September 2020 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

L'intelligenza artificale difende se stessa

by Diego Giorio

Certo, tutto è basato sugli input e sul bias iniziali, ma è comunque interessante vedere come un'AI abbia perorato la propria causa BUona giornata a tutti D. https://notiziescientifiche.it/intelligenza-artificiale-scrive-inquietante-…

Sept. 9, 2020

Re: [nexa] Cory Doctorow: IP

by Giovanni Biscuolo

Buongionro Giacomo, grazie per la segnalazione. Ho alcune domande per chi in questa lista ne sa più di me e ha tempo e voglia di darmi retta… Giacomo Tesio <giacomo(a)tesio.it> writes: [...] > Your printer uses DRM to force you to buy ink that the manufacturer has > approved; your phone uses DRM to force you to buy apps that the > manufacturer has approved. Ventilators from Medtronic and tractors from > John Deere use DRM to force you to get them repaired by the > manufacturer – and to scrap them when the manufacturer decides it’s > time for you to buy a new one. [...] Bypassing DRM to get your printer > to accept third-party ink is not a copyright violation: you’re not > reproducing its code, nor are you duplicating the traces etched into > its chips. But even though you’re not breaking copyright when you > jailbreak your phone, you’re still breaking copyright law. The law bans > legal conduct, if you have to break DRM to engage in it. This isn’t > copyright protection – it’s felony contempt of business-model. Dunque, questo è un riassunto conciso e *preciso* degli effetti e del significato dei DRM, che sono tra le cose più PERVERSE che mente giuridica abbia mai concepito (elevare de facto a norma di legge qualsiasi limitazione imposta via software). Per sfinimento neuronale, da qualche tempo non seguo più lo sviluppo della normativa sul copyright in Europa; approfitto di questa lista per una domanda: i DRM sono ancora inclusi nel copyright europeo, giusto? Se così fosse, c'è qualche istituzione EU che abbia seriamente intenzione di riparare a questo abominio così da far tornare il diritto d'autore nell'alveo delle "cose assai problematiche" invece che delle "cose esageratamente patologiche"? > It’s not just DRM. Take “Goldman Sans,” a free font released by the > finance giant and global supervillain Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sans is a > copyrighted work, and it comes with a copyright license that you > “agree” to when you download the font. Among the license terms for > Goldman Sans is a non-disparagement clause – that is, a clause that > prohibits you from criticizing Goldman Sachs. Questo è uno degli enne modi creativi che esistono da trent'anni a questa parte per vietare via EULA (tipo: vietare la pubblicazione di benchmark comparativi, vietare il reverse-engineering) ciò che è normalmente costituzionalmente garantito. Anche qui: possibile che non esista un codice per le clausole vessatorie, ANCHE contenute nelle EULA? Anche se non ci pensavo manco di striscio (manco lo conoscevo), mi verrebbe voglia di installare quel font e pubblicare con quel font una "critica della ragion Goldman", per vedere se in Italia potrei essere condannato… a cosa? Disinstallare il font perché ho perso il diritto causa EULA? Però non ho neanche un secondo da perdere, quindi continuerò a ignorare 'ste boiate. Rimane il fatto che ANCHE sotto la minaccia di cause in relazione alle EULA l'interoperabilità *e* la conoscenza (libera circolazione di idee) sono seriamente compromesse; i contratti DEVONO essere SOTTOMESSI alle norme, non il contrario. [...] > Even where tech is challenging these monopolies, it is doing so in > order to create more monopolies. Kindle Unlimited presents a real > challenge to traditional genre publishing, and every Kindle Unlimited > book is released with DRM that locks it to Amazon’s platform. Non c'è niente da fare, la definizione più azzeccata di contenuti digitali e software affetti da DRM è Defective By Design https://www.defectivebydesign.org/ > Any attempt to liberate Kindle Unlimited books so they can be read > with a rival’s device (or with a device designed to stop Amazon from > spying on you while you read) involves breaking the DRM, and > trafficking in tools to break DRM is a felony under Section 1201 of > the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. [...] Sono già 22 anni, che tristezza infinita :X [...] > there is no longer any distinction between human rights and digital > rights. > > There is no software freedom. > There’s only freedom. Fuochi d'artificio! Questa me la incornicio e la voglio riprodotta su maglietta, tazza e serigrafia autografata da Doctorow :-O > Continua su https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/ [...] Saluti, Giovanni P.S.: poi, un giorno, dovremmo affrontare anche la libertà di utilizzare l'hardware che acquisto con qualsiasi sistema operativo che mi pare e piace… ma in queste condizioni date anche solo proporlo mi imbarazza un casino. P.P.S.: è fuori di dubbio che il combinato disposto di digitalizzazione dei contenuti e diffusione delle telecomunicazioni digitali (oggi incarnato in qualche modo in Internet) abbia mandato letteralmente in corto circuito il concetto stesso di diritto patrimoniale previsto dal diritto d'autore… il DRM è figlio di questo corto circuito, un atto DISPERATO. -- Giovanni Biscuolo

Sept. 9, 2020

Re: [nexa] il significato delle parole

by Giacomo Tesio

On September 9, 2020 4:13:35 AM UTC, "M. Fioretti" <mfioretti(a)nexaima.net> wrote: >> Non un indizio di >> qualcosa di orchestrato più o meno a tavolino. > >Se ho dato anche la minima impressione che a me questo fenomeno sia >top down, orchestrato a tavolino me ne scuso, non lo penso affatto. >Anzi. > >Questa e tante altre cose buone o cattive sono solo la conseguenza >naturale di altre cose, casuali o no, che non vengono regolate o >gestite, ma anche in quel caso non per "congiure" consapevoli. Quando Bezos e Khosrowshahi si incontrano al bar e fra una birra e l'altra finiscono a parlare di come influenzare la legislazione sul lavoro, è una congiura? E se Bezos incontra Shmidt al supermercato e finiscono a parlare di come influenzare il la legislazione sul copyright? E Shmidt e Zuchemberg , in fila dal barbiere, ragionano di come influenzare la legislazione sulla privacy? O magari si fanno una bella partita a bocce tutti insieme e parlassero di come contenere i sindacati? E se invece di influenzare la legislazione discutessero di come influenzare l'Accademia? Se discutessero di come influenzare la stampa? O magari come tenere al guinzaglio il mondo open source, finanziando conferenze, progetti, summer of code? E se magari, ogni tanto, solo ogni tanto... organizzassero una rimpatriata fra vecchi amici, magari su Facebook, senza escludere i compagni di classe che ora lavorano all'intelligence o alla difesa? Ci sarebbe qualcosa di male? Sarebbe una congiura? No. C'è mai stato qualcuno su questo pianeta che abbia disposto del potere di cui dispongono loro (sui singoli individui, sulle famiglie, sulle aziende, sulle università, sulle scuole, sulla stampa, sull'economia, sulla politica...)? No. Cambierebbe qualcosa se si incontrassero su Jitsi Meet? No. Cambierebbe qualcosa se si incontrassero in segreto, incappucciati, nella penombra? No. Ragazzi, NON è una congiura. NON è un complotto. Ma ogni tanto, di fronte a questi "cambiamenti epocali", provate a chiedervi "cui prodest?" Non serve pianificare a tavolino cambiamenti epocali. Troppo sbatto. Ma al loro posto, non preferireste cavalcarli, alla luce del sole, dirigendoli a vostro favore? Cosa vi impedirebbe di farlo? No, scusate... avete ragione: a pensar male si fa peccato. Giacomo

Sept. 9, 2020

Mozilla published an open letter to European Commission President

by Antonio Iacono

https://blog.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Mitchell-Letter-to-EU-C… Vari punti tra cui: Content accountability - For too many individuals and groups, the internet today is not an empowering outlet for free expression ... A healthier online ecosystem - ... Aggressive collection of personal data and microtargeting of individuals is at the heart of many of the systemic problems facing the internet. The DSA can take meaningful steps to address this, for instance by ensuring the advertising economy is not a vector for individual and collective harm; by clamping down on nefarious cross-site tracking; or by bringing more transparency to the ad tech ecosystem. I strongly encourage you to make it a key objective.

Sept. 9, 2020

Re: [nexa] il significato delle parole

by Antonio Iacono

> Non era mia intenzione: si trattava di appunti per la risposta buttati giù alla svelta mentre compilavo un mostro. > Ho poi inviato la mail, senza eliminare gli appunti. > Mi scuso con coloro che quelle parole buttate giù come promemoria hanno offeso. Scuse accettate e incomprensione risolta :) ... > Strategia che sconsiglio da anni > http://www.tesio.it/2010/11/10/synthesis-vs-compromise.html Articolo interessante, ti ho risposto in privato.

Sept. 9, 2020

Re: [nexa] “Synch Video is Bad,” perhaps a new research project?

by Fulvio Corno

Caro Giacomo, grazie per avere condiviso questo interessante pezzo. Da docente, intervengo sugli aspetti didattici della conclusione. Non è corretto dire che la didattica asincrona (tout court) sia migliore di quella sincrona. Ciò che dice l'articolo (ed anche la letteratura, senza escludere l'esperienza fatta sulle proprie spalle) è che funziona meglio un 'mix' di asincrono (per la parte principalmente "unidirezionale" della lezione) con dei momenti (ben focalizzati, più interattivi) sincroni in cui gli studenti possano confrontarsi tra loro e con il docente. E questo è molto difficile da fare "bene", perché nessuno di noi ha avuto una formazione o una sufficiente esperienza per potersi allenare in questa forma di didattica. In questo scenario, i modelli didattici "standardizzati" proposti a livello delle scuole e delle università (va per la maggiore l'ipotesi di fare lezione sincrona con alcuni studenti in aula ed altri in remoto) combina il peggio delle varie soluzioni possibili. Però dal punto di vista burocratico-organizzativo, sulla carta, funziona. Buona giornata Fulvio Il 09/09/2020 02:29, Giacomo Tesio ha scritto: > Just to back up a step: after teaching online since about 2005, after > doing a lot of research on best practices for online teaching, after > doing a lot of writing and research about MOOCs, I’ve learned at least > two things about teaching online: > > - Asynchronous instruction works better than synchronous instruction > because of the affordances (and limitations) of the medium. > - Video – particularly videos of professors just lecturing into a webcam > while students (supposedly) sit and pay attention– is not very > effective. > [...] > > judging from what I see on social media, a lot of my colleagues who are > teaching online this fall for the first time are completely ignoring > these best practices: they’re teaching synchronous classes during the > originally scheduled time of the course and they are relying heavily on > Zoom. In many cases (again, based on what I’ve seen on the internets), > instructors have no choice: that is, the institution is requiring that > what were originally scheduled f2f classes be taught with synch video > regardless of what the instructor wants to do, what the class is, and > if it makes any sense. But a lot of instructors are doing this to > themselves (which, in a lot of ways, is even worse). In my department > at EMU, all but a few classes are online this fall, and as far as I can > tell, many (most?) of my colleagues have decided on their own to teach > their classes with Zoom and synchronously. > > It doesn’t make sense to me at all. [...] > > I think requiring students to meet online but synchronously for a class > via Zoom simply is putting a round peg into a square hole. Imagine the > logical opposite situation: say I was scheduled to teach an > asynchronous online class that was suddenly changed into a traditional > f2f class, something that meets Tuesdays and Thursdays from 10 am to > 11:45 am. Instead of changing my approach to this now different > mode/medium, I decided I was going to teach the class as an asynch > online class anyway. I’d require everyone to physically show up to the > class on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 10 am (I have no choice about that), > but instead of taking advantage of the mode of teaching f2f, I did > everything all asynch and online. There’d be no conversation or > acknowledgement that we were sitting in the same room. Students would > only be allowed to interact with each other in the class LMS. No one > would be allowed to actually talk to each other, though texting would > be okay. Students would sit there for 75 minutes, silently doing their > work but never allowed to speak with each other, and as the instructor, > I would sit in the front of the room and do the same. We’d repeat this > at all meetings the entire semester. > > A ridiculous hypothetical, right? Well, because I’m pretty used to > teaching online, that’s what an all Zoom class looks like like to me. > > > The other problem I have with Zoom is its part in policing and > surveilling both students and teachers. Inside Higher Ed and the > Chronicle of Higher Education both published inadvertently hilarious > op-eds written to an audience of faculty about how they should maintain > their own appearances and of their “Zoom backgrounds” to project > professionalism and respect. [...] > > When online teaching came up in the first department meeting of the > year (held on Zoom, of course), the main concern voiced by my > colleagues who had never taught online before was dealing with students > who misbehave in these online forums. I’ve seen similar kinds of > discussions about how to surveil students from other folks on social > media. And what could possibly motivate a teacher’s need to have bodily > control over what their students do in their own homes to the point of > requiring them to wear fucking shoes? > > This kind of “soft surveillance” is bad enough, but as I understand it, > one of Zoom’s features it sells to institutions is robust data on what > users do with it: who is logged in, when, for how long, etc. [...] > > On the other hand… > > The conventional wisdom about teaching online asynchronously and > without Zoom might be wrong, and that makes it potentially interesting > to study. For example, the main reason why online classes are almost > always asynchronous is the difficulty of scheduling and the flexibility > helps students take classes in the first place. But if you could have a > class that was mostly asynchronous but with some previously scheduled > synchronous meetings as a part of the mix, well, that might be a good > thing. > > > Continua su > http://stevendkrause.com/2020/09/07/synch-video-is-bad-perhaps-a-new-resear… > > > Ho trovato il pezzo interessante perché scritto da un insegnante. > L'idea della privacy non lo sfiora lontanamente. > Non nomina alternative libere o open source come Jitsi o BigBlue Button, > nominando solo Zoom e Google Meet (evidenziando involontariamente il > controllo assoluto del mercato da parte di queste aziende). > > Eppure, dalla sua prospettiva di insegnante che tiene da anni corsi > online, conferma che la didattica a distanza asincrona è nettamente > superiore a quella sincrona, cui sono stati costretti docenti e > studenti durante il lockdown. > > > La teledidattica asincrona è anche molto più economica da realizzare in > modo scalabile, sicuro, distribuito e "privacy preserving". > Non servono tecnologie avanzate: basta un servizio di hosting > attraverso cui distribuire i materiali e una mailing list o un forum. > > > Magari pensiamoci... alla prossima pandemia! ;-) > > > Giacomo > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa -- -- Fulvio Corno <Fulvio.Corno(a)polito.it> Vice-coordinatore Collegio ing. Informatica, Cinema e Meccatronica <coord.icm(a)polito.it> Politecnico di Torino - Dip. di Automatica e Informatica C.so Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino (Italy) http://elite.polito.it/corno

Sept. 9, 2020

Re: [nexa] il significato delle parole

by Stefano Zacchiroli

On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 06:13:35AM +0200, M. Fioretti wrote: > Se ho dato anche la minima impressione che a me questo fenomeno sia > top down, orchestrato a tavolino me ne scuso, non lo penso affatto. > Anzi. > > Questa e tante altre cose buone o cattive sono solo la conseguenza > naturale di altre cose, casuali o no, che non vengono regolate o > gestite, ma anche in quel caso non per "congiure" consapevoli. [snip] Grazie della risposta dettagliata Marco. Su questo lato della faccenda concordo praticamente in pieno con la tua analisi. A presto -- Stefano Zacchiroli . zack(a)upsilon.cc . upsilon.cc/zack . . o . . . o . o Computer Science Professor . CTO Software Heritage . . . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader & OSI Board Director . . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Sept. 9, 2020

Re: [nexa] il significato delle parole

by M. Fioretti

On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 18:26:44 PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Quello che intendevo è che la situazione attuale mi sembra essere la > risultante di tante decisioni bottom up prese da comunità > scientifiche, FOSS, aziende private, organizzazioni non profit, > etc. Ma ognuna di tali decisioni è presa individualmente da una > comunità, senza essere il frutto di una imposizione top down di una > qualche sovra struttura. > ... > Il fatto che le policies di cui stiamo parlando siano in corso di rapida > adozione da molte comunità in un momento storico relativamente breve è > per me un segno di un grosso cambiamento culturale organico nel mondo > occidentale, come ce ne sono stati altri nelle storia. Non un indizio di > qualcosa di orchestrato più o meno a tavolino. Se ho dato anche la minima impressione che a me questo fenomeno sia top down, orchestrato a tavolino me ne scuso, non lo penso affatto. Anzi. Questa e tante altre cose buone o cattive sono solo la conseguenza naturale di altre cose, casuali o no, che non vengono regolate o gestite, ma anche in quel caso non per "congiure" consapevoli. Se certe situazioni ambientali permettono o spingono verso certi comportamenti, ovviamente ci sara' chi se ne accorge e comincia consapevolmente a intensificarli o sfruttarli a proprio esclusivo profitto, ma quella e' una conseguenza, mica una congiura. In questo caso, ovviamente semplificando perche' ora non posso scrivere piu' di altre poche righe, la concomitanza (ripeto: non deliberatamente voluta, o orchestrata da nessuno) di cose come, a caso fra tante altre: - ineguaglianza economica e precarieta' in aumento (che fra le altre cose aumentano il bisogno di conformismo) - individualismo e relativismo - scadimento pluridecennale dell'educazione, ergo della capacita' di comprendere, esprimersi, ragionare criticamente... - arene pubbliche (social media for-profit) che DEVONO polarizzare e semplificare emozioni forti per massimizzare i profitti - accresciuta consapevolezza di tante storture strutturali a sfavore di minoranze creano un'atmosfera dove chiunque si sveglia con un'idea "forte" (giusta o sbagliata non conta) ha possibilita' e incoraggiamento di amplificarla, diffonderla e soprattutto pretendere che sia considerata degna di attenzione e rispetto (*), e un'atmosfera in cui, appena una PICCOLA minoranza di qualsiasi comunita' si mette a strillare, tutti gli altri li fanno contenti, se non altro per quieto vivere. Senza che nessuno abbia mai orchestrato e nemmeno voluto orchestrare niente a priori, ai piani alti. Marco (*) uno dei grandi problemi del nostro tempo, causato in buona parte dallo scadimento dell'educazione di cui sopra, e' la mancata comprensione e l'abuso di "io ho diritto alla mia opinione". Significa solo che se uno ha la sincera opinione che la terra sia piatta non lo si puo' picchiare o arrestare per questo (per fortuna!). Non che se io credo che la terra sia piatta ho diritto che non mi si rida in faccia quando lo dico, o che ho diritto quanto un astronomo di essere invitato e intervistato da un divulgatore in TV per "dare un'esposizione bilanciata" -- M. Fioretti http://mfioretti.com http://stop.zona-m.net Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you

Sept. 9, 2020

“Synch Video is Bad,” perhaps a new research project?

by Giacomo Tesio

Just to back up a step: after teaching online since about 2005, after doing a lot of research on best practices for online teaching, after doing a lot of writing and research about MOOCs, I’ve learned at least two things about teaching online: - Asynchronous instruction works better than synchronous instruction because of the affordances (and limitations) of the medium. - Video – particularly videos of professors just lecturing into a webcam while students (supposedly) sit and pay attention– is not very effective. [...] judging from what I see on social media, a lot of my colleagues who are teaching online this fall for the first time are completely ignoring these best practices: they’re teaching synchronous classes during the originally scheduled time of the course and they are relying heavily on Zoom. In many cases (again, based on what I’ve seen on the internets), instructors have no choice: that is, the institution is requiring that what were originally scheduled f2f classes be taught with synch video regardless of what the instructor wants to do, what the class is, and if it makes any sense. But a lot of instructors are doing this to themselves (which, in a lot of ways, is even worse). In my department at EMU, all but a few classes are online this fall, and as far as I can tell, many (most?) of my colleagues have decided on their own to teach their classes with Zoom and synchronously. It doesn’t make sense to me at all. [...] I think requiring students to meet online but synchronously for a class via Zoom simply is putting a round peg into a square hole. Imagine the logical opposite situation: say I was scheduled to teach an asynchronous online class that was suddenly changed into a traditional f2f class, something that meets Tuesdays and Thursdays from 10 am to 11:45 am. Instead of changing my approach to this now different mode/medium, I decided I was going to teach the class as an asynch online class anyway. I’d require everyone to physically show up to the class on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 10 am (I have no choice about that), but instead of taking advantage of the mode of teaching f2f, I did everything all asynch and online. There’d be no conversation or acknowledgement that we were sitting in the same room. Students would only be allowed to interact with each other in the class LMS. No one would be allowed to actually talk to each other, though texting would be okay. Students would sit there for 75 minutes, silently doing their work but never allowed to speak with each other, and as the instructor, I would sit in the front of the room and do the same. We’d repeat this at all meetings the entire semester. A ridiculous hypothetical, right? Well, because I’m pretty used to teaching online, that’s what an all Zoom class looks like like to me. The other problem I have with Zoom is its part in policing and surveilling both students and teachers. Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle of Higher Education both published inadvertently hilarious op-eds written to an audience of faculty about how they should maintain their own appearances and of their “Zoom backgrounds” to project professionalism and respect. [...] When online teaching came up in the first department meeting of the year (held on Zoom, of course), the main concern voiced by my colleagues who had never taught online before was dealing with students who misbehave in these online forums. I’ve seen similar kinds of discussions about how to surveil students from other folks on social media. And what could possibly motivate a teacher’s need to have bodily control over what their students do in their own homes to the point of requiring them to wear fucking shoes? This kind of “soft surveillance” is bad enough, but as I understand it, one of Zoom’s features it sells to institutions is robust data on what users do with it: who is logged in, when, for how long, etc. [...] On the other hand… The conventional wisdom about teaching online asynchronously and without Zoom might be wrong, and that makes it potentially interesting to study. For example, the main reason why online classes are almost always asynchronous is the difficulty of scheduling and the flexibility helps students take classes in the first place. But if you could have a class that was mostly asynchronous but with some previously scheduled synchronous meetings as a part of the mix, well, that might be a good thing. Continua su http://stevendkrause.com/2020/09/07/synch-video-is-bad-perhaps-a-new-resear… Ho trovato il pezzo interessante perché scritto da un insegnante. L'idea della privacy non lo sfiora lontanamente. Non nomina alternative libere o open source come Jitsi o BigBlue Button, nominando solo Zoom e Google Meet (evidenziando involontariamente il controllo assoluto del mercato da parte di queste aziende). Eppure, dalla sua prospettiva di insegnante che tiene da anni corsi online, conferma che la didattica a distanza asincrona è nettamente superiore a quella sincrona, cui sono stati costretti docenti e studenti durante il lockdown. La teledidattica asincrona è anche molto più economica da realizzare in modo scalabile, sicuro, distribuito e "privacy preserving". Non servono tecnologie avanzate: basta un servizio di hosting attraverso cui distribuire i materiali e una mailing list o un forum. Magari pensiamoci... alla prossima pandemia! ;-) Giacomo

Sept. 9, 2020

Cory Doctorow: IP

by Giacomo Tesio

In other words, when free software was born, if you wanted to clone, interoperate with, improve, or modify any existing software, all you needed to do was reverse-engineer that software and go to town. The GPL wasn’t permission to make something new that was compatible with something that already existed. People who knew how to make software already behaved as though that was something they were permitted to do, irrespective of the feelings of the company or individual whose code they were interacting with. The GPL was a request for companies and software authors to make this process easier and less tedious by handing out source code, so that would-be interoperators could skip the wasteful, time-consuming reverse-engineering step and go right to the good stuff – making a new thing that improved upon (and/or competed with) whatever was already made. The GPL was icing on the cake. Applying the GPL to your code didn’t signal that you’d forswear legal vengeance upon those who wanted to make something compatible with your thing. You had no right to that vengeance! Applying the GPL to your code signalled that you wanted to collaborate with interoperators, rather than impotently shake your fist at them from the sidelines as they went right ahead and interoperated with your code against your wishes. [...] Forty years ago, we had cake and asked for icing on top of it. Today, all we have left is the icing, and we’ve forgotten that the cake was ever there. If code isn’t licensed as “free,” you’d best leave it alone. [...] Interoperability is the default state of the world. Anyone’s charcoal will burn in your barbecue, just as anyone’s gas will make your car go. Any manufacturer can make a lightbulb that fits in your light-socket and any shoes can be worn with any socks. [..] Interoperability lowers “switching costs” – the cost of leaving behind whatever you’re using now in favor of something you think will suit you better. [...] Companies like high switching costs. For a would-be monopolist, the best product is one that’s seductively easy to start using and incredibly hard to get rid of. Think of Purdue Pharma’s gleeful internal memos – revealed in leaks and court cases – about the ease with which their “customers” were getting started on opioids and how hard it was for those same people to switch away. Addiction isn’t the only way to raise switching costs. Facebook makes it incredibly easy to get started [...] But when you want to leave Facebook, there’s no easy way to do so. You can’t go to a Facebook rival and follow what your friends post to Facebook from there. You certainly can’t reply to what your Facebook friends post using a rival service. [...] Google wants to ensure that you won’t leave the company or its products and services. It could improve its retention by making you so delighted with its offerings that you never consider leaving – but a surer, cheaper way is to interweave its products and services with your life: making sure that your kid can’t go to a public school without creating a Google account; embedding Google search in your mobile OS; releasing web- and app-development frameworks for third parties that quietly harvest the data of their users and send them to Google. [...] Interoperability improves self-determination by safeguarding your ability change the your current situation by incremental steps [...] The thicket of anti-interoperability rules that has sprung up around interoperability has a catch-all name: “intellectual property.” [...] “intellectual property” is an incoherent category: when you assert that your work has “intellectual property” protection, do you mean that you can sue rivals to protect your customers from deception; or that the government will block rivals if you disclose the inner workings of your machines; or that you have been given just enough (but no more) incentive to publish your expressions of your ideas, with the understanding that the ideas themselves are fair game? [...] When you look at how “IP” is used by firms, a very precise – albeit colloquial – meaning emerges: “IP is any law that I can invoke that allows me to control the conduct of my competitors, critics, and customers.” [...] Your printer uses DRM to force you to buy ink that the manufacturer has approved; your phone uses DRM to force you to buy apps that the manufacturer has approved. Ventilators from Medtronic and tractors from John Deere use DRM to force you to get them repaired by the manufacturer – and to scrap them when the manufacturer decides it’s time for you to buy a new one. [...] Bypassing DRM to get your printer to accept third-party ink is not a copyright violation: you’re not reproducing its code, nor are you duplicating the traces etched into its chips. But even though you’re not breaking copyright when you jailbreak your phone, you’re still breaking copyright law. The law bans legal conduct, if you have to break DRM to engage in it. This isn’t copyright protection – it’s felony contempt of business-model. It’s not just DRM. Take “Goldman Sans,” a free font released by the finance giant and global supervillain Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sans is a copyrighted work, and it comes with a copyright license that you “agree” to when you download the font. Among the license terms for Goldman Sans is a non-disparagement clause – that is, a clause that prohibits you from criticizing Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs doesn’t need copyright law to prevent people from copying its font. It gives the font away for free. Goldman Sachs needs copyright law so it can boss people around – so it can tell them what they may (and may not) say. [...] Even where tech is challenging these monopolies, it is doing so in order to create more monopolies. Kindle Unlimited presents a real challenge to traditional genre publishing, and every Kindle Unlimited book is released with DRM that locks it to Amazon’s platform. Any attempt to liberate Kindle Unlimited books so they can be read with a rival’s device (or with a device designed to stop Amazon from spying on you while you read) involves breaking the DRM, and trafficking in tools to break DRM is a felony under Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. [...] As Amazon conquers an ever-larger proportion of genre readers, it permanently locks those readers into its platform, meaning that any author who wants to access those readers will have to do so on Amazon’s terms, turning over the power of their “author’s monopoly” to be used in Amazon’s “market power monopoly” arsenal. Give authors more copyright – a stronger monopoly – and Amazon will seize that too, as a condition of reaching the audience Amazon has imprisoned in its walled garden. [...] You may have heard Netscape founder Marc Andreessen’s famous phrase: “Software is eating the world.” It’s not quite true. Software has eaten the world. Past tense. If there was any doubt, the pandemic erased it. Locked down, viewing the world through our screens, there is no longer any distinction between human rights and digital rights. There is no software freedom. There’s only freedom. Continua su https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/ Giacomo

Sept. 8, 2020