technology of Policymaking and diverged over the past 30 years, in the battle between a "right to tenure" imaginary one hand and disruptive makers on the other. Eventually, one side has to give.
optimism technology is everywhere. If it is a sentiment that is widespread among diehardest technology entrepreneurs, it is somehow the laws do not apply to their particular masterpiece, as they do all the obnoxious laws useless anyway with the code they write. this goes Uber (which succeeded in several places with that attitude) with Aereo (which did not). what is interesting here is not that some succeed and others not, but the general attitude that the world is changing so fast that the laws are left anyway and is a matter of construction or being outbuilt and you can outbuild the legal framework as anything else.
Meanwhile, many historical industries woke up to the Internet as a threat to their business model, or at least control their aspirations. The industries with ties to the development of policies of innovation diverted resources to write their tenure in the law, which is never a particularly successful business model in the long term. Most of these industries - the copyright industry in particular - seems to truly believe that they are only allowed to punish the future a little longer, a magical unicorn appear that will save this industry for the transition time. This was not a very effective strategy for industries in the past, or to all holders of power. However, they cause little damage to the environment of their development capacity in their attempts to compete using batons and courtrooms instead of trying to compete with the best products and services.
In other words, we can observe that the existence of the popular Internet, people policy attempted to tame technology using the law and politics, and technology managers have tried to tame the policy by using technology. Neither succeeded particularly well, and as they say :. If you keep doing what you did before, he will probably go as he went before
As far back as the mid 1980s, when politicians have tried to legislate the owner's responsibility to operations Bulletin Board Systems (think pre-Internet discussion forums), making sysadmins responsible speech communicated among others on the board (yes, really, and yes, the law is still in force), people understand the technology were nodding in total cluelessness in policymaking. That has not changed in 30 years, with candidates today for the position of president of technology industries asking the US to invent cryptography that can not be circumvented by some people. As someone who is able to tie their shoelaces without supervision can attest, mathematics is inherently unable to work for one person and not to work for someone else. Yet these are the people who run for access to the largest collection in the world with nuclear warheads. It is an understatement to say that frustration in the technology camp was set up for a long time
The same frustration exists in policy development and the camp is the responsibility of the industry. "Why do not obey the laws of technology we do?". But as Jan Carlzon, then-CEO of Scandinavian Airlines observed in the 1980s while turning the company around, "policy beats the market, but the technology beats policy." This illustrates the problem rock -paper-scissors powerplay: if you are a technology company, you are a market player (which can be beaten by policy) or a technology player (beating policy) L? impression remains that most startups themselves as purely technological players before the commercial side of operations hits like a ton of bricks.
This is also the reason why free software and open -source movements really do not care about the laws; they do not have this side of the business that is beatable by politics is why you will always have strong encryption, not just as the open VPN technology today '. hui implementable by anyone with a passion for privacy, but also as Tor and Signal.
thereTen years, it was observed that the first movement successfully cross the bridge between technology and policy and work successfully from two camps would win the world. The copyright industry has tried to establish a legal bridge to the camp of technology with the DMCA, EUCD and similar laws, which made it illegal to use the way of the technology industry's right to author has not approved - a law which the world almost all ignored since its establishment until now, so you can not really tell the copyright industry worked their way outside the laughingstock status. No such dual player camp emerged as dominant, not for now.
The outlook for 2016 would be as tensions continue to rise and will continue to do so until we have policymakers who understand the Internet. Judging by the age of political candidates, it's not likely to happen by itself until the people who are born with the Internet are of the age of the candidates, which puts us well in the years 2050. the field is ripe for those who want to disrupt this observation.
0 Komentar