 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
 |
Home • ThinkDifferentStore • MacBoards • Advertising • RSS Syndication • Newsletter • Contact | |
|
|
|
|
|
November 25, 2002
"I have never been able to conceive how any rational
being could propose happiness to himself from the exercise
of power over others."
--Thomas Jefferson
Recently, I wrote an essay at OSXFAQ.com entitled "The Art of Using Science and Technology for Evil." Initially, I received encouraging feedback from the regular readers. Later, as word of my essay circulated, I started receiving some very interesting e-mail from a new and different group of readers. And while the feedback was also intelligent and polite, it certainly seemed to suggest that I was on the wrong side of the Digital Rights Management (DRM) issue and sincerely pleaded for me to reconsider. This furor was reflected in a rebuttal by Charles W. Moore here at Applelinks.
At first, I thought I would just write an e-mail explaining my position. Then I realized, from reading the e-mail, that the arguments have become fuzzy and that there is much more to be said on the issue. So, I'll divert from the SciFi theme at Quantum Threads temporarily to provide my response.*
The most important thing to say, off the top, is that I have a great deal of respect for my friend Charles W. Moore. As he mentioned in his rebuttal, we have been colleagues at several different Websites throughout the years and we are currently colleagues at Applelinks. To the extent that he and others felt the need to provide a rebuttal to my essay, it is solely my fault for not making my position clearer. So before I get into the additional ideas, I want to state what I do and do not believe.
What I do believe.
• I believe that the doctrine of Fair Use should be reinforced according to the thinking of Rep. Rick Boucher. He is sponsoring the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA, H.R. 5544) which I support.
• I believe, in accordance with a fair implementation of copyright and Fair Use, that if you pay for music, you should be entitled to enjoy that music for personal use on all your computers, your iPod, in your car, and so on. The same for movies. You should be able to mix and match media that have been purchased and burn new CDs and DVDs.
• I believe that some studio executives are not honorably compensating their artists.**
What I do NOT believe.
• I do not believe that it is honorable to purchase music or a movie, rip it, and post it on public servers for all comers to download.
• I do not believe that customers have the right to steal digital media in this manner, by mutual consent with others on the Internet, and rationalize it by saying that studio executives are crooked and greedy.
• I do not believe that customers have digital "entertainment" rights in the same manner and status that they have constitutional rights.
Brainwashing Techniques
So now I have clearly stated what I believe. I think that some of my readers assumed that because I have taken a stand on the specific act of uploading music to public servers that I do not support the Fair Use doctrine. But if you read what I wrote carefully, you'll see that that's exactly what I said I do support.
A few other readers have questioned my analogy with Al Qaeda. But this is exactly what I intended for a literary reason - not to insult. There is a method of brainwashing that goes like this:
If you can erect a straw man set of rights, rights to which you think you are entitled by virtue of some perceived injury, rights that you can rationalize by suppressing core values and emphasizing more volatile, emotional and immediate values, then, by consequence, all manner of force is justified to procure and maintain those rights.
This is exactly the kind of manipulation that is used to recruit terrorists. It is how SLA fanatics were able to brainwash Patty Hearst. It is the essence of what a Palestinian spokesman said in response to the bombing last week of an Israeli school bus filled with children: "We are fighting for our freedom." It is exactly how an American soldier would be manipulated if he were captured by Baghdad or Pyongyang (or Hanoi in a previous war):
"When you bombed that mosque (that had a Smallpox lab in the basement), you killed an innocent child. You are a criminal. If you don't go on TV and apologize to the world for your crime, we'll be forced to execute you."
In the previous article, I alluded to that type of thinking when I suggested that there are people who spend more time hating Americans than building their own society. Violence is justified in this manner of thinking, and it is the seed of war. It is the same type of thinking that leads people who steal music to seek to destroy a company because they have a "holy" agenda, then ignore the law, and turn to technological violence instead of building someting positive with their computer.
What I find particularly amusing is that some readers have suggested that the theft of music is analogous to an act of civil disobedience. I consider that nonsense. This is merely a mind set designed to rationalize dishonorable behavior. (More on this below.) As I said, the unrestricted sharing of music publicly is merely the undisciplined use of technology for fun and profit. Lives and freedom are not at stake. There is no risk and no heroism here. Just greed.
The Unabated Use of Technical Force
During the time I was reading some of my e-mail on this subject, I was watching a rerun of a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode titled "Hide and Q". In that first season episode, Q tries to seduce Commander Riker into accepting the gift of the power of the Q continuum. Riker was almost seduced, but fell into a trap, set by Capt. Picard, of granting everyone on the bridge their fondest wish. Wesley Crusher to become an adult and a Starfleet officer. Data to become human. Worf his perfect mate. But they all turned down Riker's proposed gift.
Wesley Crusher: "I want to get there on my own."
Data: "I never wanted to replace one illusion with another."
Riker came to realize that absolute power confers no personal growth, no wisdom, no compassion, and no discipline. That's why, after all, Q is pompous, arrogant and insufferable. Riker turned down the gift.
That first airing was November, 1987.
Fast forward to today. At the very same time I was writing my column, Bob Cringely at PBS.org was writing his own version of the same idea regarding Everquest. It turns out that there is an on-line role playing game developed by Sony in which people have discovered how to cheat. How? You connect a Linux box to your home network and have it watch the TCP/IP packets with a sniffer program called ShowEQ. Quoting Bob Cringely:
"What ShowEQ does with the packets it watches is compile an overhead view of what the game field looks like -- a view that is not normally available to Everquest players. It can see where you are in the world, where other players are, and most importantly, where the bad guys are."
(Hmmm.... ShowEQ. There's that letter Q again.) So the exploitation of computer technology has allowed some players to cheat. Once again, it's the same old song: the undisciplined use of technology for personal gain. Is this rare? I don't think so. The logical extension of this type of behavior is manifested in the recent activity of some CEOs. Maneuver for stock options, cook the books to make earnings look spectacular, cash in the stock at just the right time, then retire. ("Hey, it's not like they actually robbed a bank and stole money from the vault." some readers have argued by analogy.)
My reaction to all this stuff regarding MP3s is this: Some studio executives appear to be greedy. They want more money. Some digital media customers seem to be greedy. They want free MP3s and movies. Those customers are simply confronting an older version of themselves at the studios. Is it any wonder the two groups are squabbling?
I cannot remember the exact quote, but I do recall the famous Christian writer C.S. Lewis writing something like: "If we cannot master our frail bodies on Earth, how can we be trusted with much greater power in Heaven?"
Riker passed his test and declined unlimited power. I was thinking along those lines in the quote I put at the top of the original article.
Appropriation of Technical Language
Once I expressed my views on this issue, I was inundated with e-mail from people who tried to convince me that this is a civil liberties issue. Their language reminded me of another instance of this kind of thinking.
Back in the days when Johnny Carson was having Carl Sagan on frequently, there were two other people, not trained scientists, who seemed envious of Dr. Sagan's influence with the public. Erik Von Danniken and Shirley McClain. Each of these two people had their personal agenda and promoted their special views of the universe on the Carson show. But they were at a disadvantage. They didn't have the technical training that Carl Sagan had. So when you watched Sagan, you were blown away, but when you watched the other two, there was something missing. They didn't come across as technically deep and believable. The problem was their vocabulary.
I don't remember Sagan's exact words, but as I recall, he would use the words of the astrophysicist, for example, photosphere, megaparsec, event horizon, and curved space metrics. Over the months I noticed a distinct change in the vocabulary of Von Danniken and McClain. They too would sprinkle their dialogue with terms that were very much like Sagan's. To the average viewer, there must have been very little to distinguish these two men, Von Danniken and Sagan, who both came out in a nice suit and had intelligent discourse with Carson.
The upshot is that if you can couch your personal agenda in more legitimate terms, like "civil disobediance" then the rationalization of your means, any means, becomes trivial to achieve. To this end, apparently, I received several e-mails using this technique, but I am not going quote them because 100% of the e-mail I received was thoughtful and intelligent. So, with corresponding respect, I shall not quote specific text.
Even so, it is a recognizable technique that we all often fall into in order to influence and justify.
The Issue of Rights
American citizens have rights granted by the U.S. Constitution and its amendments. In addition, the federal government and the states have passed consumer protection laws to protect citizens against fraudulent or dangerous products. But copyright law is a more delicate issue. The rights of the artists, the studios, and the customers must be put into a delicate balance by legislation. These are not really rights but, rather, protocols for civilized people to get along.
Only the legislation on the books grants "rights" to the consumers in terms of what they can do with digital media that they purchase. It's our job to petition Congress to strike the appropriate balance.
As consumers, we have the right not to buy copy protected media that violate a fair balance between the rights of the parties. (The sellers have a right to go bankrupt.) But we cannot let our dependence on what is, after all, a luxury, digital entertainment, undermine what I previously called Adult Responsibility.
Finally, the important point I was trying to make in my original article is that obsessing over the acquisition of free digital media, rationalizing one's stand by constructing a set of perceived injuries and rationalized rights, and and then abusing the power of computers to achieve that personal gain by force is dishonorable. That was the entire point of the first article.
I suspect even Q would admit that.
* I should note here that I now longer work for
Apple, and the views expressed herein are my own.
**I recently read, as I recall, about a movie that grossed over $100M, but the studio declared zero profits - relieving them from the responsibility to pay some actors a percentage of the profits. Lawsuits were said to be in progress.
Send your comments to: John Martellaro
Copyright © 2002, John
Martellaro
Server Racks
Online:  |
"
Cool Mac Gear
• iPod 1G-2G
• iPod 3G
• iPod 4G
• iPod Mini
• PowerBook-iBook
• Keyboard Skins
• Garageband