I Know You Never Ever Read The User Agreement

How does it feel knowing that all of your personal information is in the hands of a 20-something CEO who is desperately trying to prove to investors the he can turn a profit on the internet? Well if you are one of the many users of Facebook, this is the situation you are in, and as CEO Mark Zuckerbeg recently proved, he is willing to go behind your back if it means turning a profit.

Recently Facebook pulled a fast one and changed their user agreement without so much as a post to the news feed. This would be fine if it were simply smoothing out the wording , or clarifying a point. Unfortunately it was a bold authoritarian move which can be summed up with the words, "I own you ." With the change, Facebook declared ownership over everything that you post, including contact information, wall posts, and even photos of yourself. Not only did they declare permanent ownership of what is currently posted on Facebook, but also what has been posted in accounts that have been deleted. It was only after a bored anon felt like rereading his user agreement, that the change was reported to several internet watchdog groups.

Naturally, the response from the public was overwhelmingly negative. A massive Facebook group was constructed within a day protesting the change. Zuckerberg tried to explain it away as a simple clarification in policy, rather than a regime change. Luckily no one drank the kool-aid, and the policy was changed back several days later.
While I don't think that Facebook should have the legal right to change their user agreement without first notifying their users, it does hit upon something that has always bothered me about how people use the internet. You know all of those boxes below long bits of text that you so flippantly click when signing up for a new online service? I know yo click them without reading the agreement. I know you think to yourself, "well if this were a bad thing to sign, it wouldn't be allowed." Wrong.

One thing that most people fail to understand is that the internet is quite literally the wild west of technology. It is relatively unbound by law, and the laws that are in place are so sparsely policed that if you wander outside of the sheriff's territory, you had better be ready to defend yourself. Luckily that isn't as hard or as dangerous as it was in the old west, but it does mean that if you aren't watching out, you can sign a whole chunk of yourself over to another entity with just the click of your mouse. Using social networking sites, and the internet in general, is somewhat of a Faustian bargain. You can have anything you want, but you can not have yourself. You can't have your privacy.

Whether you like it or not, once you post something to the internet, it's no longer private. I don't care how many passwords you have on that Photobucket account, or what you changed your privacy settings to. If it is on the internet, and someone wants it, it's as good as theirs. Take this into consideration. Employers scan Facebook when screening employees. Just because that photo of you passed out in a public restroom is for friends eyes only, doesn't mean they won't see it. More than likely they will. Now imagine that Facebook has a price for this information. They don't even have to break in or use a backdoor. This same price is offered to advertisers who want to know what you buy, how old you are, and where to send the spam to. Not only this, but even if you delete your account, Facebook is holding onto this picture for possible blackmailing opportunities in the future. (An extreme vision of the future, but a possible one)

What Facebook did was shady, but well within the limits of acceptability. Don't expect this to be the last time that Facebook, or other sites try to mislead you. At this point in time, Zukerberg is backed against a wall, pinned down on all sides by investors wondering where their millions are. Do you think they will listen when he tells them the internet doesn't function in the same way as the real world? More than likely, he will try to use what he has to make their millions, and when it comes to Facebook, all he has is what you post.

To Rebuild by way of Destroyer

I remember spending hours clicking away at minesweeper on my family's first P.C. With no understanding of how the game worked, I never got too far. It didn't matter to me one bit though. All my kindergarten mind was interested in was interacting with this machine. Soon I was learning my first dos prompts, and sending the computer spiraling into safe mode with my inept commands. I had no idea then how much further the computer would reach into my daily life. I suppose the first revelation came when I realized that America Online was not the entire internet. Soon after that, Napster came around to save us all from twenty dollar C.D.'s, each which likely would only have one track worth listening to. Napster was such an amazing revelation.

I don't think it really occurred to any of my middle school friends that what we were doing on our parents computers could be illegal. After all, I had spent years copying Weird Al Yankovich albums for my friends, and P2P file sharing seemed like exactly the same thing. Our clueless parents certainly had no idea that we were all committing what the music industry would consider grand larceny until the aging rock group Metallica got whiny and made a big stink about how their art was being mistreated. "It is sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is." Was the official statement from drummer Lars Ulrich in 2000 when it was announced that the band would be filing suite against Napster, The University of Southern California, Yale University, and Indiana University. It's a shame that bloated egos of rock stars were the ones who got to speak for the industry. It has been argued that their violent reaction started the industry down the path towards destruction. Rolling Stone writer and author of Appetite For Self Destruction may have put it best in this interview when he said, "Had the record labels jumped into a deal with Napster when the time was right, when Napster was at its peak, I really do think that could've been a business model." Unfortunately, rather than embracing the digital revolution, the music industry reacted with fear, and a torrent of frivolous lawsuits, mostly against college students and unsuspecting parents has followed. Like many other industries, the music industry is left asking themselves just what they are going to do. The trend of illegal file sharing has done nothing but increase, and traditional business models seem worthless. It is my opinion, that the destruction of the music industry is merely a transitional phase that will make room for multiple, more elastic models for distributing intellectual properties.

To fully understand and appreciate part of the problem faced by industries dealing in intellectual property, you have to understand the collective psyche of the internet. The recording industry is up against a paradigm shift in the way people view copyright, and their relation to it. In the infamous A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, John Perry Barlow declares the internet free of all national law, and casts off old ideas. Among these is the idea that one can own intellectual property. "In our world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost." While this statement has already become somewhat dated, the sentiment remains. Reading the news online, watching free shows and movies, and listening to free music has become the societal norm.

Current copyright law may say that most of these things are illegal, but it certainly isn't the norm. It is only recently that copyright law was of any real importance to anyone other than people directly involved in these industries. A decade ago, Napster was just a baby, and the largest problem that the music industry had to worry about was teens making mix tapes for their friends. No one in the public sector had any reason to be concerned about laws regarding intellectual property. But I bet if I looked through your internet history today I could find at least a handful of things that could be considered copyright infringement. Everything from streaming a movie from a site like allc.org, to posting a video of yourself lip syncing to an old boy band hit, are illegal under the current laws. "We are, technically speaking, a nation of copyright infringers." -John Tehranian

So does this mean that we are all going to pay for our unwitting crimes? The RIAA would like for us to, but luckily those of this opinion seem to be on the losing side of this boxing match. In the opposite corner of the ring, are people like Lawrence Lessig. Coming from a point of view that many would consider extremely radical, Lessig has been called an intellectual property communist by critics. This guy is on your side if you like to bit torrent, remix, or partake in most other modern pass times. His vision of the world is one where culture isn't limited by by the restraints of monetary vale, and any work can be reproduced an infinite number of times with any variation. This view actually makes a lot of sense when you look at the current trend. A large portion of music being produced is created from snippets of previously recorded songs, and every time you reply to an e-mail you are reproducing the original text of the sender. Content is generated anonymously every single day, and copied and pasted without a second thought. In the world of cyberspace, it seems logical to do away with most copyright laws.

But where does this philosophy leave the recording industry, and all other creators and distributors of intellectual property? For the most part, it leaves them out to dry. Under these rules being a musician would be impossible to turn into a career. Most IPs would be created as a hobby, and because of the ease of posting your own work to the internet, no middle men would be needed to bring the content to the people. The end result would likely be a flood of work with no quality control. Imagine going to a record store where you have to dig through piles of trash, hoping against hope to find something listenable. Already, Myspace is somewhat like this, as are many other providers of free streaming music. Luckily this will not be the case.

In all likely hood we will see the emergence of multiple business models for distribution to pick up the slack left by the all but destroyed recording industry. Already we are seeing the industry attempting to adapt, with the advent of places like the iTunes store, and Emusic. These stores though, are too much of a literal translation of the old model, and will likely be too little too late to save the recording industry. People are largely unenthusiastic when confronted with the idea of paying upwards of ten dollars for a package of digital files. To add to the problem of this model for digital distribution the music industry execs have opted to attach DRM protection to the files. While their fear of piracy is understandable, it doesn't appear that DRM has been at all beneficial to them. In response the the widespread complaints about the DRM protection on songs bought from the iTunes store, Steve Jobs issues this response, explaining that until the record execs realize the error of their ways, his hands are tied. Since this statement, iTunes has gone DRM free, but it is still unclear whether of not this will bolster sales of their music, especially when piracy rates are soaring.

I think the most likely, and obvious solution for the time being is the model presented by the fine folks at Amie Street music. Amie Street is an independent music download site, where much of the music is free. Let me explain. All music on Amie Street is free until it has been downloaded a certain number of times, at which point the price of the song is raised slightly. Songs reach a maximum price of ninety-eight cents once they have become popular enough. This system of community driven pricing feels right with the spirit of the internet. It also shows a level of humility not seen in the mainstream recording industry. After the CD boom of the 90's it often feels like the execs feel entitled to an inflated cash flow that they never really deserved. Well luckily the days of paying up to twenty dollars for a C.D., which is essentially just a piece of trash to litter your car with, are over.

Not only is the internet blossoming with new models of distribution, but many labels are finding that old models are being revived. Surprisingly, the buying of vinyl is becoming poplar once again. Many fans want to support the artists, but don't want to spend their money on plastic garbage (C.D.s). Instead they opt to buy something that feels more like a finished product. Something a little more permanent. This phenomena is definitely something that the labels should pay attention to. When trying to provide digital downloads, they should look for ways to make the product more than the sum of its parts. With vinyl copies you often receive large posters, and extended liner notes. Something similar should be done with MP3 downloads. On the last N.I.N release, The Slip, each track came with its own art work, rather than a single picture for the album. While I find the art boring, it is still an interesting angle. Record labels should no longer expect people to pay for garbage.

Before we see a few extremely successful models for distribution emerge, it is likely that we will see the industry fall further into disrepair. We also will likely see reform to currently existing copyright laws, as well as more specific laws regarding illegal downloading. For the time being you can probably continue to steal all of your music, and only run a slight risk of being sued. But soon enough we should have models of distribution that cater to all tastes. Such is the beauty of the internet. An infinite amount of space. We just have to wait for the industry to get desperate enough to start trying new things. *Looks at watch.* Shouldn't be too long now.

Sources:
Barlow, John. "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace." homes. 08 Feb 1996. 21 Feb 2009 .

Barlow, John. "IP in The Global Net." Homes. 13 Dec 1993. 21 Feb 2009 .

Ginsburg, Jane C.,Essay - How Copyright Got a Bad Name For Itself(October 18, 2002). Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2002. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=342182 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.342182


Harvilla, Rob. "How the Music Industry Died: Steve Knopper's Appetite for Self-Destruction." Village Voice 06 Jan 2990 1-2. 21 Feb 2009 .

Jobs, Steve. "Thoughts on Music." Apple 06 Feb 2007 21 Feb 2009 .

Knopper, Steve. "RIAA WIll Keep On Suing." Rolling Stone 09 Jun 2005 21 Feb 2009 .

Lawrence Lessig, The Vision for the Creative Commons: What are We and Where are We Headed? Free Culture, in Open Content Licensing: Cultivating the Creative Commons, Brian Fitzgerald, ed., Sydney: Sydney University Press, 2007.
(Can be found here)

Tehranian, John,Infringement Nation: Copyright Reform and the Law/Norm Gap(2007). Utah Law Review, Forthcoming; Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2007-46; U of Utah Legal Studies Paper No. 08-20. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1029151

A Brave New Model for Television Emerges

I was stumbling around the internet last night, bored as usual, when I found what could become my new time killer of choice. It could also be viewed as an early model for television 2.0.

Justin.tv is just one of many sites popping up out there that allow users to stream whatever they want on their own channel. The best part is that there is a chat box right next to the video. Suddenly watching Myster Science Theater 3000 on the internet for hours has gone from sad and lonely to social and interactive! Hoorah!

Although the downside to the format is a certain loss of user control, in a strange way this deficiency adds it's own appeal to the whole thing. Because of the chat room, users often request that the channel operator play certain episodes. If a particularly bad program is being played the people have the opportunity to complain about it, or debate with other people in the room. The added sense of community almost makes up for the lack of control.

While the legality of streaming movies and T.V. shows that are probably stolen in the first place is questionable at best, the big media companies should take a serious look at this. While at this underdeveloped stage it would be a nearly impossible chore to monetize, this format holds many exciting possibilities.

Epic Win for the Citizens of the Internet

According to IT World the prosecutor going after The Pirate Bay, an online torrent community, has dropped the charge of, "aiding in the making of copies of works under copyright." The prosecutor apparently was unable to prove that the defendants made any copies of bootleg material. While I find it hard to believe that the men in this photo haven't downloaded more than a few death metal albums, the prosecution should have realized that hosting torrent files is not the same as sending copies of protected works to people.

The one hurdle these internet superheroes have yet to clear is the charge of, helping to make copies of works under copyright available. Although if legal precedent has anything to say about this, these Swedish nerds may win this one.

Anyone Listening?

Within intellectual circles there seems to be a universal concern that the public is less and less interested, and possibly even opposed to the influence of the public intellectual. The feeling that the masses are barely listening to our thoughtful musings is not a comforting one, nor is it one that seems to have any easy explanations or solutions. After being thrown into a mode of existential crisis when faced with the potential value of intellectual commentary within the broader scope of modern society many begin to point fingers at those sitting around them. As discussed in this post by Stephen Mack, many think that there is a is a decline in the quality of intellectual work. If the public is not listening to the intellectuals, then the problem must lie in the quality of the work. When questions of influence are the ones of main concern, Stephen Mack puts it very well when he says, "The measure of public intellectual work is not whether the people are listening, but whether they’re hearing things worth talking about."

An example. Lawrence Lessing is a prominent proponent of copyrightlaw reform, and more recently an active ouster of political corruption. He founded theCreative Commons, a radical institution which is working, with some success, in changing the very nature of intellectual property using the advent of the internet. He has called for major reform of copyright laws, and spearheaded the free culture movement. Yet, those not directly concerned with issues of intellectual property in the digital age have probably never heard of any of his accomplishments, or even of the man himself. Despite this he is undoubtedly a prominent public intellectual.

They may not be listening to The lessons of Lawrence Lessing, but they are hearing the noise. While most may not be aware of the specifics of intellectual property rights, and the implications of the internet upon them, you wold be hard pressed to find someone who does not know about DRM protection on audio files. It would be even harder to find someone unaware of the major problems involved with illegal file sharing, and it would be even harder still to find someone with no opinion on the issue at all. While they are not aware of the works of specific intellectuals, through some bizarre filter of media, the things discussed amongst the intellectuals does reach their ears. Whether or not it has the same affect upon the public that is has in the past, or if the quality of the work has declined, is one of maddening subjectivity.