(2016 typo correction)
Saturday, 1 December 2012
(2016 typo correction)
Wednesday, 28 November 2012
Sunday, 18 November 2012
Thursday, 6 September 2012
By Rick Falkvinge. Founder of the first Pirate Party.
(posted here with permission)
I like to look at historic patterns. We can observe that all of this has happened before - and all of this will most likely happen again. Every time, it feels just as unique as last time. When incumbent industries are threatened by a new and disruptive technology, they will use any justification imaginable to kill it in its infancy, trying to convince legislators that their particular special interest is a public interest. It always ends badly.
You have all heard the cries of the entertainment distribution industries (which are not "creative industries" in any sense of the word, with the notable exception of accounting practices) about how vital they are to the entire economy, and how it would be reasonable that they be compensated with an amount of money exceeding the world's entire GDP for the mere existence of LimeWire, to mention but one example.
Looking at history, as industries become threatened by new technology, they typically embrace it in public and talk passionately about its potential, but only in terms of how the new technology can support the existing and incumbent industries. Under absolutely no circumstances must the new technology be allowed to come into a position to replace the currently dominant industries.
A famous example of this is the Locomotives Act of 1865 in the United Kingdom, better known as the Red Flag Act. It was a law that limited the speed of the new so-called automobile to 2 miles per hour in urban areas, and required them to always have a crew of three: a driver, a stoker (engine operator), and a man who would walk before the automobile waving a red flag. This effectively limited the speed of the automobile to walking speed, negating any possible inherent speed advantage of the new mode of transportation.
The car was fantastic, people would say in public, but only as long as it didn't threaten the railroad or stagecoach industries. These very industries, it turned out much later, were behind the lobbying that led to the Red Flag Act. The fledgling automobile industry stood to make the older industries obsolete, or at least significantly smaller, which could not be permitted. Therefore, they went to Parliament and argued how tremendously important their industries were to the public good and the economy as a whole, and claimed that their special interest was a public interest. Just like the entertainment distribution industry lobby does today.
Essentially, the stagecoach and railroad industries tried to limit the permissible use of the automobile to carry people and goods the last mile to and from the stagecoach and railroad stations, and only at walking speed. That wouldn't threaten the existing dominant industries, and they could pretend in public to embrace its usefulness.
Today, the entertainment distribution industries - perhaps more accurately described as the copyright industry - pretends to embrace the Internet, but only inasmuch as they can keep operating as they always have. Any other use needs to be outlawed and criminalized, and such laws harshly enforced.
And sure enough, British Parliament agreed in its time that the stagecoach and railroad industries were important. But the Parliament made the mistake of seeing yesterday as the present time and eternal: those industries were only important before the technology shift that the car brought, a shift which was already underway. The special laws that these industries pushed through - with emphasis on the Red Flag Act - caused the inevitable technology shift to delay in United Kingdom, and therefore, the car industry of the United Kingdom lost considerable competitive edge against its foreign competition, being ten to fifteen years late into the game.
The moral of the story that keeps repeating itself is that an industry troubled by technological advances should neither be allowed special laws nor be confused with the public interest, but instead be permitted to die as swiftly as possible, so that new industries and new jobs can take its place. If you do the opposite and keep that industry alive with artificial respiration and repressive legislation, you not only hurt respect for the law, but also the future economy and competitive
"Saving jobs" means that politicians take resources by force from vital, innovative, and competitive industries, and give those resources to ailing, failing, and obsolete industries. It's not very good policy. We shouldn't have to fight to keep the red flag mentality off the internet, but we do.
Rick Falkvinge @Falkvinge http://falkvinge.net/
Version first seen in GoTo Magazine:
Thursday, 1 March 2012
I write below the response from my MP re my contact to him regarding ACTA,(and SOPA and PIPA):
Dear Mr Cocks
Thank you for contacting me about the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).
Counterfeiting and piracy of intellectual property rights (IPRs) are recognised as a problem that requires effective action on a global scale. This is why the UK, along with 21 other member states, had no choice but to sign ACTA on the 26th January 2012. The only five member states who have yet to sign the agreement are Cyprus, Germany, Estonia, Netherlands and Slovakia. They are expected to sign it soon though.
ACTA will work against organised crime, helping to persue those who steal intellectual property. It is clear that this kind of behaviour needs to be tackled; not only does it stifle innovation and prevent fair competition, it also costs the EU an estimated 8 billion euros annually through the saturation of our markets with counterfeit goods.
I would like to clarify that ACTA is a lot different to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA). While SOPA and PIPA are draft US laws that would change US legislation, ACTA does not require any EU law changes. Anything you can do legally today will still be legal after ratification of ACTA.
I do hope this information helps, and thank you once again for contacting me about this important issue.
Dr Phillip Lee
Member of Parliament for Bracknell
My comment: I find this response unsatisfactory and ill informed to say the least.
Thursday, 19 January 2012
With time, my eyes saw different things. The reason why 'Linux' existed was not just technical excellence, but was a lot to do with the social, political, ethical principles of freedom. Mmm, heavy stuff.
I also became aware of 'GNU/Linux'. And a person called Richard M Stallman.
The time-line was a surprise. Stallman invented the concept of free software in 1983, calling his intended operating system 'GNU' after the animal. Years later, Linus Torvalds invented his Linux kernel, in 1991, and it was used tohelp make the GNU operating system complete.
Stallman had, and still has, a flair for great clarity of principle. 'Free' software means freedoms, and Stallman defined these. However, he is not strong on marketing or diplomatic skills, nor being political, nor even always very tactful. Prophets often rest uneasily into the world, and Stallman is a prophet.
What I had followed over the years was the word 'Linux'. Where did 'GNU/Linux' come in? Any number of usages and public definitions exist which call the complete operating system 'Linux'. Even IBM used this term alone when it marketed its early products as far as I have seen.
Anyway, who cares what the operating system is called? It is not just a matter of semantics, otherwise I would not bother to mention it at all. I could not usually care less what the name is.
Marketing in the free software world is *so* poor that even as an avid user it took me five years to bump into the *real* issue. 'Free' software means freedoms. Torvalds is not such an ethical, political idealist creature as is Stallman. Torvalds takes an altogether more easy going view of licencing.
The free software world got more complicated when Microsoft made its move on Novell, and licensing for free software was tightened up with the introduction of the licence GNU General Public Licence 3 (GPL3). It had been realised that the earlier GPL2 was not strong enough to preserve freedoms in all cases.
However, Torvalds was ok with keeping his kernel, Linux, as GPL2.
There is a lot going on which threatens the 'freedoms' but unfortunately the free software movement is no good at marketing. And having no money does not help much against the powerful well funded opposition.
I have looked carefully at Stallman's views, and I can not fault them. Although I find I can not personally follow them to the letter. That does not make the objectives wrong, just difficult to follow in today's world.
I am a pragmatic GNU Linux user, I use Ubuntu which is free software, but which also contains plenty of very non free stuff.
But I think Stallman has a good point when he says that a system called just 'Linux' risks people thinking that the principles of 'Linux' are the same as those principles of 'Free' software.
Ok, that poses a problem, and Stallman's answer - GNU/Linux - sounds geeky. Why is 'GNU' any more geeky than 'Linux'? Gnu is a real animal, not a made up word with an X in it.
One consequence of the ongoing double use of the word 'Linux' to mean either the kernel or the complete operating system, is that it is easy for the idea of complexity of kernel level skills to be visited onto people's thoughts about the many Linux based complete operating systems, which are incredibly easy to use, even for novices.
When I have asked independent computer shops about - say - Ubuntu? I get the retort that "Linux is not for ordinary users, only geeks".
It is unfortunate that the word 'Linux' is so firmly associated with 'geek', and not with 'ordinary' people. Relating to the many easy to use operating systems the belief is mistaken, but it is easily kept rolling along, with only minimal encouragement from competing business interests.
Whatever the name is, it is worth keeping in mind that the principles and ethics behind the Stallman 'GNU' and the Torvalds 'Linux' have significant differences, with Stallman focussing on Freedom, not pragmatism.
Long live GNU/Linux and all Linux based operating systems.
Tuesday, 3 January 2012
Unendorsed summary of a speech by Cory Doctorow
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg) by Alan Cocks
Computers are everywhere. The world we live in now is made of computers, even when we do not realise it. We don't have cars any more, we have computers we ride in. We don't have airplanes any more, we have flying control systems with a big bunch of controller units. A radio is no longer a crystal, it's a general-purpose computer with some software.
Think of the radio for a minute. The entire basis for radio regulation up until today was based on the idea that the properties of a radio are fixed at the time of manufacture, and can't be easily altered. You can't just flip a switch on your wireless baby monitor, and turn it into something that interferes with air traffic control signals. But, powerful software-defined radios can change function from baby monitor to emergency services dispatcher, to air traffic controller, just by loading and running different software.
It is easy to understand why regulators might be nervous about you changing the firmware in your automatic 'self-driving' car, or them wanting to limit the operability for aviation controllers, or somehow limit the kind of thing you could do with the upcoming bio-nano-technology. Special printers, (perhaps 3D printers) and other devices (perhaps bio technology) which are available now, or are feasible for the future for DIY fun in your shed will soon spread around the world.
Just as easy digital copying using your PC has destabilised the gigantic media industry, forcing it however reluctantly, and largely without success, to seek a different business model, so it is likely that the PC power of your general purpose computer, running programs with the new printers or other future devices, will be likely to cause rumblings elsewhere.
Judging from the past and present behaviour of the media industry when they think their business is threatened, then in future the responses from rich well funded businesses to perceived (or real) threats to their business model, are likely to be similar, and along a well trodden path. This path leads to restrictions. Basically restrictions to personal freedom, usually, laws. If we are fortunate the laws are good ones and we see a sensible balance between our loss of freedom and the benefits to us as citizens.
The trouble comes when the responses, legislation whatever, are for some reason ineffective! For media - music, films, etc., surveys repeatedly show that the people downloading music and videos for free, flouting copyright, are the very same people who go and spend the MOST money on also buying music and videos! This is - at first - counter intuitive. However, it arises from the new behaviours of customers when new technology is used.
Yet, still the massive industry of the media has moved mountains to create restrictive laws and practices to try to prevent their best customers from doing what they obviously want to do, even when they also pay for content. Strangely enough though, the media industries are not getting more profitable.
The industry response to failure has been, not altogether unreasonably, albeit short sighted, to obtain yet more restrictions. Interestingly, stand up artist 'Louis CK' did an experiment. In December 2011 he put the video of his special show on the web for a low price purchase ($5), with no copy protection, no restrictions, and said so. You might expect that the DVD would get mercilessly copied free? Well, you would be correct. But it was so easy and low priced to buy the download, that Louis CK made one million dollars in just 12 days! Maybe there is something that can be learned from this?
So what we see over the years is increasingly restrictive practices and legislation, escalating in almost desperation, and at the same time still not being very effective in results. Unfortunately though, as the escalation proceeds, unintended consequences become more apparent.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and on the journey we will probably find both the bath water and baby too, by the roadside.
Modern computers are close to magical, and there are plenty of skilful wizards around in the world who can understand the magic, and enjoy it, use it, and make more magic too. Some of the kids in your street maybe? The point to be made here is that the genie, the mythical and independent spirit, is already out of the bottle, and that even if we tried, we would find it practically impossible to restrict what computers can do. However, this does not stop legislators etc., from trying, creating more and more restrictions, monitoring, whatever, in their apparently reasonable attempts to control the genie.
A story of similar magic can be had from the internet itself, rather than the computers which we use on it. The internet was designed to be almost indestructible, and is fairly robust. The world wide web (the web sites we use) was never designed with future restrictive practices in mind. It is difficult to create a method of restriction and control, say, of certain offensive web sites, or download facilities, which is more than half effective, without using a proverbial sledge hammer. In other words, without massive loss of freedom for the citizen.
Fast rewind, back to - today. In some countries, well meaning restrictive practices have been introduced against some internet content which causes offence. These restrictive practices often have legal backing, although some do not. However, they are all intended to remove content before you can see it, or to prevent you from seeing something, or from doing something. There are any number of possible reasons why someone might think it is a good idea to restrict your access to information or restrict your actions.
With conventional hard copy publishing, books are withdrawn, banned, burned etc., hopefully with due legal process from a trusted legislature. With the new 'online' technology, things are very different. It is no longer just one book with a few hundred copies. It is websites, too numerous to control. Too numerous for trusted legal processes. It is also key utilities such as file sharing, peer to peer torrenting for example, which are as general purpose as good kitchen knives, which come under the sledge hammer.
Like a sharp kitchen knife these facilities can be used for good or ill, but against modern technology, traditional methods of restriction and control cause large collateral damage. One consequence of the restrictions turning out to be less effective than desired, is an increasing willingness to impose yet more controls, to censor, monitor and eavesdrop, etc., and also to position new infrastructure to suit.
I use the term 'censor' because when a central authority causes selective information to be with held from its audience, censorship is what it is. This situation is not the same as being in a cinema, or inside a planning meeting at the BBC. Those are situations we have lived with and understand, and there are non-secret checks and balances too.
Something which imposes outside controls into your computer is commonly called 'spyware' or 'malware'. If a Company, or Government imposes this it might be called by a different name.
I wish I could offer good answers!
Unfortunately, however reasonable it may seem to introduce more and yet more restrictions - in how you may use your computer, or in how you are allowed to access or use the internet - it all moves in the direction of restriction - censorship - and lack of freedom.
I myself want to avoid seeing offensive websites. I do want deserving artists to be rewarded. I also do really want to live with freedom of access to information, even though the new technology which surrounds us has ephemeral brake pedals.
The technology is not amenable to centralised control. At least, not without massive loss of freedom. The bathwater may be distasteful but hopefully the world will find a way of keeping baby safe. 'Centralised control' has an Orwellian tone. Repressive regimes exist. What you consider to be 'oppressive' will depend on which regime you live in and who you are.
At the time of writing this summary, there is an energetic debate in the USA at least, about new legislation which intends to impose controls. When the technical practicability of the strategy was assessed, it was deemed to be quite practicable. In fact, the explicit reasons given were that this worked ok in the following countries: China, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Tunisia, Burma, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan.
All this is in the name of well meaning and good things - as seen by the various agencies of course. There are already in place, some restrictions in UK, Australia, Canada, Europe, with currently significant further movements in USA.
If you want the chance to be informed, perhaps even to influence the future of your world, then now is certainly a good time to get more curious!
Original event: 28c3: The coming war on general computation, Cory Doctorow
Original transcript by Joshua Wise of the event: https://github.com/jwise/28c3-doctorow/blob/master/transcript.md
creative commons licence cc-by non commercial