RIP SOPA

On Friday, January 20, Lamar Smith (R-TX), the chief architect of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and Harry Reid (D-NV), the author of Protect IP Act (PIPA), pulled the controversial online piracy bills after months of controversy and protests, culminating in a day of online protests by major websites who "went black" to protest the bill.  I was late in understanding the entire issue, and indeed really knew very little about it until talk of blackouts started to swirl.  Now, before I have really wrapped my arms around it, they are dead.  Regardless, the topic has peaked my interest, and like any responsible citizen, I have felt compelled to know more.   I initially wrote about it, briefly, in "SOPA SOPA!", but I was looking at the topic very generally.  I have been seeking for a couple of days to find a way to better express my views, without having to reference Rick Santorum.  On Friday, it was done for me.

On the same day the bills were suspended indefinitely, the file sharing website MegaUpload was shut down for copyright infringement and other related crimes.  A modest musician named Jonathan Coulton tweeted in response:


His response was sarcastic of course, but it was picked up by NPR Marketplace for a great interview later in the afternoon.  I found that he put things into perspective quite well, and coming from a humble musician, it had clout.  While you can read the entire transcript here, I'll try to summarize some of his best points:
It is impossible to determine what the loss to companies is.  Some activity may have actually helped small artist gain fans.  It's not as bad as some industry "experts" have stated, causing the loss of tens of thousands of middle-income jobs and hurting artists across the world.  It may, in fact, help some artists.
I have a lot of trouble with the idea that the federal government is directing resources toward an ultimately ineffective game of piracy whack-a-mole (with some unknown amount of collateral damage to law-abiding citizens), when we are not even sure that piracy is a problem.
There's no rule that says a creative person is entitled to be paid for their creative work. In fact, for most of human history, music and art was not something that people got paid for at all.  We, through our actions as individuals, demonstrate what we value as a society. And I think we've all made it pretty clear that our opinions about copyright have really shifted. I just don't think the laws have caught up to that yet.
Entire industries rise and fall as the world changes and our priorities shift. Sorry.
Not every illegal download is a lost sale.  People download things because there is no legal way for them to acquire it.  It’s fine if you want to (fight for intellectual property rights), but don’t yell and scream about how you’re losing business to piracy when your stuff isn’t even available in the box I have on top of my TV.  A lot of us have figured out how to do this.  Make good stuff, then make it easy for people to buy it. There’s your anti-piracy plan. 
This says it all. 

When Napster hit the scene, record companies may have taken a hit in the P&L, but we didn't see music and entertainment disappear, as many pessimists thought.  Instead, I think music flourished.  Now, we have the likes of Pandora.com, which provides the opportunity to listen to vasts libraries of new and previously unknown music that is picked by our own listening preferences.  We are then able to purchase those songs we most enjoy with no more than two clicks.  As well, artists are evolving as well, putting music out and providing free listens and previews, then banking on people buying tracks or attending a concert.  NPR All Songs Considered first listens and previews is just one good example.  A couple of years ago, the band Radiohead offered its new album online for downloading, asking fans to "pay what they wanted" for the download.  This is where music and the music industry has gone, and the rest of us could take a page out of this innovation.

The Internet is so (relatively) new and incredibly vast that current legal structures, as well as our concept of artistic IP, make it virtually impossible to regulate.  More important, the open and sharing concept behind the Internet is such that any regulation would ultimately stifle innovation.  Instead of regulating, we should all be adapting.

Just let the Internet be the Internet.

Mr. Coulton elaborated more on his JonathanCoulton.com blog.  Check it out.

SOPA SOPA!

Google.com 01/18/2012
On Wednesday, several prominent internet sights went "dark" to protest two new bills in the legislature.  They were described by the Google landing page as follows:
Two bills before Congress, known as the Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House, would censor the Web and impose harmful regulations on American business. Millions of Internet users and entrepreneurs already oppose SOPA and PIPA.  The Senate will begin voting on January 24th. Please let them know how you feel. Sign this petition urging Congress to vote NO on PIPA and SOPA before it is too late.
 While I don't pretend to completely understand what the laws propose, I was struck by what one of the republican candidates for president, Rick Santorum, said on Thursday night during the Reblican Debate in Charleston, SC.  His comment is posted below, but in summary, he stated, "The Internet is not a free zone where anybody can do anything they want to do."




Then it struck me ... the Internet is basically a free zone, and that's what makes it so wonderful!  Rick Santorum isn't entirely wrong, and in fact the merit behind his argument is sound.  Unfortunately, the playing field has changed so radically that we can no longer examine the situation as he has proposed, as a threat to intellectual property rights for example.  This is like saying that all sprinters should be slowed down because humans have just gotten faster!


I understand and appreciate the importance of intellectual property rights, especially as a developer of new products, but the internet is like open source software ... if you put something out there, then you should expect it to become part of internet lexicon.  This freedom is what has promoted so much great information (and, granted, some very bad information) to be available at the click of a button.  Censoring this will crush this.  Instead, we should embrace this freedom and, consequently, learn how to live with it and further it.  Music artists as well as the entire music industry has already started innovating in order to protect music and provide a living for artists, and we can all take a page out of this lesson.

Obviously, I am not alone in this sentiment (see a small sample of sights below that went dark), and I hope the legislators understand that impact censorship will have, and more important, the slippery slope it will create if it passes.  Let the Internet be what it is, and let it be us who adapts.

  







Debating the Debate

Uncanny Likenesses
I had the fortune to attend the Republican Debate on Monday night, January 16th, in Myrtle Beach.  It was a very interesting experience to say the least, and while I would love to dive headlong into how I felt about the outcome, I think Chris Cillizza at The Fix  (Washington Post)  does a rather nice job of summing it up.  Instead, what I took from the debate was an epiphany resulting mostly from a Facebook conversation the night before with a political science high school student.

The chain of correspondences started in response to a post by a very good friend of mine, an article by ThinkProgress.org that recapped an appearance by John Stossel of Fox News.  While appearing on Your World with Neil Cavuto, Stossel makes the argument that young people who "don't pay attention to the (political) issues" forging the elections should simply not vote.  He went as far as to insinuate, because they were "uninformed", they don't deserve to vote.  Stossel:
John Stossel
"I’m not saying we should have a test or something. But this endless cheerleading — let’s go to the rock concerts and register the kids. And the kids aren’t paying attention. And it’s important in a democracy, it’s important to vote. And these are important issues. The people who participate ought to be the ones who pay attention…I’m just saying we shouldn’t have these “Get Out The Vote” campaigns and make these statements: “Everyone has to vote. It’s your patriotic duty!” Well if you’re not paying attention, I think it’s your patriotic duty not to vote."
Cavuto went on to ask, "When is it OK to be stupid", which summed up the overall message of the interview: young people are stupid, don't deserve to vote and should not vote.  


While we discussed on Facebook the ridiculous lack of merit behind these claims, I had a problem with a comment about who should actually be considered "smart".  The comment was that "smart people are the ones who follow the news but know how to distinguish what is bias or facts".  And, while I felt this was fair and to a certain extent true, I found it to be unsatisfactory, even if I couldn't exactly put my finger on why.  After attending the debate and being surrounded by many educated, informed and what I would consider "smart" people, I realized the problem.


I would argue that being "smart", or what I will call "informed", goes far beyond distinguishing between bias and fact.  It lies in a person's ability to avoid the rhetoric which often influences personal choice.  During the debate, I found myself in the midst of a very excitable crowd that was fervently cheering almost every candidate's response.  And, while it may have seemed the cheering was for a candidate, I often felt it resulted from energetic words rather than an ideology.  To a certain extent, I felt like I was getting a locker room pep talk instead of a solution or answer to a question, and more often than not, the candidate would read the room and feed the seemingly bloodthirsty frenzy with a zinger like, "South Carolina is at war!" (Rick Perry).  It was difficult not to get caught up in the moment, even if you didn't exactly agree with the candidate's views.  The energy was palpable. 

This effect interestingly enough was discussed recently on a podcast from the team of Jab Abumrad and Robert Krulwich at Radio Lab called "The Bad Show", which explored the reasons why seemingly good people do very bad things.  One of the stories highlights the famous experiment by Stanley Milgrim in the 1960's, which highlighted the power of "obedience".  Milgrim was influenced by the Nazi Holocaust and seeked to understand why so many seemingly decent people would follow through with such a deviant and evil ideology.  What he found is that under certain conditions, typically while under the direction of individuals in a position of influence, men and women would engage in behavior that radically contrasted their moral beliefs.  The actual experiment put individuals in a position to cause pain and suffering to a complete stranger in order to further scientific research.  So, therein lies the relationship to politics: an individual's moral belief system at times can be compromised by the influence of an educated, powerful and generally well-meaning candidate.  Understanding this is as important as understanding the issues.

In the end, I believe that being "informed" goes far beyond deciphering bias from fact (there are countless fact checking websites that will give you the explanation you want anyway).  It involves first understanding your own individual moral needs and personal ambitions completely.  Second, understanding the influence of others and avoiding the rhetoric which may cloud your ability to decide.  Third, being able to examine a topic or issue from all sides and giving the proper respect to different points of views.  And lastly, understanding that your preferences will change in time and that this is and should be completely acceptable.  These are the "informed" individuals.

Regardless, I am happy that our humble little town of Myrtle Beach hosted the debate and earned some great national exposure.  Also, the sandcastle was awesome!  I can only hope someday to have a sandcastle in my likeness ... although they will need more sand to represent my expanding forehead.

What Are You Doing New Years Eve?

My wife and I are fans of Zooey Deschanel, especially since we watched Elf countless times this holiday and subjected ourselves to the movie's rendition of "Baby It's Cold Outside".  So, it was quite nice to find a fun little video with her and Joseph Gordon Levitt (in my mind, of "Third Rock From The Sun" fame) singing a nice rendition of "What Are You Doing New Year's Eve".  So as the big night approaches, enjoy this little diddy:





Thank you @JayHolben for posting originally.