Technology Liberation Front: The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » Are Young Libertarians Anti-IP?
naiserie
· 3 years ago
I'd place myself more in the "wacko anarchist" camp (that's some "engaging" rhetoric); and (after having just read it) am also clearly too stupid "to fully grasp the import of [his] book chapter on the topic".
Nevertheless, the ageist implication of his little rant (and apparent emailings), is easily turned on its head. There is a new economy. There are new technologies. He is too obstinate to deal with them (I refrain from fully flipping his bigotry).
Want to solve piracy? Let me download Lost or the Daily Show for 25 cents as it airs, and play it on my ipod, computer, and burn to disc to watch on my DVD player (I'd go as high as $1, but I don't think the advertising lost is worth much more per viewer--which would be an interesting study in itself).
Honestly though, kudos, Tim, for making a slight effort to engage someone who doesn't appear to be willing to listen in the least.
David McElroy
· 3 years ago
I'm certainly not an anarchist when it comes to IP, at least in part because I create artistic content for a living. But the balance between protecting the rights of creators and the rights of purchasers have swung dangerously in favor of the creators. A limited monopoly on new creations is supposed to give creators a reason to keep making new content, not to give them a perpetual license to own everything.
Another issue is that current law (such as the DMCA) totally disregards technological realities. I'm 45, but maybe I'm more technically oriented than most people my age or older. Maybe younger people (and some of us who are older) understand that laws are not ever going to stop the technical ability to copy digital files. If the data is there, someone can break into it, assuming that the "lock" is such that consumer-level devices can get into it in the first place.
The more people realize what the new IP laws are going to prevent them from doing (such as time shifting their TV viewing as they've done with VCRs when they try it with something like a broacast flag), they're not going to put up with it. Laws such as this destroy any respect for laws, because they're not worth respecting and they're unenforcable.
IP law in the digital age MUST change, even if older people (or less technically savvy people) don't "get it" quite yet.
Michael Masnick
· 3 years ago
Ha! Jim DeLong emailed me last year concerning something on Techdirt, and following that email I sent him back a note questioning his views on IP in great detail.
His response? He ignored it.
I guess that's how he "engages" in debate.
Precision Blogger
· 3 years ago
Please note that concepts of copyright and IP may be minor historical diversions from the norm. They have mostly affected Western Civilization for the last 200 years. In most societies (including our own before 1850), it was absolutely routine to base art and inventions freely on other people's work.
It makes good sense to re-examine these concepts; we don't need them any more.
It isn't just DRM and the creeping extension of copyright that is the focus of this debate (although that topic is central).
Patent monopolies are causing challenges to many innovators, startups, and of course, large established corporations. The "IP debate" isn't complete until we talk about all the abuses that go on here, as well as stakeholders' push to extend their idea monopolies in the same way that they wish to extend their content monopolies in the copyright world.
For example, it would do us little good to legalize circumvention of content restriction devices (or repeal the DMCA in its entirety) if the content industry earns patents on the processes and methods of circumventing them. Effectively, the same control would be exerted over production of such circumvention software or products: it would be illegal to create, distribute, or offer for sale tools that circumvent without the explicit permission of the content industry.
MikeT
· 3 years ago
I responded to that post of his, but my trackbacks are blocked, presumably because I have been known to dig back a little at their potshots at the "anti-IP fringe." Here's the response that couldn't be tracked back to his blog.
The problem I have with IPCentral is that they don't know what the hell they're talking about on most technical issues. Solveig Singleton actually responded to a post of mine a while back where I called her bluff on how to make DRM simultaneously interoperable and competitive. You can't do it. Either you build it into your operating system's I/O system or you make it a pluggable module that works like a kernel module/plugin (for microkernel systems). That's of course assuming it's not built into the application.
I'm a software developer, not a lawyer, but I do know some things about property rights in principle. Their love of DRM is not compatible with basic notions of private property rights and I personally shudder at the thought of a world in which copyright is king. It's a world in which the customer is a sharecropper with no aspirations of becoming a yeoman farmer when it comes to his/her purchased goods.
Btw, anyone ever notice that since copyright law become so prominent, there have been no Mozarts, Beethovens, etc.? Where is the real Shakespeare of the 20th century? Do we have to wait another full century to get a shot of this total copyright-protected music world creating and supporting such genius?
Solveig Singleton
· 3 years ago
Re Tim: As I understand the exchange between Jim and Adam, they were talking about anti-IP young libertarians (i.e. those who don't believe in IP at all), as opposed to those who are concerned about the way in which it has gone in recent years. That is also the focus of my blog series on IP & Liberty.
I'm aware that the mainstream critiques of IP are along different lines. But frankly I either agree with a lot of those critiques or think they relate only to fairly marginal issues, so I'm not particularly interested in refuting them. The main place where I differ with most critics is in thinking that they do not take the underlying problem seriously enough. Example, there are certainly a lot of problems with the DMCA--but, well, ALTERNATIVES, anyone? Having the only boundaries in the digital content world being legal ones (as opposed to technological) does not strike me as being optimal.
In response to the comments, some of which are hilarious:
I can assure that our KSR brief was not some cynical ploy to deflate any and all criticism of the patent system; we're concerned about patent quality. Really.
Mike: If your trackbacks didn't show up, it was, well, who knows, but certainly not a policy response. Trust me, we have NO IDEA who you are.
Re my technical expertise or lack thereof: Free market policy generally can accomodate a wide spectrum of technological developments; indeed, in large part, that's the freakin' point. Nothing in my thinking about DRM depends on the *same* DRM being both interoperable and competitive in the sense you mention. Competition between different DRM systems and systems with no DRM is perfectly fine with me.
And I'm really sorry you are not enjoying the century's creative arts. But I don't think that has much to do with copyright policy, actually.
Tim
· 3 years ago
I can only say that I don't think the problems created by the DMCA are "fairly marginal," something I tried to draw out with my four questions above. I don't think the balkanization of media technologies and the erection of barriers to entry for new technologies are marginal concerns.
I also hope you'll read my forthcoming Cato Policy Analysis, where I lay out the problems caused by the DMCA in greater detail.
Anon
· 3 years ago
I am just passing and haven't read your article in depth. However, the main problem with IP is that it conditions markets in such a way that monopolies are natural consequences - which is why IP should be treated with great care, certainly more care than it is today.
All Comments
Nevertheless, the ageist implication of his little rant (and apparent emailings), is easily turned on its head. There is a new economy. There are new technologies. He is too obstinate to deal with them (I refrain from fully flipping his bigotry).
Want to solve piracy? Let me download Lost or the Daily Show for 25 cents as it airs, and play it on my ipod, computer, and burn to disc to watch on my DVD player (I'd go as high as $1, but I don't think the advertising lost is worth much more per viewer--which would be an interesting study in itself).
Honestly though, kudos, Tim, for making a slight effort to engage someone who doesn't appear to be willing to listen in the least.
Another issue is that current law (such as the DMCA) totally disregards technological realities. I'm 45, but maybe I'm more technically oriented than most people my age or older. Maybe younger people (and some of us who are older) understand that laws are not ever going to stop the technical ability to copy digital files. If the data is there, someone can break into it, assuming that the "lock" is such that consumer-level devices can get into it in the first place.
The more people realize what the new IP laws are going to prevent them from doing (such as time shifting their TV viewing as they've done with VCRs when they try it with something like a broacast flag), they're not going to put up with it. Laws such as this destroy any respect for laws, because they're not worth respecting and they're unenforcable.
IP law in the digital age MUST change, even if older people (or less technically savvy people) don't "get it" quite yet.
His response? He ignored it.
I guess that's how he "engages" in debate.
It makes good sense to re-examine these concepts; we don't need them any more.
- The Precision Blogger
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com
Patent monopolies are causing challenges to many innovators, startups, and of course, large established corporations. The "IP debate" isn't complete until we talk about all the abuses that go on here, as well as stakeholders' push to extend their idea monopolies in the same way that they wish to extend their content monopolies in the copyright world.
For example, it would do us little good to legalize circumvention of content restriction devices (or repeal the DMCA in its entirety) if the content industry earns patents on the processes and methods of circumventing them. Effectively, the same control would be exerted over production of such circumvention software or products: it would be illegal to create, distribute, or offer for sale tools that circumvent without the explicit permission of the content industry.
The problem I have with IPCentral is that they don't know what the hell they're talking about on most technical issues. Solveig Singleton actually responded to a post of mine a while back where I called her bluff on how to make DRM simultaneously interoperable and competitive. You can't do it. Either you build it into your operating system's I/O system or you make it a pluggable module that works like a kernel module/plugin (for microkernel systems). That's of course assuming it's not built into the application.
I'm a software developer, not a lawyer, but I do know some things about property rights in principle. Their love of DRM is not compatible with basic notions of private property rights and I personally shudder at the thought of a world in which copyright is king. It's a world in which the customer is a sharecropper with no aspirations of becoming a yeoman farmer when it comes to his/her purchased goods.
Btw, anyone ever notice that since copyright law become so prominent, there have been no Mozarts, Beethovens, etc.? Where is the real Shakespeare of the 20th century? Do we have to wait another full century to get a shot of this total copyright-protected music world creating and supporting such genius?
I'm aware that the mainstream critiques of IP are along different lines. But frankly I either agree with a lot of those critiques or think they relate only to fairly marginal issues, so I'm not particularly interested in refuting them. The main place where I differ with most critics is in thinking that they do not take the underlying problem seriously enough. Example, there are certainly a lot of problems with the DMCA--but, well, ALTERNATIVES, anyone? Having the only boundaries in the digital content world being legal ones (as opposed to technological) does not strike me as being optimal.
In response to the comments, some of which are hilarious:
I can assure that our KSR brief was not some cynical ploy to deflate any and all criticism of the patent system; we're concerned about patent quality. Really.
Mike: If your trackbacks didn't show up, it was, well, who knows, but certainly not a policy response. Trust me, we have NO IDEA who you are.
Re my technical expertise or lack thereof: Free market policy generally can accomodate a wide spectrum of technological developments; indeed, in large part, that's the freakin' point. Nothing in my thinking about DRM depends on the *same* DRM being both interoperable and competitive in the sense you mention. Competition between different DRM systems and systems with no DRM is perfectly fine with me.
And I'm really sorry you are not enjoying the century's creative arts. But I don't think that has much to do with copyright policy, actually.
I also hope you'll read my forthcoming Cato Policy Analysis, where I lay out the problems caused by the DMCA in greater detail.
Brendan S