i-sako.com

Here’s an interesting idea in the battle to free ourselves from the digital tyranny of the RIAA and its ilk: Get recording artists to release their music under a special license, one that stipulates that the music can only be distributed over P2P file-sharing networks like Napster, Kazaa, and the like. (Better still, as a special bonus to users, might not this license also prohibit the music it covers from being included in a DRM system?)

Then, if the music industry sues the file-sharing networks (with the aim of forcing them to shut down operations), the artists involved can counter-sue, claiming that the industry is restricting access to their market--and violating their right to free speech. It would very likely be a costly battle, but I bet the courts would have to come down in favor of the rights of the artists. 

I wonder if anyone has shared this idea with the folks at The Creative Commons?

(Source: The inspiration for this post came from a comment by “Nandeyanen” in response to RIAA vs. MP3 vs. Adam Smith, an article posted at Kuro5hin.org.)

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.

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. 

The title of today’s entry comes from Scott Mason, a fellow expat technophile. He wrote me earlier today to ask if I had seen this interview with John Perry Barlow, one of the founders of the EFF (and, incidentally, a lyricist for the Grateful Dead). I hadn’t seen it, so I was very glad Scott brought it to my attention. 

Anyway, we were discussing the implications of DRM and what it holds in store for the rights of everyday people. At one point in our discussion, I observed that rights that are ordinarily good things--like the freedom of speech and copyrights--are more and more regularly being used by corporations as tools to control the public. (More on this idea in a future entry.)

Scott replied with the following:

It’s just the further consolidation and congealing of the Matrix into our world. Most people have seen the movie and fail to draw the connection to real life. It’s like the theme of the movie were really “What’s the best place to hide an elephant?”

Although I’m afraid this excerpt doesn’t do justice to many of the more serious things we discussed, it is worth noting that good science fiction is not simply entertainment; often it is a thinly veiled metaphor, warning people of what could be.

In a related conversation, John De Hoog and I have been discussing DRM on the Democrats Abroad-Japan mailing list. I suggested that the DAJ reach out to geeks in an effort to tap into a source of potential activism. Although most geeks don’t really care for politics, they are usually pretty passionate about technology. Where politics and technology intersect (as they often do these days), I think there is plenty of room for geeks to wade into the morass. Who knows, they could just save us all from the evils of digital tyranny.

John seems to think that geeks might shun the Democratic party simply because Democrats seem to be siding with the mega-corps on most of the major issues. To some extent, I think this cannot be helped, but I’m sure it is a situation that can be improved.

For one thing, the corporations are not entirely wrong. They have a right to protect their work. In that sense, it is natural to side with them on many issues. (The fact that corporations do a lot of lobbying also helps a bit, I imagine.) But the corporations tend to go too far, and the legislators need to be aware of the implications of giving corporations everything they ask for--because they’re asking for everything!

I’m sure a few hard core geeks would be helpful in shaping the Democratic party’s policies about technology. The EFF does a lot of good work, but it cannot be expected to shape policy on its own. The Democrats need geeks--and vice versa! After all, if Democrats are not going to fight for the rights of the little guy, who will? Likewise, if geeks are not going to help the Democrats make sensible laws, who will? Microsoft?

If you happen to go see Tom Cruise’s new movie, Minority Report, please bear in mind that it depicts how society could become (though it will probably be vast databases, not “pre-cogs,” making the arrest decisions). We’re not talking about hiding elephants here, we’re trying to wake people up to the reality that a Matrix of sorts is closing in around them, here and now, in 2003. I, for one, would like to see the Democrats position themselves as the more tech-savvy party in our government--and then govern accordingly. 

Will it happen, or am I about to be arrested for crimes that I have not yet committed (or even crimes that are not yet crimes)?

Last week I attended a lecture by Larry Lessig, which was fantastic, but this is the first time I’ve had a chance to sit down and write about it...nearly a week later. I hope things will calm down a bit after the holiday season comes to an end. It would be nice to be able to write more than one entry each month!

Anyway, back to Lessig. 

A lot of really good ideas were presented at that meeting, but most of them boil down to one idea: The current political/business climate is unhealthy and potentially dangerous to innovation. Lessig advocates a “commons” approach to Internet technology, one that excludes no one and makes the same opportunities available for all—not just those running the leading company’s software.

There were too many interesting ideas for me to present in the few minutes that I have left to write, but one that I found very pratical was his suggestion about copyrights. If a copyright is a temporary, government-backed monopoly, existing purely to provide incentive (read as “profit") for creativity, it stands to reason that monopoly should expire at some point (which copyrights do). The recent trend toward extending copyrights, Lessig argues, is fruitless, because nothing new is being created in exchange for the extension.

A much better solution for companies (or other entities who want to retain control of copyrights that retain commercial value after the copyright expires) would be to institute a copyright tax. Lessig suggested that the first 50 years of a copyright should be tax-free. Anything after that should require a nominal tax, say something like $10 a year for every year after the 50th. Copyright holders who fail to pay the tax after 50 years would lose the copyright and the copyrighted material would then become part of the public domain. This is a much better idea than simply extending the term of a copyright to 100 years, because only material that really deserves copyright protection (that is to say, is still earning money) would continue to get it after the normal copyright term expires.

Clever guy, that Lessig. I’m looking forward to reading his books.