>Its not all that complex.
>
>Consider a bell curve that plots "The Bigness Of IP As An Issue".
>At the very peak of the bell curve is "The Threshold", that
>critical mass point (that I've been talking about for two weeks)
>where a worldwide computer network has become so pervasive,
>cheap, and powerful that it makes IP laws reasonably
>unenforcable.
>
>The rising plot to the left of that peak describes the increasing
>concern over IP issues. At the extreme left is pre-IP society
>where the concept of ownership of knowledge was an oxymoron. As
>we approach the center of the bell curve we have developed IP.
>The curve steepens as we realize our technology is making piracy
>& plagiarism simpler and enforcement can't keep up with it. Then
>we peak at "The Threshold".
>
>Once past "The Threshold" there will still be intensely high
>concern over IP issues as we realize we have lost control and
>desperately and futilely scramble to try to regain that control.
>But then we will start to realize we can't regain control in the
>form we once had, so our "interest level" in IP wanes, probably
>being diverted to more important, less futile questions like "How
>are we still going to make money off information now that it's
>free?" At the far right of the curve is the "post-IP" society,
>where IP, as we know it today, is a blip in human history and our
>attention has been diverted to other issues.
>
>So, perhaps I should have said "IP will continue to be important
>*for a certain period of time*.
I don't remember the bell curve from before. If it was there, my apologies
for missing it. But I've gotta say, straight away, that the message that I
send that started this mess was a direct reply to your "IP Executive
Summary." And it's awfully cocky of you, Greg, to appoint yourself
executive of this commission. Especially since I don't think the committee
has agreed on too many conclusions thus far. Well, perhaps I shouldn't even
say it....this issue is deadly serious, to be sure; the discussion isn't.
It's becoming increasingly difficult with each pass.
>> Well, that's highly unlikely, but I will throw a few things in
>here. One,
>> Evan has a point, a good one. From where we are,
>technologically, at this
>> stage in the game, phenomenal progress needs to take place in
>telecom, as
>> well as the marketing of telecom.
>
>Hello? That was *my* point originally. See points 1, 2, and 3,
>under the "prerequisites" section of the "IP Executive Summary"
>post of several days ago. (It's in the archives.)
>
>Here's the *specific* URL for the "IP Executive Summary" which
>details my position accurately (as opposed to your inaccurate
>distortions):
Sorry for the misappropriation of credit. Of course, your summary was not
the genesis of the discussion. Right now, it looks like a midpoint (since
you and I AREN'T getting anywhere).
>> And while we can certainly say that there
>> will be exponential growth, I DON'T think you know that this
>growth will
>> take place.
>
>Who said I "knew"? What, you think I believe I am god? Get over
>it, Adam. I have provided several specific scenarios which you
>seem intent on ignoring, despite my pleas for you to directly
>address them, probably because it allows you to address the issue
>and my position with broad abstractions that don't require much
>actual critical engagement with my actual position.
>
>I'll refer you to the "prerequisites" section of the Summary
>again. What I am talking about is a very limited scenario that
>depends on several specific technological developments with I
>have no "proof" will happen. Statistically, though, it seems
>probably that given the current rate of technological change,
>those developments are reasonable. And I've never argued
>otherwise.
Statistics? What statistics? You keep talking about JP and I having no
evidence and then casually throw out some vague notion of "statistics."
THAT'S what I'm saying -- who's drawn up the math saying the tree I'm gonna
be talking about in a couple minutes is 400 feet and not 200? Your scenario
is VERY limited. I don't think it's likely. Not the way you project. But
I'll fill in some of that in a meoment, as well.
>> It's like standing next to a 200 foot tall tree vs. a 400 foot
>> tall tree. Actually, it's a lot more severe than that, but the
>point
>> remains the same: from the ground, they look at awful lot
>alike, but one is
>> twice as tall as the other. That's quite a difference.
>
>Yeah, but you're not even measuring the trees. You're standing 14
>miles away from the forest going "There's no *way* your tree
>could be 400 feet tall, Greg."
>
>If you want to "measure my tree" then deal with the actual tree.
>Respond to my actual position and leave behind all these
>inaccuracies and abstractions.
I don't like what you've done with the analogy. The tree is the required
technology. Your rhetorical skill notwithstanding, standing 14 miles away
from the tree would probably give a BETTER sense of which tree is higher.
In fact, if that's where you think I am, I'd say you're busily constructing
a strawman. Listen to my argument before you tell me it's invalid. I don't
think you've done that yet. You're ready, willing, and able to put the onus
on me to PROVE you wrong. This ain't a criminal case, it's a civil one, and
I don't see you poking the holes in my argument that you say. I'm not
saying they aren't there....I'm saying no one's calling attention to them.
>> >(1)And the profit in all of those "hundreds of other worlds"
>will
>> >face the same threat from pervasive decentralized computer
>> >networks as the "mainstream IP producers" do as will those
>> >information producers who don't profit from
>information.....(2)so
>> >what's your point? (3)We should discuss this only in the
>abstract?
>> >(4)We should discuss this using different kinds of examples?
>>
>> In a nutshell: (1)I don't agree, (2)see above (and below),
>(3)perhaps, (4)and yes. To
>> continue....
>
>(1)Why?, (2)see above (and below), (3)Why? and That's lame
>considering I've given you a specific scenario, and (4)throw out
>any example and I'll show you how it fits into my scenario.
In brief:
1) If I talk about the IP surrounding the development of the new John
Deere, the ease with which that IP can be spread is far less than picking up
the latest Greg Ritter prose, attaching my name to it, and broadcasting it
to the world. Though there is clearly a movement to abstractify production,
there is equally clearly a continuum of the relationship between a product
and it's level of abstraction. The more abstract, the easier (at the
moment) to infringe on IP rights. You may LIKE the new Carrera, but it
ain't cheap to put one together, given current technology.
2) Okay, I'm seeing your point (I think), but I still don't agree.
3) I don't think it's so lame to discuss this in the abstract. My turn for
playing with the tree analogy. The future of IP is the forest. All of
these examples are trees. I can figure everything I want to about the tree,
and I'm still missing the forest, in classic Nietzschean pithiness.
4) Fine. I'm throwing out farming....it's simple, clear, ancient, and
evolving....
>
>> >There undoubtedly has been and will continue to be expanded
>use
>> >of IP, but how does that expanded use continue after computer
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >networks have made control of IP unfeasible?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> How can the USE of IP expand if IP is going to disappear?
>
>Uh, aren't you asking me the same question I asked you?
Yes, Greg. The difference is that I don't think IP will disappear. So I
can't answer that question.
>The answer is it won't. See the bell curve scenario above. There
>would be expanded use UNTIL the IP laws erode. After that IP will
>fall by the wayside.
So it WILL fall by the wayside. And I STILL don't agree. I, too, don't see
you presenting EVIDENCE....only an argument. Even in the "Executive IP
Summary."
>Sorry, I assumed you would understand my position enough to not
>think I was saying IP will continue after it's been discontinued.
>My mistake.
A little ad hominem never hurt anyone....
>> I don't know what time frame you're talking about and I suspect
>> you don't, either.
>
>If you mean by "know" can I say, "We will reach The Threshold on
>August 7, 2041!", then of course not. Nor can I accurately
>predict how flat or steep the bell curve I described above would
>be. However, if you want me to give you a ballpark figure I would
>say that it's reasonable to expect *at least* the same technology
>growth curve in the next 50 years as we have experienced in the
>last 50, if not a more rapid growth curve, so I'd say by 2046 we
>should either have reached the IP crisis point or found a way to
>divert it.
>
>(Incidentally, since you seem to be totally unaware of my actual
>position, you might read the possible ways around the erosion of
>IP and the concurrent loss of profit I outlined in the Summary.)
You've traced a time frame and now (at least more clearly) a bell curve
under which all of this exists. What I'm saying is this: I agree with the
first half of your bell curve....IP is clearly going to become a greater and
greater crisis. At some point, August 7, 2041 or not, there WILL be a
critical mass point. In my model, though, the crisis point will cause a
nearly complete restructuring of IP, not it's demolition. And I'll try to
explain why:
In a coming "Third Wave" (to continue to borrow from Toffler), the
informational aspect of production will be of paramount importance. In this
environment, I find it unimaginable that the billions of dollars available
to corporations to fight the erosion of IP won't be spent on the development
of TECHNOLOGY to prevent this erosion. And there are corresponding SOCIAL
forces which have sanctioned IP and would find it's absence unconscienable.
What I've been saying here is that I feel that these forces are greater than
the forces pushing forward an anti-IP agenda. The cultural weight is
greater than the subset of technological advance that digital networks comprise.
In a higher-tech environment, though, what IP will mean will have to change.
Information will be seen in it's paradoxical light: that it's diffusion
means a greater level of productivity and advancement across sectors and
that it's importance necessitates a greater level of protection. It seems
unimaginative to say that because they technology to circumvent this doesn't
exist NOW that it won't be developed, especially in consideration of the
fact that the telecom technology has to advance so far from where it is now
to reach the crisis point.
>> >The gaping hole of that argument is you *equate* technology
>and
>> >IP. But the relationship between technology (or art) and IP is
>an
>> >artificial one, nothing but a legal construct (and, for that
>> >matter, a relatively *recent* construct in both the history of
>> >technology and the history of law).
>>
>> Bingo. Our point of diversion. You're talking about law --
>I'm talking
>> about the property myself, and it seems as though JP is, too.
>For right
>> wing radicals such as myself, there ISN'T a great disparity
>between
>> intellectual versus physical property where rights are
>concerned. What IS
>> different is the nature of the product. Physical property is
>scarce,
>> finite, discrete, while intellectual property is diffuse,
>multifunctional,
>> multifaceted.
>
>So if the nature of the product is so different, why do you
>assume the same controls can be placed on information as on
>physical objects?
Not the same controls. DIFFERENT controls. Of equal (if not greater) power
and importance.
>> But an idea IS intellectual property, independent of its
>> recognition by the law or the citizenry.
>
>That's just poppycock. Even JP admits that "property" is an
>intellectual and legal construct, albeit one that works pretty
>well for us.
>
>Do you have any rational basis for arguing that "ownership of
>property" (intellectual or phsyical) is NOT a legal and
>intellectual construct?
>
>(Even if it were true that "an idea is intellectual property
>independent of its recognition by the law or the citizenry," that
>"fact" wouldn't do you much practical good if it's weren't
>recognized legally and intellectually.)
Okay, you've twisted what I said a little, but it isn't a completely invalid
twist. I certainly got a little over-exuberant, so let me back up a little.
The IDEA exists....it's clearly a "product," albeit an intellectual one.
The existence of this product, when applied, certainly should be termed IP.
Prior to that point, it's a relative non-issue. And I'm saying that the law
now regarding IP isn't going to be that important, long-term, since the law
is going to have to be rewritten to accomodate changes that are taking place.
>> What HAPPENS to it is the
>> "artifical" relationship, not the relationship between idea and
>property.
>> IP is hardly "nothing but a legal construct." Rather, it is
>the distinct
>> right/designation/recognition of a unique idea formed by an
>individual (or a
>> group, in a broader sense).
>
>Since when are "rights" not constructs? If you're going to go all
>"Natural Rights of Man" on me, we can stop right here.
Maybe we should. You're certainly not willing to let me get
meta-sociological here, which is, I think, a level we need to address to
work with these issues we're dredging up.
>> And what IP means to farmers is worlds apart from what it means
>to Prince or
>> John Abercrombe or Eddie Vedder or John Updike. But if you
>think AT&T or GM
>> or Intel is about to renounce their IP rights, you're crazy.
>
>Once again, you haven't been reading my posts and have absolutely
>no idea what my actual position is. I've been saying all along
>most IP producers would not willingly give up their profit-making
>ability. Unless they had an alternative.
And what of the first part of the above quote? It's beyond pithy for you to
keep saying that I'm not listening to you because "most IP producers would
not willingly give up their profit-making ability. Unless they had an
alternative." I know that...and so does everyone reading these diatribes.
But if IP is going to be MORE important (and I'm not the only one who says
this is the case) and central to production, HOW is an alternative going to
be a better scenario for the mega-corporations? Or new cottagery, for that
matter?
>> IP relates
>> MORE than tangentially on physical artifice...rather, the
>technology, the
>> physicality of it is incredibly dependent on IP. And that's
>only going to
>> become MORE true in a fuller realization of a Third Wave.
>
>The technology is incredibly dependent on *ideas*, not on any
>legal construct of property. (Yeah, yeah, I know, there's no
>difference between an idea and property, blah blah natural
>rights, yadda yadda).
...sure, THIS is a valid argument....
>The restriction of the flow of ideas
>centralizes the power over those ideas and thus centralizes the
>power over the development of technology. An unrestricted flow of
>ideas encourages collaboration, cooperation, and stimulates
>development (but also carries the danger of non-uniformity,
>greater complexity, etc.).
I don't think ideas are suddenly going to be monopolized by three
corporations or anything, if only because there are over 5 billion people on
the planet now, and at least a few of them have had a good idea or two in
their lives. That last sentence is true, provided there's an incentive for
ideas to flow without restriction. But, at this point, I don't think you
could get Fredric Jamison to agree that the absence of rights where ideas
are concerned is a tenable way to conduct socio-political interaction.
>> A&M
>> and Random House aren't going to like the change in the
>relationship between
>> technology and IP. But there isn't some bastard child
>relationship here.
>> This is real and it's about trillions of dollars and billions
>of lives.
>
>Of, fer crying out loud, get off your high horse. You think I
>don't know that? Most of what we discuss on this list is "real
>and about trillions of dollars and billions of lives." So what's
>your point? That we should consider each of those dollars and
>lives separately and go through each and every example or
>possible affect one at a time.
MY high horse? At any rate, no matter how much you like LaTex, it ISN'T as
big an issue as the future of IP. I'm not saying that we should be
paralyzed by the scope -- what I'm saying is that you don't seem to be
taking the scope of the issue into consideration in your theory. Or, at
least, aren't projecting what that scope MEANS. At the very least, we're
drawing two very disparate conclusions about the ramifications of the scope
of the issue.
>You're a ball of contradictions, man. You refuse to respond to
>the specific scenarios, prerequisites, and alternate solutions
>I've mapped out, sticking instead to abstractions and
>misinterpretations of my position. Then you complain that my
>examples are too narrow and we need to be more abstract. And then
>you accuse me of treating the issue "in the ether".
>
>Make up your mind!
I said you'd probably be more correct "in the ether." I think you're
showing a lack of vision and not reading what I'm writing...you're reading
what you think I mean. That I'm some unimaginative, anachronistic bastard
who isn't responding to what you're saying. You aren't responding to what
I'm saying....you're using my quotes, but you're rarely using them in
context, as intended. So either I have no idea how to communicate using the
English language, or you're breaking from what I'm saying. So where's the
contradiction.
>> If
>> you mean that changing current laws doesn't mean that
>technology will fall
>> apart, you're right. But I'm with JP....I think the societal
>movement is a
>> greater force than advances in telecommunications.
>
>And a worldwide digital computer network has no affect whatsoever
>on the structure of society? JP agreed with Taylor's post
>comparing the revolutionary social force of a worldwide network
>to the revolutionary social force of the printing press. I don't
>think you know whose "side" you're on.
Certainly technology affects social movements. The printing press was huge.
Huger, I'd say, than the worldwide network. On par, I'd say, with the
development of computing. And, again, YOU'RE NOT LISTENING TO WHAT I'M
SAYING. I'm saying, again, that IP will be CHANGED as a result of telecom
technology. I'm disagreeing that it will disappear, NOT that there will be
a critical point, NOT that digital networks haven't had an impact on IP.
>> Sure, but it'd be even more conjecture than you've got going
>there. Why
>> won't technology make enforcement easier? A broad
>> anthropological/historical study shows that technology has made
>it easier to
>> identify and communicate with social "outliers." Why would
>that change?
>
>What broad anthropological/historical study is that?
Well, I can refer you to places, but I'm speaking more in general terms.
Mary Terell is good with Scientific history around the time of the
Renaissance, Dick Hebdige's "Subculture" is a good macro/micro study,
Tonnies' Gemainschaft and Gesselschaft are well-known to most folks in the
social sciences. Other folks who know something -- Warren TenHouten, Alvin
Toffler, even Toynbee.
>> I'm not talking about Big Brother or anything, though I suppose
>that's
>> vaguely possible in some remote form in some socio-political
>settings (said
>> with very little conviction).
>
>Actually, I think it's quite possible. Several times I've made
>the comparison between the current, ineffective, arguably
>repressive "War on Drugs" and a possible "War on Plagiarism"
>where use, not just production, is criminalized.
>
>> Why couldn't law enforcement set up daemons
>> to check for IP violations on the Internet, for example?
>
>Finally, an actual direct response!
Of course, I give this example with great reticence, since I've got no
notion of what kind of automated law enforcement would take place in a
(long-term) future that includes no bandwidth, storage, processor issues.
>I would assume that law enforcement *would* try to automate their
>enforcement tactics.
>
>First problem: there's no way to tell a digital copy from the
>original. Let's assume some kind of reasonably uncrackable
>digital signature gets around that. Then, given that, let's
>assume that such automation of checking for violations is
>effective. Now law enforcement can pinpoint who's doing it.
I think this part's do-able. I don't know if it's the medium through which
this sort of thing will happen, but it seems plausible.
>Refer back to the prerequisites in the "IP Executive Summary" for
>the situation we would be under (i.e. reasonably unlimited
>bandwidth, processor speed, & storage capacity widely available).
Yes, I think I've got that part by now...
>Second problem: Currently we can curtail mass reproduction &
>distribution because only a few people have access to the ability
>to do that. If everyone has the capacity for mass reproduction &
>distribution, it becomes significantly more difficulty to
>effectively crack down on the practice. You can't confiscate the
>illegal means of production & distribution if it's in everybody's
>hands. A similar problem arises in the same way with the "War on
>Drugs." If there were only 10 drug supplies in the country, it
>would be an easy problem to control (which is why controlling
>tobacco will be a gazillion times easier than controlling drugs).
>But with a pusher on every corner, limited law enforcement
>resources can't keep up with the distribution network.
Sure....but then, our law enforcement will be correspondingly efficient. Or
could be, at the very least. A more diffuse counterattack certainly doesn't
seem implausible to me. Calling them "law daemons" or something certainly
undermines their possible sophistication.
>Third problem: if encryption works so well that you can reliably
>attach digital signatures, then it stands to reason that it would
>also work well in covering up the real identity of someone
>committing piracy. Perhaps you say, "But the government could
>control the release of encryption technology!" I might respond
>that they haven't been so hot at doing that so far (i.e. PGP,
>Clipper Chip, etc.), but that claim also puts us in a weird
>vicious circle: to control the network distribution you have to
>control encryption software distribution, but to control
>encryption software distribution you have to control the network
>distribution, etc. ad infinitum.
Not if they develop it in-house and keep it there. Is this possible? I'll
be willing to bet it is.
>Fourth & biggest problem (which everyone seems to be ignoring
>when dealing with enforcement): The FBI institutes automated
>violation searches. They find a huge number of violations coming
>from Zimbabwe, the Netherlands, and Upper Mongolia. What are they
>going to do be able to do about it?
You've started to point at an even more crucial point -- that IP isn't the
only thing that has to change. Somewhere along the line, emergent
technologies and social change will cause a great need for changing the way
GOVERNMENT operates. We won't be looking at the same political climate at
the point of critical mass that we're looking at now. Our political
institutions are getting more and more unresponsive where the rest of the
world is concerned. This will have to change. And when it does, I think
we'll see a superior ability to respond to the problems you've outlined.
>So, I think your proposed solution is riddled with problems.
>However, automated violation searches might slow down the
>approach of "The Threshold." Anything that puts a monkey wrench
>in the workings of network reproduction and distribution might
>slow down the approach, but it also has the effect of potentially
>limiting legitimate business and limiting our rights. So far
>things like the Clipper Chip, the CDA, and bans on PGP have been
>pretty ineffective at getting passed or enforced. The only
>possible reason I could see such legislation being passed less
>controversially is if IP-producers megacorporate profits are in
>danger. But passing a law and being able to enforce a law are
>still two different matters.
It isn't a proposed "solution" anymore than your "Executive IP Summary"
outlines a "problem." It's a possibility...one that seems (to me, that's
who) as valid as what you propose.
Adam D. Barnhart
adamb@cfmc.com
ydnt85a@prodigy.com