"Free culture groups have yet to respond with how much the freedom to tinker or the "public domain" have been bolstered in countries with rampant piracy."

Noel, this is a conflation of two very different issues.

Why should the free culture/FOSS advocates respond to this?

Has someone been pirating GPL software? Is that even possible?

I will say though that any attempts to stop piracy should respects basic freedoms and human rights. For example freedom from unreasoonable search and seizure, and the presumption that the accused are innocent, and the Freedom of Speech.

Just don't tread on the Bill of Rights, or other basic human rights, and you can do what you want to stop piracy...

However, when those who fight trespass on the first amendment, they should not be surprised in the least to find out that they are widely despised...

Enigma, this is not a conflation of two issues. Free culture and FOSS groups should respond to the BSA's study because:

1) they continually downplay the seriousness of piracy

2) they try to put a positive spin on piracy (i.e. piracy is good PR, piracy helps the productivity of those who otherwise would not buy protected works legally)

3) they tout slogans like "information wants to be free," or "IP is antithetical to freedom." (I'm paraphrasing here).

Noel, I challenge you to post a quote from anyone outside the Free Software Foundation that could possibly be paraphrased as "IP is antithetical to freedom."

"The Freedom to Tinker." Don't take this as a knock against Professor Ed Felten, as I regard him highly, but believe his motto has been taken-over by revolutionary zealots.

You I"P" zealots are far worse than the worst free software "zealot". Neener Neener.

More seriously - yes, asia IS where you see most of the real innovation nowadays. Some patentists delude themselves by thinking number of patents granted is a measure of innovation - it's not. So they see that asia has less patents. That doesn't mean less innovation - it means more, as the barriers are reduced compared to the american system. One need pick up an asian phone and contrast to the stone-age bricks americans put up with.

You get occasional americans waving their pieces of paper thinking they still "own" stuff (often by going to asia or europe, seeing something standard there, and patenting it in the USA), but most of america has degenerated to total dependency on asia for innovation, save for the linux geeks and such (fortunately for america, large chunks of their military and intelligence communities are open source fans, for good reason - if someone's life is on the line, you want reliable stuff)

Noel,
Just who are these revolutionary zealots, and how do they interpret the freedom to tinker? Professor Felten's blog mainly describes how the DMCA and DRM interfere with academic freedom and consumer rights and expectations - that's a far cry from asserting that "IP" is antithetical to freedom. One can criticize the DMCA and not be opposed to "IP." So, once again, apart from the FSF, who are these "zealots" you continually refer to?

John, based on the Cato DMCA paper that I've critiqued several times (find my posts in the DMCA section of IPcentral), anything that affects the ability to tinker hampers the freedom to tinker. Call it absolutism, thinking in a vacuum, lack of perspective or revolutionary fanaticism- any of these will work.

Is this about whether the DMCA is good policy or whether "IP" is good policy? There's a big difference there. The Cato paper is a critique of the DMCA, not "IP" or copyright generally.

The Cato paper pretty much interprets any DMCA 1201 case that does not repeal the DMCA as impinging on the freedom to tinker.

Thank you. We've moved from "free culture groups" believing that "IP is antithetical to freedom" to the Cato Institute questioning whether anti-circumvention statutes are sound policy. Clear away the vast generalizations and guilt-by-association and we actually have a policy question lurking here.

Then again, name-calling and gratuitous references to Lenin (as in the James DeLong post following this one) are more fun, aren't they?

I would not generalize the DMCA paper to the Cato Institute's views, and I don't believe the author, Lee, would either.

In any case, the reasoning pattern in the Cato DMCA paper, that any impingement on the freedom to tinker by an IP statute, is stilfing to the freedom to tinker. Cross out "DMCA" and insert software patents and digital copyrights, and you will put yourself into the state of mind of anti-IP fanatics.

I rather respected Lenin, at least he was less brutal than Stalin.

We're back to my original question. Who are these fanatics, and on what basis do you conclude that they are opposed to "IP" rather than unwarranted and counterproductive expansion of various IP laws?

John, I would rather point to arguments that represent views held by anti-IP fanatics, than focus on individuals.

The arguments of anti-IP fanatics are not just opposed to the "expansion of IP" but to IP generally; as these critics oppose even traditional aspects of IP- the most important one being ENFORCEMENT (the topic of this post).

Invoking a mob of nameless "fanatics" and then ascribing certain vague but extreme views to them proves nothing. You're attacking a strawman. Who is opposed to the prosecution of large-scale commercial piracy such as that discussed in the BSA report?

If you really want to find names, then go to Tech Liberation Front- a libertarian think tank policy community. The anti-IP views there don't reflect work done at any think tank that is involved in technology policy or IP that I'm aware of, but they do attract readers that are per se against IP.