Uh...Um....But...Well...

Far be it for me to say what Congress should do with its time, you know, being a voter and all, but maybe I thought there was a list of things they should not be doing. If I remember correctly, one of those things is not creating laws that favor one religion over another. The title link goes to a story about a resolution in the House that aims to protect the "themes" of Christmas. I am pretty sure that any Congressional endorsement of any religion over another will violate the establishment clause. The problem is that I can't decide whether I need to re-read the First Amendment, or Congress needs to brush up on what the Bill of Rights says.

More Compu-stupidity...

The title link goes to an MSNBC story detailing a new microchip that may find its way into computers in the near future. This particular chip holds information regarding the computer user's identity, and can be accessed from the web by websites to identify the computer user. To MSNBC's credit, they give the chip a fair review both to its benefits and detriments. Regardless of how easy it may make online commerce, I think this is a bad idea for one very important reason, identity theft is already a big enough problem, we don't need to provide phishers with anything that will make their illegal activity any easier. This chip will do just that. Imagine having a chip on your computer that contains enough personal information to identify you as the perpetrator of other cyber crimes. This is literally only your name, I.P. address, and possibly home state. A brilliant hacker would have an easy time copying this information from an unsuspecting visitor of his/her site and using the information as a mask to go hack someone else's computer, bring down the wrath of the RIAA/MPAA, or even shop with online credit if the information were sufficient to permit it. Congress need not get in the business of determining what technology the individual must have. We are better off making things slightly more complicated to prevent crime than making it easier for those who wish to exploit a person's privacy.

Legislative futility: regulating video games

The Grey Area in print this month deals with the push to regulate the content in video games. This was the topic of the 17th Annual Swygert First Amendment Moot Court Competition at the Valparaiso University School of Law, and a multitude of lawsuits all over the country. I approached the topic purely from a policy perspective, and frankly, this is an area that the government needs to avoid.

Democracy 2.0

Wiki-law is a democratic experiment aimed at determining how laws should be made. This is an interesting read, and really demonstrates the way society probably should proceed with socially acceptable practice. Some thing, though, don't make much sense. One positive example is redefining marriage's role in society, and who may attain the socially recognized status of marriage. One negative example is the proposal that copyrights only last for one year. This does not take into account the profit aspect of information in capitalist society. While this experiment will likely be more beneficial as a litmus test for public opinion, it does fail to consider the impact of economics on social structure and law.

DRM: From Inside the Industry

The title link goes to an op-ed in the New York Times describing the detrimental effects of Digital Rights Management from a musicians perspective. Interesting read, maybe now big business will start listening, and save us all from future problems like the Sony Rootkit.

Educating Out Freedom of Speech

Education in America stands at the pinnacle of teaching the body politic that its rights remain supreme over the institution of government regardless of the circumstances. Legally, these protections don't extend to private education, but to what extent should we sacrifice permitting exercise of free speech regardless whether the speech is in good taste. The title link goes to a story about a dental student at Marquette University. Apparently, the student posted some personal opinions about a teacher on his blog that got him expelled from school for the remainder of the academic year. Regardless of the area of study, should we, as a society, condone permitting educational institutions to limit speech in the public sphere? Blogs have exploded around the globe as a vehicle for the exercise of free expression. Holding individuals responsible for their speech limits the effectiveness of the First Amendment. Chilling speech, in any way, works towards the break down of this most fundamental of civil rights. While there are limits on the protections provided by the First Amendment, any action limiting speech should fit well within the confines of unprotected speech.

Illinois Video Game Law?

For all of my Moot Court collegues, the title link goes to a CNN story about how a district court invalidated an Illinois statute prohibiting the sale of sexual explicit and excessively violent video games. This isn't unbelieveable since the Seventh Circuit has invalidated these laws on two occasions so far. Regardless, everyone in the VUSL Moot Court Honors Society should get a kick out of this.

Illegal Open source?

The title link goes to a story about recent legislation proposed in France that will effectively ban the distribution of open source software. Why do we care? The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) effects things in the US in a similar way. VideoLAN is a media player effected by this legislation because of the software it uses to circumvent restrictions on DVD's. In addition, the legislation will make every Linux distribution that plays DVD's or copy protected media illegal, at least in France. Expanding this domestically will significantly limit the expansion and development of desktop Linux. Interestingly, one federal circuit court of appeals has already held that computer code falls within the ambit of First Amendment protections. If this is the case, the government can't prohibit the production of computer code. This places copyright interests in playable formats at odds with the First Amendment protecting code. So which trumps?

It would seem that most businesses would benefit from permitting all kinds of media players to play their media. This will provide the consumer with the ability to purchase and play DVD's or CD's on any operating system. Using specific software will fundamentally limit market share because people won't buy what they can't play using software of their choice. These things won't benefit business even if they aim to protect intellectual property rights. The best bet for everyone to prosper is to criminalize distribution. This will throw open the market for media players, protect copyright law, and not criminalize hobby programming. Regardless, this idea is asinine. Government should not be in the business of picking and choosing what software people use. Moreover, the government should not support big business's abuse of the consumer.

The End of Copyright?

I need to preface this post with a note that the title article comes from a video game centric blog. Parts of this post will respond directly to that article but will also scope over a broader range of the concept. I also apologize for a long post.

I don't agree with this article simply because it falls a little far down the slippery slope. Looking at this in a vacuum without any pragmatic background, the author makes an interestingly abstract point. The advent of new technology does, on some level, diminish individual property rights in intellectual property. Weakened rights stem from the diminished control of intellectual property once its left the producer hands. Digital music is a good example. Consumption of digital music exploded with the birth of internet giants like Napster, and the "owner's" of digital material were unable to control the profit scheme for mass market consumption. Recently, a new approach to digital content has sprung up around this digital debacle. Sony's rootkit mess is a good example. On a tangential note, controlling use in the digital age is futile due to the ability of the users to alter content and the method of consumption. I don't think, however, will not amount to the end of copyright or intellectual property rights as the article hypothecates.

Some material, like console games, will be easier to control since they are reliant on a specific kind of hardware or software for use. Music, movies, and books, lack this dependence, but each presents its own problems. E-Books are easy to transport, but hard to read since LCDs cause excessive eye-strain. As a result, books will always be in production, and the control of distribution remains with the producers. Music and movies are a special case since they are not dependent on anything, and readily transferable into several different consumable forms. This modular use should not cause the industries to worry and jump on any technology band-wagon that is hostile to consumers. The industry needs to figure out how to control sharing, and the United States Supreme Court decision in Grokster was a step in the right direction. An analysis of the case reveals that the Court did enforce intangible property rights by providing a cause of action against those who distribute protected material. This will not likely push the file share "industry" into open source because "the" open source program, namely bittorrent, already has terms of service restrictions on sharing protected material. The demise of Grokster and the rise of iTunes should provide some substance to alleviate the fears in the industries. Regardless, this does not point to an end of copyright. Rather, this points to a necessary shift in the administration of these rights through the legal system. Industry v. Consumer action will likely spell the end of the industry. Distribution models and laws benefiting both the individual and the industry are necessary. How about restructuring business models and criminalizing distribution rather than changes in formatting for personal use, like with VCRs in the 1980's?

Going too far?

While its no secret that law enforcement may request wire taps on internet services, the FCC wants to take it one step farther. The title link goes to a story detailing a new movie by the government to make it extraordinarly easy to access information flowing over the web. The premise for this particular action is to assist the department of homeland security in investigating and stopping terrorists. The other side of the coin is the privacy rights of the average individual. How far do we have to go before these regulations provide the government with the power to watch over every individual regardless of whether they are breaking the law? One relevant question is whether intangible information like electronic paper qualifies as papers or effects under the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, this seems like it could open the door to outrageous restrictions on the First Amendment if the government decides to get into the business of censoring the internet. Arguably this has already happened with broad statutes that aim to protect children. This can't stand, call your congress-person.