Jeremy Quinn (by way of richard barbrook) on Mon, 7 Jan 2002 19:17:27 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Steal This Essay 4: Are We Just Rationalizing Theft? |
>Steal This Essay 4: Are We Just Rationalizing Theft? >---------------------------------------------------- > by Dan Kohn > > "Information is the currency of democracy." > - Thomas Jefferson > > At least since the U.S. Constitution explicitly granted Congress > the power to protect copyright, an intellectual foundation has > been built up regarding intellectual property. My previous essays > argued that foundation is now crumbling, and will be gone within > 10 years as broadband connections (to enable easy transfer of > large files) become ubiquitous and people become more comfortable > viewing material on computer screens (where it becomes impossible > to stop copying) versus on paper (where content is still somewhat > excludable). In other words, if you make money from selling > content, the news is worse than you think. > ><http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbser=1209> ><http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tlkthrd=1503> > > But whether or not this trend is inevitable, one could stop and > ask whether it's a good thing, and whether the death of excludable > content should be grieved or cheered. Property is generally > defined by economists as goods that are rival (e.g., if I take > your car, you don't have one) and excludable (e.g., you can lock > your door to keep me out of your home). As information has become > digitized (and therefore nonrival and nonexcludable), the > intellectual underpinning of intellectual property has eroded, so > that today the term intellectual property is little more than an > oxymoron. Intellectual property may, in a few years, sound as > strange to the ears as "reasonable attorney fees", "low tar > cigarettes", and "Zero Administration Windows" do today. > > Note, however, that while this erosion applies to all forms of > copyright, 99 percent of patents remain valid and enforceable. > That's because the majority of patents entail securing property > rights regarding the manipulation of atoms, not bits. If someone > steals your patented concept of how to build a better mousetrap, > you can still sue that company, shut down their mousetrap factory, > and get a large cash settlement. Even patents regarding the way > information is stored on physical media, such as the MPEG patents > that apply to DVDs, remain enforceable because you can sue to shut > down DVD factories that violate them. The patents that will become > increasingly unenforceable are those regarding the transfer of > digital information over networks, such as the patents that > Fraunhofer holds over software that creates MP3 music. Yes, > Fraunhofer can sue large companies that might infringe, such as > Microsoft or Real, but they are unlikely to succeed in stopping > individuals that create MP3 software as a hobby and release it for > free. Bits are virtual; atoms are real. The rule of thumb is that > if you can't kick it, you can't sue it. > > Won't people's conscience stop them from "stealing" other's > "property?" Ask the millions of college students who popularized > Napster. The reality is that new technology almost always changes > the views of its users as to what is permissible and even what is > moral. For example, the Pill radically changed society's view of > the permissibility (and feasibility) of sex outside of marriage, > and had even larger effects on the role of women in all walks of > life. Going back further, it is hard to see how Martin Luther's > Protestant Revolution could have taken hold without the broad > availability and consequential wide literacy enabled by the > Gutenberg Bible. In fact, the drastically reduced cost of > information distribution that Gutenberg's printing press entailed > can be seen to underpin the entire Enlightenment, as well as its > intellectual offspring, liberal democracy and market capitalism. > (Not to mention the similarity that the printing press was quickly > applied to the production of erotic texts and imagery, just as > VCRs caught on as a way to watch adult movies in the comfort of > one's home, and the sons-of-Napster are exchanging an increasing > quantity of adult materials in addition to MP3 music.) > > As the marginal cost of distributing information goes from a few > pennies per megabyte (the approximate cost of most media today) to > zero, it is likely that the impact on larger society will > accelerate. Most people will probably come to see the terms > property and stealing as simply unrelated to how information is > distributed and how its creation is funded. > >> Price per megabyte of different media today >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> book $20/50 MB $0.40 per MB per copy >> newspaper $0.50/10 MB $0.05 per MB per copy >> 30 second TV ad $500,000/5 MB $0.03 per MB per person >> (assuming 3 million viewers) >> CD-ROM $15/650 MB $0.02 per MB per copy >> DVD $50/7000 MB $0.007 per MB per copy > > A.J. Liebling said that "Freedom of the press belongs to those who > own one." The reality is that throughout history, the distribution > of information has been monopolized by a tiny, yet extraordinarily > powerful, elite. In ancient Egypt, priests would jealously guard > their astronomical knowledge so as to ensure their place at the > top of society by being able to predict the annual flooding of the > Nile. The Roman Catholic Church used the literacy of its clergy > and monks to develop a parallel government that was more powerful > than the theoretically sovereign kings during the 1,000 years of > the Middle Ages. Although freedom of the press is enshrined in the > First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the reality today is > that the majority of information distribution channels are still > controlled by a small elite of publishers and broadcasters. An > oligopoly of five powerful companies has nearly exclusive control > in deciding what music will be heard. (This is certainly one of > the fundamental reasons that Britney Spears is so popular.) > > The influential media theorist Ithiel de Sola Pool described the > concept of a technology of freedom, which he said, "aims at > pluralism of expression rather than a dissemination of preferred > ideas." Pool analyzed the radical differences in how > communications technologies were regulated by the government, > based on the perceived scarcity of how many publishers could be > supported. The press was the gold standard by which others were > measured, which because of its wide availability, is given the > broadest First Amendment protection. But radio and television > broadcasters, by convincing the government that there is a > scarcity of available radio spectrum, have successfully argued the > need for heavy regulation. Thus, the government not only regulates > the kinds of content that can be broadcast (allowing almost any > level of violence as long as no nudity is shown) but also makes it > far more difficult for new entrants to compete with the > established players. > > If he were alive today, Pool would surely believe that the > Internet is the ultimate technology of freedom. Or, as Judge > Dalzell said in his historic ruling in ACLU v. Reno that > pronounced the Communications Decency Act unconstitutional, "It is > no exaggeration to conclude that the Internet has achieved, and > continues to achieve, the most participatory marketplace of mass > speech that this country - and indeed the world - has yet seen." > Intriguingly, he implied that the Internet may therefore deserve > even greater free speech protection than what is currently > available for print. That's because anyone with basic literacy > skills can use the Internet to reach an enormous and growing > audience for almost no cost. If Liebling was right and the > limiting factor is the availability of the printing press, than > that price has been reduced to the $1 an hour or so charged by > Internet cafes, or the free Internet access made available in many > U.S. libraries. > ><http://www.aclu.org/court/cdadec.html> > > The world we seem to be entering, then, is one in which the > distribution of content is essentially free, even while its > creation must still be funded. However, the group most responsible > for promoting the concept of intellectual property is the > recording industry, which generally gets the ownership rights to > artists' music in exchange for agreeing to distribute it. Is it > any wonder then that the recording industry routinely makes absurd > comparisons such as that there is no difference between stealing > music and stealing a car? (The recording industry also routinely > refers to copying music as piracy, trivializing a real crime in > which hundreds of people are killed every year on the high seas. > Piracy on the seas is violent as a direct result of the fact that > physical goods are rival.) > > A world in which distribution is free is one where many more > voices can be heard (and also hopefully in which the corresponding > mouths can be fed). It is unlikely, though, that there will be > enough money left over to support the recording industry. On the > night when the RIAA's last lawyers are laid off - they will go out > toasting, "Well, at least we brought Napster down with us" - few > tears will be shed for the demise of the music oligopoly. > > Of course, the music industry as it currently exists is not giving > up without a fight, and a future essay will examine how their > announced digital offerings compare with the many services that > have risen up in place of Napster. > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net