Okay, if I were going to black out this site, I’d redirect you to the Oatmeal’s protest site: it’s short, funny, and doesn’t talk about information being free.
No, I’m not darkening my website. To be honest, I’m not sure what that’s supposed to achieve other than making it harder for millions of Americans to dick around during work – oh, but wait, Twitter and Facebook are still up. So maybe it will force students to type out their plagiarized assignments, like kids did in the old days.
I can already imagine a world without “free” knowledge; I’m old enough to have lived it. Before the internet, you just walked to the goddamned library, which had thoughtfully purchased those expensive tomes. Actually, it was free, except for the cost in energy and motivation.
Free? Then why are you begging me for money? Oh, I see, you've just discovered nothing is free, after driving down the price of information? Fuck you very much.
Now, it’s obvious that old-school lawmakers have been complete, head-in-the-sand morons about the realities of the internet. Look at my footer. It was inspired by several moments in my internet career – such as when, back in 2005, I called the copyright office to ask about internet publication, and they gave me what was obviously a canned answer equating to “We don’t know if writing appearing on the internet counts as publication yet.”Okey-dokey, I thought, it really is the Wild West out here.
But then started I teaching media literacy in my classes, and found out that certain entities did count the internet as publication, namely large media corporations (they weren’t people yet). Because of them I couldn’t use the audio-visual materials I needed in class, at least in any convenient online fashion.
What they were preventing, in fact, was audio-visual citation. Once, just as an experiment, I tried copying the video snippet and putting it YourTube with full and correct citation and attribution, as well as commentary and a fair use clause. Just like I’d require in, say, a paper. Just like I’d be required to do if I worked for anyone other than the Huff Post. But no, I got slapped by Google/YouTube/Fox and of course the citation just made it easier for them find. Yes, Fox was being a dick – but so was Google.
Where have I heard that before? Oh, right, large corporations..er, people.
So I don’t want to hear grandiose statements about information being “free.” It’s never free, as Wikipedia’s begging campaign and Google’s data mining demonstrate. As much as we all like to think we’re fighting for a cause, this isn’t Cowboys and Indians. It’s a messy issue, and all of us are still struggling to adapt to the new era of information and what it all means. Sure, it’s annoying that lawmakers how the internet works, but it’s also annoying that Google and Wikipedia are trying to paint themselves as the “good guys.” They’re doing nothing more than looking out for their corporate interests, just as much as the media companies are looking out for theirs. Everybody has an agenda.
Here’s mine: I want the right to cite audio-visual material, online, for commentary and analysis. That’s a basic principle of fair use (one that even dinosaur legislators should understand) and muzzling it is a really good way to prevent people from acquiring critical media viewing skills. Think about it. If you’re a media commentator, you’re still left explaining visual scenes – which are effective because they’re fucking visual - like some Film Studies grad student.
It really makes me think George Carlin was right – they want you to be stupid. All of them.
Anyway, although it’s totally obvious that nobody’s without an agenda in this fight, I support Google and Wikipedia’s right to lobby, just as the other large media corporations do. And punishing unauthorized online reproduction is both unenforcable and, when practiced as selectively as it is now, philosopihically objectionable. And it’s true that deciding to pursue this legislation would both break the internet and the bank, so I don’t support it – not because anybody’s got an unassailable moral ground in this fight, but because I’m a pragmatist who thinks nostalgia is not a good basis for legislation.
I may have to adapt to the Brave New World. Hell, I may even be good at it. But that doesn’t mean I have to throw a party for it.
It’s free as in freedom. Not as in gratis. Cheers.
Not when you need to make a living from it.
That’s beside the point
The fight against SOPA is about access to information, not money. If it must be about Wikipedia “begging” for donations (which I also find annoying, if tolerable), libraries often beg for money too. What’s the difference? Other than how I am forced to give my money to libraries in the form of taxes, and I only have to donate to Wikipedia if I feel like it (I don’t).
And, be honest: do you really “need” to make all your money off the internet? Or is it just how you prefer to make your living? It’s great when a person can take a stab at the dream, but most of us have to get out there and find a real job.
Money = access to information. Or time to lobby. Always has, always will, and you can’t ignore that part of the equation.
Yes, because everyone has access to a well-stocked, free library. And I know that not everyone has access to an internet connection, either, but I doubt it’s cheaper to provide libraries everywhere that build internet infrastructure.
The thing is, most people who don’t have internet, use libraries for access. It’s what I did, and I still know people that do that.
Sure. But my point is just that I don’t appreciate these hysterical claims – oooo, can you imagine such a world? The simple answer is, yes, and it wasn’t that bad. Sure, I couldn’t surf the internet from my couch, but it really wasn’t that bad. Which is not to deny the great stuff about the internet, just the means being used to market it.
I agree that libraries provide a valuable source of “free” information (in the sense that we as a community pay via taxes, rather than in individual pay-per-view fees). But it isn’t a resource that will necessarily always be available. My town (rather short-sightedly) voted away funds from the library, leaving it open only ~12 hours a week. Obviously, this isn’t universal, but limiting access to information is occurring outside of the internet too. So I guess the moral is don’t worry about the internet limitations if you’re free on Tuesdays between 3-6?
Look, I’m not into nostalgia here — 24-hour information is great. But as i keep saying, the issue of who’s paying for it – and therefore who’s lobbying for their own agenda – cannot be ignored and all of this French-Revolution-style “liberty” crap is a fantastic strategy to distract from that question.
I agree – but again, who pays for it and how? That’s all I’m asking. Tech culture seems to think that if you have a good idea, it will all work out, and that’s simply not true. So if we want to invest in more internet infrastructure, great – but are we willing to pay more taxes? Or will we seek a corporate sponsor, Or what? I don’t claim to have answer, I’m serious when I say that we’re still working it all out. But I’m also serious when I say I’m sick of hearing idealistic bullshit all over the tech sector, about the new model is a) inherently good, b) profitable or c) even finished developing.
Absolutely. I don’t disagree with you there at all.
[...] Worst Professor Ever: My Two Cents on SOPA [...]
Thank you! It’s such a relief to hear someone else point out the comparison – really amusing to imagine how anti-SOPA vigilantes would react to the idea that government regulations are stifling non-internet businesses. I will admit that what I like about SOPA is that it takes the onus off the victims of piracy – I’d rather see sites police their own content than creators/producers feel the burden of searching the entire internet for unauthorized use of their work. And, I mean, my 76-year-old grandma posts youtube links to her facebook page: the internet is mainstream now and should not be exempt from the rules other businesses face (while still making a profit!) Also, I’ll believe Google actually cares about protecting liberty, not piracy when it stops allowing piracy sites to be sponsored links.
And for full disclosure, I should admit that I feel guilty about borrowing books from the library rather than supporting their production by buying them. In other words, I’m a goody-goody about copyright and intellectual property.
I don’t feel the need to support books for their own sake; I’d be okay if libraries went more and more digital. But yes, the issue of copyright is stil important to me – though again, I think we’re beyond saving any notion of it for digital content UNLESS you happen to have a shitload of money and time to waste policing it. That’s the essential inequality, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Comparing Wikipedia to the corporate interests behind SOPA is just plain ridiculous. Technically you are right that nothing is “free” and that we all pay for access to information. However, if you can’t see the difference between a group of volunteers from around the world working to create a base of knowledge on their own time and their own dime versus another group who wants to spend their time and money hiring lawyers to support their outdated business model and in the process harassing and shutting down the work that the volunteers have done, well then one group of corporate interests has made you more stupid than the other group of corporate interests has.
(also to the poster who has problems with borrowing books from the library, I think that you have a problem with guilt. Please talk to somebody, or better yet just send some money in to the publishers. I am sure they will accept it.)
Yes, that’s why I was comparing Google to large corporations.
I know that it’s cool to make Google into “The Man” but they are not the bad guys here. The SOPA people are like cock-blockers running around the bar making sure that nobody gets laid unless they say it’s ok. Google is like a ‘friend’ who buys lets you drink for free but then slips a 5 dollar bill out of your pocket when you aren’t looking. Neither are the best but I’d rather have the latter than the former.
Also so what if Wikipedia has to “beg” ?!? They make my life easier when I want to quickly look up someone’s bio rather than having to root around a person’s personally decorated webpage that’s meant to sell me something rather than to provide quick background information. It’s annoying to see Ad’s of Jimmy talking about ‘free information’ but it is about as close to real free information as we’ll ever get.
Perhaps you should try to think outside the dichotomy – this isn’t about good/bad guys (there are none) or only having one option or the other.
It’s about bad law being pushed on people. It’s about groups that win much and loose some.
Have you considered where are you in this picture? What will you do when you will get shot down because of possible copyright violation, that no one will have to prove to you?
There are many bad regulations already, look how DMCA was abused in its early adoption. SOPA allows for tremendous abuse. I don’t want to say here piracy is OK but you shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water.
Hey, I never said I supported the law, it’s shitty legislation and (like most laws) would be easy for those in power to abuse. But my point is that Google, Wired, GoDaddy and the rest are *not* little guys. IF the law passed, I don’t believe for a second they’d be affected because I think their lobbying would suddenly become much more traditional. One of my favorite web developers made the point most succinctly: this isn’t a free speech issue, it’s a campaign reform issue. Whoever has the money controls the legislation – and that includes the people currently couching themselves as freedom fighters.
Rather than whining and nitpicking at all the little things I could disagree with, can I just say how absolutely right you are about needing to secure the ability to legally use copyrighted content with the appropriate citation for the purposes of analysis. I honestly hadn’t thought about that before, and I certainly don’t here it being mentioned much (or loudly) in the debate.
Well, sure, we could disagree on little things until the cows come home, but I’m glad to hear someone agrees with me on this point – let’s either do away with copyright or not, but this selective enforcement is bullshit.
The idealism and entitlement from the tech sector makes me sick. The union between “liberals” who protest in the name of freedom and tech giants who benefit from pirating information is one of the creepiest I’ve ever seen. I, like you, don’t think we should force the world to step backward, but I also don’t think we should pretend that a world where nobody gets paid for providing information is a good thing.
Sometimes, I even sense a bit of sadism from techies… as if they feel that they deserve a stream of free content and that content producers deserve to be slaves.
Long before any of this, Paul Krugman published this article, which is basically a short sci-fi story. http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/29/magazine/white-collars-turn-blue.html?pagewanted=all
I’m wondering if you’ve read it. He predicts all the things that we’re starting to see now, and he doesn’t pretend that they’re good or bad.
I think the most important point in all this is: there is a difference between citing material one needs to to cite and stealing. The copyright is the ONLY means authors and artists have of protecting their livelyhood.