I'm not usually one to support socialism, but... Congratulations, French Socialist Party!
A bill that would have created the world's first government agency devoted to tracking Internet activity and punishing Internet piracy was unexpectedly defeated in the French National Assembly yesterday, primarily by members of the Socialist Party who had opposed the bill from its inception.
I personally find this a bit odd since the French Socialist Party, like all democratic socialist parties, tends to be in favor of government regulation. I'm not usually one to support socialism (which may be my biggest understatement of the day), but in this case I don't care. For today, at least, I have nothing but love for the Parti Socialiste.
Of course, the defeat of the bill might have been helped a little by the National Assembly being nearly empty at the time, since the bill was expected to be passed with little opposition. The vote was 21-15. The Assemblée Nationale has 577 members, so it seems apathy won the day.
While the bill will almost certainly be brought before the legislature again, it's good to see that a few legislators are still championing freedom and common sense. After all, the measures enacted by this bill would have been easily bypassed simply by using public Wi-Fi hotspots, an anonymous proxy, Tor, or any of the other commonly used methods of ensuring Internet anonymity. And it wouldn't have done a thing to stop streaming of pirated media, which is becoming fairly popular.
As I said previously, I think we may be taking the wrong approach when it comes to intellectual property. Certainly the current measures used to curb piracy are largely ineffective. Of course, that's in no small part because those making the laws often don't fully understand the technical issues involved. Hopefully, the French legislators will wizen up a bit by the time this bill again rears it's dumb, ugly head. If it is passed, it would set a dangerous precedent for other nations to follow suit with equally misguided and ineffective Big Brother Internet monitoring agencies.
Listen up, my French friends — the freedom of the Internet is resting on your shoulders.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, April 10, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Is Intellectual Property an Invisible Dragon?
In his essay "The Dragon in My Garage" from his 1995 book The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan uses the analogy of an invisible, intangible dragon to examine belief in the absence of evidence. As a Linux user, the concept of intellectual property is one with which I'm quite familiar, since how FOSS and freedom of information can coexist with intellectual property rights is a commonly recurring discussion in the Linux community. But I'm beginning to think that intellectual property is like Sagan's dragon — despite overwhelming belief, intellectual property might not really exist.
The first step in examining this idea is to look at the basic concept of property. Most of the world recognizes the existence of personal property rights (even if some individuals or groups don't always respect those rights), so for the purposes of this discussion I'll ignore those philosophies (such as communism) that don't. Personal property rights are usually seen to be based on the sovereignty of the individual, a concept often attributed to John Locke — the 17th century philosopher, not the character from Lost, though I think the latter would agree with the concept. According to Locke, an individual "has a right to decide what would become of himself and what he would do, and as having a right to reap the benefits of what he did". Essentially, an individual owns himself, and therefore anything that is produced as a result of his labor. In terms of physical goods, application of this idea is fairly straightforward: if you produce it, it's yours to keep, sell, or trade. Wages and salary are simply selling one's labor (and the results thereof) to an employer.
It's tempting to apply this to purely intellectual products as well. After all, what is more purely a product of oneself than one's ideas? But if a person makes a chair, when he sells the chair it changes possession. The person no longer has the chair, and the other person no longer has whatever he exchanged for the chair. This doesn't apply to information. When a person sells an idea, it doesn't leave his possession. This is where the traditional view of property as applied to information falls apart. Information can only be exclusively possessed until it is shared with another — the very point at which the traditional view of property requires exclusive possession. The traditional view of property as a possession doesn't seem to know what to do with property not limited by physical constraints.
Perhaps the problem is that we mistakenly associate property with possession. Property isn't really about possession, after all, but control. A person may own property without ever possessing it. A person can buy an object and resell it without even having seen the physical object. The object is never in his possession, but it is in his control. Society recognizes his right to the property purchased, and therefore his control over it. Conversely, one can possess another's property. If this is done without consent, we call it theft.
Ideas, however, can't be controlled. Benjamin Franklin once said "Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead". The unofficial motto of the free content movement, "Information wants to be free", is simply a restatement of Franklin's observation. Information can't be controlled once communicated to another. A song once sung can be sung by another. A story once told can be retold. Attempts may be made to place constraints on the spread of information, but it can't truly be controlled. If it could, Martha Stewart would never have had the joy of preparing hors d'oeuvres for a few hundred fellow inmates.
So if information can't be exclusively possessed or controlled once communicated to another, can it really be considered property? Where is the evidence that this invisible dragon exists?
But how, you might ask, can information be a product of an individual's effort, and therefore something that the individual may sell, if it's not property? Perhaps the answer is simple — perhaps it's a service. Many of our actions have no tangible product, and yet we still recognize that those actions have value. We're perfectly willing to pay for artistic performance, psychiatric counseling, language translation, babysitting, and any number of other activities that do not involve the production or exchange of property. If information production and communication is properly viewed as a service, the problems posed by intellectual property disappear. As provider of a service, authors, songwriters, programmers, journalists and other information producers would still be reimbursed for their efforts, as would commercial distributors of information. When we purchase a book, we would be paying the publisher for the physical book and the service of distributing the information it contains, but not the information itself. Likewise, the publisher would pay the author for the production of the information, perhaps still based on the estimated popularity of that information, but not for the information itself. So everyone involved in the commercial production and distribution of information would still get paid. But the free distribution of information would no longer be viewed as an immoral or criminal act. We would no longer have to debate why a CD-quality recording of a song copied from broadcast HD radio is perfectly legal, while a digital recording of the same song ripped from a CD and downloaded from a P2P file-sharing network isn't, even though the result is the same.
I, personally, have yet to see any solid evidence supporting the existence of intellectual "property". If we view the production and communication of information as a service, then intellectual property becomes a myth. And I think Sagan would be proud.
The first step in examining this idea is to look at the basic concept of property. Most of the world recognizes the existence of personal property rights (even if some individuals or groups don't always respect those rights), so for the purposes of this discussion I'll ignore those philosophies (such as communism) that don't. Personal property rights are usually seen to be based on the sovereignty of the individual, a concept often attributed to John Locke — the 17th century philosopher, not the character from Lost, though I think the latter would agree with the concept. According to Locke, an individual "has a right to decide what would become of himself and what he would do, and as having a right to reap the benefits of what he did". Essentially, an individual owns himself, and therefore anything that is produced as a result of his labor. In terms of physical goods, application of this idea is fairly straightforward: if you produce it, it's yours to keep, sell, or trade. Wages and salary are simply selling one's labor (and the results thereof) to an employer.
It's tempting to apply this to purely intellectual products as well. After all, what is more purely a product of oneself than one's ideas? But if a person makes a chair, when he sells the chair it changes possession. The person no longer has the chair, and the other person no longer has whatever he exchanged for the chair. This doesn't apply to information. When a person sells an idea, it doesn't leave his possession. This is where the traditional view of property as applied to information falls apart. Information can only be exclusively possessed until it is shared with another — the very point at which the traditional view of property requires exclusive possession. The traditional view of property as a possession doesn't seem to know what to do with property not limited by physical constraints.
Perhaps the problem is that we mistakenly associate property with possession. Property isn't really about possession, after all, but control. A person may own property without ever possessing it. A person can buy an object and resell it without even having seen the physical object. The object is never in his possession, but it is in his control. Society recognizes his right to the property purchased, and therefore his control over it. Conversely, one can possess another's property. If this is done without consent, we call it theft.
Ideas, however, can't be controlled. Benjamin Franklin once said "Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead". The unofficial motto of the free content movement, "Information wants to be free", is simply a restatement of Franklin's observation. Information can't be controlled once communicated to another. A song once sung can be sung by another. A story once told can be retold. Attempts may be made to place constraints on the spread of information, but it can't truly be controlled. If it could, Martha Stewart would never have had the joy of preparing hors d'oeuvres for a few hundred fellow inmates.
So if information can't be exclusively possessed or controlled once communicated to another, can it really be considered property? Where is the evidence that this invisible dragon exists?
But how, you might ask, can information be a product of an individual's effort, and therefore something that the individual may sell, if it's not property? Perhaps the answer is simple — perhaps it's a service. Many of our actions have no tangible product, and yet we still recognize that those actions have value. We're perfectly willing to pay for artistic performance, psychiatric counseling, language translation, babysitting, and any number of other activities that do not involve the production or exchange of property. If information production and communication is properly viewed as a service, the problems posed by intellectual property disappear. As provider of a service, authors, songwriters, programmers, journalists and other information producers would still be reimbursed for their efforts, as would commercial distributors of information. When we purchase a book, we would be paying the publisher for the physical book and the service of distributing the information it contains, but not the information itself. Likewise, the publisher would pay the author for the production of the information, perhaps still based on the estimated popularity of that information, but not for the information itself. So everyone involved in the commercial production and distribution of information would still get paid. But the free distribution of information would no longer be viewed as an immoral or criminal act. We would no longer have to debate why a CD-quality recording of a song copied from broadcast HD radio is perfectly legal, while a digital recording of the same song ripped from a CD and downloaded from a P2P file-sharing network isn't, even though the result is the same.
I, personally, have yet to see any solid evidence supporting the existence of intellectual "property". If we view the production and communication of information as a service, then intellectual property becomes a myth. And I think Sagan would be proud.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The end of privacy?
A recent AP article discusses the future of RFID technology — a future in which the products you buy inform the government or companies of your movements and shopping habits.
Forget the omnipresent cameras and microphones imagined by Orwell. In this brave new world, even the clothes you wear are spies for Big Brother. Sure, I'm as intrigued about some of the potential applications of RFID technology as anyone — after all, who doesn't want a smart home that customizes the lights and music for you as you walk from room to room? But the potential abuses of pervasive RFID technology are legitimately scary. It's not paranoia if you are constantly being watched.
I'm thinking that portable RFID scanners might become a hot gift item. I'll certainly be investing in one if RFID technology becomea as popular as discussed in the article, if only so I can locate and remove all of the tags in my clothes.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Is Ron Paul really such an underdog?
I admit it, I'm a Ron Paul supporter.
And while it's hard to do anything on the Internet recently without seeing mentions of Ron Paul, when I'm sitting around watching television or reading a magazine, sometimes I feel like I'm alone in that support. Journalists on every news program use terms like "underdog", "dark horse", and "third tier" when mentioning Ron Paul, and almost invariably preface any discussion of Paul with a reference to his low percentages in polls.
But today I stumbled across an article entitled "Ron Paul is Not Being Included in Polls". Normally, I approach such articles with a healthy bit of skepticism (assuming I bother reading them at all), which is why I was a bit surprised when I realized that the author provided proof to back up his claims! The article provides links to quite a few recent polls performed by the major news networks, and from what I can tell, the author is justified in his claim. Since the numbers cited on the major news programs are often aggregations of such polls, a guy has to wonder exactly how accurate those statistics really are...
I'm certainly not suggesting that there's some sort of vast conspiracy against Ron Paul, but I do think that the news media might be approaching this Presidential race with a certain bias for the "obvious" candidates. Paul was pegged early on as an "also-ran", and the questions asked on poll questionnaires seem to reflect that bias.
It's no wonder that Ron Paul is showing so poorly on these polls. The surprising thing is that, given the questions asked, that he shows up on the polls at all.
I'm looking forward to December 16th, the day on which Ron Paul supporters have organized another "money bomb" fund raising event. If Paul has a repeat of the record-breaking $4.3 million raised on (remember, remember) the 5th of November, it will be considerably more difficult for the media and political pundits to marginalize his campaign. It would be hard to call a candidate that raises over $12 million from individual donations in a single quarter a "dark horse".
And while it's hard to do anything on the Internet recently without seeing mentions of Ron Paul, when I'm sitting around watching television or reading a magazine, sometimes I feel like I'm alone in that support. Journalists on every news program use terms like "underdog", "dark horse", and "third tier" when mentioning Ron Paul, and almost invariably preface any discussion of Paul with a reference to his low percentages in polls.
But today I stumbled across an article entitled "Ron Paul is Not Being Included in Polls". Normally, I approach such articles with a healthy bit of skepticism (assuming I bother reading them at all), which is why I was a bit surprised when I realized that the author provided proof to back up his claims! The article provides links to quite a few recent polls performed by the major news networks, and from what I can tell, the author is justified in his claim. Since the numbers cited on the major news programs are often aggregations of such polls, a guy has to wonder exactly how accurate those statistics really are...
I'm certainly not suggesting that there's some sort of vast conspiracy against Ron Paul, but I do think that the news media might be approaching this Presidential race with a certain bias for the "obvious" candidates. Paul was pegged early on as an "also-ran", and the questions asked on poll questionnaires seem to reflect that bias.
It's no wonder that Ron Paul is showing so poorly on these polls. The surprising thing is that, given the questions asked, that he shows up on the polls at all.
I'm looking forward to December 16th, the day on which Ron Paul supporters have organized another "money bomb" fund raising event. If Paul has a repeat of the record-breaking $4.3 million raised on (remember, remember) the 5th of November, it will be considerably more difficult for the media and political pundits to marginalize his campaign. It would be hard to call a candidate that raises over $12 million from individual donations in a single quarter a "dark horse".
Thursday, November 15, 2007
A Preview of Things to Come...
Welcome to WYSIWYB. Here's a brief overview of what you can expect to see here in the coming months...
To kick things off, I'll be doing a complete do-over of the "A World without Walls or Fences" series I began on Facebook back in September, which is a beginner's guide to installing and using Linux on a personal computer. I've had quite a few interruptions since I started the series, so I'm starting over to make it more cohesive and comprehensive. I'll be discussing the shiny new version of the Ubuntu distribution of Linux, "Gutsy Gibbon", and will include plenty of tips and tricks for installing and customizing Linux that Brian P. and I have picked up in the last few weeks. If Vista's security alerts are giving you carpal tunnel, if you're not quite convinced that a Mac is really worth the extra $500 or $1000 on the price tag, or if you're just curious about the not-so-geeky world of Linux desktop computing, stay tuned.
Also, with less than a year until the election, the 2008 presidential campaign is now in full swing. I foresee quite a few politically themed articles in the coming days, both serious and satirical. I've already come across quite a few juicy links and videos that all responsible, informed voters (with a healthy sense of humor) should see before casting their ballots next November.
Finally, the miscellanea... As I'm nearing the end of my last semester as a graduate student (sort of), I may very well post a few articles about my experiences away from the safe harbor of academia. And it's a near certainty that you'll be subjected to rants and musings about life's absurdities or little injustices, comments and reviews of the latest books I've read and movies I've recentlydownloaded seen, and links to all manner of weird and wonderful things found on the Web (many of them likely to be brought to my attention by the "Wizard of What???", Jamie J.).
So keep watching this spot. You might see something you like. And just to get the ball rolling, here are a few choice videos for your edification and enjoyment!
[EDIT: Videos moved to the "Politics" playlist of the Video Player.]
Check back later for more political eye-candy!
To kick things off, I'll be doing a complete do-over of the "A World without Walls or Fences" series I began on Facebook back in September, which is a beginner's guide to installing and using Linux on a personal computer. I've had quite a few interruptions since I started the series, so I'm starting over to make it more cohesive and comprehensive. I'll be discussing the shiny new version of the Ubuntu distribution of Linux, "Gutsy Gibbon", and will include plenty of tips and tricks for installing and customizing Linux that Brian P. and I have picked up in the last few weeks. If Vista's security alerts are giving you carpal tunnel, if you're not quite convinced that a Mac is really worth the extra $500 or $1000 on the price tag, or if you're just curious about the not-so-geeky world of Linux desktop computing, stay tuned.
Also, with less than a year until the election, the 2008 presidential campaign is now in full swing. I foresee quite a few politically themed articles in the coming days, both serious and satirical. I've already come across quite a few juicy links and videos that all responsible, informed voters (with a healthy sense of humor) should see before casting their ballots next November.
Finally, the miscellanea... As I'm nearing the end of my last semester as a graduate student (sort of), I may very well post a few articles about my experiences away from the safe harbor of academia. And it's a near certainty that you'll be subjected to rants and musings about life's absurdities or little injustices, comments and reviews of the latest books I've read and movies I've recently
So keep watching this spot. You might see something you like. And just to get the ball rolling, here are a few choice videos for your edification and enjoyment!
[EDIT: Videos moved to the "Politics" playlist of the Video Player.]
Check back later for more political eye-candy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)