FCC

The Corrosive Effects of IP

by on May 24, 2011 @ 7:47 am · 8 comments

in Corporatism, IP Law, Pop Culture, Protectionism

Libertarian thought has largely moved against IP in recent years, largely due to the groundbreaking work of Stephan Kinsella. Kinsella’s work is a powerful defense of genuine property rights and a thorough repudiation of government-granted monopolies. One of the overlooked implications of the rights violations inherent in intellectual property laws is the terrible effect of copyright laws and government spectrum licensing on culture.

Social conservatives have long attacked the media for promoting immoral behavior. This is often quite correct. Their statist worldview has made them ill-equipped to understand the nature of the problem, and the correct solution. With laws which establish monopolies, a number of problems naturally follow. Let me illustrate this by comparing the world of professional music today and about 200 years ago. During the days of Beethoven and Mozart, musicians earned a living from performances, patronage, and, perhaps most importantly, teaching. In a world without public schools, they taught the children of the wealthy. This required them to present themselves to those people in a way which would appeal to them. Contrast that with today. Musicians are promoted by a few major record labels, and intellectual property laws mean that they have to be paid whenever their works are played or purchased. There is a greatly diminished requirement for ongoing work and constant customer relations. The fact that a relatively few people who run the labels and own the radio and television stations, act essentially as gatekeepers to popular culture, means that a tiny cabal of entertainment executives are able to drive the culture down paths of their choosing. IP, spectrum licensing and other media regulations are largely to blame for the oft-cited decline of Western culture.

 

{ 8 comments }

CrunchGear vs. the Tea Party on Net Neutrality

by on August 13, 2010 @ 2:13 pm · 4 comments

in Business, Corporatism, Nanny Statism, Technology, Vulgar Politics

Yesterday, in All Your Tubes Are Belong to Googlizon, I blogged about the Google-Verizon proposal for regulating the internet and why libertarians should oppose both it and any net neutrality laws and regulations. Today, I came across a post on CrunchGear, a tech and gadgets site, by Nicholas Deleon, that criticizes the Tea Party for opposing net neutrality on the basis that it will violate the right of ISPs to free speech. I left a comment on his post, but I’ll reproduce it here.

I’m a libertarian, not a Tea Partier, but I’ll take a stab at explaining this.

Both free markets and the right to free speech are based on the right to private property. Net neutrality, insofar as it involves regulation, violates private property rights. That said, not every violation of the right to property is a violation of the right to free speech.

“But really, to expect the ISPs to do “right” by you is laughable. If it could, Comcast and the nation’s ISPs would offer 1 mbps (down, mind you) and call that SUPER FAST INTERNET, then charge you $100 per month for the privilege of using it.”

If they could? Maybe. Maybe not. But in a free market, they could not. Restrict competition through regulations, monopoly franchises, and whatnot, and then maybe they could.

“But to oppose Net Neutrality in order to defend the free speech of ISPs is pretty laughable.”

Umm… I don’t see in the letter where they defend the free speech of ISPs. I don’t see it in the quoted soundbite either. More likely the speaker was concerned about the free speech of users who could be prevented by net neutrality regulations from purchasing services that otherwise might have been available, services they could have used to express themselves more effectively.

In any case, the fundamental reason to oppose net neutrality laws or regulations is that they constitute a violation of property rights.

Then I realized I had made a small mistake, so I left a second comment:

Okay, I see that in the linked article on Radtke’s quote, the reporter writes:

“The free-speech objection to net neutrality has also gained some ground recently. The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and AT&T began citing First Amendment objections to net neutrality in public discussions and in filings with the FCC this year.

“The free-speech argument holds that, by interfering with how phone and cable companies deliver Internet traffic, the government would be thwarting the free-speech rights of providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.”

This is the reporter’s interpretation, but let’s say it’s accurate. Is it not possible to imagine how net neutrality regulations could interfere with even the free speech of ISPs? And as “browse” at 1:58 pm UTC pointed out:

“The EFF has some great pieces on Net Neutrality. One of the issues is the Trojan Horse issue: whereby a more activist commissioner could abuse powers won in the aims of Net Neutrality to stifle free expression online. Even if they current FCC has no inclinations to regulate the Internet beyond Net Neutrality, regimes do change pretty frequently, and agendas change with them. If you look at it from that perspective, the argument you quoted above sounds a bit less crazy.”

In any case, as I mentioned in my previous comment, the fundamental reason to oppose net neutrality laws and regulations isn’t free speech but private property.

To wrap things up: That Nicholas finds the Tea Party’s free speech argument so laughable on its face betrays a leftist anti-corporate bias. Corporations are often not the good guys, such as when they seek government protection from competition. But at least corporations are not intrinsically evil. To turn to government as our savior, when it is government that is the primary enemy and source of man-made problems in the world, now that’s more than slightly misguided. In any event, Nicholas hardly gives the Tea Party a fair shake, focusing on their free speech argument as he does and not even bothering to give that a charitable interpretation or serious counterargument.

Cross-posted at Is-Ought GAP.

{ 4 comments }

All Your Tubes Are Belong to Googlizon

by on August 12, 2010 @ 5:30 am · 6 comments

in (Austrian) Economics, Business, Corporatism, Democracy, Nanny Statism, Technology, Vulgar Politics

Googlizon with Chrome eye beam What you say!!!

There has been a lot wailing and gnashing of teeth recently over a joint announcement by Google and Verizon of a legislative-framework proposal they’ve been working on.

Now, I’ve seen this variously referred to as a backroom deal or pact, a secret treaty, or a set of regulations Google and Verizon are imposing on the internet. The FCC is shamefully abdicating its responsibility to regulate the internet! Nevermind that the D.C. Circuit court determined recently in the Comcast case that the FCC has no such regulatory authority over broadband internet; hence, the calls to disastrously reclassify broadband internet access in order to place it under the same regulatory rules as regular telephone service. Some are even intimating that Google and Verizon are trying to “own” the internet. Net neutrality activists are up in arms about this proposal, viciously attacking Google for selling out and reversing its longstanding defense of net neutrality, and calling for people to stage a silly boycott of Google products and services. If you don’t join the herd, you get labeled a Google-Verizon apologist or it is insinuated that you are on their payroll (see comments on the CNET articles linked below, for example).

So what should libertarians make of all this?

[Keep reading…]

{ 6 comments }

Net Neutrality Developments

by April 7, 2010

In recent years the “Net Neutrality” movement has gained steam. This is an effort by various statists, interventionists, do-gooders, meddlers, and techno-ignoramuses who seek to have the government forbid network providers (e.g. cable companies, telcos, and wireless carriers) from selectively blocking certain types of Internet use–for example, to require companies to give Web users equal [...]

Read the full article →