Tag: google

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.

It’s not the song, Stupid, it’s the right.

No doubt, the U.S. Pirate Party will be in a caffeinated kerfuffle over yesterday’s upholding by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston of the $675,000 fine being levied at Joel Tenenbaum for illegally downloading and sharing 30 songs several years ago.  And no doubt anyone under the age of about 35, who very likely has a lot more than 30 illegally downloaded songs in his possession is thinking, “Dude, this is ridiculous. That’s too big a penalty for just downloading music. If you follow the debates surrounding copyright in the digital age, you will frequently encounter the slogan “Copying Isn’t Theft,” and the argument behind this assertion goes as follows:

If I take your car, then I have your car and you no longer have it.  That’s theft.  But if make a copy of your car so that you have your car and I have the copy, that’s not theft because you still have your car.

Of course, it’s not possible to digitally copy a car, but the copy zealots still assert that the logic holds up when we transfer the discussion to authored works that can be digitally reproduced and distributed.  In short, “I have the song, but I have not taken your song, so I have not stolen anything. And, by extension, the other ten million people who have copies have not stolen anything either.”

As the father of three, I recognize this as classic kid logic, which is invariably based on the unilateral premise that individual desire trumps all competing forces, particularly any matters too complex for the child to comprehend.  When my five-year-old wants something, he will propose what sounds to him like solid reasoning but what is really just a variation on the theme “because I want it.”  Of course, one of the many thankless roles of the parent is to teach children that indeed there are considerations beyond their individual desires — health, safety, fairness, legality, courtesy — that shall be enforced whether the child understands the principle or not. The hope is that, as they grow, they will understand the principle, not merely the rule.

What the children of the digital age need to learn as they are now entering the world of grown-ups is that it’s not the song or the movie or the book they’re stealing, but the rights of the creator.  When a few million college kids copy and share a digital file of a creative work, they believe this is not stealing because 1) they’re focused on the file itself; and 2) they’re focused on what they want.  And it is always the folly of youth to confuse desire with rights while failing to recognize, to paraphrase Kant, that their rights end when they infringe on the rights of another.

Imagine you’re having a blow-out party that’s going well into the wee hours.  You’re not committing any serious crimes, but you are keeping your neighbor awake, who finally gets fed up and calls the police.  When the police arrive and tell you to turn down the volume, you may think The Man is infringing on your right to have a good time, but the reality is that he’s balancing your right with your neighbor’s equally valid right to a night’s sleep in his own home. This may seem like a prudish example, but it really is that simple.

Copying is a violation of an individual’s right that has been part of our constitution for as long as we have had a constitution. The person doing the copying may think his own actions are irrelevant in the scheme of things, but we see many examples where individuals, especially younger people, are willing to take personal responsibility for collective harm.  Shifting attitudes  toward environmentalism is perhaps the most obvious; my children don’t know what it means not to recycle, but this was hardly the norm during my own childhood.

The generation that enjoys media enough to want to copy and share it in such high volume needs to understand that creative work is a resource that can be squandered like any other; and there are legitimate data to prove the harm being done to creative industries by illegal downloading and file sharing.  If those industries fail, they take millions of jobs with them (maybe even a job these same kids would like to have one day) and quite possibly the music, books, and movies will disappear, too. It is time to stop listening to vested interests (namely Google) who tell you it’s not only okay to copy, but that it’s a right and a societal benefit.  This is simply not the case.

I feel a little bit bad for Joel Tenenbaum inasmuch as he did something that he has been told is innocuous.  His legal team has likely convinced him that he’s a poster boy for the cause of free speech, freedom of information, transparency in government, anti-corporate-greed, and probably a few other causes that are in no way related to what he actually did.  The unfortunate reality is that he was a grown-up who made a childish decision; and he now has a grown-up problem on his hands.  I hope when the case is finally closed, that Google will at least pay his fines.  To be clear on this case, Tenenbaum’s real mistake is not the downloading of 30 songs per se.  He was a recidivist downloader, who refuted C&D requests, offers of relatively minor fines, and chose to fight this battle on principle.  I don’t think anyone should be pulled out at random to face potentially staggering penalties.  Tennnebaum’s choice, however, to be the face of a precedent-setting case forces the recording industry to pursue vigorously.  It is on principle where Joel Tennenbaum is wrong.

ADDENDUM:   In fairness, and apropos of a comment I received on this post, I ought not to have suggested Google pay Tenenbaum’s fines but instead suggested that his lawyer, Charles Nesson, do so.  This is not a David and Goliath fight.  Nesson, through Tenenbaum, is gunning for copyright law itself and banking on a Supreme Court appearance and a landmark, law-changing case.  So, while I do blame the likes of Google for fostering a general psychology about file sharing, I think it’s fair to say that Nesson’s hubris is the fuel behind this particular case; and when they lose, I hope Tenenbaum won’t be left alone to pay the bill.

It’s not the song, Stupid, it’s the right.

No doubt, the U.S. Pirate Party will be in a caffeinated kerfuffle over yesterday’s upholding by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston of the $675,000 fine being levied at Joel Tenenbaum for illegally downloading and sharing 30 songs several years ago.  And no doubt anyone under the age of about 35, who very likely has a lot more than 30 illegally downloaded songs in his possession is thinking, “Dude, this is ridiculous. That’s too big a penalty for just downloading music.”

If you follow the debates surrounding copyright in the digital age, you will frequently encounter the slogan “Copying Isn’t Theft,” and the argument behind this assertion goes as follows:

If I take your car, then I have your car and you no longer have it.  That’s theft.  But if make a copy of your car so that you have your car and I have the copy, that’s not theft because you still have your car.

Of course, it’s not possible to digitally copy a car, but the copy zealots still assert that the logic holds up when we transfer the discussion to authored works that can be digitally reproduced and distributed.  In short, “I have the song, but I have not taken your song, so I have not stolen anything. And, by extension, the other ten million people who have copies have not stolen anything either.”

As the father of three, I recognize this as classic kid logic, which is invariably based on the unilateral premise that individual desire trumps all competing forces, particularly any matters too complex for the child to comprehend.  When my five-year-old wants something, he will propose what sounds to him like solid reasoning but what is really just a variation on the theme “because I want it.”  Of course, one of the many thankless roles of the parent is to teach children that indeed there are considerations beyond their individual desires — health, safety, fairness, legality, courtesy — that shall be enforced whether the child understands the principle or not. The hope is that, as they grow, they will understand the principle, not merely the rule.

What the children of the digital age need to learn as they are now entering the world of grown-ups is that it’s not the song or the movie or the book they’re stealing, but the rights of the creator.  When a few million college kids copy and share a digital file of a creative work, they believe this is not stealing because 1) they’re focused on the file itself; and 2) they’re focused on what they want.  And it is always the folly of youth to confuse desire with rights while failing to recognize, to paraphrase Kant, that their rights end when they infringe on the rights of another.

Imagine you’re having a blow-out party that’s going well into the wee hours.  You’re not committing any serious crimes, but you are keeping your neighbor awake, who finally gets fed up and calls the police.  When the police arrive and tell you to turn down the volume, you may think The Man is infringing on your right to have a good time, but the reality is that he’s balancing your right with your neighbor’s equally valid right to a night’s sleep in his own home. This may seem like a prudish example, but it really is that simple.

Copying is a violation of an individual’s right that has been part of our constitution for as long as we have had a constitution. The person doing the copying may think his own actions are irrelevant in the scheme of things, but we see many examples where individuals, especially younger people, are willing to take personal responsibility for collective harm.  Shifting attitudes  toward environmentalism is perhaps the most obvious; my children don’t know what it means not to recycle, but this was hardly the norm during my own childhood.

The generation that enjoys media enough to want to copy and share it in such high volume needs to understand that creative work is a resource that can be squandered like any other; and there are legitimate data to prove the harm being done to creative industries by illegal downloading and file sharing.  If those industries fail, they take millions of jobs with them (maybe even a job these same kids would like to have one day) and quite possibly the music, books, and movies will disappear, too. It is time to stop listening to vested interests (namely Google) who tell you it’s not only okay to copy, but that it’s a right and a societal benefit.  This is simply not the case.

I feel a little bit bad for Joel Tenenbaum inasmuch as he did something that he has been told is innocuous.  His legal team has likely convinced him that he’s a poster boy for the cause of free speech, freedom of information, transparency in government, anti-corporate-greed, and probably a few other causes that are in no way related to what he actually did.  The unfortunate reality is that he was a grown-up who made a childish decision; and he now has a grown-up problem on his hands.  I hope when the case is finally closed, that Google will at least pay his fines.

ADDENDUM:   In fairness, and apropos of my friend Doug’s comment below, I ought not to have suggested Google pay Tenenbaum’s fines but instead suggested that his lawyer, Charles Nesson, do so.  This is not a David and Goliath fight.  Nesson, through Tenenbaum, is gunning for copyright law itself and banking on a Supreme Court appearance and a landmark, law-changing case.  So, while I do blame the likes of Google for fostering a general psychology about file sharing, I think it’s fair to say that Nesson’s hubris is the fuel behind this particular case; and when they lose, I hope Tenenbaum won’t be left alone to pay the bill.