Disqus - Latest Comments for Adam Thierer

Re: The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » Wang’s War On Porn

Adam Thierer — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:49:56 -0000

I'm pretty sure that "Wang Xudong" is the screen name for the John Holmes or Ron Jeremy of the Chinese porn industry. I'll have to do some research and check it out. (No, just kidding.)

Re: Public Broadcasting Subsidies: Welfare for the Rich and Well-Educated

Adam Thierer — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:38:31 -0000

Mike... Thanks for your note. Regarding selling my "Media Myths" book... we're getting around to it but we've been in the middle of big office move and haven't had time to get it on B&N; or Amazon yet. Of course, selling the book isn't our first priority; getting it out to the public is. That's one reason we've put the PDF online for free downloading. Of course, if we could sell a few copies and help cover the printing costs, that would be nice! Finally, I like the idea of collabrative books too, but it takes a little work to make that happen. I might try to do that, however. Thanks again for your input and suggestions. - - AT

Re: Promote Thyself

Adam Thierer — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:13:15 -0000

The solution here is proper pricing of the pipe, of course. If a particular user's wi-fi node witnesses a huge spike in traffic, just let the broadband service provider (BSP) price that user in some sort of a metered fashion.

A lot of users will cry foul, but that's the best way to get people to "conserve" bandwidth while also allowing them to open up their connection on a selective basis to neighbors. And, if things got bad enough in terms of network over-usage and the BSP didn't want to price the pipe on a metered basis, they could always just send the user a dirty letter and tell them to cut back or get cut off. (Some BSPs do this today, but they rarely cut people off entirely).

But I can see some problems developing as wi-fi grows more sophisticated. I'm currently using an awesome Belkin Pre-N network in my house and it beams out a HUGE signal that I can pick up almost two blocks away. I lock it down, of course. But what about the guy in the future who has an even more powerful wi-fi system and opens it up to his entire high-rise apartment complex? Will it continue to be economical for the BSP to serve that complex if one guy shares his $20 connection with everyone else in the building?

Again, I agree legislation is not needed to solve this problem, but it could be a problem and discourage further broadband investment / deployment if there were enough free-riders out there. The problem with your cup of sugar example is that the underlying service in question here has extrodinarily high sunk / fixed costs. The providers need to have some certainly that they will be able to recoup those investments if they are going to go in an provide a high-speed pipe to every community. You can share a little bit of sugar without it having serious implications for the provision of sugar in your community. But you don't really just share "a little bit" of broadband when you open your high-speed wi-fi node to the world. You share the entire capability of that pipe and allow others to extract value without paying for it.

Again, just let the BSPs price the pipe according to true demand and I think this problem solves itself in the long run. Lawmakers don't need to get involved here.

Re: Competition Works: An Analysis of Competing Cable-Telco “Triple-Play” Packages

Adam Thierer — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:16:09 -0000

Luis... Perhaps you'd like to elaborate regarding what more it is that you expect of TLF (or me) in this case? What, exactly, is it that you disagree with here? Don't worry, I'm very thick-skinned when it comes to criticism and I'll be happy to correct any errors you can point to.

Re: President Signs Indecency Bill

Adam Thierer — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:45:54 -0000

Eric... The fundamental problem with indecency regulation is that it is an eye-of-the-beholder' issue. I place the term in quotations because it means different things to different people and my discomfort with government regulation of it arises from my fundamental mistrust of government activism premised on protecting us (or our children) from things that 5 unelected bureaucrats at the FCC don't want us to see or hear.

Does that mean I am a complete amoral nihilist? Absolutely not. I have two young children in my home and there are plenty of things in this world that I don't want them to see or hear. But these are choices for my wife and me to make. And the "indecent" things we don't want in our home are likely different than the "indecent" things you don't want in yours. So why let the government decide for both of us and the millions of other families out there?

And funny you should use a quote from Chrissie Hynde in an attempt to make your point. I seem to recall a few Pretenders songs that would get fined by the government if they were played on the radio. Surely you recall some of the lyrics from tunes like "Night in My Veins," "I'm a Mother" and "Tattooed Love Boys"? Would you like to see your government censor those songs?

Re: Microsoft XBOX Live & Net Neutrality

Adam Thierer — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:50:58 -0000

Jim... Thanks for that update about the Limelight deal. I can't believe I hadn't heard about that before. Thanks for catching it and bringing it to my attention.

Re: Fun Fact of the Day: Flat Panel Prices Plummet

Adam Thierer — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:14:26 -0000

You're making a lot of unsubstantiated statements in your little anti-market diatribe.

You begin by stating that "The introduction of this technology has been frustrated by over eight years of bickering between companies seeking proprietary control over how the consumer will use this technology." What in the heck are you talking about? First of all, which technology are you talking about? Flat-panels? If so, what "proprietary control" are you talking about? This is a very open, competitive market as is witnessed by the consistently falling prices and constant improvements in set resolution, connections and options.

Next you argue that "these TVs were initially sold without tuners so that the cable companies would be able (force you) to rent you a cable box. Consumers may have avoided buying flat panels for this reason. Thus "chilling" the sale of flat panel TVs." Huh? Most older flat-panel sets were sold without tuners for two obvious reasons: (1) The manufacturers knew this would add hundreds of dollars to the costs of the sets and (2) there was no reason to ask everyone to pay more for sets with tuners when 85% percent of homes subscribe to cable or satellite TV and get their over-the-air broadcast signals that way. So there's no conspiracy here; just sound economics: Most people don't need the tuners and don't want to pay any more for the sets than is necessary.

Then you say that the high-def format war (a) has delayed the release of the format by 8 years; and (b) may have "chilled" flat-panel sales as a result. Wrong. The high-def DVD formats weren't even around 8 years ago. Hell, 480p resolution DVD was just getting its wings 8 years ago! No one was thinking about anything higher than that at the time because they didn't even have convenient, affordable storage format for massive HD files like that and millions of homes were still perfectly happy with the old VCRs at the time. Again, no conspiracy to be found here.

Next you say that you "have been reading about the content industry's sponsored imposition of DRM technologies onto flat panel monitors and TVs." Really? Send me what you've been reading because that's news to me. Are you talking about the Image Constrain Token (ICT) in next-gen high-def DVDs? If so, that's something totally different. It's true that if the content company flipped the ICT in their HD-DVD that some of the inputs on your set might not be able to see the highest resolution available on those DVDs, but no one is imposing any DRM technologies in flat panel monitors in the way you suggest. And even if the content companies flipped the ICT (something they would be foolish to do if they want to build sales of next-gen DVDs) you'd still be able to see the movie in traditional current-gen 480p DVD resolution.

You then imply that "it appears that the cable companies have gone ahead and started to release HDTV content thus stimulating sales" as if to say they haven't had anything on until just recently. Well, they certainly have more out there now than ever before, but I've been getting HD signals from satellite and cable providers since 1999. They've been steadily pushing stuff out, but a lot of the most popular cable networks have only recently started making a true HD conversion. ESPN, Discovery and HBO blazed the trail on this front a few years ago, and now other popular channels like Showtime, MTV and TNT are starting to beef up their offerings as well. But, for whatever reason, a lot of viewers don't place as much of a premium on HDTV as media producers and distributors had hoped. Thus, lacking clear demand and a steady revenue stream from HD content and channels, the transition hasn't been as rapid as some of us had hoped it would be. But don't try to lay all the blame for this on the market. Consumer demand for true high-def material lags behind. And much of the demand for flat-panels has been generated by current generation DVDs instead as well as simple convenience of being able to hang the TV up on the wall. I don't pretend to understand why some consumers don't want more than that, but it's just the way things are right now. Witness the fact that many consumers still purchase "enhanced definition" televisions (EDTVs) which are only capable of 480p resolution, not 720p or higher like true HDTVs.

I hope this clears up some of the misperceptions or misinformation in your mind and in your piece.

Re: Another Push for Cable Censorship

Adam Thierer — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:58:25 -0000

Yes, that's an excellent point Tim. And we could also argue that they've done us an even bigger favor because if any of this went to the courts, it would almost certainly be struck down as unconstitutional. In the process, the courts could take down traditional broadcast indecency regs with it.

Re: Tower Records R.I.P.

Adam Thierer — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:05:15 -0000

Well, I'm embarrased to admit that I'm so old that my first Tower purchase was Kiss "Love Gun" and Styx "Pieces of Eight." But wait, it gets worse... I bought them both on 8-track tape! Talk about awful music and an awful media format.

Re: The Ultimate Online Predator Solution

Adam Thierer — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:04:57 -0000

Harper... You know there is no bigger defender of "parental responsibility first" than me. Of the many papers and essays I have written making that point, I would just remind you of one in particular "Parents Have Many Tools to Combat Objectionable Media Content," and invite you to read through it again to ensure yourself that my libertarian credentials are in order: http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop13.9cont...

But what I am talking about above are cases of crimes already perpetrated against children. That's when responsibility clearly shifts to the government to do something. Unless you favor a "take-the-law-into-your-own-hands" Wild West approach to justice -- and believe me when I say that I might consider it if anyone ever touched my kids -- then you must have a plan to dealing with this problem that involves a role for government. And I think the government's role should entail much longer sentences, not only to adequately punish these scumbags, but also to serve as deterrent to other potential bad guys out there who might be thinking about preying on our kids.

You agree, right? Or have you gone and become chief counsel at NAMBLA? I always knew you were little strange when I hired you at Cato. (See, two can play this game, my old Padawan learner.)

Re: The DRM Train Wreck on National TV

Adam Thierer — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:11:56 -0000

Could it not be the case that THE LACK OF compatibility between players and file formats actually encourages MORE innovation and competition in some ways? I fully know, for example, that it is impossible for me to play my Xbox games on my PlayStation console or a Nintendo console. Would we be better off if perfect compatibility existed among all the games and consoles? Would 3 major gaming platforms exist at all if we could simply play all game titles on just one of those boxes? I doubt it. I think it would be more likely that only one console would prevail and the other two would disappear. And I think that would leave us worse off as a result.

Same goes for music players, in my opinion. I fully know that I can't play all my WMA files on an Apple Ipod. But that keeps me (and millions of others) buying non-Apple players. As a result, there's a fairly diverse and growing market of Apple competitors. Would all those competitors be viable if we could all just play our digital music on an Ipod? Again, I wonder.

Of course, I acknowledge that I'm ignoring some of the sticky DMCA issues here. But I'm just saying that incompatibility is a fact of life in many fields and that that's not necessarily always a bad thing. What I'm suggesting is that it could be the case that, at least in some fields, console or device competition might decrease with added interoperability / file compatibility.

Re: Moglen on the Moral Significance of Free Software

Adam Thierer — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:19:15 -0000

Tim... sounds like you drank a bit too much "DotCommunist" kool-aid at recent X-Mas party.

http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/dc...

Re: Tech Policy as a Case Study in “Liberaltarianism”

Adam Thierer — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:44:51 -0000

Tim.. You need to speak for yourself on this one because I don't think most of the rest of us are ready for a big group hug with the Lefties just because of recent political events. When you make a statement like: "But if the alternative is for libertarians to be chained to an increasingly corrupt and illiberal conservative movement.." ... I honestly don't understand why you think we have to make that choice at all.

First, are you really saying that the Left is really any less corrupt? There have been just as many Democratic scandals and ethics violations over the years. And do you honestly believe that same people who gave us the New Deal, the Great Society and Hillary care will EVER embrace free markets? Come on.

The problem is the entire entrenched political class, regardless of which party they affiliate with. With all due respect to Brink, who I consider one of the most brilliant thinkers I've ever had the privilege of working with, I get a bit sick and tired of hearing my fellow libertarians embrace the party du jour ever time there's been a major electoral shift. Go back to 1994 and check out what some libertarians were saying back then about how we finally might be able to work with Republicans to achieve meaningful, pro-liberty reforms.

It was all a bunch of BS then, and it's all a bunch of BS now. Neither of these parties give a damn about liberty in any consistent, meaningful way. It's all about attaining power and keeping it. Hell, I'll probably spend more time this session of congress fighting off pro-censorship garbage from the likes of Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman and company than I have over the past 10 years combined. I can't tell the difference between the Dems and GOP on half the social policy issues out there today. They're all singing out of the same hymnal as they worship at the Church of Big Government together.

So to hell with all this stupid "liberal-tarian" crap. I'm a libertarian, period. And I hope this blog continues to remain rabidly independent and free of such silly, fleeting labels.

Re: The Timothy Lee Conspiracy Deepens

Adam Thierer — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 08:33:24 -0000

Wow, this is getting confusing. I say we come up with a TLF contest to give you a new name. Hell, people change their names (or add hyphenated last names) all the time these days. How about Tim Blogorino. Or "Tim.com-Lee." Or just "The Tim."

Better yet, just come up with your own symbol like Prince did a few years back. True to the Internet age, you could just be "@"

Re: A Sad Commentary

Adam Thierer — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:21:09 -0000

What's sad about it is that it is difficult to imagine this being the case for previous technologies and industrial cycles. Do you believe that the 12-year-olds of the 1950s knew more about steel or automotive industry issues, or that the 12-year-olds at the turn of the century knew more about agricultural issues?

It raises some various serious issues when children know more than adults (and their parents) about the dominant technologies of their time, especially when the elders are elected officials trying to make public policy decisions about the future of the technologies in question.

Re: Democrats Abandoning the First Amendment, Part 1: The Fairness Doctrine

Adam Thierer — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:21:07 -0000

Thanks Mike. Your answers...

RE: Sanders.. Even though he he calls himself an independent, he caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate and is counted as a Democrat when committee assignments are made.

RE: "Why bother listing affiliation..." / "attacking Democratic politicians..." .. I am trying to highlight the fact that Democrats are abandoning whatever claim they once had to being the party of the First Amendment. We have come to expect the GOP to support just about all forms of content regulation, but now there seems to be little difference between the Dems and Republicans on these matters. This is very troubling to me since it means that, in essence, there will no longer be ANY free speech champions in Congress if the Dems abandon us.

I think parties need to be singled-out on occasion when they betray core principles. Many of us here have jumped on Republicans who support Internet taxation, for example, since the GOP is suppose to be the anti-tax party.

Finally, I'm an independent and have never voted for anyone from either party in my life. So, this is just me being an equal opportunity offender as usual!

Re: Video Games and Movies without Copyright?

Adam Thierer — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 10:56:24 -0000

Excellent response Tim, especially you're final point about there being "a big difference between the kind of movie or video game you can produce for $100 million rather than $10 million. If we can find reasonable policies that preserve a viable market for such products, I think we should do so."

Indeed, I don't think this guy you're debating here has any appreciation for what goes into modern video game development. There's the concept pitch by the visionaries behind the game. Then storyboards are created, filled with renderings of game action sketched by artists. Someone has to write all the scripts for the game's dialog. Then the coders come in and render it. CGI effects specialists add the whiz-bang graphics. Music and dialog is then added (indeed, an entire cottage industry of game music composers now exists, and professional actors are routinely fired to do voice-overs). And then the packaging, distribution and marketing begin. At every step of the process there are rights that must be cleared and people that must be paid. And if the games involve any depictions of other copyrighted / trademarked material (think movies and professional sports leagues), then there are countless more rights that have to be cleared. This is why the game developers take game piracy so seriously, but it's why game lovers should take it seriously too.

This guy is trying to tell us that a world full of $2 Burger King games (filled with tons of product placement to pay for game development) is just fine and dandy. Well, SCREW THAT. I want "Gears of War." I want "Gran Turismo." I want "Star Wars: Battlefront." I want "Madden 2008." Sophisticated games like these are only going to be developed if the creators have at least some basic level of certainty that they will be able to recoup the significant cost of game development. While not perfect, copyright law provides at least SOME of that certainty / security.

And this guy talks about "the slickness of fan productions like Star Wars: Revelations" and pretends that peer production is somehow an adequate substitute for what we have access to today. PUH-LEASE! Two notes about "Star Wars: Revelations." First, it's based on a very successful and impressive media property that benefited from copyright protection. Second, while I too was impressed with the storyline in this "Star Wars: Revelations" amateur effort, it was decidedly amateurish in other important ways, too. Namely, have you ever tried to scale up the video to a big screen TV? Well, I have. It looks like shit. Moreover, it sounds like shit. In sum, when it comes to the quality of the final product, it really is amateur hour.

There's no appreciation among the anti-copyright crowd for the issue of quality control. What the hell use is a $3000 new 50" plasma HDTV and a 7.1 surround sound audio set-up if all I have to play on it is grainy YouTube videos and stupid Burger King games? Again, screw that.

Re: Brito Deconstructs Spectrum Commons Theory

Adam Thierer — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:33:03 -0000

Richard, you say that, "At some point, we'll need to open more spectrum to use by consumer devices that employ digital communication over wireless... " and that... "One way that might work would entail licensing some bandwidth to the WiFi Alliance for exclusive use by devices that pass WiFi Alliance certification tests."

Would the WiFi Alliance be buying the spectrum or are you saying it should be given to them? Because I'm fine with any spectrum aggregator or manager--including the WIFi Alliance--buying a big patch of spectrum and then experimenting in this fashion. I am not OK with it if they are getting it as a result of a spectrum giveaway.

Re: Movie Review: “This Film Is Not Yet Rated”

Adam Thierer — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:50:36 -0000

Eric.. I wish it was that simple. Unfortunately, it's not. If there was no official industry ratings system, there would be enormous pressure put on the industry and film makers by government officials at the federal, state and local level. There would be efforts to directly censor, of course, but equally problematic would be all the indirect pressure those officials would put on the movie industry.

Of course, one could argue that the industry could have just fought off such regulatory attempts by taking the government to court and mounting a First Amendment-based defense. I thought Kirby Dirk might raise this point in his film, but he did not. It's an interesting question to debate, but even if the industry could have won those cases, I think there were other good reasons for them to have a private ratings system. Specifically, you also asked if anyone would miss the system if it disappeared. Yes, I think many would, especially parents. Keep in mind, an industry's official ratings system is important because it rates ALL the movies that the industry releases, not just the most popular ones. As great as some of those independent sites I listed above are, they don't rate everything. Moreover, there is no guarantee that those independent sites will be in business forever. And the movie's official ratings system establishes a sort of baseline for all other ratings systems. The public, and parents in particular, can use it as a rough proxy for whether or not it's OK for their kids.

Re: Google Joins the FTC Bandwagon on Neutrality Regulation

Adam Thierer — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:49:37 -0000

Skip... Because the Federal Communications Commission has a LONGER history of abuse, GREATER economic ignorance, and even MORE violent opposition to property rights. Also, the FTC is willing to examine problems after the fact and not engage in preemptive regulation of industry behavior of market structures. The FCC is a "regulate first, ask questions later" agency. At least the FTC waits until someone suggests a problem has developed before regulating.

Of course, I'm no lover FTC after-the-fact regulation either, but it's a hell of lot less onerous that what the FCC does on a daily basis. Abolish them both and I'd be happy. But if we can only get one out of the picture right now, it's a no-brainer: make it the FCC.

Re: The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » Why Not Meter?

Adam Thierer — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:57:03 -0000

Amanda... That's exactly what I was trying to get at in my essay, but you said much more concisely than I did!

I just think the idea of threatening high-bandwidth users with service termination seems silly when alternative pricing solutions are available.

Re: Confessions of a First Generation Gamer-Parent

Adam Thierer — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:24:24 -0000

enigma_foundry... As Mike T noted, the "scientific" literature on this subject is all over the place and you pretty much find dozens of study that suit any conclusion you want to hear. But here's one thing that is not in doubt: According to FBI statistics, from 1995-2005 there has been a 39% reduction in juvenile violent crime (murder, assault, rape, and robbery) in America. The biggest component of this remarkable decline has been a stunning 62% drop in the juvenile murder rate.

Assuming you would agree with me that we have seen an increase in violent video game content and overall game play during that same period, I'll leave it to you to explain to us how it is that this is happening. After all, if you really believe that "scientific" literature has proven a clear link between exposure to violent games and actual violent acts, then by that logic our kids should be murdering each other on the streets with machetes and machine guns every day of the week. Instead, real-world violence has plummeted.

Re: new City Journal essay on “The Media Cornucopia”

Adam Thierer — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:26:57 -0000

Jim... Totally agree on that point. There's schizophrenia on the political Right on some of these media policy issues as well. Probably not as much as there is on the Left, but there are some conservative groups (especially religious conservative organizations) that have jumped in this media-bashing game and argued that they victims of a giant "liberal media" conspiracy. They say this even though there are more conservative voices on the airwaves than ever before and more religious programs on TV than we can even begin to count. But conservative always get a lot of mileage from their base by bashing the supposed "liberal media."

Re: Anti-Camcording Law in Action

Adam Thierer — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:18:18 -0000

I agree that if one copy gets online it's real trouble for the copyright holder. But that doesn't necessary mean it makes sense to scrap a law that says it's illegal to record a movie in a cinema. Let's face it, the vast majority of people who bring a camcorder into a theater are not looking for a simple 20-second clip. They're looking to pirate the entire flick. (Moreover, if you want a 20-second clip of the movie, you could probably just grab something from the movie trailer online).

Do you have any alternative enforcement mechanism? Or are you just saying that the industry should give up any effort to enforce copyright laws against someone who brings camcorders into cinemas?

Re: Anti-Camcording Law in Action

Adam Thierer — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:08:46 -0000

By that logic it is also a waste of taxpayer money for law enforcement to go after street vendors selling pirated DVD copies of movies, correct? What then would you say constitutes a reasonable enforcement action that was NOT a waste of taxpayer money? Because there is no doubt that, at some level, law enforcement resources will need to be used to prosecute copyright violations. Unless you believe that ALL law enforcement activities related to copyright are a waste of time and money. Of course, that means that copyright law essentially has no teeth at all and becomes entirely a private enforcement matter.

Re: Libertarian Questions

Adam Thierer — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:04:11 -0000

Excellent questions, Tim. Of course, let’s not forget that the first few feet of just about everybody’s yards are considered public easements for a variety of uses (sidewalks, mailboxes, street signs, and even utility “trenching”). When I was a kid, my Dad once got ticketed for parking our family car on the edge of our own front lawn. The town said there was a local ordinance forbidding anyone from placing anything on the first 5 feet of their front yards because those couple of feet were considered public property. My Dad screamed bloody murder and threatened the cop who wrote the ticket declaring that “It’s my Goddamn property!” Except that it wasn’t. When we later checked it all out, we realized that the property contract / deed made it very clear that those first couple of feet of our front yard weren’t ours after all. Many communities have similar rules. My local HOA has similar rules as well and I read them closely when my wife and I bought out house a few years ago.

Property rights are flexible at the margins (quite literally in the case mentioned above!). They have to be to ensure a well-functioning society. Hell, the entire theory of nuisance law doesn’t fit nicely into strict Lockean / libertarian property rights theory. Instead, it evolved out of common law doctrine to deal with hard cases that demanded practical resolutions. And so, we have found ways to preserve property rights but also deal with tough cases, like when a neighbor pollutes the stream that also runs through your property, or when the guy next door plays Motley Crue music at full volume at 3 in the morning right next to your window.

Similar flexibility is necessary to ensure that various types of networks get built (sewage lines, sidewalks, gas and power lines, and even communications systems). It isn’t pretty at times, and my experience with my front lawn getting ripped up bears that out. But it does ensure that essential services get delivered to the entire community. I know everyone in my neighborhood is happy to have fiber to the door now even though we all bitched when it was being installed.

Of course, you raise an excellent question about who should be able to take advantage of these rules. In the old days of regulated monopoly that was a simple question to answer. In the days of competitive infrastructure deployment, however, it’s trickier. The answer that many cities have devised is to allow multiple providers to “trench” at the same time. Basically, the city just tells all the providers that on Week X or Y they will all have the ability to install their stuff so that the streets or yards only have to be dug up once. After all, it’s not like you need to trench that often.

But I agree, it’s all quite messy and we libertarians struggle with messy rules, especially as they pertain to property rights.

Re: The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » Wi-Fi Piggybacking / Squatting Reconsidered

Adam Thierer — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:49:41 -0000

Jerry, I thought I made it perfectly clear above that "I don't think jail time is appropriate" for this problem and that using consumer education, innovative billing menthods, new business models was preferable. But, as you suggest, contractual enforcement may come into play as well. How would you suggest that the terms of service be enforced? I don't think people should be arrested, but I don't have any problem with some of them being sued for egregiously violating the terms of service.

Re: The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » Wi-Fi Piggybacking / Squatting Reconsidered

Adam Thierer — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:04:39 -0000

I want to second two things that Tom said above in his comment. Obviously, I wholeheartedly agree with his argument that "the answer is metered bandwidth. Until users have an obvious incentive to examine whether they want to share their connections or not, they won't think about this seriously." That is exactly right.

Second, I agree "routers that ship with encryption enabled would help.." and that "It also wouldn't kill router manufacturers to spend a little more time on their firmware in general." Even though many of us here now how to configure our networks and devices, this stuff can be quite challenging for many consumers. They could use some help and things like this--plus some help from their broadband providers--would go a long way toward solving this problem. Hell, sometimes even I get lost in world of wi-fi acronym hell (MACs, SSIDs, DHCP, WPA, WEP, etc).

Re: transcript of Prof. Tribe’s speech on the First Amendment & technological change

Adam Thierer — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:13:28 -0000

Don... I'm sorry, but I find that argument absolutely ludicrous. It's the same argument I hear some social conservatives occasionally put forward about porn. If we just revoke copyright protections, they argue, the market for adult entertainment will dry up. PUH-LEASE!

The reality is that violent movies and games get produced because there exists strong ongoing demand for such fare. There always has. Go back and read the debates Plato and Aristotle had about violence in Greek tragedies. It's an old story.

Now it may be the case that not quite as much of that content would be produced if copyright was revoked, but it's quite another thing to argue that such material would just go away. Not gunna happen.

Re: transcript of Prof. Tribe’s speech on the First Amendment & technological change

Adam Thierer — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:48:56 -0000

There are certain types of content that, regardless of the level of copyright protection, I think we can be fairly certain will continue to have a large audience and, therefore, a reasonably large supply of producers. The creators of those works would not be able to secure their creations from unauthorized reproduction or ensure that they receive renumeration for their creative efforts. Nonetheless, a lot of it would still likely be produced.

At the margin, a proposal to revoke or weaken copyright for certain forms of expression that were considered objectionable might have a small impact on the overall volume of that activity, but not much. In the case of pornography, it would be negligible; almost non-existent. In the case of violent fare, we might not get "Friday the 13th, Part 8," but we'd still get a lot of other slasher flicks. Whether we got something really creative (and expensive to produce) like a Tarantino or Robert Rodriquez flick is another story, and an issue worth debating. (I'm assuming that most of their movies would be exempt from copyright protection under Don's proposal).

But this is all irrelevant to me. The principle of the matter is simple: We should not allow the government to use copyright as a tool of censorship, regardless of how effective it would be in practice.

Re: Response to Christian Coalition-NARAL call for net neutrality regs

Adam Thierer — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 10:07:16 -0000

enigma_foundry... What part of "Congress shall make no law" don't you understand?? Net neutrality regulation IS regulation. The First Amendment, by contrast, keeps us free of tyrannical government regulation. Net neutrality requires government coercion; the First Amendment does not. Under Net neutrality regulation, people and companies could be fined or go to jail for violating FCC regulation. The First Amendment, by contrast, shields private citizens and companies from fines and jail time.

Please don't insult the founders (or our intelligence) by equating the tyranny of Net neutrality regulation with the liberty-enhancing beauty of the First Amendment.

Re: Did a lack of standardization kill high-def audio?

Adam Thierer — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:41:27 -0000

The interesting thing about vinyl is that there were also multiple formats in the form of various "speeds." Old timers like us will recall the various album sizes we had to make sure our decks could play: 16, 33, 45, and 78. While 16s and 78s were rare after the 1960s--and could not be played on many newer record players--I had plenty of 33s and 45s in my collection and most companies offers machines that could play both those formats. So the solution to that "standards battle," if you could call is such, was a universal player. That's what's happening today for high-def video and audio. Interesting parallels.

P.S. Remember the failed, but wonderful, LP format called Quadraphonic ("Quad") sound? It was awesome, but the format died out pretty quickly.

Re: Did a lack of standardization kill high-def audio?

Adam Thierer — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:54:17 -0000

By the way, high-def music junkies will want to check out the "Quadraphonic Quad" website...

http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/QQHiRezPoll2004...

... which has a running poll of the very best high-definition surround sound music.

Some of my other favorite surround sound discs include: "Hotel California" by the Eagles, "With Teeth" by Nine Inch Nails, "Nothing Like the Sun" by Sting, "Fly Like and Eagle" by The Steve Miller Band, and "The Nightfly" by Donald Fagan. But nothing beats "Dark Side" by Floyd. "With Teeth" by NIN or Metallic's black album tie for my second favorite.

Re: Did a lack of standardization kill high-def audio?

Adam Thierer — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:42:31 -0000

Mr. Sternberg... I've heard them that way too, and agree that that is sheer heaven. But it's not always possible, of course. My life is spent searching for second-best solutions!

Re: TPW 34: The Comcast Kerfuffle

Adam Thierer — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:32:12 -0000

Harold, thanks for listening to the show. And regarding your point about disclosure... if you listened to the show closely, you will recall that I actually made the point that more transparency and disclosure is, generally speaking, a good idea. I’d like to see broadband operators be clearer about how they are managing traffic, and for what purpose they are doing so.

However, Richard Bennett made a good counter-argument on the show: The more specific a broadband operator gets about what service is being "managed" or how it is being managed, the more likely it is that aggressive users will seek to evade those management efforts.

I think that’s a fair point, although I still think more could be done to clarify TOS agreements regarding traffic management techniques.

Re: You Can’t Compete With Free

Adam Thierer — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:48:11 -0000

But hasn't this whole bottled water analogy been taken a bit too far? I mean, what people are buying when they purchase bottled water is convenience. We want to tote our water around. And so we’re willing to spend a little money for that luxury, even if the ultimate product is the same one we could get free from a tap. Essentially, we’re paying for plastic bottles that fit nicely in the cup holders in our cars and gym equipment. And there’s something wonderful about the spill-proof spouts on bottle water compared to open Dixie cups!

Of course, people want convenience with their music as well, but the difference is that the willingness to pay for music is increasingly much, much lower that even bottled water. No, I’m not going to get into the whole Radiohead numbers spat here, but it seems to be clear that, when given the chance, many people are all too happy grab music off the Net for nothing, especially because that is what is ultimately the most convenient thing to do.

And therein lies the difference. With bottled water, we are paying for convenience. With digital music, by comparison, the most convenient solution is the one we need pay nothing to receive. In that environment, "competing with free" *does* become more challenging, although I do not think it is impossible.

I’m just thinking out loud here, and I’m sure Mike will tell me why I’m full of sh*t! But, honestly, I think copyright critics need to find a better example than bottle water.

Re: You Can’t Compete With Free

Adam Thierer — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:06:17 -0000

Mike… Fair points, but let me ask you about those “complementary products” for a moment. By complementary products, do you mean lots of touring, t-shirts, more touring, bumper stickers, more touring, hats, and still more touring? This is the Grateful Dead model, of course, and I’m not denying it can’t work for some. But I’ve often wondering, what is the true cost of that model for most artists, especially if we abandoned copyright altogether? Again, I’m just thinking out loud here, so don’t bite my head off, but isn’t it the case that copyright law has afforded artists the ability (time, facilities, equipment, or whatever else) to be more productive in the studio?

Here’s what got me thinking about this. Increasingly, my favorite bands seem to ALWAYS be out on the road trying to build their name recognition and, presumably, make some money. Good example would be The Secret Machines, a band I absolutely love. It’s great to catch the machines on these tours but, quite frankly, I’d love to see them in the studio more recording more beautiful music.

When I think about The Machines and other bands these days, it seems like their aggregate album output is way, way down. The length of time between album releases today seems to be growing longer. (I don’t have any stats to cite here, so perhaps I am wrong. But I doubt it). By contrast, The Stones, The Who, Zeppelin, Van Halen, etc… all the old rock bands used to put out an album every year or two.

Now, it certainly is true that the move from vinyl to CDs helped changed things first. As artists could fit more music on a CD, they crammed them full of songs (including a lot more crap, in my opinion). In the old vinyl days, you only had around 25 minutes per album side, I think. So that is probably one reason the window between album releases may have grown longer in recent years.

But I think the changing economics or the industry and the decline of copyright might be partly to blame as well. Without the guarantee of copyright protection, might there be less time for the artists to sit in front of their canvas creating? After all, under the Grateful Dead model, they need to be out making a buck off whatever they had they brief time to put together. I suppose one could argue that that’s the way it should be; we don’t need copyright protection to give them any incentive to be in a studio or be creating much of anything at all. Screw em… let them figure out how to eek out an existence some other way! And so “complementary products” becomes the answer.

OK, that’s certainly one view. Another is that copyright has afforded artists the chance to be incredibly creative and feel *reasonably* confident they would be *reasonably* compensated for their ACTUAL creative product; not some complementary product (t-shirts, stickers, whatever else) that had little to do with their actual skill set.

Again, I am certainly not saying there is anything wrong with a lot of touring, or even selling “complementary products,” whatever that means (and please do tell me what you mean by that so I am clear on that point). But I do wonder, what are the opportunity costs associated with artists spending more time doing those things instead of sitting in front of their canvas?

Re: Copyright in 2027: A Letter from the Future

Adam Thierer — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:00:39 -0000

"Recompense comes in the form of gifts and friends."

Tom... I assume you provide some details about how this model will work in the book. I'd like to see you next post provide those details if you have worked them out.

As you know, this model was used with mixed success in the days of grants from the crown for works of art / culture.

Re: TechDaily Shutting Down

Adam Thierer — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:13:48 -0000

That really is a shame. Very high quality tech reporting. It will be missed. The free alternatives just don't offer everything that NJTD does.

Re: Memo to Facebook…

Adam Thierer — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:14:02 -0000

I like the way he concludes that, "I am going to retreat from the whole thing, remain as unplugged as possible"... and then he posts this screed on the Internet! Seems a tad bit inconsistent.

And how about this line: "Facebook pretends to be about freedom, but isn't it really more like an ideologically motivated virtual totalitarian regime..?" Uh, no.

Re: The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » Bruce Schneier Runs an Open Wireless Network

Adam Thierer — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:05:54 -0000

Why is he right to do so? Please elaborate. Is this based on some hippie-esque "why-can't-we-all-just-share-everything" philosophy, or are you saying he's right because there's just not much that risk to leaving it wide open?

Re: Media Metrics #1: Introduction & Analytical Framework

Adam Thierer — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:28:23 -0000

enigma... If the "corporations that control the mass media" aren't allowing "the truth" about global warming to be widely publicized, then how is it that you (and Al Gore, and a zillion other people in America) know some much about the issue!!

By the way, I assume you loved the global warming piece of propaganda that was the movie "The Day After Tomorrow." Know who made that movie? That would be Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. So let's hear your conspiracy theory for that one.

And regarding candidates and debates... do not even try to tell me that fringe candidates like Dennis the Menace and Mad Ron aren't getting more coverage today than ever before in history. I am not about to condone anyone being excluded from a debate, but they always have another media platform to turn to, and another, and another... This wasn't the case in past years.

Re: Media Metrics #2: Household Access to Media Services & Technologies

Adam Thierer — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:46:59 -0000

Thanks Chris. I have been thinking about adding the premium cable data to the household penetration rate chart but I'm trying to make sure I have the right data going all the way back. But the decline in basic cable is actually more a function of the rise of DBS (and now telco) competition in the multi-channel video marketplace. Again, that's more good news! I just need to find a good way to chart it all accurately.

Re: Media Metrics #2: Household Access to Media Services & Technologies

Adam Thierer — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:55:14 -0000

Chris B. ... Satellite TV does appear on Chart 1. It is labeled as DBS (direct broadcast satellite).

But you are right about premium cable vs. basic. To get premium, you have to have basic. So, in essence, the "basic cable" data captures all those premium subscribers anyway. [I am not aware of any video service that provides access to a premium tier without first subscribing to basic. If I am wrong about that, however, the numbers would change slightly and it might be worth breaking out the two categories.]

Re: Broadband metering experiment in the works in Texas?

Adam Thierer — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:59:11 -0000

Steven... Actually, what you are describing is exactly what I suggested as a model in a previous essay:

What I think would be most efficient and pragmatic solution is what economists call a “Ramsey two-part tariff.” A two-part tariff (or price) would involve a flat fee for service up to a certain level and then a per-unit / metered fee over a certain level.

I don’t know where the demarcation should be in terms of where the flat rate ends and the metering begins; that’s for market experimentation to sort out. But the clear advantage of this solution is that it preserves flat-rate, all-you-can-eat pricing for casual to moderate bandwidth users and only resorts to less popular metering pricing strategies when the usage is “excessive,” however that is defined.

Yes, this model has been used in other contexts, including electricity and gas. And I believe that most economists believe it has been an effective way of constraining excessive use by some users and keeping prices in check at the lower end of the market. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?

Re: Privacy Advocacy Overreach

Adam Thierer — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:09:13 -0000

Jim, you went too easy on these guys. These guys are turning the FTC into the same sort of complaint factory that the FCC has become. Essentially, EPIC and CDD are engaging in the equivalent of what Parents Television Council, Focus on the Family, and the Family Research Center do every day at the FCC: bombard the agency with stacks of computer-generated complaints and other absurd petitions until something sticks and someone gets regulated.

Re: for Tim’s reading list about the early telephone system…

Adam Thierer — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:08:22 -0000

Ah. Well then, this old report by Crandall and Ellig might be helpful. You might also want to see if Gattuso can dig up a copy of the old 1992 "Competitiveness Council" report on the history of regulation. James did a lot of research for that report and he might have some leads for you. And I assume you've got a copy of Fred Kahn's 2-volume masterwork "The Economics of Regulation." Must reading on the topic. I can dig up the exact quotes from Kahn about regulatory capture if you need them. I used to use them in every paper I wrote about telecom policy in the 90s.

Re: for Tim’s reading list about the early telephone system…

Adam Thierer — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:22:50 -0000

Actually, two of the best Alfred Kahn quotes regarding the cozy nature of the regulator-regulatee relationship appear in my old Cato Journal piece. Here they are (both of them are from his book The Economics of Regulation and page numbers are listed):

“When a commission is responsible for the performance of an industry, it is under never completely escapable pressure to protect the health of the companies it regulates, to assure a desirable performance by relying on those monopolistic chosen instruments and its own controls rather than on the unplanned and unplannable forces of competition.” (p. 12)

[and..]

"Responsible for the continued provision and improvement of service, [the regulatory commission] comes increasingly and understandably to identify the interest of the public with that of the existing companies on whom it must rely to deliver goods." (p. 46)

Re: Media Metrics #4: Changing Fortunes

Adam Thierer — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:04:35 -0000

Tom... The size of the bubble indicates the respective market capitalization of each operator. Google is that big because, well, Google is that big! I'm not trying to distort anything by using the 3-D bubbles instead of 2-D bubbles, but perhaps to be consistent I should I have used one or the other in each of the exhibits. But even in 2-D, Google looks pretty damn formidable.

Re: A La Carte Mandates & Price Controls

Adam Thierer — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:49:57 -0000

Dave... PFF is perfectly transparent about where we get our support. It's all right there on our website under the "About" tab:

http://www.pff.org/about/supporters.html

Incidentally, do you complain about the fact that there is no similar disclosure from Leftist think tanks? Free Press, for example, refuses to identify it sources of support. It consistently amazes me how the Left gets away with hiding its sources of funding but then bitches about others who disclose.

And for your information--but not that you care--we do not get the majority of our funding from cable companies. PFF receives contributions from a wide diversity of high-technology, communications, media and cable companies.

If you ever care to engage in actual debate about the substance of issues instead of engaging in cowardly ad hominem attacks, feel free to come back and join us for a serious debate.

Re: A La Carte Mandates & Price Controls

Adam Thierer — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:57:23 -0000

Steve... the "common good" at the force of a gun is not so good. That's the difference between us, and it's why I refer to myself as a "radical pacifist." I believe in using voluntary agreements to achieve "the common good." You believe in using coercion.

Finally, if we took your position to the logical extreme that all bundles or packages were somehow fundamentally at odds with "the common good"--however you and your statist chums define it--then we would need to empower regulators to essentially dismantle our economy and restructure entire markets since bundles and packages are all around us. Just go to your corner grocery store or local car dealership sometime and try to buy everything in the most atomistic unit possible. It's not possible. And it's not possible because it's not efficient. Same goes for cable TV.

And no one is making you buy cable each month either.

Re: Fair Use?

Adam Thierer — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:56:33 -0000

That's a great movie. Have you seen it?

Re: Felten on MS-Google antitrust games

Adam Thierer — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:46:26 -0000

I apologize to Ed for misspelling his last name in the original post. I have correctly that.

Re: Lessig for Congress?

Adam Thierer — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:18:54 -0000

I hope all the Lessig backers out there in cyberspace who are currently promoting his candidacy will recall that he has proposed a massive censorship regime for the Internet. I wrote it about it extensively here.

In Chapter 12 of Code, he spends several pages discussing possible "architectures that zone speech" and he elaborated about how such speech zoning and "tagging" laws might apply to cyberspace in an article for Wired magazine a few years ago.

Just what we need; another Net censor in Congress.

Re: Which “blockhead” will produce this game once copyright disappears?

Adam Thierer — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:47:47 -0000

Jerry... As a Star Wars uber-geek, I am certainly well aware of “Star Wars: Revelations” and think it is quite an impressive work of visual “fan fiction.” Nonetheless, as I have argued here before, I simply cannot agree with those who would hold it out as an example of how peer production is somehow an adequate substitute for what copyright protection incentivizes:

Two notes about "Star Wars: Revelations." First, it's based on a very successful and impressive media property that benefited from copyright protection. Second, while I too was impressed with the storyline in this "Star Wars: Revelations" amateur effort, it was decidedly amateurish in other important ways, too. Namely, have you ever tried to scale up the video to a big screen TV? Well, I have. It looks like shit. Moreover, it sounds like shit. In sum, when it comes to the quality of the final product, it really is amateur hour. There's no appreciation among the anti-copyright crowd for the issue of quality control. What the hell use is a $3000 new 50" plasma HDTV and a 7.1 surround sound audio set-up if all I have to play on it is grainy YouTube videos and stupid Burger King games?

Now, it certainly may be the case, as Mike Mansick suggests, that “Alternative business models can and do exist that allow the creator to earn money,” and that “These other business models need not use copyright -- and, in fact, can often benefit more by ignoring copyright.” I agree with that statement to SOME extent for SOME businesses or forms of art SOME of the time. But what I am suggesting here is that the really big, bold, impressive works of culture and art—and yes, I understand that is a terribly subjective term—will likely be under-produced in world devoid of some semblance of copyright protection. And we will certainly have lost something important if that is the case.

Could I be wrong? Sure. And I suspect we will find out the result of this grand experiment in our lifetimes because I am convinced that the effectiveness of traditional copyright law will gradually fade away for the same reasons that efforts to control speech and expression via censorship will increasingly fail in the future, as I have discussed in great detail here. The difference, of course, is that when censorship fails because of the combination of developments I outlined in that essay, we will not have lost much as a society. When copyright fails for similar reasons, however, I believe we may lose some of the prized cultural expression and creativity that flows from the modern gaming and movie-production community. In sum, I just don't see the Halo video game trilogy or the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy being produced in a world without some sort of copyright protection. But we just won't know for many years until copyright law falls apart and the grand experiment plays out.

Re: Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results of 2008 Election Early

Adam Thierer — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:32:22 -0000

Absolutely brilliant. And I loved the Old Spice commercial too.

Re: Random Network Neutrality Bibliography

Adam Thierer — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:02:25 -0000

On general history of deregulation or the rationale for it, these 3 are a must:

"Economics of Regulation," Alfred Kahn

"Contrived Competition: Regulation and Deregulation in America," by Richard Vietor

"Regulation and Its Reform," by Stephen Breyer (yes, the one on the Supreme Court now)

"Prophets of Regulation: Charles Francis Adams; Louis D. Brandeis; James M. Landis; Alfred E. Kahn," by Thomas K. McCraw

Re: The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » Media Metrics #7: An Uncertain Future for Newspapers

Adam Thierer — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 08:14:46 -0000

Ah yes, another day at the TLF and another asinine corporate conspiracy theory from the enema_foundry. Seriously, pray tell, Mr. Foundry, how is it that you are so enlightened and shielded from this corporate media conspiracy while the rest of us are just mindless sheep being fed our daily marching orders from our corporate masters? Is it just the fact that I let my subscriptions to Mother Jones and The Nation lapse long ago? Do those sages offer the enlightened path to socialist slavery..er, uh.. freedom?

Now, you’ll have to excuse me while I get back to reading the couple of trillion different news stories on the Google News main page this morning. I will do my best to sort through them carefully and see if I can discern who is feeding me propaganda versus truth. Or I suppose you also have a theory about how all those media sources are really just controlled by Google! Ironically, I am about to fly out to the Valley for a conference at Google headquarters. I will ask them if they would be so kind as to deprogram me for the day and let me see the truth that is apparently only available to your eyes.