My Letter to the Internet – Senator Ron Wyden

The Internet has become an integral part of everyday life precisely because it has been an open-to-all land of opportunity where entrepreneurs, thinkers and innovators are free to try, fail and then try again.  The Internet has changed the way we communicate with each other, the way we learn about the world and the way we conduct business.  It has done this by eliminating the tollgates, middle men, and other barriers to entry that have so often predetermined winners and losers in the marketplace.  It has created a world where ideas, products and creative expression have an opportunity regardless of who offers them or where they originate.

Protect IP (PIPA) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) are a step towards a different kind of Internet.  They are a step towards an Internet in which those with money and lawyers and access to power have a greater voice than those who don???t.  They are a step towards an Internet in which online innovators need lawyers as much or more than they need good ideas.  And they are a step towards a world in which Americans have less of a voice to argue for a free and open Internet around the world.

Not all bad.

Numbers of Mass Distraction: Part 2

It is clear that recent events surrounding SOPA do not represent the end of the war waged by the copyright industries; at most it’s a skirmish they will concede, albeit very grudgingly, as lost. Judging from the experiences we faced in the UK with The Digital Economy Bill (I covered some of those shenanigans here in Musing About Downloads In The UK) dealing with SOPA (and PIPA) is going to be a long hard war of attrition. A war where every one of us needs to understand the weapons being used against us, as well as the absolute flimsiness of the ammunition.

I intended to write another long post on this flimsiness, then found that someone else had done a far better job than I could’ve. So what I shall do instead is to link to the wonderful post on the subject by research fellow Julian Sanchez at the Cato Institute. Headlined How Copyright Industries Con Congress, it’s a must-read. While you’re at it, it’s also worth reading Julian’s earlier piece on the subject in Ars Technica. The elevator version is as follows: numbers related to the value of illegal downloads as well as numbers related to the number of jobs affected are at best wild unsubstantiated estimates, and at worst devious attempts to flim-flam a legislature crying out to be flim-flammed. The $200-$250 billion number, while it came from a sidebar in a reputable magazine, was actually an unsourced estimate of the value of all counterfeit and pirated goods worldwide, and was clearly stated in the magazine as such. And the 750,000 jobs lost number was taken from a 1986 speech by the then Secretary of Commerce, a number that has never been endorsed by the Department of Commerce.

Tim O’Reilly – Further thoughts on SOPA, and why Congress shouldn’t listen???

Further thoughts on SOPA, and why Congress shouldn’t listen to lobbyists

Colleen Taylor of GigaOM interviewed me yesterday by phone on the subject of why I’m opposed to SOPA. Rather than the usual comments about the potential harm to the internet, I focused on the harm to the very content industry that has proposed the law. I highlighted three issues:

Piracy is not the real problem. It’s a symptom of market failure

SOPA protects the wrong people. We need to encourage innovative businesses, not protect those who are unwilling to adapt to new technology

SOPA ignores history. Storied American publishers began as “pirates” in the eyes of the British, yet America grew up to be the largest copyright market in the world.

Read the article: http://gigaom.com/2012/01/13/tim-oreilly-why-im-fighting-sopa/

The President’s challenge – Nat Torkington

As SOPA looks shakier, the President handed a challenge to the technical community:

“Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue Web sites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders,” reads Saturday’s statement. “We should all be committed to working with all interested constituencies to develop new legal tools to protect global intellectual property rights without jeopardizing the openness of the Internet. Our hope is that you will bring enthusiasm and know-how to this important challenge.”

All I can think is: we gave you the Internet. We gave you the Web. We gave you MP3 and MP4. We gave you e-commerce, micropayments, PayPal, Netflix, iTunes, Amazon, the iPad, the iPhone, the laptop, 3G, wifi–hell, you can even get online while you’re on an AIRPLANE. What the hell more do you want from us?

Take the truck, the boat, the helicopter, that we’ve sent you. Don’t wait for the time machine, because we’re never going to invent something that returns you to 1965 when copying was hard and you could treat the customer’s convenience with contempt.

Excellent.

To recap, stop asking the “technical community” to solve your niche issue, one, because there isn’t a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, and two, “we’re never going to invent something that returns you to 1965 when copying was hard.”

Mistruths, Insults from the Copyright Lobby Over HR 3699

I am staunch proponent of open access to scientific information, especially the variety that I paid for by virtue of taxation. The Research Works Act (HR3699) being proposed now will lock away taxpayer funded research from the hands of those whose hard-earned wages funded the research. It???s really a no-brainer and the NIH compromise was generous, allowing publishers to make a profit from research works for a whole year, during the crucial access time for new articles. The AAP argument that they add value by administering peer-review is disingenuous at best, but insulting to the scientists that voluntarily staff their peer reviewer army. Researchers freely add-value to for-profit institutions through providing all peer-review services and assigning copyright to publishers. As Heather Morrison writes in her thorough dissertation on scholarly communication: ???Giving exclusive copyright to any one party is arguably a disservice to all of the other parties who contributed to the research, or for whom it was conducted.??? Additionally, threats of job losses due to the NIH policy on open access are fear-mongering and taxpaying Americans should not have to bear the burden for their failure to innovate an outdated and inefficient mode of research communication.

2011: Piracy Wars and Internet Censorship

Looking back at the past 12 months it???s fair to conclude that 2011 was the year that the entertainment industries focused on piracy-fueled Internet censorship. Domain seizures, DNS blockades, raids and arrests dominated the news, and the threat of the SOPA and PIPA bills in the US left millions of Internet users worried. Let???s see how events unfolded.

At the end of the year when new developments draw to a close, it???s time to take a look back and take stock. Below is our overview of some of the most interesting events we reported during the first half of 2011.

Take a deep breath???

And hold your nose.

Against Monopoly

In short, why should public moneys be spent to guarantee ever higher, not to say exorbitant, returns to copyright owners? This is not the sort of argument lawyers will find attractive, but why trust their judgement since they are big gainers from enforcing prosecution. Better not to have the public pay for enforcement and make the lawyers earn their generous take.

A repackaging of Tim O’Reilly’s fiendishly unattractive “Piracy is progressive taxation” meme is included. 

Copyrights Are No Longer About Copies (Part 1): William Patry – Bloomberg

Hollywood???s best box office yearsever were 2009 and 2010. Net revenue from book sales was up 5.6percent in 2010 from 2008. And sales of e-books, in particular,grew 1,274 percent in those two years.

In the music industry, while the decline in sales ofphysical recorded music continued, the global performance-rightsmarket share increased an impressive 13 percent in 2010 over2009. Even musical instrument sales increased 8 percent over2009.

I note in the debacle surrounding SOPA, rights holders are saying, “Well, maybe SOPA isn’t the way to solve the problem, help us find a better way.” Which sounds pretty reasonable. But as the figures quoted above show, the problem doesn’t exist to be solved. Sure, people are infringing, but rights holders aren’t suffering.

They certainly are not suffering enough to be given State power of coercion to attempt to achieve what only the most despotic and tyrannical regimes on the Planet can.