May 2006

Mr. Valenti, Tear Down This Wall!

by on May 24, 2006 · 4 comments

Last week Ed Felten had the following summary of Larry Lessig’s comments at the Princeton-Microsoft Intellectual Property conference:

He starts by saying that most of his problems are caused by his allies, but his opponents are nicer and more predictable in some ways. Why? (1) Need to unite technologists and lawyers. (2) Need to unite libertarians and liberals. Regarding tech and law, the main conflict is about what constitutes success. He says technologists want 99.99% success, lawyers are happy with 60%. (I don’t think this is quite right.)

I think Lessig is misunderstanding the lawyer-technologist split. It’s not primarily a matter of ideological purity. Rather, I think there are two things going on. First, technologists are less likely to be fooled by “compromises” like Sun’s DReaM that are just the same bad wine poured into new bottles. They understand that because of the way DRM works, most proposals for kinder, gentler DRM won’t turn out to be so kind or gentle in practice. DRM is bad because it requires a central decision maker, be it Apple, Microsoft, Sun, or the DVD CCA, to oversee the design of all devices used with the platform. That’s going to produce lousy technology regardless of the details.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 4 comments

Internet Filters Reconsidered

by on May 24, 2006 · 6 comments

Inevitably, almost all battles about Internet content controls become battles about the effectiveness of Internet filters. That’s because, from the start, many have held out hope that private filters can offer families, schools, libraries and others the opportunity to block objectionable content without getting government involved in the ugly business of Net censorship.

But there have always been filtering critics and, ironically, they come from two very different camps. On one hand, we often hear policymakers or pro-regulation activist groups lamenting the fact that filters are UNDER-inclusive, or miss too much objectionable online content. Indeed, rumors are that the Department of Justice is currently engaged in major effort to build a legal case against filters as an effective private blocking tool. If the government was able to successfully make such a case to the courts, it might help them undo a decade’s worth of jurisprudence that has been built upon the belief that filters offered a “less-restrictive means” of addressing objectionable content compared to vague, over-broad government content control efforts.

Cutting in the opposite direction, many librarians, free expression groups and others have long criticized filters on the grounds that that they are far too OVER-inclusive. These critics consider filters to be fundamentally flawed because they often block access to sites that contain important information. Early examples included filters that blocked access to breast cancer websites because they contained the word “breast,” or others that blocked access to Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey’s website because the word “dick” was blocked by the filter. Moreover, the critics of filter over-inclusiveness also point out that, despite their technical nature, filtering technologies are ultimately quite stupid and depend on the subjective values / morality of their creators. For example, if a filter maker decides that websites discussing homosexual issues were offensive to him, then anyone using his software wouldn’t be able to access those sites either.

These competing anti-filtering forces are still at war today. Not only is the DOJ trying to build a case against private filters, but new bills are being introduced in Congress and pro-regulatory critics are engaged in new efforts to question the effectiveness of filters. (They either want a government-approved filter or want online intermediaries to rid the Net of all content they find “indecent.”) Meanwhile, filters have again come under attack from the folks up at the Free Expression Policy Project (FEPP), which is part of the Brennan Center for Justice. They have just released a revised edition of their “Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report,” which mostly criticizes filters for their over-inclusiveness.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 6 comments

Tall Tales about Piracy

by on May 23, 2006

CNet blithely reports the BSA’s latest study purporting to show that piracy is costing software companies $34 billion.

The Inquirer, on the other hand, is not so credulous:

It says the highest piracy rates are found in Zimbabwe and Vietnam, where it reckons 90 percent of the software in use is illegitimate.

A quick squint at the CIA World Fact Book shows that the unemployment rate in Zimbabwe is 80 percent, as is the estimated proportion of the population living below the poverty line. Other estimates put the average income in the country at around $500 per annum. A further quick squint through the windows of PC World in the UK shows that a copy of Windows Home costs £89 – $168. We’ll let you do the math[s].

While we’re at it, the BSA cobbles together its figures in a manner not wholly approved of by its hired researcher IDC.

IDC says it used “proprietary statistics” for software and hardware shipments, conducted 5,600 surveys and enlisted IDC analysts in 38 countries to confirm software piracy trends.

IDC, however, is on record as suggesting that perhaps one in 10 unauthorized copies might be a lost sale. John Gantz, director of research for IDC, is on record as saying that, in developing nations, many users cannot afford imported software from the West. “I would have preferred to call it the retail value of pirated software,” he said of last year’s BSA report.

As Jim wrote last time the BSA published a wildly exaggerated report on this subject, a bit of skepticism is called for when reporting a study like this. When an industry trade group funds a study that’s transparently in their self-interest, you would think the reporter would give some thought to the ways it might be exaggerating the result to the benefit of the client. He might even call someone who’s not in the pay of the software industry to get an independent opinion.

SHARE:

Ugh. U.S. Federal Political Meddling at ICANN re: TLDs?

by on May 23, 2006

Ben Charny reports that federal officials leaned on ICANN to reject the .xxx domain the other week.

One reason why it’s so easy to reject things like the U.N.‘s demand for a piece of “Internet governance” is because their aims are so transparently political. ICANN remains technically under U.S. government authority, but the government hasn’t exercised that authority much. Perhaps until now.

If true: bad thing.

(HT: Free2Innovate)

SHARE:

The Future of Music?

by on May 23, 2006

Ars profiles eMusic, the world’s number 2 online music retailer. And they don’t use digital rights management, choosing instead to sell their songs in unprotected MP3 format. Yes, you read that right: the world’s #2 music download service doesn’t use DRM technology. Why not? Their focus is on smaller labels:

The majors are terrified of piracy and so insist on strict DRM controls to safeguard their music. The indie labels that eMusic works with generally don’t have that fear. “The indies have always viewed the world differently,” says Pakman. “You know, the indies struggle for attention, for customers, so the notion of someone actually digging a track and e-mailing it to 10 of their best friends–doing self-promotion–that’s music to the ears of the indie record labels. Whereas an RIAA member says, ‘We’ve got to sue that guy.’

This, it seems to me, is the future of the music industry. The large market shares of the major labels is an artifact of 20th century distribution and marketing technologies, which had huge economies of scale. Only a large firm with a national distribution network could hope to compete effectively in a world in which you had massive up-front capital expenditures before you could sell your first record or CD. But that’s no longer true. I can upload an MP3 to my website and I’m a music distributor. Which means that the monolithic structure of the music industry is likely to be under pressure.

Continue reading →

SHARE:

When is Market Power Not Market Power?

by on May 23, 2006

. . . When it’s online!

Google is the dominant search engine. Everybody knows that. As such, it’s an important bottleneck. If you can’t get your stuff out on Google, you’ll have a hard time getting your stuff out. Right?

Rumors are swirling that Google News has declined to treat certain news sources as news sources because of allegedly “hateful” content. Are sites critical of Islam being “disappeared” from Google News? If it’s true, that’s a bad thing. I don’t agree with hatred of Islam, but I want the fullest airing of people’s views on those issues.

So, if it’s true, something should be done. But what? Sue? Seek public-utility-style regulation for search, as is being done with broadband?

Or maybe what needs to be done is already being done.

I just said that rumors are swirling. How much of a bottleneck can Google be when its alleged censoriousness is broadcast by popular blogger Instapundit? This has probably already given more ‘ink’ to these marginal sites than being ranked on Google would.

Take a look again at the NewsBusters site I linked to above where I said “Rumors are swirling“. The discussion includes lots of people swearing off Google, arguing about Google’s search algorithms, comparing Google searches to Yahoo! searches, and yapping about other, dumber stuff.

In other words, based on the rumor that Google is treating certain sites badly, the people that disagree with that are talking about it, changing their search habits, and encouraging others to do so. In precise proportion to the importance of this issue to people in society, Google is losing business. This is what we call a self-correcting market. Google’s market power is feeble. Consumers are in the driver’s seat.

(N.B. Haters of Islam are but a small part of the overall market. If Google chooses not to make those sites available and the majority of consumers accept that, that is by definition what serves the greatest number in the best way. Opponents of that freedom should be clear that they want consumers not to get what they want. They want to force disagreeable speech on an unwelcoming public using government power. Now that would be a bad thing.)

SHARE:

Cell Phone for Me, but not for Thee

by on May 23, 2006

Via Techdirt, there’s fresh evidence that drivers are ignoring cell phone bans:

HUGE numbers of motorists risk causing accidents by driving while using their mobile phones, eating, drinking, smoking, reading maps or even putting on or removing clothing, a survey reveals today.

More than half of motorists still talk and text on their mobile phones while on the move despite a ban on hand-held mobiles in vehicles.

Yet as many as three-quarters of drivers agree with the ban and believe it should carry a fine and penalty points on a licence, the poll from Auto Trader magazine showed.

Now I can’t say I’m a whiz at math, but if half of people drive while using their cell phone, and 75 percent of users think doing so should be illegal, doesn’t that mean that at least 25 percent of the population of the UK are hypocrites?

As I’ve argued before, cell phones aren’t especially dangerous (relative to other distracting things people do in cars), they just happen to make a convenient scapegoat for peoples’ reckless driving. Because they’re so new, and because a lot of people happen to find them intrinsically annoying, it’s easy to whip up populist anti-cell-phone sentiments. The only problem is that most of us have also discovered that being able to make a phone call from your car is incredibly convenient. So many of us apparently do one thing, and tell pollsters another.

SHARE:

Hillary Clinton, Net Neutrality Regulation & the Great Leap of Faith

by on May 23, 2006 · 6 comments

Proving just how surreal the debate over Net neutrality has become, we now have many people telling us that it is “the Internet’s First Amendment” and that federal regulation is needed to “Save the Internet.”

Apparently, these folks have convinced themselves that, at least in this instance, government regulation is really no big deal and that it won’t threaten the future of the Internet. They want us to believe that the same people who have gave us Bridges to Nowhere and an endless string of unbalanced budgets are somehow now well-suited to manage something as complicated as the Internet and broadband networks. They imagine that lawmakers and bureaucrats will regulate just enough to get the job done and help bring about some sort of idyllic Internet nirvana. Moreover, they apparently believe that policymakers will do all this without expansively regulating other online activities, commerce or speech.

How can smart people make this leap of faith? I really think Net neutrality supporters are caught up in a hopeless illusion about government regulation in this case. It all reminds me of a line from those rock-n’-roll sages Guns N’ Roses: “I’ve worked too hard for my illusions just to throw them all away.” (Yes, it’s true, I’m a bit of a head-banger at heart. Moreover, I just get tired of quoting Aristotle and Milton Friedman all the time.)

While it’s true that I am a skeptic about government regulation in almost every instance, I am still surprised about how many Internet-savvy people are willing to make this major leap of faith and put their trust in government without considering the unintended consequences of Big Government control.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 6 comments

Internet-Tapping Revealed

by on May 22, 2006

Wired has dicussion and documentation of how the National Security Agency conducts Internet surveillance, according to former AT&T technician Mark Klein.

SHARE:

“Net Neutrality” Grasstroturf

by on May 22, 2006 · 6 comments

The opponents of broadband regulation have produced an amusing animation that pretty effectively skewers the campaign for “net neutrality.” Why, yes, of course it’s produced by large corporations seeking after their own interests. But the piece effectively points out that the campaign for federal regulation of broadband is also a product of large corporations seeking after their own interests.

So, if it’s a debate between two large corporate interests, we can drop the ad hominem and just discuss which group of large corporations is trying to protect its property and its investments, and which group of large corporations is trying to win rents through the legislative and regulatory process. Figured it out yet? Good.

SHARE: 6 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →