Anti-copyright software

Peer-to-peer file sharing services and machine emulators escape legal liability of copyright infringement under the justification that their software are not designed to be used to infringe copyrights. The Limewire file sharing software even has a provision in its End-User License Agreement (EULA) that the user of the software agrees not to use Limewire for copyright infringement. The Multi-Arcade Machine Emulator (MAME) banners in its website that the MAME project is primarily for scientific and academic purposes to preserve the architectural mechanism of old arcade machines. A probable hypothesis is that most users of Limewire and MAME use these software to download and use without license copyrighted material. However, due to justifications for use of these software, protectors of intellectual property are unable to ban them. Whenever software is stated in this article, it refers to software which may be utilized to infringe copyrights.

A balance is currently being formulated in cyberspace: preservation of copyrights and freedom to progress computing technologies. In theory, file sharing per se does not violate the law, it actually enhances interconnectivity; arcade machine emulation alone is not illegal, as long as no copyrighted game is run in an emulator. The issue arises: can undertakings justified by theories but in reality fully abused to infringe intellectual property rights be legally allowed?

On one hand, legislation cannot be crafted in a manner which arises from fear of abuse as long as the policy behind it is valid. Knives should not be banned because of the fear that they might be used for criminal means instead of culinary purposes.

On the other hand, legislation cannot be blind to the blatant fact that these software are abused by virtually everybody to infringe copyrights. Guns are banned because although having a gun does not necessarily mean intent to kill, the sheer power of a gun to harm individuals makes it a good policy to ban guns altogether.

However, these software are not as simple as knives and guns. Unlike a weak knife and like a powerful gun, the ease and potential of software to do harm are enormous; hence the justification to outright outlaw software widely used for copyright infringement. But like a useful knife and a unlike a useless gun which purpose is only to harm, software can be utilized to greatly benefit technological progress; hence the justification not to outlaw them due to fear of abuse. Which policy is better?

The heart of the issue must be uncovered. There must be distinction between the different aspects of the undertakings in question and not treat them as a whole. The question should not be whether entities should be prohibited from making potentially copyright infringing software. The root of potential infringements should be identified.

Software development which incidentally may produce tools to infringe copyrights cannot be prohibited by the dangers of using them may bring; these are pursuits of knowledge which cannot be outlawed. It is not the act of producing software which should be prevented, only the use of the software for illegal purposes. Copyright infringement through use of powerful software is not due to the creation of these software, it is free distribution which put these software in the wrong hands.

The root of the abuse of these software to infringe copyright lies in their free distribution, not their creation. What should be changed is the free access to the full features of these software. It is unwise to distribute powerful tools which may cause harm freely. Distributing knives and guns to everyone on the street would surely exponent the use of these tools for the wrong reasons. The same applies to software with the ability to infringe copyrights.

The prudent policy therefore is to regulate distribution of these software. The justifications of why these software should exist is not defeated by formulating parameters in the distribution of these software. Only those who would further the justification of the existence of these software should be allowed to obtain and use them. Casual users should not be able to download Limewire and MAME if they are not affiliates or authorized by institutions which are justified to use Limewire file sharing or MAME emulation. Similar to guns, existence of these software should not be outlawed, but distribution should be regulated to individuals who need them. This way, technology is utilized to benefit humanity without opening avenues for abusers to inflict more harm than good.

Advances in technology should never be impeded. Like any other tool, software can be used for either good or bad. The object of legislation is to prohibit the happening of “bad” acts while upholding “good” ones. The proper way to deal with great power is not to prohibit it; it is to instill responsibility in its use. As Ben Parker said, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

Technology: A Gain or a Bust?

When the first few cars were invented, Americans were wary of using them and called their loud, chugging noise as they embark the streets, a nuisance. When the concept of a machine was thought up, that could transport people through the skies just like the birds that they only could look at with envy because these animals could fly, man thought it was just a dream, a passing fancy. When money was invented, no one would have thought how vast its development would be that it permeates every person’s life day by day.

Now, we see cars, airplanes and money as nothing extraordinary, as natural a part of our world as the trees and flowers that line our streets. They have changed the world in ways that man has never imagined and has opened doors and opportunities that have bettered the lives of a great many.

But then, every innovation comes with it a set of new problems in tow. As technology became more and more sophisticated, so did man’s tactics (so as he would benefit in the end) became increasingly intricate. Upon recognition of such occurrences, the government has enacted measures and passed laws for the people’s protection. Before, man knew only cars, airplanes and money. Later on, they also understood carjacking, hijacking and faking of money.

It is the same with the computer technology that has transformed the world with this massive force at a breakneck speed. It has linked millions and millions of people and information became so accessible for all that one could not help but feel overwhelmed by the onslaught of new things to read about and learn. And who would have thought that a couple of years ago, a small machine that a certain college dropout assembled in his home would invent a machine wherein you can order and buy a book from someone from the other side of the globe with just a touch of your fingertips? Yes, it is possible, some of us even use it everyday as if it was nothing.

However, as stated earlier, technology is a double-edged sword. It can bring comfort as well as complications. As users try to get used to its ins and outs, there are also those who master techniques to it for their personal gain, without due regard to others.

It has taken longer than it should but it is for the above reason that the E-Commerce Act was passed. A lot of business transactions are being done electronically. It has made the process faster and easier. Businesses are saving a lot of time and money and are becoming more efficient in bookkeeping. But then, such systems that they rely so much on in their operations are not completely safe from tampering by people who are not part of the company.

Under the said act, new crimes surface: hacking and piracy (E-commerce Act, Section 33). New rights are also recognized in it such as intellectual property rights. It was about time since this technology definitely holds vital information that could affect a lot of people’s lives, thus, the need for its protection.

Mankind has certainly done a lot. Through ingenuity, smarts and the sharing of knowledge and discoveries, they have invented cars, airplanes, and yes, computers, that have changed the lives of people as they knew it. As gleaned earlier, such phenomenon has its negative aspects, too. These cannot be eradicated- it comes with the whole package, so to speak. And the law has a vital role to play in that.

There are still a lot of ‘kinks’ to the said law that must be studied further apart from the example above, and more situations to be taken into consideration. It is good that we actually have this law, but as more types of computer devices and technology come in, our laws must adapt with them.

Through experience, through time, man has learned, adapted, made and implemented laws to curtail these from happening, all more specific and stringent as time went on. Such must be the same with the E-Commerce Act. Technology has definitely made an impact on all our lives, a lot of which, for the better ( In Rules of Electronic Evidence, electronic documents are given recognition in Courts as valid evidence, facilitating the ascertaining of facts and circumstances of cases for a speedier, more efficient and accurate process in the justice system). To make man’s life easier is the essence of how these new technologies are there in the first place. Thus, our laws, which are made and enforced to protect people’s rights and lives, must be geared and fashioned in such a way towards the same goal.

e-payments on e-bay

I joined ebay.ph about 4 years ago mainly because I finally found some of my sought-after paperbacks being sold there by some closet cleaning pocketbook junkie. Luckily for me, my very first transaction was with a seller who was nice and accommodating. Unfortunately, she was based in Cebu. After I won the bidding, she informed me that her preferred mode of payment was through g-cash and that the books will be sent via air21. It did occur to me at that time that she may not send the books even after receiving the payment. But since the amount involved in the transaction was not life threatening, I still went ahead and paid her. Three days later, I received the books as promised.

Ebay sellers basically employ 4 modes of payment for online purchases. G-cash and other mobile phone payments is just one way of paying. Another mode is through bank deposit, which most people prefer because it is after all free. Remittance service is also an accepted venue for payment. Western union, Moneygram, Lbc, Yespinoy and Xoom are some of the more popular remittance services in the Philippines. I rarely use them though, not because I don't trust them but because they're quite expensive. Paying for the exorbitant remittance fee negates whatever savings you made from a bargain purchase. And of course, one can always pay using a credit card.

The most common concern people have in using e-commerce, whether through cell phone, computers, Internet, is the security of transactions online. There's always a certain degree of anxiety with regard to our privacy and security of business transactions. As the amount of transaction goes up, so does our paranoia that fraud might occur at one point during the transaction or even after it is complete. It is somewhat calming to note that our country's E-Commerce Law empowers each one of us the capability to prosecute those who harm us. It is basically up to us if we will fight for those rights whenever we become victims of these abuses. Last year, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) released a data privacy guideline to further elaborate the law's applicability in those areas, guide businesses and consumers in handling or protecting personal data that passes through computer systems today. Data log retention guidelines, and consumer protection guidelines on e-banking, e-commerce, and telco-related services should be in the works as well. An allotment in the national budget for Cybercrime funding to both PNP and NBI to combat various forms of cybercrime from fraud, hacking, piracy, pornography, and the likes also goes a long way in alleviating some of these concerns.

As for me, I still use ebay when I'm looking for some quality bargain stuff. From houses to pet dogs to keyholders, everything that can be bought with cold hard cash is available there. Lately, new Philippine-based websites like sulit.com and auction.ph have popped up, hoping to make a dent in the market that ebay.ph has cornered for itself. According to ebay.ph, it has more than 3000 full-time sellers whose primary source of income is selling thru the website. Considering that the site generates 1.6 million unique visitors every month, that's not so hard to believe.

FIRST-HAND LESSONS ON E-BUSINESS
(A Small-Scale Entrepreneur’s Experience on Internet for SMEs)

Much has been said about the internet being an effective tool and fertile venue for small and medium-scale enterprises (SMEs). For businesses, the internet helps both ways – externally, because it provides a level playing field to all business, and internally, because it promotes efficient management.

The concept of internet use for SMEs, or E-Business, brings to mind a classical theorist – Frederick Taylor, whose “One Best Way” Theory of scientific management has survived the emergence of modern-day management theories. Applying his theory, there is no dispute that there are many good ways of conducting and managing businesses. But there is always this “one best way” of going about it, which will prove most efficient or that which will yield the best (or maximum) results from very minimal efforts. As the International Trade Forum, in 2000, has put it, the internet could be the new silk road for SMEs.[1]

But as they say, the real test of the pudding is in the tasting.


Putting Up A Business

In 2007, a classmate and I put up a tutorial center.

From the beginning, the internet has been a convenient means to promote the business and a good source of information and techniques for business neophytes like us. As the days went by, it continued to be a helpful venue for hiring employees. It also proved to be an economical means of storing office files and an expedient venue for exchanges and correspondences between me and my partner.

While the internet may have been helpful as to our internal management to a certain extent, let me cite the instances where it has not been that much of help, and try to provide the reasons for such.


The Internet and the Employees

As previously stated, the internet has been a tool for hiring employees.

Most of our employees are college students and graduates, or that sector which comprise the bulk of internet users in the country today. With the surfacing of many job advertisement websites (i.e., jobstreet, bestjobs, peyups), inviting many applicants became almost effortless. Also, applicants are easily short-listed by choosing the better resumes.

But we all know that quantity does not equate to quality. Employee-hiring in the past year could be described as looking for needles in a haystack. The embodiment of the qualifications we have been looking for, coupled with the specific requests/demands of the clients, are not always met by the applicants who have made it to the short list.

Further, the use of the internet to coordinate with employees seems to have stopped at the point when they are hired, even if correspondences could be well-documented and conveniently made through the internet. This is primarily attributable to the issue of access.
As it appears, though many college students and graduates comprise the bulk of internet users, not all of them have 24/7 access to the internet. The main reason why they rent computers to go online is to look for jobs. And they shell out money to rent computers, in the hope of finding sources of income. Once they have found a job, they cease to use the internet, unless their employers give them the benefit of free internet usage, something that a small business like ours could not provide for now.


The Internet and the Clients

As formerly put, the internet has been a convenient means of promoting the business.
Surprisingly, however, the majority of our clients found out about the business, and the services it offers, not from the internet but from other forms of marketing and promotion – fliers, tarpaulins, other clients’ referrals.

In one conversation I had with a client, who also happens to be a businesswoman, there is a common notion among clients, especially those from the mid-30s and up age range, that goods and services being advertised in the internet are usually expensive. Very few know are aware of the idea of free online advertising. Clients usually associate internet advertising with the use of credit cards and other virtual transactions, something which many are averse to.

Also, in the course of doing business, I have learned that not all potential clients (when I say clients, I mean those belonging to the mid-30s and up age range) have access to the internet. And even if they do, they are not aware of how much it could benefit them. But granting that they do, they reason that they don’t have the time. And even supposing that they do, they are not very willing to go online.

Our clients range from middle-income earners to high-income earners. Many, if not all of them, hire tutors because they do not have time to teach their kids because they are very busy earning for their families, or simply because they don’t have the patience to teach their kids.
As it appears, these career-centric parents do not bother to learn how to use the internet to their benefit because they reason that their jobs don’t permit them to go online or because someone else in the office does the online jobs for them.


The New Silk Road is the Road Less Traveled

The International Trade Forum, though having put forward the idea that the internet may be the new silk road for SMEs, never made an absolute claim that the internet is the “one best way” for SMEs. Maybe, not yet.

In the same issue[2], the Forum stated that there are challenges to be faced by small firms such as “understanding today’s global market place, telecommunications infrastructure, understanding the role of the internet.”

To me, the government, as the main provider of public goods and services, has got much to do about it.

As the internet access is not yet considered a basic commodity among consumers, the government has yet to invest in projects that would provide widespread free internet use. It is posed that this shall solve the issues of accessibility and public reluctance to its use. When there is availability of this internet service, already existing users are encouraged and those disinclined would be attracted to its benefits.

And after having laid the groundwork for widespread internet use, the government should refrain from heavily regulating internet-based activities to further enhance free, open, and transparent competition among SMEs.

Until this has been attained, this “new silk road” remains to be the less traversed. And hopefully, not using the internet in businesses will not cause the SMEs, and eventually the economy, much.
For if indeed, the future reveals that this “new silk road” is the “one best way” to do business, taking the road less traveled may have actually made all the difference.



(for the week 29 Jun to 05 Jul 2008)
----------------------------------------------------------
[1] “Internet for SMEs: A New Silk Road?” International Trade Centre, International Trade Forum, Issue 3/2000
[2] Issue 3/2000

Patent, Ownership, and the Social

A friend and I had a discussion yesterday about software patents, and he disagrees about the patent system in general. He claims that creators or software developers (with only copyrights as of the moment) should not be cashing-in on their finished original creations. Basically he disagrees with the patent system having an economical aspect, saying in the end software developers in general should just be given incentives.
I beg to disagree, because the economical side of the patent system is an adjunct of the concept of ownership. The creator as owner holds full, exclusive rights over his intellectual creation which naturally includes the right to regulate its use.
Then my friend said that the social aspect and not just the legal (or maybe he meant economical) aspect should be considered. (They always clash, don’t they? – The economic and the social.) Of course, Article 12 Section 6 of the Constitution states that the use of property bears a social function. Even the fundamental law of the land contains seemingly conflicting concepts.
But what exactly is the social aspect? Does that entail sacrifice? If so, to what extent? Sacrifice logically entails the giving up of a higher value in exchange for a lower value. Otherwise, it wouldn’t hurt. Giving value for value is not sacrifice. Theoretically there is no sacrifice in trade, or in the profit system.
I have yet to explain the social aspect.

Text Messages as Electronic Documents

A sort of e-store/web page advertisement hybrid has emerged from social network sites.  Multiply, for example, has a number of online sellers whose product range from laptop sleeves to custom-made swimsuits.  They are akin to e-stores as the page displays the range of products for sale and the seller does not keep a physical store where buyers can check out the goods.  They may also be considered as mere informative and persuasive ads as the buyer cannot directly purchase the goods online through the website.  The offer to buy and the subsequent acceptance of the offer are made trough email or through SMS which is the more common and preferable mode because of the faster response and 24/7 connectivity.  Like marriage (or not), this kind of relationship is based on trust.  The seller trusts the buyer to send payment as soon as he has prepared the goods for shipping and the seller trusts the buyer to ship the goods as soon as he has arranged payment. However, unlike marriage, the parties are putting their trust on strangers.  Moreover, they are basing their whole transaction on a technology which, as cheating spouses would know, is easy to delete, easy to deny and easy to dispense with.  This mode of transacting is fast, easy and cheap but it is also risky and could easily be a tool for unscrupulous sellers and prank buyers.

The Supreme Court has issued a Resolution outlining rules on electronic evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC).  The Resolution includes, among others, the admissibility of ephemeral electronic communication as evidence in civil actions and proceedings, administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings.   Under Sec. 1(k), Rule 2 of the Resolution, ephemeral electronic communication is defined as:

k. “Ephemeral electronic communication” refers to telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained.

The inclusion of text messages as admissible evidence probably affords some measure of protection to parties transacting through SMS communication.  However, admissibility is just the beginning.  Even when a text message is recorded and stored and is proven authentic, there is still the matter of connecting the mobile phone number with the alleged sender.  Prepaid SIM cards in the Philippines cannot be personally identified with their owners, unless they had some previous issue with their mobile network, then the mobile network could have some sort of information on the SIM owner but even that can be faked.  The party against whom the evidence is presented against could easily deny ownership of the mobile phone number.  And what if the message wasn’t stored?  The rules say that its existence can be proven through testimonial and other competent evidence (Sec. 2, Rule 10).  It is easy to fabricate when the technology relied upon is virtually untraceable.  Recourse to the Network Provider’s logs can be made but it is not established whether all telecommunications network keep a log of text messages sent or received by their subscribers and even if they do they usually only store them for a few days and then they eventually get deleted.  Issues abound as to how a party may actually go about proving the existence of an agreement made through text messaging.

Individual transactions concluded through text messages are probably not monetarily considerable but there are a number of e-sellers and e-consumers relying on them everyday.  The law should afford protection to these types of transactions.  Admitting text messages as evidence in a civil action for performance, recovery or damages is one way.  However, the legislature should probably look into protective measures that are pre-transaction to discourage fraud.  For example, SIM cards could be registered or associated with a government issued identification to assure accountability.  If this does not seem practical then network companies should be encouraged or even mandated to classify SIM cards for personal or business use.  A more accountable, secure and detailed system could be set up for business SIMs.  This would at least assure buyers that a third party has information on the seller they are transacting with.  Government intervention is probably introducing bureaucracy to a trade system that is currently easy to set up.  But who said security was cheap?

Internet and Accountability

The internet has certainly played its part in making the people’s fear of globalization a thing of the past. Now, not only do our native products share the same market space as those of other country’s, but our locals have been given the opportunity to become “internet celebrities” as well. Local bloggers such as Bryanboy (www.bryanboy.com), Marketmanila (www.marketmanila.com), and Happyslip (a video blogger on youtube) have enjoyed cult followings both from here and in the international community, so much so that now, everyone with access to a computer now has a blog to air out mundane rants and raves about anything and everything.

A new trend with the internet is its creation of online “vigilantes” such as Brian Gorrell (an Australian who is trying to recover a sum of money from infamous society boy DJ Montano), and Tricia Walsh-Smith (a woman who is trying to defame her millionaire husband one youtube video at a time).

These “trends” that I mentioned above seem to depict a pattern that is now emerging, in that the internet is now no longer used merely to facilitate transactions (as most of our laws aiming to govern internet activities pertain to), but are used to “market” not commodities, but themselves. And on that particular aspect of the playing field, how can we make internet authors accountable, when the very scope of their activities, let alone their true identities are outside of what our laws can police? What comes to mind right now is the growing internet Media Mogul Mario Lavandeira (of Perez Hilton fame), who publishes borderline libelous material in order to generate hits for his website? In his case, his victims are lucky that they can at least trace the libelous statements to an actual person, but what of victims on a much smaller scale? An example of that, for instance, are people who create fake internet profiles on community sites such as friendster or myspace in the hopes of tricking people into thinking that the people they pretend to be are shallow, stupid, cruel, and these actions result in the damage to the personalities of these people without anybody to be held accountable for the same. And what of anonymous people who go the way of Mario Lavandeira, such as the now defunct Soozyhopper gossip blog and the creators of chikatime.com? True, they do put “disclaimers” on their sites by stating that “everything on these sites is pure gossip”, but the information they put out, once out there is not easily undone. And at the end of the day, there is no one who can be held accountable for them. Everyday, there are new methods being created allowing people to be even less liable for their actions and statements towards others online. Guerillamail type websites (which allow you to create an email account that lasts a day) keep on popping up, making it harder and harder for victims of this kind of internet “crime” to track down who is accountable for releasing them.
Furthermore, those who wish to remain anonymous use false addresses, mirror other people’s addresses, or even tap into other computer systems in order to release libelous or otherwise harmful messages without having to be held accountable for the same. What is sadder is that sometimes it is the owners and operators of online services who are held liable for the content of the material placed on their services.

The idea that the Internet can be policed by its users has been put forward several times. Internet accountability websites are slowly gaining ground. But time works both ways. Now, users are not only put in danger of libelous material, but, as the movie “Untraceable” suggests, users may even be made parties to a crime without them knowing it. It gets more dangerous everyday. One can only hope that internet users are smart enough to separate the good from the bad, but hidden under the anonymity that is provided by the world wide web, they are certainly aware that no one really expects them to. What a tangled web it is.