May 2007

The Law Is an Ass

by on May 5, 2007 · 50 comments

Mark Blafkin has an puzzling take on this week’s Digg/AACS business:

The real story here is about the ephemeral nature of Web2.0 companies. When your value is based on the people you attract more than the value of any product or service you provide, your grasp on success is tenuous at best. You will always be at the mercy of 5-10 percent of your users that are most active and usually most crazy. Web2.0 has a lot of promise, but it also has some potential pitfalls. We’ve just seen one of them. When you’re relying on “mobs,” well, you’re relying on MOBS.

I’m at a loss what point Blafkin’s trying to make here. Let’s keep in mind that a “Web 2.0 business” is just a website whose contents are controlled by users rather than the site administrator. Or in other words, it’s a website that gives users the freedom to exchange information without having to first seek the permission of the authorities. As a libertarian, that seems to me as an almost unalloyed good.

If the DMCA effectively says that Digg had to choose between breaking the law or shutting down, that seems to me like evidence that there’s something wrong with the DMCA. Digg is not profiting from piracy the way Napster and Grokster were. They’re a legitimate news site whose users happen to have strong anti-censorship views.

Blafkin seems to have the opposite reaction: that if user-generated content is incompatible with the DMCA, then so much the worse for user-generated content. But libertarianism is not about slavishly obeying the law, regardless of the consequences. If copyright law starts effectively outlawing legitimate websites, then copyright law has gone too far.

The Miami Herald reports that Florida has passed legislation ditching touch-screen voting machines. The entire state will switch back to the tried-and-true technology of optical-scan paper ballots. Good for Florida

The rapid shift in the conventional wisdom is kind of stunning. Remember that the primary reason the nation adopted touch-screen voting machines in the first place was the widespread negative publicity surrounding “butterfly ballots” in Florida’s 2000 election. When the Help America Vote Act passed in 2002, there were only a handful of people raising concerns about computerized voting, and they tended to be dismissed as cranks.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. Although it will take some more work (either action by Congress or a lot more legislation at the state level) to replace all the touch-screen voting machines in the country, it’s starting to look like a matter of when, not if.

It’ll be interesting to see how many other states follow Florida’s lead. My guess is that Florida is unique, since they’re the state that had the biggest problems this year, and they’re already sensitive to the issue after the debacle in 2000. But I’m sure people in at least some other states are paying attention. Avi Rubin has been following a paper ballot bill making its way through Maryland’s legislature, so hopefully they’ll be joining Florida in the near future.


Tech Policy Weekly from the Technology Liberation Front is a weekly podcast about technology policy from TLF’s learned band of contributors. The shows’s panelists this week are Jerry Brito, Braden Cox, Hance Haney, Tim Lee, and Ben Klemens of the Brookings Institution. Topics include,

  • The Supreme Court smacks down the Federal Circuit in two major patent decisions
  • the latest in the Vonage vs. Verizon patent saga
  • Digg and the AACS encryption key

There are several ways to listen to the TLF Podcast. You can press play on the player below to listen right now, or download the MP3 file. You can also subscribe to the podcast by clicking on the button for your preferred service. And do us a favor, Digg this podcast!

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

Subscribe to Tech Policy Weekly from TLF on Odeo.com Subscribe to Tech Policy Weekly from TLF in iTunes Add to Pageflakes Subscribe in Bloglines

Here’s Congress siding with Boston’s idiotic public officials. The Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007 would allow government officials to sue people who fail to promptly clear things up when those officials mistakenly think that they have stumbled over a terrorist plot.

There’s nothing in the bill allowing individuals or corporations to sue government officials when hare-brained overreactions interfere with their lives and business or destroy their property.

Good article in this week’s Economist on last week’s Supreme Court decisions on patent law. The magazine compares the KSR decision to a decision by the Privy Council 435 years ago:

“In 1572 the Privy Council of Elizabeth I, the queen of England, refused to grant patent protection to new knives with bone handles because the improvement was marginal. It is only natural that things progress, the council reasoned; minor ameliorations do not cut it. This week America’s Supreme Court decided likewise.”

That’s what I call historical perspective. Worth reading.

Are TV antennas making a comeback? It may be hard to believe, but according to Joe Milicia of the Associated Press, there’s a mini-boom going on in the antenna business. And it’s not just technophobes who are buying them. Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
According to Milicia: “…some consumers are spending thousands of dollars on LCD or plasma TVs and hooking them up to $50 antennas that don’t look much different from what grandpa had on top of his black-and-white picture tube.”

According to the head of an antenna company: “Eighty-year-old technology is being redesigned and rejiggered to deliver the best picture quality. It’s an interesting irony.” The reason is that quite a few people believe HD signals are actually better over-the-air, and with digital technology snow and other interference is less of a problem. “Over-the-air everything is perfect,” said one consumer.

It’s a controversial point, to say the very least. And it hard to imagine the general public returning to the world of over-the-air. Most people, one researcher is quoted as saying, don’t even know they can get HD over-the-air. And many — as Gary Shapiro has pointed out — just don’t care. Still, if there is even a short-term boom in antennas, this is a rare bit of good news for the beleagured broadcast industry.

Perhaps rotary-dial phones will come back next…

Over at Cato@Liberty, I’ve got a post making the slightly obvious point that Digg is a microcosm of the Internet as a whole. Digg, like the Internet as a whole, is an automated and decentralized information-processing system. And just as Digg ultimately faced a choice between allowing the AACS key to be on the site or shutting the site down, we face the same basic choice as a society: unless we want to shut down the Internet (or radically redesign it, which could amount to the same thing) we’ve got little choice but to allow some level of illicit content to be traded.

This seems to me to be a nice illustration of a point that I’ve often tried to make about the network neutrality debate, because it seems to me that the telcos face a similar challenge with regard to their management of their networks. Many of the horror stories pro-regulatory types tell about a post-neutrality future assume that the telcos have fine-grained control over what kind of content flows over their networks. That they’re censor liberal blogs, or shut down particular categories of new innovative applications, or sign exclusive deals where (say) one sports website is the official sports website, and all the others are blocked or degraded.

But an ISP attempting to implement such a fine-grained, coercive strategy on a user base numbering in the millions is likely to find their users reacting in creative ways that confound the scheme. Tech-savvy users will immediately start running services on non-standard ports or tunneling their connections over encrypted links. They’ll find ways to camouflage one category of traffic as another, such as making a VoIP session look like a World of Warcraft game. Soon you’d start seeing user-friendly applications available for download to allow moderately tech-savvy users to use the same tricks. And applications developers will start integrating these tricks into their applications, so that the application will automatically detect whose network they’re on and use the appropriate countermeasure.

(Geeky aside: it’s possible to imagine open source networking libraries that do this automatically and transparently, presenting an API that allows the application developer pretend he’s on a normal, open network. Indeed, I bet you’d end up with a situation similar to the situation we saw with open source instant messaging libraries a couple years ago: the telco would introduce new routing polices in an effort to break unauthorized applications. The creators of the circumvention libraries would find a new work-around, publish it, and all the application developers would have to do would be to download the new library and recompile.)

Of course, the telcos could always go for the nuclear option and block all traffic it can’t validate as “approved,” effectively converting the open network into a closed one But that would come at a very high price, because there’s a long tail of content and along tail of applications. An Internet that only does the things on your ISP’s approved list is dramatically less useful than an open Internet, just as Digg would be a dramatically less successful site if it only featured stories that had been pre-vetted by the telco’s employees.

So while telcos may have formal control over their pipes, they probably have less practical control over Internet content than is generally assumed. An open network is much more useful to users (and will therefore generate more revenue) than a closed one, but once you have an open network it’s very hard to limit how it’s used.

This is just a quick follow-up to an entry I posted late last year about Clear Channel’s possible divestiture of a significant number of its radio stations across America. Now we’re getting details and the sell-off is ready to begin. On Wednesday, Clear Channel said it would be selling 362 of its 1,150 radio stations as the company continues to shed assets and go private. Clear Channel hopes to fetch roughly $820 million from the sale of these radio stations. The company is also selling off TV assets. All total, the company expects to divest itself of almost $1.9 billion worth of properties.

As I’ve said many times before in this ongoing “media deconsolidation series,” this is just another sign of how dynamic the media marketplace is. Despite all the hand-wringing we’ve seen over media consolidation in recent years, critics fail to realize that this industry has continued to rapidly evolve, expand and innovate regardless of the ebbs and flows of media ownership patterns. A few years ago, mergers and acquisitions were all the rage. Today, however, a “back-to-basics” strategy is back in vogue that is seeing operators shed assets to figure out how to make customers happy while also weathering the storm of technological changes reshaping the media landscape. In other words, markets work!

But don’t expect the media Chicken Littles to say a peep about any of this. They’re always too busy concocting their next horror story about how the media sky is about to fall on our heads. This week, it’s the Rupert Murdoch offer for the Wall Street Journal. Who knows what it will be tomorrow, but there’s always something they want to complain about. Meanwhile, the rest of us are struggling to deal with the avalanche of media options that we’re showered with every second of our lives.

Continue reading →

Say what you want about Rupert Murdoch, but the man certainly knows how to make news. His bid for Dow Jones two days ago – despite being initially rejected by Dow Jones’ controlling family — is still reverberating through media, financial, and political circles.

From the start, the proposed deal came under a hail of criticism. That is in itself unsurprising. Murdoch is so unpopular that any acquisition would be roundly condemned. If he tried to buy a ham sandwich for lunch that would be condemned.

But isn’t this a debate over media concentration, not just Murdoch? Anti-media consolidation activists, of course, have trotted out all the usual concentration-of-power arguments. The media market has been called a monopoly, an oligopoly, and every other type of poly that can be found in Greek dictionaries. But these arguments have sounded even more hollow than usual. There’s little overlap between Dow Jones and Murdoch’s News Corporation. Dow Jones owns newspapers – mostly small ones and one really big one – but has no broadcast holdings. News Corporation owns TV stations but only one newspaper in the U.S.

Continue reading →

Just a Number

by on May 3, 2007 · 26 comments

I mostly agree with Tom Lee’s point here, but I think he’s being a little bit unfair in his characterization of Ed Felten’s post on the AACS/Digg incident. Tom says:

I’m no fan of DRM, and I think the AACS LA’s actions are pointless and stupid. But Doctorow and Felten are being disingenuous — they’re simply too smart not to see the problem with this argument. Namely, that any type of data, sampled at a chosen level of precision, can be represented as a number. Consequently, if you believe that one or more types of information deserve legal protection — as Felten seems to, when he refers to songs & movies — then the argument that “it’s just a number!” becomes ridiculous.

Sixteen bytes is probably too short to merit a copyright. But that’s not the right that the AACS LA is asserting: they’re calling the code a “circumvention device” under the DMCA. And even if you don’t recognize the DMCA’s validity, there are other forms of intellectual property protection that may apply — there are laws related to trade secrets, for example. If you just think about it a little, it should be obvious that even a very short piece of data can enjoy some kinds of legal protection. Sixteen bytes is more that enough room to encode the words “Coca-Cola”, after all.

The thing is, geeks like to pretend that the legal system is some sort of Rube Goldberg contraption, easily foiled by their unparalleled cleverness. Sadly, this isn’t the case. All the IANAL-prefixed prattling on Slashdot about quick & easy ways to make yourself legally bulletproof when the cops/MPAA/interpol come knocking are little more than wishful thinking. It’s like holding your finger an inch from your sibling’s face and yelling, “I’m not touching you!” over and over. Your parents weren’t dumb enough to fall for that, and neither is the legal system.

He’s right about the Rube Goldberg thing. As a matter of law, the fact that something is “just a number” won’t help you if you’re guilty of violating copyright law. Moreover, the position that anything that’s “just a number” should never be restricted is obviously ridiculous. I’m perfectly comfortable with restricting (say) numbers that are JPEG representations of child pornography or PDFs of sealed grand jury testimony. Clearly some “numbers” ought to be legally restricted.

Continue reading →