We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Yesterday’s post about the mean and stupid RIAA has created some debate in the comments section. And in the meantime, the RIAA has a few more nasty tricks up its sleeve. ZDNet reports:
Some of the world’s largest record labels are quietly financing the creation of programs by small software firms that, if implemented, would sabotage the computers and Internet connections of people who download pirated music, according to a published report.
To those who argue that laws should be obeyed ‘coz that’s what they are there for:
Citing industry executives, The New York Times reported in an article that appeared on its Web site on Saturday, that the efforts bear varying degrees of legality including attacking a computer’s Internet connection to slow or halt downloads and overwhelming distribution networks with programs that masquerade as music files. [Trojan horses and viruses]
To those who venerate the Constitution and let it inspire their opinions about the changing reality of copyright enforcement:
Last month a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled that file-sharing services Grokster and Morpheus were not guilty of copyright infringement.
If upheld, the ruling on Grokster and Morpheus could make it harder for the record industry to go after technology that allows people to trade files, provided the companies that offer such tools have no control over how their technology is used. As a result, record companies are going to have to find other targets for their legal wrath.
Perhaps legal intimidation, coupled with ‘aggressive’ technology may be effective for a while, but the ‘problem’ with technology is that somewhere, quite soon, one or more clever little buggers will find a way around it. Turning nasty to those who want to listen to music, i.e. record companies’ actual markets, does not strike me as the best business strategy. Free markets mean that the players are able to freely satisfy the demand they identify. It does not mean violation of property rights and free-for-all but I cannot accept that is what the RIAA is fighting against. Their desperate efforts to recoup losses has far more to do with overpriced contracts with top chart artists, bloated marketing budgets and costly advertising wars about places in the very top charts that make the artists so expensive, than with any copyright infringements.
If you are a business in free markets and a new phenomenon emerges that may just jeopardise your distribution system (in this case, internet and P2P replacing CDs and other off-line media), you do not go around intimidating your current, former and potential customers. You find a way of accommodating that demand, adjusting your business model or finding an alternative way to satisfy it. That’s free market to me!
As Michael Page, an attorney who represented the defendants in the Grokster and Morpheus case predicts:
It puts pressure on the labels to take seriously that the public wants electronic distribution. They’re going to have to stop trying to figure out a way to make the Internet go away and figure out a way to use it.
Perhaps, unless you think you have enough muscle to try to curb the markets and customer behaviour and make sure that your oligopoly prevents any new entrants from making impact on the balance of power in the industry. Oh wait, that sounds just like the RIAA…
This debate is not exactly about copyright and intellectual property. The reason we are having it is that it is easier for the RIAA to go the route of legal intimidation and obstreperousness (the US is, after all, the land of lawyers) than giving in to more uncertain and painful pressures of market forces and customer demand. Oh, and of progress and technological development…
Note to our ‘in-house’ entertainment industry expert: Is this what you had in mind, Simon? Surely not.
Brendan O’Neill has been lamenting the postponement of elections in Northern Ireland, pointing out this is profoundly anti-democratic. He is of course entirely correct.
However as long as the state is allowed to have more or less unlimited potential power over civil society, it cannot be unexpected that in a tribal place like Ulster, folks in a given community are going to be terrified of The Others having their hands on the levers of power. I suspect trying to share so much power is at worst a futile hope leading to more violence and at best, a Mexican stand-off.
Surely at least part of the solution is to simply bind ALL political power in Northern Ireland hand and foot with a written constitution that places pretty much every aspect of life that really matters off-limits to the vagaries of democratic politics. Worried about those ‘dirty Fenian Tagues poisoning our schools’? So abolish state educational conscription completely and leave it to churches, community groups, socialist-group-hug-collectives, business guilds, whoever, that way the ‘Tagues’ do not have to worry about the ‘stinking Orangemen’ doing the same to their children. Just apply this to all the centralised power functions (such as planning and land use) for full juicy goodness. Once you have done that, it would seem to me that much of the reason to try and bomb people into/out of power becomes… well… pointless.
Democracy is fine, just as long as the people being voted for cannot actually do anything. Think outside the (ballot) box. Be a radical.
Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was assassinated by an eco-terrorist, ending what was a truly interesting period of business-not-as-usual in the Netherlands.
Fortuyn was a fascinating man, easy to misunderstand. Both David Carr and I had initially mistaken him as just a Dutch version of French fascist Jean-Marie le Pen, but in fact nothing could have been further from the truth. To have even labelled him as ‘right wing’ was profoundly uninformative and in many ways down right misleading, revealing more about the commentator doing so that anything about Fortuyn.
One year on and sadly the people who reaped the ‘benefit’ of Pim Fortuyn death have proved to be the same grey men and women of the orthodox Dutch left and right who have enervated that once dynamic nation, hanging on to an electoral party list system that amounts to the political equivalent of Henry Ford’s ‘choose any colour, as long as it is black’.
The weed has been pulled out by the roots and nothing disturbs the monoculture of blood red poppies adorning that graveyard which is the political status quo.
Burglars and street robbers are to benefit from new rights under proposals announced today by the government.
The extension of the existing rights regime is contained in the Employment (Non-Lawful Activities) Consolidation Act 2003 which has passed its second reading in the House of Commons and is due to take effect from 1st January 2004. Under the new legislation, all burglars are street robbers will be entitled to a maximum of six weeks paid paternity leave and a similar period of statutory sick pay. If any burglar or street robber is a member of a gang or criminal organisation, they will also now be able to claim compensation for unfair dismissal.
A government spokesperson rejected criticisms of the new legislation:
It is simply an administrative measure designed to extend basic protections that already exist for all other employees.
The Equal Opportunities Commission broadly welcomed the new legislation but said it did not go nearly far enough. Spokesperson Elaine Simper-Sweetley said:
The lack of rights for workers in the crime industry is nothing less then scandalous. We believe that this is a step in the right direction but the government must do more to protect burglars from negligent and exploitative householders.
Ms.Simper-Sweetley added that the Commission would continue to campaign for existing Health & Safety legislation to be extended to protect both full and part-time criminals.
It is nought but a small step, and a hesitant one at that, but at least some Conservatives are starting to make the right noises about the BBC:
The Tories have pledged to rule nothing in and nothing out when it comes to pondering how the BBC should be financed in the future.
Culture spokesman John Whittingdale told BBC News Online that it was difficult to justify the current arrangement of the licence fee which he said faced growing public opposition.
Th irony of this being reported on the BBC news website is not lost on me but neither is the inference that the ‘growing public opposition’ is merely a Tory allegation instead of an objective fact. But even if it was a mere ‘allegation’ I am mildly encouraged that some Conservatives are prepared to level it. If this isn’t an opening shot across the bows of the hitherto inviolable shibboleth status of the BBC, then it is pretty convincing impression of one.
The Tory spokesman’s comments leaves the door open to everything from part-privatisation, subscriptions to the BBC’s digital programmes and the direct grant method.
Not exactly the kind of radicalism I have in mind but then I am not a politician and not, therefore, worried about ‘frightening the horses’ in the way that all politicans (be they Conservative or otherwise) are.
Time will tell whether the Conservatives are serious about depriving the BBC of its tax-cushion or whether the Tories infuriating paternalism is leading them to look for a less visible way to maintain the distorting state-subsidy.
But I will refrain from damning in advance and settle for some measure of satisfaction that the BBC’s reservoir of goodwill is rapidly dwindling away even among the political classes and if it is dawning on the Conservatives that we do not need ‘public service broadcasting’ then perhaps they may also realise that we don’t need ‘Culture Spokesmen’ either.
Still, given the circumstances, that is a quibble that I will reserve for another day.
I recently saw the latest instalment of the X-Men saga, named rather unambiguously X-Men 2. I rather liked the first X-Men, which was rather a surprise given that I think the history of translating comics into movies or TV is not a happy one.
Although Batman proved rather good in its first few outings, it then got progressively more dreadful… Judge Dredd was a travesty, I despised the entire Superman series, loathed Spawn, hated The Phantom and Daredevil had nothing to commend it other than the fact it had Jennifer Garner in it. Ok, The Shadow was almost rather good… almost, Tank Girl was in parts so surreal as to be fun and in other places so bad it was good, and Spiderman was really quite good indeed… but clearly the odds are that comic-based productions will prove to be turkeys.
So X-Men 2 would not have surprised me if it had been far less impressive than the first one, but that is far from the case. The excellent cast remained rock solid and the story, whilst hardly Tolstoy, was entirely adequate. Although like the first movie, Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine stole the show, it would be hard to fault anyone else’s performances. The whole thing sticks with what worked last time and adds some nice touches, such as an angst-filled German teleporting mutant who looks like the devil but turns out to be one of the good guys. And then there is the always superb Ian McKellen’s Magneto, who this time… ah, but then I don’t want to give away the whole plot.
Go see it… well worth your popcorn money.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sued four students separately last month for running services that searched computers connected to their college networks for MP3 song files. It may not be headline news material, but to me this is as scary as any other infringment on freedom of the individual. ZDNet reports that the students have agreed to pay around £10,000 each to settle online music piracy charges from the recording industry.
The service that one of the students run at Princeton university was more like Google than Napster, since it had simply searched computers that were hooked up to the campus network, whether or not they contained his software. The students also shared copyrighted music from their own machines. This case is important in that it is the first time the RIAA directly sued individuals, as opposed to companies, associated with what is called peer-to-peer piracy.
The settlement was reached without defendants admitting guilt. Each of them will be paying RIAA an amount totalling between $12,000 and $17,000 (£7,456 and £10,563), split into annual instalments between 2003 and 2006. The lawsuits as filed could have entailed damages (in theory) of up to $100m.
Matt Oppenheim, RIAA senior vice president issued a statement:
We believe it’s in everyone’s best interest to come to a quick resolution, and that these four defendants now clearly understand the seriousness with which we view this type of illegal behaviour. We have also sent a clear signal to others that this kind of activity is illegal.
According to the RIAA said that any future similar enforcement actions could lead to “stiffer settlement obligations”.
Now, I am not against copyright and intellectual property rights. I am, however, against a large entity using desperate measures to halt its falling profit margins. The music industry sales are falling not because people are copying music they ‘should be paying for’ but because the industry’s business models are no longer viable. For the RIAA to sue companies or individuals is like for an elephant to swat a few flies in the swarm. It can and will obliterate the few it hits but it can’t squash them all…
“To exist without enemies is to be a miserable jellyfish that stands for nothing.”
– Carter Laren, Capitalism Magazine
Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
– Thomas Paine, Common Sense,1776
For a measure of the institutional senile dementia that grips the British state, you need look no further than here:
Government lawyers trying to keep the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin behind bars will tell a High Court judge tomorrow that burglars are members of the public who must be protected from violent householders.
The case could help hundreds of criminals bring claims for damages for injury suffered while committing offences.
In legal papers seen by The Independent, Home Office lawyers dispute Mr Martin’s contention that he poses no risk to the public because he only represents a threat to burglars and other criminals who trespass on his property.
They say: “The suggestion … that the Parole Board was not required to assess the risk posed by Mr Martin to future burglars or intruders (on the grounds that they do not form part of the public at large) is remarkable.”
“It cannot possibly be suggested that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences, and whilst society naturally condemns, and punishes such persons judicially, it can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury.”
Whilst it should be clear from this that the lunatics have indeed taken over the asylum, the pathology at work here should be clear. Private property, far from being the bedrock upon which western liberal civilization is based, is instead seen as having no genuine value at all to those who see ‘The State’ as the axis around which all revolves and nothing whatsoever that is distinctly separate called ‘civil society’. Thus private property is seen as a distasteful aberration that does not really make any sense, at best ‘property which the state does not yet own’. Therefore to use force to defend that which has no real value is clearly unacceptable.
As the people who think that way have made sure they have a near monopoly on the means of violence and coercion, that does not bode well for… well, anyone who is not happy to just be an drone-like adjunct of the state.
The European Central Bank has said that joining the Euro would mean the end of the free NHS, reports The Times (we do not link to the Times). Apparently the April edition monthly report of the ECB said that:
Governments should distinguish between “essential, privately non-insurable and non-affordable services”, such as emergency treatment, and those where “private financing might be more efficient”.
In truth, the actual ECB report [pdf file] does not say anything quite so bluntly. The actual report is full of careful conditionals and non-assertions: “governments may have to rise contribution rates”, such co-payments could increase efficiency”, “pre-financing [of geriatric care] has been proposed” and “It has been argued that setting of budget caps…can improve overall performance”. (page 45) → Continue reading: “Euro means end of NHS”
I have only just noticed a really quite interesting and lengthy essay by Bill Whittle on Eject! Eject! Eject! called Victory:
This nation has been for many decades under direct and coordinated attack by fanatics whose failure to gain respect and attention through the force of their arguments have turned their level of rhetoric to such a shrill and hysterical pitch that years of it have seemingly driven some of them quite insane — insane to the degree that they cannot see that acid baths, state rapists, children’s prisons and daily torture and execution are not mere rhetorical flourishes — roughly equivalent to hanging chads and bulldozed Dixie Chicks CD’s — but a desperate and ever-present reality.
They did everything in their power to deny this reality, these Champions of Compassion, and Not In Their Name did these daily horrors come to an end. That is what six decades of freedom, security, tolerance and prosperity will do to some people: isolate them from the brutal reality of horror and torture to the degree that “evil” must be accompanied by sneer quotes and the motives of 300 million free and decent people are suspect while those of a small cabal of psychopathic mass murderers are not.
Whilst I think it is not a ‘coordinated’ attack and should be more realistically described as widespread but unsynchronized petulance, the toxic nature of these attitudes are no the less real for their lack of coherent direction. Bill’s essay is a lengthy but thought provoking read. Check it out.
On May 4, 1626 American Indians agreed to sell Manhattan island to European settlers for $24 in cloth & buttons. As with most free market transactions, all parties involved were satisfied with the deal: the settlers got land to homestead, the Indians received exotic manufactured goods that were beyond their ability to produce.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Recent Comments