won't anyone think of the starving?

The Onion: Kid Rock Starves to Death: MP3 Piracy Blamed. Right on target.

Hillary Rosen: "Why would anyone in their right mind pay $12.99 for a CD with artwork when they could simply spend seven hours downloading the compressed MP3 files of all the album's songs onto their home computer's desktop, decompress it into an AIFF sound file, and then burn the data onto a blank CD?"

Record Label Exec: "Just imagine if the oil-change industry allowed the public to have direct access to oil and oil filters, enabling them to change their car's oil themselves without going through Jiffy Lube or Kwik Lube. People would stop going to oil-change shops, and the entire industry would collapse. We can't let that happen to us."

posted October 27, 2002 02:38 PM (Politics) #

IMMINENT END OF NET PREDICTED (source code at 11)

Curious Yellow. There, I said it. I've been struggling over whether or not to say that for a while now. CY s the story of the superworm. The Really Big One. Full plans on how to take over the Internet in a matter of minutes, not get caught, and use it for whatever you like.

At a technical level, it's a fascinating application of decentralized networks. At an emotional level, it's a thrilling battle between two superpowers (along the lines of that in True Names, but far more likely). At a practical level, if it actually happened it could be a really big mess. And at a writing level, it's a fun and humorous story to read.

It's got lines like "Naturally, once an anti-virus patch for the worm becomes publicly available on the Internet, Curious Yellow will cause that site to disappear from the Internet." and "[The anonymous network created by CY] would be a boon to the usual cast of characters that could benefit from anonymous communication, such as people attempting to escape human-rights-violating regimes, international terrorists, and music fans."

So go read it now and find out how you can take over the whole Internet. And if you're going to, could you give me 24 hours notice? Thanks.

posted October 24, 2002 02:44 PM (Technology) #

new arguments

Daryl Hanson has an argument against the CTEA I hadn't heard before [Lessig]: Many authors created works with the implicit understanding that they would go into the public domain soon after their death and become classics. They died and the copyrights fell into the hands of family and publishers who have a strong incentive to keep these works out of the public domain (to make money for themselves). These authors had no way of knowing copyright would be extended like this and act to prevent it for their works (by, say, dedicating their works to the public domain in their will) and so the CTEA disrespects all these authors's wishes. I don't know how many authors actually felt this way, and it would be difficult to find out.

Update: Cory notes that we shouldn't take authors dying wishes to be the final word. Of course not, and I think I'd be the last person to suggest that. However, this is an interesting response to those who feel extending copyright is somehow a justice to dead authors. (You can hear them rolling in their graves: "You locked my works up for twenty more years and blamed it on me?!")

At the argument, the Solicitor General also gave an argument I'd never heard before. Many authors give their copyright to a publisher in exchange for some cash upfront. A longer copyright means these publishers will make more money, thus they can afford to pay the author more before they die (since they'll be getting it back after they do). Of course, as the economists's brief explains, this isn't much of an incentive in practice, since the extra money to be made is miniscule in current dollars.

posted October 23, 2002 04:10 PM (Politics) #

patently "fair use"

Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to [...] promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
Ammendment I: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech"

One way we've resolved the conflict between these two, in copyright at least, has been through the notion of "fair use". Literary criticism, for example, is very important protected speech, but difficult to do well without permission to copy portions of the original work. Fair use permits us to quote portions of a copyrighted work without permission.

But to my knowledge, no similar doctrine exists for patents. This likely made sense when patents only covered physical inventions; building your own cotton gin is probably not protected speech. However, now that patents have (unfortunately) been interpreted to protect software, these issues come to light. Software, as courts ruled in the Bernstein case, is protected speech. It is the preferred way, in many professions, to converse and a healthy software discourse is essential for promoting the progress of science.

Meanwhile, as recent news shows, some patents are causing serious harm without due process. If it was discovered a certain song cured a disease, people would be outraged if the copyright holder tried to prevent it from being sung. But yet patent holders have repeatedly used their monopoly to force the price of drugs so high that many can't pay, and as a result die. I think any sensible person would think that this is outrageous.

So I hold that a bare minimum, our concept patent fair use must permits both non-commercial distribution of patented speech (source code) and violation of a patent to save life or limb.

posted October 23, 2002 03:26 PM (Politics) #

books for reading at the Eldred victory party (or if you move to australia)

onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu has a list of books that you cannot read in the US, at least not until the Supreme Court overturns the CTEA. An impressive list, including Animal Farm, 1984, Mein Kampf, Finnegans Wake, The Case Book of Sherlock Holmes, The Great Gatsby, and Mark Twain's autobiography.

posted October 22, 2002 10:56 PM (Politics) #

and the voices said...

Well, that speak to me thing was fun. Here are some highlights (my comments emphasized):

posted October 22, 2002 09:42 PM (Personal) #

Gelernter on TechTV

On the off chance that someone taped it, I'd like to see David Gelernter on TechTV's Big Thinkers. Maybe it'll be on again...

Why can't TechTV provide streams? Argh. Can you buy tapes?

posted October 22, 2002 12:24 AM (Politics) #

Sinister RSS Conspiracy

Mark Pilgrim, Sam Ruby and the Internet Archive are all in a vast underground conspiracy to validate RSS feeds.

The site claims to be hosted by Bill Kearney and the server appears to be at the Internet Archive.

Seriously, though: very nice work.

posted October 22, 2002 12:03 AM (Technology) #

all the features, none of the fat

Yes! Experimental build of Phoenix for Mac. "This is not an official Mozilla.org product. Please do not file bugs in Bugzilla with this build. Using this program may cause flushing, blushing, running of the mouth, high stool, and shortness of pants."

If you wanted all the cool features in Phoenix (image blocking, google searching, name and address remembering) but couldn't stand the bloat of Mozilla, then this is for you! It doesn't look as Aquaey as Chimera, but it's still fun. Also check out the Pinstripe theme which makes Moz and Phoenix look more Aqua-like.

posted October 21, 2002 11:51 PM (Technology) #

little voices in my head

Morning diversion: Want to make my computer say stupid things? Check out Speak to Me!, a series of little shell scripts I put together to make my computer say what you tell it to. Play nice, now.

posted October 21, 2002 11:49 AM (Technology) #

These Are A Few of My Favorite Fonts

I'm embarassingly bad at remembering font names, so I decided to make a list of my favorites. Suggestions gratefully appreciated.

posted October 20, 2002 01:52 PM (Personal) #

Who's Making a What?!

Mitch Kapor and Andy Hertzfeld (with Tim O'Reilly and Pamela Samuelson on the board) are making an free software RDF-backed Python Mac/Win/Lin PIM ala Agenda in public. Just look at the architecture and feature list. I must be dreaming! This is way too good to be true!

posted October 20, 2002 11:21 AM (Technology) #

Bernstein Reports

In a press release, Bernstein reports that the government's attorney told the court they would not enforce the law against cryptographers working together at conferences and they would treat "assembly language" as source code. Now it's up to the judge to decide what to do.

This case started a decade ago, when Bernstein applied for a license to export his cryptographic research. Then Bernstein was a graduate student at Berekely, now he is an associate professor at UIC, well known for writing the second most popular email and DNS software on the Internet. Then he was represented by the EFF, now he represents himself.

(Also interesting to note: a 1984 letter on Bernstein's site was written by Theodore B. Olson, who was then Assistant Attorney General. Now he is Solicitor General, and argued before the Supreme Court against Mr. Lessig.)

I was thinking that were Bernstein to win, he might challenge software patents (which he is known to fight) on similar grounds. Software patents are a government content-specific restriction on speech, in the form of source code. Source code is the preferred means for professionals to discuss and learn about computer algorithms. If those algorithms are patented and one cannot distribute such speech, it crushes the discourse that the patent law was intended to protect! (The quid pro quo of patents is that the public finds out how things work and in return secure to the inventor the "exclusive right to their [...] discoveries".) Bernstein is probably tired of such legal fighting, but were he to take on such a case and win, it would be an impressive and important victory.

"Words are also actions, and actions are a kind of words."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson, "The Poet"

posted October 19, 2002 08:31 PM (Politics) #

The Other Oral Argument

Tomorrow is D. J. Bernstein's oral argument in his crypto case. I wish him the best of luck.

It's funny that Bernstein's the one to make the case that code is speech, because if anyone's code is, it's his. Seeing, using, and understanding his software gives me the same feeling inside as when I read a great work of literature or view a beautiful picture. It's a work of art.

In honor of the case, I've been reading some of the briefs. Highlights: "As an extreme example, the government would have the power to regulate publication of instructions teaching a man to fish, on the grounds that terrorists would be more easily caught if they were starving."

posted October 17, 2002 11:12 PM (Politics) #

Eldred Transcript

Thanks to some friends, I've been able to get a copy of the Eldred case transcript. I've cleaned it up, added the names of the justices where possible (searching my memory, the responses in the text, and press reports) and HTMLized it.

Transcript of ERIC ELDRED, ET AL., Petitioners v. JOHN D. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, No. 01-618, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Meanwhile, I found these great quotes:

"[Lessig] made it appear as if a picture goes into the public domain ... [as if it were] going into paradise with 72 vestal virgins escorting this film around ... If nobody owns the film, who's going to restore it? That costs $25,000 to $100,000. I don't think Mr. Eldred himself is going to spend that kind of money to restore a film that he doesn't own."
- Jack Valenti, Washington Post's Eldred primer

"Hackers hack, but to balance it out, we need political action too," said Kevin Broton
- Kevin Burton as quoted in a Canadian paper

"Then, one reporter spoke out in frustration, wondering why she couldn't find anyone to speak in favour of the CTEA. The media did get someone on the record - but only because Mr. Lessig was kind enough to point to Congresswoman Bono, standing silently among the spectators."
- ibid.

posted October 17, 2002 01:21 PM (Politics) #

Speeding Broadband Deployment

Andrew Odlyzko is very clever [Wer]:

The impractical method for stimulating broadband adoption is to make music free on the Internet. As Thierer notes, Napster and its cognates have been among the main reasons people buy broadband connectivity. Instead of using the law to choke file swapping, perhaps we should encourage the telecom industry to buy off the music studios. Total recorded music sales in the US come to a grand total of about $15 billion per year, while telecom spending is over 20 times higher. Thus in the abstract, it might be a wise investment for the phone companies to buy out the studios. This is of course wildly impractical for business and legal reasons, but it would quickly stimulate demand for broadband. (It would also demonstrate that the content tail should not be wagging the telecom dog, as it too often does in political, legal, and business discussions.)

posted October 15, 2002 12:47 PM (Technology) #

Aaron Swartz (me@aaronsw.com)
All text above by me is placed in the public domain.