Someone very near and dear to us turned three today, so I thought I would post a few pictures in honor of the occasion.
Here’s the birthday girl with her mommy…
 
...jumping rope at the park…
 
...explaining the theoretical underpinnings of the universe…
 
...making faces…
 
...and generally being wonderful.

Once again, I find myself indebted to John De Hoog for today’s entry.
This recent Salon article by the father-and-son tag team of John and Ben Snyder looks at the problems Intellectual Property law is having with new technologies.
The article also points to John Perry Barlow’s essay,  “The Economy of Ideas,” which was first published almost a decade ago by Wired magazine, Tim O’Reilly’s “Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online Distribution,” the EFF’s study on the unintended consequences of the DMCA, and a large number of other Salon articles, all well worth reading. (This summary doesn’t do justice to even a fraction of the material covered in the Snyders’ article and the ones it points to, so go over to Salon and get started with the reading—there’s quite a bit of homework required for an intelligent discussion of this issue.)
The Snyders do a nice job of summarizing this complex issue. The fact that both are music industry insiders makes for powerful indictments in the form of statements like the following (referring to Disney’s drive to extend copyrights):

This is a clear case of a multinational conglomerate using its political muscle to the disadvantage of everyone but itself. So, instead of creating new content and allowing long-standing laws to work, the entertainment business frantically seeks to manipulate the process to its own ends.

Not long ago, I argued on the Democrats Abroad Japan mailing list that the music industry is its own worst enemy when it comes to the file-sharing problem. I think it is a colossal strategic failure on the industry’s part to fail to recognize a shift in consumer demands. The Snyders seem to agree when they write:

What drives radio is advertising and money, not music. A lot of music gets left behind thanks to the current state of radio; that consumers are rejecting it shouldn’t be surprising. They’re creating their own MP3 playlists, and if the labels were smart, they’d be doing everything in their power to be on those playlists, just like they do everything in their power to be on the playlists of radio stations. Instead, they scream copyright infringement and call their lawyers.

 
I have also argued that the reason that CD sales have been dropping has more to do with the increasing competition for the average person’s disposable income. A few years ago, a teenager with a part-time job did not have to choose between a new CD and a cell phone payment, because the cell phone did not exist. Now it does, and kids are finding out that they would rather have the phone than the tunes. That’s not such a big surprise, is it? (Here again, the Snyders seem to agree.)
It seems to me that the music industry (in particular, but it is not alone) is attempting to legislate its own survival in an era where it has chosen not to adapt. It is not the case that it cannot adapt—it simply doesn’t want to. Why? The answer, in a single word: Greed.
The Snyders suggest that DRM will simply add fuel to the fire. “Expect a very big blaze in 2003,” they write.
I think what we are seeing is the beginning of the end of fair use. The concept of public domain is now nearly dead. Only a great deal of public attention to these concepts will prevent the Hollywood/Microsoft axis of evil from slapping DRM manacles on all us thought criminals. Isn’t it strange how concepts like fair use and public domain, once essential parts of copyright and IP law, are now all but ignored by the content industry? 
Has the music industry truly “sown the seeds of [its] own decline,” as the Snyders argue, or are we all about to be reduced to DRM-shackled consumer-slaves, as I have argued? I believe, as the Snyders do, that we will find out soon, probably before the end of this year.
The implications of these movements go far beyond their simple anti-piracy origins. The nature of the discussion is so broad that it is no exaggeration to say that the music industry’s “remedy” to the file-sharing it claims is such a problem is to enact laws that are not simply anti-piracy, but anti-privacy as well.
Note: I find it worth mentioning that I have never downloaded music. I don’t own an iPod or other MP3-playing device. These things absolve me of any guilt the music industry seems fixated on pinning to users, but it does not mean that the larger issues here are none of my concern. They very distinctly are concerns—as they should be for anyone who loves freedom.

Here’s an interesting angle on the Mr. Bush’s plans for war with Iraq: Declare victory!
MoveOn.org sends me e-mail updates every few days about what can be done to keep the pressure on the Bush administration to simply let the inspections work. Today’s message made an interesting point: The inspections have already had the effect that war would have, meaning simply that it is impossible for Hussein to develop weapons in full view of the inspectors. And he can hardly afford to attack the U.S. just now, either.
MoveOn offers this excerpt from a New York Times article by Nicholas Kristof: 
 
 

“As the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace put it in a new
  report on Iraq, the U.S. goal of preventing any attack by Iraq has
  already been achieved.
 

‘Saddam Hussein is effectively incarcerated and under watch by a force that could respond immediately and devastatingly to any aggression,’ the report noted. ‘Inside Iraq, the inspection teams preclude any significant advance in [weapons of mass destruction] capabilities. The status quo is safe for the American people.’

MoveOn also points out that General Norman Schwarzkopf “hasn’t seen enough evidence” to convince him that war is the right answer. Coming from the guy who won the first war with Iraq, that should be something the administration should take into consideration. Think it will?
It’s a shame Colin Powell has seemingly reversed his position and started supporting the war. He seemed ever so much more sensible when his views were more like Schwarzkopf’s.
Of course, it would be political suicide for Bush to back away from war now. So I guess we’ll have one anyway, so as not to unfairly damage his re-election prospects. Or should that be his re-steal-the-election prospects?

Apparently the economy in the States is worse than I thought.
A recent article at Wired says that a group of now-unemployed journalists from ZDNet are attempting to attract bids for their services. I see this is not the first time laid-off professionals have done so.
Here in Japan, we are just beginning to see some companies (Nissan being a noteworthy example) gradually pulling away from the seniority-based promotions and lifetime employment concepts that have long been two of Japanese society’s sacred cows. This is being done reluctantly—but also inevitably, because the economy in Japan is not good, either—but somehow I don’t think Japanese professionals are ready to subject themselves to the indignities of being bid upon. 
In particular, I know that local translation professionals like Bill Lise and Fred Uleman regularly advise others to set their sights on comfortably high fees, which might not be obtainable under the bid-for-geeks system. Fred knows that finding a job is less important than finding work, but I wonder what he would think of letting others bid on his rates.
Incidentally, this geek is always looking for freelance work. Care to place a bid?

Moments after noting that Movable Type dominates the Tokyo blogscape, I noticed this article about Tangent at evolt.org. 
Tangent, as far as I can tell, is an open source project that functions in a way that is not too different from what Microsoft was trying to accomplish with its Smart Tags. Unlike Microsoft’s idea, Tangent doesn’t allow others to hijack your site with links that you did not authorize, but it does populate your entries with random links. I’m not sure if I want to use it on this site, but simply the fact that it is a standards-compliant, open source project with fun, rather than profit, as its chief aim, I feel less hostility to the idea than I did for Smart Tags.
The Tangent site claims that the effect is “like sex for Web sites.” That might be true, but it seems like an orgy—which may be fun for a while, but monogamy is more comfortable for the long-term, I think. (In terms of this linking-as-sex metaphor, this means that I’m inclined to believe that the reader will have a better experience if I choose the links, rather than just allow anything.) 
Watch this space. It may soon be Tangent-ized. Or not. I guess I’ll know after I try the Tangent Preview.
Incidentally, the Tangent site runs on pMachine. Okay, now I feel better.