Judging by the kneejerk comments this post need a bit of context. Dutch government and helath isurers have for years now tried to introduce mandatory electronic medical dossiers for all dutch citizens. The idea is that a health professional can always check a patient medical record even if he has never seen this patient before. The first attempt went nowhere because of privacy issues and fears over misuse of data by powerfull interest groups, particularly health insurers. Pariament rejected the proposed laws and that should have been the end of it. But, now governent departments in collusion with healt insurers are trying to introduce these electronic dossier again by making it into a "pseudo voluntary scheme" that will eventually force everybody to use this system.
The system that provides for acces to these electronic medical records is not a central database. It is a kind of central access control, where you are authorized by the central hub and then referred to the keeper of the record. You then connect to the hospital or provider that keeps the record and they will provide you with the requested information. Obviously there are numerous security issues with a system like this. And the health care providers generally have a bad reputation for security issues and for not fixing them. In this context this hack bij knol is just another example of the disastrous quality of IT security provided by the healt care industry. And another reason not to implement mandatory electronic patient records. basically, the hack was politically motivated, merely another move in a rather dirty fight over the the introduction of another "big brother" like system.
This discussion is ridiculous. The US are the only country in the world that thinks that a corporation is a person. All due to the very clever move of a court clerk more than a hundred years ago. Maybe it would make sense to look across the border and check other countries that do not allow corporations to poor huge amounts of money into the election coffers of their politicians. Like most of Western Europe. And what do you see then? That those politicians are (generally, there are always exceptions) are not bought, and that their campaigns are funded by public money, personal donations, and (legally) limited donations from businesses. Airtime on television and radio is set apart for campaign purposes, and also paid for from public money. It creates a level playing field. It gives all candidates a more or less equal change. It does not give the candidates the opportunity to buy the vote. Problem solved. And corporations, they have plenty access to politicians. They do not need to be persons for that. They are powerful enough as they are.
When watching or reading stories like this it might be sensible to keep in mind that journalists (and broadcasters, particularly broadcasters operating a very profitable commercial operation like the BBC) are directly involved in these issues. Just like newspapers are. It must be hard to be impartial if your documentary, your news item or your TV series is widely distributed through P2P networks. maybe it is a natural point of view then to call it "piracy" and show the "dangers" of it. Impartiality is hard when you think your livelihood is in danger.
the issue of the RAND rapport, I think is quit simple. It is about counterfeiting (not piracy per se) but it is paid for by the MPA, which makes it propaganda. And the argument about piracy supporting organized crime and terrorism is rather weird. The moment you make something for which there is a big market (and therefore big profits to be made) illegal, criminal gangs will step in. But the problem with this is that we don't ask the question anymore why these activities were made illegal in the first place. From a social (societal) point of view we should ask the question why we want to spent the money on enforcement of TMR (Temporary Monopoly Rights) and run a considerable risk of growing organized crime activity just so some small, economically rather unimportant watch makers can go on making ugly, over expensive watches. There is actually a natural experiment going on right now that can show what happens if you enforce TMR were you did not before. The fashion industry is a well known example of an industry where copying is the normal way of doing business. Logically there is no piracy in the fashion industry. But what will happen when the corporations start enforcing TMR? Piracy will ensue, just because there is a market for cheaper versions of high-end clothing. And that market will not go away because of enforcement. So piracy will begin. And the complaints. And stories like this RAND report about organized crime and terrorism etc. An old story, really.
The problems for OLPC seem largely to be caused by the fact that the project is seen as a threath by the two largest monopolies in the IT business, Intel and Microsoft. It is also clear that this was not very well handled by the OLPC management. But to say that this has anything to do with markets and competition is more myth than reality.
For more background on this check
http://www.olpcnews.com/sales_talk/microsoft/how_microsoft_got_xp_on_the_xo.html
This development should not come as a surprise. I think the driving force behind this is the fact that ¨luxury brands¨ (and I think every fashion designer can be seen as one) have been trying for some time now to enter into the the normal non-luxury (price wise) markets. We have seen designers producing one of collections for retailers like H%M, we increasingly find designer houses with shops on the highstreet selling to the semi affluent normal public. The effect of all this is that suddenly copying cuts directly into their profits, while only a short few years ago it did not. Not so long ago the luxury brands sold more or less exclusively to the rich. And in that situation copies are probably beneficial because they add to the ¨myth¨, they are proof of the fact that everyone wants a xyz fashion accessory, that it is in fact very specail. Now more or less everyone can have one, and the copy is a problem. Personally (as a non fashion victim) I don´t think there is much of a problem. The fact that the big luxury brands have started selling their stuff to basically everyone is the start of the end for the brands. They are after all status goods, and the status disappears when everyone can have one.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by erikjan.
Needs a bit of context
Judging by the kneejerk comments this post need a bit of context. Dutch government and helath isurers have for years now tried to introduce mandatory electronic medical dossiers for all dutch citizens. The idea is that a health professional can always check a patient medical record even if he has never seen this patient before. The first attempt went nowhere because of privacy issues and fears over misuse of data by powerfull interest groups, particularly health insurers. Pariament rejected the proposed laws and that should have been the end of it. But, now governent departments in collusion with healt insurers are trying to introduce these electronic dossier again by making it into a "pseudo voluntary scheme" that will eventually force everybody to use this system.
The system that provides for acces to these electronic medical records is not a central database. It is a kind of central access control, where you are authorized by the central hub and then referred to the keeper of the record. You then connect to the hospital or provider that keeps the record and they will provide you with the requested information. Obviously there are numerous security issues with a system like this. And the health care providers generally have a bad reputation for security issues and for not fixing them. In this context this hack bij knol is just another example of the disastrous quality of IT security provided by the healt care industry. And another reason not to implement mandatory electronic patient records. basically, the hack was politically motivated, merely another move in a rather dirty fight over the the introduction of another "big brother" like system.
surprise, surptise ...
This discussion is ridiculous. The US are the only country in the world that thinks that a corporation is a person. All due to the very clever move of a court clerk more than a hundred years ago. Maybe it would make sense to look across the border and check other countries that do not allow corporations to poor huge amounts of money into the election coffers of their politicians. Like most of Western Europe. And what do you see then? That those politicians are (generally, there are always exceptions) are not bought, and that their campaigns are funded by public money, personal donations, and (legally) limited donations from businesses. Airtime on television and radio is set apart for campaign purposes, and also paid for from public money. It creates a level playing field. It gives all candidates a more or less equal change. It does not give the candidates the opportunity to buy the vote. Problem solved. And corporations, they have plenty access to politicians. They do not need to be persons for that. They are powerful enough as they are.
Impartiality ....
When watching or reading stories like this it might be sensible to keep in mind that journalists (and broadcasters, particularly broadcasters operating a very profitable commercial operation like the BBC) are directly involved in these issues. Just like newspapers are. It must be hard to be impartial if your documentary, your news item or your TV series is widely distributed through P2P networks. maybe it is a natural point of view then to call it "piracy" and show the "dangers" of it. Impartiality is hard when you think your livelihood is in danger.
the issue of the RAND rapport, I think is quit simple. It is about counterfeiting (not piracy per se) but it is paid for by the MPA, which makes it propaganda. And the argument about piracy supporting organized crime and terrorism is rather weird. The moment you make something for which there is a big market (and therefore big profits to be made) illegal, criminal gangs will step in. But the problem with this is that we don't ask the question anymore why these activities were made illegal in the first place. From a social (societal) point of view we should ask the question why we want to spent the money on enforcement of TMR (Temporary Monopoly Rights) and run a considerable risk of growing organized crime activity just so some small, economically rather unimportant watch makers can go on making ugly, over expensive watches. There is actually a natural experiment going on right now that can show what happens if you enforce TMR were you did not before. The fashion industry is a well known example of an industry where copying is the normal way of doing business. Logically there is no piracy in the fashion industry. But what will happen when the corporations start enforcing TMR? Piracy will ensue, just because there is a market for cheaper versions of high-end clothing. And that market will not go away because of enforcement. So piracy will begin. And the complaints. And stories like this RAND report about organized crime and terrorism etc. An old story, really.
Why reinventing the wheel?
Check
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Health_Information_Systems_and_Technology_Architecture
and
http://www.vistasoftware.org/
for a working and fully implemented system.
Market? Check this story..
The problems for OLPC seem largely to be caused by the fact that the project is seen as a threath by the two largest monopolies in the IT business, Intel and Microsoft. It is also clear that this was not very well handled by the OLPC management. But to say that this has anything to do with markets and competition is more myth than reality. For more background on this check
http://www.olpcnews.com/sales_talk/microsoft/how_microsoft_got_xp_on_the_xo.html
Predictable
This development should not come as a surprise. I think the driving force behind this is the fact that ¨luxury brands¨ (and I think every fashion designer can be seen as one) have been trying for some time now to enter into the the normal non-luxury (price wise) markets. We have seen designers producing one of collections for retailers like H%M, we increasingly find designer houses with shops on the highstreet selling to the semi affluent normal public. The effect of all this is that suddenly copying cuts directly into their profits, while only a short few years ago it did not. Not so long ago the luxury brands sold more or less exclusively to the rich. And in that situation copies are probably beneficial because they add to the ¨myth¨, they are proof of the fact that everyone wants a xyz fashion accessory, that it is in fact very specail. Now more or less everyone can have one, and the copy is a problem. Personally (as a non fashion victim) I don´t think there is much of a problem. The fact that the big luxury brands have started selling their stuff to basically everyone is the start of the end for the brands. They are after all status goods, and the status disappears when everyone can have one.