technology

Below see CEI President Fred Smith’s comments on Jonathan Hillel’s piece in the San Jose Mercury News:

Hillel’s piece raises the very interesting question of whether the use of copyrighted materials must forever remain out of reach of most people.  The vast majority of creative works disappear from public view within a very short time of their release.   Few books or records are best sellers, many magazines (especially specialized magazines and journals) go out of existence in a decade or so.  Yet, the information and enjoyment value of these works might enrich millions of people in our new e-world.  Currently, the length of copyright and the reluctance of any one to devote the resources to bring them back into view mean they’ve been taken from the world’s “library” and “record/CD/DVD” shelves.

One way to think through this topic is to consider how real (as opposed to intellectual) property that has been “abandoned” is treated.  Land, for example, remains in the hands of the original owners unless (as is very often the case) no one has paid the property taxes for a number of years (in political jurisdictions without property taxes – there must be some – I have no idea what is done) and then these lands are sold to compensate the jurisdictions for the unpaid taxes.   In another case, individuals may open a financial account in some institutions and then for some reason (death, forgetfulness, small balance) simply abandon it.  Since some costs are incurred in maintaining such accounts, some private institutions will simply close the account and absorb whatever assets are in that account (airline loyalty programs, for example) although generally an effort is made to warn the user that such action is imminent.  Banks, being regulated and subsidized, take various approaches to what, in that context, are called “dormant accounts.”  After a period of inactivity, the banks post notices and, if no response is received, any funds (less management fees) are generally transferred to the state in which that account exists.  (Depending on state law, one may be able to recover the funds even after this transfer if adequate documentation can be provided.)  In some jurisdictions, however, the financial institution simply retains the funds and uses them as part of their reserves, while still honoring the obligation to repatriate the funds (perhaps with interest) if a qualified owner eventually turns up.

Whether the shift of “orphan” copyrights to the state or a creative party and, in either case, what obligations should exist if the owner does appear after some period of time, is an interesting question.  The Google “answer” seems both equitable and fair.

With the election of a new president and new Democratic majorities in Congress, the era of corporate influence is over in Washington, D.C. Or, at least that what I had heard. According to our old friend Tim Carney, I may have been mistaken:

A telecommunications company has confirmed for this columnist that its vice president for policy—who is also an Obama donor and a former lobbyist—is advising Barack Obama’s transition team on telecom policy.

Obama’s transition team, which has failed to disclose this executive’s involvement, happens to have proposed a significant change in telecom policy that will profit that very company, called Clearwire.

By pushing to delay the long-scheduled transition of television broadcasting from analog signals to digital signals, president-elect Obama is directly aiding Sprint and its partner Clearwire while hurting Verizon.

It turns out that there is more to this digital TV transition than just those endless commercials advising old people that their 1953 RCA with rabbit ears isn’t going to be able to function on its own anymore. Additional props go to Julian Sanchez at Ars Technica for breaking and updating the story.

Web 2.0 people

O’Reilly writer Andy Oram makes the case that the assertion President-elect Barack Obama’s victory is in large part due to his campaign’s effective use of the internet is an overstatement, to say the least.  Oram counters that when all is said and done, the mainstream media is what had the most significant impact on the elections.

I feel I have to temper the hype over how the Internet has changed elections. There’s no doubt that the Internet provides enormous potential, and that people have been using it in burgeoning numbers over the past four years to search for information, share ideas with friends, and form online coalitions. But several key observations show that the tipping point hasn’t arrived.

He goes on to give three points that illustrate why he feels this is the case:

1. Fund-raising proves the primacy of the mainstream media
2. Viral videos also prove the primacy of the mainstream media
3. Elections themselves have no Internet component

[click to continue…]

Like everybody else in town, we’re pondering the implications of the transition to the Obama Administration for various policy areas here at CEI. On the technology/Internet front, CNet’s Declan McCullagh has a superb overview today.

On the high-technology front, president-elect Obama has indicated he’d appoint a Chief Technology Officer. The role seems federal-government-focused: The tech “czar” would manage government technology policy with respect to matters like cybersecurity, privacy and Internet policies–basically securing governement networks and keeping government agencies on the cutting edge of communications technology.

The role as described seems limited to “bringing government into the 21st century.” But would the role remain circumscribed? “Czars,” like commissions of various sorts, are tempting for politicians, and can end up as barriers and stumbling blocks to non-political solutions to normal problems and challenges. A drug czar wages a hugely expensive war on drugs; An education czar ends up supporting funding of education programs from Washington, D.C.

[click to continue…]