The New Information
Proletariat and its Platform (page 1 of 2)
A Class Study Project by Devry University Students
The
following four short articles were written by students at
the DeVry Institute of Technology in Chicago as part of
a classroom exercise. The class was given the assignment
of breaking up into groups, forming political parties, and
developing a platform that spoke to current issues and pointed
to solutions. One group--Anthony Graff, Robert Gehr, Noel
Galang and Robert Thomas--decided to call themselves the
NIP Party for the New Information Proletariat. They addressed
the issues of education, temporary work, privacy and intellectual
property rights.
Cy.Rev
felt the papers merited publication as a fascinating example
of how young people see the political and economic implications
of information technology and how their consciousness is
taking shape. If the NIP advocates are at all representative
of an emerging trend, the future holds exciting possibilities
for us all.
The
New Information Proletariat's Stand on Intellectual Property
Rights
Empowering the Digital Laborer
By Noel Galang
DeVry NIP Project
Imagine
yourself giving a friend one of your favorite books, so
that you can share your enjoyment and satisfaction with
them. Now imagine yourself incarcerated for the infringement
of a copyright law because of your generosity. When books
become software, this is what can happen, even if this example
is exaggerated. Under existing laws, software copyright
infringements are considered serious instances of piracy
and theft.
Who
owns intellectual property, such as the flow of logic behind
a computer program? How long can someone own an idea? What
if someone else comes up with the same idea independently?
These questions are an unprecedented outcome of the information
age. In the area of property rights, they lead to two more
critical questions: First, should something as abstract
as logic be patented? Second, do patents of this nature
hinder the evolution of the information age or violate the
rights of workers in this field?
To answer
the first question, let s assume there were no copyright
laws. You and all your friends would have the same software.
All you would have to do is gather your money together purchase
one copy of the program and some disks. Of course some of
you may not have the instruction manuals, but that's nothing
a Xerox can't handle. From a business or reseller's standpoint,
there would be no need to obtain a 20-user license agreement
or purchase 20 copies to sell; one copy of the product would
suffice.
Without
the regulation of ownership, then, the opportunity for business
to exploit the labor of the programmer increases. Without
the right to protect intellectual effort, a programmer may
become disempowered and poor. In addition, the absence of
copyright laws may possibly affect the quality of future
programs. In order to sustain an income, the programmer
could deliberately downgrade the code, since more money
can be made on maintenance and upgrades. So to protect the
rights and well-being of the software laborer, as well as
the quality of software, it is necessary to support the
existence of copyright protection.
But
can the existence of software copyrights ultimately lead
down a similar path of unfairness? The patent laws were
written to protect the hardworking entrepreneur; but these
laws can also inhibit growth in the market and restrict
the rights of consumers. First, copyrights prohibit growth
by fostering an environment that suppresses standards and
eliminates communication, which is crucial for evolution
within this field.
For
example, the company Compton s New Media was granted a patent,
which allows them the control over most of the industry
s popular methods of retrieving data from a multimedia database.
Compton s has stated they will be expecting to receive royalties
from multimedia hardware and software companies. These companies
argue that the retrieval process used by Compton s is an
industry standard. Compton s copyright does not allow others
to grow without paying a royalty. This hoarding of information
thus hinders the creation of standards, which is crucial
for software development and should be accessible at no
cost. The process of determining patents neglects any prior
development work done by others; in fact, these prior ideas
may become the next standard of development in the industry.
The
NIP party moves to restructure the copyright system so that
the inventor/worker is protected and ensures an environment
where communication is facilitated without the fear of knowledge
monopolies. First, the awarding of copyrights should be
heavily scrutinized. The Patent and Trademark Commission
should not only conduct the evaluation; it should also include
individuals aware of developing standards in the information
business, such as members of ANSI. Their job is to screen
out any invalid or unfair patents. Unfair patents would
be those that are not obviously new and innovative ideas,
ideas that are currently widely in practice, and those ideas
on their way to becoming standards. Second, the time of
the patent should be shortened to prevent copyright abuse
and info hoarding.
As time
moves on and an intangible idea travels from mind to mind,
its "belonging" to a solo entity becomes intangible
itself. Once it's widely spread around, knowledge cannot
be bottled back up and taken away. Ideas can also change
and evolve into something completely different. Making all
those who benefit from an idea pay a royalty after an undue
period of time is unfair. Thus shorter patents are generally
better. A patent with a one-year time constraint will put
pressure on the owner to sell quickly before the patent
expires and thereby circulate the idea. Finally, at the
end of the copyright's term, the board should again decide
if the idea is still innovative, has become standard, or
is on its way to becoming common practice.
In conclusion,
until we can get beyond scarcity and live in a world where
money and ownership are not needed to spur growth and innovation
in our society, the copyright system is needed. But it needs
to be redesigned to take into account the current realities
of the knowledge revolution.
The
Clipper Chip and Privacy: Keeping the Fox Out the Chicken
Coop
By Rob Gehr
Devry NIP Project
Companies
and individuals alike are using computers and networks to
conduct not only their day-to-day affairs, but also to manage
their business dealings with other establishments. Considering
the sensitive nature of many of these dealings, it's no
wonder that security and privacy are major issues.
The
recent introduction of the "clipper chip" has
intensified the debate. The encoded chip provides a government-standard
encryption method for the safeguarding of your confidential
documents. The government would like everyone to use their
encryption method, boasting its cost effectiveness and strength.
The only catch is, government and law officers have the
right, with authorization, to decrypt your private documents
as they see fit.
But
are we going to let "Big Brother" interfere where
it is neither wanted nor needed? By submitting to the clipper
chip, we are welcoming government eyes into our homes and
offices. If the clipper chip is widely accepted, what stops
the government from simply tapping or hacking into the system
of everyone it suspects of some crime or conspiracy and
sorting through or monitoring everything in your archives?
The
public does not need to have its private matters monitored
or protected by the government. The government is once again
taking the right of privacy away from the individual and
giving it to a government organization.
The
solution is simple: let the people be responsible for encrypting
their own information. It is our belief that the rights
of the individual should be protected, including the right
to keep confidential information private. Instead of spending
its time and money on privacy infringement, the government
should concentrate its efforts on other problems.
By letting
the public decide on its own method of encryption, the American
people benefit in two ways. First, they keep their information
safe from the prying eyes of people who would do them harm.
Secondly, the economy benefits. When the public goes out
and buys their own encryption devices, they circulate money
into the economy and create jobs. It is therefore the policy
of the NIP that the rights of the individual stay with the
individual unless they are restricted by the due process
of the courts. There should be no action on the part of
the government to encourage or force any sort of government
regulation on the encryption of information. More
>>