In two articles one can read about the how some people think we should save the music industry.

How to save the music industry by Paul McGuinness.

U2′s manager: how to save the music industry by Neil McCormick.

The first is a pretty standard article written by lobbyists. It contains the usual piracy is stealing, piracy is killing music and other flavored metaphors. Some highlights for those that are too lazy to read through it (perhaps because they have already read too much of that kind to begin with, or that it is about 3,600 words):

“My message was quite simple – and remains so today. We are living in an era when “free” is decimating the music industry and is starting to do the same to film, TV and books. Yet for the world’s internet service providers, bloated by years of broadband growth, “free music” has become a multi-billion dollar bonanza. What has gone so wrong? And what can be done now to put it to right?”

So we begin with the usual claims. The industry is put in the victim role, being the victim of piracy. That this is wrong and should be put right. Nothing new here.

This bit was somewhat surprising:

Then there is the backlash from the bloggers – those anonymous gremlins who wait to send off their next salvo of bilious four-letter abuse whenever a well-known artist sticks their head above the parapet. When Lily Allen recently posted some thoughtful comments about how illegal file-sharing is hurting new developing acts, she was ravaged by the online mob and withdrew from the debate.

Seeing that blogs are run by musically interested people, that is, the big fans of music, probably even the biggest consumers. Why rant about bloggers?

It is funny that he refers to Lilly Allen‘s stunt which should actually be embarrassing for him to refer to. Perhaps he doesn’t even know that Lilly Allen’s remarks on copyright were themselves copied without permission! Anyway, some good came out of it: 1) she deleted her pro-copyright wannabe-blog, 2) someone made a very nice parody of her using her own tune.

Nevertheless, Bono has stepped into the argument. Quite unprompted by me, he wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times in January and he pulled no punches. “A decade’s worth of music file sharing and swiping has made clear the people it hurts are the creators… and the people this reverse Robin-Hooding benefits are rich service providers, whose swollen profits perfectly mirror the lost receipts of the music business.” Bono is a guy who, when he decides to support a cause, does so with enormous passion. But even he was amazed by the backlash when he was mauled by the online crowd.

So Bono has become involved, no surprise there. I doubt that it wasn’t suggested by some record boss though. No evidence either way.

So, the new target of hatred is the ISPs who are making lots of profit off illegal file-sharing. I suppose this is the result of ISPs not being willing to ‘cooperate’ in resulting in court battles around the world.

You have to ask how these inchoate, abusive voices are helping shape the debate about the future of music. I rarely do news interviews but when I spoke to the influential technology news site CNET last autumn I was set on by a horde of bloggers. One of them was called “Anonymous Coward.” I’m not worried about criticism from Anonymous Coward. But I am worried about how many politicians may be influenced by his rantings. The level of abuse and sheer nastiness of it was extraordinary. Without Anonymous Coward and his blogosphere friends, I think many artists and musicians would be more upfront about the industry’s current predicament. They might tell the world what they really feel about people who steal their music. But it’s understandable why they don’t – and that is partly why I don’t mind filling the vacuum.

There we saw the usual “steal music” bit. No surprise there. Again, more ranting about people with blogs (like me!). I wonder what they expect from musicians? That they stand up and call their fans thieves and expect them to keep paying for their music? I doubt it. Besides, musicians need not know a lot about file-sharing politics, perhaps they just — and here it comes — make music? So even if musicians participated more in the debate, what good would it do? Not much probably.

More self-victimization:

You have to ask how these inchoate, abusive voices are helping shape the debate about the future of music. I rarely do news interviews but when I spoke to the influential technology news site CNET last autumn I was set on by a horde of bloggers. One of them was called “Anonymous Coward.” I’m not worried about criticism from Anonymous Coward. But I am worried about how many politicians may be influenced by his rantings. The level of abuse and sheer nastiness of it was extraordinary. Without Anonymous Coward and his blogosphere friends, I think many artists and musicians would be more upfront about the industry’s current predicament. They might tell the world what they really feel about people who steal their music. But it’s understandable why they don’t – and that is partly why I don’t mind filling the vacuum.

And so on, blablabla. It is not worth going over that article in detail.

Let’s think of the second article, specifically the last bit, first he quotes the original article:

In the future I envisage every piece of music will be licensed to be available at any time on any device. All music will be transferrable between computer and portable device. ISPs will be reporting significant revenues from their “content ventures.” These are the added-value businesses that over time they must move into as their flat-rate broadband business reaches saturation point. This is not fantasy: an independent survey by Ovum recently predicted that ISPs in the U.K. could earn more than £100m in digital music revenues by 2013. In the beautiful future of my dream, every record label and every ISP will be joined in commercial partnership, sharing revenues and strategies to get their music to as many millions of people as possible.

And then comments:

I hope he’s on the right track. Clearly, for the music business to survive with anything like its current abundance, someone needs to find a way to pay musicians and other copyright holders for their work. We may indeed be moving towards a global jukebox, where you can access any track at any time, effectively paying for your musical entertainment by subscription, licence fee or some kind of hardware levy (an entertainment licence fee levied on every mobile phone or computer, for example). This would require a next generation technological leap, new kinds of business alliances between hardware makers and creative industries and a global political agreement on copyright. Perhaps ISPS need to take on the roles of record companies and invest in creative talent, instead of just exploiting it? Imagine the power of Apple computers united with the Beatles old Apple music label.

But I think there are other possibilities, and one (though few in the music business really want to contemplate it) is that the age of mass market music is truly coming to an end, and the music business will dramatically shrink to more historically consistent (and possibly localised) proportions.

We live in the age of the amateur. Music (like all forms of artistic self expression) is an innate human talent, and the internet (along with the cheap and easy recording technology provided by computers) has unleashed a tsunami of self-expression. In human history, there has never been more music made by more people (and made available to be heard) than there is right now, even if few can make a living out of it. But in all this abundance of music, where are the geniuses to rival the all time greats? Is music getting more interesting? Or just more … everything? Do we really need all this music?

Maybe music will be something people do for a while and then move on, a Myspace site and YouTube video being the 21st century equivalent of being in a band at college. For people who make music just to have fun making music, times have arguably never been better. As the economic benefits of the music business shrink, there’s a good chance that ever fewer dilettantes will get involved for that most 20th century of motivations, “fame and fortune.” And as it gets harder and harder to make a living, only the truly vocational will persist. With this, the talent base may shrink but the greatest (or at least most driven) talents should still, like the cream, rise to the top. Maybe the future of music will be a huge field of free amateur music and a much smaller but genuinely exceptional base of professional musicians.

Such an outcome would probably not be particularly appealing to most people involved in the music business today. But the survival of the mass market music business is not a given. The internet is changing everything. I have a lingering suspicion that the music industry’s future shape will be dictated by technological developments and social and economic changes we can’t even foresee at the moment. There is only one thing of which I think we can be certain. There may not always be a music business. But there will always be music.

Besides the first sentence “I hope he’s on the right track.” the rest is generally agreeable.

As for the future of copyright and copyright infringements. Currently we are in a situation where there is lots of copyright infringement. There are mainly two ways to get out of that situation:

1. Have insane amounts of surveillance in order to prevent piracy.
2. Change the laws to make it legal.

I prefer the second solution. It is a category of different solutions.

1) one could change the laws such that non-commercial copying is legal and let commercial copying (that is, with the intent of making money on the copied product without having the rights to do so) continue to be illegal. This is pretty much what the various pirate parties propose and I agree with it.

2) one could change the laws such that all copying is legal and have musicians earn money from some kind of music or general creative industry tax. This solution has the obvious problem of answering the questions: 1. “Who gets paid?” and 2. “How much?”. No satisfying answer seem to have been found to these. If one implements some system where the artists are paid according to how many times people listen to their songs, there are so many problems with this. First, it needs lots of surveillance, and second, how do we prevent people from cheating? For instance, just buying lots of music players and placing some them in some basement playing your own music non-stop. And so on.

No matter how one does this, I think that this is definitely a better situation than the one solution 1 would result in. There are so many things that are made hard or impossible due to our current copyright laws. For lots of examples, see he works of Lawrence Lessig, specifically Free Culture.

pdf version

————–

On the prohibition of animated child pornography

Emil Kirkegaard, member of Piratpartiet and essayist, emilkirkegaard.dk

Translated by Jens Arhøj, translator and proofreader of Mr. Kirkegaard

I will, in this essay, discuss the prohibition of animated child pornography and address a number of points. My sources are all the web sources I could find. All of these, are mentioned under “References”. Since the quotes are taken from newspapers, unlucky- and misquotes may be found, and the relevant policitians and their respective parties will have the benefit of the doubt.

Animated child pornography is not child pornography

Some may believe the following to be true: “All F G’s are G’s”, but this is incorrect. Certain designations exist, which will make this one false. For instance, think of “All imaginary cats are cats”, which is wrong. Imaginary cats do not at all exist, and are, therefore, not cats. It is the same with “All fictional persons are persons”, which is also wrong. It is an unlucky quality about the language, that it is possible to create misleading sentences like these.

When one reads the following in Information: “A completely legal form of child pornography” which continues “Denmark is the only country in Scandinavia, where some child pornography is legal”, one will find it grossly misleading, since animated child pornography is not child pornography. Child pornography is:

”The question of what constitutes child pornography is extraordinarily complex. Standards

that are applied in each society or country are highly subjective and are contingent upon

differing moral, cultural, sexual, social, and religious beliefs that do not readily translate into

law. Even if we confine ourselves to a legal definition of child pornography, the concept is

elusive. Legal definitions of both “child” and “child pornography” differ globally and may

differ even among legal jurisdictions within the same country.

The legal definition of a “child” varies among nations. The UNCRC defines a child as a

person under 18 years of age. This definition, however, is far from being universally

adopted. For example, in all Australian States and Territories, child pornography legislation

defines “child” as a person under 16 years of age. In Canada (Penal Code Sec. 163), a minor,

for purposes of child pornography, is a person under 18 years of age. In various jurisdictions

of the United States (U.S.), minors as young as 15 may legally consent to sexual activity

with an adult. However, that same adult could not create, distribute, or possess a visual

record of that activity because federal child pornography statutes (18 U.S.C. 2252, 2256)

define a minor as any person under that age of 18 years. Despite national differences, some international bodies have been able to arrive at common definitions of child pornography, most of which focus on visual, rather than written material. The Council of Europe defines child pornography as “any audiovisual materials which uses children in a sexual context.” Council of Europe, Recommendation R(91)11 and Report of the European Committee on Crime Problems(1993). International Criminal Police Organisation (“INTERPOL”) delegates define child

pornography as “the visual depiction of the sexual exploitation of a child, focussing on the

child’s sexual behaviour or genitals.” Interpol Recommendations on Offences Against

Minors, INTERPOL 61st General Assembly (1995).” [8]

In these definitions, there is meant (real) children, not animated children. Animated characters have no legal age, as they, funnily enough, don’t exist, and has not been born at any point. Given the above definition, animated child pornography is not child pornography, since there are no children in animated child pornography.

One would almost think that the politicians were trying to blur the clear difference between child pornography and animated ditto, when they make statements such as this from Karen Haekkerup:

“»I am completely resistant towards that. I have heard freedom of speech being used for many strange things, but to legalise child pornography through freedom of speech is just grotesque.«”

The statements bears a different sound when adding the necessary distinction:

“»I am completely resistant towards that. I have heard freedom of speech being used for many strange things, but to legalise animated child pornography through freedom of speech is just grotesque.«”

Denmark is the only country in Scandinavia that…

It is mentioned several times that Denmark is the only country in Scandinavia that does not have a law against animated child pornography. Let us look at a couple of examples:

“Denmark is the only country in Scandinavia, where some child pornography is legal.

[…]

In some countries, they have witnessed the consequence of this, and among other, both Norway and Sweden have chosen to make animated child pornography illegal.

[…]

In Sweden, where animated child pornography is illegal, websites are a well known phenomenon.

[…]

He is worried that animations will be part of the law, as has been done in Norway and Sweden.

[…]

»It inspires people to abuse children sexually. I certainly think that we should look at how it has been done in those countries, that we usually compare ourselves with,« says Peter Skaarup.”

[2]

“The ‘fictional’ kind of child pornography is – as opposed to the other Scandinavian countries – allowed in Denmark, but this is completely unreasonable, thinks Socialdemokratiet, who have absolute support from SF and Dansk Folkeparti.”[3]

“Yes, we know that Denmark is the only country in Scandinavia that does not prohibit this. Of course, that is not an argument for Denmark to get it per se, but my immediate thought is, that it is absurd that we don’t..”[6]

Etc.. Apparently, a great deal of importance surrounds the notion of what has been done in other Scandinavian countries. But why this great emphasis? Why would the following, which Karina Lorentzen Denhardt believes, “»it seems absurd, if Denmark should be the only country to allow animated child pornography«.” be absurd if Denmark was the only country(in Scandinavia? The world?) without a law against animated child pornography?

Could it not be possible that these other countries having such a law, is a mistake? I see no reason to believe that it is a good idea to introduce a law like that, just because Norway and Sweden has introduced a similar law.

If the politicians do not think, that the other Scandinavian countries having a law against this, is a good idea, how come they keep mentioning it(according to the last quote)? On the other hand, Peter Skaarup was close to something better, when he stated “I certainly think that we should take a look at how it has been done in those other countries, that we usually compare ourselves with”. It could be the case, that these laws do not help at all in the other countries, and therefore, in the best case scenario, is a waste of time and money to introduce.

Reasoning for introduction – Puritanism or rational politics?

What is the real reasoning or motivation for imposing this law, and similar laws? Is it enough that the majority of the population finds something to be in bad taste? If that is the case, then we should start by banning a number of other kinds of pornography which the majority finds unsavoury, and possibly several books, films and the likes, too. I see no reason to believe, that just because the majority finds something to be in bad taste, this is a requirement to ban it. But it could look like certain politicians are trying to use a “bad taste”-argument to get the law through the system.

Consider:

»Then, my personal opinion is that child pornography is a phenomenon so atrocious, that we absolutely have to intervene further,« says Lars Hedegaard of Trykkefrihedsselskabet(Company of Freedom of Press).[5]

If one reads closer in the articles I have been able to find, one will not find a single definite inquiry, but, at the most, a few vague or blurred expressions regarding unnamed “scientists” or unidentified “research”. However, one expert in the field is mentioned. Let us begin with a few examples of the former:

“Scientists indicate that animated child pornography can the exact same effect on potential violators, as real child pornography. Research in violation behaviour shows, that the use of child pornography can be used as a slippery slope towards paedophiles committing real assaults.”[1]

Which scientists? What research? This is like giving the reason “the wise people say…” for one’s beliefs, but a reason such as this one is useless. Which wise people say what?

“Practitioners indicate that the animations can lead to use of real photos, and, at some point, abuse of children.”[2]

Which practitioners? Notice the plural form. Only one practitioner is even mentioned in the article. To use appeal of authority, one should establish the consensus among relevant experts, but this seems not to have been done. Just one or more experts have been found who agreed with the opposing side, and these have then been interviewed. This will not work as reasoning for introducing laws of any kind. I am not familiar with the consensus, if there even is one regarding whether child pornography is harmful i.e. causes people to violate children (and to which degree?). One should, at least, have a few scientific inquiries which strongly indicate this, before removing peoples’ freedom. I do not know of any such inquiries, and no concrete tests are mentioned in all articles I could find about the subject. Not even in what one would expect to be a valid text, which is the proposal to the government. [1]

All you find is, more or less, speculative theories about what animated child pornography can cause. Consider:

“Scientists do point towards that animated child pornography can have the exact same effect on potential violators, as the ‘real’ child pornography can.

When the paedophiles discover that others have the same fantasies about children, then it is especially that solidarity, that can push possible violators toward real assaults.”[2]

“»People who watch animated child pornography, stay in a violation behaviour, and are not confronted with, that it is illegal to do those things in the real world. That is why it can lead these people towards regular child pornography and real violations«, says Karen Haekkerup, spokeswoman of Socialdemokratiet.” [3]

“»They will not be able to separate fantasy from reality, and will, like that, be sucked into the universe in question, and become so occupied with it, that they will want to try it for real«.” [4]

“»It will not just stay in their imagination, and that is why we need to close that hole in the legislation.«” [5]

“Research into violation behaviour indicated that the use of child pornography can work as a slippery slope towards the paedophiles committing serious assaults. Psychologist and scientist at the Sexological clinic of Rigshospitalet, Thomas Hammerbrink, believes that the animations can be a chain in that process. He is quoted for saying: “The paedophile will reach a point, where it will not just be enough in itself to watch child pornography. It will accelerate, and some buckle, and end up violating children. I can not see why the animations should not have precisely the same effect on potential violators.”” [6]

Consistent with all of the above quotes, there is a theory that scientific evidence is not at all the motivational factor for the politicians to introduce/support such laws, but more their own puritanism, their resistance against what they think to be disgusting or distasteful.

According to the theory, these unnamed scientists(unless they all refer to Thomas Hammerbrink) are all post rationalisations, something which people are good at creating.

From my point of view, there is not enough evidence, neither for believing that there is a connection between animated child pornography and actual abuse of children, nor for believing such a post rationalisation theory. Time will tell.

Slippery slope arguments(SSA)

Many adversaries of the proposal express slippery slope arguments. SSA’s work by pointing out, that if one does x, then that choice opens up for y, z, t, s etc. and that y, z, t and s are bad. Consider these examples:

“»If we want to ban animations of this type, then we are creeping closer to what could look like official censorship,« says substituting political spokeswoman, Tina Nedergaard.” [5]

“Lawyer Bjoern Elmquist does not believe that a tightening of the law is the way to go. He is lawyer and chairman of Retspolitisk Forening(Political Law Society), which is an organisation of lawyers who fight for maintaining the citizens’ rights security. He is worried about including animations in the law, like it has been done in Norway and Sweden, because he believes that it will have consequences for freedom of speech and the security of rights.

»What about violent films? Or video games? Would it be fair, that in one scenario, it is completely without punishment to shoot 30 people in a videogame, but seeing someone take the pants of a drawn child, is to be punished?« says Bjoern Elmquist.

»It is invalid that such a difference in the law is to exist. That would mean having to makes laws for everything.«

Same concern can be found with Thomas Thorhauge, chairman of Danish Cartoon Counsel, who is a newspaper illustrator and cartoonist himself.

»I am a father myself, and can fully appreciate that some people feel offended from animations like these. But then, where will the line go of what one can draw, and what one cannot?« he asks. Thomas Thorhauge is troubled by the thought of intensifying the law. He is especially worried about the art being caught in between, if the law is tightened.” [2]

The underlying point is, that if you prohibit animated child pornography just because it can(in some undefined sense) ‘inspire’ paedophiles to abuse children, the you should also, per analogical reasoning, prohibit violent games, books and in a wider sense, fiction where a person you can identify yourself with, commits illegalities, because it can inspire people to commit illegalities.

There does not seem to be any boundary for what can eventually be prohibited, if arguments like those above are good enough for banning something. It seems that this is the first step towards total governmental control of culture, depending on what can be said to ‘inspire’ illegalities.

Consider:

“Justice spokesman Tom Behnke is hesitant to support the prohibition.

»When we are talking child pornography, it is something that we take very seriously. The sins must be punished hard and consistently. Men when we are talking animated child pornography, it is a different situation. After all, it is fictional, and no children have suffered or been hurt in the creation of the material – unlike real child pornography«, he says.

[…]

Tom Behnke, in the meantime, asks for composure, and notes that this is about the children – not the thoughts.

»It is a victimless situation, and that is why I am somewhat skeptical towards this proposal. Because what is it, exactly, that you punish for? The next thing will be looking into peoples’ heads and punishing them for their thoughts«, says the conservative spokesman.

[…]

But the scientific proof already exists, says psychologist with Red Barnet(Save the Children Denmark), Kuno Soerensen. There is, in fact, a risk that the sexual actions that the children are exposed to on sketches and in films, can inspire some to try it in reality.

»Research shows that a vulnerable group can be affected by this«, he states.

[…]

Similar mechanisms are seen with people who play violent games, read anorexia manuals or deepen themselves in racist and nazi texts on the internet, tells Kuno Soerensen.

»They will not be able to separate fantasy and reality, and will, because of that, be sucked into the universe in question, and become so obsessed with it, that they will want to try it for real«.” [4]

One would almost think that Kuno Soerensen was trying to make my point about the slippery slope. He, himself, mentions the very things that could be banned as well, with similar reasoning.

Let us say, hypothetically, that animated child pornography causes assaults

Does it then follow that we should prohibit it? No. It would still be a question of weighing the consequences.

First of all, would such a law help? It has been mentioned that one could shut down or block such websites, men such blocks are incredibly easy to pass, and if a person wanted to pass them, he would easily be able to. It is not possible to block content on the internet without a considerable amount of surveillance (e.g. in China), or a total restructuring of the entire internet. This becomes even clearer when considering that people can do things to pass this surveillance and control. Alternative DNS servers, proxy servers and VPN connections make it impossible to monitor and control people on the internet, with the internet as it is at the moment.

People with more knowledge than me, can, without a doubt, mention more small ways to pass most blocking systems.

Has it been researched whether the animated child pornography has been harder to access in Norway and Sweden? This seems highly relevant, and the answer is quite possibly “no” because of the things I mentioned above.

Second of all, regardless of whether the law will work(i.e. reduce assaults on children), it must be considered if it is reasonable to introduce it compared to the things that will accompany it. If the law only works to a lesser degree, but entails great costs because of the increased monitoring and control, then it should be considered if there is a more effective way to spend the money, such as improving the treatment of paedophiles, who rarely only molest children once, but instead, a number of times. This is a question of price/effect in a metaphorical sense.

Consider the following quote from the American Supreme Court:

“The Government submits further that virtual child pornography whets the appetites of

paedophiles and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct. This rationale cannot sustain

the provision in question. The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a

sufficient reason for banning it. The government cannot constitutionally premise legislation

on the desirability of controlling a person’s private thoughts. First Amendment freedoms are

most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that

impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be

protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.

To preserve these freedoms, and to protect speech for its own sake, the Court’s First

Amendment cases draw vital distinctions between words and deeds, between ideas and

conduct.

The normal method of deterring unlawful conduct is to impose an appropriate punishment

on the person who engages in it. The government may not prohibit speech because it

increases the chance an unlawful act will be committed at some indefinite future time.

The government may suppress speech for advocating the use of force or a violation of law

only if such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is

likely to incite or produce such action.

There is here no attempt, incitement, solicitation, or conspiracy. The Government has shown

no more than a remote connection between speech that might encourage thoughts or

impulses and any resulting child abuse. Without a significantly stronger, more direct

connection, the Government may not prohibit speech on the ground that it may encourage

paedophiles to engage in illegal conduct.”(some parts omitted)[7]

There are wise words among the above, even if some parts are irrelevant to Danish politics, since our constitutions are dissimilar.

Symbolic politics

Lastly, one should consider if a reason for some politicians to be after the animated child pornography, is to send a message to the population that these politicians are not bread-and-butter politicians who do not do anything, but who are actually trying to make a difference. Such symbolic political actions are, in some cases, directly harmful to society. I will not further this point, but take a look at this essay. [9]

References

1. B 133 Forslag til folketingsbeslutning om forbud mod animeret børneporno. -

http://www.ft.dk/dokumenter/tingdok.aspx?/samling/20091/beslutningsforslag/B133/som_fremsat.htm (In Danish)

2. En helt legal form for børneporno – http://www.information.dk/221349 (In Danish)

3. S vil forbyde lovlig børneporno – http://politiken.dk/politik/article902997.ece (In Danish)

4. Konservative forsvarer animeret børneporno – http://politiken.dk/politik/article903633.ece (In Danish)

5. Ytringsfrihedsforkæmpere i strid om børneporno – http://www.information.dk/224815 (In Danish)

6. Skal animeret børneporno forbydes? – http://www.sf.dk/default.aspx?site=karinalorentzens&func=weblog.entryview&eid=88406 (In Danish)

7. ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION (00-795) 535 U.S. 234 (2002) -

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html

8. Child porn – http://www.crime-research.org/news/03.08.2004/537/

9. Tragisk symbolpolitik og den heroiske politiker -

http://blog.politiken.dk/kappel/2009/11/04/tragisk-symbolpolitik-og-den-heroiske-politiker/ (In Danish)

Immerse yourself in the energetic, innovative and potentially illegal world of mash-up media with RiP: A remix manifesto. Let web activist Brett Gaylor and musician Greg Gillis, better known as Girl Talk, serve as your digital tour guides on a probing investigation into how culture builds upon culture in the information age.

Biomedical engineer turned live-performance sensation Girl Talk, has received immense commercial and critical success for his mind-blowing sample-based music. Utilizing technical expertise and a ferocious creative streak, Girl Talk repositions popular music to create a wild and edgy dialogue between artists from all genres and eras. But are his practices legal? Do his methods of frenetic appropriation embrace collaboration in its purest sense? Or are they infractions of creative integrity and violations of copyright?

You be the judge by watching RiP: A remix manifesto.

Download it now.

Wikipedia on Jacqui Dean.

“Jacqueline Isobel (Jacqui) Dean (born 13 May 1957 in Palmerston North) is a New Zealand politician and the current Member of Parliament for the Waitaki electorate.”

(skip)

“Party pills

Jacqui Dean campaigned for the banning of the sale of “party pills”, namely Benzylpiperazine (BZP), over which Associate Health Minister Jim Anderton (Progressive party) has accused her of indulging in political grandstanding, saying – “Perhaps Mrs Dean doesn’t subscribe to the idea that any Government must balance the need to act promptly with its responsibilities to act fairly and follow due process, particularly where its actions affect those who are currently acting within existing legal constraints.”[4] Dean’s press releases refer to BZP as either “cattle drench” or a “worming agent”[5][6]. BZP was developed for this use, but has never been commercially used as a wormer or drench.[7][1] Evidence that Dean has used to promote the BZP ban (such as the MRINZ report on BZP) has been criticized as consisting of flawed research which does not meet peer review requirements.[8]

Salvia divinorum

In November 2007 Jacqui Dean called for the government to take action against Salvia divinorum, saying – “Salvia divinorum is a hallucinogenic drug, which has been banned in Australia, and yet here in New Zealand it continues to be sold freely.” and “We’re dealing with a dangerous drug here, with the minister’s wait and see approach like playing Russian Roulette with young people’s lives.”[9] In March 2008 she was reportedly pleased on hearing about plans for action against salvia, but saying she was not hopeful it would be fast, given that it had taken the Government two and a-half years to move on BZP. Her concern about salvia was that people were self-medicating with it and combining it with other drugs including alcohol. “I don’t think we understand the long-term effects of Salvia divinorum.” she said.[10]

Opponents of prohibitive Salvia restrictions argue that such reactions are largely due to an inherent prejudice and a particular cultural bias rather than any actual balance of evidence, pointing out inconsistencies in attitudes toward other more toxic and addictive drugs such as alcohol and nicotine.[i][11] While not objecting to some form of regulatory legal control, in particular with regard to the sale to minors or sale of enhanced high-strength extracts, most Salvia proponents otherwise argue against stricter legislation.[ii][12]

Alcohol and tobacco

When questioned by Maori Party MP Tariana Turia, on why she was unwilling to take the same prohibitory line on smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol as she took on BZP. Ms Dean said – “Alcohol and tobacco have been with our society for many, many years.”[13] It is estimated that alcohol-related conditions account for 3.1% of all male deaths and 1.41% of all female deaths in New Zealand.[14]

Dean’s Otago electorate is also home to approximately 5% of New Zealand’s wine production, described by the New Zealand Wine Growers Association as a new but aggressively expanding wine area, which is now New Zealand’s seventh largest wine region.[15]

Water

In August 2007, as a result of emails from ACT on Campus members based loosely around the well known Dihydrogen monoxide hoax, she sent a letter to Associate Health Minister Jim Anderton, asking if there were any plans to ban “Dihydrogen Monoxide”, apparently not realizing that this is water.[16][17]

In September 2007, the Social Tonics Association of New Zealand (STANZ) called for Jacqui Dean to step down from speaking on drug issues after she demonstrated – “a lack of credibility in calling for the ban of dihydrogen monoxide (water.)” STANZ Chairman Matt Bowden said – “The DHMO hoax played on the member this week is not a joke, it highlights a serious issue at the heart of drug policy making. Ms Dean demonstrated a ‘ban anything moderately harmful’ reflex. This approach is just downright dangerous.” – “Jacqui Dean has clearly demonstrated a lack of credibility in her requests to the Minister to consider banning water; She has also seriously embarrassed her National Party colleagues who can no longer have confidence in her petitions to ban BZP or anything else.”[18]

When interviewed on the radio by Marcus Lush on 14 September 2007, she referred to the members of ACT on Campus as “left wingers”. She also suggested that there were no lessons to be learned from her attempts to call for a ban on water.[19]”

This has to be one of the dumbest fucking politicians that I’ve ever seen.

“The Future of Copyright”, Rasmus Fleischer

Link.

A concise and good explanation of the current copyright situation and it’s history.

CV: “Rasmus Fleischer is a Swedish historian, writer, and musician. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the Institute of Contemporary History at Södertörn University College, Stockholm. In 2003, he helped to found the Piratbyrån, or Piracy Bureau, an organization opposed to copyright laws for digital media. He is a frequent lecturer on what he calls the impending “collapse of copyright.”.

—

“The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution.”, Peter Biddle, Paul England, Marcus Peinado und Bryan Willman

Link.

Abstract: “We investigate the darknet ñ a collection of networks and technologies
used to share digital content.  The darknet is not a separate physical
network but an application and protocol layer riding on existing
networks.  Examples of darknets are peer-to-peer file sharing, CD and
DVD copying, and key or password sharing on email and newsgroups.
The last few years have seen vast increases in the darknetís
aggregate bandwidth, reliability, usability, size of shared library, and
availability of search engines.  In this paper we categorize and analyze
existing and future darknets, from both the technical and legal
perspectives.  We speculate that there will be short-term impediments
to the effectiveness of the darknet as a distribution mechanism, but
ultimately the darknet-genie will not be put back into the bottle.  In view
of this hypothesis, we examine the relevance of content protection and
content distribution architectures.”

Read this great article about copyright, the film industry and the usual stuff.

Hvis man interesserer sig for copyrightproblemet så bør man læse denne artikel. Man bør generelt læse den, da det er en meget god artikel om emnet.

http://torrentfreak.com/the-war-on-sharing-why-the-fsf-cares-about-riaa-lawsuits-090513/

Dette er diskussionsafsnittet skrevet til engelsk opgave omhandlende et nyt GPS-system.

The assignment is:

“Discuss what you see as the most important aspects of the GPS technology. Give your arguments. (min. 300 words)

Immediately when I was reading the article, I noted a couple of problems, which I will elaborate:

1. Technology optimism versus technology pessimism and the impossibility of deciding which is correct.
2. Efficiency equals robotising humans. Humans are ‘just’ not effective. Happiness and effectiveness does not always correlate.
3. The surveillance problem. Is there a choice to be invisible? Future possibilities?
4. Personal life. We all love it, but what is it and why do we love it?

1. Technology optimism versus technology pessimism and the impossibility of deciding which is correct.

Karl Aage Kirkegaard defines technology optimism as:

[The notion that] technology is beneficial to humans. [...] Technology is a servant, which obey human orders, and which does the boring work.

And technology pessimism as:

The technology pessimists point to a number of negative effects of technological evolution.¹

Whether or not technology has been primary helpful or unhelpful is impossible to decide with certainty, because it would require us to:

1. Create a database of all current and previous uses of technology, and
2. Decide whether or not it was helpful.

The first criteria is technically impossible, to fulfil, however, one could make reasonable estimates, if we could identify a good criteria for the second point.

The problem is, that according to the relativist view, which I share, helpful is a rather subjective criteria, since it begs the question, helpful to what purpose? Given that all purposes are subjective, it is impossible to decide, which one is correct. One should not, however, let this fact scare one. Discussion of morality is still necessary, even though we might not all agree with the conclusions it is important to know why we disagree.

One such criteria could be that of utilitarianism, which is:

“the greatest good for the greatest number of people”²

Where good can be defined as happiness or pleasure.

If we are to make a very broad estimate, then one could argue that if we look at a time scale, the level of happiness has increased almost linearly. At the same time, the general level of technology has also increased almost or linearly. It is arguable that there is a connection. One could also make an argument:

Technology generally lessens the physical work needing to be done by humans. Therefore, the more technology, the less physical work for humans (observable fact). Happiness comes when one is free to do what one wants and it not forced to do physical work. Therefore, an increase in technology leads to happiness.

This is a very general argument, which holds some force. One could object, that while this may be true, it may not always be true. For instance, it could be the case that there is a ‘halting point’, in which lack of physical work and freedom does not lead to more happiness. An analogy could be made with money. While money generally seem to increase happiness, there is a limit, when that limit is reached, more money can no longer provide more happiness.

Based on the above two arguments, technology can be said to increase happiness, which somewhat renders technology optimism as true. Note that technology pessimism and optimism is not either i.e. a dilemma, it can be a combination or none.

On the other side, technology has not only brought happiness. The most obvious is that technology boosts war, by helping humans kill each other. Dead humans are certainly not happy. If technology also leads to less happiness, then we’re in the same situation as we began in. We are forced to quantify the happiness and not-happiness, which is impossible on objective grounds. I call this the quantification problem.

2. Efficiency equals robotising humans. Humans are ‘just’ not effective. Happiness and effectiveness does not always correlate.

Efficiency is a word used with technology, dictionary.com defines it thus:

1. the state or quality of being efficient; competency in performance.
2. accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort: The assembly line increased industry’s efficiency.
3. the ratio of the work done or energy developed by a machine, engine, etc., to the energy supplied to it, usually expressed as a percentage.

The first may be ignored, since it is irrelevant. The second and third basically say the same thing. The output versus the input.

While evolution has favoured the most efficient species, humans are not capable of evolving as fast as we can evolve technology. The problem arises when competition (similar to natural selection) is applied to humans³ working together with non-humans. The combined technology with the human, also needs to be improved i.e. made more efficient due to competition. The assembly line needs to be moving faster, which means that the human just also speed it to keep up with the machines. This point was already made in Charles Chaplin’s Modern Times from 1936, in which he acted as an assembly line worker, who became robotised and become non-human.

And so, we’re back at the same problem as earlier. Competition surely increases happiness by providing better and cheaper products, but also causes unhappiness to the workers who have to make the product – in other words, we’re back as the quantification problem.

3. The surveillance problem. Is there a choice to be invisible? Future possibilities?

I don’t think anyone wants to be completely robbed of their personal life. What that means and why, will be discussed in the next ‘chapter’. Now I shall turn to the problem of surveillance. Suppose that the Galileo system was implanted right now, and one wants to be invisible, is that possible? The answer is yes, because the system can only ‘see’ you, if you have a tracking device. If it is not mandatory, but optional to have such a device, it cannot be said to be a forced surveillance system.

That is the superficially easy answer. But there is, of course, more to discuss. For example the dichotomy between mandatory and optional devices. Is a loo an optional device? Certainly depends on optionally for what purpose, which renders it somewhat subjective. But suppose, that the criteria is ‘to be able to live a normal life’. Then is a loo an optional device? Depends where you live, if you live in a city, it may not be a good city to ‘shit’ (lacking a better word) on the streets. If one wanted to make this complicated, we could loop up the human rights and use them as a guidance to a ‘normal life’. However, since this is just a small essay, I shall not make things that complicated, for now at least. More difficult cases are that of the internet or mobile phones.

In the internet case, I have some personal experience to bring to the table, so to speak. I don’t have an internet connection at home, which makes it a lot harder for me to write assignments like this, since it both has to be delivered on the internet (Fronter) and because a such assignment requires me to do some research, of which to easiest method is to use the internet. Is the internet mandatory? Depends if getting an education is mandatory. I shall leave it here, and we should just note, that it is hard or perhaps impossible to say whether or not something is mandatory.

Suppose that all new mobile phones and or computers had an in-built GPS system. Is there still choice left? What about if all new cars had them? That’s quite possible to the very future.

4. Personal life. We all love it, but what is it and why do we love it?

I shall define personal life, as that which you do alone, or must do alone. Going to the toilet should probably be considered personal life.

Answering the question to why we need personal life seems to be psychological. One could wonder if we have a need to hide some things from other people. If we are to look at biology and therefore evolution. There does not seem to be any survival value in hiding certain things from other humans. If we follow the nature culture dichotomy, then if it is not nature, then it is culture. One could therefore speculate, that we have created a cultural need to have privacy, i.e. hiding things.

The obvious candidate for weird behaviour, is, as always, religion. In the main monotheistic religions, we find that the LORD is not very pleased with sex. If we suppose that an empire had based their laws on such a religion, they would have a law against sex or perhaps just some forms of sex. Alternative, the LORD could also believe, that sex was somehow sacred⁴ and must be kept private. Therefore, inhabitants of that hypothetical country would need to hide their sex and probably other actions from everyone else. The last piece of the puzzle is to assume that this notion has been kept alive since then. (1482 words)

1Karl Aage Kirkegaard. Teknologifilosofi, 2005. Page 37-38.

2Broadly defined, there are many versions of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarism

3Or humen, which seems to be the logical choice because man gets ‘bent’ to men, why not humen?

4This notion still haunts modern times.