While not enough people recognize it, the real purpose of copyright law is to provide an incentive for the creation of more content. The government felt that there was a market failure, where not enough "content" would be produced without a limited monopoly, and thus, copyright was born. However, that happened back in the day when creating content wasn't easy. You pretty much had to go through a professional process. These days, thanks to new technologies, creating content is exceptionally easy -- and thus, a big part of the very basis for copyright no longer makes sense. We're drowning in content -- and it's not because of the "incentive" of copyright. There are plenty of incentives for creating content these days and very few have anything to do with copyright.

However, because of that bright line, where copyright was really designed for professional content creators, you end up with bizarre conclusions about how communications should be owned. This stems from the fact that these new technologies have blurred the boundaries between content and communications. Traditionally, professional content was about a one-to-many communication system. However, today, most content is really about many-to-many communication. This isn't new. Nearly four years ago, we pointed to some early work by Greg Lastowka and Dan Hunter (who are still doing good work in this field) pointing out how copyright law doesn't make sense for many-to-many communications.

But with that border being made increasingly blurry (and it's only going to get more so), it's causing more and more people to recognize how troublesome existing copyright law is -- because all it does is hinder that kind of communication. That is, rather than acting as incentive for content creation (as is it's basic purpose), it's instead hindering content creation. That's because it only targets one increasingly less relevant type of content creation, while hindering the increasingly more popular one. This realization is occurring to more and more people, and the latest is Jeff Jarvis, who has come to the conclusion that the "creative class" is a myth. And he's right. These days, we're all the creative class -- and copyright is holding us back.

I've long disagreed with those who say that copyright kills creativity, for I do believe that there is no scarcity of inspiration. But I now understand their position better. I also have learned that when creations are restricted it is the creator who suffers more because his creation won't find its full and true public, its spark finds no kindling, and the fire dies. The creative class, copyright, mass media, and curmudgeonly critics stop what should be a continuing process of creation; like reverse alchemists, they turn abundance into scarcity, gold into lead.

In the essay, Jarvis also dives into a fuller recognition of the economics of scarcity and abundance:

But we are shifting, too, from a culture of scarcity to one of abundance. That is the essence of the Google worldview: managing abundance. So let's assume that instead of a scarcity there is an abundance of talent and a limitless will to create but it has been tamped down by an educational system that insists on sameness; starved by a mass economic system that rewarded only a few giants; and discouraged by a critical system that anointed a closed, small creative class. Now talent of many descriptions and levels can express itself and grow. We want to create and we want to be generous with our creations. And we will get the attention we deserve. That means that crap will be ignored. It just depends on your definition of crap.

Welcome to the party, Jeff.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The FBI disclosed today that it had "improperly obtained" phone records of reporters at the Indonesia bureaus for the New York Times and Washington Post in 2004.

Robert S. Mueller III, director of the F.B.I., disclosed the episode in a phone call to Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, and apologized for it. He also spoke with Leonard Downie Jr., the executive editor of The Washington Post, to apologize. F.B.I. officials said the incident came to light as part of the continuing review by the Justice Department inspector general’s office into the bureau’s improper collection of telephone records through “emergency” records demands issued to phone providers. The records were apparently sought as part of a terrorism investigation, but the F.B.I. did not explain what was being investigated or why the reporters’ phone records were considered relevant.

F.B.I. Says It Obtained Reporters’ Phone Records (NYT)

Recently at Boing Boing Gadgets, we saw a powerful point-and-shoot from Nikon, a backlit coaster, a remote controlled robot zombie, and a demented erotic chess set. There was a pretty engraved MacBook Pro, a beautiful retro handset from Sony Ericsson (and a handheld PC design fantasy we based on it), and a cyborg goatee shaving guard. Some hackers got kicked out of a hacking conference for hacking, and Lotus wants to make hybrid cards noisier. John spotted a great handheld SNES, General Electric's television of today from 1978 — "Do you have a seraglio of a thousand slaves to help you lift it out of the store?" — and found a forest nymph to be the light of his life. Rob found a $1,975 set of energy phase-correcting wooden blocks for audiophiles, imagined what Ikea's cell phone might look like, and wondered why everything ever is "stylish and elegant." Then he was struck on the head by a bad-assed 3lb heavyweight tape dispenser. Finally, before you hit the weekend, check our our gallery of 101 Classic Computer Ads.

John Kricfalusi alerted me to these hilarious toys he designed depicting the presidential candidates. John Kricfalusi's presidential candidate toys

We've already explained why it's rather silly for Congress to pass an outright ban of talking on mobile phones in-flight, but that probably won't stop the effort from going forward. However, new research is showing how this may be even less necessary than many assume. First, contrary to the idea that most people are worried about in-flight phone use, most younger users seem to actually support it.

As for the concern that it would just be really "annoying"? It turns out that when you look at actual tests (what a concept), this turns out not to be a problem. Passengers develop their own etiquette for keeping quiet and not pissing off other passengers. In other words, social pressures can handle most of the worst scenarios without the need for any sort of law that bans it in all situations. But, of course, this is Congress we're talking about. They're not huge fans of basing laws on what actually happens, but on what will generate the best headlines.

Also, just to respond to some of the misconception in the comments to the previous post: the potential ban has absolutely nothing to do with the technology issues related to using mobiles on airplanes. It's entirely about the etiquette/annoyance issue. Most of those technical issues have been worked out by putting a "picocell" on the airplane itself to redirect the voice traffic in a more efficient manner, rather than having the phones try to connect directly to towers on the ground.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Video game maker Ubisoft has a rather long history of employing crappy DRM (and then even using someone else's code to crack their DRM when it caused problems for legitimate customers). However, this latest story involving a Ubisoft copy protection scheme may be the most bizarre. Chris Gruel writes in to let us know that Ubisoft is suing the CD duplicator firm it used to produce the video game Assassin's Creed, claiming that employees from that firm were responsible for the game leaking to the internet. It appears they have pretty good evidence that this did, in fact, happen (the leak was traced to an IP address controlled by an employee of the firm, and a copy of the game was found at that employee's home). So you can understand why they'd be upset about that (though, they had to realize that it would be pirated eventually).

However, here's where the story gets bizarre. Because Ubisoft was afraid that this might happen, the pre-release copy it sent to the CD duplicator included (on purpose!) a bug that would crash the game partway through. That was the copy that the employee leaked, so Ubisoft is complaining that this leak harmed their reputation, because people claimed the game was really buggy and crashed. Try to keep this straight in your mind here. Ubisoft put their own (crude, yes) DRM on the game because they were afraid it would leak. The game was leaked, and the DRM acted exactly as intended, and thus Ubisoft's reputation was harmed.

It makes you shake your head in wonder.

If Ubisoft had not included this DRM, then it would apparently have less to complain about. Thus, I think the only logical conclusion is that Ubisoft should be suing itself for including such damaging DRM on its own pre-release copies of Assassin's Creed.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The ACLU has set up a form that makes it easy to tell Congress to overhaul the broken terrorist watch list and to require reasonable suspicion for electronic searches at the border.

With no suspicion and no explanation, the U.S. government can seize your laptop, cell phone, or PDA as you enter the United States and download all your private information -- including your personal and business documents, emails, phone calls, and web history. The Department of Homeland Security confirms that this is the official policy.

What happens if you refuse to let the agents download your personal photos? Or if you have encrypted your private information? Then Border Patrol -- which is now an agency of the Department of Homeland Security -- can simply copy your entire hard drive or even take your device and hang on to it indefinitely.

Unfortunately, seizing laptops and cameras at the border isn’t the only travel security measure that infringes on our civil liberties.

Just last month, the U.S. government's "terrorist watch list" surpassed one million names and is growing by over twenty-thousand names per month. The watch list includes the names of prominent people, like Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), plus hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans -- many of them with common names like Robert Johnson and James Robinson. Your name might be on the list, but there's no way to know for sure until you are delayed -- or even detained for hours in a back room. If you discover your name is on the list, it's nearly impossible to get off. It actually took an Act of Congress to get Nelson Mandela off the list. No joke. An Act of Congress.

These abuses have something in common: They make all of us into suspects, with no rule of law and no accountability.

Tell Congress to rein in DHS travel abuses (ACLU)

When you've built a business based on artificial scarcity for years, and then suddenly find yourself in a much more competitive market, it's no surprise that some of the ideas you come up with will be to run directly towards more artificial scarcity. That's what the Philadelphia Inquirer appears to be doing with its new policy to not put many types of stories online until they hit the physical paper. This doesn't apply to breaking news (thank goodness), but pretty much everything else: "investigative reporting, enterprise, trend stories, news features, and reviews of all sorts." You can sort of understand why the paper would like to coordinate, though it does seem to treat online as a second class citizen. It also leads to one odd and highly questionable decision:

For our bloggers, especially, this may require a bit of an adjustment. Some of you like to try out ideas that end up as subjects of stories or columns in print first.

Apparently, that's no longer allowed. Of course, for columnists, that's one of the main advantages of having a blog. It lets you try out ideas, get feedback, and generally make the final product that much better. But apparently the Philadelphia Inquirer would rather come out with a lower quality product -- as long as it all comes out at the same time.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Volume 8 of CRAFT, sister publication to MAKE, is on stands now. Here's the teaser video.

Inertia-Labs makes these cool little surveyor robot kits. The BP Explorer site in Australia built a miniature city and populated it with five surveyor bots you can control over the Web. BP Explorer

Following the release of Homeland Security's policies for searching laptops at the border, where the rules are, effectively, "anything goes," DHS boss Michael Chertoff claimed that laptop searches were only done when the border guard had a "suspicion" and placed that individual in "secondary inspection." However, Senator Russ Feingold has now hit back, pointing out that the official DHS policies say absolutely nothing about there needing to be a suspicion or that laptop searches only happen on secondary inspection. If Chertoff were being honest, why wouldn't those things be in the official policy? And, if Chertoff insists that DHS will only do searches when there is a real suspicion, what's wrong with following the "probable cause" standard that it insists it should be allowed to ignore? It's nice to see Senator Feingold asking these questions.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Last year, I outlined a bunch of research from the past few years that show how damaging noncompete agreements are to innovation. In fact, some of the research suggests that the single biggest factor in explaining why Silicon Valley became such a hub for tech innovation is the fact that noncompetes are unenforceable here. Studies comparing Silicon Valley to Boston and Michigan are quite convincing on the importance of allowing greater job mobility in order to promote more innovation. In fact, there's a vocal group in Massachusetts that has put a lot of effort into (finally) getting that state to ban noncompetes.

Of course, it appeared that some were pushing in the opposite direction in California (at least via lawsuit). But the good news is that California's Supreme Court has now reiterated that noncompetes are unenforceable here. This is a huge victory for innovation in the Valley.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

As much as I respect Apple, Unslow, one of their new iPhone 3G television ads, has me wondering how they kept a straight face when they put this on the air. Try to follow along with your own iPhone 3G:

Web pages load immediately. GPS picks up instantly. Files download about 3x faster than I’ve ever seen a file download — even over wi-fi. I don’t think standing on top of a 3G tower antenna would even deliver such an experience.

This ad borders on bait-and-switch and it’s disappointing to see Apple go there. If the ad wasn’t about speed it might be a different story. If they were just showing off as many features as they could in a 30 second spot it would be understandable. If they exercised poetic license and cut out a few frames to make a different point we’d understand.

But Unslow is about selling speed. Speed that isn’t for sale at any price. It sets the wrong expectations. It leads to a disconnect between the iPhone in the guy’s hand on TV and the iPhone in your hand. When they don’t deliver what they demonstrate people end up disappointed.

UPDATE: Someone compared the ad to the real-world performance (full 3G reception in Boston):

Thanks in advance for the nightmare, Kitschy Kitschy Coo.

Not as crazy as the pulp treatment for Orwell's 1984 that Cory found, this silly cover for Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is still worth a gander.

Brave New World pulp exploitation paperback (via Hang Fire Books)

And people wonder why airlines have so much trouble staying in business? We were already confused enough by American Airlines' desire not to be listed on the sites where people search for airfare, and easyJet's plan to sue the sites that send it customers, but Irish-based airline Ryanair is taking this all to a new level. Beyond just being upset about those 3rd party sites (i.e., sites that send it business!), it's planning to cancel the flights for everyone who booked through one of those services (thanks to Sean for the link).

Yes, we understand that these airlines prefer people to purchase flights from the airlines directly, but it still seems bizarre to try to cut off a great promotional channel. People already know to go look at 3rd party sites for airfare, so actively working against having your flights promoted doesn't make much sense. Then actively pissing off a bunch of your customers who booked through those sites by canceling their flights is even more braindead, as you've just formed a huge group of customers who will complain about your airline and spread the word about how you canceled their legitimately purchased flight for no reason other than spite and a confusion over business models. When Ryanair started promoting how some of its seats might come with sexual gratification, I'd bet many passengers didn't realize it would end with them getting screwed.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story