Geek in Review: Brave New World

This week's Geek in Review is about a communications revolution I see happening right now. It crosses generations, and it scares the absolute shit out of a lot of people who benefit from ignorance and the control of information.

Communication empowers people, and an empowered people are very, very scary to the powerful upper class who hope that we’ll just go away, right after we buy a lot of crap from them that we don’t need. And holy shit are they scared right now. The revolution may not be televised, but it’s being blogged, YouTubed, MySpaced, Facebooked, Dugg and Netscaped. Instead of embracing this new technology and the generation that’s growing up with it and taking it for granted, the big media conglomerates and their *AA organizations are spending time, money and energy they could be spending on creating awesome content on trying to destroy the technology that scares them. Is it any wonder the big media cabal want to destroy network neutrality? Is it any surprise that they’re clinging to stupid DRM schemes that punish honest customers and infect computers with rootkits?

The audience isn’t going to stop consuming content online, and creators aren’t going to go back to the old way of groveling at the feet of some network boss or studio head or label president, because they don’t have to anymore. Instead, they’ll just use inexpensive technology to put it all together, and use the Internet to distribute it directly to the audience. The studios have a choice now: continue their full-on war against consumers and technology, or join and benefit from the revolution.

This column has the potential to generate some discussion, you know . . . some communication. Am I nuts? Or does anyone else see or experience the revolution, too?

Comments

[exdeadguy]

Great piece, wil. I think it will always happen slower than we want, but, over time, the flow of information will move to be less restricted in general. It wants to be free!

That's where the media has been coming from the past few decades. Ratcheting up the noise so the signal can be drowned out. One of the benefits of today's narrowcasting environment, it you are allowed to filter the noise yourself. The flip side, is of course only letting in the signal that reinforces ones own beliefs.

And we can always count on the revolution to surprise. Like when they make P2P cell phones: http://www.terranet.se/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=8&id=17&Itemid=62

An exciting time we live in.

[Larry Bank]

I would say it's more evolution than revolution. My parents, your parents, are not texting, don't spend time on youtube, and don't read DIGG. When the majority of the population participates, then you can call it a revolution.

[clintp]

*AA

You mean my auto club is out to destroy technology and free speech as we know it?

Ack! Ptthht!

[MuppetCoat]

You have a lot more faith in the effectiveness of public interest/action over large corporations with money and government influence than I do.

[Jdack]

Awesome GIR. Couldn't have said it better myself.

These corporate jackasses just don't understand: they're Dinosaurs. And we all know what happened to the dinosaurs right?

[exdeadguy]

My parents (60's) text, my wifes mother (50's) texts. My grandparents (Grandma turns 90 this year!) uses their ipod. Although they get my father to download the music. I realize the plural of anecdote isn't data, but as I walk down the street and see people who are 50+ routinely using cellphones, I am amazed how far we've come in such a short time.

However, I agree. It is more an technological evolution than a revolution. But it is an evolution happening so fast that it is instigating a cultural revolution. And in any revolution, there is a generational gap.

Horse/foot culture evolved into car culture, but it may have felt like the world was being turned upside down for some. The RIAA is just trying to protect their share of the buggy-whip market.

[GeekessDaisy]

You would think that with how fast information does flow with good and bad movies and music that it would make the creators create better movies and music. Perhaps one day they'll clue in.

Awesome GIR! 100% agree.

[GeekessDaisy]

FYI my MIL (66) texed my DH his birthday message the other day. He was so shocked that this is what it's come down too. A simple mis-spelt happy birthday text.

[alikitty619]

Great GiR.

[Michael B.]

Jdack: they evolved and became birds. Make of that what you will.

Wil: It's my opinion that a lot of this depends on government and corporate control of the net. Look at China and the restrictions on information about Tienemen (sp) Square. I think a lot depends on how much the corporate interests and the "What about the children?!?" brigade can be kept out the picture.

[Proto]

That's how the imigration/amnesty bill was defeated.

[chandrimac]

This is... kind of hilarious, because I articulated this same rant like, yesterday. I suppose it's a good sign that this is becoming a more and more common theme among bloggers; we're aware, and we're communicating, even without knowing we're doing it. ;)

[blackunicorn]

"The revolution may not be televised, but it’s being blogged, YouTubed, MySpaced, Facebooked, Dugg and Netscaped."

Holy Moly, I had this thought not two days ago. In nearly these exact same words. Weird...

[Fungible]

Sing it, brotha!

I was having a commute thought just a couple days ago that a lot of these sort of closed minded institutional decisions seem generational (though there are always enlightened exceptions)... and ended up wondering if in 20-50 years we will end up happier, as the today's curmudgeons with one cane cemented in closed-minded attitudes of the past lose their juice to control things...

...Or if we're just going to end up pissed off and surprised when Paris Hilton wannabes end up as the new idiots in power, making big decisions based on totally different but just as firmly-held fucktard ideas.

-Fungible

[MrSpock]

So if you want a discussion, you're going to have to invite a few *AA peeps, or you'll end up with a collection of "word!". C'mon guys, we know you're here, hiding behind the potted plants! Let's hear what you have to say!

[Dedrick]

I believe I own the DRM to this blog, please do not read, edit or copy this information. I will so Napster you!

[leighdf]

Case in point: www.startreknewvoyages.com.

No network, no problem.

[SandieK]

The GiR is now stumbleable (is that a word?). Im surprised no one had done it yet.

Once again, another awesome article. If by some really odd chanceI ever meet you in person, Im buying you and your family dinner. You are an incredible writer. Im envious.

Oh, and if you want a discussion, I still think you should look into setting up a wwdn forum. I know you probably dont have time for that too, but there are probably plenty of readers who would help with admin/mod stuff (Id offer, but my experience with forum admin-ing is zilch). Just a thought.

[KevinBe]

Bob Lefsetz does a great job covering and commenting on the happenings in the music business. He's a fantastic read and is IMHO dead-on concerning what is going on with popular music and the music industry as a result of P2P technology. Check out "the Lefsetz Letter" here:
http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2007/09/11/hits/

The movie and TV studios better be paying attention to whats happening with the music industry because they are next!

[Alan]

Yep.

By the way, after discussions at work I have a much better understanding of what Network Neutrality means and fully support it.

What is Network Neutrality? It does NOT mean that the cable or phone company cannot charge more to transfer lots of data for movies on demand or whatnot. It does mean that if they charge more for a certain amount of data transfer then they cannot suddenly decide to chage a different amount for the same data rate depending on what data you are sending over the wire.

Network Neutrality for credit cards would prohibit your credit card trying to charge you a different interest rate depending on what you purchased.

Network Neutrality would allow the credit card to charge you differently for cash advances versus regular payments. Especially if it let you get that money fast.

Network Neutrality for the water company would probit them charging you different rates for water depending if you are cooking with it, washing with it, or flushing it down the toilet.

Network Neutrality would allow the water company to charge you differently for less-processed water to flush down the toilet or water your lawn than it would for cleaning or drinking water.

[Ian Warrender]

Another excellent 'Geek in Review', your absolutely right about the perceived big boys being scared of the revolution and it's a petty they don't have people like you on their 'boards of directors' giving them advice on how they can embrace the revolution instead of trying to destroy it. Fortunately the little people like us are finally the majority and short of dismantling the worlds communication network we will prevail and eventually these perceived big boys will have to join us or die (figuratively speaking). There is however another war that also needs winning, that we can not leave behind and personally it's much bigger then the 'War on Terror' it's the War on the excessive internet censorship by certain countries.

Finally if I can just offer Wil the rest of my life in time to help create this 'Time machine' as long as when we're finished we can go back to the point we started and give ourselves the finished product.

[dogbiscuituk]

The record companies have depended for years on selling you product, before you've had the chance to hear it through properly, maybe a couple of times, to judge whether you want it in your collection. That's why most of your CDs have only been played *once* since you bought them! And if you’re my age, the same was true of your extensive vinyl collection too: it was always mostly turkeys.

But now you can download just about anything, check it out properly, and (here's the important bit, we do still need to support those artists we enjoy) buy if you like, else bin. This procedure is becoming more and more legal. Recently I downloaded American guitarist John Wesley's entire studio discography (admittedly only in MP3 format) for free, *from his own MySpace site*!

I guess Hollywood has been doing something similar, how many times have you paid for a movie after a good trailer, only to discover that the trailer was the movie? Today, the word that it’s dross soon gets around.

(Actually I’ve stopped buying DVDs until those unskippable piracy ads go away, but that’s another issue...)

[ech]

I realize the plural of anecdote isn't data, but as I walk down the street and see people who are 50+ routinely using cellphones, I am amazed how far we've come in such a short time.

Uh yeah, some of us over 50 types can use cell phones. In fact, some of us (a couple of my college classmates, for example) invented some of the key tech behind cell phones. My wife and I even use PCs, have iPods (in addition to classic rock, mine has Snow Patrol and VnV Nation on it), own a Playstation, play MMOs, text each other and our daughter (though we all use proper English), and have our own domain. I taught my 76 YO mother to use a cell phone, though she can't text due to arthritis.

We have come a long way since I played Adventure and Trek after hours on the campus mainframe, had 5 illegal phones in our dorm room, and I taught Steve Jackson D&D from my white box set.

[brazos605]

Network neutrality really should be THE litmus test for the tech-oriented voter. Forget the pro-choice/pro-life dichotomoy or the Iraq conflict. Allowing Verizon and the rest to charge more for greater access will quell all open discussion on the above hot button issues, along with everything else.

Is there a PAC or organization out there that supports and opposes candidates based on this issue, or at least identifies the positions of candidates and incumbents? This is something that cuts across party lines. To me, it's almost like distinguishing between the officials and candidates who accept bribes, and those who don't. I would happily vote for a Republican, Green Party candidate, whatever, if they were committed to net neutrality.

[ech]

Wil, your column is pretty good, but there are a few trends that have me concerned.

First, the TV, film, and music industries have truly screwed the pooch on the DRM issue. Their campaign against consumers as opposed to mass pirates is misguided and counterproductive at best. I remember being at a flea market in Thailand where just about anything that came on a CD or DVD (music, films, TV, or software) was available for $5 per disc. however, since this kind of pirate is pretty much out of reach of the *AA, they lash out at customers. Grossly stupid.

However .... the market that I see threatened, and think we need to try to protect, is the book market. When the first good, cheap e-book reader comes out, it could kill the paperback book market deader than a doornail. If that goes, whole segments of our culture could go poof, because paperback books are the way most authors in sf, fantasy, mysteries, and bodice rippers make their living.

The whole SFWA vs. Scribd fiasco was, after the hyperbole was stripped out, simply a volunteer trying to get illegal copies of writers' works taken off of a site that intends to make money off of the files posted there. Authors deserve to make money from their work. (And let's not get sidetracked into the whole Berne convention discussion.)

I don't know the solution. I can envision a system that would allow distribution of e-books that would be secure up until the book is displayed on the screen. It could even have a way to allow you to transfer (not copy) the books to other users, so that the current first sale doctrine and fair use rights are preserved.

But the key is getting people to understand that creative types deserve to be paid for their work, and that copying without permission is not just illegal, but not in your best interest. The *AA don't seem to grasp that swaying public opnion is more powerful than laws - look at the success MADD has had - drunks are not laughed with, but laughed at and scorned.

Anyway, the conversation has to start and this debate is too important to be left up to a bunch of lawyers and lobbyists.