Dave Winer's NYC unconference

Last night I attended Dave Winer's informal "unconference", which was held at Cooper Union. Dave began by introducing the concept of an unconference, which is designed to harness the collective resources of the conference group as a whole, as opposed to the traditional conference structure where a single resource (the presenter) broadcasts his or her ideas out to a passive audience.

Dave acted as the discussion leader, which he equated somewhat to the role of a reporter, and facilitated an open conversation with everyone in the room who wanted to participate. As the evening went on, Dave referred back to the reporter analogy a few times as he steered the conversation from topic to topic (e.g. "I'm done writing about this part of the story now, let's move on.") and when he concluded the meeting ("I just wrote my close.").

I found the structure interesting, and for the most part enjoyed the particular topics that were discussed, which included the Apple stock option backdating "scandal", software patents, and a meta-discussion on the idea of unconferences in general.

Toward the end of the evening, I saw a few themes emerging and waited patiently (and a bit timidly) to find the right moment to join the discussion and steer it in a direction I thought would be interesting. That opportunity never arose, so I'll put my contribution here:

I have two things I'd like to say, the first more of a comment, the second intended to be a jumping off point for conversation.

First, Dave mentioned Iraq a few times and I do think it's worth acknowledging that, regardless of your personal politics or feelings about the war, we as a nation are finally engaging in the kind of open, frank, and- hopefully- consequential conversations that are essential for us to be having to make progress. Especially after this November's election- and again, I say this regardless of one's specific politics- I think America has embraced a more open, more democratic (lowercase "d") approach toward dealing with this issue, and I think this is a good (if extremely overdue) thing.

And I think that this type of democratic, populist, groundswell feeling that I get when I finally see this dialogue happening is similar to- and in many ways caused by- the ideals and concepts embraced by people who embrace the Internet as a democratizing tool (such as bloggers).

So I just wanted to put that out there.

My second point ties into what I think is the big theme of our discussion tonight. We've spent a lot of time talking about intellectual property and patents as they relate to software development and entrepreneurial freedom. I think the natural progression for this discussion moves us into the realm of DRM, copyright law, and the future of capitalism in our society.

Many of the people in the room (Dave being one of them) are vehemently opposed to DRM as a concept. They champion open formats for digital exchange, and view DRM as a means for content distributors to enforce unfair levels of control over what consumers can do with purchased content.

I see their point, and I do not disagree with it completely, but I think the conversation is more complex. The solution to the "DRM problem" is not technical. It is social.

With digital "products", a consumer can purchase one "copy" and then give away limitless exact replicas of their copy to as many people as they'd like. This is in stark contrast to the traditional model of retail sales, where a consumer buys a "thing" and then either keeps that thing, or gives (or sells) that thing to someone else. There's a 1:1 relationship between what the consumer purchases and the ongoing representation of that purchase over the consumer's entire relationship with it (i.e. that one thing will always remain one thing, and can never be duplicated or made into two or more of the original one).

As human beings, I would argue that our inherent nature is good and that sharing is a fundamental aspect of our relationships with others. If I have something, and someone else would like it or I would like to give that thing to someone else, I'll give it to them, so long as I don't suffer harm in the process. This works fine for traditional goods or services, since giving something away transfers ownership and maintains the 1:1 ratio of the original transaction.

But digital goods without DRM put us into conflict with our nature, because we find ourselves in situations where we need to weigh the value of being generous with the theoretical value of a third party entity (the original distributor of whatever it is you're potentially going to give away) being "robbed" in the process.

Why shouldn't I give my friend a copy of an .mp3 file that I purchased? Who am I more loyal to- my friend, or to the company that sold me that file and that I would be essentially stealing from (or facilitating my friend stealing from) by giving him a copy?

The answer to the DRM debate is not technical, but social. If we advocate for a completely DRM-free society (whi, then we must acknowledge that we are putting forward a fundamental challenge to the capitalist system. We would be asking people who sell things to remove all forms of protection against theft from those items, and to rely purely on the goodwill and intentions of consumers to prevent theft.

In many ways, this would be like asking traditional retailers to keep their doors open 24/7, remove all security devices and personnel, and have their retail employees keep their eyes closed all the time. The integrity of a "sale" would be completely up to the integrity of the consumer.

To be clear, I am not trying to say that most people are dishonest and are natural thieves. I reject this argument completely and believe that people are inherently good and honest. However, I do think that the transition to an economy of digital goods requires a significant conversation about the fundamental concepts of what goods are (i.e. experiences versus things), what the rights and responsibilities of sellers are, and what the rights and responsibilities of consumers are.

This is the conversation we need to be having now, because the process of having this conversation will help us arrive at the answers to these questions, which are some of the fundamental issues of our time. This is not about technology. It's not about DRM being essential for companies to survive, or antithetical to the rights of consumers. It's really all about the evolution of capitalism in the digital age.

Personally, I would like to live in a DRM-free society, but I think it's going to take a lot of hard, honest work from all of us to get there. I think the people who are participating in this unconference, and the post-unconference discussion, are the kinds of people who need to be thinking about and discussing these issues. I believe we all share a common goal, which is to arrive at a place where we as consumers have all of the freedoms we expect to have with things that we purchase, and where the people on the other side of the transaction remain as motivated as ever to continue to participate and profit from the producer/consumer relationship.

We can get there, but it's going to take people like us to help guide us there. We can't let this debate fall squarely into the hands of the people who take an extremist position on either side (specifically, the media conglomerates and the reflexively anti-DRM techies), because I do not believe they are willing to acknowledge that the solution to this problem will involve a degree of trust, respect, and support flowing in both directions.

So, now that this unconference is over, I propose continuing the spirit and nature of our conversation in the blogosphere, beginning with this topic. Blog about it, think about it, and if anyone's interested in organizing another unconference to discuss further, I would love to be involved.

Thanks again to Dave, Sanford, Cooper Union, and everyone who participated.

My grandfather

My grandfather passed away on Tuesday. He was a big part of my life, and a big part of me.

Here's his obituary, which ran in today's New London paper.

Groton - Norman D. Fagin, a loving husband, father and grandfather who made friends everywhere through his passion for piano and irrepressible sense of humor, died Tuesday, Dec. 19, after a long, happy life. He was 90.

A Yankee Doodle baby, Norm was born on the Fourth of July in 1916 in The Bronx, N.Y., to Abraham and Dora (Polstein) Fagin, and grew up in a house filled with musical instruments. Norm once recalled how after dinner the children all raced to the living room to claim one of the instruments, and while he often settled for a mandolin, he usually waited until the piano was free.

Then Norm would settle in and play a repertoire that grew over the years to hundreds of songs, all "by ear'' - that is, with no sheet music or formal training, using his own complex arrangements. Norm entertained frequently at senior centers and nursing homes throughout Connecticut and Florida, and was especially popular at The Groton Senior Center and at Windham Falls in Groton, where he and his wife, Florence, lived for the past two years. Most nights after dinner, Norm would play such standards as "Tea for Two," "It Had to be You" and "Ave Maria" while residents gathered to listen.

A raconteur and master of the dialect joke - he spoke several languages - Norm also was a skilled cartoonist who saw humor in almost any situation.

Even as he lay in his hospital bed Norm could not resist trading jibes with the many wonderful doctors and nurses who cared for him in his later years.

On the day before he passed away, after a difficult moment, he summoned a nurse to his bedside and whispered, "It's all an act."

But Norm also had a serious side, which was reflected in his love and total devotion to Florence, whom he married on June 15, 1944, in New York, while he was on leave from the Army during World War II. Norm served in the Signal Corps in Hawaii.

Though Norm and Florence traveled extensively, they were never happier than at home, at each other's side.

After the war the couple lived in Ohio for five years before moving to West Haven where they lived for 49 years. Norm worked at a number of jobs - painting, sales, managing an army and navy store - before going to work for the U.S. Postal Service in New Haven, from which he retired in 1983.

The couple moved to Groton in 2001 to be closer to their son, daughter-in-law and youngest grandson.

Besides his wife, Norm is survived by his daughter, Diane Solomon, and son-in-law, Steven Solomon, of Pleasantville, N.Y. and his son, Steve Fagin, and daughter-in-law, Lisa Brownell, of Ledyard. He also is survived by his grandchildren, Jeffrey Solomon and his wife, Clara, of New York, N.Y., Michael Solomon, of New York, N.Y., and Thomas Fagin of Ledyard.

Norm was predeceased by brothers Sam, Julius and Hyman, and sisters Rose and Bella. He also leaves numerous nieces and nephews, to whom he was always their favorite "Uncle Normie," as well as countless friends.

Tom Skerritt pitches Windows Vista

Worth checking out.

Pretty strange.

What the hell does Tom Skerritt have to do with operating systems?

And why is he holding his left arm behind his back- what's he hiding back there?