgement that it is better to adapt to a changing market by soliciting content from those willing to contribute.

 Jon Bruner in the interview "Steal This E-Book"  asks tech publisher Tim O'Reillly "On all your titles you've dropped digital-rights management (DRM), which limits file sharing and copying. Aren't you worried about piracy?"

Mr. Reilly responds with "No. And so what? Let's say my goal is to sell 10,000 copies of something. And let's say that if by putting DRM in it I sell 10,000 copies and I make my money, and if by having no DRM 100,000 copies go into circulation and I still sell 10,000 copies. Which of those is the better outcome? I think having 100,000 in circulation and selling 10,000 is way better than having just the 10,000 that are paid for and nobody else benefits. ... People who don't pay you generally wouldn't have paid you anyway. We're delighted when people who can't afford our books don't pay us for them, if they go out and do something useful with that information. ... I think having faith in that basic logic of the market is important. Besides, DRM interferes with the user experience. It makes it much harder to have people adopt your product."  Again, another refreshing acknowledgement that adaption to a changing market is a superior approach.

Mimi and Eunice Can't Buy Love

Great cartoon from Nina Paley illustrating what is wrong with copyright (and all so-called "intellectual property") today.

A Deserved Shout-Out to the Technology Liberation Front

I have expressed dismay over many of the recent posts at the Technology Liberation Front. So I was pleasantly surprised when I read Cord Blomquist's: “Special 301 Watchlist” Threatens Open-Source Software. In light of my prior criticisms, it is important for me to publicly acknowledge positive events when they occur.

Cord writes:

"That inclusion is being pushed for by the International Intellectual Property Alliance, an umbrella group which includes the MPAA and RIAA. This is, of course, a brazen move by US corporations to force these developing nations to use their expense proprietary software instead of the cheaper open-source alternatives available.

This is exactly the kind of things libertarians should abhore—government being co-opted by corporations so that policies can be made in order to defend their interests, instead of our rights."

The “Special 301 Watchlist” was also covered in Against Monopoly: "IIPA thinks open source equals piracy" and in the TechDirt article: "IIPA's Section 301 Filing Shows It's Really Not At All Interested In Reducing Copyright Infringement"

.

Give a Man a Fish, Make it Illegal to Teach Fishing.

The trend with so-called intellectual property is that the supposed owner has a post-sale entitlement to extort a revenue stream. Russell McOrmond put a very unusual spin on this trend, "Give a man a fish, make it illegal to teach fishing". While Russel is writing from the perspective of his observations concerning philanthropy, Russel remarks can be expanded to apply to the content industry as a whole. That is that the content providers: "... are actively involved with making a variety of "teaching" (sharing of knowledge) expensive and/or illegal."

The post by Russell McOrmond was found via TechDirt. Additionally, for added context on how so-called intellectual property is adversely affecting our educational system through outrageous monetization, see the TechDirt posts: "School Wants To Claim Copyright Over Any Lesson Plans Created By Teachers" and "Professors Claiming Copyright Over Their Lectures". Ultimately, how could students ever use the knowledge that they have been taught should that knowledge be locked behind a copyright paywall?

Where Are the Pirates?

The Washington Post writes: "'Avatar' tops box office for sixth-straight week". In that article Derik Lang writes ""We're witnessing box office history," said Paul Dergarabedian, box office analyst for Hollywood.com. "We're watching all of these big records fall, and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. 'Avatar' is dominating at a time where it has no big summer blockbusters to compete with it. It's perfectly poised to keep breaking all these records.""

Hollywood professes to claim that piracy is destroying their business. Neglected in this unsubstantiated biased assertion is the question of whether Hollywood is even producing quality movies that people desire to watch. Declines in Hollywood's revenue stream could simply be a reflection of poor product quality and the subsequent desire of the public not to spend money at the theater rather than piracy. Avatar affirms the concept - give the people what they want; they will come and spend.

Piracy: The Trend Of The Decade

Lee Gomes has a good article in Forbes, "Piracy: The Trend Of The Decade". He concludes that: "Defenders of digital content might overplay their hands, alienating the few paying customers they have left." Clearly he recognizes that the corporate attack on piracy is becoming counterproductive.

But there is subtle aspect to the whole piracy debate that is being overlooked. When we read about piracy, the emphasis usually tends to be on how the consumer is misbehaving. This concept is then used to demand legal "protection". After all shouldn't we be able to protect our property? What is being discounted in many media articles is that some corporations are busily pirating from each other. As a quick point, it is disingenuous for companies to complain about consumer piracy, while they themselves are busily pirating!

At this point, to be fair, I need to quickly acknowledge that Lee recognizes that the corporations are not the simple innocent victims of abuse that they publicly claim to be. Lee writes: "While a few studios do business with Redbox, others are filing lawsuits and describing Redbox in the sort of predatory terms that were once reserved for, well, Napster. It's a curious way of treating an entirely legal business that seems dedicated to radically expanding the customer base for your product."

Getting back to corporate content piracy, Lee notes that: "Apple's iTunes online music store sells legal copies of songs, and while it is certainly well trafficked, by most estimates it accounts for a tiny percentage of the music loaded onto iPods." The implication, of course, is that a lot of the music loaded by the consumer on their iPod is potentially pirated. (Yes a lot of the music on the iPod could actually be from a legally bought CD, but some even claim that this type of transfer is copyright infringement.)

Well, one of the really good points about Forbes, is that they are willing to expose examples of corporate abuses. A quick, search of Forbes, discloses numerous patent infringement (pirating) articles such as: "Kodak Develops Suit Against Apple, RIM" and "Nokia Slaps Apple With Lawsuit". While these articles clearly exist, they are seldom discussed in terms of the piracy.

Since the lawsuits have not been adjudicated, I cannot actually make any affirmative statement on whether Apple has or has not actually undertaking any piracy. Nonetheless, the fact that lawsuits have been filed highlights that some companies who expect the consumer to respect their so-called "intellectual property" appear quite willing to "borrow" content from other companies. When companies believe that they can "borrow" content at will, it becomes unethical for these companies to demand that the consumer be punished for essentially the same conduct.

In fact, we can go a step further as Lee notes: "Consider the recent jailing on felony charges, later dropped, of a woman for camcordering a few minutes of the hit film New Moon while attending a birthday party at a movie house. " So why does this woman get arrested for "infringement" as a criminal act, but Steve Jobs is not arrested when his company (Apple) infringes? So if you are a consumer, you are guilty of a criminal offense for "infringement" but when you are a company "infringement" is only a civil matter. (Please note that this is not meant to be an anti-Apple post, I am simply using Apple as an example.)

As an interesting conclusionary statement, the Electronic Frontier Foundation writes: "Most Pirated Movie of 2009 ... Makes Heaps of Money". If reports such as this one prove numerous one could "claim" that piracy actually helps product sales rather than hinder them. In fact, Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf of the Harvard Business School have written articles discussing the interrelationship of "File-Sharing and Copyright".

Misusing Numbers

A favorite hobby of many special interest groups is "lying" through the use of statistics. This recently cropped with regards to the veracity of the scientific "proof" underlying global warming. In a similar vain, the Technology Liberation Front hosted an article by Steven Titch "Is This What Market Failure Looks Like?" regurgitating a mind numbing stream of numbers (such as number of text messages sent) that purportedly document that the free market is healthy. Mr. Titch, then concludes that: "Metrics such as these are the best weapon against attempts at regulation, especially from an administration keen to find a “market failure” rationale wherever it looks. High-tech consumer electronics remains a bright spot in what has been a down economy. It is best left on its own to thrive."

What is wrong with Mr. Titch's post is that numbers in isolation and without context mean nothing. Raw numbers by themselves do not prove nor do they disprove the success of the free market. Furthermore, these numbers do not prove nor do they disprove the beneficial/disadvantageous effects of regulation. All the raw numbers document is activity.

As Mr. Titch published his post, there were stories behind the raw data. Currently the cable companies and the content providers are fighting over subscription fees. The New York Times reported that: In a Clash Over Cable, Consumers Lose. The Washington Post reports that "Netflix to delay delivery of Warner's latest DVDs". The clear implication of these articles is that the companies are not really competing within the idyllic concept of the free market. Frankly these agreements, besides limiting consumer choice, raise serious questions concerning collusion and the utilization of monopolistic business practices. Hardly free market ideals.

What continues to disappoint is that we have a website that purports to be an advocate for technological freedom but seemingly overlooks corporate business practices that frustrate technological freedom. I previously discussed this issue here:"Nanny State Hypocrisy?" If the Technology Liberation Front is serious about improving technological freedom use real scientifically valid research to document the functioning of the free market (good and bad). Don't simply just throw-out a bunch of meaningless gibberish to see what sticks.

A False Choice

The New York Times reports: "Trying to Add Portability to Movie Files". Brad Stone writes in this article: "At the Consumer Electronics Show, a big high-tech gathering that will begin Wednesday in Las Vegas, Hollywood studios and consumer electronics makers plan to lay out some steps they are taking to simplify this digital future — and perhaps stem the worrying decline in home entertainment sales. ... The group is setting out to create a common digital standard that would let consumers buy or rent a digital video once and then play it on any device. It might sound technical, but it could be crucial to persuading consumers to buy all the splashy new Internet-connected gear that tech companies will demonstrate at C.E.S., like HDTVs and set-top boxes that can download TV shows and films." (Emphasis added.)

What is wrong with this? Common digital standards that simplify the digital future already exist. There is no need for a big high-tech gathering to create one.

The article is disingenuous since it implies to the consumer that a new digital standard is necessary when none is needed and fails to disclose the real reason why this new digital "standard" is being pursued. It is being pursued to develop yet another form of DRM that restricts the consumer freedom of choice.

Particularly distressing is Mr. Stones quote of Mr. Singers remark that: "“Consumers shouldn’t have to know what’s inside,” he said. “They should just know it will play.”" Translation, consumers are not entitled to know how their freedoms are being taken away by dubious business practices.

Implying, as Mr. Stone's article has, that a consumer is being provided with increased freedom of choice while actually depriving the consumer of choice, is a false choice based on the assumption that the consumer is too stupid to realize how their freedom of choice continues to be eroded.

(1/6/2010) Update: Since originally posting I had an additional thought and I ran across a couple other posts on this topic.

First, as a result of an email exchange, it occurred to me that I overlooked a deficiency in Mr. Stone's article. In his article he states how the content industry is trying to make the consumer happy by providing content that will be portable. What he fails to mention in his article is that these companies willfully designed propriety file formats to purposely prevent content portability! Now that the companies realize that that strategy was a mistake, they now purport to be consumer friendly by working on a new standard, which I have pointed out is totally unnecessary.

Fortunately this is a good lead-in for: "Will they ever learn? Hollywood still pursuing DRM". In that post, Dan Wallach writes: "In today's New York Times, we read that Hollywood is working on a grand unified video DRM scheme intended to allow for video portability, such as, for example, when you visit a hotel room, you'd like to have your videos with you. ... What's sad, of course, is that you can have all of this today with very little fuss."

TechDirt has the following article: Is Hiding A New DRM Standard Behind The Guise Of 'It Works On Any Device' Really That Compelling?

Private Property - Don't Touch!!!

Private property is one of the fundamental building blocks upon which the United States is built. Regretfully the concept of private property is increasingly being abused. Specifically the claim that you are entitled to tell others what to do should you believe that your "property" is somehow being affected.

A recent illustration of this process appeared in the "StarNewsOnline.com" a local newspaper out of Wilmington, North Carolina. So I thought that I had better jump on this story as it also complements my beliefs that those who believe in so-called intellectual property are claiming property rights that they don't possess.

The Star News writes in the article "Ocean Isle Beach homeowners, officials battle over native landscape" that:

Beauty, it's said, is in the eye of the beholder. And for Doug and Jane Oakley, their house in Ocean Isle Beach surrounded by thick and lush native vegetation is a beautiful sight.

“This is the glue that holds this island together,” said Jane Oakley as she pointed out the yaupon, wax myrtle and cedars amid the green canopy in her backyard. “Mother nature isn't wrong.”

But some of their neighbors, along with officials in this Brunswick County beach town, have a different opinion.

They see the trees and shrubs, many covered in thickets of thorny vines, that surround the house at 9 Isle Plaza as an eyesore and a haven for rodents and snakes.

The town has now taken the couple to court in an effort to get their property cleaned up

....

The house, built in 1964, also looks out of place and a bit dilapidated when compared with the newer and larger beach homes that line the quiet street.

The Oakleys think that might be the real reason they're under pressure to clean up their lot.

So here we have the neighbors and the local municipality asserting that they have a "right" to "force" a property owner to do things on their property to protect the property values of others.

On the nature of property from the Libertarian point of view, S. Balasubramanian wrote that one of the most basic principles of Objectivism is that no man may claim the right to initiate force against another. (An Objectivist Recants on IP). I am not an Objectivist (in fact I consider it to be a bankrupt philosophy), nevertheless there is an important fundamental take-away from this Libertarian concept. One does not have a right to "force" another on their property to protect your so-called property interests.

Unfortunately, neighbors (as the Oakley story points out) seem to believe today that they can tell you what to do on your property based on the fact that it affects their property values. The Oakley case regretfully is not unique, when we lived in California the local papers would occasionally have articles on how trees on private property and public parks, blocking coastal views, would be mysteriously cut down.

In terms of so-called intellectual property, those who have "sold" you the content believe, like the Oakley neighbors, that they maintain an entitlement to reach out and tell you how you can use your property. S. Balasubramanian phrased concept this better with the following question: "How do you reconcile the facts that recognising and enforcing IP essentially gives some people a right to the physical property of others?"

The situation that the Oakley's are in is really quite similar to what is happening with so-called intellectual property. The figurative "neighbors" assert that they have an unjustified right to "force" you to protect their property even if it places a needless burden on you. It is time to recognize that "neighbors" do not have a right to "force" you to protect their property rights (which in some cases is fictitious anyway).

Nanny State Hypocrisy?

Those who claim to be dedicated to the concept of the "free market" like to toss out the concept of the Nanny State when the government proposes a regulation to protect its citizens. A recent example of this is Berin Szoka post: "Congresswoman, CALM Thyself! LA Times Eschews Eshoo Nanny State Bill to Regulate Ad Volume"> Congresswoman, CALM Thyself! LA Times Eschews Eshoo Nanny State Bill to Regulate Ad Volume". Berin writes: "The LA Times has come out swinging in a devastating editorial against Rep. Anna G. Eshoo’s (D-CA) Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, passed by the House on Tuesday. As Adam Thierer and I have discussed (here, here, and here), and as PFF’s Ken Ferree notes here, this silly paternalist law would require the FCC to issue rules that broadcast and cable TV ads: ..."

The apparent hypocrisy arises when the private sector makes appeals to government to intervene for their protection. Richard Bennett for example writes: "It is time for the U.S. government to take global theft of U.S. intellectual property, especially digital content, much more seriously. A new ITIF report finds that the U.S. government can and should do more to support industry efforts to reduce digital piracy, a growing problem that threatens not only the robust production of digital content, but U.S. jobs. While there are no “silver bullets” to reducing digital piracy, there are a number of “lead bullets” that can and should be implemented. Specifically, ITIF calls on the federal government to not preclude those impacted by digital piracy, including copyright holders and ISPs, from taking steps, including implementing technical controls like digital fingerprinting, to reduce piracy."

So here we have the "free market" advocates writing expansive posts raising significant issues about the evils of the Nanny State when it comes to the trivial issue of volume control. Now when the "free market" sector feels that they need protection, they have no apparent feelings of duplicity in now demanding that the supposed enemy Nanny State step in to protect their interests. Hypocrisy.

So if the government proposes regulations to protect its citizens from abuse, no matter how trivial, we get posts "exposing" how government will take over our lives through abusive and onerous laws. When it comes to the appeals of the private sector for "protection", the Nanny State now becomes our friend. So its OK for the private sector to use the power of the Nanny State, but it is not acceptable for the citizens to be protected by the Nanny State? How Orwellian.

Neglected Concerns in the Copyright Debate

Two stories recently surfaced that point to neglected aspects in the copyright debate. Both deal with the question of enforcement. Techdirt writes: "Congress Gives $30 Million To Fight 'Piracy'". And Freedom to Tinker writes: "Erroneous DMCA notices and copyright enforcement, part deux". Each of these articles, in their own way, unintentionally demonstrate that we tend to view the copyright debate from the viewpoint of the content creators. After all when someone works to create something they should be rewarded for their efforts. A no brainier.

However, things are not that simple. We need to push back on the implicit acceptance that the content creator is simply a victim that needs to be protected when copyright is abused.

So what is wrong with the Congress giving $30 Million dollars to fight privacy? Essentially we are using the power of the State to protect a special interest, the content creator. But then when it comes to protecting the consumer from the abusive tactics of private industry, there are howls of agony over "restricting" business flexibility, Big Government, and the Nanny State. It seems to me that if we truly desire smaller government, freedom, and not a Nanny State; that we should NOT be enhancing (enlarging) the law enforcement bureaucracy. It logically follows that when consumer protection is the responsibility of the consumer, then protection from piracy is a private sector responsibility and NOT a State responsibility.

Now for the shortcoming of Mike Freedman's post: "Erroneous DMCA notices and copyright enforcement, part deux". Mike asks a legitimate question, how best to fight piracy. The problem is that he is using the current law as the "level playing field" from which to undertake his analysis and he really does not go into any meaningful discussion of how the content industry continues to aggrandize ("land grab") their so-called property rights. My response to Mike's question is that many concerns with copyright "enforcement" would disappear if we restore the copyright privilege as originally envisioned in the Constitution and by eliminating the "land grab" of the content creators for "rights" that they should not possess. Eliminate the so-called "crime" and the enforcement issue diminishes.