The difference between Apple as an evil empire and Microsoft as an evil empire player is simple. Where Microsoft’s technology was often a cheap imitation of what was already available in superior products, Apple’s technology continues to be solid, forward-thinking, and well designed. The game has changed and advocates of the open Internet as a creative platform need to step up.
Now, I’ll be the first to admit that Microsoft has changed a lot. I am no longer embarrassed to dual boot and I do find MS Office 2010 to be a fantastic suite of applications. In a lot of ways, Microsoft has done a lot to repair an image that needed it. That impetus for change didn’t happen overnight and it didn’t happen without an economic incentive. The same is true of Apple. If you want to help stop the proliferation of dumb licenses, help make the competition better. I am not asking you to code. I am not asking you to become a software designer. I am not even asking you to switch operating systems. I am just suggesting you look at the tools available and decide what works the best not just in the short term, but for the long haul. Use the open tools that are available or push your vendors to create standards-compliant products that can compete.
I know it is hard to compete with a free product. Then again, I don’t really think Apple’s iBook Author software is free. It is, potentially, the most expensive software available today. It pre-emptively takes full commercial control of any creative work designed in the software. I keep reading these arguments that try to liken it to a publisher buying a book and sharing the profits. Some point to Amazon’s publishing its restrictions that I would also strongly suggest everyone pay careful attention to. That said, as far as I am aware, Amazon isn’t dictating licensing based on a software package. I am able to create my work using whatever software I see fit. I can then shop my work to other publishers or sell my creation myself. Amazon only cares when they are the method by which I choose to sell, and that (like choosing Apple as a channel) is purely the author’s prerogative. More realistically, Apple’s stance would be like Microsoft demanding the right to sell and publish every commercial novel that was written with MS Word.
Hmmm….on second thought, let’s not give Microsoft any ideas. I am not so sure they have changed that much.
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.
I believe in privacy. I believe that tracking where a person goes and what a person does and then using or sharing that data is a violation of privacy. I also believe that creating a web site or some connected device that gives the appearance of privacy but which, in reality, leaks data all over the place is also a violation of privacy. These actions occur often without user knowledge and can be potentially serious.
I tend to think it silly, though, when people want to post publicly and then expect that the data will not be tracked. The Internet does remember. That is its nature. Anything you post publicly will remain and can be found and tracked. I don’t find this some egregious violation of user privacy. Rather, I find this to be the fact of the medium.
It is easy to find radicals on all sides of the privacy debate. Right now, I have been reading the heavy pro-privacy groups. While I agree with a huge portion of what they say, it is easy to leap from practical personal privacy to something bordering on the bizarre. That’s a place that I don’t want to go to. There has to be balance between privacy and sharing. After all, most of us post online in an attempt to communicate and share.
I suppose my ultimate belief is in full disclosure. I believe a user has the right to know, in clear terms, what is being tracked, what is accessible and by who, and what rights they give up by creating the account. After that, it is purely buyer beware. Yes, we need better education when it comes to privacy risks online, but let’s not pretend that the medium isn’t any different from our other mediums. We need to find ways to live with the technology we have and still protect user privacy in practical ways. It can be a fine line sometimes, but I think finding that balance is a far better option than any of the alternatives.
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.
Here’s a small hint: if you plan on cheating in a class that I took a few years ago, one in which the teacher was kind enough to want to use one of my responses as an example for future classes, make sure to delete my name from the example when you post it on the cheat site and offer cash. It’s a very sad, and very dead, giveaway.
That was my surprise this evening. I’m still not entirely sure what to do about it. As part of my job hunt process, I have been checking search engine results for a my name. Mostly, I am just curious as to what comes up and it’s always nice to know that my sites are the first sources of information about me. When this little cheat site (which will not be linked to or mentioned here) popped up, I was more than a bit surprised.
It took me a little bit to figure out what happened. Apparently, a bit of reading followed by writing three 150-300 word responses are outside the realm of some students. One sad individual decided to post the entire assignment to the site, examples included, and offered $12 for a word document that evening. It always good to know our student’s are learning.
I really have a problem with this type of cheating, particularly, in a college setting. You’re paying to be there. No one is making you go (If they are, then you flunking out is probably a solid option.). All that this type of cheating does is hurt the overall class. Forget all that “you’re cheating yourself” garbage. To be honest, I don’t care about the cheating student, at all. Anyone who is willing to buy their grade is pretty much beyond hope at this point in time, and maybe a few years in the real world is exactly what they need. I do care that a teacher has to waste time and energy on a nothing assignment. Time and energy that could be better spent on students who are trying and who want to, oh I don’t know, get something from the class.
Unfortunately, I don’t have a name just a random alias on the site. This just happened on March 28, so it is very recent. I think I will at least contact my former professor to let her know what is going on. I’m not sure there’s too much that can be done but at least she’ll be aware and that’s better than nothing. If anyone has suggestions, let me know. I would also like my name off the site, but that too seems to be a trick. I’ll update with anything else that may develop.
The difference between Apple as an evil empire and Microsoft as an evil empire player is simple. Where Microsoft’s technology was often a cheap imitation of what was already available in superior products, Apple’s technology continues to be solid, forward-thinking, and well designed. The game has changed and advocates of the open Internet as a creative platform need to step up.
