Cory Doctorow: The coming war on general computation

Anti-Statism, IP Law, Mercantilism, Protectionism, Technology
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share

Cory Doctorow has a great speech up, The coming war on general computation, delivered at the the 28C3, the recent Chaos Computer Congress in Berlin. (He’s also written an article based on the transcript.) Doctorow explains that how the copyright interests want general purpose computers to be regulated, or hobbled, so that people cannot evade copyright restrictions and copyright circumvention prohibitions. (Why Doctorow is not yet a complete copyright abolitionists is a mystery to me.) He has an interesting point at around 45:00 about how the Internet and technology only provides an incremental benefit to the state, since they are already organized enough to be in charge, but can provide a more qualitative change–a “phase shift”–for the subjects of the state, in helping them to better organize and fight the state.

His summary of the talk:

The last 20 years of Internet policy have been dominated by the copyright war, but the war turns out only to have been a skirmish. The coming century will be dominated by war against the general purpose computer, and the stakes are the freedom, fortune and privacy of the entire human race.

The problem is twofold: first, there is no known general-purpose computer that can execute all the programs we can think of except the naughty ones; second, general-purpose computers have replaced every other device in our world. There are no airplanes, only computers that fly. There are no cars, only computers we sit in. There are no hearing aids, only computers we put in our ears. There are no 3D printers, only computers that drive peripherals. There are no radios, only computers with fast ADCs and DACs and phased-array antennas. Consequently anything you do to “secure” anything with a computer in it ends up undermining the capabilities and security of every other corner of modern human society.

[C4SIF]

Cory Doctorow: The coming war on general computation Read Post »

The Economics of the Baby Shortage

Anti-Statism, Protectionism
By / / 3 Comments / 2 minutes of reading
Share

Richard Posner and Elisabeth Landes wrote this excellent paper in 1978, but I’m only now seeing it. It speaks of the terrible inefficiencies — pervasive shortages and surpluses — that come with state adoption agencies and their price controlled system of allocating the right to raise children. They address all the usual objections to a market for children and generally provide enough evidence to lower the temperature of the debate and introduce some rational thinking here.

In passing, they point out that a real market for child-rearing rights would probably end the practice of abortion or perhaps seriously curtail it.

Wow. When was the last time this point has been made an a debate on abortion? I’ve been thinking through it for years but never actually seen it discussed before. But it is really a no brainer. Why are value resources being tossed away when there are plenty of people out there who clearly want to use them? There is an intervention in the market process, and that intervention concerns the market for child-rearing rights. If we had an open market that allowed for payments to expecting mothers, the decision to abort would carry a heavy opportunity cost. Right now, all the cost is associated with carrying the baby to term.

This is the kind of libertarian research that could make a huge difference in the world. This paper came out in 1978. I see it as compatible with Murray Rothbard’s views on child rights. Don Boudreaux wrote along the same lines. If anyone knows of other work in this area, I would love to see it. It seems that more work needs to be done in this area.

I once asked an anti-abortion activist whether he would favor a market for children if permitting one could reduce the number of abortions by half. He quick answer was no. I asked him to clarify: are you saying that it is better to be dead than traded? Yes was his answer.

That’s interesting to me because the current adoption market is already rooted in the cash nexus and trade. The problem is that it is seriously hampered by monopolization, regulations, and price controls.

The Economics of the Baby Shortage Read Post »

SOPA, Piracy, Censorship and the End of the Internet? Kinsella and Stefan Molyneux on Freedomain Radio

IP Law, Police Statism, Protectionism, Technology, Totalitarianism
By / / 1 minute of reading
Share

Stefan Molyneux interviewed me yesterday for his Freedomain Radio program about the evil Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA. We discussed the First Amendment violations of and other problems with SOPA.

Podcast at KOL127.

(And check out Youtube’s cool “snowflake” feature.)

[c4sif]

SOPA, Piracy, Censorship and the End of the Internet? Kinsella and Stefan Molyneux on Freedomain Radio Read Post »

The evil SOPA is dead …. for now…. [Update: or not…]

Anti-Statism, IP Law, Police Statism, Protectionism, Technology
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share

Update, from Masnick’s post below: “Update…. Or not. Despite the fact that Congress was supposed to be out of session until the end of January, the Judiciary Committee has just announced plans to come back to continue the markup this coming Wednesday. This is rather unusual and totally unnecessary. But it shows just how desperate Hollywood is to pass this bill as quickly as possible, before the momentum of opposition builds up even further.”

FYLR

Great news!! As noted on Techdirt: SOPA Markup Runs Out Of Time; Likely Delayed Until 2012.

More on SOPA.

From Demand Progress:

Huge Victory In House — Let’s Slam The Senate

Holy moly. We did it — at least for now. The House Judiciary Committee looked certain to vote for the Stop Online Piracy Act today. Instead, because of the work of so many rank-and-file Internet users, the bill’s lead sponsor acknowledged that our concerns are legitimate, and adjourned the committee without holding a vote!

Here’s Wired’s take:

The House Judiciary Committee considering whether to send the Stop Online Piracy Act to the House floor abruptly adjourned Friday with no new vote date set – a surprise given that the bill looked certain to pass out of committee today.

It’s amazing work: Politicians are, for the first time, having to contend with the Internet as a political force — and we might actually win.

But now we need to focus attention back on the Senate, where Marjority Leader Harry Reid says the PROTECT IP Act will be the first bill he calls for a vote next year.

Will you let him and your Senators know that they need to stop pushing this legislation? It’s an election year, and they don’t want to do any heavy lifting. Pushing hard now could get them to back down altogether.

Just fill out the form at right to email Reid and your Senators.

[fb]

If you’re already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends.

[fb]

If you’re already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet

The evil SOPA is dead …. for now…. [Update: or not…] Read Post »

LSU Football, Trademark, and “Honey Badger”

IP Law, Mercantilism, Protectionism
By / / 2 Comments / 3 minutes of reading
Share

Honey BadgerI received three very useful and taxpayer-subsidized degrees from LSU. But I’ve never given them a dime, and never will (I do donate to my private high school, Baton Rouge’s Catholic High School). Up till now, there were two reasons for this. First, it’s a state university. I think they should be abolished. Second, like most modern universities, it is infected with, and propagandizes its students with, a bunch of horrible socialist, leftist, and statist ideas (luckily my two engineering degrees were largely immune from this, since you don’t have time for normative nonsense when trying to figure out electromagnetic fields, digital logic, and semiconductor physics; and even my law studies were mostly practical).

But now I have a third reason. I’m a big LSU football fan, and of course and am enjoying the current season, with LSU at 13-0 and slated to play Alabama (second only to Michigan on the annoying fans index) for the national championship next month. One of LSU’s most impressive players this year is sophomore cornerback Tyrann Matthieu, truly an amazing athlete, who has garnered the nickname “Honey Badger” “for his tenacious ability to play extremely tough football against much larger opponents, as well as his knack for making big plays”. As the Wikipedia entry for Honey Badger notes, “The nickname became popular during the 2011 college football season, when it was often referenced in the national media. ‘He takes what he wants’ said CBS sportscaster Verne Lundquist of Mathieu.” Other expressions used for him are “Honey Badger don’t care”.

Well, according to the “LSU Compliance,” Honey Badger Does Care–if you use “honey badger” without LSU’s permission and paying them an appropriate fee! This claim is surely false, as any permission is granted by, and any fees paid go to, LSU, not Mathieu. Whose nickname is it, anyway?

As the entry specifies:

The LSU Compliance Office has issued several Cease & Desist notifications for products including the name, likeness and/or image of LSU football student-athlete Tyrann Mathieu.

Please be advised that the sale of any products and/or advertisements including the name, likeness or image of this individual or any other LSU student-athlete is in violation of NCAA Bylaw 12.5.2.2 and could have a negative impact on the involved student-athlete’s eligibility.

Apparel or paraphernalia including the phrase “Honey Badger” accompanied by the number 7 or the individual’s name or any other variation thereof (e.g., TM7, TM, HB7, etc.) is prohibited. Because it is a recognizable nickname, “Honey Badger” is considered a likeness of Tyrann Mathieu under NCAA regulations.

?Examples of Impermissible Products/Advertisements ?
The word “Honey Bader” or an image of a Honey Badger accompanied by?: The number 7?
? TM7 (or any other likeness)
? Name of individual
? Image of individual?
? ?LSU

LSU then “helpfully” provides examples of “impermissible items” for which they have issued “Cease & Desist notifications”–just to let you know they mean business.

Truly disgusting, but par for the course for our mercantilist, protectionist, IP-centric form of corporatism in which the powerful state helps big corporations (and socialist state universities) bully individuals and small competitors with pseudo-“property rights” like patent, trademark, and copyright.

I’m sure Alabama pulls the same stunts. Otherwise I might have to hold my nose and pull for them on Jan. 9.

(h/t Skip Oliva)

[c4sif]

LSU Football, Trademark, and “Honey Badger” Read Post »

Scroll to Top