From Talking New Media:
The issue of digital property ownership recently, and surprisingly, came to the forefront during Hurricane Irma. Select Florida Tesla car owners received a notice that there was a software update available for their vehicles. The update, once applied, suddenly allowed gave their vehicles about a 30 mile increase in range. The idea was to help Floridians get out of harm’s way. But what it really did was remind the Tesla owners just who owns the software in their cars. It turns out that the only thing that had separated out two different models of Tesla — one that offered more range between charges, and one that didn’t — was the software in the vehicle, something that Tesla could change at any time.
In a way, this is the issue at the heart of Joshua A.T. Fairfield’s book Owned: Property, Privacy, and the New Digital Serfdom, from Cambridge University Press.
. . . .
“We own and control fewer and fewer of the products that we must use to function in modern society,” Fairfield writes. “Many computing devices (iPads, for instance) run only those programs approved by the device seller. We cannot even tell our devices not to reveal our personal data.”
“This is an untenable position in an information-age society,” Fairfield believes, and so he urges readers to promote changes in the laws governing such things, believing that right now we are living in a digital rights environment closer to feudalism than freedom.
. . . .
“First, internet technologies created an unprecedented ability to copy intellectual property — file sharing services spread pirated music like wildfire and fueled the music industry’s fears for its own future — before they created the ability to track and verify individual copies of electronic information,” Fairfield writes.
Then, the rise of free content created a situation were “software providers needed a revenue model that circumvented internet users’ refusal to pay for content that they could obtain — usually illegally, but with some degree of safety — for nothing. So software providers monetized information about their customers by surreptitiously monitoring everything their users typed, clicked or did, and selling that information to advertisers who could use it to extract more and often costlier deals from their customers.”
Fairfield’s observations are somewhat self-evident, we see examples of them every day, but the author gives the readers the background information, the cause and effect, and then lays out what needs to be done about, best summed up in the line “ordinary property ownership should apply to digital and smart property.”
Link to the rest at Talking New Media
In PG’s litigating days, he observed that if, during the course of a trial, the judge decided one party or the other was a bad guy/gal, things didn’t go well for that party in the courtroom or in the judge’s decision.
Of course, a losing party can always appeal the trial court’s adverse decision. However, PG once heard an experienced trial judge say, “I know how to write an opinion that will never be reversed by an appellate court.” Knowing that judge, PG was inclined to believe him.
In PG’s experience, trial judges overwhelmingly want to do the right thing regardless of the legal arguments of the parties. Most good judges ascended to the bench because of a desire to do the right thing and could have earned more money by staying in their former practices. At the end of the trial, they want to walk out of the courthouse feeling like they helped make the world a little fairer with their decision.
In a fight between a giant corporation and the little people, most judges tend to identify with the little people.