(Cross posted at reason.org)
It’s rare when the entire Internet industry rises up with one voice. Perhaps that’s why the protest against the House of Representatives’ Stop Online Piracy Act and its Senate counterpart, the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), is getting so much attention. In policy circles, usually one segment of the online industry is jockeying for favorable position against another. Today, with Wikipedia dark, Google taped over, and a host of other sites large and small raising awareness through home page notices, New Media is drawing its line in the sand against the most astounding government overreach into Internet regulation to date.
Continue reading →
As if my earlier essay on why “We Need More Attack Ads in Political Campaigns” wasn’t incendiary enough, allow me to heap praise on this outstanding new oped by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen “In Defense of Big Money in Politics.” Few things get me more steamed than when Democrats and Republicans decry “big money” in politics and claim we need to aggressively clamp down on it. What’s even more insulting is when they say this is a smart way to encourage 3rd party political candidates and movements.
What’s really going on here is simple protectionism. The reason that today’s politicians want to regulate cash in campaigns is because the two parties already own the system. Believe me, as someone who has NEVER voted for a politician from either of the two leading parties, I would love for it to be the case that clamping down on campaign spending actually helped 3rd party candidates. Richard Cohen’s column explains why that certainly wasn’t the case with Eugene McCarthy’s historic 1968 challenge to Lyndon Johnson, which was fueled by “big money” contributions from a handful of major donors. Here’s how Cohen begins his piece: Continue reading →
On the podcast this week, Michael Weinberg, staff attorney with Public Knowledge, discusses his white paper entitled, It Will Be Awesome If They Don’t Screw This Up: 3D Printing, Intellectual Property, and the Fight Over the Next Great Disruptive Technology. The discussion begins with Weinberg describing 3D printing: the process of printing three dimensional objects layer-by-layer from a digital file on a computer. According to Weinberg the design method used for printing includes programs like AutoCad and 3D scanners that can scan existing objects, making it possible to print a 3D replica. He goes on to explain why he thinks 3D printing, coupled with the Internet, is a disruptive technology. Finally, Weinberg discusses the thesis of his paper, where he anticipates industries affected by potential disruption will not compete with or adapt to this technology, but rather, will seek legal protection through IP law to preemptively regulate 3D printing.
Related Links
To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we’d like to ask you to comment at the webpage for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?
Over at TIME.com, [I write that](http://techland.time.com/2012/01/17/why-googles-biggest-problem-isnt-antitrust-with-search-plus-your-world/) while some claim that Google Search Plus Your World violates antitrust laws, it likely doesn’t. But I note that Google does have a big problem on its hands: market reaction.
>So if antitrust is not Google’s main concern, what is? It’s that user reaction to SPYW and other recent moves may invite the very switching and competitive entry that would have to be impossible for monopoly to hold. … Users, however, may not wait for the company to get it right. They can and will switch. And sensing a weakness, new competitors may well enter the search space. The market, therefore, will discipline Google faster than any antitrust action could.
Read [the whole thing here](http://techland.time.com/2012/01/17/why-googles-biggest-problem-isnt-antitrust-with-search-plus-your-world/).
After three years of politicking, it now looks like Congress may actually give the FCC authority to conduct incentive auctions for mobile spectrum, and soon. That, at least, is what the FCC seems to think.
At CES last week, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski largely repeated the speech he has now given three years in a row. But there was a subtle twist this time, one echoed by comments from Wireless Bureau Chief Rick Kaplan at a separate panel.
Instead of simply warning of a spectrum crunch and touting the benefits of the incentive auction idea, the Chairman took aim at a House Republican bill that would authorize the auctions but limit the agency’s “flexibility” in designing and conducting them. “My message on incentive auctions today is simple,” he said, “we need to get it done now, and we need to get it done right.” Continue reading →
My latest weekly Forbes column asks, “Why Do We Always Sell the Next Generation Short?” and it explores the dynamics that lead many parents and policymakers to perpetually write off younger generations. As the late journalism professor Margaret A. Blanchard once observed: “[P]arents and grandparents who lead the efforts to cleanse today’s society seem to forget that they survived alleged attacks on their morals by different media when they were children. Each generation’s adults either lose faith in the ability of their young people to do the same or they become convinced that the dangers facing the new generation are much more substantial than the ones they faced as children.”
What explains this phenomenon? In my essay, I argue that it comes down to a combination of “juvenoia” and hyper-nostalgia. University of New Hampshire sociologist David Finkelhor defines juvenoia as “exaggerated anxiety about the influence of social change on children and youth.” Once you combine such panicky juvenoia about new media and youth culture with a nostalgic view of the past that says the “good ‘ol days” are behind us, you get the common generational claim that the current good-for-nothing generation and their new-fangled gadgets and culture are steering us straight into the moral abyss.
Instead of panic and hyper-pessimism, I believe that the more sensible approach approach is patient parental engagement and mentoring. I argue that “quite often, the best approach to learning more about our children’s culture is to immerse ourselves in it. Should we worry about the content found in some games, music, or videos? Perhaps we should. Sitting down and consuming that content with our kids and talking to them about it might be the best way to better understand their culture and then mentor them accordingly.”
Anyway, read my entire essay over at Forbes. And, on a related note, I highly recommend this new piece by Perri Klass, M.D. in The New York Times: “Seeing Social Media as Adolescent Portal More Than Pitfall.” It adopts a similar approach.
By Berin Szoka, Geoffrey Manne & Ryan Radia
As has become customary with just about every new product announcement by Google these days, the company’s introduction on Tuesday of its new “Search, plus Your World” (SPYW) program, which aims to incorporate a user’s Google+ content into her organic search results, has met with cries of antitrust foul play. All the usual blustering and speculation in the latest Google antitrust debate has obscured what should, however, be the two key prior questions: (1) Did Google violate the antitrust laws by not including data from Facebook, Twitter and other social networks in its new SPYW program alongside Google+ content; and (2) How might antitrust restrain Google in conditioning participation in this program in the future?
The answer to the first is a clear no. The second is more complicated—but also purely speculative at this point, especially because it’s not even clear Facebook and Twitter really want to be included or what their price and conditions for doing so would be. So in short, it’s hard to see what there is to argue about yet.
Let’s consider both questions in turn.
Should Google Have Included Other Services Prior to SPYW’s Launch?
Google says it’s happy to add non-Google content to SPYW but, as Google fellow Amit Singhal told Danny Sullivan, a leading search engine journalist:
Facebook and Twitter and other services, basically, their terms of service don’t allow us to crawl them deeply and store things. Google+ is the only [network] that provides such a persistent service,… Of course, going forward, if others were willing to change, we’d look at designing things to see how it would work.
Continue reading →
[Cross posted from Huffington Post]
Does the First Amendment allow the FCC to censor “indecent” content like the occasional curse word or a brief glimpse of a bare butt on broadcast TV? The Supreme Court hears arguments on this question Tuesday in FCC v. Fox—the first time in more than 30 years the Court will squarely confront this constitutional question. The case stems from the use of “fleeting” expletives by Nicole Richie and Cher at the Billboard Music Awards Show nearly a decade ago, which prompted a draconian crackdown on broadcasters by the Bush FCC in 2004.
Our five organizations—which differ widely on many issues—have filed a joint amicus brief urging the Court to recognize that the Constitution demands an end to FCC censorship of television, given the fundamental transformation of the media landscape. In its 1978 FCC v. Pacifica decision, the Court gave broadcasting less protection than other media (like newspapers) because it was both “pervasive” in American culture and “invasive”—an “intruder” in the home from which parents were powerless to protect their children. But that rationale long ago disintegrated.
When a federal appellate court struck down the FCC’s indecency rules last year, it hit the nail on the head: “we face a media landscape that would have been almost unrecognizable in 1978.” Back then, nearly all Americans relied on broadcasting to deliver a limited range of video media to their homes. Today, only 8 to 15% percent of American households rely on over-the-air broadcasting, with the majority subscribing to cable or satellite service. More and more Americans are getting video content online from Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, and countless other sites. These services are not “intruders” in the home, but invited guests. Continue reading →
On the podcast this week, Andrew McAfee, Principal Research Scientist at MIT’s Center for Digital Business, discusses his new book, co-authored with Erik Brynjolfsson, entitled, “Race Against the Machine: How the Digital Revolution is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy.” The book looks at the interplay between unemployment and fast-paced technological innovation. In the book, McAfee and Brynjolfsson propose that technology is outpacing humans, and they discuss whether humans can keep up. According to McAfee, technology is encroaching on skills that once belonged exclusively to humans. He believes that entrepreneurial thinking, different institutions, and new organizational structures can prevent humans from being left behind by the machines.
Related Links
To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we’d like to ask you to comment at the webpage for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?
Over at TIME.com, [I recap](http://techland.time.com/2012/01/09/at-the-top-of-congresss-new-year-agenda-regulate-the-net/) the latest on SOPA and PIPA and look at what’s ahead once Congress reconvenes. I also address the argument that the piracy bills don’t amount to censorship since they’re aimed at unprotected speech.
>Both bills would likely affect non-infringing speech because they allow for entire sites to be blocked — even if they also include otherwise legal speech. Yet the Supreme Court has ruled, “Broad prophylactic rules in the area of free expression are suspect. Precision of regulation must be the touchstone in an area so closely touching our most precious freedoms.” And you can add to that a troubling lack of due process that’s a recipe for abuse.
Read [the whole thing here](http://techland.time.com/2012/01/09/at-the-top-of-congresss-new-year-agenda-regulate-the-net/).
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.