Slashdot Mirror
Life on The Net in 2004
NewtonsLaw writes "In recent years the Net has changed very quickly from a great place for geeks and nerds into a highly commercialized marketplace in which everyone is making a grab for your wallet. If it's not wave after wave of spam in your mailbox, it's excessively intrusive ad banners and popups, or demands by websites that you pay a subscription for access.
The DMCA and other pending legislation could soon mean that companies such as Microsoft and the recording labels will cement their total ownership of your online rights -- leaving you with nothing but a hefty bill to pay whenever you want to use their software or services.
Today's Aardvark Daily carries an interesting editorial that speculates on just what life could be like in the very near future. Sobering -- but perhaps not too far from reality?"
There is this fear of government 'ruining' your life by passing laws about software and copy rights and such.
Some of it is warranted but not this kind of horrid future.
There is a very good alternative to it all. Just walk away from it. I know I don't have to have email in my personal life. I don't have to have the web either. I certainly don't need the music produced by the big record companies, or the movies and t.v. shows produced by the big entertainment conglomerates.
If enough people opt out of these things- and put their energy into developing alternatives, those alternatives will thrive.
The only government that can stop that is one that does away with the very basic liberties of movement and ownership. I know- a lot of people think that is already happening but I would say not.
I'm not saying don't be concerned or take action. I just think that this dark vision of the future is a bit much.
Not to mention it completely leaves out the advances that will be made in the circumvention of these laws.
Imagine before cable t.v. someone writing a story where the draconian cable company sends you a bill- or they'll turn your t.v. off!
Some people pay and don't think anything of it.
A lot of people just steal cable.
Me- I just go without and save a lot of time that would have been wasted watching what is for the most part drivel.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
A free market is about being able to empower BOTH the seller AND the buyer so that they can negotiate a price point based on the invisible hand of supply and demand. When a supplier has exclusive control over a market, that is NEITHER capitalism or a free market. Microsoft's business practices have NOTHING to do with capitalism.
Free software happens to empower the buyer and enables more than one seller, hence, it is a very pro-capitalism and pro-market proposition. While it may be true that a single entity may not be able to extort monopolist prices to the determinent of the buyer, it also generally true that a more competitive market with multiple suppliers is generally better both for the quality of goods supplied and the total size of the market. This is real capitalism. This is free software!
I love how capitalists and authoritarians alike fall back on the notion that inequality and suffering are "facts of life" and so capitalism and authority is just - and yet they fail to go by that same reasoning when it comes to murder, theft, and overall crime. You can't have it both ways. Either the world revolves around pain and brutality or it doesn't. Whether or not that brutality puts money into your goddamn fucking greedy ass pockets is completely irrelevant.
Why don't you put aside your greed for one moment and think about the possibility, just the possibility, that the world doesn't have to be so fucked up.
We wave the flag of freedom as we conquer and invade.
Compare it to McDonald's, which is really in the real estate business, NOT necessarily profiting from fast food. The same is coming true for Microsoft - Windows is simply a vehicle to intellectual property rights.
Well, the great thing about the Internet is that everyone -- anyone -- can have their place, their nook, their niche.
But let's be honest here... if 50% of America has Internet access -- a good 140 some million people -- it's a safe bet that a minority of those 140,000,000 are "geeks" or "nerds." The net reflects what people online demand. If 90% of surfers were "nerds," I'm sure we'd see it slanted the other way.
I'm not much into programming anymore and I'm done with Linux. I'm a non-programming OS X user now but I come to Slashdot every day (more than once a day) because I love this community... but I also have demands for CNN.com, Macintouch.com, Apple.com, guitar websites, TheOnion.com, Yahoo Finance, Google, and so on... and none of those are "geek locations."
I think the net is just how I like it. In fact, it's close to how anyone likes it! The net's very adaptive because it's distributed. Like democracy, it shifts to what the majority want and allows space for the minority, too (though sometimes slowly).
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
If it's not wave after wave of spam in your mailbox, it's excessively intrusive ad banners and popups, or demands by websites that you pay a subscription for access.
Kind of like Slashdot is doing?
>> Microsoft got rich by making the best OS
LOL... no.
Microsoft got rich because IBM marketed the best, and later because it abused the monopoly power that consumers gave to it earlier in its corporate life.
That's the facts, jack. MS wouldn't be where it is right now if it hadn't been along for the ride with the IBM PC. They were in the right place at the right time. Are you going to tell me that people bought PC's for MS-DOS?
Now they've realized in recent years what exactly it is that they control, and since they've got everyone by the balls with the Windows platform, they can play all the games they want with their customers.
That's the problem with a monopoly; they don't have to give a damn to make a profit. Hence why we have antitrust legislation.
"Big-bidness" mindslaves like yourself are just funny; how exactly do you think submitting yourself to MS's corporate dominance will reap rewards in the long run?
Everything is cyclical. The 2004 article may in fact happen. If life on the net somehow gets that bad, there will be an equal and opposite force that limits the damage.
Without a doubt, the legal aspects of this will be every bit as bad as the article suggests. However, there is a big difference between having laws and enforcing them. In the 2004 scenario, practically everyone who owns a computer will be violating somebody's license or patent. The legal system may very well drown in it's own filth.
Considering how Napster was launched by a few low-budget geeks, imagine what might happen with serious opposition. I have often heard about the open source movement being the "Viet Cong" of the software world. Using laws to control a guerilla force is not going to be effective. If gun control doesn't stop criminals from using guns, I don't see how SSSCA is going to fare any better with computers. Surely, some people will be intimidated, but the Internet will simply become more encrypted and private. Historically, the Russians have been among the world leaders in dealing with repressive regimes. They are especially well suited for the Microsoft-Disney-Hollings world. Dimitry Sklyarov may very well have the last laugh after all.
The 2004 article presumes that the bad guys have achieved a total victory. The same mentality would have predicted a British victory in the American revolution, and a US victory in the Vietnam war. Goliath doesn't always win.
On the surface, it looks like Microsoft, RIAA, and Disney are a dominant force because they have money. We can assume that money will buy custom-crafted legislation (DMCA, SSSCA, and whatever Hollings is told to produce). But the advantage ends there. If you think about the brainpower aspect of this battle, a finite number of software professionals will have to outsmart an almost limitless number of guerilla hackers -- 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Every time the hackers get lucky, the "axis of evil" loses millions of dollars. The reason why Micrsoft is being hacked and embarrassed on a daily basis is not because they are dumb, it's because they are outnumbered.
We can't afford to be complacent, but this battle is by no means over.
The article, despite some interesting theorizations, basically supposes the internet and technology already exists in a vaccum that only a few people can affect, and that they're all on the same side. So this future will come about.
.
The internet does not exist in a vaccum, it is used by millions of people.
Technology is not just a monolithic product, and attempts to make it so will doubtlessly backfire. If the US government mandated ridiculous standards, what that did in the US would NOT necessarily affect the rest of the world. One could also kiss some exports goodbye.
The various 800-lb Gorillas in technology are NOT on the same side, and they've got other factions nipping at their heels as well. Take a look at the new Gateway commericals that emphasize CD ripping for just one example . .
It is also assumed people are sheep. The problem being of course everyone assumes OTHER people are sheep while they of course are independent and free-spirited. Take a look at the spambusting, the popupkillers, DCSS, etc. People have been rebelling against this crap for some time.
Would some people like the 'net this way? Definitely. Will it happen? The fact we already have stories like this tells me probably not.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Anything a geek can create, a politician can legislate against.
A political problem doesn't cry out for a technological solution... but we're not politicians. We're geeks.
-Eldurbarn
The internet is a distributed system that is entirely decentralized. As such, there is no real way to say that the "net is this." The net is simply the nodes you connect to.
/., Google, SatireWire, SourceForge, Freshmeat, and various personal web sites.
:)
What nodes do I connect to? I connect to
For me, the net is better than it was in the past. Free Software is taking off and SourceForge provides an incredibly service in hosting so much of it. As far as I'm concerned, things are just fine. BTW, I use Mozilla and run Linux so the only time I hear of Email Virii are when the people at work start bitching. At least it gives me a chance to recommend Linux to people
Really though, what sites do people find all this crap on? If I went to site that pop-up'd an automated d/l, I simply would stop going to it. If it offends you so much, why to you continue to go to it?
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
It does nothing but make things look insane. You think people would stand for this? Where is all the income going to come from this? Someone is going to pay $12 to download 60MB of stuff? Come on. $149 for a software license YEARLY? Please.
What are they going to do, format your hard drive if you connect with an older version of windows? of Linux?
Oh yeah, and of course IBM, Sun, HP, and all those vendors with other OSes besides MS are going to let them get a state mandated desktop OS.
The government would NEVER pass a low outlawing development of software. That would be struck down for anti-free speech rules easy.
Oh yeah, European Union? Canada? They're gonna stand for it? Right. People emigrating from the US so they can use a computer. Whee.
plus, every self respecting geek on the planet would quit working on computers, and the whole frickin internet would collpase in a day.
Paper MCSE's can't run the internet.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
I can't stand most of the crap out there, so I don't buy it. I don't buy CDs or DVDs anymore, I don't go out to movies or rent them, I don't buy pay-per-view or subscribe to premium cable channels, etc. (and I don't download any of this stuff either). Instead of producing something I would want to buy, the companies that produce this junk complain about piracy, as if I would even take their crap for free. Unfortunately, they have the money and power to make it more difficult to avoid their products (and avoid paying for them).
Despite all of this, I'm not too worried about the future described in the article. It's not that I don't see it as being likely, I just don't see it being impossible to avoid. If I don't pay today's prices for music, I won't pay high subscription fees. If web sites start charging more than they're worth, I'll go elsewhere or just go without. I base my purchasing decisions on quality, and that won't change with electronic services.
Of course, I have one secret weapon to fall back on if I have to abandon all else. Over the past few years, I have accumulated hundreds of books, at an average price of about 5 cents each. When all else fails, I'll just sit down and read (well, read more actually). And yes, Fahrenheit 451 is in there...
Commercialization -- this is the hell of the modern world, but it needn't overtake the entirety of the internet. My own site has a single ad on it, but it's not mine(free hosting has it's price).
:)
The best way to avoid commercialism is to avoid places which attract lots of "customers". Find a website out of the way, find a good niche, and you can even get out of the way of commercialism altogether.
In 2004, I hope to have my game finished, but I doubt it.
finally, remember that commercialism is enevitable when the common man enters any arena. These are the sheep which make the spice girls and britany spears moneymakers.It's probably best to find another haven; once the masses enter, the leeches follow.
It's been a long time.
In the article, the author proposes a future where "open/free software" has been made illegal. The only software you're allowed to run is what Microsoft provides you. There are no features to disable JavaScript. You are a slave to the media and they to Microsoft. You have no ability to change settings like /etc/hosts. You cannot install JunkBuster or Jesred. You have no power.
After all, if you had the ability to control your computer, you'd also have the ability to create or alter data ("content"). If you have the ability to create or alter content, you also have the ability to steal content. That's what SSSCA and DRM is all about - preventing "theft" of "intellectual property" by removing your ability to make the choice to not steal.
Quite simple really.
Nobody saw MS's exclusive OEM contracts for what they were--an opportunity. They were an opportunity for someone to market PCs with greater vertical control of the manufacturing process, the way Apple does. IBM ran scared in the PC market because they were scared of being labeled a monopoly again, but the fear was unfounded. At least it didn't deter them from the laptop market, where if they still wanted to they could market OS/2, but NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE WANT IT.
As for Free Software (see footnote) being capitalist, that's just bunk. It threatens to drive competition out of the market just like MS did. The only difference is that when they have achieved that goal they will turn to direct government funding. That has the potential to be far worse because once the government becomes the relied-upon provider of a good or service it is extremely difficult for them to exit the market. The public school system is a good example of this. Even with the people that they claim to help pushing for change, Liberals insist that "the public system must remain to serve the poor and minorities" when in reality it serves the teachers unions and Democrats.
The public school movement started as a grass-roots effort just like Free Software. I fear that it may follow the same path as the public schools.
(footnote) by Free Software, I mean anything that is "copylefted". Open Source that is not copylefted, and can be turned back into Closed Source is OK because it does not create a sink for IP. Licenses like the GPL were intentionally created as IP sinks. I used to refer to the GPL as a problem, but this is unfair and creates the impression that I have a personal vendetta againsts RMS and his supporters. This is not the case. It is important to distinguish that copyleft is the real problem, and not any particular license that uses it. It is also important for people to realize that the realm of copyleft is not the same as the Public Domain. By promoting copyleft, some people are attempting to usurp the Public Domain and effectively collectivize or unionize IP and "knowledge workers". I also want people to realize that I'm not trying to insult everyone who uses the GPL. Many of them are innocent or don't see it as that big of a problem. Hopefully I can change their minds and I certainly don't want to insult them.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Ah, yes! Before everyone else showed up, the Net was this fantastic Geek Heaven, where all things were possible. You could download naughty pictures from the Delft University sever. You could engage in endlessly stimulating MUDs with fellow dungeon-crawling geeks. You could send e-mail! Hell, you could even use Gopher to snag files. It was Heaven on Earth!
Snap out of it! There was no Slashdot (founded in 1997, decidedly after the invasion of "other people"). There was no Gnutella. No Everquest. No online newspapers. No online banking. No ordering that hard-to find computer game or book or whatever in the dead of night when you live miles from the nearest store that carries what you're looking for.
There was less of a connection between "geeks" and "normal people", meaning that people who liked to tinker with computers were shunned far more than they are today.
It wasn't Heaven, just as this predicted 2004 won't be Hell.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The article is incorrect because it is just too america-centrered. There are already more european internet users online than americans, by 2004 although americans will still be an important part of the web they will be a small, albeit important, minority.
To assume that american laws will totally control the internet in the EU, Russia, Japan, Australia, Africa, China (which will probably use linux as their standard OS anyway) and anywhere else beyond your shores is the cultural arrogance of breathtaking proportions
Sod Capitalism, it's only one political philosophy afterall. The idea that capitalism is something we should accept because it is such a huge force dominating every aspect of ourlives is at best defeatist and at worst blind idiocy. I believe in a free world, not one that charges you for what was there already. Remember when the internet was touted as a means for potentially open everything. Open government, open access to knowledge, open expression of ideas and opinion, open source (Ha Ha). The free availability of information is a noble idea. Many of us who remember innocently believing that the internet would be a 'force for good' and the ultimate tool for the true empowerment of the people have been sorely disappointed. It's not enough to hope that the masses will become skilled in the use of the internet and become geeks and gurus with the knowledge and skills needed to navigate the mess that is the internet with some success. You have to act. Teach those who do not know. Show them the light at the end of the tunnel. Be the finger that points to the moon. Make a difference to the sad gits who spend thousands on 'state of the art' hardware because some dick of a salesman said they needed all that power to get the most out of 'the net'. Capitalism is by definition exploitation. Don't sell your knowledge give it away. Change yourself and your surroundings first. Don't just sit about moaning and theorising . DO SOMETHING. Be positive a positive force for change not a whinging techy geek.