PeerFlow

SOPA Could Destroy the Internet as We Know It —Adam Savage

Congress reconvenes in January and will take up the Internet censorship bills SOPA and PIPA again. The House only deferred SOPA because of widespread public outcry. Proponents of SOPA, funded by big corporate money, are probably just hoping opponents will be distracted by the holidays. Adam Savage reminds us why we need to be vigilant and keep flooding Congress with calls to vote down those bills or anything like them.

MythBuster Adam Savage wrote for Popular Mechanics 20 December 2011, SOPA Could Destroy the Internet as We Know It

Right now Congress is considering two bills—the Protect IP Act, and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)—that would be laughable if they weren't in fact real. Honestly, if a friend wrote these into a piece of fiction about government oversight gone amok, I'd have to tell them that they were too one-dimensional, too obviously anticonstitutional.

Make no mistake: These bills aren't simply unconstitutional, they are anticonstitutional. They would allow for the wholesale elimination of entire websites, domain names, and chunks of the DNS (the underlying structure of the whole Internet), based on nothing more than the "good faith" assertion by a single party that the website is infringing on a copyright of the complainant. The accused doesn't even have to be aware that the complaint has been made.

I'm not kidding.

He goes on to correctly compare SOPA and PIPA unfavorably to the already bad Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998. You remember, the DMCA that big copyright holders used to sue pre-teen video and audio "pirates" and to take down websites on suspicion. Savage cites a case where somebody with no copyright still got YouTube vidoes taken down under DMCA. Yes, SOPA and PIPA are even worse.

If you like YouTube, twitter, facebook, blogs, etc., it's time to speak up. Call your Senators and House members. Send them email. Write them paper letters. Petition them. Show up at their offices. Petition the White House to veto it if Congress passes it, and any other bills like it. Right now we still have the Internet to organize these things.

-jsq

Woz to FCC: Save the Internet

Wozniak to the FCC on net neutrality:

Imagine that when we started Apple we set things up so that we could charge purchasers of our computers by the number of bits they use. The personal computer revolution would have been delayed a decade or more. If I had to pay for each bit I used on my 6502 microprocessor, I would not have been able to build my own computers anyway.

He also details examples of how difficult it was to start a new service the way the telephone system used to be, how radio used to all be freely receivable, and how cable TV is mis-regulated. He summarizes his case:

I frequently speak to different types of audiences all over the country. When I'm asked my feeling on Net Neutrality I tell the open truth. When I was first asked to "sign on" with some good people interested in Net Neutrality my initial thought was that the economic system works better with tiered pricing for various customers. On the other hand, I'm a founder of the EFF and I care a lot about individuals and their own importance. Finally, the thought hit me that every time and in every way that the telecommunications careers have had power or control, we the people wind up getting screwed. Every audience that I speak this statement and phrase to bursts into applause.

Then he asks for all that not to happen to the Internet:

We have very few government agencies that the populace views as looking out for them, the people. The FCC is one of these agencies that is still wearing a white hat. Not only is current action on Net Neutrality one of the most important times ever for the FCC, it's probably the most momentous and watched action of any government agency in memorable times in terms of setting our perception of whether the government represents the wealthy powers or the average citizen, of whether the government is good or is bad. This decision is important far beyond the domain of the FCC itself.

Ain't that the truth.

-jsq

Keen on Coughlin on the Internet

I was going to say you have to admire Andrew Keen for finding a contrarian perspective and mining it for all it's worth. But this latest missive from him seems all too desperate.

Can Obama's plan for universal broadband turn the recession into a political nightmare resembling the 1930s? Yes, it can, writes the author of the controversial book, The Cult of the Amateur.

...

Imagine if today’s radically unregulated Internet, with its absence of fact checkers and editorial gatekeepers, had existed back then. Imagine that universal broadband had been available to enable the unemployed to read the latest conspiracy theories about the Great Crash on the blogosphere. Imagine the FDR-baiting, Hitler-loving Father Charles Coughlin, equipped with his “personalized” YouTube channel, able, at a click of a button, to distribute his racist message to the suffering masses. Or imagine a marketing genius like the Nazi chief propagandist Josef Goebbels managing a viral social network of anti-Semites which could coordinate local meet-ups to assault Jews and Communists.

— The Internet Is Bad For You, by Andrew Keen, 19 Dec 2008

Like we don't already have xenophobic propaganda on talk radio, Fox News, Lou Dobbs on CNN, etc. Rush Limbaugh already has his personalized TV show channel, as does Bill O'Reilly. If that's what gatekeepers bring us, bring on the Internet.

With net neutrality, please. As in what Larry Lessig says Obama plans to require:

the terms offered one website or company are no better or worse than those offered anyone else.

That way we can keep free speech on the Internet, even if it doesn't exist on TV or radio. What Keen hates most about the Internet is exactly what is its greatest strength: it is not a broadcast medium. It is a participatory medium, in which everyone can publish and everyone can select what to read or view. For example, I realize that I'm giving Keen's doleful visage a tiny amount of publicity by posting this, but hey, it's better to have weirdly wrongheaded stuff like this out there where everybody can see it and rebut it than having it festering in the darkness.

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820

On this I'll go with Jefferson rather than Keen.

-jsq

FCC: Trick or Treat! Media Consolidation

Today is November First, which is the deadline for comments on the FCC's media consolidation move. There's still no notice on the FCC web pages of a hearing on November 2.

Oh, wait! Kevin Martin held a hearing two days earlier, on Halloween instead! Without ever announcing it on the FCC web pages.

Dissident commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein appeared at a rally outside the FCC's office in Washington to object to Martin's chicanery. "Neither we nor the public received any confirmation that the hearing would occur until ... just 5 business days before the event," the commissioners said before entering the building for the hearing. "This is unacceptable and unfair to the public."

Joining Copps and Adelstein were political, labor and community leaders who condemned Martin's assault not merely on media diversity but on the basic standards for making regulatory shifts.

— No Treats for FCC Chair and Media Monopolists, John Nichols, The Nation, Wed Oct 31, 6:03 PM ET

Jesse Jackson, National Organization of Women, United Church of Christ, Future of the Media Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives; they all protested.

Martin even has the Parents Television Council against him.

Notice of a meeting only five days before to the other commissioners, and apparently none to the public? You'd think Martin didn't know how to talk to the press. Yet just a few days ago he was chatting with the New York Times about ending cable monopolies to apartments.

I wonder if he told the telcos about that Halloween meeting more than five days before? Nah, that would be corruption.

-jsq

FCC: Media Consolidation in November

Last year the FCC rushed through approval of the AT&T-Bellsouth merger at the last minute in December before the new Congress was convened in January. This year the rush is on reducing ownership of the majority of media in the U.S. from 50 owners to 5 in the past two decades wasn't enough already.

The Federal Communications Commission is responding to critics’ complaints that the agency isn’t giving them enough time to examine the scientific studies prepared for the agency’s media ownership review.

The FCC’s Media Bureau today extended the deadline for comment by three weeks, citing the request of Free Press, Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America.

Nearing the end of its examination of media ownership rules, the FCC on July 31 released 10 studies of various issues of media consolidation and indicated they could help form the basis of any rule changes. The studies included examinations of the impact of consolidation on news content, opinion, advertising and programming and also looked at minority ownership trends.

FCC Extends Deadline for Comments on Media Ownership Studies, By Ira Teinowitz, TV Week, September 28, 2007

Various groups complained, so the FCC made an extension:

The FCC said comments that were to have been filed by Oct. 1 now may be filed through Oct. 22, with responses now due by Nov. 1.

That's right: three more weeks to study an issue that will affect news, politics, government, and, well, basically everything for the indefinite future. Or, to be more specific, to study studies picked by the FCC.

Some observers are relatively confident of concessions, apparently not taking into account that some previous concessions have already fallen by the wayside:

Content Protect v. Internet Freedom

Here's another view of what the telcos and cablecos have in mind for us, or, rather, what they want in our minds: approved content. This is substantially different from the Internet freedom we have today to look at whatever we want to and to publish our own content.

Remember:

AT&T Inc. has joined Hollywood studios and recording companies in trying to keep pirated films, music and other content off its network — the first major carrier of Internet traffic to do so.

Get ready for the Amazon Channel or settle for Internet Base Service.

Dispersed Media Ownership

Here's a point that somebody needed to spell out:

The Federal Communications Commission is considering whether to reduce restrictions on broadcast-station ownership, an action that would permit greater media and press concentration.

This is a bad idea. Bad for audiences, for citizens, and for democracy. Dispersed media ownership, ideally local ownership, serves democratic values, while conglomerate ownership and media mergers, which would be the result of reduced ownership restrictions, do the opposite.

Equality — one person one vote — provides the proper standard for the distribution of power and voice in a democracy. Maximum dispersal of media ownership can enable more people to identify a media entity as in some sense speaking for and to them.

Dispersed ownership also reduces the danger of inordinate, potentially demagogic power in the public sphere. As the FCC once recognized, many owners creates more independent decision makers who can devote journalistic resources to investigative reports. Finally, dispersal reduces — without eliminating — potential conflicts of interests between journalism and an owner's economic interests.

In contrast, media mergers put papers and broadcasters into the hands of executives whose career advancement depends on maximizing profits. Mergers require owners to squeeze out more profits to pay off debt created by the high bid made to secure the purchase. As too many recent examples show, the most consistent method to reduce expenses is to fire journalists.

— Dispersed media ownership serves democratic values By C. Edwin Baker, Los Angeles Times, 10 September 2007

There's more. It's all good. And it's by a law professor who has written a book on the subject, so he appears to have researched it.

Common Sense Conversation

In case it wasn't clear why the Internet is different from traditional broadcast news media:

...news is no longer a one-way process. It is now much more of a conversation between journalist and reader. Reporters at major news organizations no longer have the omnipotent authority they once had. The news process, in a word, has been democratized. Readers feel entitled to get just the information they want, in the form they want it. They feel entitled to talk back. Slowly but surely, we reporters are beginning to accept that readers do actually have this right, and that the feedback can make us better, not worse. As the old New Yorker writer A.J. Liebling once put it, "I think democracy a most precious thing, not because any democratic state is perfect, but because it is perfectible."

— The MSM vs. the blogosphere, by Michael Scherer, War Room, Salon, 3 August 2007

A conversation? Not controled by the few big media companies that control most other media? Now that sounds dangerous doesn't it? Dangerous like Common Sense.

-jsq

Crack Google?

Cringely gets anxious over Google's floor bid for 700Mhz. After pointing out that Verizon and AT&T coming around to Kevin Martin's leaked counterproposal of watered down "open access" rules, he says:

Look who Google is up against -- all the largest Internet service providers in the U.S. Google will not win this even if they win the auction, because the telcos and cable companies are far more skilled and cunning when it comes to lobbying and controlling politicians than Google can ever hope to be. The telcos have spent more than a century at this game and Google hasn't even been in it for a decade. And Google's pockets are no deeper than those of the other potential bidders.

— Is Google on Crack?: Eric Schmidt bets the ranch on wireless spectrum, Robert X. Cringely, Pulpit, 27 July 2007

Cringely is missing the point about who Google is up against. These outfits have not been the largest ISPs for more than a century. They've been telephone companies for more than a century. And being around for a long time isn't necessarily a sure win. Look at the Vatican; it's been around for two thousand years, and it's managed to lose most of its traditional heartland of Europe. Sure, Google is fragile, in some senses even more fragile than Microsoft, as Cringely points out. But even Microsoft is losing market share from IE to an open source browser, Firefox. Google, as a proponent of open source that actually understands it, has a fair chance here. The incumbent duopoly telcos aren't really in the Internet business; Google is.

Maybe Cringely's right that Google alone couldn't win the auction. But Google and Sprint possibly could. Sure, Sprint is a phone company, too. But that doesn't mean it's going to side with the rest if it scents profit. Maybe with a little help from Apple.

Let's hope that's what Google is really up to, rather than expecting to get Martin to change the rules and then wait for AT&T to deliver another striped bass.

I also don't think Cringely is taking into account the stakes here.

Internet Radio: DRM Air

Previously we saw a last-minute reprieve for Internet Radio. I read SoundExchange's press release, but I didn't catch this:

Under the new proposal, to be implemented by remand to the CRJs, SoundExchange has offered to cap the $500 per channel minimum fee at $50,000 per year for webcasters who agree to provide more detailed reporting of the music that they play and work to stop users from engaging in "streamripping" ­ turning Internet radio performances into a digital music library.

— SoundExchange Confirms Minimum Fee Offer: Reminds Commercial Webcasters of Obligations to Pay New Royalty Rates, Press Release, SoundExchange, 13 July 2007

Alan Wexelblat explains that part about "streamripping":

So it's that simple. Become our agents in preventing people from recording Web radio streams or face the financial axe.

— When is a Reprieve Not a Reprieve, by Alan Wexelblat , Copyfight, July 19, 2007

Internet Radio: Live Air?

Sunday was when Internet radio was supposed to turn into dead air, after even an emergency court hearing had failed. However, during a Congressional hearing Friday,

...Jon Simson, director of SoundExchange – the label-affiliated organization responsible for setting royalty rates – told Congress that the group would not enforce the new royalty rates and would continue to work on negotiating new rates with the Digital Media Association (DiMA), who are acting on behalf of webcasters. “This is definitely a step in the right direction,” Pandora founder Tim Westergren, told us this morning. “At this point, provided there’s good-faith negotiations, they’re not going to go after people.”

— Public Outcry Staves Off Destruction of Internet Radio, Evan Serpick, Rock & Roll Daily, Rolling Stone, 7/13/07, 12:54 pm EST

Is this any way to run a regulatorium? All the regulatory bodies stonewalling, the courts not listening, and only one man deciding not to proceed?

Global Media Consolidation

In case you thought media ownership in increasingly fewer hands was a uniquely U.S. problem, here's a handy graphic illustrating its worldwide scope. There are links to the research behind it.

-jsq

FTC: What, Me Worry?

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) says there's no need for net neutrality:

FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras said that without evidence of "market failure or demonstrated consumer harm, policy makers should be particularly hesitant to enact new regulation in this area."

So in a "market" where the average customer has at most two choices, we're supposed to wait for a market failure?

Something the Customers Wanted

Sometimes not listening to customers can be fatal to an industry:

While there are factors outside of the labels' control -- from the rise of the Internet to the popularity of video games and DVDs -- many in the industry see the last seven years as a series of botched opportunities. And among the biggest, they say, was the labels' failure to address online piracy at the beginning by making peace with the first file-sharing service, Napster. "They left billions and billions of dollars on the table by suing Napster -- that was the moment that the labels killed themselves," says Jeff Kwatinetz, CEO of management company the Firm. "The record business had an unbelievable opportunity there. They were all using the same service. It was as if everybody was listening to the same radio station. Then Napster shut down, and all those 30 or 40 million people went to other [file-sharing services]."

— The Record Industry's Decline, Record sales are tanking, and there's no hope in sight: How it all went wrong, by Brian Hiatt and Evan Serpick, Rolling Stone, Posted Jun 19, 2007 2:29 PM

How close were they?

Dead Air

Today is the Day of Silence for Internet Radio:

If you’re accustomed to listening to streaming Internet radio or streaming music services such as Pandora, you may be surprised to discover that when you tune into your favorite streams today you’re greeted with silence. Many Internet broadcasters—including Yahoo!, Rhapsody, Live365 stations, MTV Online, AccuRadio, and KCRW (a popular public radio station in Santa Monica, CA)—have gone silent today in a Day of Silence protest over a change in the way they’ll be charged for their services. This change, which will levy fees based on the number of listeners tuned into a particular song rather than on a percent of the broadcaster’s revenue (as was the model in the past), will likely put most Internet broadcasters out of business.

— Day of Silence, By Christopher Breen, Playlist, 26 June 2007

It's sad that the music industry as we previously knew it is dying, but nuking Internet distribution of music isn't going to solve that problem, which the record industry largely brought on itself.

Media Ownership

While we're on the general subject of postal and Internet rates and a free press,, let's look at who owns the U.S. media:

In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. ... When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation.

In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.

— Number of corporations that control a majority of U.S. media, Media Reform Information Center, accessed 21 June 2007

This might be worth remembering the next time you hear that the market will sort out any problems and there's no need for regulation. Would that there were a market so that that could be true.

-jsq

Postal Radio?

What's the point of a free press if it can't be delivered?

To the surprise of many independent publishers, in February the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), the body in charge of determining postal rates, rejected a rate-hike plan that was submitted by the U.S. Postal Service, the people in the business of delivering the mail for the past 215 years. This plan was widely understood to call for an approximate 12 percent increase that would have hit all publications more or less equally.

Instead the PRC adopted a revised version of an extremely complicated proposal submitted by media conglomerate Time Warner that included a number of possible discounts favoring the largest publishers.

— Postal Rates = Free Press, Rate hike pushed by media conglomerate Time Warner threaten small and medium-circulation publications, By Robert W. McChesney, In These Times May 17, 2007

Why Time Warner?

Not Virtual

John Robb quotes an Estonian on a basic point:

"This is not some virtual world. This is part of our independence. And these attacks were an attempt to take one country back to the cave, back to the Stone Age."
Linnar Viik, an Estonian government IT consultant to the Washington Post.

Internet Systems Disruption, John Robb, Global Guerrillas, 21 May 2007

A society is its communications, and increasingly the Internet is the matrix of those communications. Such communications are virtual only in the same sense that society is virtual. And it doesn't take an attack by a foreign power to disrupt those communications. Too few ISP owners can reduce participatory communications to limited broadcast, just as has already happened in radio.

-jsq

FCC and Wireless Broadband

As we've seen, the FCC is trying to decide what to do with some 700Mhz commercial spectrum. Now we hear that:

The upcoming auction of wireless spectrum in the 700MHz band presents an opportunity for wireless technology to be a third broadband pipe beyond just DSL and cable Internet, Martin said.

&mdash FCC chairman champions wireless broadband access, Upcoming spectrum auction viewed as opportunity, By Paul Krill, InfoWorld, May 03, 2007

FCC Chair Kevin Martin said this at Microsoft offices in Mountain View, CA. One has to wonder why he's announcing a purported competition measure at the offices of the world's most famous monopoly. But nevermind that.

RIAA, Radio Star

As we've seen, RIAA has been pushing for Internet Radio DRM, limitations to the Fair Use Act, and apparently elimination of Internet radio. This may seem counter-productive. Doesn't the Recording Industry Association of America want to promote its recording artists? And isn't radio a traditional way of doing that? And doesn't Internet radio provide even wider reach of marketing for RIAA's artists' products?

Well, not really:

The answer is sales. The RIAA isn't pushing for every artist, it's pushing a few select products. One star selling a million records is worth a lot more than one hundred stars selling ten thousand records each, even if the end numbers seem to tally up the same.

— Can you hear me now? by Brett Thomas, bit-tech.net, Published: 21st April 2007

In other words, apparently RIAA is pushing the fat head and doesn't care about the long tail; much less about participation.

Internet Slacker

Previously I wrote: “If you happened to be a corporation that recognized market demand when you saw it, you'd find a way to promote and capitalize on emergent global Internet dissemination of music and politics.” Maybe something like Slacker:

At the SXSW festival in Austin, Texas today, Broadband Instruments launched the potentially disruptive "Slacker" music ecosystem, which combines interactive webcasts, satellite radio, and traditional MP3 playback in a next-generation device that could make Apple's iPod – and even its upcoming iPhone -- look, well, a little unconnected.

— Slacker Steals the Show at SXSW, Eliot Van Buskirk Wired Blogs: Listening Post, Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Hype? Maybe. But notice iPod and iPhone are the benchmarks, not Hollywood or ClearChannel or AT&T or cable TV.

The Internet is their CBGB

If you happened to be a corporation depending on centralized mass media for your livelihood, this might be what you fear:

...one who has loved rock ’n’ roll and crawled from the ranks to the stage, to salute history and plant seeds for the erratic magic landscape of the new guard.

Because its members will be the guardians of our cultural voice. The Internet is their CBGB. Their territory is global. They will dictate how they want to create and disseminate their work. They will, in time, make breathless changes in our political process. They have the technology to unite and create a new party, to be vigilant in their choice of candidates, unfettered by corporate pressure. Their potential power to form and reform is unprecedented.

— Ain’t It Strange? By PATTI SMITH, Op-Ed Contributor, New York Times, Published: March 12, 2007

If you happened to be a corporation that recognized market demand when you saw it, you'd find a way to promote and capitalize on emergent global Internet dissemination of music and politics.

We're talking the Reformation here. Do you want to continue selling indulgences and suppressing Galileo, or do you want to be in the middle of a new information revolution?

-jsq

Internet Radio Priced out of Its Market

Internet radio is an increasingly popular service, providing both online feeds of on-air radio stations and eclectic Internet-only services. Internet radio was operating under the Small Webcasters Settlement Act of 2002. On March 7, 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board released new rates. Rates that will end up with the average Internet radio station paying more than it makes in revenue. And the rates increase annually through 2010. Ah, yes, plus retroactive collection for 2006.

Regarding how radio back in the 1920s used to be so cheap and popular that people would run up a mast in the backyard and sgtart broadcasting, I wrote “The trick used with radio of allocating spectrum won't work for the Internet.” That was the trick that closed down most radio and left that medium to a few big mass media. There's always another trick, though, and copyright may work for Internet radio.

This isn't strictly about net neutrality, because it's not ISPs that are effectively shutting down Internet radio. This whittling away at services will happen much faster without net neutrality, however.

-jsq

Exogenous Technological Change

Here's a good backgrounder video on where the Internet came from and where it may be going: Humanity Lobotomy. See especially the part by Larry Lessig about how printing presses in the early days cost about $10,000 in 2007 dollars, and lots of people had one and published books and pamphlets.

What did the telephone companies have to do with inventing the Internet?
Nothing.
The browser?
Nothing.
The World Wide Web?
Nothing.
What have they had to do with the Internet from the beginning of time?
Nothing.

--Bob Kahn

What did they invent?