The key to survival — in business as in the jungle — is the ability to learn from your mistakes. The strange thing is that some industries have not yet figured that out. Chief among them are the so-called “content” industries — the ones represented by huge multimedia corporations which own movie studios, record labels and publishing houses.
Every 20 years or so, technology throws up a challenge to these industries. For example, when audio cassettes arrived, the music industry fought tooth and nail to have the technology outlawed or crippled. Why? Because it would encourage “piracy.” What happened? The record labels wound up making lots of money from cassettes as well as records.
Then along came the video recorder and the movie industry fought it tooth and nail because it was the handmaiden of the devil — on account of facilitating “piracy.” What happened? Same story: It turned out that the studios were able to make tons of money from videocassettes because films continued to sell long after they had disappeared from cinemas.
Since then the story has been repeated at least twice more — with DVDs and portable MP3 players. So you would think that the penny would have dropped in what might loosely be called the minds of those who run the content industries. The lesson is that new technologies that look like threats can become glorious opportunities. However, there is still no evidence that media moguls have grasped that simple idea.
Which brings us to the Internet and the SOPA opera currently playing to packed audiences in the US Congress. The initials stand for the Stop Online Piracy act and it is currently before the US House of Representatives, which for these purposes is a fully paid-up branch of the movie industry. Its sister bill in the US Senate is the Protect IP act (PIPA). Both bills propose laws that would allow the US attorney general to create blacklists of Web sites to be censored, cut off from funding or removed from search engine indices.
PIPA was introduced to the Senate Judiciary Committee in May last year and quickly passed through its initial stages until US Senator Ron Wyden, a congressional leader on free speech matters, managed to put a temporary hold on the bill. However, PIPA is not dead, merely sleeping.
SOPA arrived in the House in late October and despite noisy opposition from a broad coalition of engineers, entrepreneurs, Internet users, developers, student groups, legal academics and libertarian groups, the House Judiciary Committee scheduled only a single, heavily biased, hearing on it.
What is wrong with SOPA? Well, for starters it probably violates the US constitution and would certainly curtail free speech, threaten whistleblowers and undermine human rights. If implemented, it could put the US government on the same side of the line as China, Myanmar, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian regimes that seek to control and censor the Internet.
However, the most worrying aspect of these bills is that they would distort the architecture of the Internet in ways that would cripple its capacity for enabling innovation — something that has been eloquently pointed out to members of the Senate and Congress by many of the network’s original architects.
The reason for their concern is that the proposed legislation would tamper with the domain name system (DNS), which is one of the core components of the Internet. This is the system which translates domain names into a machine-readable code that enables any computer in the world to find the site.
SOPA and PIPA would give US authorities the power to block sites accused of copyright infringement at the domain level — in other words to make them disappear from the Internet by rendering them unfindable. (This is what happened briefly to WikiLeaks in the furor following “Cablegate,” and it is exactly what authoritarian regimes everywhere would like to do to sites that go on about democracy, human rights and other annoyances.)
Now you might say: What is wrong with that? Shouldn’t a site devoted to wholesale piracy be “disappeared”?
The answer, in some cases, might be yes — provided it is done with due process and under judicial supervision. However, the problem with DNS-blocking is that it is indiscriminate. The vast majority of the world’s (legitimate) Web sites and services are hosted on servers which exist under the umbrella of single domain names.
A major hosting service (Blogger.com, for example) will contain many thousands of individual blog sites, a few of which might be fostering or practicing piracy. However, a DNS block would make the entire Blogger.com universe vanish.
Some people think that SOPA/PIPA are too absurd to pass into law. Hopefully they are right. However, given the dysfunctional nature of the US Congress right now, I would not bet on it.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations