June 2010

I’m Not a Journalist, I Just Play One on Twitter

by on June 15, 2010 · 1 comment

I’ll be doing some live-Tweeting from today’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC) workshop, “Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” This workshop will feature various experts discussing the FTC’s 47-page “staff discussion draft,” which outlines “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism.”

Looks like most people will just be using the #FTC hashtag and perhaps #journalism as well.  My Twitter handle is @AdamThierer and I think @BerinSzoka will be here later, too.

Here’s some additional background on why this debate is so controversial:

SHARE: 1 comment

You Might Do Not Have to Use Files

by on June 14, 2010 · 9 comments

The grandly-named Public Domain Archive, evidently a production of Osaka-based Digirock, Inc., offers a few MP3s of classical music and historical speeches. Thanks to a suggestion from Tyler Cowen, I’m enjoying a 1942 recording of Beethoven’s 9th even as I type. Am I breaking the law in so doing? The copyright notice posted on the Public Domain Archive, while quite charming, hardly reassures:

To the People
In japan, All files open to the public on this site are certainly lawful.
But, if you do not live in Japan, You might do not have to use files.
You should check the law of your country.

As proves too often true for works, like this 1942 recording, that fall under the aegis of the 1909 Copyright Act, it is not easy to figure out if the underylying work enjoys any claim to protection under U.S. law. Perhaps, after all, it was not published with the proper formalities, here, and thus fell into the public domain.

In this case, though, it looks like we can dodge those complications. U.S. copyright law affords exclusive rights only to copying, creation of derivative works, public distribution, public performance, and public display. See 17 USC § 106. So long as I listen to a MP3 solely via streaming, without saving a copy, it is hard to see how I’ve violated any of those rights. Perhaps Digirock, Inc. has violated U.S. law by offering me the MP3, but that is no concern of mine (and probably not much of a concern to Digirock, Inc.).

That legal scenario suggests an interesting conclusion: an offshore copyright-free zone—one set up by intellectual pirates or in a stubbornly independent country—might give U.S. residents ample, free, and legal access to all sorts of copyrighted works—even ones protected under U.S. law.

[Crossposted at Agoraphilia and The Technology Liberation Front.]

SHARE: 9 comments

NetChoice to Commerce Department: Be Our Advocate Over There, Over Here

by on June 14, 2010 · 0 comments

Now is a critical time for online commerce as policymakers assess their approaches to privacy. And as NetChoice says in our comments filed today, now is the perfect time for the Department of Commerce to be more involved in privacy issues.

What? We’re calling for more government involvement in a politically charged issue? Yes, and here’s why it’s an appropriate response to the Commerce Dept’s Notice of Inquiry.

Data flows today are much more complex than they were even a decade ago.  Simple one-way transfers between one country and another have been replaced by multinational corporations that transfer data across multiple jurisdictions on a daily basis.

Because of this, privacy-related laws and regulation can have a broad impact on the growth of online commerce, not just here in the U.S. but across the globe. And as a voice for commerce, the Department of Commerce should promote pro-commerce policies over there (EU, Asia, elsewhere) and over here (in the U.S.).

Here’s what we say in our comments:

  • The Commerce Department should act as an international ambassador for innovative American online companies.  The Department can play an important role as a government-to-government advocate for flexible international rules to promote continued innovation and economic growth.  And as a government agency speaking to other government agencies, the Commerce Department can bring credibility and leverage that cannot be matched by corporate interests alone.
  • Domestically, the Commerce Department should work with the FTC to step-up state and federal enforcement against unfair or deceptive information practices. Aggressive enforcement will help foster a better climate for innovation than would expanded regulation. Continue reading →

SHARE: 0 comments

Clay Shirky on Cognitive Surplus

by on June 14, 2010 · 3 comments

On this week’s episode of the podcast, Clay Shirky, adjunct professor at New York University’s Interactive Telecommunications Program, discusses his new book, Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age. Shirky talks about social and economic effects of Internet technologies and interrelated effects of social and technological networks.  In this podcast he discusses social production, open source software, Wikipedia, defaults, Facebook, and more.

Related Readings

Do check out the interview, and consider subscribing to the show on iTunes. Past guests have included Nick Carr on what the internet is doing to our brains, Gina Trapani and Anil Dash on crowdsourcing, James Grimmelman on online harassment and the Google Books case, Michael Geist on ACTA, Tom Hazlett on spectrum reform, and Tyler Cowen on just about everything.

So what are you waiting for? Subscribe!

SHARE: 3 comments

FTC Workshop Tomorrow on Future of Journalism to Consider Controversial Recommendations

by on June 14, 2010 · 0 comments

Just a reminder that tomorrow the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will be hosting the 3rd workshop in its ongoing event series, “Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” This workshop will feature various experts discussing the FTC’s 47-page “staff discussion draft,” which outlines “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism.” In these two recent essays, I discussed the controversy surrounding some of the recommendations in that discussion draft:

According to this press release announcing the event,”The workshop is free and open to the public, but space is limited and attendees will be admitted on a first-come basis. The workshop will be held at: The National Press Club, 549 14th Street NW, 13th Floor, Washington, DC. Members of the public and press who wish to participate but who cannot attend can view a live webcast.  A link will be available on the day of the workshop at: http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/index.shtml.”

Unless I am missing something, the FTC has still not posted an agenda or list of speakers, which is a bit strange. But apparently Rick Edmonds of the Poynter Institute will be participating. He’s got a nice piece up over at Poynter Online (“FTC Future-of-Journalism Inquiry Wraps Up With Little Momentum for Major Intervention“) summarizing some of what he’ll say tomorrow. I particularly liked his conclusion, which echoes the call Berin Szoka and I have made for allowing continuing marketplace evolution and experimentation: Continue reading →

SHARE: 0 comments

The Fallacy of “E-Personation” Laws

by on June 11, 2010 · 14 comments

I was interviewed yesterday for the local Fox affiliate on Cal. SB 1411, which criminalizes online impersonations (or “e-personation”) under certain circumstances.

On paper, of course, this sounds like a fine idea.  As Palo Alto State Senator Joe Simitian, the bill’s sponsor, put it, “The Internet makes many things easier.  One of those, unfortunately, is pretending to be someone else.  When that happens with the intent of causing harm, folks need a law they can turn to.”

Or do they?

The Problem with New Laws for New Technology

SB1411 would make a great exam question of short paper assignment for an information law course.  It’s short, is loaded with good intentions, and on first blush looks perfectly reasonable—just extending existing harassment, intimidation and fraud laws to the modern context of online activity.  Unfortunately, a careful read reveals all sorts of potential problems and unintended consequences.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 14 comments

News Flash: Parenting is Happening!

by on June 11, 2010 · 607 comments

Note to Washington regulators and would-be censors… Don’t look now but parenting is happening!  Yes, it really is true: Parents are parenting. That’s the result of this new survey by Yahoo & Ipsos OTX.  Please pardon my snarky-ness, but I’ve been going at it for years with mobs of people here in DC who think that all parents are asleep at the wheel and kids are heading straight for the moral abyss. It’s a bunch of bunk, as I’ve pointed out here before. This new Yahoo!/Ipsos survey illustrates that, once again, parents are monitoring what their kids are up to online and taking an active role in mentoring them about web use:

  • 78% of parents are concerned about their children’s online safety.
  • 70% of parents talk to their children about online safety at least 2-3 times a year; 45% talk to their children at least once a month.
  • 74% of parents are connected to their children’s profiles on social networking sites.
  • 71% of parents have taken at least one action to manage their children’s use of the Internet or cell phones such as: Check to see where children are searching online; Set time limits for children’s use of computers or cell phones; Set parental controls on video sites; Use filters to limit where children go on the Web.

These results are consistent with what I have found and described in my ongoing PFF special report, Parental Controls & Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods.  Obviously, many parents utilize the growing diversity of parental control technologies that are at their disposal to better control/monitor their children’s online activities/interactions. But what’s really impressive (and far more important) is that so many surveys and studies continue to show that the vast majority of parents utilize a variety of household “media consumption rules” as a substitute for, or compliment to, parental control technologies. Continue reading →

SHARE: 607 comments

The Lingering Costs of the Antitrust Crusade Against Microsoft: Tool Opt-Ins v. Metcalfe’s Law

by on June 10, 2010 · 5 comments

Great piece by ZDNet’s Edd Bott on How a decade of antitrust oversight has changed your PC. Here are his four categories of costs:

  1. Thanks for all the crapware, Judge
  2. Competition among browsers? It took a long, long time
  3. You’re less safe online.
  4. You want software with that OS? Go download it.

He explains his points brilliantly, so it’s well worth reading the article. On point #3. Bott notes:

Microsoft Security Essentials is available to any Windows PC as a free download, but it’s still not available as part of Windows itself. The Windows 7 Action Center will warn you if you don’t have antivirus software installed, but clicking the Find a Program Online button takes you to this page, where Microsoft’s free offering is one of 23 options, most of which are paid products….

I think the mere threat of an antitrust complaint from a big opponent like Symantec or McAfee has been enough to make Microsoft shy away from doing what is clearly in its customers’ best interests. Although Microsoft Security Essentials is free, it’s not included with Windows. And ironically, even though Microsoft’s offering is free and gets excellent reviews, you’re unlikely to find it on a new PC. Why? Because those competitors who sell antivirus software actually pay PC makers to preload their products, banking, literally, on the fact that a significant percentage of them will pay for an annual subscription.

It’s worth pointing out that there are three possible costs to consumers here: Continue reading →

SHARE: 5 comments

event notice: “Sending an Online Safety Message to Congress” (June 29th, 9am)

by on June 10, 2010 · 0 comments

On June 29th, The Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) and the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI) will co-host a National Press Club briefing entitled “Sending an Online Safety Message to Congress.” This event will feature a discussion about the recently released report of the Online Safety and Technology Working Group (OSTWG), “Youth Safety on a Living Internet.”  OSTWG — a congressionally-mandated blue ribbon working group — analyzed the state of online child safety and offered policymakers and parents a wide array of recommendations for how to keep kids safe and secure in today’s “always-on,” interconnected world. [For more background on OSTWG and our final report, see this post.]  Several OSTWG leaders will be on hand to discuss the report and outline the next steps that need to be taken on this front. Here are the details.

What: Sending an Online Safety Message to Congress — A discussion about the OSTWG final report and the future of childrens’ online safety and public policy.
When: Tuesday, June 29
9:00 a.m. – 10:45 p.m. (breakfast provided)
Where: National Press Club
First Amendment Lounge, 13th Floor 529 14th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20515
Who: Hemanshu Nigam, Founder, SSP Blue, and Co-Chair of OSTWG

Larry Magid, Co-Director, ConnectSafety.org

Michael McKeehan, Executive Director, Internet & Technology Policy, Verizon

Adam Thierer President, The Progress & Freedom Foundation

Stephen Balkam Chief Executive Officer, Family Online Safety Institute, (moderator)

To Register: Space is limited, so an RSVP is required to attend. Please register here.

SHARE: 0 comments

What the Oil Spill Really Says About Net Neutrality: Regulatory Capture v. the Nirvana Fallacy

by on June 9, 2010 · 18 comments

A diverse group of technology companies including broadband, video and wireless providers as well as Google, Microsoft and hardware giants like Intel and Cisco today launched the  Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group (BITAG or TAG) to provide exactly the kind of self-regulatory forum for dealing with concerns about network management practices that we at PFF have long called for—most recently in Adam Thierer and Mike Wendy’s recent paper, “The Constructive Alternative to Net Neutrality Regulation and Title II Reclassification Wars.” But rather than applauding BITAG, the regulatory radicals at Free Press insisted that:

this or any other voluntary effort is not a substitute for the government setting basic rules of the road for the Internet.

Swansong of an Industry?

There must be a separate FCC rulemaking process, which can take the recommendations of this or any other voluntary advisory group into account, but rubber-stamping those recommendations would ignore the agency’s mandate to create public policy in the public interest. Allowing industry to set its own rules is like allowing BP to regulate its drilling. The Comcast BitTorrent case shows that without government oversight, Internet Service Providers will engage in what are already deemed by engineers to be bad practices

Free Press certainly wouldn’t have the influence they do if they weren’t so good at picking metaphors. But what does the oil spill really teach us about regulation? The Wall Street Journal notes the growing outrage on the political Left against president Obama from those who are “furious and frustrated that the President hasn’t demanded the heads of BP executives on pikes.” But the Journal points out the central irony of the situation:

The [so-called] liberals’ fury at the President is almost as astounding as their outrage over the discovery that oil companies and their regulators might have grown too cozy. In economic literature, this behavior is known as “regulatory capture,” and the current political irony is that this is a long-time conservative critique of the regulatory state….

In the better economic textbooks, regulatory capture is described as a “government failure,” as opposed to a market failure. It refers to the fact that individuals or companies with the highest interest or stake in a policy outcome will be able to focus their energies on politicians and bureaucracies to get the outcome they prefer.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 18 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →