There was much discussion in the first keynote about publishers use of copyright and DRM to restrict people. One point I thought was made well related to the possibility of using anti trust law to stop large content vendors (such as Amazon or iTunes) abusing their position. However, these firms are not actually monopolies, but rather laws such as those criminalising DRM circumvention give the power to abuse the market, to companies below monoply level, by allowing them to lock customers into their walled gardens. Thus, it is these laws that are the problem, rather than the nature of these companies.

One thing that struck me was how depressingly idiotic decisions relating to copyright law have been. Apparently, courts have suggested that resampling as few as 3/4 notes could constitute a copyright violation. The biggie that struck me was the stupidity of retroactive copyright grants. As late as 1978 the copyright term was 28 years (plus an optional extra 28 years, which quite a low number of people opted for) – which means absent this legal change, these works would now be open to us. But, as it is, we now as individuals have little access to the works created within our lifetimes. An even worse case is orphan works, who’s copyright owners can not be found, so no-one can use, and because copyright has strict liability, good faith assumptions are not good enough! Of course, copyright was originally meant to inspire creativity, so giving copyright extensions to people who are already dead, as happen with much of the retroactive extension, makes no sense at all.

“The odds of copyright extensions incentivising dead authors are relatively low.” — James Boyle

“Don’t they know the difference between composing and decomposing.” — Jennifer Jenkins

Its rather bitterly ironic, when you think about it, that in today’s time we have the technology for the mass dissemination of our shared culture and creativity, but we have legal barriers to doing so.

“Before the 19th century, musicians just needed to play, in the 19th century you also needed to be able to play and be literate. In the 20th century you needed to be an be able to play, be literate, and be a sound engineer.
In the 20th century you need to be able to play, be literate, be a techie, and be a laywer.
Is this a good progression?”
(Pirated from PPUK)

One of the of the other major issues were the two big horrible legal documents at the moment – the DEA and ACTA.

The Digital Economy Act (DEA) as the bill has now unfortunately become was a major point of discussion of the panel with the MPs. Apparently a cross party group is being formed to help seek the repeal of the bill, and some of the bills its measures do require Super Affirmative Resolutions (further consultation with the Commons, although maybe just in committee) before they can be enacted. There is also all the rhetoric around Nick Clegg’s Freedom Bill and Your Freedom website, but I still remain quite skeptical.

Also, some of the issues of the bill have gone to an OFCOM consultation which ends this coming Friday the 30th. I’m going to see how easy it is to respond to these consultations, and try to lend my voice to the discussion. I don’t know how much effect it will have, but I think as many people should try this as possible to send a very clear message.

Meanwhile, the issue with ACTA – Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement by name, but actually a treaty on “Intellectual Property” enforcement measures – is that its hard to follow exactly what is happening since the whole procedure is so secretive. Countries are deciding on issues that will strongly influence future law without any real democratic input or observance. One draft copy of the agreement was released a few weeks ago, but it is only the leaked copies that have the information on what entity is trying to add what conditions.

The interesting thing I learnt yesterday is that ACTA will make stipulations about criminal sanctions on copyright infringement. This could include things as broad as aiding and abetting infringement – which is very concerning about its possible use in squashing speech about file sharing. However, the criminal sanctions provide a weak point to attack, since some degree of proper democratic process must happen within the EU for such things to become law.

A last point about ACTA is that it is not just the text of the agreement that matters. Even if the text of it improves, it will set a precedent for agreements on other issues to be pushed through without proper democratic scrutiny.

However, despite all this, there was much optimism at the event (James Boyle had apparently hoarded some during the dot-com era). It was suggested that, people will migrate away from closed platforms such as the iPad, but such shifts will happen at a slow pace, so we may not realise it. Similarily it was said that the movie industry’s new Ultra-violet DRM standard, is simply the last gasp of DRM in an arena where it just isn’t working (people aren’t bothering buying DRMed movie downloads).

So, that concludes my little summary of the event. If you care about these issues I hope you will consider joining (if you haven’t already) the Open Rights Group, as I have done recently. They were kind enough to let me into ORGCON for free, as well as sending me a copy of Silent State. Hopefully I’ll get chance to read that soon and possibly post a review here.

The new uk government has released a site for you to reclaim you Freedom! - http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/ – or, so they say; what will actually become of this remains to be seem. It seems to have become fashionable recently to support many of the sorts of freedom and openness that I care about – open source has practically become a buzzword, similarly with civil liberties.

This does bring  a lot increased awareness and participation – governments have been making lots of pledges to use more open source, and companies like to be seen supporting it. However, it has the threat of your message being diluted by people with a weaker version, because that suits there interest. If you genuinely care about openness of code, you probably don’t want people learning about open source from Microsoft!

The terrain has changed in other ways too. Microsoft is no longer the big deal it was ten/fifteen years ago. The most restrictive computers on the market today – Apple’s iPads. All the more dangerous, because people do not realise what they are losing. The same issue exists with the web – as web application and web services become increasingly popular, the issues of trusting others with all data/functionality become greater, but, again people don’t realise as it is not on their computer.

But, in areas we are making progress. The technology web is very open, as it always has been. And, hopefully, it will continue to remain that way. Although browsers “HTML5ier than you” contest irritates me, the HTML5 spec is gradually getting stanardised across browsers. And, google’s new WebM codec provides a royalty-free way of open web video. But, once again, the stumbling block appears to be Apple.

In the legal realm, it is always difficult to tell how things are progressing, with how judgement are made being complicated and unpredictable. The Bilski patent case ended with the patents being rejected, but the court stopped far short of throwing out all software patents. In the EU, legislation for net censorship is starting to form, with the classic excuse of “think of the children”.

Here in the UK, we’ve had the terrible Digital Economy Bill become law. This bill had sections that would allow the government to cut off people’s internet and block “locations on the internet” (what does that even mean?!) for alleged copyright infringement. However, we have had a change of government, and they may not do all these things. However, they still have these powers, and I hope that the Act is repealed (although this doesn’t seem too likely).

With all these changes, and varying degrees of victory/defeat, it is difficult to see which way we are heading. There are so many areas that seem hopeful, but all to often, there can be much talk, and little results. Of course, it goes without saying, that we have a long way to go, and we must always be vigilant to be aware of the liberties we have lost. In this vein I would urge anyone in the UK to get to ORGCon if they can. I’ll be there, and it seems like a great opportunity, to look back at what was happening recently, and plan how we will protect our freedom in future.

So, the most “purist” thing to do would be to take a moral stance and refuse to participate in this system that I found immoral. This is an idea that does have some legs, if enough people made a clear, peaceful decision to do this, it would have a massive effect. This is why I’m so excited about what the Free State Project is trying to do. However, the truth is, if I tried it as a single individual, it would end up with me most probably in jail, alone, and looking to everyone like a crazy nutcase.

For this reason, and partly because I have little other choice, I am still part of the system. If I want to have the ability and the means to maybe be part of the Free State Project one way, I can not cause too much fuss here.

For example, for my education, I’m going to go through the government managed university system, just as I have gone through the state education system. This is because there is little viable alternative way for me to learn in the area I do best in – pure sciences. Whereas more vocational skills would have ways of recognising achievement with little government involvement, it is near impossible to get a job involving pure science without a degree from a (state managed) university.

However, there are some parts that I feel are less clear. I’ve also applied for a government grant, as I’m from a lower income family. I don’t feel great about this, but if I didn’t get it, it would probably be my parents being strained, and they’ve had much of their money go into the system, so I don’t feel I’m leeching. Its not ideal, but there’s little I can do. I believe that a voluntary system could easily match this government grant, but since the government exists, no-one else feels they need to be there to provide it, or where they do, expect me to be already receiving this grant.

Another, less obvious way I’m still involved in the government system is through the software I release. Since I object to the government force that copyleft relies on, all my software is now permissively licensed. However, a permissive copyright license is still a copyright license. Permissive licenses use the threat of force to make people retain attribution – and, this force has been made real through the legal system, on at least one occasion. However, I am in favour of giving attribution to the source of a work – and a free markets would have systems like ostracism to support this. But, since we don’t have a free market, I use the “magic words” of copyright legalease show my intent in a way other people understand.

Finally, I have a current example. I am currently working as a coder on a project that is funded by a government agency. Although this seems contrary to my ideas, at first, its not that simple. I’m working as a contractor, for a contractor, and both my, and my direct employer’s services are market ones that exist already in the market. Also, my employer are an research/monitoring company, so they at least will help avoid some of the inefficiencies in our current government system. Lastly, the project I work on mostly is about getting certain government information into a more open format so that more people can do to this. Encouraging this openness is a good idea whilst we still have this system. A more open state is still bad, but preferable to a closed one.

In conclusion, although a fully voluntary society is my ideal, we are an awful long way off. Whilst I still live in a country with a largely socialist mindset it makes sense for me to just “go along” some of the time. That way, more people are likely to listen to me, since I won’t be looked at as a lone crazy weirdo. However, the rules change completely once liberty minded people get together in larger numbers, and to this end I hope to one day participate in the Free State Project.

So, intellectual property. A good recent example to use to discuss this would be the recent Orwellian Kindle case. The irony in this case that it was actually 1984 animal Farm that Amazon chose to delete from users machine. (Yes, really. I almost didn’t believe it myself). The obvious question is, this this action right, or not.

I don’t think it is particularly productive to attack Amazon for actions in this case. Amazon was acting on behalf of the copyright holder, in order to comply with copyright laws. It could be argued that they should not have implemented the DRM in the first place, but many of the book publishers pressured them to do so. And, more importantly, DRM would not have the (partial/percieved) effectiveness it has, if it were not for copyright and laws against cracking DRM (eg. the DMCA).

So, instead lets look at the laws, and whether they are right or not. The laws here, covering copyrights and patents (trademarks are not such an issue), are often referred to as “intellectual property”. This leads to much confusion when trying to discuss whether these laws are moral. Some people claim that creative works are effectively property, and unauthorised copying is akin to stealing, so should be stopped. (This stealing analogy is even used by publishers organisations, that should really know better that the law does not link copyright and theft at all). Others don’t go quite this far, but say simply that the authors of creative works have a right to be able to benefit from their work. (There are example after example in the free software and free culture movements as to why “IP” laws aren’t necessary to make money).

As a voluntaryist believing in the basic natural rights to life, liberty and property. Its a black and white choice, and has nothing to do with existing laws. Either “intellectual property” is real property, subject to the same type of ownership, or it should not be controlled at all. The issue of whether “IP” is moral, for me, hinges on whether it is property. And, I do not think it is.

First of all, lets look at the concept of property in the first place. Why does the idea exist, and why is it better than alternatives. As far as I know, property exists as a way to manage resources. The exact same meal can not be eaten by both me and and the person next to me. So, property is about exclusivity. Something is mine because I am the only one who uses it (or more accurately, the one who decides how it is used).

Does this kind of exclusivity exhibit itself in the information  world? Yes and no. Digital content can be copied very easily which blurs the line of what belongs to who. If I create an image, and send a copy to someone, who owns that copy? If we’re talking about property, if someone creates an object similar to mine, with their own materials, it obviously belongs to them. So, similarly, if someone recreates on their own machine, a file like I have on mine, their copy belongs to them. This means, if you want property like protections, that kind of exclusivity, there is a way – just keep your file to yourself!
(Of course, this issue of server side, or “cloud” software comes up here, but thats an issue I’ll look into in depth in another blog post.)

Of course, my way of thinking about property isn’t the only one. Objectivists maintain that property is created as a result of man’s mind. Raw materials are useless without the cleverness to transform them. Since property comes from the mind, then thoughts, ideas can also be property – intellectual property. The problem I see with this is, where do you draw the line?

Owning property means being able to morally use force to protect it. If someone copies my idea or creative work without permission, Objectivists presumably would argue the same is the case. But what if my idea is simple, or obvious. How do you manage fair decisions on what belongs to who, who has been influenced, and who has been “stolen” from. How do you be sure who the original creator is? And, ultimately, to whom do you want to give the power to make these decisions. Trust not to make decisions that limit creativity, that are in there own interests?
(The current patent system is a woefull example of this. The running of the system is influenced by lawyers who want as much paperwork and as many lawsuits as possible, in order to benefit themselves.)

Another argument is that intellectual property can be seen as an extension of contracts. I could contractually lend or give an object to someone (for example, to pay in installments). That object is used by them, but I still retain ownership. In the same way, I could also contractually lend a digital work to someone, on the condition that the don’t copy it. Breaking such a contract would, in my eyes, be immoral. But, if you are given the digital work by someone else, without my permission, you are not breaking any contract! Only the person who originally got the work from me is.
(In this way EULAs would also be pointless without copyright. It only takes one person to break it, and people can choose not to be bound by them.)

In conclusion, I think the idea of “Intellectual Property” is frankly silly. We would be a lot better off without copyright or patent law (despite what even stallman might say). As for DRM, without copyright laws, and DMCA-like laws, these measures would make no business sense. Even if a company were to try it, a mass boycott would be much easier without this government-perpetuated myth that copying is theft.

However, one thing I have been thinking about, is freedom in the wider world (ie. not just software freedom). I have always been a great supporter of peoples freedoms. Every human being has rights, yay for the the Geneva convention etc. Of course, I thought, some rights are more important than others. And we need a government to intervene when different people’s freedoms/rights collide. As far as I understood politics, I considered myself a liberalist – individual freedom is very important, which, in my opinion, includes the rights to be happy, well educated etc.

The government, of course, restricts our freedoms: takes our money and stops us doing things, even when those aren’t harmful to other people. Of course, I have always accepted, and been taught to accept this as necessary to safeguard, other more important rights. However, I’ve recently been made aware by Daniel and Kevin on the libervis IRC channel to the possibility of a stable society without government. The idea being that although every person has fundamental rights (to life, liberty and property), those rights are enforced not by one single monopolistic* organisation, but by the free market. That is, if someone violates your rights you can hire a company to recoup damages off him. Also, people who do immoral things will become known for doing so (increasingly easy in the age of the internet) so people will not “do business with them”**. This concept is called anarcho-captitalism (an-cap for short) or the laissez-faire market.

Anarcho-capitalism, as long as it remained stable, would protect most of peoples rights, in fact most even more so than our current system. However, even if it were to be stable, my main doubt is whether it would discriminate against poor people. I’ve always been a great fan of the public health and education service we have in the UK – the same services for all; but of course, you would not have these without a government and taxation.

The answer to this, I guess, is that all people would be able to afford these services through a combination of charity, sponsorship and providing some kind of service. The last is the kind of idea that poorer people would get affordable healthcare and schooling by agreeing to take part in scientific studies etc, to be monitored. Whilst this idea my actually work, in my mind, the concept conjures up images of poorer people having to earn the medicine they need to stay alive by being human guinea pigs and being subjected to all sort of chemicals. I guess, once again, it falls down to the fact that there would be a free market. People would be able to vote with their feet against the things that they do not like and would be able to support things they do think are right through charity. In fact, I think that if people weren’t taxed, people would naturally be more generous, and unlike the way that taxation works, would donate to the causes that really matter to them.
Of course, one of the other arguments is that in an an-cap society there would be less poverty, so there would not be so much of an issue. However, I am not yet so convinced about this; although lack of government restrictions in this area would be good in many ways.

One of my biggest issues with the practicality of anarcho-capitalism, although a really great ideal, is the fact that it depends on people making thought through choices, preventing any bad things by making the right decisions about who to do business with. I’m not sure if a lot of people are capable of making that decision for themselves, at least not as they are. For it to work smoothly, an an-cap society seems to require better more conscientious people – doubleplushuman.

Perhaps a lot of people would be willing to become more active. In fact a lot of the reason people don’t care now, is because they have the government to look after them, but, as they often point out, the government doesn’t really listen to them. And, one of the greatest things about anarcho-capitalism, is the free choice. If you want to, you can choose your own government (a corporation who will look after you, in return for a tax-like fee), or even establish small idealistic groups. (If you and friends bought a plot of land, no-one would stop you setting up a commune there!) The whole point is, people would have the choice as to how they want to live. A great dream, but one that will take quite a while to achieve (its about evolution not revolution) and one that I’m not even sure is practical yet.

* That’s something that I find really ironic. The fact that I naturally dislike and disapprove of massive corporations which have way too much power and control, and yet, have accepted the government, which is by its very definition a monopoly, without a moments thought.
However, one of the problems you could suggest with a free market, is the tendency for monopolistic businesses to grow. But, monopolies tend to use government contracts and legislation to their advantage. In anarcho-capitalism, it would be much easier for new, smaller businesses to compete.

** When there is no government, “do business” can mean a lot more than trade. If someone initiates force against somewhere else, the majority of a town might forbid him to use there land as a path and he would become an outcast.

So there you have it, another quasi-essay, another splurge of my thoughts on the web. But, for once, I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, I’m still trying to work out where I really stand in the messy landscape of real world politics.

However, if you are interested, take a look at the philosiphy of liberty flash animation and there is also the Wikipedia article, and further information can be found here, here, here and here. My thoughts on the issue have been heavily influenced by Daniel’s and Kevin’s blogs.