Singleton has a new paper out on the subject under PFF masthead. It appears to have been hurriedly thrown together, and has already been vigorously critiqued by some of the usual crew of good guys (EFF, Tech Dirt, Politechbot). It's becoming pretty clear why Singleton is so irritated by you and your paper, Tim - you're making the poor woman do some work!
On a related note, while Singleton's defense of the DMCA may or may not be sincere, I get the strong feeling that if she came out on the other side of the issue whe would be looking for a new job in a hurry. Would anyone care to call that an unfair statement?
Tim
· 3 years ago
Doug: I don't think that's really a fair statement. Most think tanks have some ideological orientation. If I decided I was for socialized medicine or higher taxes, my employers would probably ask me to find someplace else to work. I don't think that proves my views on those issues are insincere.
One of the nice things about working in Washington is that if you're smart enough, you can get a job advocating just about any position on the political spectrum. I think think tanks tend to hire scholars who already agree with them, rather than scholars changing their views to fit the outlook of their employer. So while PFF's management may choose people with a particular outlook on IP issues, I don't think that proves that any of them are insincere, any more than I'm insincere when I advocate lower taxes or school choice.
Doug Lay
· 3 years ago
Tim:
It sounds like you do think that support for the DMCA may be a requirement for working at PFF. Am I reading you wrong?
Tim
· 3 years ago
Doug: I've never worked there, so I don't know. Obviously, everyone at PFF who's written on the topic has been pro-DMCA, so it wouldn't surprise me.
My point was simply that if it's true, it's not especially unusual, and it doesn't discredit anyone who works there. I doubt EFF would hire anyone who supported the DMCA. Does that mean their arguments aren't sincere?
Doug Lay
· 3 years ago
>> My point was simply that if it's true, it's not especially unusual, and it doesn't discredit anyone who works there. I doubt EFF would hire anyone who supported the DMCA. Does that mean their arguments aren't sincere?
Not necessarily, but it is something to keep in mind. EFF makes no bones about being a lobbying organization, and it's undobtedly true that an EFF employee wouldn't have the same freedom to publicly change their mind about core issues as a tenured college professor.
"Beyond this basic dedication to property rights, markets, and minimal regulation, we regard everything as subject to analysis and dispute. How to adapt classic institutions to the computer age presents devilish and intriguing problems."
I simply do not believe the first sentence. If there is any evidence that dispute over the merits of the DMCA is welcome at PFF, it is certainly very well-hidden. Obviously there are plenty of people with "dedication to property rights, markets, and minimal regulation" who oppose the DMCA. I doubt there is any place for them at PFF, however.
Tim
· 3 years ago
Plenty of think tanks hire people who tend to agree with their point of view. That includes the one I work for now and the one I worked for previously. I don't know if PFF preferentially hires DMCA supporters, but I don't think it's a problem if they do. I'm much more interested in rebutting their arguments than speculating about their motives.
eee_eff
· 3 years ago
"Doug: I don't think that's really a fair statement. Most think tanks have some ideological orientation. If I decided I was for socialized medicine or higher taxes, my employers would probably ask me to find someplace else to work. I don't think that proves my views on those issues are insincere."
Understood. But in support of Doug, I would note the continued distortion of PFF's statements about their motivations, using terms such as 'Free Market' and 'Freedom' when they actually appear to advocate some form of encroachment of property rights on the First Amendment. Basically, a power grab by a few large corporations, who are trying to subvert First Amendment. And PFF is the Front.
Their continued refusal to acknowledge the conlfict between the DCMA and First Amendment is a bit frustrating.
I was always taught in rhetoric to state your opponents case better then they themselves could state it and then show the fallacies in their position.
PFF as a matter of policy mis-states and misconstrues the arguments of their opponents (those against the DCMA or part of the free culture movement)
That is why:
1. Their website could not allow comments, 2. Few actually have any respect for their intellectual integrity.
Solveig Singleton
· 3 years ago
Several comments in response:
--There is no requirement that one support the DMCA to work at PFF. Adam doesn't, for one. Doug's paper doesn't. Jim and I would like to see alternatives, which so far are weak.
--We accept email comments and post thoughtful ones on our blog. Send us a thoughtful comment and see! Of the comments we have received by email, most are thoughtful. I think they compare very favorably with blog comments.
--I agree with Tim there is a difference between meat space piracy and cyber piracy... but not that it is terribly significant. I do think that DRM inconveniences meat space piracy *more* than it does cyber piracy. But it adds an element of inconvenience to both, and the element of black-marketness adds further inconvenience to both. The Grokster case (an entirely different topic) also addresses cyber piracy, of course, and is a key element. The larger point remains... I believe there is a big different between DeCSS or assorted unlicensed P2P networks as they exist today and what they would look like if they were taken over by, say, IBM or Microsoft and mass-marketed.
Again, if DRM is doing NOTHING, the question, why is the content industry across the board (games, movies, music, photographers, software) putting so much energy into business models based on that? The theory is that they are 1) evil 2) stupid or 3) technologically blind. That strikes me as implausible--we are talking about a LOT of people working in creative fields. But if it were true, again, it would be a huge, gaping opportunity for some good, intellgient, and tech-savvy entrepreneur to come in and beat them at their own game. Investors would be falling all over themselves to fund this person. And it ain't happening. It is still possible that someone will come in and do this, of course, we will have to see.
Finally, alternatives? Still none.
4) One final argument, that content markets do not need DMCA (or DRM) help at all... I will do a separate post on. I think that is a more interesting argument than all the stuff about security research and competition. But also very difficult.
5) Re the intellectual integrity of PFF... Sigh. Yes, PFF has donors, corporate donors. A wide array of them, with differing views. We are very grateful for their support, without which we would not have desks, chairs, phones, or hold conferences, which are expensive. We are grateful for their war stories from the fast-changing world of business--though we have many other sources. But our opinions on the matter of what makes good policy are our own; our views on intellectual property are generally congruent with those of some of our donors (not with others), but our views are not derived from those of our donors. There is an important difference.
PFF is a non-profit. The people who work there have eschewed work in much-better-paying jobs as lawyers or lobbyists for a reason. They believe in free markets. While I have found their ideas of what free markets might look like in futureto be somewhat broader than my former colleagues at CEI and Cato, as befits a think tank focussing on issues at the cutting edge of technology, their commitment to free markets is just as strong.
The ability to function as a "hired gun," to adopt a vision of someone else's self-interest as if it were one's own, and in the general interest, is an extremely valuable skill, and is very well compensated. As a general matter (with a few exceptions) those of us who work in think tanks (left and right) inside the Beltway either do not have this skill at all, or have given it up. I never had it. I was far too fond of my own opinion to function in a law firm. So now I earn perhaps 1/3 or 1/4 of what most of the folks I graduated with earn. But I do have my independence, whatever that is worth.
Most of the folks who comment on the connection between donors and think tanks as if they were shedding some deep light on the motivations of the organization simply do not know anything about how think tanks operate. It is easier, however, to write posts of this sort rather than contending with the substance of the issue.
My experience in Washington DC is that rarely, very rarely, a non-profit ideologically committed to one position will get itself in a position where it depends on just one or two donors, and face losing its independence on one or more issues. But that does *not* happen all that often.
Finally, my own views on IP, DRM and the DMCA have changed over the years chiefly because of the following:
-Having a front row seat when Jim Delong and I were at CEI together, where many, many internal IP debates raged (Fred Smith was another player here). -Marrying a computer game designer, who comes from a family where the main economic actors have for a couple of generations been research scientists. These are not people who have any difficulty with the idea that taking IP is stealing! Got me thinking about how one's expectations shape what one thinks of as property, morality, rights. -Watching forensics shows on TV. I used to do this to relax. But it, too, got me thinking how much of my efforts with abstract legal concepts during the day depend on working enforcement mechanisms, and what problems might arise if we take those for granted.
Enough. Will post more tomorrow.
Cheers, Solveig
Tim
· 3 years ago
I agree with Tim there is a difference between meat space piracy and cyber piracy... but not that it is terribly significant. I do think that DRM inconveniences meat space piracy *more* than it does cyber piracy. But it adds an element of inconvenience to both, and the element of black-marketness adds further inconvenience to both.
Thanks for commenting! I still don't think I understand this point. Could you please elaborate? It seems to me that the ability of P2P networks to create an unlimited number of copies of a file means that preventing anything less than 100 percent of people from uploading files has no effect on the number of downloads. What am I missing? In what way does DRM add an "element of inconvenience" to the process?
All Comments
On a related note, while Singleton's defense of the DMCA may or may not be sincere, I get the strong feeling that if she came out on the other side of the issue whe would be looking for a new job in a hurry. Would anyone care to call that an unfair statement?
One of the nice things about working in Washington is that if you're smart enough, you can get a job advocating just about any position on the political spectrum. I think think tanks tend to hire scholars who already agree with them, rather than scholars changing their views to fit the outlook of their employer. So while PFF's management may choose people with a particular outlook on IP issues, I don't think that proves that any of them are insincere, any more than I'm insincere when I advocate lower taxes or school choice.
It sounds like you do think that support for the DMCA may be a requirement for working at PFF. Am I reading you wrong?
My point was simply that if it's true, it's not especially unusual, and it doesn't discredit anyone who works there. I doubt EFF would hire anyone who supported the DMCA. Does that mean their arguments aren't sincere?
Not necessarily, but it is something to keep in mind. EFF makes no bones about being a lobbying organization, and it's undobtedly true that an EFF employee wouldn't have the same freedom to publicly change their mind about core issues as a tenured college professor.
Regarding PFF, here is a paragraph taken from the IPCentral "about us" page (http://ipcentral.info/about/index.html):
"Beyond this basic dedication to property rights, markets, and minimal regulation, we regard everything as subject to analysis and dispute. How to adapt classic institutions to the computer age presents devilish and intriguing problems."
I simply do not believe the first sentence. If there is any evidence that dispute over the merits of the DMCA is welcome at PFF, it is certainly very well-hidden. Obviously there are plenty of people with "dedication to property rights, markets, and minimal regulation" who oppose the DMCA. I doubt there is any place for them at PFF, however.
Understood. But in support of Doug, I would note the continued distortion of PFF's statements about their motivations, using terms such as 'Free Market' and 'Freedom' when they actually appear to advocate some form of encroachment of property rights on the First Amendment. Basically, a power grab by a few large corporations, who are trying to subvert First Amendment. And PFF is the Front.
Their continued refusal to acknowledge the conlfict between the DCMA and First Amendment is a bit frustrating.
I was always taught in rhetoric to state your opponents case better then they themselves could state it and then show the fallacies in their position.
PFF as a matter of policy mis-states and misconstrues the arguments of their opponents (those against the DCMA or part of the free culture movement)
That is why:
1. Their website could not allow comments,
2. Few actually have any respect for their intellectual integrity.
--There is no requirement that one support the DMCA to work at PFF. Adam doesn't, for one. Doug's paper doesn't. Jim and I would like to see alternatives, which so far are weak.
--We accept email comments and post thoughtful ones on our blog. Send us a thoughtful comment and see! Of the comments we have received by email, most are thoughtful. I think they compare very favorably with blog comments.
--I agree with Tim there is a difference between meat space piracy and cyber piracy... but not that it is terribly significant. I do think that DRM inconveniences meat space piracy *more* than it does cyber piracy. But it adds an element of inconvenience to both, and the element of black-marketness adds further inconvenience to both. The Grokster case (an entirely different topic) also addresses cyber piracy, of course, and is a key element. The larger point remains... I believe there is a big different between DeCSS or assorted unlicensed P2P networks as they exist today and what they would look like if they were taken over by, say, IBM or Microsoft and mass-marketed.
Again, if DRM is doing NOTHING, the question, why is the content industry across the board (games, movies, music, photographers, software) putting so much energy into business models based on that? The theory is that they are 1) evil 2) stupid or 3) technologically blind. That strikes me as implausible--we are talking about a LOT of people working in creative fields. But if it were true, again, it would be a huge, gaping opportunity for some good, intellgient, and tech-savvy entrepreneur to come in and beat them at their own game. Investors would be falling all over themselves to fund this person. And it ain't happening. It is still possible that someone will come in and do this, of course, we will have to see.
Finally, alternatives? Still none.
4) One final argument, that content markets do not need DMCA (or DRM) help at all... I will do a separate post on. I think that is a more interesting argument than all the stuff about security research and competition. But also very difficult.
5) Re the intellectual integrity of PFF... Sigh. Yes, PFF has donors, corporate donors. A wide array of them, with differing views. We are very grateful for their support, without which we would not have desks, chairs, phones, or hold conferences, which are expensive. We are grateful for their war stories from the fast-changing world of business--though we have many other sources. But our opinions on the matter of what makes good policy are our own; our views on intellectual property are generally congruent with those of some of our donors (not with others), but our views are not derived from those of our donors. There is an important difference.
PFF is a non-profit. The people who work there have eschewed work in much-better-paying jobs as lawyers or lobbyists for a reason. They believe in free markets. While I have found their ideas of what free markets might look like in futureto be somewhat broader than my former colleagues at CEI and Cato, as befits a think tank focussing on issues at the cutting edge of technology, their commitment to free markets is just as strong.
The ability to function as a "hired gun," to adopt a vision of someone else's self-interest as if it were one's own, and in the general interest, is an extremely valuable skill, and is very well compensated. As a general matter (with a few exceptions) those of us who work in think tanks (left and right) inside the Beltway either do not have this skill at all, or have given it up. I never had it. I was far too fond of my own opinion to function in a law firm. So now I earn perhaps 1/3 or 1/4 of what most of the folks I graduated with earn. But I do have my independence, whatever that is worth.
Most of the folks who comment on the connection between donors and think tanks as if they were shedding some deep light on the motivations of the organization simply do not know anything about how think tanks operate. It is easier, however, to write posts of this sort rather than contending with the substance of the issue.
My experience in Washington DC is that rarely, very rarely, a non-profit ideologically committed to one position will get itself in a position where it depends on just one or two donors, and face losing its independence on one or more issues. But that does *not* happen all that often.
Finally, my own views on IP, DRM and the DMCA have changed over the years chiefly because of the following:
-Having a front row seat when Jim Delong and I were at CEI together, where many, many internal IP debates raged (Fred Smith was another player here).
-Marrying a computer game designer, who comes from a family where the main economic actors have for a couple of generations been research scientists. These are not people who have any difficulty with the idea that taking IP is stealing! Got me thinking about how one's expectations shape what one thinks of as property, morality, rights.
-Watching forensics shows on TV. I used to do this to relax. But it, too, got me thinking how much of my efforts with abstract legal concepts during the day depend on working enforcement mechanisms, and what problems might arise if we take those for granted.
Enough. Will post more tomorrow.
Cheers,
Solveig
Thanks for commenting! I still don't think I understand this point. Could you please elaborate? It seems to me that the ability of P2P networks to create an unlimited number of copies of a file means that preventing anything less than 100 percent of people from uploading files has no effect on the number of downloads. What am I missing? In what way does DRM add an "element of inconvenience" to the process?