I know that Lanier has his axe to grind and that is all well and good. We all do. I even agree with most of what he has to say. It is dangerous to frame any discussion in regard to regulating the Internet purely in terms of black and white. This is especially true when we are talking about battles between corporate interests. Several of the companies that oppose SOPA have less than stellar track records when it comes to supporting an open Internet community. In their continued attempt to enact a form of modern day enclosure on the content their users create they often end up working against the very ideals that first allowed them to grow and prosper. He and I have no disagreement in this regard, whatsoever.
Since we agree that much of the opposition to SOPA comes from companies with specific economic goals, I have to admit I was surprised by the direction his piece took. Lanier’s assumption that the argument against SOPA is somehow about the maintenance or worship of “free” content is completely off the mark. In fact, I would say just the opposite. Opposition to SOPA is about making sure that content creators, of any size, can continue to reach users. For some, this is merely about switching corporate gatekeepers where “new media” behemoths take the place of “old media” behemoths. For others, it is about preserving a creator’s ability to openly share content free from any gatekeepers without the fear of costly lawsuits that would essentially eliminate any chance they would have to share their work.
Google and Facebook do not oppose SOPA because they are the “good guys.” They oppose SOPA because it’s costly. That’s it. They may blanket us in the pretty rhetoric of openness and freedom but, ultimately, they’re talking about the bottom line. In all honesty, they probably could survive a post-SOPA world albeit in much different capacity. They have the financial strength to create licensing agreements with the MPAA and RIAA. The rest of us don’t have that luxury.
The Internet is bigger than Google or Facebook. It is bigger than any single company and, personally, I hope it always remains that way. In this case, the profits of these powerful companies align with the best interests of the Internet community and that works in everyone’s favor. We already know that this won’t be the case forever, though. Indeed, that is why I am heartened by the very thing that seemed to scare Lanier: the backlash against companies that supported SOPA. I am ardent supporter of free speech, but free speech involves responsibility. I believe organizations and people have a right to choose where they spend their money. If a company supports practices that I disagree with, I have the right to not patronize that company. I also have the right to share that disagreement with others. Is this behavior the beginning form of some sort of orthodoxy? Perhaps, it is. Is it any different than refusing to sign up for a website because you disagree with it polices? Not so much.
Lanier is right in arguing that there needs to be an aggressive look at models of payment for content beyond advertising. Information isn’t free even for those sites that provide content without cost. That’s one of the reasons why Wikipedia spends so much time asking for donations. I agree that we do sometimes get caught up in the “everything must be free” mentality and that there is still a long way to go in providing solid solutions to content creators of all sizes. Blaming “free” content, however, does nothing but play into the hands of those who support measures like SOPA. This not about an Internet without rules where content is merely a pointless commodity to be traded on the nearest torrent site. This is about an Internet where practical and sane content protections do not displace or harm a growing, vibrant, and increasingly important creative community that continues to push our boundaries and the possibilities of what technology and art can do regardless of their size of their pocketbooks or their lobbying firms.
If Text and Hubris generated enough page hits to make a “going dark” protest practical and valid, this site would already be dark. Frankly, it doesn’t and while I can understand the value of sites like Wikipedia going dark, I feel that the best thing smaller blogs can do is act to inform people about the severe risk this type of legislation (SOPA, PIPA) poses to the Internet, economic and creative communities, artists, and our society as a whole.
I don’t think I really need to add much here, except to say that I wish I lived in Massachusetts. I really hope she wins. Voices of reason in our government are a rare thing.
I admit I am a bit spoiled living in Iowa City. This is a mecca for poets, writers and artists of every stripe and color. We have an amazing array of creative talent that passes through this city and I am more than happy to take advantage of it. While I may grumble about driving back and forth to Cedar Rapids as much as I do, I really am glad to have finally moved down here.
There is a problem, though. Iowa City is a unique place and in most small to mid-sized towns the arts are too often easily discarded. Bemidji, a town in North Central Minnesota, is smaller than Iowa City; although, after including some of the smaller surrounding towns that size differential begins to diminish somewhat. It has a college, Bemidji State University that serves about 6,500 students in a variety of degree programs including a BFA in Creative Writing and degrees in the Visual Arts, Art History, and Theater [nbcite title="Bemidji State University" year="2010" month="11" publisher="Minnesota State Colleges and Universities" url="http://www.mnscu.edu/campuses/profiles/bemidjistate.html" monthacc="02" dayacc="04" yearacc="2011" type="website" ].
Like everywhere else, times are not good in Minnesota. The budget shortfall is coming close to $6.2 billion and this means cuts to the Universities. There is logic here, I am sure. It’s not a good logic, but I am sure there is some. Student loans are already exceedingly onerous and many people now have to decide whether education is worth the cost. Cutting funding, well, that’s just the icing on the cake and it smacks of cutting your nose off to spite your face. Growth isn’t going to happen if your population isn’t educated well enough to actually find and create new jobs. But hey, who am I to question the mindset of the “powers that be?”
The BSU president, admittedly, is facing some tough choices. He has a $5 million deficit to deal with, thanks to the Minnesota legislature, and he wants his university to survive. So he developed a plan to focus on the majors that drove (and this is a word I am rapidly coming to despise) employability. What does this mean? It means a complete removal of the Art History and Theater major. It means trimming back on English and the Visual Arts. It means adding funding and faculty to the Business and Mass Communication majors. Yeah, you read that right. It means adding to those majors while cutting many others. I understand the president has difficult choices to make. I just hope that he listens to those who have concerns and rethinks a few of his decisions.
If you read the article on the Bemidji Pioneer (linked below), you will see that this isn’t just a BSU issue. Professor Parson’s comments on the issue seem especially cogent. This is an issue with how the relative importance of these programs is determined statewide [nbcite author="Anne Williams" title="‘Honk if you love the arts’: Theater, art supporters protest outside BSU’s Deputy Hall" year="2011" month="02" day="01" publisher="Bemidji Pioneer" url="http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/event/article/id/100025605/" monthacc="02" dayacc="04" yearacc="2011" type="website" ] and, I would argue, on a national level, as well. After all, we’ve seen similar cuts in Albany, NY [nbcite author="Margot Adler" title="Cuts To University's Humanities Program Draw Outcry" year="2010" month="11" day="15" publisher="National Public Radio" url="http://www.npr.org/2010/11/15/131336270/cuts-to-university-s-humanities-program-draw-outcry" monthacc="02" dayacc="04" yearacc="2011" type="website" ] and elsewhere. Do a search for “university cuts arts and theater” and it’s easy to see that BSU is not alone. This is a problem, everywhere.
I’m not going to go into the whole spiel on how much money the arts actually bring in to a community. I’m not going to rant on the benefits and strength of a having a background in the arts. I’ll save all that for another time. What I am going to say is that the loss of culture does not begin in the big cities. It begins in the small towns across this country. If you ever wondered why ignorance seems so prevalent in certain areas, look to cultural decline. Look to a lack of funding for the Arts and you will find a culture in stagnation, unwilling to adapt and change because it doesn’t know how.
