On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:04:24PM -0600, Michael Halcrow wrote:
> http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/54325

It's been a while since I've written a rant on the subject.  This will
never get published by the Daily Universe, but I have it published on
my own web site:

http://halcrow.us/~mhalcrow/daily_universe_copyright.html

Since when did the Daily Universe staff become the PR front for the
Recording Industry Association of America?  The tired rhetoric they
regurgitated in their amateur treatment of the subject matter in their
editorial, ``Want a revolution? Get in tune, but do it legally'' was
about as enlightening as a John Ashcroft speech at a Republican
convention.  I will begin my response by correcting the Daily
Universe's embarrassing inaccuracies, and then proceed to actually
discuss the issue on a level worthy of conscious thought.

In the first place, there is no legal precedent to support the claim
that downloading music over the Internet is an illegal act.  Hundreds
of individuals, from 12-year-olds to grandmothers, have been racketed
with law suits from the RIAA for distributing copyrighted content, but
there is not a solitary case of an individual being sued civilly or
prosecuted criminally for merely downloading music.  The Daily
Universe editors have obviously not done their homework, as they
repeatedly asserted that downloaders are being tracked down.  They
simply are not.  To assert that they are is plainly irresponsible
journalism.

``Intellectual property'' is a term that makes absolutely no sense to
me, whatsoever.  Music, motion pictures, written stories, still
images, mathematical formulas, business processes, machine designs,
even computer code -- this is the stuff that our culture is made of.
These things define the experience of life itself.  How can you assign
exclusive ownership to culture?  How can you presume to tell people
that the primitive act of transferring this information from one mind
to another is somehow immoral?

Real property has an attribute that information lacks: scarcity.  If I
take a CD from you, then I have the CD, and you do not.  If, on the
other hand, I copy the contents of the CD, then you still have the CD.
Furthermore, I have the contents of the CD, which I can burn to a
CD-R.  The net result is that there are functionally two copies of the
information on that CD.  And the money I would have spent on the CD
can now go to concert tickets.  In the end, the society is richer for
it.

``Intellectual property'' pundits will decry the proliferation of
information-distributing technology because it threatens their Luddite
vision of how the economy should operate.  The claim that strong
copyright and patent laws are necessary to spurn innovation is a
questionable one, at best.  Throughout history, mankind has managed to
produce masterpiece inventions and works of art without such laws.
Today, the microcosm of the Free Software phenomenon provides ample
evidence of the progress that can be made as the attitude of
information hoarding is relented.

In the process of establishing a protectionist bubble around the media
middleman, we have succeeded in creating a schizophrenic society.  On
the one hand are the traditional interests that depend on the control
over the instantiation of information (i.e., a book or a video
cassette) to turn a profit.  Suddenly, with the advent of the personal
computer and the Internet, information no longer requires static
instantiation in order to find its way into our brains.  The response
of the obsolete parties is to attempt to shoehorn property laws into
this new technological paradigm.  They commit the crime of injecting
false moral premises into the minds of the populace via their dear
cousin, the popular media.  They violate our legislature with
lobbyists who think nothing of desecrating the Constitutional scope
and limits of copyright.  Sadly, these lobbyists have ensnared Utah's
own Orrin G. Hatch, who has for years worked militantly to establish a
digital police state.

On the other hand, we have the individual, who acts on instinct to
share with people he cares about and loves, and then is told that he
is a bad person for wanting to do so.  This mindset is a cancer on our
society.  Young students who sketch masterpieces are now being told
that they are making unauthorized duplications, and they are being
kicked out of museums.  Sightseers who are taking pictures of statues
in public parks are being heckled and run out by police officers who
are ``protecting the copyright'' that the statues are under.
Individual freedom is being ruthlessly trampled upon, culture is being
held hostage, and the Daily Universe editorial staff can only manage
to stand on the sidelines and cheer such a disgustingly oppressive
system on.

I wish to make one other thing abundantly clear.  The Daily Universe
staff flippantly referred to copying as a privilege.  Copying is not a
privilege.  It is a right.  We are born with the natural right to
copy.  Society has decided to spend our freedom to copy in an attempt
to stimulate the production of more intellectual works.  There is a
very strong argument that this restriction of our right to copy, in an
attempt to redistribute wealth in our ``free enterprise,'' ends up
doing us more harm than good.  The thought pattern of locking down and
hoarding information that is permeating our nation's psyche is
crippling scientific and intellectual progress.

If the concept of ``intellectual property'' does indeed lie at the
foundation of our economy, as the crack team of editors at the Daily
Universe claim, then we are in desperate trouble.  In case nobody has
noticed, globalization is the modus operandi of our modern economy,
and the rest of the world is not about to bow to the declarations of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  Furthermore,
``intellectual property'' deserves no part in a ``free enterprise.''
The concept of copyrights and patents has absolutely nothing to do
with freedom; it instead has everything to do with the limitation
thereof.  Many in positions of economic and political power are
asserting that you do not have a right to culture, except under the
terms of the corporations that control its dissemination.

The last sentence of the Daily Universe's pathetic attempt at an
editorial may be correct, if not inadvertently, and ironically, so.
Technology is indeed being held back -- by criminalizing technology
that threatens the profit margins of obsolete business models.  The
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 has succeeded in stifling
academic research in the area of cryptography.  A security researcher,
Dmitry Sklyarov, while visiting the United States to present at a
security conference, found himself sitting in a jail cell for several
weeks, separated from his family back in Russia, after Adobe Systems
pressed charges against him in a shocking and immoral abuse of law.
Academic conference papers have been squelched as professors have
feared criminal charges for publishing their analysis of mathematical
methods employed in cryptographic applications.  What is happening in
our society is nothing short of a travesty.

Finally, if the Daily Universe staff want to convince us of their
agenda of media power aggrandizement, I suggest they use reason and
logic rather than an appeal to force (i.e., ``You will be hunted down
and punished.'').  I would have addressed the Daily Universe staff by
name, but they appear to be too cowardly to actually sign their names
to the petty threats that they put in print.  Perhaps it is for the
best.  After all, they would not want their future careers in
journalism to be so thoroughly tainted with this drivel.


Michael Halcrow
Austin, Texas
.___________________________________________________________________.
"Why adults should pretend to omniscience before 6-year-olds, I can't
for the life of me understand."
 - Carl Sagan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

--------------------
BYU Unix Users Group 
http://uug.byu.edu/ 

The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their
author.  They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. 
___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list

Reply via email to