The American Conservative Union, an influential right-wing group, has announced its opposition to the Induce Act, and is running ads criticizing those Republicans who support the Act. This should not be surprising, for opposition to the Act is a natural position for true conservatives, who oppose government regulation of technology products and support a competitive marketplace for technology and entertainment.

One sometimes hears the claim that conservatives should support the Induce Act, because that’s what big business wants. But thoughtful conservatives support free markets, not giveaways to specific business sectors. And conservatives who understand the economy know that the Induce Act is supported by a few businesses, but opposed by many more, and that the opponents – the computer, electronics, Internet, and software industries – account for a larger and more dynamic portion of the economy than the supporters do.

The Induce Act is a nice litmus test for self-described conservative lawmakers. They can support the Act, and confirm the criticism that conservatism is just a fig-leaf for corporate welfare. Or they can oppose the Act and confirm their own claims to stand for competition and the free market.

The ACU sees this choice for what it is, and opposes the Induce Act. Let’s hope that more conservatives join them.

Over at Engadget, JD Lasica interviews outgoing MPAA head Jack Valenti. In the interview, Valenti repeats several of his classic arguments.

For example, here’s Valenti, in this week’s interview, on fair use:

Now, fair use is not in the law.

We heard this before, in Derek Slater’s 2003 interview with Valenti:

What is fair use? Fair use is not a law. There’s nothing in law.

(Somebody should send him a copy of 17 U.S.C. 107.)

Here’s Valenti, this week, on the subject of backups:

Where did this backup copy thing come from? A digital thing lasts forever.

Here he is in the 2003 interview:

[A DVD] lasts forever. It never wears out. In the digital world, we don’t need back-ups, because a digital copy never wears out. It is timeless.

(Backing up digital data is, of course, a necessary ritual of modern life. Who hasn’t lost digital data at some point?)

Interestingly, in the recent interview, unlike the 2003 one, Valenti shows a blind faith in DRM technology:

I really do believe we can stuff enough algorithms in a movie that only the dedicated hackers can spend the time and effort to try to plumb through those 1,000 algorithms to try to find a way to beat it. In time, we’ll be able to do this, because I have great faith in the technological genius that’s out there.

….

We’re trying to put in place technological magic that can combat the technological magic that allows thievery. I hope that within a year the finest brains in the IT community will come up with this stuff. A lot of people are working on it—IBM, Microsoft and maybe 10 other companies, plus the universities of Caltech and MIT, to try to find the kind of security clothing that we need to put around our movies.

It may be possible to so infect a movie with some kind of circuitry that allows people to copy to their heart’s content, but the copied result would come out with decayed fidelity with respect to sound and color. Another would be to have some kind of design in a movie that would say, ‘copy never,’ ‘copy once.’

Even ignoring the technical non sequiturs (“stuff … algorithms into a movie”; “infect a movie with … circuitry”), this is wildly implausible. Nothing has happened to make the technical prospects for DRM (anti-copying) technology any less bleak.

We can only hope Valenti’s successor stops believing in “technological magic” and instead teaches the industry to accept technical reality. File sharing cannot be wished away. The industry needs to figure out how to deal with it.

Yesterday, following Tim Wu, I wrote about the use of “innovation” as a slogan by advocates of the freedom to tinker. Today I want to probe further the rhetoric of “innovation” as used in public policy debates.

True innovation occurs in both high-tech and low-tech settings, and it is practiced by everyone: large companies, small companies, other organizations, and individuals. Yet sometimes the term “innovation” is coopted, to stand only for product development by big companies. This is what Microsoft meant with their “Freedom to Innovate” slogan during the antitrust case, and it’s what VeriSign means when they call their troublesome SiteFinder product an innovation.

This narrow view of innovation is especially common in Washington lobbying, where big companies often have disproportionate influence. Yet many of the most important innovations don’t involve big companies, at least not at first.

Consider Tim Wu’s example of Internet email. When email was new, nobody thought it would ever make anyone rich. There was no business model anywhere in sight. If “innovation” means commercial development, then email was not an “innovation” in the 1970s, and a pro-“innovation” policy process would have been indifferent to it.

That’s one of the reasons I like “tinkering” rather than “innovation” as a buzzword. Nobody expects tinkering to have a short-run payoff, but a pro-tinkering policy will allow sleeper technologies like email to be born and to incubate until the commercial world is ready for them.

Tim Wu, near the end of his stint as guest-blogger at Larry Lessig’s site, offered a typically thoughful entry, entitled “Who Cares About Innovation?“. The gist was that although “innovation” is the mantra of anti-regulation technologists, it may not be clear to the average person what good innovation does. Here’s a sample:

Consider a question that professor Brett Fischman asks his class about the internet, the central monument for innovationists: “What actually makes the Internet valuable to society?”

This question stopped me for awhile. Measured in social value, surely some of the oldest applications, like email, relatively untouched by innovation, produce most of the network’s present social value. Sure, I think VoIP over powerlines would be pretty cool (thanks Adam Thierer). But compared to finding old friends, staying in touch, and everything else that email does, there is no serious comparison. Logic like this suggests that faith in innovation is a faith out of touch with human ends. Perhaps making what is obviously useful – like email – reach more people is more important than constantly reinventing, redestroying, or finally writing the perfect debugger.

I do think the criticisms can be rebutted. Email, after all, was an invention, and required the right environment for it to come about. Innovationists don’t always think about nothing else. But those who share a faith in the importance of innovation should be sure that what we fight hardest for is not just the abstract beauty of new technologies, but ideals that actually have some connection to human ends.

Tim has a point here, but I worry more about the opposite error, in which we don’t bother to protect an innovation because we can’t see an immediate use for it.

Internet email was invented in 1971. Back then, could you have found even one single person in Washington who would point to this fledgling technology as one day being important to the average American? No way – anybody who said that would have been dismissed as a nut. Even two decades later, very few policymakers recognized the eventual importance of email.

Often, we seem to be drifting toward a rule in which new technologies are, by default, banned, unless some functionary can be convinced that they have merit. That’s a dangerous rule, not least because we may never know which potentially world-changing technology was snuffed out at birth.

Jon Johansen, known widely as “DVD Jon” for his work on DVD decryption utilities, has released a tool that lets anyone stream music to the Apple Airport Express.

The Airport Express is a slick little gizmo that plugs into any electrical outlet, and can receive content wirelessly and output it on standard connectors to a printer, stereo speakers, audio components, or network. But Apple designed the Airport Express so that it would only accept audio content that was encrypted with a certain encryption key.

It appears that DVD Jon reverse engineered Apple’s encryption mechanism to learn the encryption key. Now he has published the key, along with software code for a tool that streams music to the Apple device.

It will be interesting to see the reaction to this. As far as I can see, copyright isn’t an issue here, since the new software tool only allows people to play music they already have, and the law does not grant copyright owners the exclusive right to control private playing of music.

Perhaps Apple would have preferred that this had not occurred. But I don’t see any compelling reason to give that preference the force of law, or to give it moral standing over the conflicting preferences of others. Apple would have preferred not to face competition in the sending-music-to-Airport-Express-devices business. But now they will face competition, which may be bad news for Apple but will be good news for everybody else.

[Entry corrected, 3:45 PM. The original version used misleading terminology to describe the encryption key. This is now fixed. Thanks to Adam Shostack for pointing out my error.]