Lawrence Lessig takes an interesting approach to open source software. He utilizes various support from Thomas Jefferson quote to the explanation of how copyrights on Hollywood movies work. One of his more interesting examples is that of iCraveTV. The Canadian vehicle to free TV was taken advantage of by Americans, so the US government asked them to take this down. Lessig points out that the US has no problem violating other nations' freedom of speech. However, whenever freedom of speech in the US is threatened by other nations, America becomes defensive. This sort of double standard points out a potential problem with cyberspace. Lessig contends that it will lead to zoning on the Web where local rules will make it a closed space. Given the push behind SOPA and PIPA in 2011, Lessig's claim may not be too far away.
While I was not a proponent of SOPA or PIPA, I think the government has some legitimacy to their surveillance of the Internet. And yes, I realize that it is not just for our "national security" like the government claims it to be. Here's one way to look at it: given the CIA's past, whether the government officially recognizes that they are monitoring the Internet or not, it would come as no surprise if the CIA was monitoring it anyway. At least in the model that exists now, we are well aware that our cyberspace actions are being monitored. While it may feel a bit Big Brother, part of the surveillance is for security, which I find comfort in.
Now in regards to Lessig's claims about zoning and local rules on cyberspace, it has already occurred in China. The US could easily be the next nation to do so. Before we all panic, is this really a problem? While it may limit the free flow of information, if the government does what it did in the case against iCraveTV, its actions will be done in order to prevent illegal activity (watching TV for free in this case). Zoning and rules do not necessarily mean that we will be limited in our search results on Google or any other radical ideas behind SOPA and PIPA. I believe that any rules set up will be more moderate and palatable to how we use the Internet currently.
Rules are a bad thing. While some rules can come from ignorance, I believe that most rules are necessary. We need structure in order to shape our lives. Plus, given the alternative of anarchy, I think I'll stick to the law.
I tend to agree with Casey's post. Jurisdiction in cyberspace rises some complicated legal and ethical questions as the the the very idea of government surveillance or intervention. On of the greatest things about the internet is the lack of boundaries and censorship. For most Americans, there is the impression that we are pretty much able to access anything that has been put online. We cringe at countries like China that censor the internet and block certain websites from their entire populace. I too believe that the internet should be as open as possible, however Casey makes a good point rules being necessary. On the one hand, I don't want the government monitoring, but on the other hand, I'd like to believe that if someone is up to any bad behavior the CIA or FBI will catch them. I don't believe that there is a simple or clear cut solution when it comes to the freedom of the internet, but some degree of rules ultimately must exist.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a majority of Casey's point. There must be some sort of law code in regards to the Internet to protect from complete anarchy. However I lean more towards the argument of private property. Lessig proposes that he is adamant about the importance of private property as well as the commons. Yet I feel his essay didn't really propose a reasonable solution to the issue of private property. Lessig almost implied that system like Apple and Microsoft should allow complete freedom to use and improve upon their codes. But then where does that leave these companies? It strips people of their livelihoods and, in my opinion, does not provide adequate compensation for such novel ideas. Lessig spends a lot of time complaining about closed systems on the Net but I really did not see a solution in the essay, rather a lot of ranting.
ReplyDeleteA preview of the class notes I made and that may be relevant here:
ReplyDelete11-12: the horror of, say, Germany telling Amazon.com to stop selling Hitler’s memoirs or China ordering it to stop selling dissendents’ books. China, of course, tried to order Google to stop certain types of searches, and Google left China. My question: how is that different from a US copyright holder to try to order a Canadian firm to stop broadcasting US shows for free? Is there a difference based upon assumed cultural importance?
I think that the most important thing to realize when writing rules for the internet is that there is always a possibility for people to find a way around the law. While having laws to protect the intellectual property of content creators is important, the internet is global just because the US asks another country to stop a certain site does not mean that it will comply. I am concerned with the US monitoring the online actions of foreign nationals who have accounts on sites like Facebook. Can one country make laws to govern something that is international?
ReplyDeleteI think we are at a point where Internet is tool that can cause an International crisis. Therefore, I believe laws relating to Internet use should be created at the UN level.
ReplyDelete