John Fenderson's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the all-hail-eris dept
I've been hanging around Techdirt for a few years now, so hello to my old friends as well as new. One of the things I like the best about this place is that Techdirt is only a technology blog when looked at with one eye. It really covers the intersection of technology and culture. You may or may not know this about me, but I am a Discordian. We are in particularly chaotic times right now. Old systems and businesses are fighting to their death while new ones are discovering the world to be more complex than they supposed. All anyone can say with real confidence is that tomorrow will not look much like yesterday.
With chaos comes opportunity, however. It is during these times, when change is guaranteed but the nature of it is not, that we have a rare chance of shaping the nature of it. Big money corporate forces and a systemically corrupt government are consciously aware of this and are actively working at a fever pitch to shape it in their best interest. What they don't want you to know is that chaos is a great equalizer. Great power requires order to maintain it, but individuals do not. In times like this the playing field is closer to being level. It becomes possible for you, or I, to individually change things for the better. Collectively, we can change everything.
Let's look back at the last week and see what chaos had brought us.
Computers That Accurately Guess What Gangs Did What Crimes
I can tell you one of the most frequent things people misunderstand about chaos. Chaos is not randomness, or a kind of randomness. Chaos is actually order -- apparently disorganized order, but order nonetheless. Chaotic systems are those which are extremely sensitive to initial events. But chaotic systems are not necessarily unpredictable systems.
We, The People, Are Sarcastic And Not Easily Mollified By Bland Political Non-Answers
Not unpredictable at all.
Why PROTECT IP/SOPA Is The Exact Wrong Approach To Dealing With Infringement Online
That is, unless you are one of the greyfaces whose fear of change has caused blindness preventing the ability to see solutions that may be different than the old comfortable ones, but actually have a chance of working.
Lessons Learned From 'Pay What You Want'
Even when the solution might be counter to everything that you think is true.
A History Of Hyperbolic Overreaction To Copyright Issues: The Entertainment Industry And Technology
Even when an industry's entire history is riddled with examples of the same blindness.
Free As In Freedom: But Whose Freedom?
Richard Stallman, love him or hate him, has the admirable quality of being unafraid to give his unvarnished opinion on matters that interest him. Some might suspect him of insanity, communism, hippiness, or dementia, but they're all wrong. What he is is a firebrand, and like all firebrands he will invariably say something irritating or offensive to some people. Firebrands are an essential part of society. We need them to shake us out of our mental ruts and shock us into actively thinking out our positions, whether those positions agree with them or not. It's OK that he confuses fraud with copyright violation. Lots of people do.
Canadian Actor Claims Mashups Are Morally Wrong And Should Be Illegal
Leah Pinset gives us an interesting example of the process of forming chaos to shape reality. The reality she experiences and wants to make us all live in is one where she can declare certain types of music immoral because she doesn't like it much.
She's got lots of company. Here, we have RIAA doing the very same thing, but opposite:
RIAA Explains Its Interpretation Of SOPA; Which Doesn't Seem To Be Found In The Bill Itself
In this case, RIAA wants legislation that would do great harm to every aspect of society. No, I'm not talking about SOPA -- SOPA isn't what they want, it's what they're currently willing to compromise to. They know that what they actually want is a political nonstarter. It would be rejected handily by almost everybody. So they give us SOPA, which is exactly as egregious as they thought was politically possible. That looks less possible now, so they are taking the tack that the Justice Department wanted the ability to do: they are lying.
Justice Department Drops Its Request To Be Allowed To Lie In Response To FOIA Requests
Oh, here's the lying! The Justice department wanted to be able to legally lie to us about the mere existence of records that we citizens collectively own. They've changed their minds and are ok with having to lie about lying like they used to.
DOJ: Secret Interpretation Of PATRIOT Act Just Like Grand Jury Subpoena If You Ignore 'Factual Context'
It's not all untruthfulness, though. It's easier to avoid lying if you can just avoid talking about it. That "it" is the laws that you and I are supposed to be subject to, and therefore presumably should know about, is irrelevant.
Understanding Anonymous: The Culture Of Lulz
There's a law of nature recognized within Discordianism. It is simply this: nature seeks a balance between order and discord. When one grows too strong, the pendulum will always shift. For example, increased social disorder gives rise to grand displays of order through more oppressive laws and policing. And the other way around.
Building Company Realizes That Threatening A Blogger With Bogus Libel Suit Was A Bad Idea; Sincerely Apologizes
In small ways as well as big.
Despite Publisher Apprehension, Good Old Games Proves A Market For Old DRM-Free Games Exists
You can't compete with free? The hundreds I've spent at Good Old Games argue otherwise.
Barnes & Noble Claims That Microsoft Patent Shakedown Over Android Is An Antitrust Violation
I've done my share of software engineering contract work for large companies in the past, and one of the things I've learned is that being the outsider is a powerful position. The outsider can often speak truths that cannot be spoken by people who are invested in the company. The outsider can take radical action with less fear due to simple ignorance of the minefield they're walking through. Barnes & Noble is an outsider in this space and, as such, can take action that is simply impossible for the established players. I never thought I'd see Barnes & Noble as a force for positive change in my industry, but I'm not too surprised, really. It had to be someone I wouldn't have expected.
Really, unless you are in the 1% or are a large corporation, you are an outsider in the political world right now. Which means you have a chance to shape the future. You have more power now than you have likely had in your lifetime. Seize it, and make the future a good one.



Re: Re: Re: Re: Stealing someone's work is not a right...
Actually, no, that's not the purpose of copyright.
I would also argue that any system that requires "forcing" consumers to pay anything is a faulty system.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stealing someone's work is not a right...
How is this in any way relevant? Or are you actually arguing that so long as a tiny percentage of people can get incredibly rich then the system is fine?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stealing someone's work is not a right...
What about if MU was always legit? You talk as if it's clear that MU was a bad actor. Initially, I thought so too, but the more we learn about it, the less it looks like MU was actually doing anything nefarious.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, but because of the actions of the telecoms, not any technical limitations. There are a number of ways that the "last mile" problem can be easily and cheaply resolved right now, form a technical point of view. But the telecoms fight against allowing anybody to actually do them because they want to maintain their monopoly.
Re: Re: Re: Stealing someone's work is not a right...
Me too. I just don't want them to do so at the expense of others or myself, which is what the major media companies are demanding.
Re: Re: Re: Stealing someone's work is not a right...
You do know that Google is not exactly beloved by a large percentage (maybe the majority) of the commenters here and elsewhere, right?
Ummm, that's not even close to being analogous to DRM. Do you understand what DRM is?
And why is this an important data point?
This is a really bizarre conspiracy theory, and it doesn't make any sense at all. Why would tech companies want to or have any obligation to share their income with companies who they are not doing business with and are not contributing to them? These same tech companies absolutely share their wealth with companies that do.
Re: Re: Copyright?
There is a copyright registration process. You don't have to do it and if you don't your works are still copyrighted. But if you do register them as well, you get some additional leverage in court.
Re: Re: Re: Stealing someone's work is not a right...
That's not what anybody means by freedom of expression, and you know it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stealing someone's work is not a right...
Except, of course, that nobody's arguing that.
Re: Re:
Yes, there is no question about it. Unless humans work differently now than ever before in history, I'm on very solid ground. 80% of it will be crap, of course, but that's no different than how it is right now, or how it has ever been.
I never said otherwise.
Re: Re: Re:
No, for a whole lot of reasons. But let's get to the bottom line: I think it's wrong for an industry to demand that third parties engaging in legal activities shoulder the burden and expense that is required to support the industry's preferred business model.
If it's so essential that this be done, it should be done by the industry that its important to, not shoved off on a different industry altogether.
Re: Re: Re:
You're right, it is a monopoly. But at least it's a monopoly that we have some influence on. Private monopolies are much less responsive.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do you think this? You do understand that I've been talking about the impact on people who do not engage in infringement, right?
Wow, there's a few different things mushed together in this sentence, so bear with me here while I try to answer it as clearly as possible. If fact, I can't really answer it directly as asked because it's too loaded, so I'll try a different tack.
I think it is immoral to take another person's work and claim it as your own.
I believe that copyright law can be a useful tool to achieve the ends stated -- the enrichment of society.
Further, the "rights" they grant are actually privileges -- in the same way that driving a car is a privilege -- and as such the scope of them is no more or less than we as a society say it is.
I think that copyright law as it exists right now is, itself, immoral. it does too much harm to society and especially to people who don't infringe. I'm not saying that this means breaking it is therefore a moral act (although it can be, depending on the circumstances), but that when we are confronted with an immoral law, the fact that it's law loses any meaning as to whether or not obeying it is moral.
As to piracy itself, it depends on what you mean. I think that distributing other people's work against their wishes is immoral. I think that using other people's work in transformative ways (sampling, etc.) is completely moral (and culturally valuable) even though it's arguably illegal.
I see this copyright battle in perhaps a different way than you. You appear to see it as an epic battle of the artists vs the pirates. And perhaps it is, I don't know. I don't have a dog in that fight. I don't think either side has a moral high ground there.
What I do know is that in the course of conducting that epic battle, bullets keep flying by my own head despite me otherwise being uninvolved. This, I think understandably, angers me. And the vast majority of those bullets are coming from the guns of the copyright side.
I don't care if you guys want to fight it out. I just want everyone to stop breaking my windows.
(untitled comment)
No they don't. If it's more than they are willing to pay, they'll simply not pay.
Well of course. Content will always get created, regardless of the economic model in place.
Re:
To you, perhaps. To a lot of us, it's a huge issue.
Wow, it looks to me like the exact opposite is true.
Re: the safe harbor business in the DMCA, that wasn't an extension of consumer rights at all. It was a skinny bone thrown to the third parties who would be disproportionately harmed to try and make the the egregiousness of the rest of the bill more acceptable.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For a number of reasons. One of which is that many Disney characters, such as MM, have become a part of the culture, and certain types of commentary are best made by using cultural references.
Using MM in such a way is not being lazy or uncreative. It is being referential.
Re: Self-Driving Cars Wouldn’t Need To Park
In my town, there is precedent for this sort of thing. There are anti-cruising laws that make it illegal to drive down certain streets more than a certain number of times between certain hours.
Re: The missing link
I don't know the classification, but the negotiations do have a security classification. The members of the COG are prohibited from revealing the information they're privy to.
Re:
True. This, and the need to prevent monopoly, are two good reasons why this should be a publicly-owned project.
Re:
A number of towns have tried, but have had the attempts stopped due to lawsuits from the private telecommunications companies -- even a few where private companies have no plans to offer competing services at all.