Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology
I hadn’t. According to the Washington Post‘s Ann Hornaday (via DCist), it was an instant landmark in American cinema when made by filmmaker Charles Burnett’s as his master’s thesis at UCLA in the 1970s. It was never released because the soundtrack had too many classic songs in it, making widespread screening too expensive.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals handed down an important 53-page decision today in the case of Fox Television Stations v. Federal Communications Commission. This was the indecency case involving the FCC’s new policy for “fleeting expletives.” [The “Janet Jackson case” is taking place in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and oral arguments will be held in September.]
In a 2-1 decision, the Second Circuit ruled that “the FCC’s new policy sanctioning “fleeting expletives” is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act for failing to articulate a reasoned basis for its change in policy.” As a result, the FCC’s order is vacated and remanded to the agency. Specifically, the Court held:
We find that the FCC’s new policy regarding “fleeting expletives” represents a significant departure from positions previously taken by the agency and relied on by the broadcast industry. We further find that the FCC has failed to articulate a reasoned basis for this change in policy. Accordingly, we hold that the FCC’s new policy regarding “fleeting expletives” is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The decision goes on to demonstrate how, over just the last few years, the FCC has arbitrarily thrown out 30+ years worth of precedent on this front in order to greatly expand the scope of its regulatory authority over speech on broadcast TV and radio.
While the decision was reached solely on the procedural issues at hand, the Court had some very important things to say about the First Amendment-related concerns that were raised by the networks and the other groups and individuals who filed in the case. I filed a joint amicus brief in the case along with John Morris and Sophia Cope of the Center for Democracy & Technology. And, as I explain below, I was happy to see that many of our concerns were taken seriously by the court when discussing the free speech implications of this case.
You should be sure to check out Tim Wu’s smart comments on my Wireless Carterfone article.
Are FLOSS developers the future promise of a competitive ICT sector in the EU because they are…cheaper?
That’s the main point of Section 7.4 of the EC’s FLOSS report (Skills Development and Employment Generation), which argues that not only are FLOSSers faster and better than programmers using commercial software, they’re cheaper, too.
This analysis here is another in a series of blog posts on the EC FLOSS report. Previously, I’ve discussed how the report is a call to action for Europe’s policymakers, that FLOSS’s popularity is growing, and that many FLOSS developers live in the EU. The report’s authors claimed that FLOSSers work faster (ie. are more productive), but as I discussed in FLOSS: The Software Hare that Beats the Proprietary Turtle?, the data didn’t really support that claim. In my last post I concluded that there was only a weak correlation that firms that contribute to FLOSS derive more revenue, on average, than non-contributing companies, and even if there were, the study was devoid of any cause/effect analysis.
By analyzing the EC FLOSS study, I’m not trying to beat up on FLOSS. Overall, the almost 300 page report is more interesting than it appears at first glance, and is actually a good case study on how / how not to devise a study to prove a public policy point. Instead, what really interested me was that the EC sponsored a study advocating for old fashioned industrial policy of preferences and antitrust actions aimed at promoting FLOSS over proprietary software.
Markets aren’t perfect, but government manipulations of supply and demand to achieve a particular result are notorious for very low payback. Moreover, the ICT industry has been a remarkable success in its own right and has driven productivity improvements in nearly every
sector, without the guiding hand of industrial policy like that being called for in the FLOSS study.
Getting back to the meat of this post, the study states that FLOSS developers should be less expensive because just about any teenager can become a FLOSS programmer through informal apprenticeships and learning on their own.
Here’s the logic: increase the supply of workers while holding demand constant, and wages will fall. This is simple economics, but what are the more intricate effects of FLOSS employment generation when it is married to a pro-FLOSS EU industrial policy? Would a FLOSS-driven ICT industry help the EU pursue its Lisbon strategy to increase jobs and growth?
This is part 4 or a multi-part series of essays to coincide with “National Internet Safety Month.” Previous installments discussed online safety metasites, filtering and monitoring tools, and operating system and web browser controls. In this installment, I will be discussing the importance of website labeling and metadata tagging.
All the information in this series is condensed from my forthcoming Progress & Freedom Foundation special report, “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods” which we will be launching on June 20th with an event at the National Press Club.
Years ago Jim Delong started to write a book on property rights–the physical ones. His publisher insisted on discussions of intellectual property. He resisted. Surely, he thought, these things are very different. But he reports his surprising conclusion that the significance of the differences for policy is less than is often thought. Intellectual property, like physical property, must be protected, for the good of consumers and everyone else, doing as little harm as possible. As for the details, “tech” and “content” each raise valid concerns and the results of experimentation and give-and-take impossible to foresee. But a functioning market is in everyone’s interest.
During his tenure at CEI, he debated these issues often with Fred Smith. At first I was on Fred’s side, my own views on IP strongly influenced by Tom Palmer. Over the years, though, I began to see the issue as more difficult than my philosophy could answer by reference to the standard repertoire, even Hayek and Leoni.
Questions about IP arise in a context of hard problems in philosophy of law, difficult questions of empirical economics, and the hard question of how closely law in an advanced economy must resemble primitive law. And a blinding pace of technological and economic change that makes throws existing legal institutions completely out of wack. Particularly enforcement, the aspect of law taken entirely for granted in most policy discussions. In this environment, what are the odds that we can derive the answers we need to practical problems from first principles and get it right the first time?
Thanks Jim. Come back and see us.
I’m planning a paper on how growth in markets affects the efficacy of copyright, and am shopping around an abstract. I welcome your comments. The abstract goes a little something like this:
Does copyright protection offer the best means of stimulating the production of expressive works? Maybe it does now. If so, however, copyright will probably over-protect expressive works in coming years. We should hope that it will, at any rate, given that human progress will render copyright obsolete.
This is the third in a series of essays about how parents can deal with potentially objectionable online content or contacts to coincide with “National Internet Safety Month.” The first installment in this series outlined the many excellent online safety organizations or websites that should be the first place parents begin their search for assistance. The second installment discussed Internet filtering and monitoring tools and software. This installment will discuss how companies like Microsoft and Apple are integrating parental controls into PC operating systems and web browsers.
In part 1 of this series, I noted that the Senate recently passed a resolution (S. Res. 205) declaring June “National Internet Safety Month.” The Resolution “calls on Internet safety organizations, law enforcement, educators, community leaders, parents, and volunteers to increase their efforts to raise the level of awareness for the need for online safety in the United States.”
In conjunction with Internet Safety Month, I am posting a multi-part series of essays about how parents can deal with potentially objectionable online content or contacts. The first installment outlined the many excellent online safety organizations or efforts that should be the first place parents begin their search for assistance. This second installment will discuss the burgeoning market for filtering and monitoring tools and software.
All the information in this series is condensed from my forthcoming Progress & Freedom Foundation special report, “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods.” The booklet provides a broad survey of everything on the market today that can help parents deal with potentially objectionable media content, whether it be on broadcast TV, cable, music, cellular phones, video games, the Internet, or social networking websites. We will be launching the booklet on June 20th with an event at the National Press Club.
Before discussing filters and monitoring tools, I want to again stress that these tools should not be considered substitutes for talking to our children about what they might see or hear while online. Even though various tools and strategies can help parents control the vast majority of objectionable content that their kids might stumble upon while online, no system is perfect. In the end, education and ongoing communication are vital.
The Senate recently passed a resolution (S. Res. 205) declaring June “National Internet Safety Month.” The resolution was sponsored by Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Vice Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). It also had 15 other bipartisan cosponsors. The Resolution “calls on Internet safety organizations, law enforcement, educators, community leaders, parents, and volunteers to increase their efforts to raise the level of awareness for the need for online safety in the United States.” In a press release, Senator Stevens noted that “The Internet is no longer a luxury for American families, but a necessity. It is important to provide a safe online environment for children because use of the Internet is an essential part of our children’s education.”
I think this is a worthwhile goal, and Sen. Stevens and his Senate colleagues are to be commended for their focus on Internet safety education as opposed to the knee-jerk regulatory response we all too often see coming out of Congress on this front.
In a few weeks, I will be releasing my new PFF special report, “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods.” The booklet provides a broad survey of everything on the market today that can help parents deal with potentially objectionable media content, whether it be on broadcast TV, cable, music, cellular phones, video games, the Internet, or social networking websites.
I spend a great deal of time in the report dealing with Internet issues and online safety concerns since it is driving so much legislative and regulatory activity these days. I conclude that, even though it can be quite a challenge at times, parents do have the power to effectively control the Internet and online activities in their children’s lives. But, to do so, parents need to adopt a “layered” approach to online child protection that involves many tools and strategies.
Of course, it goes without saying that these tools and methods should not be considered substitutes for talking to our children about what they might see or hear while online. Even though various tools and strategies can help parents control the vast majority of objectionable content that their kids might stumble upon while online, no system is perfect. In the end, education and ongoing communication are vital.
Anyway, in conjunction with Internet Safety Month, I thought I would put together a multi-part series of essays about how parents can deal with potentially objectionable online content or contacts. This first installment will feature the many excellent online safety organizations or efforts that should be the first place parents begin their search for assistance.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
