Here’s my bumpersticker for structurally separating the Internet carriers, so that those who provide access to the bits do not also sell us content and services:

This is the only way we’ll really get Net neutrality. As it stands, the business model – the existence – of the companies providing Internet access demands that they give preference to their own content and services over those of their competitors. They therefore have a business imperative to turn the open Internet into something much more like cable TV. (See Susan Crawford and David Isenberg.)

As for my slogan? Yes, it’s the Worst. Bumpersticker. Ever. [Tags: fcc net_neutrality ]

Tim Karr reports on progress in keeping some of the 700mH swath of spectrum open for innovation by you, me, and that really smart kid next door.

5 Comments »

Joe Andrieu has an excellent post explaining Doc‘s Vendor Relationship Management meme (vrm blog). Provocative in the best sense: Stimulating lots of thoughts and questions. For instance, how does VRM (or Joe’s vision of it) differ from federated identity schemes in which the user has control over her personal info? [Tags: vrm joe_andrieu doc_searls id ]

2 Comments »

AT&T is going to start policing its network to prevent the distribution of materials it considers to violate copyright. (Um, Fair Use?) It’s doing this so it can strike special deals with content companies to offer their products exclusively.

Putting a cop in the middle of the network and making available content not accessible by other networks means that if the AT&T says it’s offering Internet connectivity, it’s lying. The Internet is a set of protocols that ensure that bits will be moved across networks (inter-networking) without giving special privileges or control to the carriers.

And forget the definitional violation. This is a big step toward turning the Internet into cable TV — a proprietary network that makes money by selling its users content. [Tags: net_neutrality att berkman copyright copyleft digital_rights]

7 Comments »

Dan Gillmor points to public.resource.org, a nonprofit that encourages us to buy info from government archives and then upload it to the Internet Archive, where all can find these uncopyrighted materials for free.

Putting the public domain into the public domain. As Dan says, how subversive! [Tags: public_domain copyright internet_archive public_resource dan_gillmor everything_is_miscellaneous]

2 Comments »

I’m at The Berkman Center’s Internet and Society Conference (“Knowledge beyond Authority”). Yesterday was an an invitation-only day for about 100 people. Today is a public conference:

Stream: http://www.law.harvard.edu/media/2007/06/01/berkman.rm

Second Life

IRC: irc.freenode.net/berkman

I found portions of yesterday’s meetings a little frustrating. It was a fantastic set of people, from all over Harvard, other universities, non-profits, open access folks, and representatives of the content industries (journal publishers, entertainment industry). There were many great discussions, but with some I think I’m just out of step with the times. I thought we spent too much time trying to find “common ground” with the content industries. Especially the Hollywood folks seemed to think common ground means a tit for a tat: We turn in file sharers and they let us have more access to their copyrighted content for educational purposes. I hate that deal. Whatever you think of file sharing, it should not be tied to the ability of the university to advance knowledge, research and education. We might as well be talking about giving away the stadium’s naming rights in return for more academic freedom.

That sounds good, but in fact it’s obstructionist. In fact, at one point I was so exercised about this that I behaved badly. And not in the cute or righteous way. More in the rude asshole way. I feel terrible about that, and have apologized to the person I was rude to. I really don’t like the self-righteous me. And it gets in the way of thought.

Charlie Nesson , the conference creator, has inspired me with the idea that the university can be the leading defender of the Internet and of the needed expansion intellectual rights. I’m not ready to be realistic. And that’s a problem.

Mary Wong is opening the conference (after Charles Ogletree ‘s welcome … subbing for Charlie Nesson who is in the hospital having something fixed (he’ll be fine)). She says the discussions yesterday focused not only on the challenges around universities using licensed material, but also around the licensing and commercialization of material generated by the university. She says there was a lot of discussion of the vagueness of Fair Use. Is there anything we can do to clarify it? And if we did, would that new understanding, intended as a floor, get taken as the ceiling, thus actually limiting Fair Use in practice?

[Tags: berkman harvard a2k copyright copyleft digital_rights education is2k7]

2 Comments »

I’m really excited about this, so pardon me if I run the press release from the Edwards campaign:

EDWARDS CALLS ON FCC TO MAKE INTERNET MORE AVAILABLE AND AFFORDABLE

Mountain View, California – Today, Senator John Edwards sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to use the upcoming auction of the 700 megahertz slice of the broadband spectrum to make the Internet more affordable and more accessible to all Americans, regardless of where they live or how much money they have. Edwards is visiting California today to attend a town hall meeting with Google employees where he will discuss this issue among others.

“In recent years, the Internet has grown to touch everything and transform much of what it touches,” wrote Edwards. “It’s not the answer to everything, but it can powerfully accelerate the best of America. It improves our democracy by making quiet voices loud, improves our economy by making small markets big, and improves opportunity by making unlikely dreams possible.”

Edwards called on the FCC to set bidding and service rules for the upcoming auction to ensure that the public airwaves benefit everyone, not just big companies. Edwards asked the FCC to:

· Set aside as much as half of the spectrum for wholesalers who can lease access to smaller start-ups, which would improve service in rural and underserved areas.

· Require anyone who wins rights to this valuable public resource not to discriminate among data and services and to allow any device to be attached to their service.

· Make bidding anonymous to avoid collusion and retaliatory bids.

The full text of the letter is below.

Dear Chairman Martin:

The upcoming 700 megahertz spectrum auction presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to shape the next generation of American technology.

In recent years, the Internet has grown to touch everything and transform much of what it touches. It’s not the answer to everything, but it can powerfully accelerate the best of America. It improves our democracy by making quiet voices loud, improves our economy by making small markets big, and improves opportunity by making unlikely dreams possible.

As you know, the Federal Communications Commission is now preparing to auction the 700 megahertz slice of the spectrum. This “beachfront” band is particularly well suited to wireless broadband because it has wide coverage and can easily pass through walls.

By setting bid and service rules that unleash the potential of smaller new entrants, you can transform information opportunity for people across America — rural and urban, wealthy and not. As much as half of the spectrum should be set aside for wholesalers who can lease access to smaller start-ups, which has the potential to improve service to rural and underserved areas. Additionally, anyone winning rights to this valuable public resource should be required not to discriminate among data and services and to allow any device to be attached to their service. Finally, bidding should be anonymous to avoid collusion and retaliatory bids.

I urge you to seize this chance to transform the Internet and the future.

Sincerely,

John Edwards

The 700 megahertz slice is coming available because analog TV is being moved off of it. The incumbent carriers would like to scarf it up. But even with a requirement that the winners of the auction build the network out to rural and poor areas, the carriers have shown they will drag their feet forever. In fact, the FCC’s use-it-or-lose-it proposal could (as far as I understand it, and I may not) delay delivery to those areas as they are stripped from the carriers and then re-auctioned. We need to get this right the first time. Our best hope, imo, is to enable local businesses to make decent profits by providing Net access to their local rural and poor areas. And to do that, we should make big hunks of 700 mH spectrum available to wholesalers who provide spectrum to hungry smaller carriers. (See the Frontline plan.)

This band is not the final answer. But it’s an opportunity to get some more of the public airwaves working for the public good.

(Disclosure: I am a volunteer advisor to the Edwards campaign. I was involved in the discussions of this issue.) [Tags: john_edwards spectrum net_neutrality fcc internet ]

Here’s Harold Feld’s take. Harold knows this stuff inside out.

2 Comments »

Tom Matrullo’s got a helpful post about opening up JSTOR, a digitized archive of scholarlship. Tom registers “puzzlement that anyone would take all sorts of pains to firewall knowledge — knowledge mainly produced by scholars at not-for-profit institutions of higher learning devoted to bringing light into our world.”

Damn right it’s frustrating. And there’s lot’s going on trying to free the knowledge. On the one hand, we have the economic hurdles, which Tom’s post explains. On the other, we have at least a sense of how much smarter our species could become if enabled open acess to scholarship. Someday…

(Thanks to Frank Paynter for the pointer.) [Tags: open_access knowledge universities tom_matrullo berkman jstor everything_is_miscellaneous]

Be the first to comment »

Viacom sends YouTube a list of 100,000 videos that Viacom claims violate copyright, and under the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, YouTube has no practical choice except to take them down. Viacom did not look at all 100,000. Some certainly did not violate copyright. For this violation of First Amendment free speech rights, Viacom was penalized, um, wait, let me get out my calculator…yeah, nothing.

We need to stop giving the world’s Viacoms business incentives for violating our right to speak freely.

So, let me get a little more precise. The DMCA says that if Viacom sends a notice to YouTube that Carla’s “I love Jon Stewart” video violates copyright, YouTube can either take the video down, or leave it up and risk being held liable for copyright infringement. (Viacom need not offer any evidence.) So, of course YouTube takes it down. Carla gets a notification of this. If she files a counter-notification, YouTube has to put the video back up. (Carla can go to ChillingEffects.org to find an online form she can fill in to file her counter-notification.) Viacom thus has no reason not to sweep wide in its takedown demands.

The DMCA does have a provision (17 U.S.C. Section 512(f)) for filing false takedown notices or counter-notices:

(f) Misrepresentations.- Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section-

(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,

shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

Carla could therefore sue Viacom, but since the damage done to her by having her video unavailable for a couple of days is negligible, it’s not worth it to her.

But the damage done to free speech by giving over-lawyered corporations license to take down free expressions of ideas without even viewing them is considerable.

So, why don’t we ask Congress to make the penalties for violating the First Amendment rights of citizens as painful as the penalties for sharing an mp3 of Metallica’s “Don’t Tread on Me”?

Here are the penalties for violating copyright (as paraphrased in an email from Wendy Seltzer):

Statutory damages for copyright infringement range up to $150,000 per copyrighted work. The statute gives three ranges, $750-30,000 for ordinary infringement; up to $150,000 for willful infringement, and down to $200 for “innocent” infringement where the work was unmarked with copyright notice and the person had no reason to know his activity infringed. [source]

None of these quite cover the Viacom case, which is more like reckless infringement than innocent infringement; Viacom had to know it would catch some non-violating videos in its algorithmic sweep. So, we could do something like $150,000 for the first false takedown (since the company was willing to violate free speech) and $750 for each subsequent false takedown on the list.

Ouch? I hope so. Protecting free speech ought to be at least as important as protecting the rights of copyright holders.

[Tags: copyright dmca copyleft youtube viacom digital_rights everything_is_miscellaneous]

Cory Doctorow points out in an email that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (did you remember to join?) has been suing over bogus takedowns, and the courts have been awarding damages and fees. This, Cory points out, lays the groundwork for lawyers to take these cases on a contingency basis, making them feasible for people without a lot of resources.

Way to go, EFF! But I’d like to see the law acknowledge that infringing free speech is at least as bad as infringing copyright. Establishing statutory penalties such as those for copyright infringement would make that point at least symbolically.

7 Comments »

Loic Le Meur has posted his thoughts about his involvement as an Internet advisor to the Sarkozy campaign. Very interesting.

Now, Loic writes, “I am back to business focusing on my next startup.” Too bad Sarkozy hasn’t snapped him up to advise him on Internet policy, because from what I saw of the new French president at Loic’s Le Web 3, we need someone to protect the Web from Sarkozy’s comfort with “Internet regulation.” The good news is that Sarkozy, like most politicians, seems genuinely not to understand the Net — his Le Web presentation said many good-sounding things, some of which contradicted others — which is an opportunity for someone like Loic to explain it to him…

[Tags: loic_le_meur loic sarkozy internet_regulation france]

2 Comments »

Wired has just posted the first in the Everything Is Miscellaneous series of podcast interviews I’ve done on the topics in my book (which, by the way, was officially published today). The series is co-sponsored by the Berkman Center. (A transcript is also posted.)

The first is with Cory Doctorow, who talks about his Metacrap article about the problems with explicit metadata. I think they’ll be posting one a week at the Wired business blog.

Coming up in the: Arianna Huffington of HuffingtonPost, Craig Newmark of CraigsList, astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson, Kayak’s Paul English, the BBC’s Richard Sambrook, Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia, and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of the DailyKos. [Tags: podcasts cory_doctorow everything_is_miscellaneous berkman wired metadata metacrap]

1 Comment »