The Architecture Of The Internet
In a week when those in Congress are contemplating messing around with the it (I had stronger language but thought better, I'm pissed), my partner Albert lays out a great post on the architecture of the Internet and the history of wide area networking protocols.
The work Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf did back in the 70s laid the groundwork for all that we have today:
This idea was first put forth in the early 1970s byBob Kahn. After setting out crucial core principles of “open-architecture” such as no global network control (i.e., a distributed system) and only requiring best effort (i.e., no guarantee of delivery), Kahn worked with Vint Cerf on coming up with a protocol. Their incredibly productive collaboration results in a first version of what became known as the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) that allowed for reliable information transmission and still adhered to the core principles of an open archtiecture.
A short while later they realized that TCP was too comprehensive and it was broken up into two pieces which became widely known as TCP/IP where the IP stands simply for Internet Protocol. The Internet Protocol defines what an address for a computer on the network looks like and how those addresses are used to route packets from one computer to another along a path of potentially many intermediary points. Those addresses are known as IP addresses.
Vint Cerf is now at Google and he spoke out on the bills in Congress yesterday:
"Even our own government is beginning to go overboard in the protection of copyright"
“The open ability to develop new applications and try them out has been vital to the Internet’s growth and to the space in which we currently operate. It has interesting ways of enhancing both sides of the equation.”
“Remember, governance is a big word that includes human rights, freedom of speech, economic transactions on a worldwide basis — it touches everything. It’s everywhere, and that’s why Internet governance is topic A in many corners.”
Topic A here too at AVC. More to come. I'm still pissed.
UPDATE: Just saw this letter dated today to Congress from many of the largest Internet companies in the US.
Not that I condone this in any way but realistically this was bound to happen as government and industry find new things to control and take advantage of. This has been the approach throughout history to all new industries, give them room to grow and then choke them.
doesn’t mean i am going to take it sitting down
We can’t ignore it but we need real mobilization against the effort if we want to defeat or at least minimize the historical natural order of things.
And be more organized and aggressive.This is the Government’s full time activity and there is ton of firepower with the lobbyists also.
It’s not like the tech industry doesn’t have lobbying might, they just prefer to work alone forgetting that “no man is an island”. It can only be defeated by a combination of active mobilization and heavy financial lobbying.
I totally agree, Mordy. The combined social graphs and scale of influence of this AVC community alone is massive and exponentially larger when viewed as a community among communities. I don’t believe mobilization is the problem. I think the challenge is to create a message that is clearly understood and shareable so that everyone here and their friends can propagate said message. This is heady stuff and I am the first to admit that I don’t fully understand the issues or the implications. I think creating this message is job one and wish I was in a position to do it.
The preferred solution is working outside the system. But that strategy runs into problems with Gov regulation.I see up and coming networks which are built to defy regulation. No doubt several of these will (at least intellectually) fuel a future net.
BEST WAY TO CHANGE NOTHING IS DO NOTHING.
The trick is to get your opponents to do nothing 🙂
Better yet, get them to help you.
i’m in SF today trying to do just that
Here’s hoping you succeed
all the best!
Nice, Michelle and I are working to head out to the Bay Area. Just need to snag rent money from great work.
New businesses will emerge from Protect IP.Google, Yahoo, etc. will be thought of as old schoolRun with it, create new companies around Protect IP.It’s a tremendous opportunity for the digital world to overcome physical world.
that sounded so matrix ha!
occupy the internet
the internet is like water: try to grab it and it slips through the fingers.
i love it. i will use that the next time i talk to someone in washington about this issue
feel free fred — it was under creative commons:)
everything on this blog is CC!
…which is awesome!
the internet is water and the the streams of information we see on twitter are rivers…you piss in them enough and they get posioned and polluted…Washington needs Flomax and or a cork .
i don’t even know what flomax is!
you WILL ! trust me.
Flomax! I’d never heard of this before until only last night when I was watching a film, It’s Complicated, with Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin (not a great film it has to be said), but Baldwin’s character, a man in his fifties, was taking Flomax… amongst other things. Apparently is greatly reduces the number of daily visits to the bathroom a man has to take to empty his bladder.
No, the Internet is electricity. You turn it on when people pay; you turn it off when they don’t. You meter it. You can’t piss on it or you’ll be electrocuted.
…and water can exist as a gas, a liquid, or a solid. Censorship could turn the internet into a solid, a solid block of concentrated elite power.
solid extension of the analogy (excuse the pun) — it’s a move toward turning the Internet into the Intranet
No, the Internet is like electricity. Don’t pay for it, and it is shut off.
This is part depressing. (The helplessness of it)
It ain’t over til its over!
that i agree!
If there’s anything that can be done and labor is needed, count me in for web programming, bloody knuckles, whatever it takes…
bloody knuckes! has it come to that?
It always does.
Bloody knuckles is essential, noted.
An abuse of power and internet censorship may be upon us, you tell me!
Bob Kahn credits the freedom from commercial and regulatory involvement as one of the key success factors for the development of the Internet. Since most folks thought it was a toy, no one took it seriously back then and there were no vested interests to influence the original ARPANET. You might find this talk he gave at Princeton a few years back interesting. http://www.princeton.edu/en…
thanks. will check it out
That’s interesting. I look forward to studying that to understand more the design flaws deliberately welded into the Internet.
ANGER IS FUEL.BURN TO MAKE CHANGE.
Anger and fuel have another thing in common – they both can explode and cause damage – how do we channel anger?
BY DO THINGS.
Add a think before do, I wouldActions without thought, negative they can becomeThought before action, channeling anger positively requires
agreed. be both the lion and the fox.
FOR GRIMLOCK, ACTION IS THOUGHT.THOUGHT IS ACTION.BUT ME UNDERSTAND SOME BRAINS PUNIER THAN FISTS, NEED BUFFER BEFORE DO.
Reflection in the loop, there must beWhen action and thought, merged they areRushed, all our activities becomeTake a deep breath, we must Force ourselves to take a break from constant action, we must For when we least feel like taking a break….maybe when we most need one
don’t get near grimlock when grimlock is hungry
What Things? (and I write this while there are discussions surrounding me over whether OWS had weaponry)I sometimes feel like I live in a tenderbox….
THINGS THAT MATTER. IF NOT KNOW WHAT MATTER, FIND PERSON THAT DO. HELP THEM.
I’m frustrated because I’m starting to think most of what I do won’t matter…
Somebody said hilariously that Occupy Wall Street were a a bunch of lost, out-of-season Burners. Well said.
THIS HOW MAKE REAL CHANGE:1. BUILD NEW CROWDFUND PLATFORM FOR CREATIVE ARTS ONLY.2. REQUIRE ALL FUNDED WORK CREATIVE COMMONS.3. BUILD EASY POST RANSOM MONETIZATION, DISCOVERY.KICKSTARTER + DEVIANTART + CAFEPRESS/LULU FOR ART, MUSIC, BOOK, ETC.HOLLYWOOD USE COPYRIGHT AS WEAPON? TEAR OUT THROAT OF COPYRIGHT.
Getting there. The internet OS is built bit by bit piece by piece
NEED FASTER.MAYBE TIME FOR HIRE TEAM.
My my, someone wants Acceleration ;)Something like this requires the many to utilize their connections. You are right proposing a ‘Creative Commons’ (working title) that can be pushed via the celebrity who can see the problem of Walls related to this legislation.Coming up with the ‘right’, coherent message is essential, asking everyone to use it. That way, we avoid the Occupy issue which should have been a 3 week event proclaiming a simple message which then could be evaluated to plan the next step.Something like this will require some Blood, Sweat and Tears that will not hand over a salary and/or quick profit. Yet, if talent encompassing multiple categories/niches can come together, we can do something.Just my humble opinion @fredwilson:disqus
only if you lead the team my friend
TELL ME, GRIMLOCK WHERE TO SIGN.
on the dotted line, of course
Copyright laws have long history and are created with good intentions (let say international copyright laws). Unfortunately, there are many situations where they get misused by both sides in the “process”.I don’t know if Fred has experience in investing in movie production or book market, where you don’t have chance to pivot.How would he feel if, five days before official promotion, movie he invested gets “distribution” though pirate sites or “promising start-up” with “killer” streaming technology, that’s on the run to acquire new users as fast as it gets, and all this for “educational purposes”.There is similar situation with patents and patent rights. We all hate patent trolls, but some kind of patent protection must exist.In many EULA’s you’ll find statement saying “this software is provided AS IS without warranty of any kind, express or implied ….”. What about those authors/companies acting in a field where warranties and full standard compliance is a MUST (let say construction software). Do they have right to clame some kind of copyright and/or patent rights, since rights many time mean responsibility (so that users and partners don’t get afraid of let say company “going concern” 🙂
ALL MEDIA PIRATED.ONLY ANSWER IS PAID BEFORE CREATE.ROYALTIES OBSOLETE.
Tim Wu’s The Master Switch shows the parallels with earlier communications networks. Worth a read for anyone that is interested in this area.
Good interview with him.http://castroller.com/Podca…
Punk rises to give a voice to the frustrated exploited class > punk gets popular > punk gets defanged, co-opted and mainstreamed in the best interest of the powers/money that be that were being protested originally > Hip Hop rises to to give a voice to the frustrated exploited class.What’s going to be the internet’s Hip Hop (which at this point has been de-fanged too)?I feel angry and down about this new initiative to choke the internet, but I also remind myself that people are creative and will find a new way. I just really don’t want to have it get to the point where people would need to. This problem should be everyone’s focus right now.
the freedom box or something like it i guesshttp://www.nytimes.com/2011…
Sigh, clever, but that will make everything so much less elegant.
Just needs a little polish, all big ideas do.
PIPES WANT CONTROL?BLIND THE PIPES.ENCRYPT EVERYTHING.
We had a situation over here (in Lithuania) when owners of local gambling businesses managed to get a court order for ISPs to block access to gambling sites on the internet. Their business concern is understandable. The laws for starting a gambling business locally are strict and they basically can’t compete with offshore internet gambling sites. But internet is an open network and ISPs refused to obey based on technical impossibility of properly implementing such a court order. Obviously the real reasons were more about freedom, censorship, etc.Last time I checked it was still an ongoing dispute, but based on the fact that I can access foreign gambling sites, it’s either not over or gambling companies gave up.The bottom line, I think, is that businesses should concentrate on aligning their businesses with the reality of internet and stop fighting it. Reality is a key word here.
“ISPs refused to obey based on technical impossibility of properly implementing such a court order”yup
Start by calling/emailing your congressman. Quote a few criticisms of the bill(s) from this pdf: cdt.org/files/pdfs/NC-Analy… (or if someone knows of a better source). It’s easy to find their names online, Google “us congressman + your zip”. Found mine with direct links to their email on http://www.located-in.com. Do it today, it’s the first place to start. Tell others to do this same All else is just rhetoric.
As a person that has been in the markets all his life, I find the code and open source discussion and execution fascinating. One of the principles of free markets is that you have thousands, millions of people intersecting to maximize their own self interests. As they seek to maximize their own self interest, they create supply and demand curves which in turn create a transparent price that everyone reacts and intermingles with. Open architecture seems like a free market idea to me. No centralized control, millions of programmers seeking to maximize their own utility which drives a centralized supply/demand price. As the market matures, creative destruction happens driving innovation. It’s Coaseian. Thanks for the post and at my blog I will be supporting the American Censorship Day.
good points.there’s massive parallels in economics and the internet. to deeply understand the internet you need to understand economics imo.i’m most familiar with coase and ‘the nature of the firm’. it also sounds hayekian. and with that, trying to control the internet is ‘truly the road to serfdom’.
the cathedral and the bazaarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wik…The Cathedral and the Bazaar (abbreviated CatB) is an essay by Eric S. Raymond on software engineering methods, based on his observations of the Linux kernel development process and his experiences managing an open source project, fetchmail. It examines the struggle between top-down and bottom-up design. It was first presented by the author at the Linux Kongress on May 27, 1997 in Würzburg and was published as part of a book of the same name in 1999.The essay contrasts two different free software development models:The Cathedral model, in which source code is available with each software release, but code developed between releases is restricted to an exclusive group of software developers. GNU Emacs and GCC are presented as examples.The Bazaar model, in which the code is developed over the Internet in view of the public. Raymond credits Linus Torvalds, leader of the Linux kernel project, as the inventor of this process. Raymond also provides anecdotal accounts of his own implementation of this model for the Fetchmail project.
I’m coming at free market principles from an open source direction. I dig your analogy.
I like pissed-Fred.
haha Grimster will agree.’Fire’ etc 😀
my kids don’t
That means you are doing it right
i am trying. they are almost beyond parenting at this point. but in can’t stop caring.
As a 290 lb, 34 year old man who just had his post-surgery spirits lifted by Mom’s chicken and mashed taters….let me assure you that there is no such thing as “beyond parenting”Fight on.
Speedy recovery Andy, and I’m jealous of that dish. Michelle’s got us on salad a couple days a week to cut calories :()
That makes you a good parent!
All this thing is based on the wrong and dangerous idea that some centers can be smarter then the crowds or the market. Instead China becoming more like America, it’s sad to witness the other way around.America is build from freedom and reducing it will not be sustainable. Even if they do that, they will see the damage very soon, that they are actually kiling the instincts of the society that help him survive and inevitably reverse back. But still there will be damage and every effort fighting this is worthed.
sad, sad, sad
It’s a replay of the fights over the provenance – and governance – of the high seas/airspace/space…’We’ are Sputnik.
“WE ARE SPUTNIK” GOOD NAME FOR BAND.OR STARTUP.
I’d be very interested in your take on Andrew Keen’s response to your posts on this subject:http://techcrunch.com/2011/…
That article deserves to be read actually. Agreed.
IT GREAT EXAMPLE OF WHY NEVER READ TECHCRUNCH.
Are you sure about this one?
TECHCRUNCH: “THIS LAW IS OK, GOOGLE HELPED MAKE IT!”LINK ON AVC: LETTER GOOGLE SIGN SAYING LAW IS TERRIBLE.LAST TIME ME CHECK, OUTRIGHT LIES NOT GOOD REASON FOR READ BLOG.
that post was not written by keen. it was written by the content industry’s top lobbyist. and printed on techcrunch. pfft.
And peppered with selective/partial facts.
Reply to Fred below (because technology he has chosen for his forums prevents replies after two rounds!):That’s beneath you, Fred.Keen is no shill for lobbiests. He’s written a book. Have you? He’s written more than a book, he writes full-length researched articles. Have you? Seriously, the man is a thinker. You are too. But he has put out 100 times more product intellectually.
i doubt it5,556 posts over the past eight years probably amounts to a lot more output
That and FB comments.
Important to have intel on the “enemy”.Reminds me of being in high school and reading some articles in my sister’s magazines. Very helpful to see the type of fluff being pumped into girl’s heads at that age. (Go ahead and laugh but it worked.)Modern day example: Watch Chris Matthews and Larry Kudlow. Read NYT and WSJ etc.
This is a good counter argument and also a good time line.
i side with fred in this beef but keen’s diss regarding employment was a lethal blow.
Quite. There was a book a few years ago called The Big Switch which talked about the fact that most of these start ups create very few jobs but huge share holder value
true although i believe in the long run these companies will need to spend so much in building free stuff to serve as defense barriers (like how android is google defending its ad market) that it will it will be a net win for society, and that as the internet disrupts more industries it will create more jobs in those industries (i.e. food bloggers, etsy crafts people, etc).
so be the founding shareholder
FUTURE IS EVERYONE MINIMALLY EMPLOYED.SUE TECH COMPANIES NOT FIX THAT.
YOU LIKE FUTURE WITH STARVATION
i wear it as a badge of honor that an internet hater like keen is hating on me
MEASURE PERSON BY FRIENDS THEM KEEP. MEASURE VISION BY ENEMIES IT CREATE.
Wow. In the article in which he “hated” you he actually says this in support of his point:”Let me be more specific. A report published earlier this month by The International Intellectual Property Alliance, “Copyright Industries in the U.S. Economy: The 2011 Report”, underlines the size and significance of the US copyright industry. The report found that it added over $930 billion in value to the U.S. economy, represented almost 6.4% of the total GDP, employed nearly 5.1 million…”Wait, what was that he said?Who was responsible for this “report”?The “International Intellectual Property Alliance” is, who, according to their website, is a coalition of associations that:”represent over 1,900 U.S. companies producing and distributing materials protected by copyright laws throughout the world”http://www.iipa.com/aboutii…I AM SURE THAT THE ACCURACY AND IMPARTIALITY OF THAT REPORT IS BEYOND REPROACH. And that’s exactly the type of thing that young naive inexperienced congressional staffers will completely overlook.He then continues to ironically criticize by saying “Wilson, who deploys no employment numbers to support his argument….….”Which makes sense, since According to the wikipedia page on Keen he was influence by many people “especially the writings of Franz Kafka”.http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
I admit my first impression on the first read of that post snowed me a bit, but upon re-reading it, it became obvious it was infested with the propaganda.
“first impression on the first read of that post snowed me a bit, but upon re-reading it”Which indicates it will influence people because most will only read it once.
Well, if you have an alternative, let’s hear it? I see no reason not to accept it.I’d focus more on all the outrageous lies the anti-SOPA lobby is telling:http://3dblogger.typepad.co…Young, naive LAs can be snowed by the Silicon Valley lobby, too, they’re slick, and people who fund their toys like Twitter.
Keen isn’t an Internet hater; somebody who makes a living interviewing people at TechCrunch isn’t an Internet hater. They’re just a hater of collectivization and the dumbing down of culture. As you should be — and perhaps in your old age you may come to your senses.
Appreciate the counter point, but not influenced by its premise in the least: “additional regulation will promote growth in the US economy online”.
if the startup community continues to be too scared to acknowledge the military industrial complex’s desire to control the internet, they will never understand what is coming, will get all sorts of policies they don’t want and don’t know how to defend against, and will continue to sow the seeds of their own fall by doing silly things like voting for obama, schumer, or even worse, a rethuglican. the problem needs to be attacked directly, at its source. the problem is the incentive system around war. #fsignorance is futile. only the truth can set us free. 9/11 was an inside job,kid mercury
I don’t think it is fear so much – look at siri.The vast majority of us are civilians – we’re not used to there being a military industrial complex in the first place.
what about siri? the startup community is def scared. they talk a big game about how it’s not cool to be scared, being scared paralyzes you….pfft. all true, but their scared themselves, shaking in their boots. embarrassing. if they weren’t scared, they would be leaders in the political movement. instead they are ignoring it, or waiting for someone else to be a leader. because they’re scared.
I think your argument is better without using term ‘Military/Industrial’ simply due to the larger population not really understanding it.In the realm of philosophical @ShanaC:disqus , the problem with Siri is as follows: $150million (SRI) for CALO Project to then offshoot Siri for circa $12million that instead of release required another $12million and then released and bought for $200million+. One partner says it is the Virtual Assistant (per definition of us older folks from our childhood) before release then the other says, “We never said that” after the release.The above is an example of the big complex awarding money and then there is intimidation thrown in scaring devs and money, for if you had money, would you even entertain someone ‘small’ competing with the above? Arguments over actual design do not even matter anymore, only “The government gave them all the money, so they are the ones who know how to do it….”What I think KidMercury is saying is it is easy to sit in the bleachers and mouth support/insult and another to be in combat.
i like your points, dave. i favor moving to a world where we just ignore this government and regard it as illegitimate — basically i favor a declaration of independence. those governments created this mess and what they are supposed to do (roads, infrastructure, etc) they suck at, and they lost any semblance of moral legitimacy a long time ago, as 9/11 being an inside job illustrates. regarding the architecture of the internet, we just need to make our own internet with our own DNS and money system, so that the government does not even have the power to take it. that is how we truly show our declaration of independence is real.but people will say that this view is too extreme, that a revolution is not yet called for. i disagree and say a revolution has already occurred via 9/11; what is needed is a counter-revolution against that, or a restoration to constitutional principles, but practically no one in the political system is interested in doing that except ron paul and one guy is not enough, even if divine intervention occurs and he becomes president. i think as the political situation progresses people will see peaceful revolution is the best route to a more favorable society for all.
Yes, and to pull off a revolution requires something from the many 😉
Careful what you wish for Kid.Places exist in the world (Africa springs to mind) where countries are following your course of action, leaving a free for all where government does next to nothing and the result is all types of havoc.If you want to see free market private enterprise in its purest form, check out Nairobi – slums and all.
A) You know what they say about competition hereB) My point was that I don’t think all government interference is bad – it does stimulate basic research which does turn into consumer tech.It just is complicated how it transfers
I know. Another outcome is where we are in Cancer Research where government funding was dispersed on campuses and research facilities that felt in competition with each other, and now collaborate.Was just making point that to change anything, you have to be willing to stand up against big money and those that will throw spears at you because they are at the trough of big money.
It’s practical business strategy, never play another’s game. Effecting change through legislation is broken.
ANSWER SIMPLE.OUT INNOVATE COPYRIGHT.
yes, but when out-innovating copyright is made illegal, you will need the courage to stand up and obey innovation, not government. gonna be tough to do for the youngsters too scared to be political leaders.
there’s nothing scarier than being programmed
Sounds like my day job.Micro management in a dwindling sector.Can’t wait to get paid doing work on the rise.
LAW NO CAN STOP PERSON FROM GIVE ART TO WORLD.
sure it can, look at china and north korea. and the united states and europe, albeit to lesser extents, and in a different kind of way.
i think grimlock won this beef kid
GIVE ART TO WORLD NOT FEED STOMACH. SELL ART TO WORLD FEED STOMACH.
There is only one “right” power structure for the internet – so it is an-archy. (in the ideal rather than terrorist sense).This anarchy is what stops people dropping litter in graveyards & Switzerland 🙂 , or talking in hushed whispers in places of worship (even non-believers of the particular order).It is the anarchy that opens doors for the elderly, stands on a bus for the disadvantageous, or gives a voice to the people.Some call it decency, some democracy (with a small d) and some enlightened self-interest.It is the little thing that holds back even a majority with a little awe when a woman dares to take a seat on a bus or some students turn up for lectures despite segregation. It is the thing that makes Schindlers’ list – a perfectly imperfect solution to a Final SolutionI would invite ANY comments that suggest that this regulation style is less than optimal , though perhaps it is not perfectIt is hard to achieve, and often must be fought for, but once won freedom is a winner.So lets hang on to it !And thank Fred for the forum (in this case) but lets not forget the patent unencumbered software that gets it to us
Really good stuff.
How does something like this even start? Is it a bunch of media companies toss out the idea, have someone draft something, throw millions to some lobbyists and then it gets to congress?
I guess it starts with a few billion dollars somewhere.
yup. let’s sign the alabama shakes and go into the record business kirk
done and done
The Internet is disrupting everything, but those disrupted are fighting with legislation and regulation. They are either ignorant, or led by ignorants. The reality is that everything related to the Internet is so intertwined that you can’t touch one piece without messing with the other pieces. If you think you’re only focusing on one part, you don’t know what other parts you’re affecting negatively. So much good is coming out of the Internet. So, what if there’s .1% that’s bad? Go after that, but don’t disturb the good 99.99%. Can they do that?
I guess they’d disagree with your assertion that it’s 0.1% that’s bad. 🙂
even google were allowing illegal pharmaceuticals to be sold via their ad platform; they’ve now stopped after paying fines in the region of $500m.even if the premise is out by some percent, i agree with the argument that the central tendency is positive.
Yup. You don’t have to convince me.I’m completely on your side..Just presenting the other side’s potential response..
Less money, more influence
FOR PERSON DISRUPTED, INTERNET 100% BAD.
No, they are establishing the rule of organic law over code-as-law which is not law. Good!
Let me get this straight….First, we moved our manufacturing capacity off shore and subcontracted manufacturing to foreign firms in foreign countries. Then we find that these companies produce our goods on the side and market them locally. Then theses firms begin using the internet to market these knock off goods to the world via the internet.So now comes a new law to protect “intellectual property.” So, people who have a trademark, a copyright, a logo, are finding themsleves being illegally copied and knocked off. So, you take your production off shore, where laws protecting intellectual property are weak, and then you expect our government to protect your rights worldwide while you keep your non US profits off shore to keep from paying US taxes.Labor is cheaper overseas and you want to benefit from that, laws are better for you in US and you want to benefit from that…Sure, it makes a lot of sense to me.
The 2nd to last sentence from the letter by “many of the largest Internet companies” is really the only significant part that you need to understand to see what will happen here:”We stand ready to work with the Congress to develop targeted solutions to address the problem of foreign “rogue” websites.”The bill proponents came in with a request trying to get everything, including the kitchen sink, -“we will throw the book at you” you’re looking at a life sentence, you’ll die in prison” (the end of the Internet as it was interpreted by many).The opponents then mobilize and say “UNCLE”. Or was it “BOGU?”They are now willing to take the situation seriously and work to fix the problem. They will find an acceptable solution for all parties involved.This is why it’s important for an industry to take the lead, and have the first mover advantage in cleaning up their own mess FIRST with something that might anger a worthy opponent. Unfortunately now they are negotiating from a position of weakness instead of strength. They won’t cut as good of a deal. As a side note, a little preemptive “intel” would have also helped prevent things from getting to this point.If you are wondering why certain industries want to regulate and control their members (realtors, physicians) the reason isn’t always to create a barrier to entry. Sometimes it’s just a tradeoff to prevent a worse outcome. (Not that I think this could, should, or will, happen in this industry I just thought I’d mention).
i am in favor of the judge (congress) telling the parties to go into a room and don’t come out without an acceptable solution
There are comments pertaining to “Where did this come from?”You need to understand that most (maybe all) legislation is not read. In the case of SOPA, you have something so incredibly far reaching, yet it appears to possibly gain affirmitive votes via those who would stake their claim on fighting for less intrusion.You identify a problem you can stretch (save the innocent from dangerous products), give it a name no one would understand/notice (SOPA) and distribute talking points that have nothing to do with the [email protected]:disqus makes a good point regarding the need to begin a new era, though he/(she?) doesn’t put it that way. If we build a ‘Creative Commons’ (name subject to change) where material can be voluntarily placed by the owner of rights who willingly agree to the provision regarding their forfeiting claim on that ‘commons’ infringing, then it is a matter of gaining the celebrity.Will.i.am (@iamwill) bought one hour of ABC to air his special targeting Science/Tech being cool. It involved Beiber, Tyler, Timberlake, Spears, even Snoop. Terms of reality dictate that another push from Will.i.am may not happen, but that is not to say someone else may step up to the plate. OTOH, targeting folks like the above, stretching it over to Kutcher and so forth can afford a big distribution of the agreed to coherent message. That message will reach a large number, especially if you include the easy button for those viewers to push going directly to the media/congress.On a strategic point, those that can convince their Representative who has the rank to slow SOPA up need to act which will enable a well thought out strategy delivering the needed counter offensive.
I’m pissed off with you Fred, but let me tell you: I know the end of this story.Freedom always wins.We’ve got to fight for it. We’ve got to defend it. And that’s why people like @andyswan:disqus remind us that we should be more consistent in standing up for it.But if you zoom out and look at the course of human history as a trend line, people are always yearning for freedom, despite the inevitable setbacks.This move by the content industry reminds me of the last gasps of the Soviet Union in the 80s and 90s. This is a dying central-control industry that is going to go down the tubes as technology delivers the power to create, distribute and monetize to everyone.
Perhaps. but this “dying central-control industry” as you call it can institutionalize these laws beyond their lifetime to the detriment of our industry and our freedoms for years to come, and once passed getting it repealed is a long and arduous effort
That may be the fault of the fact we have an ultra-sceloric government.
True, but you play the hand you’re dealt and that’s the crappy hand.
Totally agree which is why we have to fight.
Well, hopefully. However, the Soviet Union finally died because of economical insufficiency not because everyone knew it was a terrible idea to have a centralized economy (a simplification but think China, they are a growing economy and seem to be politically stable).Yes, people in our region were fighting the USSR for fed decades. Yes, it was taking away our grandparents’ and parents’ basic freedoms but what really made it possible for that “industry” to collapse was the fact that it wasn’t able to sustain itself economically and it was simply going bankrupt.Had it been gaining economical power, we might still be dreaming of democracy (or not even dreaming of it? think Singapore..).Unfortunately sometimes it is (and historically was) possible to infringe some rights for some time, just because countries / political organizations can… In most cases it will turn out to have been a terrible idea and will have to be changed.The question is what will be the cost and how much time will be lost if the central-control “experiment” takes place.
A few points in response:The economic insufficiency was a consequence of the centralized command-and-control nature. Collectivism doesn’t work. The tide of history has made that clear.China has made great strides toward freedom. All of their success has come from moving towards freedom, not away from it. Give it time…I am optimistic that we will see a free China some day.Technology is continually making the content industry unsustainable economically. We are opening up opportunity for the content creators, and when that reaches critical mass, the content industry as we know it now will cease to exist.
1. Totally agree, my point was that everyone knew it was a “bad” idea but we needed the economy (& the government) to finally collapse to help the people’s movement. That huge “social experiment” was only proved wrong when there were hardly any resources to waste anymore. 2. It seems to me that we’re only able to explain EX POST why China’s model is working. It almost feels it shouldn’t… Right, let’s hope things are moving in the right direction for them!And unfortunately I’m not sure I understand your point reg. the content industry 😉
Fair enough.On the content industry, I’m just saying that I see the parallels. Technology is making their business model economically unsustainable, and that is NOT because of piracy…it’s because we’ve broken down the barriers and allow anyone to publish and distribute. The next frontier is better monetization and discovery.We’re not that far away from a day where Amazon is one of the world’s biggest book publishers, YouTube is one of the biggest TV networks, and Netflix is one of the biggest movie studios.The companies could be different, and they will each have lots of competitors and long-tail niche plays…but software is indeed eating the world as Marc Andreesen wrote, and Random House, NBC and Paramount’s ability to add value is decreasing every day.
100% Agree. Thanks for taking the time to explain that!
“We”. Do you realize how much you speak of yourself as a class, a class seizing power? Are you comfortable with that, Mr. quoter of Isaiah?No one is served by having only three mega publishers or content supporters. Amazon destroyed independent book stores. Netflix destroyed Blockbusters and independent movie rental stores. This isn’t because they have “poor management” or “bad business models” but because the ideology of technocommunist collectivism is what people like YOU are applauding, because you make your living consulting and selling knowledge and connection and not commodities or content. That’s all. Yours is purely a shrill class interest, and you should stop pretending it should form the ideology of the architecture of the internet.Software is eating the world? Then we will reach the point where we will have to literally start a civil war against the software engineers to protect our livelihoods and property. That will be a sad day to see.Random House pays advances to writers that enables them to have a livelihood. Does Amazon do that for writers? Or, because it is “eating software” have to pay them a pittance to improve its margins?
Down with the fake “people’s movement”. There aren’t “people” in it, just sects of coders with the technocommunist ideals. At least have the decency to describe yourselves accurately.
Again, what’s so amazingly OUTRAGEOUS in your statements here is that you can’t see the obvious: the collectivization isn’t in the diverse and creative content industries, but in the Internet pioneers; in the coders and hackers and their VC backers fiercely clinging to the collectivization model *of the Internet itself* despite the progress made against that tide by Amazon, ebay, and even Second Life. Commerce, not collectivization; intellectual property rights, not pirating.What’s even more outrageous about a man like you, Aaron, is that you are busy and happy and heedless of your destructiveness and even *celebrating” technology as a destroyer of content industry, and telling us falsely — again the Big Lie! — that by this devastation you are “opening opportunities for content creators”!!! What folly! Again, what you mean by that is merely yet another start-up with yet another VC infusion with yet another model that involves giving the product or service away for free and having everybody click on ads. Seriously, that you can go on calling this innovation with a straight face is sheer Lysenkoism — anti-science, politicized science.I’m going to continue to devote my life to fighting the ideologies you espouse. They were horrific in the last century; they are horrific in this century, and salvaged only because real people are not killed now with these ideologies, only businesses or industries. But wait until the Internet of Things. Then you will have control even over people’s real-life private property. Then what!
Your comment is just odd.Explain to me how empowering INDIVIDUALS to create, distribute and monetize their product for INDIVIDUAL profit is a collectivist, anti-commerce idea.”What’s even more outrageous about a man like you, Aaron, is that you are busy”And yes, I am busy. Apparently too busy to decode how you can believe individual empowerment is a collectivist idea.Still looking forward to your defense of SOPA’s China and Iran-like big government powers.
Aaron,Um, all those individuals “innovating” on the Internet are *collectivizing* and essentially *expropriating other people’s content*. Duh! The entire California Business Model, which ought to be called “expropriate from the expropriators!” involves the Silicon Valley tech industry essentially cannibalizing the California Hollywood and music industry. Your software is “eating” because the human beings who write are using their will to eat and destroy others.It’s the pipes confiscating the water. So at your level you can go on telling this fairy tale that your consulting business or somebody else’s consulting business or Fred’s VC firm are all “capitalism” and “about commerce”. But that’s a superficial ruse. In fact, they all involve collectivizing other people’s content for free and redistributing it without paying for it, and then making money off the ads clicked.Every single one of the companies Fred invests in has that model, or if they have a freemium, that’s only making part of the revenue, The entire “internet innovation” scam consists of “liberating” the content from the older content producing firms, and with that jacked content, making millions off either the marketing information scraped from the users of the free products or making them click on ads.Fred is untroubled by this because he says the hapless user “gets the product” i.e. the free service, the app or the gadget or whatever. I’m not content to take such a narrow self-serving view as I see that the little guy in fact — that individual creative businessman that you claim to defend — is deeply harmed on services like Second Life where he makes content and then has it “liberated” — and where the platform provider gets to keep charging server fees and taking commissions from sales and currency, and then behave in a very dilatory fashion chasing DMCA takedowns unless there is a deep-pocketed big company.So you’ve really got your head in the sand, with very narrow and selfish interests, and you’re not looking at the big picture of how the Internet companies make their money and “innovate” on the backs of content creators, big and small. Indeed, if you’re as extreme as Mitch Kapor and Cory Doctorow and some of the people on avc.com, you will even consider that no one should even have copyright, that they should just “give to the commons” and somehow this magic collective stone soup will give back.I’ve challenged Fred to come up with authentic stories and numbers of how musicians really do make a living, and it always dissolves into hortatory insults and vague generalities or some single use case that isn’t even what is seemed. *It’s just not true — it’s a lie — that you can make money by giving all your content away*.You only believe that because you yourself aren’t giving content away, except perhaps some book or tape as a loss-leader; you are selling your knowledge, and so you believe that the entire world can be constructed by having knowledge-sellers and not commodities-sellers have a living on the Internet. It’s selfish and unseemly, and for a man of conscience such as yourself who does all these good works with education and such, you really need to ponder it far more than you seem capable of.YOUR individual empowerment as you go on essentially collectivizing everybody’s content for free via free Internet services and denying that piracy can and should be fought, and that content should be licensed and paid for on the Internet — sure, that’s great. No wonder you think you are a capitalist — the Internet is a great machine enabling you to continue with that illusion.SOPA doesn’t give the US government China- or Iran-like powers, any more than the ability to get a warrant and pursue any crime gives the US government China or Iran like powers. What makes China or Iran unjust isn’t that they have criminal laws against theft, much like US laws; what makes them unjust is that they have no due process, no independent judiciary, no adversarial bar, no free media, etc.Half the problem with geeks and latter-day “innovators” like yourself is that you think in binary fashion as 1/2 or 99/100, and you think of systems as closed like computer networks, with rigidly executing programs.So that means that with a law like this, you can’t understand its context of adversarial defense and precedent law and good old-fashioned organic human discretion in implementing it.The nature of a government and its context within a system of three branches with checks and balances really does matter. In China or Iran, arbitrariness and injustice rules because of the nature of the regime, not because there is a state or the state has powers of arrest. In these countries the only recourse is to be politically connected or pay bribes to get justice, much of the time. In the US, whatever the incidence of such corruption, it is far, far less than in an oppression dictatorship where there is no free press or free bar or independent judiciary.I’ve spent most of my light documenting and opposing oppressive regimes, so I definitely am not advocating for something that would make our own country oppressive. It’s just that I have a more complex and nuanced understanding of how regimes and states work than you do, if you look at law as only executing code that has no human context and no other institutions.The US government has to fight piracy. It isn’t borrowing from methods of China or Iran to do so, because fighting theft isn’t some sort of magical power or novel thing, it’s something that states have done for centuries. That they will now do this on the Internet doesn’t change that. It’s using perfectly legitimately drafted legislation to fight it in a just fashion in a state under the rule of law. You can’t truly appreciate that enough, but then, perhaps you have never known anybody arrested in a country like China or Iran.
it will be the same in the united states. the country is broke and government services at all level are stopping — that is what will bring the machine down. but what comes next? guess we will have to build it to find out…..
Again, what’s so outrageous about these false analogies is the notion that the content providers are “centralized” when what is indeed centralized is the collectivizing movement of anti-SOPA, and the collectivization of the very design flaws welded into the web by Tim Berners-Lee and co. that collectivize rather than collaborate.The Soviets took away people’s private property — their farms, their factories, their villages — just like the collectivizers of today do with their “information wants to be free”.The reason the USSR couldn’t last is because it literally depleted its own work force, means of production, and the environment. Collectivization and the rapacious and murderous campaigns needed to bring it about forcibly — because few people really wanted it — completely destroyed the human stock of these countries for generations. They could have a run for 75 years because they seized everyone’s content, “expropriating from the expropriators,” but then no one produced anymore because no one owned anything, no one had any incentive, and no one really got compensated for their work.THAT is exactly like the Internet — it has rapaciously scooped up all the content, and as Jaron Lanier has said, culture consists now of picking out the shards of the last centuries and recombining them — not innovation. Only when we can break up the collective farm of the Internet with this web 2.0 “share” philosophy of the Creative Communism will we restore innovation and people’s livelihoods.You all have been so heedlessly destructive, and in Fred’s case, deliberately and even maliciously destructive, that you may well succeed and the sad thing is, like people who destroyed in the 1920s and 1930s, you will not live long enough to see the error of your ways. Your children will understand, however, and weep.
In the long run, yes. But in the short run, don’t underestimate the resolve of thugs and dictators. And entertainment execs.The worldwide correlation of forces seems to be aligning against freedom.Couldn’t agree more about the need for consistency.
There is an ebb and flow in the fight but I’m optimistic that freedom always wins. It just takes time and we have to be vigilant. I’m thankful Fred is being loud about this.
Follow the money, that’s what you’re saying.
The content industry is like the Luddites. Hey, the Internet is making us go broke, let’s break the Internet. Adam Smith have already warned us against corporations. Corporations will always try to persuade the government & ministers to twist the Market for their own good.But Hollywood isn’t nearly as evil as the Soviet Union. Nobody is being sent to the gulag. We aren’t so much fighting some outside evil, but ourselves. Ironically, it is part of the democratic process that makes it possible for the content industry to seek after its own interest.It is our duty as citizens to counter-balance their limited interests for the greater common good.
Parts of your comment are brilliant, and other parts make no sense to me.The content industry are like the Luddites – perfect analogy and spot-on observation. As @JLM:disqus would say, well played.Corporations are inherently evil – this is so generalized it’s useless. Are technology corporations good and content corporations bad? Corporations are just groups of people seeking to create value and capture a profit. This is a good thing. No corporation should try to put government force behind itself to twist the market to its liking. Free and fair competition is the answer.Hollywood isn’t as evil as the Soviet Union – That’s certainly true, but to be clear, I said that the parallels are similar and they are going to collapse under their own weight because they aren’t adding value.Counter balancing Hollywood’s interests for the common good – who gets to decide what is the common good? Now we’re right back to the centralized collective command-and-control structure. Free markets work. Give everyone the freedom to create and compete, and let the chips fall where they may.
CORPORATION IS MACHINE BUILT TO MAKE MONEY.WHEN HUMANS CONTROLLED BY MACHINE INSTEAD OF OTHER WAY AROUND, IT ALWAYS BAD.
Yes and no.At the end of the day, humans are always responsible. That’s what leadership is about.Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling were responsible for Enron. Steve Jobs was responsible for Apple.The CEOs of these content industry companies are responsible for what they are doing to US innovation with these horrible pieces of legislation.So you can’t just say corporations have some kind of inherent trait that make them evil. They are reflections of their leaders, employees and shareholders.
READ MORE CAREFUL.NO SAY TOOL BAD.SAY HUMAN LET TOOL CALL SHOTS BAD.
Well, let me suggest that independent consultants who live like bottom fisher feeding off the leftovers of big corporations’ business might be the inherently evil thing, but that’s a debate for another thread.I’m glad you’re sophisticated enough despite your technocommunist beliefs not to paint the corporation in black colours exclusively. Of course, this is a function of your class requiring them for contracts. Yes, corporations have people in them. People are not inherently evil, although they can do evil and their nature is not perfectable. Corporations supply jobs and products. Does the consulting industry, taken as a whole? If 20,000 consultants disappeared tomorrow, their business would only be eaten up by other consultant scavenger fish. There’s not enough for everybody. In fact, that’s one of the reasons you as a class have become so ferocious about things like SOPA — you want to make sure all your work tools and the whole web environment is not any cost to you so that you can add your consulting for a fee on top of it.There is definitely no free market involved in having the monster-big Google and all its lobbying groups like EFF and all the other big platforms overthrowing elected congress and delaying and stopping a bill that was going to protect the people’s property against cynical and evil foreign and domestic pirates. That’s not a free market; that’s predatory behaviour, of the sort you claim the content industry has.
I certainly believe as you do that the reason for corporations to exist is to create value for the society. If a company is no longer creating value, then it is not sustainable in the longrun in economically terms.By “common good” I mean an abstract ideal opposite to “the tragedy of the common”. What’s so brilliant about Adam Smith is that selfish interest is what binds us all together. To arrive at the common good (under some ideal conditions), we only need to seek our own self-interests.The problem is that corporate self-interest can be sought after by economic or political means. By “counter-balancing” Hollywood, I mean that it had used political power to maintain its economic interest, thereby making it a political issue. That Hollywood is making money is none of my business, but that they are pushing through a piece of legislature makes it my problem.(I too am a free market fanboy ; )
The Luddites were good people. They were skilled craftsmen who were better at creating good products than the factory workers in a mass production scheme that turned out shoddier products and made people’s lives adapt to machines instead of machines adapt to people.The Luddites did the right thing, really. They were literally fighting to keep themselves and their families alive, against rapacious venture capitalists who commodified and collectivized labour in mass production.whatever the advantages those VCs of that day brought, they took away as much as they brought.Hollywood and the record and book and newspaper industries sure aren’t evil and sure aren’t the Soviet Union. Again, this outrageous analogy that should be flipped. Silicon Valley is the Soviet Union collectivizing property and imposing sharing by technological terror. The only good thing is that nobody is being killed physically. But livelihoods are being destroyed and it is in fact our duty as citizens to oppose the coders with their eating-software.
Let’s not forget that the Luddites and the Autoworkers are real people. They lost their jobs, and their family may well be in peril.That said, capitalism and innovation is a relentless drive towards cheaper ways of producing more goods. I am not saying that to create a revolution we must break some eggs. It is not good that some people’s expertise is rendered irrelevant by technological innovation.But it happens, and it has to happen, for capitalism & technology to go forward. So what do we do to help these people? That’s a political/social question, not an economic question.(As an aside, while I understand the sentiment for craft, I am not a believer in craft for its own good. This longing and nostalgia for “that used to be good” seems to me a privilege of the wealthy. Craft, ironically, is a luxury good. If you are some peasant in China or India, you’d be happy that factories are cranking out cheap and affordable clothing. Rising the bottom line for huge masses of people is the real miracle of capitalism & industrialization IMO.)
It’s not about “craft”. It’s about people’s livelihoods, and how they can make them.And it’s about not killing people. Do you know how they got rid of the Luddites, who were really persistent, because they had to feed their families? They killed them. Or shipped them to Australia.The “have to happen” stuff isn’t necessarily progressive; it might indeed be regressive. I’m not at all sentimental about crafts (Fred is the one who funds Etsy). We live in a modern age with mass culture and mass production. I don’t mind that. I’m not one of those slow-food organic localvore nerds like a lot of the 4squaring twittering elites.I do care about what happens to people’s ability to make a living, however. That’s just plain social justice of the sort the left, especially the communist left, ought to have, and doesn’t. Can you artificially maintain jobs when technology makes them obsolete? Well I think you look at each situation, and you see if what is REALLY happening is that technology is not necessary, and it is artificially removing jobs where they don’t need to be removed, and where the technology is only annoying and even a loss.Perfect example: self-scanning machines in CVS. They don’t work half the time and message the attendant and stall. They actually make longer lines as people struggle with them. They take away 3 or 6 jobs and replace them with machines that are far worse — slower, breaking, and making longer lines. They are no better for inventory control — the previous iteration of digitalized scanning cash registers did all that — same principle.I don’t have any nostalgia about non-digital cash registers and the era before bar codes. I used to run them years ago at the 7/11 or Duane Reade and they were annoying, you had to count change in your head and you’d make mistakes and lose your store money that you might be liable for at the end of your shift.But I can definitely contrast and compare how stupid it is to have the bar code scan done with self-serve and constantly break for all kinds of reasons and exasperate the numerous people who can’t adapt to them, or adapt, but can’t get them to work.Common sense and good business sense would tell you that the bright idea of the self-scanners just didn’t work as planned and you should retire them. But in the name of “progress” and in the name of “not being nostalgic” we will all continue to suffer with these ridiculous things at CVS.I’m not a peasant in China. But as a parent I buy Chinese-made shoes, pajamas, etc. for kids because they’re cheap. I’m not sentimental about Buster Brown shoes for $85 versus Pay-Less for $19. But that’s not what this is about — it’s about insane, brutal technology put in for the sake of merely putting it in.
If the technology for self service scanners got better, and you shaved /12 hour off a trip for one item, do you think you it would be worth it for you, based on sheer costs for you. Not me, not the workers, you.You’re highlighting an issue that is inherent to market economies. getting rid of it would actually mean going to a planned system. which I happen to not like.
I totally agree with you that there are times when the management might think that “machine” or “outsourcing” might replace people thus decrease cost, while the technology fundamentally doesn’t work.”Can you artificially maintain jobs when technology makes them obsolete?”You’ve raised the crux of the issue. Should we support social program that supports mass employments of obsolete jobs? If we don’t, what do we do with people who are now out of jobs?Consider the 1920s and 1930s. There was a huge increase in agricultural productivity with the introduction of machines. The human disaster is well-dramatized by John Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath. In the longterm, efficiency was increased (over the past century, agricultural labour decreased from 38% of the labour force to just 2.6%). This is far from meaningless technological progress. Yet it comes at the cost of painful social-upheavals.
No. The anti-SOPA is what is like the Soviet Union, especially leading up to 1917 with the Bolsheviks. Anti-SOPA is about propaganda and lies, about collectivizing the Internet; about dekulakification; about all the things that made the Soviet Union the terrible place it was.Content makers aren’t some sort of “central committee”; they are all individuals and businesses and have property rights that should be protected.This demonization of “the content industry” as some evil fortress is absurd. I’m in the content industry. You’re in the content industry. t’s insane to claim this is some “other.”It’s a hugely Big Lie — worthy of the commissars! — to claim that this collectivization and decommofication and “sharing” is going to “monetize”. It’s not going to monetize. It *doesn’t* monetize. The few model “shock-workers” that you or Fred or somebody comes up with are total shills and don’t reflect the reality for most people and the industry realities as a whole in music and publishing. It’s insane.What I most loathe about the anti-SOPA movement is this kind of mendacity, drawing false analogies to the Soviet Union when it should be calling itself the Bolsheviks for all its erosion of property rights and individual rights, and this false utopian crap that there is monetization right around the corner if you nationalize all property on the Internet.Yeah, monetarization for Fred. Not for the rest of us.
Nobody would ever accuse me of being a collectivist. :)It wasn’t an ideological comment. The parallel was simply a dying model doing everything possible to sustain its hold on power.Explain to me how it is right for Macy’s to use government regulations to make parking structures liable for shop lifting.After all, it would be a lot harder for the shoplifters to steal Macy’s property if the parking garages weren’t doing such a great job enabling their theft.
Actually, that’s what I’m doing — and you’re the worst kind of collectivist, like Fred, who wants everybody else to be expropriated and collectivized even as he profits from the few in the few start-ups monetarizing this.The content industry isn’t what’s dying; the early model for the Internet circa web 2.0 is what’s dying, which is why we see so much hysteria.Funny how whenever I liken the current technocommunist regime on the Internet to the old Soviet Union (with the important difference that actual people aren’t mass-jailed or mass-murdered, thank God!), I’m told that I’m out of touch or even a McCarthyite. But if you want to pretend the content companies, perfectly normal capitalists are “the USSR,” why, you’re entitled to do so lol.Of course, bricks and mortar analogies in real life don’t always work for the Internet but I’m always happy to make them, like you are. And you’ve chosen an excellent one.There isn’t a parking lot next to the flagship Macy’s. Maybe that’s because scarce retail space wouldn’t be wasted on parking lots.But for argument’s sake, all you have to do to turn your story on its ear is to imagine this: what if a group of robbers constantly used that parking space as a base of operations to rob Macy’s. What if they regularly came there, parked their cars, and shook down Macy’s? What if the parking lot attendant saw them do this, but did nothing? Imagine if there was no law, and Macy’s couldn’t call the police. They had to rely on the good will of the corrupt parking lot attendant.Worse, what if the parking lot attendant kept taking parking lot fees, or even bribes, to keep letting those robbers on the lot to get at Macy’s. What if he even let them store masses of stolen goods in a U-haul that they parked in that parking lot. What if he even — and now you will get what the Internet is *just like* — let them come in every day with huge U-haul trucks, load up on stolen goods from Macy’s, and sold it right out of the back of their truck in that parking lot next to Macy’s.Yeah, that’s exactly how it is. And Macy’s does use government regulations to make parking structure liable for shop lifting when the very nature of a parking lot like that involves aiding and abetting thieves and even allowing them to make use of the space to sell their stolen wares. The “government regulations” Macy’s uses are ordinary laws against shoplifting and theft — grand larceny, even.You’re pretending — like all of Silicon Valley — that Macy can’t do anything about parking lots where the attendants get a cut (advertising dollars) and therefore do nothing about piracy (selling stolen goods out of the U-haul in the parking lot). You’re pretending that Macy’s is blaming a parking lot for either unrelated shoplifting, say, by someone on foot, pretending that all sorts of pedestrian shoppers are going to experience a “chill on their shopping” and will be “falsely accused”.You’re also pretending that an innocent parking lot attendant who merely let in one car like any other car for a flat $8.00 an hour fee and knows nothing is all that this involves.But that’s not the story. The story on the Internet is that not only the parking lot member knows that the cars are hosting and stolen goods — they can easily see the traffic and easily see the goods moving — they are in on it because they get a cut of the sales, because those big trucks keep parking there and taking up spaces and even slipping the attendant money now and then.If all the police had to do was deal with individual robbers, they might cope. But they can’t, because every single parking lot within a 10 block radius of Macy’s is in on it; they knowingly and deliberately let numerous robbers park trucks on their lots and sell stolen goods out of them, or make a quick getaway with stolen goods.
First of all, your analogy breaks down way back at “imagine there was no law and Macy’s couldn’t call the police.” The rest of your comment is just fanciful imagination.The DMCA establishes the tools for the content industry to fight piracy and the responsibility for the technology industry to help – in a balanced way that puts the fault for the piracy on the user where it belongs.By your and SOPA’s logic, if Hollywood makes a movie about hacking and someone in the movie theater takes out their laptop and takes down my web site, I should be able to legally shut down ticket sales and showings for that movie.Or wait – would that be censorship?I support every individual and every company’s right to the works they have created. That equally applies to a film produced by 20th Century Fox, and the works I create in the technology industry. One is not more important to protect than the other.Just because you believe in China-like big government powers that are controlled by “good old fashioned organic human discretion” doesn’t mean that you’re more opposed to piracy than I am.Our constitution and laws are all about protecting us FROM “organic human discretion” so that we can never become that repressive regime. So I’ll fight those kinds of laws to the ends of the earth, no matter which industry they are seeking to protect.
Oh, but my analogy doesn’t break down at all! The reason I can say “imagine there is no law and Macy’s couldn’t call the police” is to induce YOU to realize that without SOPA, without laws, without the ability to “call the police,” Macy’s — any content business on the Internet — is in the position of having robbers gather at the nearest parking lot and just keep shaking them down. That’s exactly it!And response below (since Fred’s invested-in Disqus software forces people into a corner in arguments and doesn’t allow them literally to reply):You’ve never had to track through a DMCA takedown. I have, by having to help my customers do this. It’s a hugely annoying and frustrating experience. Platform providers can be very dilatory on this. It doesn’t work, really, for many people who don’t have lawyers.The platform providers with the California Business Model are implicated, totally. They benefit from piracy from the ad clicks and data scrapes. It’s no good only tackling the pirates in that respect, or relying on these foxes to police the chicken coop. They’re in on it.SOPA targets *piracy*. That seems not to be penetrating to you and others — because you can’t concede the need, really, to fight piracy effectively. You oppose piracy, but only in a general way with never any specifics. That’s why you and other collectivization boosters keep making up these analogies like “If I take out my laptop”. That’s not at all what it’s like. What it’s like is if somebody comes and films 3D Puss N Boots with their laptop and makes hundreds of CDs and starts selling them out on the street. That’s what it’s like. And when a movie theater catches somebody doing that, they should stop that person doing it. Indeed, I’ve seen people with their video cameras sitting in movie theaters making those crappy copies of films they sell on the street, and the manager comes and boots them. It’s not hard to do. They don’t have to empty out the theater or stop selling tickets to the public. They nab the guy with the video camera in front of his face filming the movie. Duh.I don’t believe in “China-like powers”. I point out the very real differences between China and the US and the matrix and nexus of their wildly different judiciary systems and legislatures. Again, both countries have the power to jail robbers. You don’t say “The US has amassed a horrible technology like China’s because they use handcuffs to arrest robbers just like China does.” So there’s no reason to say “The US has become just like China because it blocks piracy sites using technology.”Fortunately for us all, good old-fashioned organic human discretion still prevails in courts of law, and not code-as-law.Organic human discretion in institutions like the Supreme Court is definitely to be preferred than the weapon-like action of code. So I’ll definitely fight that coder and hacker culture to the ends of the earth right back at you. The repressive regime is already happening all around us on the Internet, particularly with the unconscionable TOS of the usual platform.REPLYI bet if you had to make a DMCA takedown, you had a lawyer because you can afford a lawyer, big guy. Try defending poor black single mothers making content for pennies in Second Life doing DMCA takedowns, and come back and talk to me then, champ.Seriously, I can fight you hammer and tong on every single point, and then some. I have zero concern about “credibility” with you. People like you have to be opposed vigorously if we are to keep our freedoms on the Internet.
I most certainly have done DMCA takedowns. Quit making assertions that you have zero evidence for. Your credibility is already shot.
Normally I would cite unintended consequences as the reason(s) against Protect IP.But in this case the intended consequence is egregious enough.
the intended consequences are egregious enoughwell said matthew
Well, it seems Americans want more regulation, not the other way around..(new Public Affairs Council study) “Too little internet regulation – Regarding government regulation of the internet, 37% said there was too little and 35% said there was the right amount(…).Probably not targetting the same things, but this could encourage lawmaking.shameful
Here is an interesting article, along with references to two books that I have added to my must read list:http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/…Here is a quote from the article:”The incentives for lobbying are clear. A 2009 paper found, for example, that firms get between $6 and $20 back for every $1 they invest in lobbying for tax benefits.”Boy, you cannot beat that ROI!
Quote in article is meaningless other than to illustrate a point which is “lobbying pays” which of course it does and you don’t need any numbers to know that.There is no attribution on the quote of cited “paper” (and it doesn’t google either that I can find). But more importantly any number like that is arbitrary to begin with. I’m curious what the book attributes it to and the methodology.When reading the CNN story, without knowing any more then, “a 2009 paper” this translates to… “something, some dude wrote, for some reason, for someone”
Actually, the article notes that it is one of the findings of the author of the book, Republic, Lost:, Dr. Laurence Lessig. Since I just ordered his book I will let you know what paper it refers to in a couple of weeks.Otherwise, you can visit his blog here: http://www.lessig.org/info/…Or, you can find out more about him here:http://www.booksmith.com/ev…
“the logic of collective action” — an organized minority will always defeat a disorganized majorityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wik…it’s why polluters are so hard to defeatthe web has lowered the costs of organizingThe book challenged accepted wisdom in Olson’s day that:if everyone in a group has interests in common, then they will act collectively to achieve them; andin a democracy, the greatest concern is that the majority will tyrannize and exploit the minority.The book argues instead that individuals in any group attempting collective action will have incentives to “free ride” on the efforts of others if the group is working to provide public goods. Individuals will not “free ride” in groups which provide benefits only to active participants.Pure public goods are goods which are non-excludable (i.e. one person cannot reasonably prevent another from consuming the good) and non-rivalrous (one person’s consumption of the good does not affect another’s, nor vice-versa). Hence, without selective incentives to motivate participation, collective action is unlikely to occur even when large groups of people with common interests exist.The book also noted that large groups will face relatively high costs when attempting to organize for collective action while small groups will face relatively low costs. Furthermore, individuals in large groups will gain less per capita of successful collective action; individuals in small groups will gain more per capita through successful collective action. Hence, in the absence of selective incentives, the incentive for group action diminishes as group size increases, so that large groups are less able to act in their common interest than small ones.The book concludes that, not only will collective action by large groups be difficult to achieve even when they have interests in common, but situations could also occur where the minority (bound together by concentrated selective incentives) can dominate the majority.
When winning elections cost so much, and when lobbying can net you returns of 6 to 20 times your “investment” then obviously, the idea of “public goods” such as the environment, competition, social and economic mobility, and fundamental fairness have no chance of seeing the light of day.That is why the OCCUPY movement is so interesting; it is a multi level, multi issue participatory movement. While criticized for being “leaderless” it is in fact “leaderfull”http://news.firedoglake.com…Thus, its a big mistake to remove these groups from their protests sites because the movement will morph into something new and grow every day.
It’s a natural next step.
It’s already started. The economic issues aren’t going away anytime soon.
maybe we really should think of having a pac
How does one of those begin ($$), and would it be meaningful in light of the more serious lobbyists (deep pockets).
I always felt that Obama’s way around this was to go direct to country. They have that incredible e-mail list that is a real weapon but not used right.
That’s a great example. Still not clear on what begins a grass roots pac, and how best that fits into today’s great many to many activity coordinating and communication networks.
Major bucks and time required. Plus knowledge of who to pay off at the right time.
agreed, but if they play dirty, why shouldn’t we?
I’m all for you having a PAC. In fact, make a communist party and call yourself the Internet party even though you’re a communist party, and fight clean, i.e. at least without the stealth socialism and pretending your just innovative businessmen.BTW, I couldn’t find you in that monster thread the other day to answer your three points. I have to go back and see what it was on Disqus and answer you later somewhere.
Thats a great idea. Im gonna do it
well, if you find it, tell me.I’m actually a paternalistic libertarian. I socialize things that people tend to screw up because people are not always brilliant decision makers.
“I’m still pissed.”No you’re not!Or, in the 1998 movie ‘Armageddon’, there is a conversation between the Bruce Willis character Harry Stamper and the Ben Affleck character A. J. Frost with:Frost: You’re pissed. Okay, l can see that.Stamper: No. You know what, A.J.? l’m not pissed. You’ve seen me pissed. This is way, way beyond pissed, though.You’re “way, way beyond pissed”.I can see that!
way beyond pissed
Are you implying that the lobbyists and content side might be winning this one? I believe there is a Round 2 for everything.
Both Reddit and Boing Boing have signed on for Censorship Day tomorrow. Add the logo to your site: http://www.americancensorsh…
The techies need to get better organized and stay closely involved with the political process. That is the price you pay to not have to come across stupidities.
I’m laughing, because otherwise my despair is going to overwhelm me.Where america leads, the world will follow. And over here in the UK there is not a thing I can do to stop the internet the entire world over has come to love, nurture and idolize from being damaged.All I can do is offer words of encouragement#occupytheinternet
This has been pissing me off big time. We’re bannered up at Disqus: http://disqus.com
New survey info on SOPA.http://www.techdirt.com/art…
I put the “stop censorship” code on my website…but trying to figure out how to get it across my logo.
Wait a minute…I thought Al Gore invented the internet – can’t he fix this problem?
If this censoring shit does happen i’m going to go to Obama and protest….
protection rackets by another name, copyright, ipr, digital rights management, on and on
What’s really scary to me about PIPA/SOPA is the conscious & deliberate actions by the Judiciary Comm to suppress testimony from & avoid dialogue w/ the tech community. I was shocked to read that CCIA, NetCoalition, and CEA were all specifically excluded from testifying against SOPA. This just perpetuates the rift and snowballs into a misreading of intentions, further ignorance and even further polarization.As a parallel example, even at the height of the Cold War this country engaged in an active dialogue w/ the Soviet Union, an adversary we were contesting in a dozen places around the world. The implicit understanding there was that it is easy to start a war, but much harder to end it. The Judiciary Committee should take heed and understand that a healthy dialogue fosters understanding.
Somehow related to this from a content segment perspective, it’s interesting that Disney’s CEO has just joined Apple’s board taking Steve Jobs’ seat actually. Is Apple in cahoots with the content industry, or is this a case of keeping your enemy close?
Keeping an eye on AMZN.
http://www.wired.com/threat…Recap of first hearing.
Fred, have you considered permanently incorporating the “STOP CENSORSHIP>” horizontal into the cross stroke of the “A” in “AVC”? The sizing of the letters might need adjusting a little for visual balance and best impact.
As it’s the end of a thread, I’d just ignore the latest retort from @Prokofy:disqus (link: http://akle.in/uGWqbM), but since she does such a great job of trying to distort what I said, I need to set the record straight.I’m not interested in debating her on her attack on the technology industry. She has a very loose grasp on what she’s talking about, and I have a strict “no idiots” rule. Napster, Kazaa and Bittorrent are not the technology industry. They’re a tiny fraction of it.If Mitch Kapor and company want to give away what they make, and build a new kind of business model out of it, good for them. They can’t force Hollywood to give away what it makes. We’re a country that believes in private property rights, and those end at the bounds of your own property.Yes, we should fight piracy. DMCA is a great tool that allows innovation to continue while giving the content industry the tools they need to fight piracy. And while I think it’s stupid for the content industry to sue individuals, they should retain that right. Ultimately, technology is the real solution to piracy. We saw that with the iTunes Store, etc.But the kicker of her comment is this: “So that means that with a law like this, you can’t understand its context of adversarial defense and precedent law and good old-fashioned organic human discretion in implementing it.”I don’t trust the government to properly exercise “good old-fashioned organic human discretion” so why would I empower them in the vain hope they will learn how to do so?Take a quick look at how well the IRS and DMV exercise such discretion and you’ll pardon my skepticism.We are a nation BUILT on the idea that our constitution and laws should protect us against “organic human discretion” so that we can never become a repressive regime like China and Iran.
@ShanaC:disqus I’m pretty fed up with the Disqus technology not allowing people to reply and forcing them to stop replying, or putting them into increasingly narrow colums.Why does Disqus fear heated discussions and frequent back and forths so much? I can’t imagine Fred fears that, yet he goes along with this Disqus induced limitation.To answer your point about scanners: they will never be efficient — ever.What will happen is that people’s smart phones will eventually work like this: as you shop, you yourself scan the item while it’s still on the shelf, or in your cart, and it will total as you go, maybe give you one last chance to remove any items or question their price or something, and then total and debit off your bank account or wallet. If you don’t do this, as you exit the store, the door will not open for you or an alarm will go off.