Modern Slavery

Many years ago, there was a song sung by Tennessee Ernie Ford called "16 Tons".  It was the story of a coal miner and the lyrics pretty much told the story --


You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store


The company was the only major employer in the vicinity so miners couldn't easily find other (or better paying) jobs.  The company provided the miners with housing and food, but charged them room and board.  And because the mine was in a remote location, it also owned the only stores for all other miners' needs. (And charged exorbitant prices for the merchandise they sold.)  As a result, the poorly paid miners ended the pay period earning little (if any) more than what they owed for room, board and the merchandise they purchased at the company store.  In essence, the conditions these miners lived in amounted to a form of economic slavery.

"16 Tons" significantly increased American awareness to the economic plight of those who suffered under similar conditions and helped to eliminate similar working conditions in the US.

Consider what is happening in China.  On Jan. 25, the New York times published an article "In China, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad"  describing working conditions in a factory owned by Apple.  From all other reports of working conditions in Chinese factories, Apple's factory is pretty much typical.  If you look closely, you will see that the conditions that Chinese workers live in are terribly similar to those alluded to in "16 Tons".  The location, language, environment and technology may be different, but the economic slavery and exploitation are not. And the sad reality is that it is primarily Americans who are financing this.

We purchase Chinese (and other foreign) goods because they are cheaper than American made goods, but in so doing we support exploitation and economic slavery in several of those countries.  At the same time, we are depriving many Americans of jobs and a decent standard of living.

Looked at from a larger economic viewpoint, the resulting balance of trade deficit amounts to large amounts of American wealth being sent abroad with the net result that those who receive the bulk of that wealth (who are seldom the workers) can live lavishly and even purchase large slices of the American pie.  

For a few Americans, this dependency on cheap foreign goods has become a necessity because their earnings aren't sufficient to enjoy a decent standard of living.  But for most Americans, it's not a necessity, it's just convenient because it enables them to buy more toys (most of which will be discarded within a year).  We are all guilty and I include myself in that.  But in becoming more aware of the impact of my own behavior I am trying change my buying habits to limit my purchases to merchandise that is "Made in USA" or is at least produced under "Fair Trade" agreements.

We can only reduce modern slavery significantly by refusing to patronize those who exploit human labor.  But in so doing, it is important for all of us to be much more sensitive to the conditions under which all goods and services we purchase are provided regardless of where they are produced.

The Copy Machine

Many years ago there was a fascinating science fiction story about an alien traveller who brought to earth two identical copy machines that could replicate anything. One of the first things done by the person who found them was to replicate one of the machines with the other. From that moment on, the copy machines proliferated all over the planet and everyone could replicate anything they wanted. As a result, it forced a complete transformation of civilization because it eliminated profits of those who mass produce any item. Think about what changes to civilization would be brought about with such a capability. Then, consider that we already have such a capability for replicating so-called "intellectual property". We try to protect that property with copyright laws, but how successful has that been? Is it time to re-think how we reward the creators of "intellectual property"?

 

 

SOPA/PIPA Legislation

SOPA and it's Senate counterpart PIPA are clearly the wrong way to go. 

The proposed legislation shifts the burden of copyright enforcement to internet service providers (ISPs) in essence forcing them to don the uniforms of copyright law enforcement policemen.  This, they are not equipped, funded or chartered to do and it should not be their job. 

Second, it is generally the subscriber who posts content to an ISP host and not the ISP host who has violated any copyright laws.  Thus, the proposed legislation makes one person accountable for the behavior of others (and in this case, many others).    Except in the case of parents who are accountable for the behavior of their dependent children, it is morally wrong to hold one person accountable for the behavior of another. 

Third, the proposed legislation is discriminatory in that focuses only on ISPs and not on radio, television, newspaper, magazine, book publishers, libraries, and retail merchants that, in principle, differ from ISPs only in process, technology and ownership in making copyrighted material available to the public.  If ISPs are going to be held accountable for copyright enforcement of all content posted to their sites, then, by the same token, all publishers, broadcasters, merchants and purveyors of all forms of copyright material should be held accountable for copyright enforcement of all content from all suppliers (advertisers included). 

Fourth, the proposed legislation isn't as much about copyright protection as it is about copyright law enforcement.  The existing laws protecting copyrighted material are more than adequate (perhaps too much so).  What is lacking is the ability to enforce those laws which, ever since Xerox corporation produced the photo copier, has been a major problem for copyright owners.  Since then, technology has provided everyone with the ability to reproduce copyrighted material in all forms thus exacerbating the problem of enforcing copyright laws.  Given the inability to enforce any law invites arbitrary and often capricious enforcement of the law which is detrimental to society as a whole. (And, in fact, copyright violators are seldom prosecuted except when very large sums of money are involved. (Another form of discrimination.))

While well intentioned, the proposed SOPA/PIPA legislation will create far more problems than solutions.  This issue begs the question of how much protection should society give to creators of “intellectual” material.  Before we plunge headlong into legislating more enforcement, we need to rethink the entire problem.