5 ms·

Analogies with the past are not a good guide. The internet is nothing like the previous broadcast/communication mediums. Imho, we don't need to look back into t

Analogies with the past are not a good guide. The internet is nothing like the previous broadcast/communication mediums. Imho, we don't need to look back into the old practices to create the laws of the digital realm. This is uncharted territory . People need to step back, look at the broader picture and figure out the new laws that will allow having a functioning economy in the online world. In the process, the current content industry will have to die, sorry

dwc 16y ago
The partial truth of this leads to some major fallacies. There are some things that good techies understand, like abstraction, that lead to more general solutions. Laws on the books tend to be tied very closely with specific implementations. Here's an example that's been with us for a long time: junk fax laws v. spam emails. Junk faxes and spam are essentially the same problem, but with different coefficients in the equation. What spam is not is a whole new problem never before encountered, requiring novel and special legislation. By treating each technological innovation as completely unique, each "solution" takes a NIH approach. This also provides a yet another venue for special interest groups (MPAA, RIAA, et al) to advocate their agendas on every new issue even though the core ideas have already been explored. Yes, the internet has given us true revolutions and more will come. But not every issue is a unique special case, but rather many are new twists on old themes.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  Good point and rundown of the situation but I'd say the expectation of a new approach to law appearing will only be fallacious if we let it be by accepting the way things are going. Laws on the books tend to be tied very closely with specific implementations. Yes, the law as it currently exist is based on being able to preserve "differences that don't make a difference". It's developed incrementally, inductively and by analogy. The phenomena of generic information, of information that isn't tied to a physical manifestation, is anathema to the whole English Common Law tradition, the basis of our system of laws. Is a string of bits a song? a device for circumventing security? Hate Speech? Protected Speech? The law as it exists needs to answer this and yet can't answer this because the law needs a context and the free flow of information implies there no set context. And so the legal system is going to be either be further and further removed from reality or institute an entirely totalitarian system to maintain its expectations. Because generic information really doesn't consist of a series of "new devices" and "new contexts" but rather is a single, abstract and indivisible process; either every unique string of bits is free or it has an owner - which is it?
uxp 16y ago
You are correct when you say that the internet is uncharted territory, but if you look at things on the internet (protocols like smtp, http and ftp for example) they all are abstract representations of pre-existing analog or organic items that developed countries have been using for decades if not centuries. smtp is traditional mail. ftp is FedEx or UPS to transfer larger items. http is also like traditional mail or mass mailing catalogs. The lines between these examples are somewhat blurry, but I hope you get the idea. There is no reason to throw out the kitchen sink and start over because the medium of communication has changed over the past 30 years. Adapting old laws is perfectly reasonable, it just needs to be done by lawmakers that are informed as to how the internet actually works.
- ignifero 16y ago
  Yet sometimes the medium defines the message. Until the 19th century, you would pay to watch a theatrical or listen to live music because it was the only fair price available. When you wanted a picture of yourself, you had to pay Renoir to make an original portrait. The 20th century brought us the selling of copies. That was a weird mixture - you paid for the vinyl disc , or the print poster, but you knew the price was not the price of the material alone. I think the digital world provides so much opportunity to create original content, that we no more need copies. I like how economies arise in digital worlds that are based on original content or services, like online game worlds, virtual goods, software-as-a-service and web site design. I believe slowly but surely we 'll get over the economy of copies. It's like going back to pre-19th century really, but in a good way. Not arguing my case strongly here, it's just a certain point of view (after all it's Saturday) p.s. i dont really believe SMTP,FTP,or HTTP were based on the real world ontology. they were engineered out of necessity
  - anamax 16y ago
    > Until the 19th century, you would pay to watch a theatrical or listen to live music because it was the only fair price available. Actually, no. Locals often performed for free. It was part of the whole community thing. > you wanted a picture of yourself, you had to pay Renoir to make an original portrait. Or, you did it yourself. Or your a member of your family or a neighbor did it. Drawing used to done by far more people.
angrycoder 16y ago
Uncharted territory? We have been charting this for the past twenty years.
- ignifero 16y ago
  that's the sad part

dwc 16y ago

The partial truth of this leads to some major fallacies. There are some things that good techies understand, like abstraction, that lead to more general solutions. Laws on the books tend to be tied very closely with specific implementations. Here's an example that's been with us for a long time: junk fax laws v. spam emails. Junk faxes and spam are essentially the same problem, but with different coefficients in the equation. What spam is not is a whole new problem never before encountered, requiring novel and special legislation. By treating each technological innovation as completely unique, each "solution" takes a NIH approach. This also provides a yet another venue for special interest groups (MPAA, RIAA, et al) to advocate their agendas on every new issue even though the core ideas have already been explored. Yes, the internet has given us true revolutions and more will come. But not every issue is a unique special case, but rather many are new twists on old themes.

joe_the_user 16y ago
Good point and rundown of the situation but I'd say the expectation of a new approach to law appearing will only be fallacious if we let it be by accepting the way things are going. Laws on the books tend to be tied very closely with specific implementations. Yes, the law as it currently exist is based on being able to preserve "differences that don't make a difference". It's developed incrementally, inductively and by analogy. The phenomena of generic information, of information that isn't tied to a physical manifestation, is anathema to the whole English Common Law tradition, the basis of our system of laws. Is a string of bits a song? a device for circumventing security? Hate Speech? Protected Speech? The law as it exists needs to answer this and yet can't answer this because the law needs a context and the free flow of information implies there no set context. And so the legal system is going to be either be further and further removed from reality or institute an entirely totalitarian system to maintain its expectations. Because generic information really doesn't consist of a series of "new devices" and "new contexts" but rather is a single, abstract and indivisible process; either every unique string of bits is free or it has an owner - which is it?

uxp 16y ago

You are correct when you say that the internet is uncharted territory, but if you look at things on the internet (protocols like smtp, http and ftp for example) they all are abstract representations of pre-existing analog or organic items that developed countries have been using for decades if not centuries. smtp is traditional mail. ftp is FedEx or UPS to transfer larger items. http is also like traditional mail or mass mailing catalogs. The lines between these examples are somewhat blurry, but I hope you get the idea. There is no reason to throw out the kitchen sink and start over because the medium of communication has changed over the past 30 years. Adapting old laws is perfectly reasonable, it just needs to be done by lawmakers that are informed as to how the internet actually works.

ignifero 16y ago
Yet sometimes the medium defines the message. Until the 19th century, you would pay to watch a theatrical or listen to live music because it was the only fair price available. When you wanted a picture of yourself, you had to pay Renoir to make an original portrait. The 20th century brought us the selling of copies. That was a weird mixture - you paid for the vinyl disc , or the print poster, but you knew the price was not the price of the material alone. I think the digital world provides so much opportunity to create original content, that we no more need copies. I like how economies arise in digital worlds that are based on original content or services, like online game worlds, virtual goods, software-as-a-service and web site design. I believe slowly but surely we 'll get over the economy of copies. It's like going back to pre-19th century really, but in a good way. Not arguing my case strongly here, it's just a certain point of view (after all it's Saturday) p.s. i dont really believe SMTP,FTP,or HTTP were based on the real world ontology. they were engineered out of necessity
- anamax 16y ago
  > Until the 19th century, you would pay to watch a theatrical or listen to live music because it was the only fair price available. Actually, no. Locals often performed for free. It was part of the whole community thing. > you wanted a picture of yourself, you had to pay Renoir to make an original portrait. Or, you did it yourself. Or your a member of your family or a neighbor did it. Drawing used to done by far more people.

angrycoder 16y ago

Uncharted territory? We have been charting this for the past twenty years.

ignifero 16y ago
that's the sad part