So, how can we use competition to address things like this, again?
Category: Law
In addition to picking up some interesting ideas and wisdom from the F2C folks, I also seem to have picked up a rather nasty cold that has really slowed me down. So I’m a little . . . slow.
In response to comments on the previous post – Geddes hasn’t convinced me that pushing for Net Neutrality legislation is *necessarily* a bad idea right now. As Susan Crawford notes, we need more evidence before we can make a fully informed decision on the matter. But I remain worried that by the time we get that information, it may well be too late. One of the few things I think Powell got right in his speech was pointing out that there is usually a very narrow window of opportunity in which proponents of a regulatory action can make a real difference. And I while I’m not sure that we’re in that window right now, I certainly don’t want to wait until the RBOCs have slammed it shut.
In the end, I’d prefer to serve the values motivating the Freedom to Connect crowd through competition in an open marketplace. But that’s the key – it requires an open marketplace. And I don’t think that its continued existence is at all a given. As Tim Wu’s review of the historical behavior of common carriers has shown, they’ve rarely passed up an opportunity to distort a market. And with all that practice, they will likely be able to accomplish it before the public has even understood what’s happened.
Just finished two days at Freedom to Connect – two stimulating, motivating, and educating days. It was good to catch up with some folks I’d not seen in a while, and great to meet a number of really interesting new people. My plan was to recap some of the highlights – Martin Geddes well-constructed argument against net neutrality, the Dave & Doc show, and the rather entertaining James Salter. (Update: Priceless.)
But the Powerbook (with all my notes) simply refuses to work (thankfully, its problems only started at the end of the day), and the onset of sick has robbed me of further enthusiasm for the evening. Manana.
A now forgotten flurry of activity kept me from David Isen’s Freedom 2 Connect conference last year, but I’m a little luckier this year – tomorrow and Tuesday will find me there, among a very impressive bunch of folks.
I’m quite looking forward to it – it’s rare opportunity to indulge my personal, political, and professional interests all at once.
This article in today’s New York Times illustrates the absurdity of copyright law as it presently exists. Essentially, by distributing music across campus by analog means (through the existing cable system) and not digital (say, the campus network), folks at MIT are sharing an enormous library of music with the entire campus. And it is all perfectly legal. Why?
In the early 90’s, creative industry lobbyists (i.e., the RIAA, ASCAP, BMI) feared the rise of digital format recorders (especially Minidisc players. Not so scary in retrospect, eh?) and pushed Congress to recognize a new performance right for digital recordings (that had not previously existed for analog recordings). Congress, in awe at the time of all things digital, essentially handed over the bill drafting process to the lobbyists. The lobbyists ensured that any time a digital recording was performed and available in a way that allowed manipulation by the public, a royalty was owed. Not yet having the confidence that it would later develop, the industry did not overreach and attempt to secure the same rights for analog recordings.
And thus was born a great schism in copyright law that rested on nothing more than the format of the original recording.
Makes sense, right?
I didn’t think so.