Troy K. Schneider: All Publications, Events and Press

The Future of Newspapers | Wisconsin Public Radio

adminn — Tue, 12 May 2009 06:37:00 -0400

New America's Director of Media and Communications, Troy K. Schneider, appeared on Wisconsin Public Radio's "Joy Cardin Show" to discuss the future of the news business and Sen. Ben Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act. The hour-long show, which can be downloaded or played below, followed New America's event with Sen. Cardin and a wide range of journalists and philanthropists explored the crisis facing journalism and its business models.

Can Technology Save Intellectual Property Without Crippling Our Culture?

adminn — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:16:00 -0400

The easy knock on Tarleton Gillespie's Wired Shut: Copyright and the Shape of Digital Culture is that it seems dated. In walking the reader through the many issues and arguments of digital copyright, Gillespie focuses on three seminal attempts at Digital Rights Management -- the Recording Industry Association of America's failed Secure Digital Music Initiative, moviemakers' somewhat more successful efforts to lock down DVDs, and the major television networks' push to require "broadcast flags" on digital television signals.

All three battles, while important, were waged years ago; more recent, equally relevant examples are touched on briefly or not at all. So while Napster gets plenty of attention, the BitTorrent explosion is never discussed. And Apple -- which has been perhaps the most influential player in this decade's DRM debates -- appears only fleetingly. Wired Shut was released in June 2007, yet often reads as though is was written in 2003 – an impression that's only exacerbated by the news made repeatedly by YouTube, Radiohead, Amazon and others in the months since publication.

Such criticism, however, is both facile and misguided. It's inevitable that a study like Gillespie's would lag behind the latest developments in such a fast-moving space. More importantly, though, the specifics of these case studies -- or more recent ones, for that matter -- are not the point. Wired Shut aims to show how copyright and DRM are about far more than particular technologies and specific media sectors -- what's truly important is the social contract these efforts are altering, and the implications for our culture and environment of information.

Gillespie, an assistant professor in Cornell University's Department of Communication, covers a great deal of ground in working toward that goal. Wired Shut first introduces the history and premises of copyright law, explaining how these have changed as the media being protected has migrated from paper to celluloid to digital bits. Readers are reminded that protecting authors' rights to their creations was a secondary concern for the founders -- copyright doctrine is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution -- it was a means to the more important end of promoting innovation and social progress. (There's also the historical irony, not stressed in Wired Shut but frequently mentioned by Gillespie elsewhere, that U.S. copyright law originally protected only U.S. authors. Much as today's China turns a blind eye to pirated Hollywood blockbusters, 18th-century American authorities took the view that copying and commercializing works from the continent was perfectly legal.) The groundwork for later DRM discussions is laid early as well, including a brief history of the politics and piracy concerns that led to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act -- a law Gillespie suggests "represents the most dramatic change in the history of U.S. copyright law" (177), and one for which he seems to have particular disdain.

Gillespie then surveys the relevant academic research in the fields of communication, information studies and intellectual property -- the book's bibliography alone is a tremendously valuable resource -- and explains why narrative and framing are at least as important to DRM as the technologies used to implement it. In particular, the accounts of the late Motion Picture Association of American head Jack Valenti and his masterful efforts to shape the digital copyright debate are an unexpected gem.

Valenti, who for decades was among the most powerful and charismatic lobbyists in Washington, crafted a compelling narrative of piracy, digital potential, and noble artists when the MPAA was pushing for the DMCA and other copyright protections. It's not that Valenti's arguments were flat-out wrong, only that the issues had more shades of grey that he would ever acknowledge. And because Valenti was so good at framing the debate, his narrative became the narrative -- which was invaluable in getting the MPAA's priorities written into law. As Gillespie writes elsewhere in the book, technology is required for DRM, but a much larger alignment is required: "This alignment is sometimes achieved forcibly, sometimes induced along shared commercial interests; always it is warmed by the embrace of a persuasive world view: the tale of Internet piracy and its consequences that the content industries have championed" (193). The Valenti anecdotes drive home this point far more effectively than any theoretical argument possibly could.

With the broader context properly set, Wired Shut then shifts to specific case studies. The aforementioned examples -- SDMI, the combination of encryption and the DMCA used to secure DVDs, and digital broadcast flags -- each get a chapter of their own. These mini-histories occasionally drift into more minutia than many readers might need, but more often than not these details pay dividends as Gillespie uses them to illustrate important but not-always-obvious implications. This is especially true with the DVD example -- which, as noted above, is where fairly strident fair-use advocacy supplants the academic even-handedness that reins elsewhere in the book.

Gillespie's stance here is not without justification, of course. As he explains repeatedly, the DMCA, with its prohibitions on circumventing digital encryption schemes and other content restrictions, effectively outlawed the tools needed to exercise perfectly legal fair use of copyrighted material. It's the perfect illustration of one of the book's main arguments: "The success of DRM will not be a technological feat, but a political project in which the content industries try to bring together allies that can collude to enforce their rules on users" (139). It's an attempt to solve social problems with technology -- to supplant legal code with computer code, and to effectively privatize and pre-empt the debate over what uses and restrictions best serve society's interests.

Moreover, he notes, this extremely robust "trusted system," with its web of technical, mechanical, and legal limitations, also disregards other legitimate end-user needs that have nothing to do with copyright. As Gillespie observes, "one example already in place is the restriction on skipping trailers, ads, and copyright messages at the start of a DVD" (182). And contractual restrictions limit even the sort of "diagnostic information" that DVD-player manufacturers may provide to end users -- limiting their customer's ability to repair a malfunctioning machine for fear of divulging the encryption secrets.

"The sleight of hand here is that the call for the protection of copyright, the heightened fears of piracy, and the careful characterization of the Internet as a fundamentally unsafe place for cultural expression, have all helped usher in a legally sanctioned, technologically enforced collusion of corporate content providers and hardware and software manufactures," Gillespie writes. "Together they can dictate not only the range of possible uses of cultural expression, but also how, when, and to what extent we will be charged for them" (188).

And that, ultimately, is the central warning of Wired Shut. In the final chapter, Gillespie steps back to consider the cultural implications of these technology-driven developments. Acknowledging the legitimacy of content owners' desire to control and profit from their creations, and the ease with which content lends itself to aggressive price discrimination, he asks: "But should culture work like airline tickets?" (273).

It's clear what his answer to that question is. Culture is not a commodity, Gillespie stresses, and we as citizens are not merely consumers. And "if cultural goods are widely and easily available to all, then viewers feel like part of a community -- perhaps just an audience, at first, but potentially something greater" (273).

So really, when the focus is the future of our culture, it doesn't much matter whether the illustrative examples are Jack Valenti and the RIAA in 1993, or Trent Reznor and iTunes in 2008. (And to Gillespie's credit, he regularly deconstructs the latest developments in his blog Scrutiny). Wired Shut brings a perspective and depth of analysis to the digital copyright debate that is all too often absent in the media or in Washington, and Gillespie poses provocative questions that anyone interested in this field would be wise to consider.

A Brief Window for Bipartisanship

Cecille Isidro — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 04:47:00 -0500

With less than a week to go until the 2006 elections, the campaign trail is as muddy as ever. Conservatives claim a Democrat-controlled Congress would cut and run in Iraq, raise taxes at home, and engage in partisan payback across the board. Liberals warn of Rove-ian schemes and election-day dirty tricks. And campaign ads from both sides have alleged everything from racism and corruption to womanizing and smutty writing. Yet when the votes have been counted, and a new Congress convenes in January, there's the very real chance that Washington might actually accomplish something.

Why such optimism? After all, the majority party in the House -- regardless of whether Democrats take control or Republicans cling to power -- will likely have the slimmest margin that chamber has seen since 1930. A Senate majority stronger than 52-48 for either party seems all but impossible. Factor in the filibuster and a president not known for compromise, and this seems like a recipe for two more years of gridlock, right?

Perhaps, but consider:

All signs point toward Democrats picking up the 15 seats needed to take the House and elevate liberal California Rep. Nancy Pelosi to Speaker, but roughly a dozen of the newly elected representatives are expected to be "Blue Dog Democrats." That would grow this conservative caucus to nearly 50 members, and give it the clout to broker deals with Republicans and Democrats alike.
The Senate will almost certainly have a new majority leader -- either Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky or Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada -- who is both able and willing to work with allies across the aisle in a way that current Leader Bill Frist has rarely tried. High-profile senators with presidential ambitions -- John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, among others -- will bring additional pressure to bear, anxious to show they can get things done for the country.
Most importantly, the public remains disgusted. One of the few things on which Democratic and Republican voters agree is that the 109th Congress either ignored or fell short on virtually every important issue it faced. Nothing interests legislators like self-preservation, and 25 percent approval ratings don't bode well for any incumbent come 2008.

And there are plenty of promising areas for truly bipartisan legislation. A raise in the minimum wage, which Democrats say is a top priority and many Republicans would like to see paired with help for small businesses, would be a good place to start. Immigration reform that goes beyond just a fence could make it to the president's desk. Restoring some of the budget rules and procedures that expired in the surplus years of the late 1990s has the support of Democratic and Republican deficit hawks alike.

Tax policy would be tricky, but there are powerful members in both parties who sincerely want to improve the system -- and who know that the Alternative Minimum Tax's steady creep into middle-class returns won't go away on its own. And while Republicans are skeptical of Democratic calls to slash the interest rate on student loans, few politicians would argue that higher education costs are not a major concern. Congress could embrace President Bush's proposal to reduce subsidies for student loan providers, and use that money to provide billions in additional aid to students themselves.

None of this is guaranteed, of course. A House still run by Speaker Dennis Hastert, with his "majority of the majority" rule for bringing legislation to the floor, would mean more of the same. A Speaker Pelosi, on the other hand, might ignore her Blue Dog members and push an aggressively liberal agenda, rallying the Democratic base but delivering little in the way of results. The debate over what to do in Iraq could prove so polarizing that compromise on domestic issues simply isn't possible. And as David Broder noted in his Oct. 29 column, the president has yet to show much interest in working with a Congress that doesn't simply implement his agenda.

Yet for all that, there's reason to be hopeful. Hopeful that Democratic leaders, should they win, know better than to claim a mandate that voters surely didn't intend. Hopeful that Bush, looking toward his legacy, will show some of those "uniter" skills he boasted of as Texas governor. And hopeful that legislators across the spectrum will see that it's in their interest to actually legislate, not just game out votes that will prove useful in 2008 campaign ads.

The focus will turn to 2008 and partisan advantages soon enough, but the first months of 2007 could be truly productive. The American people deserve it. And if pre-election polls are to be believed, they're about to demand it.

The New and Improved NewAmerica.net

adminn — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 12:01:00 -0400

On Sept. 17, the New America Foundation launched the beta version of our completely redesigned Web site, www.NewAmerica.net. The result of several months of planning and development, this new site offers far more than a new look -- the expanded content, revamped navigation and new features reflect a markedly different approach to the Web here at New America.

Here's a quick sampling of what this new site has to offer:

More Multimedia

New America has long made… more

Can’t Win for Losing

Cecille Isidro — Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:56:00 -0400

Washington -- In 2000, in the wake of the disputed presidential election, a Republican tchotchke-maker printed parodies of the Democrats’ bumper sticker, replacing “Gore-Lieberman” with “Sore-Loserman.” And while Al Gore has generally been a good sport in the years since -- his standard line is “Hello, I used to be the next president of the United States” -- Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut may soon prove there was some truth in that label.

Mr. Lieberman, of course, has drawn the wrath of bloggers and liberal Democrats for his support of the war in Iraq and now faces a strong primary challenge from a businessman, Ned Lamont. With the state’s primary fast approaching and Mr. Lamont’s momentum growing, Mr. Lieberman filed paperwork last week that would allow him to run as an independent if he loses the Democratic nomination on Aug. 8.

With any luck, Mr. Lieberman’s threat will prove to be nothing more than political gamesmanship -- his not-so-subtle attempt to warn Democrats in both Connecticut and Washington that they should back him if they want to keep Republicans from snaring his seat. If he does run as an independent, however, Mr. Lieberman will damage far more than his party’s hopes for retaking the Senate. He’ll be striking yet another blow to Americans’ already shaky faith in the electoral process.

Our system is stacked overwhelmingly in incumbents’ favor. Mr. Lamont may have the blogosphere behind him, but Mr. Lieberman, as a sitting senator, has enjoyed 18 years of free mail to constituents, constant visibility in the Connecticut press, publicly financed travel and events throughout the state and, perhaps most important, millions of dollars from donors hoping for access and influence on Capitol Hill. The advantages granted the two major parties -- from preferential ballot access to the use of state-owned voting equipment on primary day -- are similarly geared toward the status quo.

There is nothing wrong with Mr. Lieberman taking full advantage of these perks -- indeed, he’d be foolish not to. But too many Americans already feel as though their votes don’t count. And as the recent results in Mexico show, a three-way, winner-take-all contest can be won with less than 40 percent of the vote. When nearly two-thirds of voters preferred a different candidate, that’s hardly a democratic outcome -- regardless of who wins.

So if Mr. Lieberman, with all the benefits of major-party incumbency, can’t persuade Democratic primary voters to nominate him over Mr. Lamont, he should have the decency to accept that verdict. Any other response reveals a sense of entitlement and arrogance that’s disdainful of both his party and the public.

Even if Mr. Lamont is running a single-issue campaign -- as Mr. Lieberman asserts, with some justification -- the issue of Iraq is an important one, and the candidates differ sharply. If Connecticut Democrats choose Mr. Lamont in the primary, then see a pro-war candidate elected with a 38 percent plurality, they could be forgiven for wondering, why bother to vote at all?

In most of America, in fact, Mr. Lieberman would not even have the option of pressing on as an independent. According to Richard Winger of Ballot Access News, a newsletter that covers election law, 46 states have either explicit “sore loser laws” or simultaneous filing deadlines that make a post-primary shift impossible for any candidate other than a presidential one. Only Connecticut, Iowa, New York and Vermont offer headstrong candidates such a loophole.

So Mr. Lieberman is legally entitled to ignore the electorate. All he has to do is gather 7,500 signatures as insurance, submit the petition on Aug. 9 if he loses to Mr. Lamont the day before, and presto -- come November, he’s on the ballot even without his party’s nomination.

Mr. Lieberman is a smart politician, and clearly knows how to hedge his bets. (Remember, while losing the race for vice president in 2000, he also won his bid for a third Senate term.) Yet he also has a well-deserved reputation for sticking to his principles, even when they prove politically inconvenient.

So the question is whether Mr. Lieberman sees the primary process as an ethical obligation and a meaningful democratic ritual to express the will of the voters or merely as a hollow routine in which he is supposed to be anointed. Six years ago, he clearly believed that “making every vote count” was a democratic principle worth defending -- one hopes he feels the same come Aug. 9.