Category: Intellectual Property

“Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.” by Masnick

Okay, this video is three years old, but it’s still relevant because it represents a persistent, underlying faith in an “economic model” that enables even well-meaning people to think they’re doing the world a favor by pimping for the Web industry.  What Mike Masnick, editor of TechDirt, says in this video is that if your business makes a product that can be converted into a digital file — a movie, an album, a TV show — that the natural price for that product is zero.  Moreover, if you fail to understand why this a good thing, it’s because you’re “unwilling to embrace new opportunities.”  In other words, the basic premise of Investor + Producer = ROI may still apply to making iPads, but it no longer applies to the music or motion pictures that might play on them.

I know I’m not the economic futurist Masnick is, and maybe I just have a knee-jerk reaction to white boards, but if I saw this same video fifteen years ago, I’d assume it was satire.  Sadly, no. Masnick actually believes what he’s saying here, and he reflects either the belief, or at least the PR talking points, of the tech industry he represents. And when you engage a firmly-held belief in a debate on policy (let’s say regarding the digital exploitation of creators), your opponent is only pretending to talk about the details.  In a nutshell, you can’t have a debate about how to solve a problem with someone who believes the problem doesn’t exist.

UPDATE:  As if on cue, read this article by Adam Lipsius from the Huffington Post.

“Insight” by TechDirt

Photo by GlobalIP

I really shouldn’t Google myself with a mouthful of coffee because spit-takes are bad for computers. Until this morning, I had no idea that a guest post I wrote back in June inspired the top-ranked offering TechDirt considered among the “funniest and most insightful comments of the week.” But I have to agree with Mike Masnick that, when it comes to both humor and insight, the following does indeed represent the paragon to be found on his blog:

*walks up to the podium, a small amount of feedback echoes across the loudspeakers* Mr. Newhoff, on behalf of “My People”… GO FUCK YOURSELF. I’d say something eloquent, but GO FUCK YOURSELF says so much more. How DARE you try to equate copyright with the discrimination “My People” face on a daily fucking basis. How dare you try to frame your pathetic argument that the bad people are stealing from you when my people are regularly discriminated against, beaten, and murdered. Fuck you, Fuck your shilling, Fuck the lobbyist asswipes you shill for. As soon as I can get married and not have to keep looking over my shoulder wondering if this might be the next bigoted asshole to beat the shit out of me we can discuss copyright. Until then… GO FUCK YOURSELF. *drops microphone and walks off stage*

This insightful and funny commenter, Anonymous Coward, was responding to a poor interpretation of this piece I had written on what I perceive as a preposterous assertion that copyright is antithetical to free speech.  It’s not clear whether or not Mr. Coward actually read my post or only read Tim Geigner’s purposely inflammatory response to it, but it is certainly my opinion that nobody is reading very carefully over there.  I leave it to you to decide.

Why isn’t the Internet breaking?

During the squabble over SOPA and PIPA, one of the underlying (and possibly just lying) PR bullets coming out of Silicon Valley was that the actions called for in the bills would “break the Internet.”  And when that wasn’t the claim, the most consistent complaint was that the bills would chill free speech.  But in the wake of violent protests to an online video that may be related to the deaths of American diplomats, it turns out there is suddenly room for discussion about both speech and algorithmic solutions to thorny problems in an otherwise “free and open Internet.”

According to this piece by Somini Sengupta in yesterday’s New York Times, there is not only room for discussion, but it seems we’ll be having this discussion for quite some time and hearing from many parties. If nothing else, this article makes plain that the concept of free speech is no more universal inside the conference rooms at Google and Facebook than it is among nations.  So, if speech is relative, and algorithms can theoretically be written to correspond to definitions of “hate speech,” what was all that flap about SOPA and PIPA? I know the mechanisms requested by those anti-piracy bills are different from those required to address the issues cited here, and I don’t know anything about writing code; but it seems to me that the math problem in the case of analyzing hate speech worldwide is a hell of a lot harder than cutting off funding sources to a finite number of torrent sites.

The irony, of course, is that the makers of The Innocence of Muslims are fully protected by the First Amendment, even though what they chose to do with that right is irresponsible and loathsome.  And even if someone did manage to come up with a universal definition for hate speech, and a programmer managed to write code to seek it out on the Web, it’s possible this film that started all the trouble might not even meet the narrow criteria that would need to be written.

By contrast, the transactions made possible through torrent sites are not protected by the First Amendment, are comparatively easy to define, and extremely easy to locate.  Yet, we were led to believe that neither law nor technology could possibly have stopped or even mitigated piracy.  I don’t know.  As I say, I don’t write code, but it sounds a little bit like the masters of the Internet are clearly capable of flying F-18s when they need to but suddenly incapable of driving golf carts when they don’t want to.