Eric Lausten's weblog

“Will Information Technology Reshape the North-South Asyemmetry of Power in the Global Economy?”, by Weber and Bussell, interesting addressed the growth of open source software in China.

It notes that Linux sales there grew 20 percent in 2004 with high growth expected to continue. The Chinese government “declared Linux the ‘operating system of choice’ for new installations” in 2003. In 2002 half of Chinese programmers surveyed reported having written Linux applications, and 15 percent more expected to. The growth in use of Linux and other open source software by US information technology companies - MySQL, Apache, Google, Yahoo - is also cited.

It thus stands to reason that at least some, if not much, of the infrastructure used by the Chinese government to control and censor the Internet operates on Linux or other open source software.

Coupling this with the reference to China’s bureaucratic patent invalidation process and the prevalence of software piracy there, the ability of the US government to embargo ICT from the Chinese government could likely be subverted. Software, or perhaps even services, that may otherwise have been procured from or provided by US suppliers might instead be developed locally, obtained through open source third-party developers, or copied from licensed technology (the legality of which will likely depend on national perspective).

If it becomes the policy of the US government to restrict the transfer of ICT that would support Chinese government Internet censorship, it would thus seem that open source development would enable a certain amount of evasion from such efforts.

Posted by Eric at 10:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Copyright Alliance, an organization comprised of the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, and many of their members, is intent on “promoting the cultural and economic benefits of copyright, providing information and resources on the contributions of copyright, and upholding the contributions of copyright to the fiscal health of this nation and for the good of creators, owners and consumers around the world.” In essence, they want to build up strong protections of their creative works, prevent piracy and unlicensed use, and seek to justify these positions based in part on their individual interests, but also claim that their issue is of national importance.

In an effort to increase their visibility within the presidential campaign forum, and likely to ‘corner’ candidates into supporting their positions, the Alliance produced a letter and a questionnaire for its members to send to the campaigns. This is a common tactic of major organizations to press candidates on their positions, and often, completing the questionnaire (and answering it ‘correctly’), is a requirement for any organizational endorsements.

Couched in broad themes, the 5 questions generally seek out a candidates position on copyright protection, digital rights and the economy, enforcement, inclusion in trade agreements, and the relationship of free speech to copyrights.

It would be interesting to see if, and how, candidates respond to these questions. It is likely that candidates will use phrase-ology that speaks to the Alliance’s concerns, but avoids any overly broad commitments or new initiatives. One hopes that candidates do respond, and that the Alliance posts all responses, as it would provide good insight into the candidates position on this somewhat marginal issue in the presidential campaign.

Posted by Eric at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was humored by the following Doonesbury strip from today.

While this is a parody, there are certainly questions abound about the veracity, and accountability, of Internet rumors in the realm of politics. With the history of Swift-boating and allegations of McCain-tarnishing by the Bush camp in 2000, it should be interesting to see what will arise during the remaining year of the 2008 presidential race.

However, it is clear that this is not a new phenomenon. Defaming political candidates through leaflets and pamphlets is an age old tactic. Sometimes, the perpetrator can be identified, and other times, not. The Internet - blogs, websites and anonymous email - just provide a new forum for this. While it may allow such efforts to be spread more widely, ‘cyber-forensics’ can also facilitate finding the originators.

Posted by Eric at 03:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The mighty behemoth recording industry appears to have achieved a new method of preventing illicit file sharing. As the practice of peer-to-peer transfers of music and movies files has increased, so too have the efforts of the Recording Industry Assocation of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to control or deter this.

The New York Times reports this week that a provision included in a college cost reduction bill will impose certain conditions on colleges and universities relative to file-sharing taking place on its networks. According to the NYT blog/article:

The plan would require colleges to “develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity.”

It further would allow the secretary of the federal Education Department to offer grants to institutions “to develop, implement, operate, improve, and disseminate programs of prevention, education, and cost-effective technological solutions, to reduce and eliminate the illegal downloading and distribution of intellectual property.”

MPAA sent out a press release commending this provision. Conversely, the article links to a letter sent to the House Education and Labor Committee by officials from Yale, Stanford, Univ of Maryland and Penn State opposing the P2P provision. A representative from the Association of American Universities is quoted as stating “[y]ou have the federal government requiring a nonprofit educational institution to develop plans to help a for-profit industry to earn more revenue from their students. It makes no sense. That’s not what we’re in the business of doing.” Furthermore, the ubiquitous Larry Lessig expresses concerns that the controls the legislation envisions threaten to inhibit legitimate uses of internet technology.

A contact in the administration of Cornell University expressed concern about this to me. According to this source, only 18.5 percent of illicit file-sharing is taking place on campus now. Further, it was stated that the law not only would exact high costs on colleges to be compliant, it could also open the door for the colleges being held liable for the activity occuring on their backbones - through the perceived failure to adequately filter their services of copyright-violating material.

Yet, at the same time, campuses are a convienent and centralized target for the recording industry to focus its attention on. And nearly 1 of 5 violaters is still a high portion of the questionable file-sharing to occur in any one domain.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Buried within a must-pass higher education reauthorization bill, the provisions may prevail. Yet, there is a long path yet for it to go before it becomes law, and one shouldn’t doscount the voices of not only the colleges, but also the college students, in battling back provisions of this type.

Posted by Eric at 04:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This week, the second meeting of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is being convened in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

A major topic of consideration during this meeting of the IGF is the locus of control of the Internet. Evidentally, and perhaps not surprisingly, many foreign nations believe that the US has too much control over the internet and its users. According to this article, “Brazil, China and other counties have proposed transferring oversight to an international body.”

While this response is understandable, particuarly in light of the attention that American wiretapping and internet snooping has received, it is not likely to bode well for effective Internet governance. With widely diverging views of what activity and information is relevant or permissable on the Internet, it is plausible that any international body charged with oversight over the web will be greatly hindered by intra-party disputes. Ideally, it would serve as a forum for identifying points of agreement and cooperation, such as outlawing child porn or controling Internet crimes. Others worry, that “it would give meddlesome governments the opportunity to censor and regulate the medium until its usefulness as a vehicle for freedom of expression and international competition is crippled.”

Without much agreement, it is likely that change will be difficult. Under those circumstances, Internet governance will continue in an ad hoc fashion, regulated in local and patchwork fashion, with states contuning to seek means to ‘reach’ across borders to regulate activity outside their domain.

Posted by Eric at 02:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)