The alternative-media revolution of the last twenty years has smashed the liberal monopoly over news outlets and created a true marketplace of ideas. Rather than fight back with their own beliefs, today's liberals work relentlessly to smother this new universe of political discourse under a tangle of campaign-finance reform and media regulations. Bestselling author Brian Anderson and Adam Thierer examine the crucial place of free political speech in our nation's history, from the feisty polemics of Revolutionary-era pamphlets to the explosion of new media in the twenty-first century. Today, shockingly, freedom of political speech in America is facing sustained attacks unlike anything since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Anderson and Thierer debunk the principal arguments made in support of this counter-revolutionary effort, exposing the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 and recent FEC and FCC regulations of the blogosphere and airwaves as devastating muzzles on free speech. A Manifesto for Media Freedom is both a wake-up call for all Americans who care about their most fundamental rights and a strategy to guarantee an unfettered marketplace of ideas.
Innovators of all stripes—such as Airbnb and Uber—are increasingly using new technological capabilities to circumvent traditional regulatory systems, or at least put pressure on public policymakers to reform laws and regulations that are outmoded, inefficient, or illogical. Disruptive innovators are emerging in other fields, too, using technologies as wide‐ranging as 3D printers, drones, driverless cars, Bitcoin and blockchain, virtual reality, the “Internet of Things,” and more. Some of these innovators just love to tinker. Others want to change the world with new life‐enriching products. And many more are just looking to earn a living and support their families. Regardless of why they are doing it, these evasive entrepreneurs— innovators who don’t always conform to social or legal norms—are changing the world and challenging their governments. Beyond boosting economic growth and raising our living standards, evasive entrepreneurialism can play an important role in constraining unaccountable governmental activities that often fail to reflect common sense or the consent of the governed. In essence, evasive entrepreneurialism and technological civil disobedience are new checks and balances that help us rein in the excesses of the state, make government more transparent and accountable, and ensure that our civil rights and economic liberties are respected. Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance explores why evasive entrepreneurs are increasingly engaged in different forms of technological civil disobedience and also makes the case that we should accept—and often even embrace—a certain amount of that activity as a way to foster innovation, economic growth, and accountable government.
In What's Yours Is Mine: Open Access and the Rise of Infrastructure Socialism, authors Adam Thierer and Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. examine the hazards of mandatory "open access"-- a trend in which hyper-regulatory bureaucrats and central planners are increasingly commanding technology companies and industry sectors to share networks, facilities, or specific technologies with rivals. Telephone and cable companies, wireless carriers, electric utilities, the Visa/Mastercard network, Microsoft's Windows operating system -- all these and more have been targets of demands for forced access. Although supporters claim that open access is pro-competitive, the opposite is true. Forced access policies inevitably mean price and quality controls, stagnation, increased litigation, and a crippling of innovation. Genuine competition requires that firms have the ability to exclude rivals. Government seizure of existing networks and technologies on behalf of rivals means that next-generation technologies will not be created by those rivals or the incumbents. The recent decision by the FCC to continue such micro-management of local telecom markets illustrates this principle; regulators have opted to continue to require sharing of local telephone lines and switches despite the fact that those rules have decimated innovation and investment in the U.S. telecom market. The key message for policymakers hoping for a high-tech renaissance: Competition in the creation of networks is as important as competition in the goods and services that get sold across those networks. Competition, innovation, and consumers will suffer if forced sharing policies are not abandoned. In today's world of increasing global communications and digital technologies, What's Yours Is Mine makes an urgently needed pro-consumer case for laissez-faire in the evolution of technology industries.
The author of South Park Conservatives charges today's Democratic Party with compromising its own agendas by compromising the free exchanges of ideas as presented by today's conservative and alternative political talk radio outlets.
The Internet has often been labeled a disruptive technology, and nowhere has that been more clearly the case than in the field of intellectual property (IP) law. Although debates over IP policy have raged in academic circles and law and economics journals for decades, with the rise of the Internet, IP issues have captured the public's collective attention like never before. Suddenly, the teenage creator of file-swapping sensation Napster appeared on the cover of Time magazine as the mass media took notice of an explosion of interest in digital downloads, CD burning, and widespread peer-to-peer file sharing among the general public. But the mass movement to share songs and other digital content online was met with a firestorm of criticism from copyright and patent holders, who struck back with a vengeance, filing lawsuits and pursuing legislative and regulatory remedies for what they regarded as intellectual property piracy on a scale never before envisioned. This debate has sparked a newfound interest in timeless questions about the nature of intellectual property and how it should be protected, including why do we protect intellectual property at all; do we really have "property rights" in our intangible creations the same way we have property rights to our homes and our land; aren't there better ways to encourage artistic creation and scientific discovery than through the use of copyright and patent laws that protect a limited monopoly? Copy Fights presents a thought-provoking exploration of these questions.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.