Are we a nation of individual creatures, or are we a nation of business interests? Clearly, we can look at our country from either perspective; and the perspective we take will influence our assessment of how well those interests are being championed and asserted. But just because we can look at this topic through the example of individual Vs business (or Collective), does that mean that there really are two "sides" ?
We could look at this pair of national interests and be tempted to see two separate camps at war and in polar opposition to one another. And certainly, there are many examples of individuals who are completely in one camp or another; but these extreme examples are popularized in the media because they allow the bulk of us to maintain the fiction that we are in one of these two camps as well. I would suggest that we are all beneficiaries of this fiction; that we enjoy the benefits of both individual freedoms, and the fruits of large scale, managed cooperative enterprises. However, we insulate our conscience with this polarized fiction, so as to both create a Bug-a-boo to relieve us of blame, and create a target for this guilt.
We have a long history of "piracy" in the sense used for online appropriation of intellectual property; many similar issues have cropped up over the long history of commerce. While it is irritating, the appropriation of "intellectual property" is a fact of life; it is endemic to the model. Fundamental; one could even refer to it as a basic principle, something formulated like "Successful products will be copied; production will occur outside of legitimate owners control in proportion to the demand for the item in question; measures taken to limit such appropriation will be unsuccessful.
I base my conclusion on historic precedents like the copyright laws of the late middle ages protecting cloth patterns, and the chinese laws attempting to stem the tide of opium. Time and time again, draconian measures taken to stop some undesired activity fail in their stated aim. People will alter their approach when the risks change, but they will never simply pack it in and give up. People are evolved to game systems - we can't help ourselves. Open, legal market measures will never curb black market activities. In the best case, such measures drive the wheels of evolution, forcing the development of better, more efficient, or more refined black market product.
So, we do not ever arrive at the cessation or significant curtailment of the undesired activity; do we enjoy any benefit from censorship? Well, a number of individuals will certainly get some measure of satisfaction from the legal penalties inflicted on a small number of consumers caught in the act; but again, these penalties will not effect the behavior of others to any significant extent. This is where I see the real intent of the Protect IP Act: the only real effect it can have is to allow the blacklisting of online sites without oversight or review by the public.
We have been exposed to a constant stream of incidents in which members of our government have been caught using the system and its laws to hide a wide array of wrongs and crimes. The abuse of government authority is too great a risk - too realistic and likely a threat - to allow them to interfere with distribution of information on the internet. Time and time again, we have been shown that we cannot trust the government to rationally and honorably exercise powers such as the censorship
No comments:
Post a Comment