1.21.2K8: Election '08—the theme is "Green"... or is it?

As the campaign for president in 2008 gets underway, we've seen plenty of examples of candidates throwing their support into "green" issues... conservation, reversing global warming, seeking alternatives to expensive foreign oil. Most of us know the drill, though... a lot of this talk will magically evaporate once the elections are over.

Can we honestly expect the current crop of candidates to honor their commitments to renewable energy, conservation, and combatting pollution? Unfortunately, we will most likely be out of luck. The fault is not directly theirs, however... it is the fault of the system. In other words, the President does not act alone, he works in cooperation with Congress. And Congress arguably has more influence over the law than the President does.

The problem is this: Congressmen are notorious for making any promise imaginable, in order to get into office. Once they are there, it can make little difference to them how they handle themselves in office, given that they are guaranteed a healthy pension when they leave, no matter how well or badly they perform. In addition, lobbyists have an undue influence on Congressmen, as the law is written loosely enough to allow them to essentially "bribe" Congressmen with money and other perks, even cushy jobs after they leave office.

And unfortunately, some of the biggest lobbyists, with the most influence on Congress, happen to be among the worst offenders of global warming: The oil industry; the coal industry; and the auto industry. It is largely through their efforts that we drive gas-guzzling SUVs, solar and wind power remain a niche industry, and a predominant amount of the electricity generated in this country is fuelled by oil and coal. It is also through their efforts that government regulations have been very lax on pollution controls and monitoring, even in periods when the American public wanted those controls to be tighter. In other words, the oil, coal, and auto lobbyists have largely defied the American public's green desires, primarily by bribing Congress to do their bidding.

(Mind you, the American public also has some amount of culpability here. After all, we bought the SUVs, and we didn't vote out of office those Representatives and Senators who clearly supported oil, coal and auto over the demands of the people. We have also made little effort to control the lobbyists and their ability to control our Congressmen. Let he who is without sin, I suppose...)

Unfortunately we have no reason to expect that the oil, coal and auto lobbyists are going to pack up and go home, just because a green President gets into office. If anything, we can expect them to double their efforts if it looks like Congress plans to make changes that will affect their profit margins (which, to them, is quite simply all that this is about). We also have no reason to expect Congress to make much of an attempt to rein in the lobbyists, as it is not in their best interests to do so. All of this played out during the Carter administration, for instance, and instead of Carter's pro-green anti-pollution plan, we got wimpy CAFE standards and Chevy Suburbans.

So, as we approach the 2008 elections, unfortunately, things do not look too green at all. And the worst part is, the candidates largely know this. Until some part of our system undergoes a drastic change, we can expect to see more of the same pro-green rhetoric, followed by no action, for many years to come.

1.28.2K8: Copyright must be fixed, not tossed

I was inspired by the news that the European Union has been actively working towards homogenizing the many versions of copyright law that exist between its member countries. The EU sees this as a way to encourage the digital economy, by removing the multinational barriers to commerce and profit that presently hinder such commerce. As this is something that I believe the US could benefit from, I mentioned this in a thread at MobileRead, hoping to see a discussion ensue regarding the aspects of copyright laws in the EU and what might be changed.

What I did not expect was to fall into yet another debate about the proposition to abolish copyright law altogether. I have recently participated in two other such debates at MobileRead, both such debates frequently bouncing between considerate, insulting, and everything in-between, and the experience had left a sour taste in my mouth. However, I stayed the course—after all, I created the thread—to see where it would lead.

There are generally two arguments for the abolition of copyright law: One, that copyright law is a system that is "broken," that it does not fairly serve creators or customers as it (presumably) once did... it was a tool of mass-production, of the Industrial Revolution, and it has no place in the 21st century; the other argument is that, thanks to the existence of digital files like e-books and MP3s, creations are essentially created from nothing, cost nothing to store or transport, and are easily downloaded (legally or not) at no cost, and therefore should have a value of nothing. Since these digital files have no value, there is no point in assigning values to them with a copyright law.

To me, both of these arguments simply represent the rationalizations of people who adamantly desire to get the things they want for free. Said rationalizations are often thoroughly and elaborately thought-out (I compared them in another thread to the centuries-old debating strategies used by theologians), wrapped neatly in examples of copyright law gone wrong or warped out of proportion, but at root all arguments collapse down to "everything should be free." It sounds like a wonderful idea, to be sure, fit for an idyllic utopian society where there is enough of everything to go around, everyone gets what they want, and sharing is universal. Unfortunately, we don't live in such a world, and the points made by these debaters are simply impractical and unrealistic.

Sure, copyright law has problems. It does not adequately cover the concept of digital goods (understandable, since digital goods were unheard of when the laws were written). It has been dickered with in court, to the extent that compensation for creative works has been extended beyond the intended parties and timeframes, with little or no logical reason given for the alteration. And it seems strangely arbitrary when placed next to similar laws, particularly regarding patents. But that does not mean copyright law is useless, particularly in reference to digital works.

In point of fact, digital products are indeed products of mass production... in fact, they are the ultimate goal in mass production: The sellable product that requires zero cost to make. Like it or not, mass production rules DO apply to digital works... it just means that the big end of the stick is firmly in the creator's hands, not the buyer's, and this change of dynamic is what the buyer, naturally, rails against.

No one likes to feel like they're being ripped off, and we expect a fair price for the things we buy. The digital revolution has thrown a sizable monkey wrench into the works, as they have effectively separated materials and production costs, one of the largest financial elements, from actual product value. It brings a serious variable to the question of "what is fair?" This is such a new idea that we, as a society, haven't wrapped our collective heads around it yet.

The easy answer is, "Well, just make it all free." But that doesn't solve the dilemma of a planet of approaching 7 billion people, all forced to live together and cooperate to survive, and who have needs that must be addressed. "Free" doesn't work, as there's not enough of everything to go around, and not enough people willing to share what they have. So, until we have unlimited resources and universal magnanimity, "free" isn't even on the table. This is a problem that must be worked out, because doing so will be far easier than accomplishing unlimited resources and universal magnanimity.

Life is tough. People have to fight for resources, rights, jobs, and, yes, money. But there's no reason to make it even more difficult for them by officially taking the easy way out, because we don't like the paperwork, and making it legal to simply take other people's work. Our society cannot and will not function like that. Anyone who thinks that it can is simply ignoring the realities of the world around them.

Whether we like it or not, we need rules and laws to be able to survive on this planet, all of us together. If a rule doesn't fit anymore, we have to change it... not toss it. Copyright needs to be fixed, not tossed... and it's our job as a functioning society to make sure that's exactly what happens, or suffer the consequences.