Barrack Obama has followed on the coattails of Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig in calling on copyright holders to waive those rights for footage of the Presidential Democratic debates:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6438871.html?rssid=193 - Obama
http://www.lessig.org/blog/ - Lessig's Blog
In a surprising response, MSNBC has decided to hold on to the rights of that footage, except for very restrictive exceptions. It's just ANOTHER example of the ridiculousness of property in an event. Since there really is no public interest standard or accountability any more in television (or any media) broadcasting, MSNBC will be able to claim ownership of a recording of a significant event. Tell me how this makes one bit of sense.
In relation, Representative Dingell, of Michigan, is pushing to revive the fairness doctrine. How does this have any bearing? Well, reviving the the fairness doctrine is one step in the right direction to revitalizing the commitment to public interest and necessity of important information for consumers. A new fairness doctrine could contain language that would require records of historic or politically important events to be free domain information. Simply because MSNBC, or whoever, has the equipment to record these events, or has been sold the footage to these events does not make them the sole owners of the cultural significance of those events. Some things are too important to be tied up in private ownership - these debates count as one of those things.
So, I think that the Democratic Presidential candidates should bypass the arrogant media companies that propose to own this footage. There is a universe of possible choices. They could bypass the traditional model for debates alltogether, cut out the middle man and produce the event themselves. Post it on Youtube, there is no reason to utilize traditional media or television when such alternatives exist. These candidates have voiced their belief that people shouldn't own rights to these events. The best way to demonstrate that rhetoric is not to participate in the creation of an event that will be owned. Candidates are beginning to understand the impact and utility of the internet in creating momentum for their movements, and they shouldn't be so clumsy and ignorant in their rhetoric. Here's an opportunity for all of these people involved to demonstrate a commitment to their ideals. If they say that they don't want people to own the copyrights, then they need to become the producers, they need to have a legitimate claim to the rights of ownership and then rescind those rights. Those actions will create the trust and accountability that lacks demonstration in traditional campaigns.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Vonage and Verizon: Crisis in Communications (infrastructure)
In the beginning, there was AT&T. And they were granted a govt. approved monopoly because laying the infrastructure for a national network for telephony was extremely expensive. They retained their basic monopoly until late into the 20th century. What does this have to do with Vonage and Verizon? Despite the fact that Vonage may have "infringed" on patent rights, I think that it's important to recognize that the foundation of Vonage's service depends upon the use of the technologies that Verizon has developed and Vonage (may) be using.
I had a discussion with my father about the morality or the legality about Vonage's use of their land lines to conduct business. That may be a separate matter, but it may be just as inextricably connected with the patent offense as any telecommunication issue at law. Becaaause, what we have is an international network of in-ground wired, wireless, satellite and cross-ocean cables that are expensive to lay and maintain. YES, this is certainly the truth. And it is indispensable.
However, should we expect Vonage to begin laying its own ground wire, or its own fiber optics?? That is an unreasonable, and really inefficient expectation. The laying of infrastructure should be treated as a public utility .. more so! It should be a subsidized by federal govt.! The necessity of that infrastructure has been explicated by the UN. The importance of a global communication network is a social good that cannot be overstated. The creation of cheap and competetive services that can utilize the infrastructure already laid should be the aim of legislation and arbitration. This is a concert objective.
Vonage, or whoever, should be allowed to use these networks, and not have to pay much of a service fee for using patents, or using networks already laid. Like highways, like waterways, the telecommunication networks should be a subsidized property; their obvious necessity doesn't require further explanation. The law, in this respect, needs to understand the economic and social ramifications of allowing Vonage to use these networks and the technology to create competetive networks.
I had a discussion with my father about the morality or the legality about Vonage's use of their land lines to conduct business. That may be a separate matter, but it may be just as inextricably connected with the patent offense as any telecommunication issue at law. Becaaause, what we have is an international network of in-ground wired, wireless, satellite and cross-ocean cables that are expensive to lay and maintain. YES, this is certainly the truth. And it is indispensable.
However, should we expect Vonage to begin laying its own ground wire, or its own fiber optics?? That is an unreasonable, and really inefficient expectation. The laying of infrastructure should be treated as a public utility .. more so! It should be a subsidized by federal govt.! The necessity of that infrastructure has been explicated by the UN. The importance of a global communication network is a social good that cannot be overstated. The creation of cheap and competetive services that can utilize the infrastructure already laid should be the aim of legislation and arbitration. This is a concert objective.
Vonage, or whoever, should be allowed to use these networks, and not have to pay much of a service fee for using patents, or using networks already laid. Like highways, like waterways, the telecommunication networks should be a subsidized property; their obvious necessity doesn't require further explanation. The law, in this respect, needs to understand the economic and social ramifications of allowing Vonage to use these networks and the technology to create competetive networks.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
R.I.P.: Citizen-Broadcast Radio
The panel of judges presiding over the case of webradio broadcast royalties has blocked attempts to initiate any further review. Royalties will be charged starting May 15. This is a decisive defeat for cultural reinterpretation and citizen-level broadcasting. The royalties will deter many from listening to broadcasts (because they will either need to pay subscription fees, or else listen to commercials surrounding their music).
Where we can, we would prefer not to have our own culture packaged, repurposed and sold back to us.
I forcefully sound of cry of "Democracy, NOW!" whenever I talk about the potential of the internet. The potential for long-distance communication of just about any media so far conceived. The movement of goods and ideas throughout the globe, without resorting to an intermediary. It is a shame to think that private citizens cannot engage in private discussions with other individuals without being assaulted by the commercial messages of others. It seems an invasion of space, peace and privacy.
Mostly, I'm disappointed at the rallying power of the medium. The fact that web radio has suffered this blow suggests to me that the internet does not have the power I thought it had. Or, if I'm too pesimistic, I can at least say that people didn't organize quickly or strongly around this - in which case we have resolved to be invaded by commercial messages. Either way, I see culture and history as being assaulted, as being distorted; being wrapped up in a lie of commercialism. When I can't stop thinking about Cadillac when I also think about Led Zeppelin, a shiver runs through my spine. At least "Oh Lord, would you buy me a Mercedes-Benz" was a cultural and social critique using popular imagery - it was commercialism focused through cultural production. With Cadillac/Led Zeppelin, the commercial edifice is hijacking (STEALING!) our collective cultural history and forcing us to PAY for it.
Where we can, we would prefer not to have our own culture packaged, repurposed and sold back to us.
I forcefully sound of cry of "Democracy, NOW!" whenever I talk about the potential of the internet. The potential for long-distance communication of just about any media so far conceived. The movement of goods and ideas throughout the globe, without resorting to an intermediary. It is a shame to think that private citizens cannot engage in private discussions with other individuals without being assaulted by the commercial messages of others. It seems an invasion of space, peace and privacy.
Mostly, I'm disappointed at the rallying power of the medium. The fact that web radio has suffered this blow suggests to me that the internet does not have the power I thought it had. Or, if I'm too pesimistic, I can at least say that people didn't organize quickly or strongly around this - in which case we have resolved to be invaded by commercial messages. Either way, I see culture and history as being assaulted, as being distorted; being wrapped up in a lie of commercialism. When I can't stop thinking about Cadillac when I also think about Led Zeppelin, a shiver runs through my spine. At least "Oh Lord, would you buy me a Mercedes-Benz" was a cultural and social critique using popular imagery - it was commercialism focused through cultural production. With Cadillac/Led Zeppelin, the commercial edifice is hijacking (STEALING!) our collective cultural history and forcing us to PAY for it.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Apple & EMI remove DRM
"What do consumers think their freedom is worth?" I think that it is most important question to keep at the fore of our minds as we engage with the changes that Apple and EMI are instituted. I was very impressed with the decision to relax DRM on songs, but the kicker is that additional 30 cents - it's a matter of principal, tied to the greater implications of what 30 cents can come to symbolize. I suppose we're supposed to feel elated by the grace of Apple & EMI to provide us access to our culture ( or our neighbors') in a widely tradable format, and for only an additional 30 cents per song!!!
Does 30 cents represent the output of some complex formula predicting losses resulting from illegally traded files? To me it just seems to be the arbitrary economic moniker given to free[ly tradable] culture. Then again, what it may come to represent may be something wholly different, or even negligible. But, I think that the most interest outcome from this agreement - aside from the impending results of Jobs' "market experiment", is the commidifcation of "trading" culture.
Maybe it's not wholly unique, but this is certainly an iteration of it. Not only has Apple priced cultural artifacts (in this case music) at 99 cents, but now they and EMI have provided consumers with a price for the "free" trade of cultural artifacts. I'm not satisfied with this sort of determination of what I thought was a free activity. Certainly, information storage and distribution of it have influenced the commodification of those technologies and the particular information being traded ... but I always thought that direct peer-to-peer exchanges couldn't be commodified.
I keep conjuring up an image of having to pay to share a bite of pizza with my girlfriend. I know that's a stretch of an analogy, but I think enough can be milked to create the foundation for the consternation I feel toward this new 30 cent-scheme. It's very simple, and I agree that it is a shaky experiment, but it's practicing commodifying direct peer-to-peer sharing - no medium, no third parties involved. 30 cents, to me, is an invasion of my rights of property and liberty - I dissent from the proposal that commodifies the activity of personal exchanges (as separated from the commodities exchanged). I refuse to acknowledge that freedom of exchange can be commodified.
Does 30 cents represent the output of some complex formula predicting losses resulting from illegally traded files? To me it just seems to be the arbitrary economic moniker given to free[ly tradable] culture. Then again, what it may come to represent may be something wholly different, or even negligible. But, I think that the most interest outcome from this agreement - aside from the impending results of Jobs' "market experiment", is the commidifcation of "trading" culture.
Maybe it's not wholly unique, but this is certainly an iteration of it. Not only has Apple priced cultural artifacts (in this case music) at 99 cents, but now they and EMI have provided consumers with a price for the "free" trade of cultural artifacts. I'm not satisfied with this sort of determination of what I thought was a free activity. Certainly, information storage and distribution of it have influenced the commodification of those technologies and the particular information being traded ... but I always thought that direct peer-to-peer exchanges couldn't be commodified.
I keep conjuring up an image of having to pay to share a bite of pizza with my girlfriend. I know that's a stretch of an analogy, but I think enough can be milked to create the foundation for the consternation I feel toward this new 30 cent-scheme. It's very simple, and I agree that it is a shaky experiment, but it's practicing commodifying direct peer-to-peer sharing - no medium, no third parties involved. 30 cents, to me, is an invasion of my rights of property and liberty - I dissent from the proposal that commodifies the activity of personal exchanges (as separated from the commodities exchanged). I refuse to acknowledge that freedom of exchange can be commodified.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Stream of Consciousness
Excuse the following, it's more of a stream of consciousness rant. The context is really disconnected, and it's more a glimpse in to how I formulate my thoughts then how I would really try to communicate them ... I find it rather therapeutic, though, and visceral (so perhaps, honest):
Information is transmitted as unintelligible packages of digital data, actually as electrons. We call them digital ones(1) and zeros(0) because that's how electrical engineers code ON/OFF for electrons. We humans cannot actually interpret that data, we need technology to take that data, unpack it, re-configure it and retransmit it through intelligible media for us to make sense of it. If I had the digital code that made up the song on a printout, would that be stealing, as well?
FURTHERMORE, the last time you download a paper, a song, a movie or a television show how long did it take you to do so? That's because the totality of the file is fragmented. We refer to them as files or documents when we see them on our computer screens because it's a convenient way to organize and represent this data to a species that cognitively orders things by wholes. Even on your computer this data is infinitely fragmented based on the logical programming of computers (whatever that is, I really wish I knew).
SO, if I download 2.5 megabytes of a 3, 4 or 5 megabyte file that happens to be copyrighted, am I violating the law??? What if I stole half a CD? (like, took it out, broke it in half and took it... okay, besides being destruction of property)Is that theft? Oh! And if I buy a CD, and 10 years down the road the CD is scratched so that I can't play it anymore, do I have a contract with whomever I bought it from, or from the recording company to provide me a new CD? Am I buying the CD (medium) or the information (data)?
ANYWAY, HOW DO YOU OWN ELECTRONS!!??
Information is transmitted as unintelligible packages of digital data, actually as electrons. We call them digital ones(1) and zeros(0) because that's how electrical engineers code ON/OFF for electrons. We humans cannot actually interpret that data, we need technology to take that data, unpack it, re-configure it and retransmit it through intelligible media for us to make sense of it. If I had the digital code that made up the song on a printout, would that be stealing, as well?
FURTHERMORE, the last time you download a paper, a song, a movie or a television show how long did it take you to do so? That's because the totality of the file is fragmented. We refer to them as files or documents when we see them on our computer screens because it's a convenient way to organize and represent this data to a species that cognitively orders things by wholes. Even on your computer this data is infinitely fragmented based on the logical programming of computers (whatever that is, I really wish I knew).
SO, if I download 2.5 megabytes of a 3, 4 or 5 megabyte file that happens to be copyrighted, am I violating the law??? What if I stole half a CD? (like, took it out, broke it in half and took it... okay, besides being destruction of property)Is that theft? Oh! And if I buy a CD, and 10 years down the road the CD is scratched so that I can't play it anymore, do I have a contract with whomever I bought it from, or from the recording company to provide me a new CD? Am I buying the CD (medium) or the information (data)?
ANYWAY, HOW DO YOU OWN ELECTRONS!!??
Friday, February 23, 2007
On the way
Boston-based Representative Michael Costello is backing a bill in Massachusetts that would set forth a scheme to hold "commercial entities" (profit or non-profit) to bear financial responsibility when they are robbed of sensitive customer data. This reimbursement proposal only covers bank fees, reissuing fees and reimbursement for fraudulent charges, and this money will be paid to the banks. (Full story - http://news.com.com/2100-7348_3-6161536.html)
I wish I could be excited about this news, but there is still not enough accountability being laid out by this scheme. When we agree to a transaction with a company, we do so on per-transaction basis. Of course, the record of the transaction necessarily requires them to store our data, but for how long? And then, for what purpose? Will some of these companies deny that they resell the information to other companies, or use that information to advertise other commercial holdings they may have to consumers? This is not public-domain information, and the fact that personal information that we give over for purpose of transaction can be used as a commercial advertising tool is a disgusting perversion and intrusion into consumer rights.
I support the Representative from Boston in his ideological push, but I can't support the limited effect of his bill. It's almost sad that we need a written law to compel these "commercial" entities to reimburse reissue costs and fraudulent charges - it was their negligence that led to the theft, it seems painfully obvious whose responsibility it becomes to pay out. The bill should push harder, requiring these companies to restrict storage, access and utility of this information. It should also account for personal damages done to individuals - damage of trust, potential damage to credit history, and other mental damages that many people experience when such vital information is stolen. This is a reiteration of something I've said before - in an age where our social security numbers, credit card numbers, etc. can provide skilled individuals access to our entire history, there need to be proper penalties and compulsion to protect and limit the dissemination of this information. The U.S. government traces credit records to build cases against people supplying money to terrorist fronts and organizations. It then deprives them of basic civil rights while it detains those individuals. This is dark reality, and as ID continues, it becomes a clear that people will be falsely accused and detained.
There need to be harsher penalties and compelling rules to force "commercial" entities to restrict their use and storage of this sensitive data. I appluad these beginning efforts, although they come a little late in the game, but also reproach the bill's weak language. The information being lost is not the bank's. It belongs to the individuals who place trust in the security of these companies, and in the strength and security of this economy. Such weak legislation acts as a simple slap on the wrist, and the real victims remain shadowed by the dealings of large private financial institutions.
I wish I could be excited about this news, but there is still not enough accountability being laid out by this scheme. When we agree to a transaction with a company, we do so on per-transaction basis. Of course, the record of the transaction necessarily requires them to store our data, but for how long? And then, for what purpose? Will some of these companies deny that they resell the information to other companies, or use that information to advertise other commercial holdings they may have to consumers? This is not public-domain information, and the fact that personal information that we give over for purpose of transaction can be used as a commercial advertising tool is a disgusting perversion and intrusion into consumer rights.
I support the Representative from Boston in his ideological push, but I can't support the limited effect of his bill. It's almost sad that we need a written law to compel these "commercial" entities to reimburse reissue costs and fraudulent charges - it was their negligence that led to the theft, it seems painfully obvious whose responsibility it becomes to pay out. The bill should push harder, requiring these companies to restrict storage, access and utility of this information. It should also account for personal damages done to individuals - damage of trust, potential damage to credit history, and other mental damages that many people experience when such vital information is stolen. This is a reiteration of something I've said before - in an age where our social security numbers, credit card numbers, etc. can provide skilled individuals access to our entire history, there need to be proper penalties and compulsion to protect and limit the dissemination of this information. The U.S. government traces credit records to build cases against people supplying money to terrorist fronts and organizations. It then deprives them of basic civil rights while it detains those individuals. This is dark reality, and as ID continues, it becomes a clear that people will be falsely accused and detained.
There need to be harsher penalties and compelling rules to force "commercial" entities to restrict their use and storage of this sensitive data. I appluad these beginning efforts, although they come a little late in the game, but also reproach the bill's weak language. The information being lost is not the bank's. It belongs to the individuals who place trust in the security of these companies, and in the strength and security of this economy. Such weak legislation acts as a simple slap on the wrist, and the real victims remain shadowed by the dealings of large private financial institutions.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Information Responsibility
In a country and economy that increasingly relies upon and utilizes data storage and light speed data transfer technologies, is it any surprise that privacy rights are changing, as well? Or at least, that the lack of protection of those rights is being exploited? I'm talking about the plethora of news stories and cases that involve the gathering, storage and eventual "loss" of sensitive personal data. This unfortunately predictable series of events has come to characterize the modern lack or privacy and responsibility, at least in the US, that centers around information transfer.
The Veteran's Affairs data loss and the TJX loss are two prevalent and fresh events that characterize the laissez-faire attitude toward data aggregation. The sensitive data which we provide about ourselves to companies or organizations that don't take adequate precautions to protect that data MUST STOP. Whether it is by contactual agreement/obligation or voluntary surrender of this information, there should be an expectation that this data is provided the utmost security. And in the event that this data is captured or stolen, there should be public outrage and reimbursment for those effected.
In a recent courtcase in Great Britain, a government financial agency fined Nationwide Building Society for what it has reported as a stolen laptop computer containing sensitive consumer information (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6360715.stm). What is astounding is that more decisions of this kind are not happening. In the two cases mentioned above, the only action that will most likely take place will be initiated by private individuals who were victimized by the events. This is a ridiculous state of affairs regarding government regulations, and by extention the lack of political will of consumers to stand up against this sort of irresponsible business behavior.
If you gave these businesses a physical object to be kept for safekeeping and they lost it, you would be outraged and likely to seek compensation. Why aren't consumers equally outraged when these businesses REQUIRE the disclosure of sensitive information, gather this information for sale as consumer statistical data, and then lose that sensitive information because of their own incompetence. At the very least, there should be compensation for the mental anguish of having to worry about the potential difficulties one might face in the future: Stolen identities, ruined credit scores, etc. In an age where identity is linked to measured transactions, misidentification of an individual can lead to indeterminate detention. In a time where suspected terrorism provides reasonable grounds for detention, data theft should be a hot-button issue.
Furthermore, the fact that this information is being collected not just as a financial record, but also as saleable information to marketeers is a major invasion of privacy. Given the current state of intellectual property rights, it's surprising that individuals haven't started to copyright their consumption habits. This information does not exist publicly, it is not overtly observable, it is the product of calculated and invasive methods to determine what ads to send your way, what purchasing behaviors to reinforce, and how to most likely convince you to buy something you may or may not need. This is shameful data theft, and its justification is unprecedented.
Does this happen because many people are unaware that it's actually taking place? Probably. If people were aware that their membership cards were being used to record their consumption habits, not just to give them "rewards", and if they knew that such data was being sold amongst companies, they would either want a piece of the sales, or (most likely) they would want it to stop. But adding the most insult to that injury is the carelessness with which that sensitive data is treated. Laptops and portable hard drives are stolen because they are left recklessly lying about. Computer systems aren't incrypted while they transmit whole credit card accounts.
Our identities are property, and this portrait provides a new way to conceive of that identity. If businesses want to tell us that their corporate image is intellectual property, then I say that my consumption habits are my intellectual property, and if you want to make money of that, then you'll have to reimburse me for taking that - if I let you take it at all. I don't see the targeted ads aimed at me as any sort of pro-consumer activity, it's just another way to determine HOW to sell things to me, not an evaluation of what I might need. Unfortunately, I have very few rights as a consumer any more. I don't have the financial power, and I don't have the bargaining power. But hopefully this issue becomes more apparent, as I'm sure it will as more and more instances of data theft and identity theft take place.
The Veteran's Affairs data loss and the TJX loss are two prevalent and fresh events that characterize the laissez-faire attitude toward data aggregation. The sensitive data which we provide about ourselves to companies or organizations that don't take adequate precautions to protect that data MUST STOP. Whether it is by contactual agreement/obligation or voluntary surrender of this information, there should be an expectation that this data is provided the utmost security. And in the event that this data is captured or stolen, there should be public outrage and reimbursment for those effected.
In a recent courtcase in Great Britain, a government financial agency fined Nationwide Building Society for what it has reported as a stolen laptop computer containing sensitive consumer information (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6360715.stm). What is astounding is that more decisions of this kind are not happening. In the two cases mentioned above, the only action that will most likely take place will be initiated by private individuals who were victimized by the events. This is a ridiculous state of affairs regarding government regulations, and by extention the lack of political will of consumers to stand up against this sort of irresponsible business behavior.
If you gave these businesses a physical object to be kept for safekeeping and they lost it, you would be outraged and likely to seek compensation. Why aren't consumers equally outraged when these businesses REQUIRE the disclosure of sensitive information, gather this information for sale as consumer statistical data, and then lose that sensitive information because of their own incompetence. At the very least, there should be compensation for the mental anguish of having to worry about the potential difficulties one might face in the future: Stolen identities, ruined credit scores, etc. In an age where identity is linked to measured transactions, misidentification of an individual can lead to indeterminate detention. In a time where suspected terrorism provides reasonable grounds for detention, data theft should be a hot-button issue.
Furthermore, the fact that this information is being collected not just as a financial record, but also as saleable information to marketeers is a major invasion of privacy. Given the current state of intellectual property rights, it's surprising that individuals haven't started to copyright their consumption habits. This information does not exist publicly, it is not overtly observable, it is the product of calculated and invasive methods to determine what ads to send your way, what purchasing behaviors to reinforce, and how to most likely convince you to buy something you may or may not need. This is shameful data theft, and its justification is unprecedented.
Does this happen because many people are unaware that it's actually taking place? Probably. If people were aware that their membership cards were being used to record their consumption habits, not just to give them "rewards", and if they knew that such data was being sold amongst companies, they would either want a piece of the sales, or (most likely) they would want it to stop. But adding the most insult to that injury is the carelessness with which that sensitive data is treated. Laptops and portable hard drives are stolen because they are left recklessly lying about. Computer systems aren't incrypted while they transmit whole credit card accounts.
Our identities are property, and this portrait provides a new way to conceive of that identity. If businesses want to tell us that their corporate image is intellectual property, then I say that my consumption habits are my intellectual property, and if you want to make money of that, then you'll have to reimburse me for taking that - if I let you take it at all. I don't see the targeted ads aimed at me as any sort of pro-consumer activity, it's just another way to determine HOW to sell things to me, not an evaluation of what I might need. Unfortunately, I have very few rights as a consumer any more. I don't have the financial power, and I don't have the bargaining power. But hopefully this issue becomes more apparent, as I'm sure it will as more and more instances of data theft and identity theft take place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)