There is a reason there is a coming “war on general computing,” (I tend to think this is slightly hyperbolic but there is no other identifier as of yet). The shiny newness of internet technology has worn off and there are more then just corporations who want a say in how we relate to this new technology. More and more I see my limited work as an outward symptom of this, technology has acheived widespread adoption and is now for more then just techies.

We are now witnessing the beginning of techies comeing to terms with “non-professional,” if still intelligent people asserting themselves within and around the new technologies, sharing their opinions on technology both through the government and with the new technology. I think if the SOPA debate has tought us anything its that there seems to be a third “middle” way to address the problem that should involve extensive discussions between the aggreived parties. After all what are governments for.

If anything tech types should be happy as this has been their stated goal all along, “democratizing of technology”. Why now advocates and experts suddenly see a looming apocalypse is both odd and troubling. And frankly trying to work out this massive disonance in my head, or on my blog generally gets leaves me with more questions then answers. (I worry to many are so distrustful of government that they don’t realize when it is actually working in their favor… but thats another issue) Which above all is why I enjoy your show as you avoid the trope of self-righteousness that is so common amongst so many internet advocates.

The sort of counter example you cite is indeed troubling and I admit to not having a satisfying answer. I do try to highlight where creators are engaging with piracy of this type to their own advantage–coopting them into promoting their work, offering greater rewards behind the work itself in exchange for tangible support.

I agree with Tim O’Reilly’s assertion that piracy is a progressive tax on creators, http://openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2002/12/11/piracy.html. I think there is an inherent limit on the returns for tackling piracy head on via measures like the DMCA, SOPA and PIPA.

I think understanding the reasons why pirates don’t and won’t pay is a more fruitful exercise, whether we are considering legal recourses, market responses or evolving norms.

So if we agree on the respect of another’s works how then do we address this custom via law? There has to be some sort of compromise that can be reached here that addressess blatent piracy but leave room for fair use. The question is where is that space? I sense an unwillingness to address the fact that there are bad actors within your, or anyone elses, framework.

Let’s say that not everyone who engages in pirating is an unknowing dunce as you argued late last year, there are scofflaws and the question now becomes how do we address the scofflaws without targeting the legitimate fair users? The issue is far from black and white as both sides in this debate wish to characterize it one shade or the other.

I cannot use a free or open license in good conscience and do otherwise. The use of such licenses goes along with an expectation that others will respect my wishes with regards to the terms of sharing, free or otherwise.

Not all hackers may acknowledge it, but releasing free software and open media is logically and ethically inconsistent with disrespecting the value of the works by pirating it.

All that being said, laws like the DMCA and bills like SOPA and PIPA are not about respecting the value of works. They are about building a veto over innovation in the guise of fighting piracy. In the past, our legislature here in the US has worked at compromises, like statutory licensing, that allow innovation with due consideration to the value of existing creations.

The private rights of actions being lobbied for by big content do not reserve any room at all for fair use and for new and unanticipated inventions and expressions. Big does enter into it as only the big intermediaries, the labels and studios and the trade associations that represent them, have the resources to lobby for these unfair means of address a problem whose legitimacy is far from settled.

At the very least it is wrong to dismiss this question of the values of anothers work, even if it is from a lobby that you do not recognize. Can you answer the question that Huh did not? Can you support a legal regime that in some way recognizes the value of anothers work, or is this just too much? The hacker community philosophy needs to be expressly clear on this.