Yes, SOPA Breaks The Internet: By Breaking The Belief In Trust And Sharing That Is The Internet

from the great-point dept

Venture capitalist Brad Burnham has a brilliant blog post that explains how SOPA really breaks the internet. It isn't just the technical aspects of it. SOPA is an attack on the fundamental belief system that underlies the internet, and much of what makes it successful:

At a dinner earlier this week, Joi Ito, the head of the Media Lab at MIT described the Internet as a “belief system” and I suddenly understood. The Internet is not just a series of pipes. It’s core architecture embeds an assumption about human nature. The Internet is designed to empower individuals not control them. It assumes that the if individuals are empowered, they will do the right thing the vast majority of the time. Services like eBay, Craigslist, Etsy and AirBnB are built on the assumption that most people are honest. Other services like Tumblr, Twitter, YouTube, Wordpress, and Soundcloud assume people will be generous with their ideas, insights and creations. Wikipedia has proven that people will share their knowledge. Companies like Kickstarter show that people will even be generous with their money. This does not mean that there are not bad people out there. All of these companies spend a lot of time and money to battle spam and fraud. The companies are simply betting that there are many more good people than bad. The architecture of the Internet shares this assumption. It could have been designed to prevent bad behavior. Instead its design empowers good behavior.

The entertainment industry does not share this view of human nature.

That encapsulates the point wonderfully. And SOPA is really about suggesting that that "belief system" built on trust and sharing isn't worth keeping around. I think this is a fundamental issue that people who understand the internet fully get: that it's more than the "series of tubes" or the specific technology that holds it together. It's built on a philosophy of openness and sharing. And that is a worldview that some businesses just don't grasp.

Whether you agree with me that the vast majority of people are good or with my friend that given a chance many people will steal is not really important. What is important is that PIPA, and SOPA, the legislation the content industry is currently pushing through Congress, will not allow me to architect a service and build a relationship with consumers that reflects my core beliefs about human nature. If I am a search engine and I remove sites from my index, I am essentially lying to my users. If I am a social media site and I remove links my users have posted to sites that some authority has deemed illegal, I am breaking a promise.

I am sympathetic to the content industries struggles with piracy, but my belief system tells me the answer is to capitalize on the great strengths of the Internet to create a healthy and profitable relationship with their users not to sue them. No matter how strongly I believe that, however, I do not think I have the right to tell them how to run their business. Apparently, they do not feel the same way about our businesses. The current legislation in Congress does not just create an administrative burden, it requires service providers who have built wonderful businesses on a deep conviction about human nature to change their relationship with their users in a way that subverts their core values.

It really is this that's the issue at hand. The "breaking" is of this recognition of the wonderful aspects built on the fact that people really are, for the most part, good. And when you treat them as being good -- rather than treating them as criminals -- you get rewarded for it. Are there some people who take advantage? Sure. But should we break the whole system just to stop those few people, when it will hinder all the wonderful things built on trust? That, unfortunately, appears to be the position the pro-SOPA folks are taking.

My only beef with Brad's piece is that he claims "the content industry" doesn't believe in the internet of trust and sharing. I disagree with that. I am a a part of the content industry. As is Brad. The new content industry absolutely gets it. It's why it embraces these platforms, uses them to create, distribute, promote, connect and monetize. It's the old gatekeepers who don't believe in this view of the internet.

Filed Under: brad burnham, culture, internet, sharing, sopa, trust

Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing

from the words-words-words dept

Certain terms crop up time and again in the arguments around copyright infringement and file sharing. Words like "theft" and "stealing" clearly represent an attempt to frame the debate in a certain way. That's hardly a new insight: many posts on Techdirt have pointed out these attempts to manipulate the discourse.

But until now, no one has stepped back and looked at this phenomenon as whole, placing it in a historical and legal context, or tried to analyze how it is related to the battles for the future shape of the Internet currently taking place. That's just what Stefan Larsson has done for his doctorate at Lund University in Sweden, in a thesis entitled "Metaphors and Norms - Understanding Copyright Law in a Digital Society" (available as a PDF.)

Here's how the accompanying press release (yes, even theses have them these days) explains the central question it seeks to answer:

What is it about copyright that doesn't work in the digital society? Why do millions of people think it's OK to break the law when it comes to file sharing in particular? Sociology of law researcher Stefan Larsson from Lund University believes that legal metaphors and old-fashioned mindsets contribute to the confusion and widening gaps between legislation and the prevailing norms.

Our language is made up of metaphors, even in our legal texts. Stefan Larsson has studied what consequences this has when digital phenomena, such as file sharing and downloading, are limited by descriptions intended for an analogue world.

In other words, the problem arises when we transpose concepts from an analog context into a digital one, where those concepts are used as metaphors that fail to work because of key differences between the two worlds.

One of those metaphors is "theft":

"When legal arguments equate file sharing with theft of physical objects, it sometimes becomes problematic", says Stefan Larsson, who doesn't think it is possible to equate an illegal download with theft of a physical object, as has been done in the case against The Pirate Bay.

Using the compensation model employed in the case against The Pirate Bay, the total value of such a site could be calculated at over SEK 600 billion. This is almost as much as Sweden's national budget, says Stefan Larsson.

Another is "copy":

In Stefan Larsson's view, the word 'copies' is a hidden legal metaphor that causes problematic ideas in the digital society. For example, copyright does not take into account that a download does not result in the owner losing his or her own copy. Neither is it possible to equate number of downloads with lost income for the copyright holder, since it is likely that people download a lot more than they would purchase in a shop.

Both of those will be familiar terrain to Techdirt readers. But Larsson believes that these misleading metaphors have something in common:

"The problem is that these metaphors make us equate copyright with ownership of physical property", says Stefan Larsson.

That is, the very idea of "intellectual property" is a metaphor that encourages people to make critical mistakes about what we can do with it, and what the ethical framework governing it should be. I certainly agree with that analysis – it's why I prefer to call copyright and patents what they are: time-limited, government-backed intellectual monopolies. But maybe that's just another metaphor....

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: copying, copyright, language, metaphors, sharing, theft

Fighting Back Against Public Domain Erosion By Growing The Commons

from the don't-take-it-lying-down dept

There have been a number of stories on Techdirt recently about governments diminishing the public domain - not just by extending copyright for future works, but also by putting works currently in the public domain back under copyright, both in the US and EU. Reversing that trend – by pushing back copyright's term closer to the original 14 years, say – will be challenging, to put it mildly.

But there's another way to fight back against that loss, as this Wikimedia Foundation project shows:

Wiki Loves Monuments was a crazy idea: ask people to get out of their houses and take a picture of the cultural heritage around them, of monuments and buildings! In September 2010, however, the idea proved far from crazy – 250 people participated in the Netherlands and submitted 12,500 photos. Last month, during the pan-European 2011 contest, we crushed that number.

In the past few months, volunteers throughout Europe have worked hard to organize this public photo contest in 18 countries throughout Europe – from Portugal to Estonia – and with great success. More than 5,000 people participated, submitting an amazing 165,000 photos– all available under a free license, and usable on Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia and other places on the internet.

The key part is the "free license" required: judging by this rules page (in German), that seems to mean cc-by-sa. Strictly speaking, that's not public domain, but images released under this license can still be used very widely (including commercially.)

The Wiki Loves Monuments competition was a clever way to get people to contribute to this corner of the digital commons; but many people are happy to do that even without incentives. Flickr has just announced that over 200 million photos on its site have been released under a Creative Commons license. Now, it's true that 145 million of these permit only non-commercial use, but that still leaves 18 million under cc-by-sa, and 25 million under the even more liberal cc-by license.

Even if they don't compensate for what is effectively the government-sanctioned theft of the public domain around the world, these growing stores of cc-licensed images on Flickr and elsewhere show how it is possible for everyone to fight back, simply by creating and releasing works under permissive licenses – including, of course, placing them fully in the public domain.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: commons, crowdsourcing, culture, public domain, sharing

Is Facebook Violating The Law Just By Encouraging You To Share?

from the paternalistc-instincts dept

While we know that Facebook collects a ton of data on people, and we absolutely agree that the way it implemented some of its frictionless sharing is ridiculously unclear, does that mean it should be illegal? The privacy group EPIC, who has such a low opinion of all of human kind that it feels that only it should decide whether or not you can share your own info, is asking the feds to ban Facebook's frictionless sharing -- even though it's entirely optional.

Again, we agree that the implementation is poor, but EPIC takes this to a whole different, and absolutely ridiculous level, suggesting that merely encouraging people to choose to share info is a violation of their privacy:

Encouraging or prompting users to share personal information is detrimental to consumer privacy

Wait, what? That makes no sense. I would agree that tricking people into sharing personal info is detrimental, but merely providing services and encouraging people to share info they want to share? How is that possibly detrimental? It's only deterimental in the eyes of organizations like EPIC, who think that they need to block people who want to share from doing so.

Filed Under: privacy, sharing
Companies: epic, facebook

The Giving Tree... In The Age Of DRM

from the well,-that-was-quick dept

It appears that xkcd has decided to do a modern update on the Shel Silverstein classic, The Giving Tree, in the age of DRM:
While this may just be a little comic joke, the larger point is worth highlighting. In the age of DRM, things that might have been considered normal "sharing" in the past are no longer allowed, despite being easier than ever in reality. That should trouble people.

Filed Under: drm, giving tree, sharing, shel silverstein, xkcd

Is Talking About The Beatles As A Wonderful 'Shared Experience' Really Wise In An Anti-Piracy PSA?

from the this-promo-also-seems-to-be-anti-beard,-but-maybe-that's-just-me dept

Music Matters has just released the latest in its string of anti-piracy PSAs, most of which feature recording artists explaining how music has affected their lives. This one features some excellent animation, along with a nice selection of tracks, and it details one person's lifelong relationship with the Beatles' music. It closes by stating that loving a band is a shared experience that brings many people together. All in all, it's a well done tribute that John Lennon certainly would have approved.



Of course, it's tough to watch this promo, which celebrates "sharing" music, without feeling a bit like you're being beaten over the head with an extremely heavy irony stick wielded by someone who has no idea how hard they're swinging it. For starters, Unnamed Protagonist states that he first heard the Beatles' music when it "floated through his window." As picturesque as this scenario may be, the end result will most likely be dismayed gasps from the BMIs and the ASCAPs of the world, who hate to see a public performance go unpunished.

In fact, the video seems to be making the opposite point of the one it's intended to make. It shows just how important sharing is to make culture culture. You've got really mixed messages here. The Beatles are a shared experience, but sharing it with others outside of the way they want you to share it is bad -- even as the (nameless) person profiled clearly enjoys the Beatles in his own way. Like hearing it through the window. Or out in the street with his evicted belongings. Or surrounded by friends in an unlicensed open air venue.

On top of that, the Beatles seem like a really odd choice for such a PSA.

Whatever level a person's love for the Beatles might be, it's pretty tough to find much reciprocation from the band itself, which spent most of the last decade making sure that the only digital copies of their music available were illegal copies. The band also spent a fair amount of time shooting down licensing requests and otherwise making their catalog about as approachable as a badger covered in live hand grenades.

Between the Beatles' "yes, we love you, too but only through very selective channels" and Music Matters' "music is a good thing but only through selective channels," the whole idea of music being a communal experience, one that relies on sharing, kind of gets lost. Even worse, because this is a Music Matters promo aimed at reducing piracy, the message shifts from "Music matters because it's shared," to "Don't share music because, together, we can keep music from mattering."

Filed Under: beatles, culture, piracy, psa, sharing
Companies: music matters

Dear MPAA: Stomp Your Feet And Repeat It As Many Times As You Want, But Infringement Is Not Theft

from the must-we-do-this-again dept

Ah, gotta love the MPAA and their gleeful sophistry. We wrote about how MPAA comms person and former Congressional staffer (note the revolving door...) Alex Swartsel went way, way overboard in attacking GigaOm's Janko Roettger for noting, accurately, that the entertainment industry's anti-consumer behavior, combined with a potentially worsening economy, could mean that more people switch away from authorized options for watching movies to unauthorized options. This is a pretty reasonable analysis, and it's hard to see how you could disagree with it. However, in the minds of Swartsel and the MPAA, anyone who even dares to acknowledge that unauthorized file sharing exists must be condoning the practice, and Swartsel wrote one of the more intellectually dishonest pieces we've seen in a long time, going after Roettger, pretending he was telling people that it was fine to infringe on copyrights.

We responded on a bunch of points, including Ms. Swartsel's repeated incorrect use of the words "steal" and "theft" to describe infringement. Swartsel has now responded, with a post so full of sophistry, you have to wonder if the MPAA might not be better off sending her back to remedial talking points training. It seems clear that Swartsel is jumping into a debate for which she is woefully unprepared -- though, of course that explains why the MPAA, yet again, has turned off comments on its blog. The main point of the blog post appears to be to simply repeat the words "steal" and "theft" so many times that readers are driven into submission. Of course, most people aren't stupid, though the MPAA seems to presume that's the case.

By my count, the post uses a form of "steal" six times and a form of "theft" another six times. That's a dozen incorrect uses of those two words in a mere seven paragraphs. Impressive.

Even worse, nowhere does Swartsel admit that she totally and completely overreacted and irresponsibly attacked Roettger for accurately reporting what's going on in the world. Instead, she doubles down on the this claim that merely stating what's happening means we all think that it's okay:

In other words: movie and TV theft is inevitable. Why? Because it’s easy to steal something that, in physical form, exists only as data, and easy to justify stealing it as a result? Because information wants to be free, no matter the cost it took to produce or its creators’ judgments about how best to disseminate it? Because anything is fair game once it’s on the Internet? Because if I rip a movie file off of a DVD or camcord a showing at a theater, I have created that movie with my own labor and can do whatever I want with the file, including posting it online and making money from ad sales or subscription fees? Because by stealing films and TV, or watching stolen films and TV, I’m just exercising my First Amendment rights to freedom of speech? All those are arguments we’ve heard before.

Oh gosh. Where to start? Notice how she intermixes the fact that making a copy and sharing is easy with the idea that people need to "justify" it. Poor Ms. Swartsel. No one ever shared a DVD with you? No one ever invited you over to their house to watch a TV show together? Sometimes "sharing" is just that. It's not stealing.

And, no, no one -- not me, not Roettger, not Torrentfreak -- ever attempted to "justify" the actions that are infringement. None of us said that it is "fair game." None of us said that "information wants to be free." None of us said that it's a First Amendment issue. It seems that, rather than respond to the actual points all of us raised, Swartsel and the MPAA are simply throwing out a ton of strawmen -- every false caricature she can come up with -- to describe the "scary" people who argue that maybe, just maybe, the MPAA is going about this the wrong way.

Mike Masnick wrote that we need to “adapt and deal with reality,” and actually, I think he’s right – depending on which reality we’re talking about. Is it the reality that the Internet and the explosion of mobile technology have opened up vast new ways for us to communicate with one another and for film and TV-makers to offer their work to people who want to watch it? Because as Julia blogged last month, there are “more options than ever before to get movies and TV shows online safely and legitimately” – we have a list on MPAA.org here, and the creative minds in our industry are working on even more as we speak.

And yet... and yet, as folks like Wil Wheaton recently pointed out, those efforts are still at about the 1997 level of fan friendliness. They still treat most people as if they were criminals who need to be limited and contained. For the most part, they do not offer the same level of convenience and user-friendliness of other options that are out there, even if they are illegal. Historical evidence has shown time and time again that what Swartsel thinks of as "theft" is not in any way similar to "theft," but is merely her industry's best customers expressing how they would like to be offered content.

And sometimes, indeed, the industry does get it right -- but it's usually with a lot of kicking and screaming as they're dragged there by a much more innovative tech company. Netflix, of course, is a great example. Yet, every other online movie offering is horribly limited. Things like only being able to watch a movie within a 24 hours period, forcing people to watch previews (and the silly FBI warning for something they paid for) isn't fan friendly at all. It just drives more people to unauthorized means.

And, as for Netflix, which actually does seem to be about as consumer friendly as they come (and has done quite well because of it), well, then along comes the MPAA and the Hollywood studios with plans to kill the golden goose, by doing everything possible to strangle it. They're ratcheting up the prices, they're limiting the selection (drastically). They're trying to demand further restrictions.

Honestly, it's quite easy to show that the MPAA and its member studios have done much more to drive people to infringement than any mere reporter who simply points out the reality of the market.

Is it the reality that some people do steal content online? Unfortunately, it’s clear that’s true – otherwise we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation. But do “many, many people” really intend to engage in theft just to watch a movie or TV show cheaply or for free? We doubt it, particularly if legitimate, better alternatives are available; if they know it’s wrong; and if they understand it’s not a victimless crime.

Ah, my favorite bit of sophistry, which really shows that Swartsel is somewhat new to this particular debate. Look, the industry has been screaming about "education" and "victimless crimes" for decades ("home taping is killing music!"). And it's totally bogus and everyone knows it. Even bringing it up is an admission that you have no real argument. Both significant research and basic history show that this is not an "education" issue. Telling them "file sharing is bad," doesn't change anyone's mind. And these people are more than willing to pay, as is seen time and time again by study after study after study after study.

While Swartsel and the MPAA sit back and claim "but we are offering legal options!" they're totally missing the point (again). They're not offering the legal options that people want. In some cases they are, but every time they get close, they try to make those good services worse, and drive more people to alternatives. The people are willing to pay if given a reasonable option that doesn't treat them like a criminal and put ridiculous restrictions on them.

That's not "theft," that's frustration that the industry is so clueless that it can't offer a good service after all these years.

But if what Masnick means is that we need to throw up our hands and look the other way while people who had nothing to do with making a movie or a TV show steal and profit from it, that is a reality to which we do not care to adapt, period.

In what world does "learning to adapt" mean looking the other way? Seriously, if you're going to make ridiculously false statements about my position, at least make them appear logically consistent. I'm not saying throw up your hands. I'm saying stop being stupid and start offering services that don't treat people like criminals and which actually compete on value with the services that people want. It's not that hard, but if you're going to go around calling your biggest fans criminals a dozen times in the course of seven short paragraphs, I guess it's little surprise that you wouldn't be able to comprehend such basic things.

Filed Under: alex swartsel, business models, mpaa, sharing, stealing, theft
Companies: mpaa

It's Not About 'Free,' It's About Sharing

from the that's-how-it-works dept

Rick Falkvinge takes on the standard claim that file sharing is all about "just getting stuff for free," by arguing that the 'free' part frames the discussion totally incorrectly. Instead, he notes, it's all about sharing, and was never about the money. He explains by analogy:

In a future where the Earth has been poisoned to an extent where the water is a health hazard, cleanup efforts have been ongoing for a long time. For health reasons, there are laws that people may only drink the water from a particular company, Waterisnew, which enjoys a monopoly on water supply — and know to charge for it, too.

Then, one day, nature’s water is announced clean by scientists. But the laws are still in place. People rush out into the forest and drink from rivers, despite the fact that it breaks laws and Waterisnew’s monopoly.

Executives at Waterisnew are furious that people dare break their monopoly. Somebody asks, cautiously, if the price of water may be wrong? Could there be a business failure involved? If they charged less for the water, then maybe people would stop pirate-drinking water from clean rivers and go back to legal alternatives?

As illustrated, the question misses the point entirely. Just as the water had become decommercialized, so has making copies of bitpatterns.

People don’t copy because of a price tag somewhere else, entirely regardless of what that price tag says. People copy because they can, because it is associated with freedom and because it is in human nature to share

In fact, he points to some very interesting research on why people share, and it comes down to a simple point: it's human nature to share content. It doesn't actually cost anything and it builds a relationship and cultural bond with others. If you look at the reasons that people share, it's the reasons why people do all sorts of things: to connect with others, to entertain others, to "define" ourselves, to spread information, etc. Information has become a tool, not a product, and that's difficult for those who are used to selling it as a product to grasp.

Filed Under: culture, research, sharing