Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 323
Netizens-Digest Thursday, July 29 1999 Volume 01 : Number 323
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: Freedom for Commercial content?
[netz] Re: [CPI-UA] A simple question for Netizens
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 00:54:49 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Freedom for Commercial content?
Carsten Laekamp wrote,
> > > IMHO, even the meaning of "information" doesn't need any discussion
> > > here.
...
> a) in an computer-network context, "flow of information" mostly refers
> to "series of 0's and 1's"
>
> b) if you try to define what's information or not, based on the
> content carried by those 0's and 1's (or any other vector), and then
> decide on what may "flow" and what not, there isn't any "free flow"
> anymore, simply because for someone else, "information" will have a
> broader understanding of the word.
>
Engineers like to speak of 1s and 0s as information, but they are
unable to say what is *informed* by them. It may be useful to talk
about information at this level in the same terms as your bank
balance, my medical records and Ronda's book, but I have yet to
see the case made for it.
As for 'content,' isnt the content of a 1simply 1? Beyond that, the
connection to what we slovenly humans mean by saying 'X
contains Y' is more metaphorical than substantive, in that the
things we generally mean (that is, over and above oneness and
zeroness) are defined by _ordered strings_ -- in this case, of them
clean machine 1/0s. What is the order? Why, its given in the
manuals. Where does it come from? Why, a bunch of folks
decided to put it together that way. What does it mean? Why, it
doesnt *mean anything, it just *defines A as 0065, thats all. If you
know the definitions, you know the things defined, what could be
simpler?
I grant that order (and definition in general) is *a kind of 'meaning'
(as the word is used) but its not the only one (tho the militarists
rather like it), as a moment's honest thought reveals: if definitions
are so great, how come we are all the time struggling to
understand one another? Why didnt we just get a list of def's at
school and be done with all this jabberwocky? (And one day of
school would be enough to hand out the lists, wouldnt it? Why
even bother to define _school, then? Parents could just hand down
their lists unto their children and their children's children, no?)
In short (to reduce a couple hundred years of epistemology here ;-
)), to equate definition with content is to not only miss the forest for
the trees, but to lop all the limbs off and call the stems trees
What is at issue in any discussion of 'what we mean' -- such as
'free flow of information' -- is *not whether the information can be
displayed by 1s and 0s; it is much more like the relation of strings
to characters (Btw, hereabouts, we say a string *contains
characters, do you prefer to say its the content of characters?)
That is, if I may use the *metaphor* of 1/0 to represent 'information,'
then the 'context' of information is the sequencing of digits, and
matters of privacy and piracy and pornography and so on are
questions of *what sequence are we going to use? There isnt just
one book of defs, you see; there are piles of them, and what looks
like chicken scratches to you is my chest X-ray, and what looks
like hens eggs to me is your bank balance ;-) -- its all rubbish until
we know which 'standards' or 'dictionary' or 'decoder ring' to use.
> > Doesnt your (unnecessary) definition of information say whether it
> > freely flows or not?
>
> Huh ?
Johns innocent proposition *appears to ask, do you want there to
be just one standard? Some naifs have apparently voted yes, but I
dont believe any of them have likely solved the problem of just how
we're likely to get there from here...
And that is not a 'separate question' -- first, for the yea-sayers, if
there was a single standard for everything, how could it be? What's
to be separate? For the nay-gators, its fairly obvious that the main
'information' that human cultures have a rather vested interest in
*preventing the free flow thereof is that which defines our various
and multiple standards and codebooks: when someone *defines
privacy in the same terms as patent and personality and
philosophy and perspicacity, we may take another look, but its not
going to happen just because someone says it ought to.
====
> Someone posted here a call for a petition. We can either decide,
> everyone on his own, whether to sign it or not. Or we could
> discuss the issue. Not to have one's own decisions implemented, but
> to see different points of view. Up to everyone else to sign the
> petition afterwards or not. I would very much like to hear others'
> opinions on that subject, because I am not really certain what
> answer is the right one (although I do have a preference, of
> course).
Im glad to see you agree with me ;-) The call, however (if I
understand you) was for a 'vote' - not a discussion, scrutiny or
consideration or even a sharing of opinions, and this revealed that a
good many people have fairly fixed ideas as to what a 'vote'
*means*, with a special focus on the 'aggregation of data' (sorry, do
I mean information?). As it happens, my 'interactive voting
machine' (http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/kerryo/g9/pie1.htm )
*disaggregates peoples inputs (in a conceivably orderly way); that
is, the appropriate netizeny activity is precisely discussion,
scrutiny and consideration; 'voting' is the very last stage of the
process, not the first.
=========
> > Let's get
> > three people clear on how *three people* can come to understand
> > one another, and there'll be time enough to see what to do after
> > that.
>
> Strange idea... if three people cannot manage to understand (you
> didn't say "agree with") each other, why fight for anything at all ?
No I didnt say agree with, but neither did I say 'fight'... Are there
two sides to such a simple matter? Is there likely to be some
conflict of interest which would give some special way to
understand preference over another? Isnt it likely that the *difficulty
three people have in inderstanding one another comes from
assuming there must have to be some conflictual ('competitive')
aspect to it?
> > Now, if I may be so gauche as to take your question literally,
>
> Why "gauche" ?
One usually find figurative speech used for the sake of
sophistication; to my mind, the 'royal we' (as in "Do we want every
content to be freely distributed or do we prefer restrictions") is
figurative and not literal. As a *style of speaking that assumes that
*we* can not merely 'represent' the opinion of every netizen, but
*act to realize that 'want,' it devalues *our individual powers of
decision: its basic message is, 'Dream on, fnurk; youre nobody
and always will be nobody, but you might as well *pretend to be
grandiose because what else is there?'
Of course, many people will vehemently deny they ever intended
any such thing; its just a 'manner of speaking,' a 'fashion' that
doesnt *mean* anything. But its easy enough to experiment: what
does one say,in this fashion, when one means, 'Carsten and Kerry
and anybody who wants to join in'? Isnt it the same word, 'we'?
How then does one tell the difference between the we who are you
and me and the we who want life to be simple? I prefer to be clear
in my mind, and to use language that matches (when it can ;-)) --
and that is gaucherie to some.
======
> > There Is A Higher Power! You are Weak
> > and Helpless! You Can Not keep yourself from looking at porn, or
> > violating copyright, or stealing warez, so Somebody has to Take
> > Care of You.
>
> Exaggerating that much is too easy. For one thing, "violating
> copyright, stealing warez" is (in most cases) not an addiction.
My idea is that one is addicted to *being prevented from stealing* --
doesnt this explain why people behave as if 'its ok unless you're
caught'?
> Second:
> unlike the problem of addiction (not talking about indirect
> consequences here), some of the information carried by the 'Net can
> have direct consequences on other people than the reader: warez sites
> do harm the manufacturer of the "stolen" software; instructions on how
> to manufacture weapons will hurt the people they will be used against
> (ok, this _is_ an indirect consequence, but it still is the purpose
> of those sites), ...
I disagree. The manufacturer may have turned to other work
because s/he wasnt paid; sure, wouldnt you? How can changing
jobs be harmful? Bomb recipes can have the purpose of showing
Joe Citizen just how fragile the 'security' provided by the state
actually is: any damn fool can blow your door off and there is
precious little anyone can do about it *afterwards. Know this and
that, and the neighbour kid wheeling a sack of nitrogen phosphate
into his garage begins to look a little different...
The point, in the context of understanding one another, is that the
way you state the case conditions the others interpretation. You
say 'harm,' I think 'ooh, we shouldnt cause harm; you say '*the*
purpose,' and I think 'we ;-) ought to put a stop to that!' (Its not the
'information; its the strings, see?)
===
> But why don't we have _total_ control of the information carried
> by the 'Net nowadays ? Partly because there has been (some)
> self-regulation.
Yes, but mainly because human social structures dont change
very fast, and even a full generation into this information age, 'we'
still dont quite believe that *everything is up for grabs. Is this what
you call self-regulation? Human decency? Isnt inertia more
accurate?
> If the "free flow" becomes the (internal) rule, someone "from the
> outside" _will_ ask for tight control of the whole thing, sooner or
> later.
Will there always be an inside/outside? Im not so sure. I guess
that within the decade, there wont be any internet. Sure, the
channels and pipes will be there, chock full with one set of
definitions and orders, everything nicely consistent and validated.
Oh it'll be free, of course -- to all good citizens! (We *are* nicely
consistent and validated, arent we?)
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:11:33 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: [CPI-UA] A simple question for Netizens
Earl, I have presumed to respond to you on list, as I think the topic
is entirely relevant to issues of Universal Access, and may help
stimulate discussion, maybe even the enunciation of a coherent
online policy when our incoherent policy makers have worn
themselves out....
> > What information is one likely to create?
> I'd put opinion, original reportage, creative content such as photos,
> stroies, scripts, poems and paintings in this category.
> I'd probably add in "processing" such as synopses, reviews etc
>
> >Does 'openly' mean *to
> >the best of ones knowledge*?
> Probably submit to a list serv, include in a web page for which you are
> responsible or add to someone else's website in the form of information
> about yourself, subject to their published acceptable use crioteria
>
Do the 'free listserver' sites post a privacy statement? Does one
keep any siginificant rights in what one posts (that isnt already
published of course)?
I note the mention of 'info about yourself'; does that fall in the
'created' list above? Why?
> > If X is [published or] in public domain, what are ones
> > options when X is found to be attributed to someone else?
> Not sure what you mean. Some places use "first found at" as a reference
> which I think is a courtesy, and also link to the original which is
> preferable so new accessors of the information continue to have the
> original available.
>
"The problem arises when someone uses my (freely given) work to
make their own money - e.g. by incorporating my words in their
work,or selling my stuff in a different format. Then greed/envy/desire
re-emerge: perhaps [the] model relies too much on having an online
community of like-minded people." (Found on another list,
attributed to a Bill Thompson <bill@dial.pipex.com> ;-))
But its interesting how much of the problem disappears if one
dispenses with the first person pronouns...
> Exactly, the definition should have been on the internet, what people
> publish to their intranet is, in my view private information and needs
> permission to release.
>
How visible is the line between inter and intra? Sure, if the
permissions are set properly, there's no question - but how many of
these pages that say 'click to enter' may turn out to be de facto
contracts by which one accepts various 'intranet' conditions?
> >> The main issue is, at what point does the reference or quotation
> >> become plaigiarism or theft of intellectual capital.
> >
> >Doesnt this turn on what 'creation' of information means?
> Yup, and as someone once said, stealing one person's work is plagiarism,
> stealing many people's work is "research"
> The whole issue of intellectual capital has been more or less restricted to
> academia ...
Can we define the groves of academe as the habitat for intellectual
capital? Trying to export IP as if its a tangible 'good' may not only
make hash of the marketplace, but looks like it may destroy the
academy as well..
> > Was the recent Yahoo/Geocities statement of policy unclear?
> >What grounds might one have for protesting -- that is, holding one
> >policy over another?
> Obviously not, otherwise there would not have been the immediate
> and inflammatory response. They broke a cardinal rule of civilised
> behaviour in trying to enact something retrospectively. they ought
> to have advised all their members of an impending rule change and
> given them the opportunity to accept, or shift to a new service.
An interesting reponse -- but not to my question. I understand the
righteousness of the members' protest, but in terms of IP and
'consent' as a criterion for 'free flow of information,' I suggest a) the
policy was entirely clear, b) there are no grounds for protest unless
they have been established as pre-existing. (You say the policy
was retrospective - but it was specifically for any subsequent
updates or editing.) Now, Yahoo might indeed have gone about
their rationalizing the situation differently, I have no idea, but I dont
see it as limiting members' opportunities to find other providers.
> Better still they should have "consulted" their member base and
> negotiated the new terms.
Did you (or anybody else) think Geocites was a democracy??
> Frankly, not to have included the change in their due diligence process was
> just dumb, how much goodwill has it cost Yahoo for this fiasco?
Talk about your obsolete concepts -- isnt 'goodwill' in cyberspace
even deader than copyright? Who, pray tell, can measure the
difference in hits or pass-through or purchases whether gw exists
or not? Either a site does what I expect it to do or it doesnt - what
else is a browser supposed to think?
> >Is there really no getting away from 'dirtspaced' criterion? Does all
> >communication depend, in the end, on some (essentially
> >metaphysical) sense of *knowing who one is talking to?
>
> Communication does. Publication is more metaphysical but every
> publisher still tries to understand their particular niche. One of
> the challenges of the internet is that, for the first time the
> dissemination of information can be ubiquitous and global in
> seconds and we have no clear idea of what kind of relationship that
> might be.
How do you distingush between 'communication' and 'publishing'?
> is there no room in your concept of consent for
> >'extraordinarily mature' youth?
> Not sure, how would you define that and who would arbitrate?
If self-regulation works for industry, why wouldnt it work for kids?
> ...possession of information for which informed consent has not been
> given should be an offence. Where it is the intellectual property
> of the originator it comes under copyright, where it is evidence of
> a criminal act for which the victim cannot reasonably have given
> informed consent (I know, it gets complicated) then the possessor
> becomes and accessory after the fact.
>
It is just this turf where the issues must be decided, however. A
good number of our hallowed laws are basically 'legal fictions';
some things have been defined as criminal and others as legal
which no amount of digital prestidigitation is going to rationalize.
That a minor who has no other legal rights (or concepts!) has some
IP in her *skin for which her consent is required -- not merely to
photograph, for we snap pictures all the time, but for the *sequelae
of publication, distribution, sale, etc -- is an incredible stretch of the
arm of the law *regardless of its good intentions*.
Logically, we end up either shutting the Net down for the sake of
the kids, or cease having kids; how can the pursuit of 'information'
possibly stop anywhere in the middle?
> > Suppose
> >my innocent child sets up her own web cam and charges
> >admission to view her and her pet turtle: who is entitled to take it
> >down?
>
> Without being facetious, it depends on what she's doing with the turtle.
>
(Demurely) You'll just have to pay up to find out, wont you?
- - but suddenly a Pirsigian idea of *quality enters the picture: hadnt
we been saying, if shes creating information, thats adequate
ground to stand on? Btw, I said 'set up her own' intentionally;
doesnt that imply 'consent'? (She says she has a waiver from the
turtle...) So, not facetiously at all, depends on *what?
> No, civilisation is a dynamic process, not a structure. if we
> don't do it, it doesn't exist. Civilisation is a behaviour, not an
> entity.
>
> Good people are not good by some innate quality, but by the way
> they interact with those around them. How else would I know that
> they were good?
Quite so - but all our institutiuons, establishments and
'fundamental' social relations in general embody structural criteria.
Even in CMC, where there are no grounds at all for supposing
structural consistency, we carry over from dirt-space ideas that
there 'ought' to be such. Sure, we call it 'self-control' (or
regulation), but isnt it obvious that its the result of having been
taught to think *institutionally (just as all the legislative furore over
porn and medication and trademark jurisdiction is)? Is there any
possible way for that kind of thinking to be brought into the
civilization-as-process perspective?
> So, as a member of a civil society, behaving as a good person,
> they will participate in the constant contruction and maintenance
> of that society. When someone is abusing it, or its processes or
> the rights of others, they will act as good people, and do
> something about it. Even if only a letter to an editor or a
> listserv =)
... where it will be
> >easily swamped by a dozen others saying, 'Cant have this, Gotta
> >have that,
... I *assumed*, We *have to* organize, ...
> > Whos in charge here, It wont work for everybody'?
> My concern is that too often the almost-consensus stuff is lost
> and we have to keep relitigating it. (I'm conscious that, as a
> newbie on the list I'm probably doing exactly that right now)
>
Yes, its for good reason that working consensus circles
stipulate that once a decision is made, it is not revisited. What
seems to be missing in cyberspace is a sense of *rec*order; its
already too much to 'keep up' with the current topic, that we omit
rereading other (or revising our own) messages, much less
researching the archive, or compiling a summary or digest of what
has been said -- should there be a list, I wonder, dedicated to
summarizations?
So the task falls on your newbistic shoulders to run through all
this so that we may all benefit from the 'refresher'... I (who havent
been here long enough to say I recognize *any of it as having been
said before, but hey, who said 'Theres always a first time'?) thank
you.
Then again, maybe we know good people by their tolerating (yea,
encouraging!) going over old ground for the sake of others.
kerry, relegating or relitigating I can never quite decide
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #323
******************************
