More Internet Censorship in Great Britian

15. June, 2011

The British government wants to extend the censorship filter lists for undesired content.

Not unexpected. The argument “filter lists are essential to fight child porn” is basically a lie; most child porn is exchanged in private groups which the police either can’t find or can close easily. But since the topic is so touchy, arguments against it were objectionable. It didn’t matter if the tool was useless or even dangerous as long as it looked good.

Now, the road is paved to censor the Internet.

Of course, Britain isn’t China.

They don’t suppress people for political reasons.

Commercial reasons and votes are enough.


Why The West Beat The East

14. June, 2011

Many important developments were made in the eastern part of the world: Gun powder (China), Arabic numerals, Astronomy (Mesopotamia, today Iraq). From the synopsis of “Civilization“:

If in the year 1411 you had been able to circumnavigate the globe, you would have been most impressed by the dazzling civilizations of the Orient. The Forbidden City was under construction in Ming Beijing; in the Near East, the Ottomans were closing in on Constantinople.

By contrast, England would have struck you as a miserable backwater ravaged by plague, bad sanitation and incessant war. The other quarrelsome kingdoms of Western Europe – Aragon, Castile, France, Portugal and Scotland – would have seemed little better. As for fifteenth-century North America, it was an anarchic wilderness compared with the realms of the Aztecs and Incas.

So the question is: If these people had all this knowledge so much longer than the western world, why did the west still outperform them?

Niall Ferguson has an interesting theory: We had six “killer apps” they were missing:

  1. Competitive environment
  2. Science
  3. Democracy
  4. Medicine
  5. Consumerism
  6. Ethics of work

So while China was united under a single ruler, in Europe rulers and subjects had to compete for resources. Leaps in science led to better understanding of the world, better medical support which led to enough free time and effort to be able to demand democracy. Science couldn’t be “kept in the bottle” because scientists could leave one place and do their work in another. Common religious beliefs did slow that process somewhat but in the end, the forces were too great. Still, religion made people work hard to earn their keep. Consumerism led to efficient ways to produce cheaper goods, and to earn the money to actually buy them.


Nintendo’s “Paedophile” Game “Dead or Alive Dimensions”

1. June, 2011

If you asked me a week ago, I’d say that “Nintendo” and “Paedophile” are opposites. Nintendo makes family games: Colorful, loud, funny.

Then came two things that also seem unrelated: Sweden and “Dead or Alive: Dimensions

Sweden recently tightened its laws again child abuse. Good.

Nintendo released the 3DS handheld game console. Good.

Nintendo released the game “Dead or Alive: Dimensions” for the 3DS. So what?

Well, the main characters of the game are (according to the manual) 16 and 17 years old. No problem so far.

If you switch to the free camera mode, you can look under their (short) skirts. And suddenly, the game might classify as child pornography.

Something similar happened to a poor professor for Art, who is a renown expert for Manga translation. In a long trial, he was found guilty of possessing child pornography by a Swedish court. Translation: He had some Japanese Mangas on his PC.

The publisher he was working for has kicked the man out after the court sentence but it didn’t kick out the comics. Understandable. It’s immoral to work with a pedophile. It’s not immoral to make money from his work …

Well, to avoid getting bad press, Nintendo’s published decided to fly low and withdrew the game.

My comment: If you’ve followed my blog, you know that I have a sound opinion on child abuse and rape. But my opinion isn’t based on FUD. Instead, it’s based on knowledge and facts.

So I find this troubling. Is a story about child abuse the same as actual bruises? Is a painting about rape the same as real rape? If so, please turn yourself in because I’m sure you have some high quality printings of ancient “adult” artwork, or maybe something printed in the 1960s which contains explicit adverts.

Where to draw the line? If there is no reliable criteria, then there is no way to use such a rule in court. It would always be unjust.

So the problem isn’t Nintendo but the unjust new laws in Sweden.

Unfortunately, there is little to be gained to fight such stupid laws. Parents will object for no good reason but their own insecurities. And it’s laws like this which make the problem worse for everyone. Pedophiles are afraid to seek professional help before something happens. They put more pressure on their victims to keep quiet after the rape. Victims fear even greater humiliation.

Related posts:


Paid By Stupidity

8. May, 2011

Someone once said: “My knowledge is for free, my time is expensive. If you understand quickly, I’m cheap. If you’re dumb, I’m expensive.”

I think this is true for a lot of professions. We’re paid for the time we spend on something.

But there is an exception: Art. Artists aren’t paid for the time they spend on a work of art but by the greed of the people who want to own it.

This means that a director can spend three years on a movie and get anything between a huge dept and several hundreds of millions of dollars. A painter can die from starvation when his paintings make millions (after his death).

Artists are paid by greed.

Does that make sense? Does it make sense today, when greedy lawyers, publishers, vendors, try to push the limits of their salary envelope? All for the sake of the artist, of course. But wouldn’t it be better that artists are paid by the hour, just like anyone else?

The argument against is laziness: Why pay an artists if they take years to produce a painting when someone else could create a similar painting in a couple of days?

So what?

Art isn’t about productivity. We have to pay these people anyway. In a modern society, you can’t simply allow the unemployed to starve to death anymore. So when we have to pay them, what’s the urge to push them towards being more productive? If they were, why would they be unemployed to begin with? If you’re productive and you want a job, what would be your reason to stay unemployed?

If you’re unemployed, that either means you don’t want to work or that you don’t really fit into todays most(-ly) productive society. The simple solution would be to say “your fault”. But that just makes the speaker sleep more easily, it doesn’t solve anything. Also note that a lot of people become unemployed because factories get more productive. If you raise productivity by 7% each year, that either means you created 7% more output at the same price (= with the same people and by not giving them a raise) or 7% of the costs were cut, for example by reducing the staffing. Whose fault is that? And is the blame the solution?

So we have to pay for all the unemployed. As I argued elsewhere, artists don’t decide to do art; the piece of art beats us into submission. It bothers us until we materialize it for others. There is little in the way of “I wanted”; it’s more “it wanted”. It’s a bit like the scene in the first Alien movie where the disgusting little critter eats its way out: The host has little choice. Curiosity got us, too. And greed.

In the recent discussion in Germany, the Chaos Computer Club (CCC) argued that all art should be free (as in freedom) and that society should pay for what society wants to enjoy. There will be a little addition to the monthly Internet access fee that goes into a big pot, anyone can download anything from the Internet without paying twice and artists get their share from that money. So I thought: “If unemployed artists get paid anyway … why not take the money out of this pot and pay them by the hour?”

So artists A needs ten days for a painting. When the ten days are paid for, the painting goes into the public domain (which isn’t worse than today since artists already have to sell their artwork). The artist gets his/her money and the society gets new art without paying twice. There is also an incentive for the artists: He/she still gets the fame plus the money. A lot more people get to see the art. With the current, greedy model, art is stowed away until someone with enough money accidentally stumbles over it. More people can participate in the art. If someone writes a book, someone else can create an audio book from it or a movie, after the artwork has become public domain.

Artists B is a lazy slob and needs two years for a painting. Same deal. “Are you nuts?”, I hear you cry. Why? We’re paying this guy anyway. So if he has only one painting in himself for two years, what’s the difference? If he has art in himself, he can’t keep it in. The art wants to get out. The feeling you feel is pure greed. Ignore it. It’s not helping.

Artist C wants to live in a huge house with swimming pool, and diamond-laced roof. He doesn’t believe in the paid-by-the-hour model. Not sure that’s realistic but that’s not the point of a mind game. So he does all the usual things: Get some advertising, produces one great painting every day, sells them over any available channel. He might succeed and get insanely rich or he might fail and end up unemployed, forced to live on the model outlined above.

Anything we could lose by trying this approach? Oh, yes, the greedy lawyers, publishers, vendors.

Well, as they always say: Can’t make everyone happy 🙂


Handling FAIL

5. May, 2011

Sony way

Amazon way.

Amazon downtime: Between two and four days.

Sony downtime: Still counting.

Which one do you prefer?


What Sony Cares About

28. April, 2011

So Sony‘s PSN user database was hacked. It seems the credit card data was in a safe place elsewhere. Encrypted.

The user data wasn’t encrypted.

Which leads me to an interesting thought: Apparently, the money was more important to Sony than the gamers.

Or maybe the credit card companies told Sony in very clear terms how to handle the precious credit card numbers, so Sony complied to those rules and when it came to passwords, age, place where you live, they were economical. As with how they handled the situation. At least, we didn’t have to tell them that they were hacked.

Unlike, say, Apple, they did tell us that something was wrong and they apologized for what happened. We’re just left with the task to clean up the digital mess they created.

How valuable is this data? Well, if you do something sensitive over the phone, say, calling your bank. And they want to make sure it’s you. What do they ask? Well, the simple stuff: Birth date. Where you live.

With data like that, you can open an eBay account and so some online fraud. Good luck proving it wasn’t you. Sure, it won’t be a problem but it will be an ugly hassle.

Make sure you check your next credit card bill; just to make sure Sony didn’t mess that up without noticing.


Why Software Patents Are Illegal

28. April, 2011

Patents on machines are legal, patents on speech are not. You can’t patent Obama’s latest public appearance or a mathematical proof. Those things are covered by copyright laws (and followers of this blog know that those are flawed as well).

So why are software patents illegal? They are recipes which tell the computer what to do. You can’t patent recipes. Therefore, it should be impossible to file a patent on software.

The long version is here: 1 + 1 (pat. pending) — Mathematics, Software and Free Speech (Groklaw). The article explains why lawyers often get confused by computer terms, how this is bad and how to stop them.


Riding The Risk

25. April, 2011

It’s a general misconception that if a human can’t see something, computers can’t either. From my experience, it’s usually one or the other. Or both.

When the financial system crashed, humans knew in advance. Well in advance. Everyone involved knew. The question wasn’t “Will it crash” but “When”. Those behind the bubble made a fortune by riding it. And they still do.

The computers didn’t see it coming because they weren’t meant to. That doesn’t mean it’s not possible, it means that the people, who make fortunes from these events, don’t like the idea of a computer telling the authorities what will happen and when. Especially not when a) they can’t make their fortunes first and b) everyone else has to pay the bill. Bonuses are back at the pre-crisis level. I wonder how that could happen.

Prof. Didier Sornette, Professor on the Chair of Entrepreneurial Risks of the ETH works in statistical models which predict bubbles and crashes. One way is actually pretty simple: If the growth of a market grows exponentially  (i.e. when x in 1^x starts to grow with 1^y where y > 1), there is a bubble forming.

So the problem were facing isn’t “we don’t know” but “we want lots of money.” Lots of money always comes at a risk. If nothing happens, people start to forget that. Or ignore it. Even if they know better. So laws and regulations which “harm the free market” are abolished. Until the next bubble when we all have to learn again why those laws and regulations were in place.

Computers can see things that we’d like to ignore.

I’m not saying computers should make the decisions; what I’d ask is this: When the computers predict a crash, everyone involved should be asked to sign an innocent little extra agreement that reads

In the case of a crash, I’ll be held liable for any damages caused by the crash, personal and fully, with all my wealth.

I’m not saying people want the crash. All I’m saying is that they have little reason to avoid it. It’s their job to make money. To make a lot of money, you need to accept a lot of risk. That’s OK. The problem is that there is no reason not to take intolerable risks. “It’s not my money”, “everyone is doing it”, “everyone makes lots of money, why not me”, etc. That’s human nature. And it’s human nature to start to think as soon as you get hurt personally when it goes wrong.

So let’s add some hurt to the system.


What’s Software Worth?

26. March, 2011
Peter Sunde (TPB)

Image via Wikipedia

I’m back from a presentation by Peter Sunde, one of the founders of Flattr and The Pirate Bay, in Zurich about his new start up Flattr. The audience was really curious why people would pay money for something that they could get for free. I like Sunde’s answer: We also give to charity even though we don’t have to.

So is the future of Software charity? Peter says: It’s one option among many others. In the future, people will have to use all the channels they can to generate income.

I agree. Let’s ask us a few questions around “What’s a piece of software worth …”

  1. … if you download it from the internet and never user or install it.
  2. … if you download it from the internet, install it, but never use it.
  3. … if you download it from the internet, install it, and use it once.
  4. … if you download it from the internet, install it, and use it several times.
  5. … if you download it from the internet, install it, and use it all the time, making a living or even a fortune from it.

If you try to answer these seriously, you’ll quickly run into missing information: What kind of software are we talking here? An OS? Proprietary or Open source? Is that from the point of view of a user or a producer?

When I’m a user, the answers are: 0, 0, X, Y, Z. X can be 0 for the “I used it once and it didn’t work for me”. Or it could saved my life in which case I’d pay a lot more than asked on the price tag.

Y is more complicated. It can be 0 for open source or public domain software. Or it can be 0 because I love the software, and I’d like to buy it but I can’t afford it.

For Z, it becomes hard to come up with an excuse. Or rather any reason to assign 0 to Z is considered an excuse before we even listen. But how about this: In some third world countries, you can make a living from a few bucks per week. So you would need more than 100 years to earn enough money before you can afford to buy the software that allows you to earn the money to buy it. How just can a price be?

If you produce software, the answers are: X, X, X, X, X where X is the number on the price tag plus the cost for the lawyer and the prosecution plus a hefty sum to make sure you lying scoundrel won’t ever have enough money to pay for an Internet connection in your whole life!

But the numbers can even become negative. If you’re a company and you want to kick-start sales, you might offer a free version. If someone doesn’t like it, you not only lost one customer, you lost all his friends, too. And everyone who reads his blog.

Notice the gap? Why do I have to pay for software before I can give it a try? Yeah, shareware works that way but Maya doesn’t. I can’t return software after I bought it because I might have copied it. So when I return software, I must be a criminal. Apparently, “innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t get a lot of love in some parts of the world. Dictatorships, regulars’ tables, software companies, record companies, movie rentals, game sellers.

Now comes Flattr and changes the game. Instead of giving a lot of money to the middle men, it gives money directly to the artist (-10% which is far better than any other offer you can get today).

For some reason, the middle men are upset.

Odd. “Concerned people” were upset when the written letter replaced the face-to-face meetings. And then when the telephone replaced the letter. And when both were replaced by email. And now by mobile phones. Evolution happens. It’s like a glacier: Slow, overwhelming, unstoppable.

So laws are installed. I’m not sure evolution cares much for laws; I hear pupils today don’t have the attention span anymore to read a whole word at once. Good luck suing them. I’m sure after they were found guilty, they will start buying the products as they should have in the first place.

How does Flattr fit into this picture? First of all, Flattr isn’t built on the assumption that there is a God-given right that people have to buy what I produce. Instead, it’s built on love. Love? Doesn’t sound like a very reliable basis.

But answer this: How do you get along with all the people in your street? Do you hate them? Apparently not because then, you’d move. So we do feel for each other, we just stopped the hugging and kissing – it just takes too much time. A nod must suffice.

Do you see teenagers screaming for their idols? While it may look ridiculous, it’s a very basic human emotion: Enthusiasm. If I like something, I’ll go to great lengths.

So teens buy all the CDs, the books, the magazines, the T-shirts, tickets, you name it. They actually pay a lot of money for something (or someone) they love.

It seems the problem is not the money, it’s the “love” part. If you love computer games and you’re ripped off by a company, you stop buying their games. If you love music but the record industry insists on selling songs by album (so you get 5 good songs), you stop buying CDs. If you love books and you just bought #3 of 4 and you go to Amazon just to find that you can by the first and the fourth but the second is out of print, so sorry.

Flattr works differently. You go somewhere on the ‘Net, see something. You don’t like it, you move on. Nothing gained, nothing lost. Specifically, the artist didn’t get your eternal hatred and you didn’t waste your time. If that had been a CD, you’d been angry for your lost money. So it’s a win over the current situation already.

But you like what you saw. One click later, a little bit of money trickled from you to the creator. It’s not much, often not enough to make a living. But it’s also a message: Someone liked this. That can be worth more than any amount of money.

Now people don’t get rich with this. Today. That doesn’t mean they won’t get enough to afford living from it tomorrow. Or even get rich. And there will always be more consumers than producers. And time is on your side.

If you write a book, that book will be on sale for a decade if it’s a huge success. Only how likely is that? A lot of books are already rare after 3 years. It’s just not economical for publishers to have every title in stock. But the Internet doesn’t forget. This blog post will still be available in ten years. Maybe it will still be relevant (although I hope not). The Flattr button to the right will still be there.

I will make money from this post forever. Even if I only make a penny a day from this, it’ll be a fortune one day. And nothing stops me to write another post.

One word of warning, though: Don’t expect the content industry to embrace this change. Why should they? They are already happy and content. For them, change only means less income or less power which means less income. 50-story skyscrapers don’t come for free. In the current game, they have little to win and everything to lose. Keep that in mind when you read another story of some company suing someone for being curious or social.

PS: I’m a professional software developer. I don’t get paid for my knowledge but for my time.


One Reason Politics Fail Today

6. March, 2011

I just watched “Herfried Münkler: Wie sieht die Zukunft der Demokratie aus?” (German). The show raised some good questions: What is the future of democracy? Why did we fail in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Why doesn’t anything move in the world of politics today?

Books and politics strive on conflict. Churchill wasn’t so efficient because he was a nice, tolerant guy. Hitler moved the world (not in a positive way but he did).

In the old days, there were three groups: The nobility, the bourgeoisie (or middle class) and the poor workers. They defined themselves with money. The nobility just had it, work was optional. The middle class had it because they had worked or were working hard for it. The poor didn’t have it and never would.

When money became widely available, the nobility vanished or it was absorbed in the middle class. Suddenly, the only real difference between nobility and the rich was pedigree  — and sometimes manners. After that, social societies formed which started to absorb the poor. There are many people in Germany who are relatively poor but no one has to be absolutely poor (i.e. can spend a dollar/day or less).

In politics, being a mirror of society, something similar happened. The awe for nobility was replaced with elected representatives. Parties formed to represent different parts of society: The middle class, the poor, the environment.

Only, the poor were absorbed and the environment is getting better every day. There still is a difference on paper but not enough to spark real conflict. All the parties have become more or less interchangeable. People start to notice how strained the “conflict” has become, the discrimination of the other parties for the sake of being different enough to be elected.

No conflict means no drive. Everyone is relatively rich and safe, so the attention is on preservation instead of change. Hence we see endless discussions over 5€ more or less each month for people living on social welfare. The discussion was probably already more expensive than the result.

Since there is a wide middle ground on which everyone can agree, topics like getting the international financial system under control are … awkward. Everyone knows that something has to be done, but there is no pressure. We’re so rich, we can simply spent a couple of hundred billion euros/dollars/whatever by simple signature on a piece of paper. Why bother.

The crisis failed to be big enough. We’ll have to wait for the next round.

Why we failed in Iraq and Afghanistan

We went there to help the poor population against their oppressors (following the honorable motive of the Second World War). Oh, and there was oil. But oil doesn’t sell well on the “Mother-lost-Son” market. So the decision makers needed a better coin: They sold democracy.

Only you can’t sell democracy. It’s a state of mind, a deep wish that people have to make true for themselves. Look at EgyptTunisia, the history of your own country. Democracy happens when people fight for it for themselves. The only way a dictatorship can help to make a country democratic is by making the denizens mad enough to struggle for the change.

One of the problems we face in the Arabic world: We, too, are responsible for their harsh situation. The people living there won’t forget how we made various dictators insanely rich and humored them, even when they slaughtered their own subjects. The insurgents in Libya are wary of “Western intervention,” even if we try to help as good as we can. Maybe that’s more wise than we’d like.