Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Internet freedoms restrained - SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA/CETA/PrECISE-related updates

<< < (14/79) > >>

IainB:
Useful factual input to the debate?
There's quite a lot been said/written about opinions as to how or why we need all this regulation for copyright or control or whatever for the Internet, and opinions to the contrary. However, it generally seems to have been all a bit light on transparent and rigorous reasoning. (Too much secrecy and made-up stuff on the Pro side, and not enough information on the Con side.)

Here is what appears to be some open and genuine research/thinking - the first that I have seen on the subject - and it presents a reasoned contrarian view and argues for rational, evidence-based policy on the matter.
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks.)
Stopping the Campaign of Misinformation: New Study Affirms Less Copyright Restrictions Benefit the Economy

A new study from Australia presents the latest evidence that loosening copyright restrictions not only enables free speech, but can improve an economy as well. The study, published by the Australian Digital Alliance, indicated that if Australia expanded copyright exceptions like fair use, along with strengthening safe harbor provisions, the country could potentially add an extra $600 million to their economy.

In addition, the report details how vital copyright exceptions are to the Australian economy as a whole. As ADA’s executive officer and copyright advisor Ellen Broad told EFF, "Australia's sectors relying on copyright exceptions currently contribute 14% of our GDP, around $182 billion and they're growing rapidly. It's essential that Australia's copyright policy framework adequately support innovation and growth of these sectors in the digital environment.”

Given how much Australia’s burdensome and confusing copyright law has held up innovation, EFF is encouraged by the fact that copyright reform is being considered and debated in the public sphere.

But more broadly, this is just the latest evidence disproving a major talking point used by the MPAA and RIAA anytime copyright laws come up for a vote: that tough copyright laws are good for the economy. During the SOPA debate, organizations such as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) claimed over and over again that the restrictive law are needed to save and create jobs. Yet the Australian study confirms similar research done by CIAA in the US, showing how important fair use exceptions are to the economy. In fact, fair use accounted “for more than $4.5 trillion in annual revenue” in the US and exceeding the economic benefits of copyright laws themselves.

Unfortunately, this new evidence probably won’t stop the MPAA and RIAA from continuing to peddle misinformation about the economics of copyright law in Australia, the US, or elsewhere. Currently, the MPAA is distributing materials to members of the US Congress—perhaps in another attempt to gin up support for SOPA 2.0—extolling how important new, restrictive laws will allegedly to help them create jobs.

But these new talking points are short on statistics—perhaps for a reason. MPAA and RIAA have used drastically exaggerated numbers and discredited studies for years to claim that laws like SOPA and PIPA—or agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership—are vital for the economy. In reality, SOPA would’ve cost many more jobs than it saved, given it would have weakened or eliminated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbors that have allowed Internet companies like Google and Facebook to thrive for the last decade. That’s why when a survey was taken of venture capitalists, they “overwhelmingly” indicated they would stop investing in tech companies—the one of the economy’s fastest growing sectors—if SOPA were to pass.

Since the economic numbers don’t add up, advocates for draconian copyright laws have resorted to other misleading arguments. For example, this week, a Fox News editorial erroneously argued that intellectual property protection is a “forgotten” constitutional right and “it is the obligation” of Congress to pass laws like SOPA to protect rightsholders. Of course, the problem with SOPA was that it was written so broadly it would’ve ended up censoring millions of Americans who never even thought about copyright, but that’s beside the point. The US Constitution does mention intellectual property but not in the context of an individual right or mandate to Congress. Specifically, it says:

   Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

--- End quote ---
A plain reading of the clause indicates Congress has the authority to use copyright law to promote creativity—if they so choose. There’s no mandate for Congress to pass any copyright law that comes their way, and there’s no clause guaranteeing the rights of movie studios and record labels to maximize their profits. Meanwhile, creativity—far from being stifled without more copyright laws on the books—is currently thriving. There’s been a market increase in the amount of movies, music, and books produced over the last decade, as this comprehensive study done by CCIA and Techdirt’s Mike Masnick shows.

So while huge legacy corporations may find it harder to keep a grip on their market share, it’s not because people have stopped creating and selling art. It’s quite the opposite: they’re creating more by incorporating fair use, cutting out the middlemen, and bringing their art directly to their fans through the Internet.

Unfortunately, all too often copyright maximalists, like the author in the Fox News editorials, put forth the idea that “lawlessness” prevails on the Internet, even though in the US and abroad there are many copyright laws already on the books. In the US alone, Congress has passed fifteen separate laws in the last thirty years alone strengthening the powers of rightsholders.

Most notably, the US DMCA gives power to copyright holders to force websites to take down any of their protected material. In fact, the DMCA gives disproportionate power to the rightsholders, often leading to abuse, and in turn, censoring material that is clearly protected free speech. As Techdirt noted, in Australia, their outdated and burdensome copyright system “is ill-equipped to cope with key Internet activities like search and indexing, caching and hosting, since they all involve incidental copying.”

Both countries would be better served by evidence-based policy that promoted the intended balance of copyright. After decades of unbalanced legislation, the evidence is clear, and points to relaxing copyright restrictions, not strengthening them.

For more on the debate over the economics of copyright see here and here.

--- End quote ---

IainB:
I often wonder:

* Why do governments increasingly seem to be so Hell-bent on instituting regulation and control over the Internet freedoms that previously existed?
* Surely it can't all be only because the **AA are lobbying for it?
* What are the drivers for it all?
* If one main objective is (the usual) money/power, then what does it (regulation/control over the Internet) achieve for governments in that regard?
I subscribe to a website called GaryNorth.com, mostly to pick up any thoughts he may have on economics on his public pages (he has a members-only paywall for other pages). He often has interesting comments in his public pages, and I thought this post (copied below) was particularly interesting due to its relevance to the effect of Information Technology on the communication of Establishment propaganda. (Echoes of George Orwell's 1984.)

Digital Technologies vs. Truth Suppression
(Copied in the spoiler below as-is, with some emphasis of mine. There are no embedded hyperlinks. The website is worth a look as well.)
SpoilerDigital Technologies vs. Truth Suppression
Gary North
Reality Check (Sept. 21, 2012)

I am going to tell you some stories. To make it interesting, I will begin with one which could make one of my readers the deal of a lifetime. It ends on September 30. He who hesitates is lost.

I begin with the obvious: the falling cost of Internet communications is revolutionizing the spread of knowledge. In doing so, it is undermining every establishment. Every establishment rests mush of its power on official views of the past. This is seen in the novel by George Orwell, "Nineteen Eighty-Four." The tyrant who enforces the totalitarian state says this. "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."

The cost of controlling the past has risen exponentially since 1995: the year that the graphics browser was introduced. Then came Google.

I know Orwell said this, because I just verified it on several websites. That took under one minute. There is some debate over punctuation: period, colon, or semicolon. I think I will not go to the trouble of looking it up in my library, which is in a special room miles away.

The cost of research is a tiny fraction of what it was in 1995. The Web has changed everything.

This leads me to my special offer. In the late nineteenth century, only those people who lived near Boston could research the history of American Puritanism. Only there were the primary sources available: Harvard University's library and the collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society. You had to go to Yale after you were finished in Boston. There were other collections that were scattered across the region. The main one was at the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester, Massachusetts. According to the AAS,

    Clifford K. Shipton, who became librarian in 1940, improved access to primary sources through partnerships with technology companies. The Early American Imprints microprint edition provided scholars with images of pages of books and pamphlets printed in America before 1801. Researchers around the world were soon eagerly reading the contents of imprints housed in libraries miles away.
--- End quote ---

Understand what this means: everything printed in colonial America from 1639 to early 1801. Then a follow-up collection was published: 1801-1811. I wrote my PhD. Dissertation in Riverside, California, based mainly on that microcard collection. That was over 40 years ago. I do not know how much the University of California's library paid for that set. I think it was a lot.

Then came microfiche. You could make crude photocopies of these microfiche. You could not with microcards. You had to take notes by hand. I still have mine in one long note card box. Historians never toss out their notes.

The price of the microcards fell to zero. A man I knew 20 years ago found out that the publishing firm was going to use the sets for land fill. They did not want competition for the microfiche edition. He made the company a deal. He would buy them. He wiuld sell them only to research organizations and private high schools that would not buy the microfiche sets. The company agreed.

My Institute for Christian Economics bought the set for $10,000. It paid $8,000 for a complete set of all the newspapers, 1780-1800. I got five readers. In today's money, that is at last $30,000. I overpaid.

Then came digitization and online searching. The microfiche are worth nothing.

ICE gave the microcard set to a private Christian day school. But it has run out of space in its library. It is going to give the set away. For the price of a trip to northwest Arkansas and renting a 16-foot truck, someone can own the set.

If no one wants it, it will return to land fill. Ashes to ashes, plastic to plastic.

With this set, you can train students to do primary source research. Or you can do such research yourself.

You have all the newspapers of the American Revolution. You can verify anyone's footnotes.

You get a complete index. This is an ideal tool for any day school that focuses on America's Christian history.

For a private high school that advertises itself as an academic institution for college-bound students. This set on the library's walls says "this institution is serious."

Deadline to apply: September 30, 2012. That is the email inquiry date deadline. If you are interested, send a note to Art Cunningham, [email protected].

CRITICS WITH DIGITS
It is getting close to impossible for any establishment group to get its version of the past accepted. There are rival sites that provide links to evidence that undermines the establishment's view.

In the good old days -- pre-1995 -- an establishment did not face a major challenge. It cost too much to research the facts. It cost too much to typeset a book, print it, store it, advertise it, and get distribution. The few that did this got a tiny market. It could be easily dismissed: "conspiracy theory." The old tactic is still used: "conspiracy theory." But it's a hard sell, because so many documents are online disproving the establishment's view. Too many people are not buying it.

The common man may not have an opinion about what did happen, but he has doubts about the official view. In the case of 9-11, people ask: "Where is the evidence that a plane crashed in one spot in Shanksville?" There was zero debris. There is video evidence of an empty hole. "Let's roll!" is inspiring. A missile shot by an Air Force jet isn't. But debris scattered over miles conveys a message: "This plane fell apart in the sky, not on the ground."

Conspiracy theory? You bet!

If the official view is clearly impossible regarding 25% of 9-11, how about 50%? Where was the debris at the Pentagon? Why was the hole so small? How did anyone navigate the required turn?

If we get to 50%, what about New York City? Why did Building 7 come down so fast? Why did a tiny paper fire bring down this building? And so forth.

Conspiracy theories? You bet!

Doubts regarding the official stories lead to doubts regarding all official stories. Doubt undermines legitimacy. Without legitimacy, an establishment must substitute power for authority, external government for self-government. The cost of forcing people to behave is too great for any government. Without widespread self-government to enforce its demands, an establishment becomes just another competing interest group.

This is why the World Wide Web is the biggest threat in history to every government-supported special-interest group. They all know this. There is hardly anything they can do about it. They rail against conspiracy theories, but the mantra is not working any more. It worked when the average person did not have access to books. He did not have access to supporting evidence one click away. Now he does. There is nothing that the various establishments can do about this, other than invoke the mantra: "Conspiracy theory."

It is a case of a government-subsidized pot calling a privately funded kettle black.

THE MISES INSTITUTE
The Ludwig von Mises Institute was the first comprehensive website to make available a comprehensive alternative to the Keynesian/monetarist establishment in the economics guild. It offers books, articles, and videos produced by scholars who reject this establishment view of economic cause and effect.

The department titled "Literature" offers hundreds of classic rejections of the Keynesian/monetarist outlook: in theory, in policy, and in economic history. Only the largest research libraries have even half of these books. These books are in PDF format and other e-book formats. The student can download all of them free of charge.

The student can also buy print-on-demand copies for about $20 each. This printing technology has broken the cartel of the book publishers. They never had to burn books. They only had to return the manuscripts to authors. This was so much more urbane than book-burning. Book-burning was so "National Socialist, 1936. "These days, any author can typeset his book with Microsoft Word $100) or Open Office Write (free). Or, if he wants to go big-time, he can buy a copy of inDesign and climb the learning curve. The point is, the barrier is merely a cheap software program and learning time. The barrier is no longer money.

"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." That was what radical activist A. J. Liebling said in the 1950s. Now anyone with an Internet connection who wants one can lease one free of charge. You can post anything on Scribd. It stays up, free of charge.

The Mises Institute has found that giving way PDFs of books sells lots of printed books. Book readers suffer from what I call Picard's syndrome. They just have to hold a book to enjoy it. A PDF or a Kindle is not good enough. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north228.html)

Even worse from the Keynesian/monetarist establishment's outlook is the power of YouTube. The Mises Institute posts all lectures delivered at its meetings. Then the video manager uses the YouTube embed feature to post it on the Institute's site. Somehow, I never see any ads. The videos begin at the beginning of the lecture session.

Videos are a good way for people to get a quick overview of any topic. The student can decide if it's worth pursuing. If he thinks it is, he can use the Literature section of the site to get started.

People like videos. They watch lots of them. They can more easily and more rapidly pick up new information in a well-delivered speech than in a book. The speeches stay on the site permanently.

The traffic that the Mises.org site receives is greater than the traffic on the site of the American Economic Association, the most important academic organization in the field of economics. Its site is rated as 140,000 on Alexa. The Mises site is rated at 17,000. There is no comparison.

The strategy of the Mises Institute is to give everything away. This strategy is working.

CONCLUSION
The Internet has overcome the establishments' distribution systems. Information delivery systems present numerous outlets to anyone with an Internet connection. Very skilled communicators can now overcome what would have been nearly impenetrable barriers to entry in 1995.

The quality of the broad mass of digits is low, but the quality at the top is very high. Open entry has produced outlets for people with very great skills in both research and expression.

This process will accelerate. Every establishment will come under fire intellectually and rhetorically. They will eventually suffer major reversals.

It is happening today. The ability of any establishment to manipulate the relevant climate of opinion among younger Web users is limited and shrinking. As these users get older, they will pay less heed to the opinions of the establishments.

--- End quote ---


I could be wrong, of course, but I optimistically interpret the last line of the conclusions as suggesting that a real/potential benefit of Internet freedoms is that people using the Internet could tend to become better able to think critically for themselves (independence of thought) and form opinions based on good information and reason rather than on the dumbed-down propaganda they get fed, thus making them less amenable to manipulation by others (including the State).

kyrathaba:
Internet freedoms restrained - SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA/CETA/PrECISE-related updates

TaoPhoenix:
Heh drop-in-ocean and all, but I just set my user agent string to a big complicated "Creative Commons original work Non-Commercial-No Derivatives".

So if I did that right, a site can sniff it, but then they can't package it and sell data attached to it, right?

IainB:
Well, it could have been an M.C. Hammer song: "You can't stop this!"
If this post (see below) is true, then I am unspeakably annoyed by it as it looks like US Totalitarianism. Generally the only way to fight Totalitarianism is by revolt.
Just more of @Renegade's "cockroaches", I suppose.
(I've only copied just the start of the post to give you some idea. You can read the rest at the link if you are interested.)
Simulated Cybersecurity Threats That Pave the Way for Internet Restrictions
by Activist
Susanne Posel, Contributor
Activist Post

Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, spoke to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee meeting this week and confirmed that the Obama administration is circumventing Congress and drafting an “inter-agency process” which is “close to completion depending on a few issues that need to be resolved at the highest levels.”

John Brennan, assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has planted the concept that a cybersecurity executive order will give the Obama administration power over the future of the internet in ways the passage of legislation would never be able to provide. In a letter to Senator Jay Rockefeller, Brennan said that Obama is “exploring issuing an executive order to direct federal agencies to secure the nation’s critical infrastructure by working with the private sector to develop security standards.”
(Read the rest at the link.)

--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page