really nails something at the heart of the SOPA/PIPA debate, what is it we're really trying to fix? Before you try to implement a solution, make sure you truly understand the problem.
A project that I recently completed began its life as something quite different by trying to use a modern "solution" to address a non-existent problem. Once we identified something that could be done better, the whole direction of the project was changed and the result was that we produced something really cool and innovative.
While the politicians and industry supporters of these proposed bills talk about preserving jobs by curtailing piracy, no one has yet actually proven a real economic harm. As O'Reilly says, there is no arguing that fact people are consuming content that hasn't been paid for. However, there is a presumption from the supporters of these bills that in the absence of piracy, everyone of the people, watching, listening or reading would pay for that content. There is no evidence to actually support that theory.
If that is true, then breaking the internet and imposing a new censorship regime, would solve nothing and potentially create many new problems. Instead, we need to look at how to build upon the strengths of technology to create new business opportunities and jobs.
Reshared post from +Tim O’Reilly
Before Solving a Problem, Make Sure You've Got the Right Problem
I was pleased to see the measured tone of the White House response to the citizen petition about #SOPA and #PIPA
and yet I found myself profoundly disturbed by something that seems to me to go to the root of the problem in Washington: the failure to correctly diagnose the problem we are trying to solve, but instead to accept, seemingly uncritically, the claims of various interest groups. The offending paragraph is as follows:
"Let us be clear—online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, and threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs. It harms everyone from struggling artists to production crews, and from startup social media companies to large movie studios. While we are strongly committed to the vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders."
In the entire discussion, I've seen no discussion of credible evidence of this economic harm. There's no question in my mind that piracy exists, that people around the world are enjoying creative content without paying for it, and even that some criminals are profiting by redistributing it. But is there actual economic harm?
In my experience at O'Reilly, the losses due to piracy are far outweighed by the benefits of the free flow of information, which makes the world richer, and develops new markets for legitimate content. Most of the people who are downloading unauthorized copies of O'Reilly books would never have paid us for them anyway; meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of others are buying content from us, many of them in countries that we were never able to do business with when our products were not available in digital form.
History shows us, again and again, that frontiers are lawless places, but that as they get richer and more settled, they join in the rule of law. American publishing, now the largest publishing industry in the world, began with piracy. (I have a post coming on that subject on Monday.)
Congress (and the White House) need to spend time thinking hard about how best to grow our economy – and that means being careful not to close off the frontier, or to harm those trying to settle it, in order to protect those who want to remain safe at home. British publishers could have come to America in the 19th century; they chose not to, and as a result, we grew our own indigenous publishing industry, which relied at first, in no small part, on pirating British and European works.
If the goal is really to support jobs and the American economy, internet "protectionism" is not the way to do it.
It is said (though I've not found the source) that Einstein once remarked that if given 60 minutes to save the world, he would spend 55 of them defining the problem. And defining the problem means collecting and studying real evidence, not the overblown claims of an industry that has fought the introduction of every new technology that has turned out, in the end, to grow their business rather than threaten it.
P.S. If Congress and the White House really want to fight pirates who are hurting the economy, they should be working to rein in patent trolls. There, the evidence of economic harm is clear, in multi-billion dollar transfers of wealth from companies building real products to those who have learned how to work the patent system while producing no value for consumers.
P. P.S. See also my previous piece on the subject of doing an independent investigation of the facts rather than just listening to the appeals of lobbyists, https://plus.google.com/107033731246200681024/posts/5Xd3VjFR8gx
We the People: Your Voice in Our Government
WhiteHouse.gov is the official web site for the White House and President Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States. This site is a source for information about the President, White House …
Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.