Chelleliberty's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the things-unseen dept
Unintended Consequences
My favorite posts from this week are definitely the ones highlighting 'things unseen'. Many people have been raised on the idea that, for any problem that exists, there must exist some perfect law that the government can create to solve it; and, further, that our governments exist solely to find these laws and bring them into force for no other reason than to benefit the citizenry. Never mind that many of these problems were created by bad laws in the first place: this time perfection will be had and everything will be fixed, as if by magic.
Security through Inanity
For instance, why leave e-security up to companies that will just give up their customers' private information willy-nilly due to the otherwise high costs of protecting it? Certainly, the government will do better than the selfish corporations who clearly have no incentive to be secure! (Because, of course, the silly populace will still flock to sites that are known for constantly turning their customers into victims.) Well, South Korea knows better, and made sure that their citizens were protected.
Well, at least protected from using a free/libre OS like GNU/Linux for e-commerce (or indeed any OS other than Windows) since that wouldn't make any sense, would it? I mean, Microsoft is just a big, evil, monopolistic organization, so clearly there's no better way to protect people from them than to give them a de facto monopoly on the browsers that people use, as well as the websites that sell them stuff. Oh, and even on non-commerce sites because (due to the fact that IE is required to do any sort of shopping online) most average users will just end up using IE for everything.
Imitation: the Sincerest Form of Getting Sued
Few deny that Apple has made some of the more aesthetically pleasing devices that end up in people's hands these days, and, certainly, not allowing people to simply copy their designs should lead to more desirable designs from their competitors. And you don't have to look any further than the Samsung Galaxy S3 smartphone to see how well this works in practice. Oh, look at those non-black borders, the slightly asymmetrical shape, and that glorious blobbiness!
Yes, this is clearly a demonstration of how important it is to allow Apple to protect the small team with minimal imagination enormous creativity and investment necessary to come up with a rectangular device with a screen and black borders; and how much innovation the public as a whole gained by forcing another manufacturer to ever-so-slightly deviate from what is an immensely obvious and easier-to-produce innovative design. After several iterations of this method, we can certainly expect to see more awesomeness! Imagine, some day we may have phones shaped like the Mandelbrot set turtle, all because we have laws to lead us.
(Hey, the e-Turtle Phone is gonna be big! Hit me up if you want to invest.)
Win One for the Future
And who could forget the ill-fated SOPA and PIPA that, if passed, would have provided "tools" for the government to "use" to protect us from stuff, since certainly it doesn't already have the authority or power to do what it needs to do to protect big media's our interests. So, fortunately, we now have CISPA in the works, since we all know that absolutely nothing could ever possibly go wrong with this law. Sure, privacy was great and all, but... Pirates! Child Porn! ANARCHISTS! Sometimes you gotta kill a few dolphins to make tuna salad, y'know what I mean? It's not like, as a whole, folks aren't already giving most of their privacy away anyway, via Facebook and other sites. So it's just pretty much admitting to the inevitable anyway, right?
Final Dirt
I unfortunately don't see a quick fix here. The governments and corporate interests will continue to behave badly, and the rest of us will likely find little enough marginal utility in protesting whatever the latest, greatest law is that we won't have the collective power to stop it, much less the power to reverse already long-standing law and precedent. (Well, unless we can find a way to have as much impact on the average citizen as when Wikipedia supported the protests against SOPA.)
But my guess is that, as happened during SOPA/PIPA, government will overplay its hand. The youth and other technically-savvy folks can see through the BS better than the average politician can understand what makes us tick. We've already been seeing an uptick in support for radical ideas of liberty which seemed practically dead in the 1990's and early 2000's, and I think the SOPA protests were a great initial volley in the fight to bring back some sense to things.
One way or another, the multitude of poor decisions being made are unsustainable, and on the day that we do collectively take action, I think a lot of politicians are going to find the real meaning of unintended consequences... right before they start to look for another job.
Wow, just... Wow.
I feel like I should kick in something here; I do support Ron Paul because he has tried very hard to hold himself to a consistent libertarian (which, by the way, encompasses a lot of possible views; and Ron is primarily a Rothbardian rather than a Randian but ad hominems are always easier than actual thinking I suppose) and I totally respect the man.
Rand, I think is just another Conservative, who happens to be at least a hell of a lot more on the side of freedom than anyone else in the Senate, but, to me, that really isn't quite enough to say I support the man. I support any attempts he makes to fight the ever encroaching power of the Federal government, but I don't see the same in him as I do in Ron.
That said, this manifesto reeks of a jumped shark to me. If you want freedom you gotta be consistent, and *that*--whatever the f*** that is--seems fairly incoherent, and definitely inconsistent on principles of freedom from government. I used to be a minarchist, and certainly have respect for that viewpoint, it just became clear to me over time that asking for minarchy is asking for... the U.S. Federal Government.
There's the slippery slope as any government with significant unchecked power will continue to agglomerate power to itself; and apparently start vast wars, kill innocent people through various means, decide that consensual or solo actions that don't even cause harm to others can be enough to put you in jail, etc. etc. etc. etc.
And a piece of paper ain't gonna save ya from that.
Anyway this supposed liberty-loving manifesto is anything but, and I am starting to think it's more and more of a shame that Rand entered politics to begin with... Dr. Paul's name is going to end up associated with the establishment, and I don't trust Rand for a second to cleave strongly enough to liberal (that's "classical liberal") ideals to turn anything back; when you are fighting to row upstream, turning the boat sideways isn't gonna stop you going over the waterfall. /cheesymetaphor
Re: Re: Double Duh
I realize it's far too long gone at this point, but
"they claimed" blah blah blah "which it didn't, get it yet??"
And my post was not about any of that, simply about the judge's ruling that "liking" a post publically could not even *ever* rise to the point of protected speech, PERIOD, regardless of whether one was fired for it. get it yet?!
I'll quote one more time just for the record. The judge said in his ruling: "It is the Court's conclusion that merely 'liking' a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection." Not that it was insufficient in this case, but that it is insufficient, period.
And if you had been able to comprehend the court documents you would realize that this particular ruling was what enabled the judge to dismiss the case without even considering whether the guy was fired for it since the like was not considered by him to be protected speech at all.
Last word to you, if you want it, and since I've explained it so clearly in both of my replies (and quoted the relevant text both times now) I will simply move on, since your inability to understand such simple reasoning indicates that you are either trolling me, or you are so far beyond help that I'm not going to be able to help you figure out this one.
Oh and I've had to revise your grade:
Grade: F for having eliminated the merest shred of benefit of the doubt which I was still able to extend to you.
Re: Hmm
Sorry, not sure how this ended up out of line with the actual comment, it was in reply to this comment earlier in the threads.
Re: Re: Sure Mike
Watching ACs trolling by using twisted logic to accuse Mike of being funded to support piracy: $0
Parodying ACs with satirical reverse-trolling of Paley article by using twisted logic to accuse Mike of instead being funded to support the *AAs: $0
Parody being indistinguishable from actual troll: Absolutely Priceless
(Thanks, AC trolls, for being so over-the-top that you can't be taken seriously!)
:D
(untitled comment)
No, I'm not confusing anything. Theft *is* a legal term, and means something specific which is quite inflammatory in any discussion of intellectual monopoly restrictions. And, I did indeed notice and mention (thus showing I did see what you were doing there) that you were using it metaphorically, and that I thought it was being used in a way that was inappropriate.
"To not call it theft is an attempt to minimize the action and make it seem like a slight technical act that has no real impact on anyone."
No, To call it theft is an attempt to argue by analogy that two things are morally equivalent, when a discussion of the *actual* impact of any particular infringement is key to any conclusion on whether it's morally comparable to theft.
However, it is my reasoned opinion that using 'theft' in that particular metaphorical sense is an abuse of language, one which serves no purpose other than to shut down discussion and to mislead people who just look at the surface of the debate without delving in further.
This abuse is especially clear to me when the topic under discussion is at least in large part about precisely that in the first place! (It's particularly clear to me that the term is not applicable in some cases, for instance I believe that private copying of music for non-profit use is a clear-cut case of something which is so different from theft that it's *very* misleading to speak of it in that way.)
NOTE: I am not saying you are intentionally trying to mislead people above, I am simply saying that the term 'theft' is itself misleading when used to describe infringement of intellectual monopoly restrictions; and in fact I think probably your equivocation of the term leads you to believe that your conclusions are stronger than they are, and also probably leads you to make inaccurate judgements about those of us who don't accept that the two are equivalent, which really doesn't make for a very productive discussion.
So, this is why I have a problem with you using that metaphor. I don't agree at all that someone who copies music is morally equivalent to someone who steals physical property. Yes, I understand the metaphor you are using and I understand why conclusion you are trying to draw by analogy.
But (a) if you look closely in at least some subset of cases of infringement it's fairly straightforward to see the difference between those cases and theft, and (b) if there are significant cases in which infringement is theft, then it's not a proper term to use when debating infringement as a whole, since there are instances of infringement which *aren't* morally equivalent to theft in any relevant way.
Sure Pirate Mike
Trying to shill for a guy who ran a site called TVs "hack". I mean, c'mon, why are you trying to step up to protect a scumbag hacker?
Clearly this is another example of your and Jimbo Wales's desire stop government from having any way to protect us; even through the enforcement of obviously good laws against some of the most egregious violations.
Those who made a choice to hack people's TVs deserve what they get.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would actually argue that there's actually a lot more of a case in arguing that the enforcement of intellectual monopoly rights is theft; as there is an actual deprivation of the rights of people to use their own property as they see fit vs. the attempted moral equivocation of someone copying a song which deprives no one of anything.
Your metaphorical theft assertions are inflammatory but fairly weak; these violations are not called "theft" or "stealing" by the law, only metaphorically when someone is trying to win an argument by drawing a moral equivalence between infringement and theft. Actually, other than metaphorically, nothing being lost *does indeed* mean that nothing was stolen; nor will you ever be charged with such for copying. And repeating a factually incorrect statement such as "Remember, theft includes theft of intellectual property" does not make it so. (Ohhh, I see what you did there, very circular of you.)
However, generally these types of actions are (at least in the cases of copying music, software, or books) very rarely anything more than civil torts, and they are considered infringements of copyright, not stealing; whereas theft of property is a criminal violation and is prosecuted as such. The reason people are "stuck in the old 'physical property' mindset" is because that is what theft is and always has entailed; your wishing it to be different does not make it so.
So, say it ten thousand more times if you like, but you are factually incorrect, and even metaphorically you're fairly low on content and logic and fairly high on raw assertions. And as I note in my post below, there have been numerous other times when peoples' private right of the use and copying of otherwise intellectually restricted material without a profit motive was not only done, but recognized by courts and lawmakers as *not even wrong*, making the jump from there to theft all the more vast.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Actually, except metaphorically, it's not theft; there's a reason that that copyright/patent law was specifically carved out as a special exception in the Constitution. It's also the reason that such monopoly grants were specifically restricted so as to be only for "limited Times" (unlike a natural right which would not be expected to have an arbitrary end date) and was intended "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", and indirectly gives the monopoly grant to the creators of works in order to benefit everyone.
The whole point is that the clause allowed the government to implement *legal* rights to a monopoly in one's creations, where no such *moral* right exists, and in fact such rights go against a normal construction of the concept of ownership of physical property: property owners now become restricted in their right to use or dispose of their own property as they see fit. This was one of the tradeoffs made by those who wrote the constitution, and was intended to benefit the *public as a whole*, and only indirectly to benefit those who created monopoly-protected works.
And, for that matter, there were many examples even fairly recently (things like sharing mix tapes with friends and family, or VHS recordings of television shows, etc.) which were not only common, but specifically recognized as legitimate rights by the courts or Congress. It was not until recently that the *AA's were able to get enough power to ram through new laws that shut down personal not-for-profit copying or other previously accepted fair-use practices, e.g. through the DRM non-circumvention clauses.
As for your example, (a) copyright/patent law is not the only solution to protecting investments in R&D (for example, keep it a trade secret) (b) there are lots of benefits to being someone who created a vital technology; including the fact that you will be first-to-market, and you will understand it better than anyone else to make modifications or sell services based upon it, etc. and (c) how do we possibly compare the benefit of having had the company spend those millions on R&D knowing they could use the force of law to prevent others from using their ideas vs. that money being spent in other ways that the company knew could be profitable without having government guns backing them up?
Seems to me there ought to be fairly conclusive proof that such a benefit actually exists before we go providing a very small number of people the ability to abrogate the property rights of *everyone else*, more or less simply by having an idea. And as yet, I have not seen that proof; and in fact it seems clear to me that it won't and that we'd be better off with people taking whatever precautions they felt necessary to protect their intellectual investments, and allowing innovation and creation to proceed at an unfettered pace.
Especially since the point in the was to allow for laws that would promote the public interest, rather than, as our system has become, i.e. primarily a way to enrich those who act(ed) as gatekeepers for those that actually did the creating in the first place.
Sure Mike
"I have to admit that I'm a little bit torn by this concept. I certainly think that each individual needs to make their own decisions about what they do when creating, but my general approach has been to avoid infringement wherever possible ..."
Oh yeah right, let's just admit it Mike, you don't care about ending the scourge of intellectual restriction laws at all do you? You pretend to be in support of free culture, but you mean free, except for when you're shilling for the big corporations that want to beat people over the head with it.
Don't be fooled people; clearly this man has an agenda paid for by someone; let's just say AA isn't just for alcoholics.
(untitled comment)
OMG, who do they thing they are.... Facebook?
FTFY ;)
(untitled comment)
"I was under the impression that lying under oath was a crime."
Depends who you are. Oh you're not organized crime 'law enforcement'? Yep. Crime. Definitely. Felony even. We take perjury very seriously in this country.
Oh, my mistake, you are? Well, I'm sure you are just stating things to the best of your ability to recall, and c'mon it was on a totally insignificant charge, that couldn't really affect someone that much, just a 'violation', not even a misdemeanor... Couldn't cost a person more than, say, $250. And almost no one ever gets the fifteen days in jail. And certainly you wouldn't push for that, cause you're a good man/woman.
We'll just mark this down as not even really a lie, more of a 'mistake'. Go home now while we lock this guy... oh... let this guy go since he didn't actually do anything.
"They continue to perform their duties? That doesn't seem right..."
Well, I don't think they mostly perform their duties, but I see what you're getting at. But believe me, the mobsters officers do stuff worse than that and continue to supposedly perform duties.
Welcome to America!
Expectations
"You would think that if the US was negotiating for such a massive change in US law it would be open to a public discussion about the matter."
Well, no I really wouldn't think that, but I may have become cynical. It's not good enough to do it via takedowns and some semblance of due process with the DMCA, leaving it to the private companies to do the dirty work; that leaves too many loopholes, at least for some...
So that makes it almost a given that this was the next step. Isn't it just a given that the government will do anything it can to agglomerate power to itself?
Re: Don't count out the politicians just yet
Ugh, well, I do see the pattern there, but eventually people aren't gonna fall for it anymore right? Complete currency collapse, increasing police state until they can't afford it, eventually it's bound to get through to people that we need some other way, right? Right? :)
Re: I want
Yes, although if it's just for you I'll need to know what customizations you need, as we now have two requests for an e-dolphin phone. :D
Re: Re: Mandelbrot Turtle Phone
I'm afraid the tuna-sandwich-shaped phone is out, as it is far too rectangular (I have no doubt they will argue that square=rectangle therefore they have that locked down, too) to avoid the inevitable lawsuits.
Dolphin shaped, though, now there's a thought. :)
Re: Porbably the most coherent summary post so far
Thank you. :)
Re: Mandelbrot Turtle Phone
I am currently working on a patent for a device to prevent the massive palm injuries this is bound to cause but I'll let you know when the website is set up.
And it's *e*-Turtle Phone, since of course, Turtle Phone would be untrademarkable and oh how I just love my intellectual property. ;)
Re: Over Ripe
I have caused laughing pee, my work is done. :D
Double Duh
ROFL! Okay...
Yeah, I read it; did you read it? Or read my post at all? Or are you just being reactionary and *having* to disagree? Ohh, or maybe you're smokin' somethin'! I mean, either you didn't read carefully, or your comprehension is, well, shall we say... a bit on the weak side.
Perhaps it's partly your misunderstanding about Facebook likes, do you actually use Facebook? "As some claimed to do" is just you scraping to make a point, but, sorry, Facebook likes are not anonymous, and there was no disagreement in the case about whether 'Like' was pressed: the judgement specifically says "the only evidence regarding Carter's activity on Adams' Facebook page is that he 'Liked' Adams' page." So, duh.
And the rest of your post is mostly irrelevant, and shows that even RE: my post, you had very poor comprehension... which is lame, seeing as how my post, compared to a legal ruling, was about as hard to understand as "See Jane Run". I simply referred to the judge ruling that clicking "Like" was not protected speech, not the ultimate ruling, not the bumper sticker, not the getting fired, etc.
And, besides, you're either wrong or being intentionally misleading about that, as well. You try to make it that the judge ruled that it didn't rise to the level of supporting the claim of being fired because of it.
But that's not true, the judge never ruled on that because he said "It is the Court's conclusion that merely 'liking' a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection." and therefore he never even had to take it that far. Duh duh.
You ACs are really falling down on the job.
A very poor effort.
Grade: D minus
P.S. I understand that you probably just wanted to look all smart and feel like you really shot someone down so you can feel better about yourself hunny, but seriously, you oughtta stick to arguing about whether bringing back Pandas was just a lame ripoff, or a legitimate use of previous content Y'know, things where there's no actual right or wrong answer.
(untitled comment)
Imagined press conference (with imagined actual journalist):
Reporter: "But, wasn't the informant, whom you are primarily relying upon for your information, actually paid over $6,000 by the FBI and later jailed for passing bad checks even though you were aware that, of his convictions on robbery and at least three other time on passing bad checks?"
FBI Spokesperson: "Umm... But, terrorism! Mohawk!"
Reporter: "And didn't this paid informant (contractor?) basically entice these folks into planning acts they had never thought of on their own and would likely have never done so had it not been for your informant plans created by the FBI?"
FBI Spokesperson: "But... but... Topple! Bridge! 'Occupy!'..."
Reporter: And weren't you just reprimanded by a judge in September about a similar case, saying the 'essence' of the operation was that you 'created acts of terrorism out of the fantasies and the bravado and the bigotry of [those involved]', that you 'made them terrorists,' and that she was 'not proud of [her] government for' those actions?
FBI Spokesperson: "Well... Um... Anarchist's Cookbook!!... ANARCHISTS!!!"
Reporter: "And ... mrrffle pfrrt ..."
FBI Spokesperson: "Any more questions? No? Okay, well, I want to thank all of you for coming today to help us get the word out about how we're keeping America safe."
FIN