This time this post will be about some thoughts that I have had for some time, but are become more frequent and disturbing. It’s quite hard to put them into concrete words since they are my own thoughts and its part of my life philosophy.
No matter what your origin and beliefs are, almost everyone agrees on that we have one chance, one life, one opportunity in our current form. If you are Christian, Muslim or Jewish, there is an afterlife, but that isn't on this planet. Buddhism and Hinduism believe in reincarnation, but in another form of life. And atheist believes this is it. No matter what you or others believe in, this is all you get. This is our only chance in this world and in this form. Even if you return in another form, your knowledge and experience from another life is gone. No one can claim that they have the knowledge from another timeline that has been experienced in first hand (reading a history book isn’t valid). To understand this is, what I would say, extremely important for each and everyone on this planet.
Continuing and assuming that you, the reader, agrees with me. Now, that we have established that we get one life and then its game over, what to do with our life? The answer to this differs from everyone depending on their current situation also depending on the timeline. In short term the answer from a Swedish person might be something like this “Finish my education”, “afford buying a *insert random unneeded item here*” or “try to get laid” or something like that. However, asking a women in Congo who is experiencing their ‘civil’ war (I don’t like using the term civil war, war as war, might be fought differently, but the result is always the same: a lot of death and destruction) the answer would be more like: “try to mourn my slaughtered husband”, “avoid being raped by the military” or “try to scramble some food for my children”. Two extreme differences that generally shouldn’t be compared to each other, but everyone is somewhere between the extreme consumption or basic human survival.
Long term goals also varieties between people, depending on their social-economical situation. How often do you think a person in the western world (excluding USA) has a life goal of surviving past age of thirty? If we exclude the unlucky people who has a terminating disease the number is most likely close to zero or at least low enough to be ignored. The stereotypical answer is more or less: “Get a good education”, “get a good job”, “marry a good person and create a happy and decent family” and “have a circle of good friends”. There is, and it is very important to point out, absolutely nothing wrong with these answers but they aren’t, as I see it, enough.
The world we live in is unfair. This is how it is. Some are lucky to be born in a wealthy country and can enjoy most luxury our world has to offer. And some are unlucky to be born in a war torn and poor country and barely has food for the day. No one can be blamed for where they are born, it’s one of those few things in life we have absolutely no control over. Also no one can be blamed for living the typical life where they are born. Far from everyone has the ability to be in the constant flux of change and adapt to the new science and knowledge. However, some knowledge isn’t new and has been in existence for as long as humanity. This is the fact that some people barely have enough food while others have an abundance of it.
The problem roots in the human ability to distance them from what doesn’t directly affect them. This is easily seen as people are unmoved by disasters which happens on the other side of the world. Not that mourning for the dead in for example Africa would make any difference to the victim whatsoever. But it illustrates how we humans work, for it is hard to see past your own nose, your own circle of life. However, it is of highest importance for people to try to go past it, to try to make a difference with the injustice that is in effect of our world. For if everyone worked at least a little to make a better world, there would be dramatic changes. And this is what I want to have added in the stereotypic norms of a good life goal: a genuine wish to make a better world. Be it in its own society, the one next door or on the other side of the world; it makes little difference where, as long as one work for a better world.
But it is hard, it’s very hard. I truly want to make a difference, but due to my place, here in protected and ice cold Sweden I can so easily distance myself from the world. I can shut out the world and enjoy my life with those people I surround myself with. This is precisely what I done for so many years now, but I grow weary. The time for me has come; I cannot live like this much longer. I am going to make a difference.
Save the world – or die trying.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Sunday, December 21, 2008
A detour into the economical world
I know I should write the last part of my "one step closer to the truth?" but instead I will take the detour into the economical sector.
There is something that I need to explain first. I believe that everything that is created and operated by us, the human being, inherit our own characteristics. We might be able to tinker with it and keep it invisible to the eye; especially the less significant product the less of human trait there is. For example, a car doesn’t have any characteristics visible to most of us, but a car engineer should be able to find similarities between a car and the human biology. Since we cannot go outside of our own nature when creating new things, it is impossible for us humans to create something we don’t understand. Therefore it is not possible for us to create something that doesn’t have a life cycle. And eventually, everything becomes obsolete and dies. This goes for both nature and the industry (all sectors). And I claim, that everything around us, is in one way or another, alive. And I shall show it with an example.
It is sometime heard that the economy has its own life. And that it is without control. This is partly true, the world economy has a life, but only the life we, the humans, give it. However, it doesn’t have its own life and it isn’t without control. It has a life because we give it that. Everyone who isn’t completely self-sufficient is a part of the economy to various degrees. Since it gains life from human beings, it also gains some of the characteristics of human beings. If we stopped feeding the economy (stop trading resources completely) it would die, the consequences aren’t of relevance in this text though. But back to the characteristics, one thing the economy shares with the humans is its unpredictability. As with human beings we cannot predict every move of the economy. This is why some says the economy has its own life. We, as the world economy, contains of millions lesser parts, with a life of their own. We, as the world economy, have to replace these lesser parts when they become old and obsolete (cannot do their assigned work anymore). And if we, as the world economy, don’t replace these parts our development would stagnate and eventually the decay would kill us. (Note that replacement may not be a completely change, but a reform of the old may be a valid option. Adapting it to the new circumstances)
While writing this I have the two car companies, Volvo and Saab in my mind. They are a lesser part of the world economy and as I said above, must eventually be replaced. That time seems to be here, for if we want the world economy to survive we must let it have its natural flow, replace the old and obsolete for the new and up-to date replacement. As it looks when I write this, the government will give these two companies financial aid. If the controlling powers of these two companies fail to understand the life of the world economy, they will take the money and try to ride out this financial storm. Only problem is there is no financial storm, it is a financial evolvement. The old ways are becoming obsolete and failing, therefore it is changing into a new form. Trying to ride out this isn’t possible, it just prolong the inevitable, their death (or more bankruptcy). However, if the controlling powers of these two companies have the understanding of life cycle, they will know that they have to adapt and be a part of the new world economy. This is the hardest of all things, for they must predict the future.
If the government doesn’t aid Volvo and Saab, the natural order of life will still have its flow. The people, and thereby the economy, is innovative and will take matters into their own hand. New industry will grow, new (type of) work will develop and we shall have a more developed economy. And this is what the government should do, let Volvo and Saab meet their end and instead focus on the people that now has nothing to do. Make it easier for these people to make innovation and adapt to the new upcoming world economy. In the long run, this is the best option. However, this is a known problem that history has shown us all several times; acting for better terms in the long run isn’t our best ability.
Even if I didn’t plan on it, I ended up with an explanation (one of many) regarding the internet culture (as most of you know as pirates) and entertainment industry. The entertainment industry is trying to keep its old ways while the technology is evolving. And as I already established: working against the life cycle always result in destroying themselves. When Napster came, they had two choices: (1) embrace this new technology and develop their methods so they go hand in hand with it, or (2) fight it and thereby put themselves soon out of business.
Pinged on
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om Ekonomi, ideologi, utveckling
There is something that I need to explain first. I believe that everything that is created and operated by us, the human being, inherit our own characteristics. We might be able to tinker with it and keep it invisible to the eye; especially the less significant product the less of human trait there is. For example, a car doesn’t have any characteristics visible to most of us, but a car engineer should be able to find similarities between a car and the human biology. Since we cannot go outside of our own nature when creating new things, it is impossible for us humans to create something we don’t understand. Therefore it is not possible for us to create something that doesn’t have a life cycle. And eventually, everything becomes obsolete and dies. This goes for both nature and the industry (all sectors). And I claim, that everything around us, is in one way or another, alive. And I shall show it with an example.
It is sometime heard that the economy has its own life. And that it is without control. This is partly true, the world economy has a life, but only the life we, the humans, give it. However, it doesn’t have its own life and it isn’t without control. It has a life because we give it that. Everyone who isn’t completely self-sufficient is a part of the economy to various degrees. Since it gains life from human beings, it also gains some of the characteristics of human beings. If we stopped feeding the economy (stop trading resources completely) it would die, the consequences aren’t of relevance in this text though. But back to the characteristics, one thing the economy shares with the humans is its unpredictability. As with human beings we cannot predict every move of the economy. This is why some says the economy has its own life. We, as the world economy, contains of millions lesser parts, with a life of their own. We, as the world economy, have to replace these lesser parts when they become old and obsolete (cannot do their assigned work anymore). And if we, as the world economy, don’t replace these parts our development would stagnate and eventually the decay would kill us. (Note that replacement may not be a completely change, but a reform of the old may be a valid option. Adapting it to the new circumstances)
While writing this I have the two car companies, Volvo and Saab in my mind. They are a lesser part of the world economy and as I said above, must eventually be replaced. That time seems to be here, for if we want the world economy to survive we must let it have its natural flow, replace the old and obsolete for the new and up-to date replacement. As it looks when I write this, the government will give these two companies financial aid. If the controlling powers of these two companies fail to understand the life of the world economy, they will take the money and try to ride out this financial storm. Only problem is there is no financial storm, it is a financial evolvement. The old ways are becoming obsolete and failing, therefore it is changing into a new form. Trying to ride out this isn’t possible, it just prolong the inevitable, their death (or more bankruptcy). However, if the controlling powers of these two companies have the understanding of life cycle, they will know that they have to adapt and be a part of the new world economy. This is the hardest of all things, for they must predict the future.
If the government doesn’t aid Volvo and Saab, the natural order of life will still have its flow. The people, and thereby the economy, is innovative and will take matters into their own hand. New industry will grow, new (type of) work will develop and we shall have a more developed economy. And this is what the government should do, let Volvo and Saab meet their end and instead focus on the people that now has nothing to do. Make it easier for these people to make innovation and adapt to the new upcoming world economy. In the long run, this is the best option. However, this is a known problem that history has shown us all several times; acting for better terms in the long run isn’t our best ability.
Even if I didn’t plan on it, I ended up with an explanation (one of many) regarding the internet culture (as most of you know as pirates) and entertainment industry. The entertainment industry is trying to keep its old ways while the technology is evolving. And as I already established: working against the life cycle always result in destroying themselves. When Napster came, they had two choices: (1) embrace this new technology and develop their methods so they go hand in hand with it, or (2) fight it and thereby put themselves soon out of business.
Pinged on
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om Ekonomi, ideologi, utveckling
Monday, December 8, 2008
One step closer to the truth? Part 2
Next chapter on this subject will be the artist (hereby called creationists). How they lose on this file-sharing war. However, as many are mislead to believe, the creationists are not losing due to the direct file-sharing. As I wrote in the last post, most people who download copyright material also buy it. There is a correlation between downloading and spending money on culture, and they go hand in hand, against what people often believe. How this can be so, is something I shall describe in this post.
In last post I spoke of loyalty between the consumer and the creationists. I shall not repeat my words in this post, but it’s of importance that you, the reader, has read it. For if not, you might get lost on the way. As with everything that is marketed in one way or another, it becomes a trademark. Thus, every creationist is a trademark. Therefore they have a reputation to build and protect and, even if they don’t want it and their words will be analyzed and scanned through by the public (their customers). Most creationists know this and understand it very well, for example: Timbaktu is one of them. He doesn’t hunt the one who download his music, instead, he accept the technology and goes with it. He admits that he is one of those who download and buys music. Proof of this is that he worked with the Pirate Bay in releasing one of his singles.
But there are, of course, creationists that don’t understand this. They are either tricked by the lobbying of the industry, bought or just plain stupid. I saw some figures earlier this day saying that the entertainment industry has lost over 6.2 billion Swedish crowns in revenue. Now, Emma at opassande.se, have tried to track down these numbers and their heritage without any real luck. Yet I see these numbers more and more in the debate versus file shares. But no one can prove them, there is no such data. But the creationists buys it and goes for it, they think they lose millions to the pirates.
Some creationists are, as I stated above, just plain stupid and lack insight of their own work. One author I read about some time ago claimed that his book wasn’t going as well as HE wanted it. HE thought it was a great book and should have sold in many more copies. But, as I spoke of in the earlier post, everything has, especially when it comes down to culture, has a personal value. His value to his book is clearly much higher than the average readers. This author couldn’t realize this and decided to blame the file shares instead. Typical human behavior, it isn’t me, it is their fault. And personally, I don’t know a single person that can withstand reading an entire book on the computer. There is a reason why there aren’t so many longer texts on the internet (besides my blog), and that is: due to the light, the eyes withdraw and need to work harder to maintain the concentration. This eventually leads to dry eyes, headache and a tired mind. When it comes to audio book it’s a bit different. Reading a novel forces you to keep up with the story and if you lose your concentration for a minute you have to rewind and do it again. It is quite tedious in the long run.
Other creationists, like Jan Guillou, act like he has been bribed. His former action has proven several times that he is a smart man. Yet, now he is shouting like a dog at everyone who says something that can be, in any way, linked to file sharing. And he does it with the same old beaten arguments. This is mainly calling file shares names. Now, in the beginning of this blog I spoke of trademark. Jan Guillou is a trademark, a rather well known one. How on earth can he believe that this will help him in earning more money? All he does, especially since he cannot perform a decent debate, is alienating and scaring away his customers. For as I stated in my earlier post: a good creationists creates a bond between himself and the customer. A little more than a week ago, the movie Arn had its premiere, which is based on one of Guillou books. Does anyone really think his statement about file shares being parasite will help the selling of this movie? No, it’s against all logic. The movie will most likely receive fewer customers due to this. If he had acted in the opposite way, not perhaps being for file sharing but acknowledging that there is a problem with the copyright laws and tried to work the community towards better ways, I bet more people would chose to see the movie on cinema instead of downloading it.
Next time, I will go into how the companies loses on this ‘war’.
In last post I spoke of loyalty between the consumer and the creationists. I shall not repeat my words in this post, but it’s of importance that you, the reader, has read it. For if not, you might get lost on the way. As with everything that is marketed in one way or another, it becomes a trademark. Thus, every creationist is a trademark. Therefore they have a reputation to build and protect and, even if they don’t want it and their words will be analyzed and scanned through by the public (their customers). Most creationists know this and understand it very well, for example: Timbaktu is one of them. He doesn’t hunt the one who download his music, instead, he accept the technology and goes with it. He admits that he is one of those who download and buys music. Proof of this is that he worked with the Pirate Bay in releasing one of his singles.
But there are, of course, creationists that don’t understand this. They are either tricked by the lobbying of the industry, bought or just plain stupid. I saw some figures earlier this day saying that the entertainment industry has lost over 6.2 billion Swedish crowns in revenue. Now, Emma at opassande.se, have tried to track down these numbers and their heritage without any real luck. Yet I see these numbers more and more in the debate versus file shares. But no one can prove them, there is no such data. But the creationists buys it and goes for it, they think they lose millions to the pirates.
Some creationists are, as I stated above, just plain stupid and lack insight of their own work. One author I read about some time ago claimed that his book wasn’t going as well as HE wanted it. HE thought it was a great book and should have sold in many more copies. But, as I spoke of in the earlier post, everything has, especially when it comes down to culture, has a personal value. His value to his book is clearly much higher than the average readers. This author couldn’t realize this and decided to blame the file shares instead. Typical human behavior, it isn’t me, it is their fault. And personally, I don’t know a single person that can withstand reading an entire book on the computer. There is a reason why there aren’t so many longer texts on the internet (besides my blog), and that is: due to the light, the eyes withdraw and need to work harder to maintain the concentration. This eventually leads to dry eyes, headache and a tired mind. When it comes to audio book it’s a bit different. Reading a novel forces you to keep up with the story and if you lose your concentration for a minute you have to rewind and do it again. It is quite tedious in the long run.
Other creationists, like Jan Guillou, act like he has been bribed. His former action has proven several times that he is a smart man. Yet, now he is shouting like a dog at everyone who says something that can be, in any way, linked to file sharing. And he does it with the same old beaten arguments. This is mainly calling file shares names. Now, in the beginning of this blog I spoke of trademark. Jan Guillou is a trademark, a rather well known one. How on earth can he believe that this will help him in earning more money? All he does, especially since he cannot perform a decent debate, is alienating and scaring away his customers. For as I stated in my earlier post: a good creationists creates a bond between himself and the customer. A little more than a week ago, the movie Arn had its premiere, which is based on one of Guillou books. Does anyone really think his statement about file shares being parasite will help the selling of this movie? No, it’s against all logic. The movie will most likely receive fewer customers due to this. If he had acted in the opposite way, not perhaps being for file sharing but acknowledging that there is a problem with the copyright laws and tried to work the community towards better ways, I bet more people would chose to see the movie on cinema instead of downloading it.
Next time, I will go into how the companies loses on this ‘war’.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
One step closer to the truth? Part 1
Today I asked myself: "why do I keep thinking and bothering about the 'war' that currently is between file-sharer and the antipiracy cooperation’s?” It has been in the back of my mind all day long. Large part of my time is consumed with file sharing and its current situation. As it looks right now there are but one winner, the lawyers who will get the job to sue people.
If we take the consumers, they will earn nothing on this (especially referring to IPRED). They are the one that will take the hardest hit. Not only will they be randomly attacked by the lawyers and their logs of sharing(in some case, as we know, faked or tricked; tricked in that way that others use fake IP's or their wireless network). This will also attack their loyalty to certain artist or any company who deals with creating art in all its various kind. One may automatically think this only affects the companies, but that isn't right. The reason is that a person with a loyalty will create a special bond with that creationist. This bond is of partly emotional, a desire which not only may satisfy the customers need but also to help that creationist. To refer to myself, one creationist I deeply admire and want to support to full length is Blizzard. No other creationist has been even close to the satisfaction and entertainment Blizzards game has given me.
Another thing about the consumers is of democratic quality. We are here in Sweden has to learn that democracy is something of the highest value. And this is completely true, like Churchill said “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”. It is bittersweet but it the best we humans can create for now. But a democracy (with Robert Dahl’s work in mind) requires that its people believe in it. The current situation is that even through an uprising of bloggers, over 60 000 thousand protesting against it on Facebook and six out of eight of the youth parties are against it. Through serious research done by a project called Music Lesson with several respected professors and scientists have shown us that there is a “magic limit” when it comes to file shares. This age is thirty five, but this report is a few years old and this limit may have been moved. But we can generalize that most people today under this age know how to and does it, that is, file sharing. Internet is in this people’s nature (generally I try to avoid the word nature, but in this case I cannot find any other fitting word). Resulting in thinking: that the trust and believe in democracy may take a serious hit amongst the younger people. Even if I cannot prove it, I do believe it’s most certainly true. And that is something which might be much more damaging then the harmful file sharing currently occurring.
Lastly, there is the law. There have been many arguments going around this, and the one closest to the truth, in my opinion, is Lawrence Lessig. In this current moment I cannot completely recall his words, but he helped me in my thinking. First, file sharing isn’t, by technical definition, stealing. To steal something is to take away something from another person. One takes control over a certain thing, which has at least one quality: it has a physical shape. No matter how you put it, you cannot ever steal anything which is immaterial. Because stealing must involve one factor, that one person looses something. Now, if my memory is correctly, Lessig agrees on this, but he adds the value. I will get back to this soon but first I need to describe what file sharing is if it isn’t stealing. It’s as exactly what the file-shares says: it’s copying. When a person download a music file over the internet, his computer scan that files structure and then rebuild it exactly the same on his computer. Thus, downloading isn’t stealing; it is nothing but a copy with perfect quality.
Back to Lessig and value, for when a person download a file, he or she copy something that might have a value for someone else. Now, this is the problem, not the copying. For this value (this goes for material things also, but aren’t of relevance here) differs between artist and the consumers. As for the artist: the creation has a personal value, from no value to invaluable. This also applies to the consumer, we all rate music, movies, games and all kind of arts. But due to economical forces today, neither the artist nor the consumer has the possibility to change the value into currency. We are forced to play by the rules, which aren’t created by any of these two actors. With the enormous flow of creations, especially when it comes to movies and music, the file shares quickly learn that most of it has little or zero value to them.
This places them in a hard situation with few options: (1) download whatever they might think are of interest. The consumer will then decide if it has enough value to them and then tries to repay by buying the physical exemplar of the product. This may build up the loyalty and the next time, the consumer may buy the product before ‘trying it out’. However, if the product value isn’t high enough to match the price, the file sharer will either delete it save it, but the feeling of loyalty or the feel to help the creationist isn’t there. (2) Is simple: just download everything that the person wants and doesn’t care at all of supporting the creationist, no matter how high the consumer feels of the product. (3) Take the chances, buy the product and hope that is gives enough value for the person. If it does, it was a success, if it wasn’t, the consumer will become more reluctant to redo the expensive process. This is a bit of a paradox: according to our theories, with increased competition there will be a reduction in the prices. But we know that, for example, music prices have increased and that is above the inflation (the reason for this is another chapter). However, with the increased competition it has become more difficult to reach the level of value amongst the consumers that makes them want to own the product legally.
Now, what does this has to do with the law? Well, through research we know that the number one is the mostly common one of the younger generation (remember, magic limit at thirty five). We also know that the first one is stimulating the economy, for they spend on average more money on art then the two others. But it is illegal. These people are knowingly breaking the law (and so does the option two people). Again, this is people under the age of thirty five. They have grown up with no reluctant breaking this law. Also, to make thing even worse, with the IPRED-law we are giving private cooperation’s the ability to act as enforcer. Not only are young people growing up with less confidence and trust in the law but also with private cooperation with the right to enforce the laws. This is something I would never want the upcoming generation to experience. For may lead to consequences with few similarities in history.
I won’t discuss the two other options, for they aren’t of much relevance right now. But they are of course important as they play a role in this.
This are a few ways the consumers (and society) in whole will be affected by this war between file-shares and antipiracy cooperation’s. I shall soon describe how the artist and companies looses on this war. For no one is actually unaffected by this, we all live in a society depending on the information flow through internet.
If we take the consumers, they will earn nothing on this (especially referring to IPRED). They are the one that will take the hardest hit. Not only will they be randomly attacked by the lawyers and their logs of sharing(in some case, as we know, faked or tricked; tricked in that way that others use fake IP's or their wireless network). This will also attack their loyalty to certain artist or any company who deals with creating art in all its various kind. One may automatically think this only affects the companies, but that isn't right. The reason is that a person with a loyalty will create a special bond with that creationist. This bond is of partly emotional, a desire which not only may satisfy the customers need but also to help that creationist. To refer to myself, one creationist I deeply admire and want to support to full length is Blizzard. No other creationist has been even close to the satisfaction and entertainment Blizzards game has given me.
Another thing about the consumers is of democratic quality. We are here in Sweden has to learn that democracy is something of the highest value. And this is completely true, like Churchill said “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”. It is bittersweet but it the best we humans can create for now. But a democracy (with Robert Dahl’s work in mind) requires that its people believe in it. The current situation is that even through an uprising of bloggers, over 60 000 thousand protesting against it on Facebook and six out of eight of the youth parties are against it. Through serious research done by a project called Music Lesson with several respected professors and scientists have shown us that there is a “magic limit” when it comes to file shares. This age is thirty five, but this report is a few years old and this limit may have been moved. But we can generalize that most people today under this age know how to and does it, that is, file sharing. Internet is in this people’s nature (generally I try to avoid the word nature, but in this case I cannot find any other fitting word). Resulting in thinking: that the trust and believe in democracy may take a serious hit amongst the younger people. Even if I cannot prove it, I do believe it’s most certainly true. And that is something which might be much more damaging then the harmful file sharing currently occurring.
Lastly, there is the law. There have been many arguments going around this, and the one closest to the truth, in my opinion, is Lawrence Lessig. In this current moment I cannot completely recall his words, but he helped me in my thinking. First, file sharing isn’t, by technical definition, stealing. To steal something is to take away something from another person. One takes control over a certain thing, which has at least one quality: it has a physical shape. No matter how you put it, you cannot ever steal anything which is immaterial. Because stealing must involve one factor, that one person looses something. Now, if my memory is correctly, Lessig agrees on this, but he adds the value. I will get back to this soon but first I need to describe what file sharing is if it isn’t stealing. It’s as exactly what the file-shares says: it’s copying. When a person download a music file over the internet, his computer scan that files structure and then rebuild it exactly the same on his computer. Thus, downloading isn’t stealing; it is nothing but a copy with perfect quality.
Back to Lessig and value, for when a person download a file, he or she copy something that might have a value for someone else. Now, this is the problem, not the copying. For this value (this goes for material things also, but aren’t of relevance here) differs between artist and the consumers. As for the artist: the creation has a personal value, from no value to invaluable. This also applies to the consumer, we all rate music, movies, games and all kind of arts. But due to economical forces today, neither the artist nor the consumer has the possibility to change the value into currency. We are forced to play by the rules, which aren’t created by any of these two actors. With the enormous flow of creations, especially when it comes to movies and music, the file shares quickly learn that most of it has little or zero value to them.
This places them in a hard situation with few options: (1) download whatever they might think are of interest. The consumer will then decide if it has enough value to them and then tries to repay by buying the physical exemplar of the product. This may build up the loyalty and the next time, the consumer may buy the product before ‘trying it out’. However, if the product value isn’t high enough to match the price, the file sharer will either delete it save it, but the feeling of loyalty or the feel to help the creationist isn’t there. (2) Is simple: just download everything that the person wants and doesn’t care at all of supporting the creationist, no matter how high the consumer feels of the product. (3) Take the chances, buy the product and hope that is gives enough value for the person. If it does, it was a success, if it wasn’t, the consumer will become more reluctant to redo the expensive process. This is a bit of a paradox: according to our theories, with increased competition there will be a reduction in the prices. But we know that, for example, music prices have increased and that is above the inflation (the reason for this is another chapter). However, with the increased competition it has become more difficult to reach the level of value amongst the consumers that makes them want to own the product legally.
Now, what does this has to do with the law? Well, through research we know that the number one is the mostly common one of the younger generation (remember, magic limit at thirty five). We also know that the first one is stimulating the economy, for they spend on average more money on art then the two others. But it is illegal. These people are knowingly breaking the law (and so does the option two people). Again, this is people under the age of thirty five. They have grown up with no reluctant breaking this law. Also, to make thing even worse, with the IPRED-law we are giving private cooperation’s the ability to act as enforcer. Not only are young people growing up with less confidence and trust in the law but also with private cooperation with the right to enforce the laws. This is something I would never want the upcoming generation to experience. For may lead to consequences with few similarities in history.
I won’t discuss the two other options, for they aren’t of much relevance right now. But they are of course important as they play a role in this.
This are a few ways the consumers (and society) in whole will be affected by this war between file-shares and antipiracy cooperation’s. I shall soon describe how the artist and companies looses on this war. For no one is actually unaffected by this, we all live in a society depending on the information flow through internet.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
The two sides and their instincts
So, I am back from whatever I was doing instead of blogging. Todays subject will be regarding the war between file shares and the music industry. Well, everything I write about it's about it, but I will focus on spreading some lights over the puzzle.
As I wrote about before, the actors on the copyright part, is acting like an animal. Which shouldn't see as something wrong. Stupidity and uncivilized maybe, but not wrong nor surprising. For it's acting is on the very basic level of humanity: survival and security. Survival is one of the most fundamental instinct. In the end, it's survival to spread your own genes forth. We all know this so there is no need for a deeper biological lesson. However, it's important to not forget that our society is crawling with these instincts. No matter how much we try to form our world around us to the better, we cannot, in this time, change our own animal behaviour.
Now, what really does this has to do with the ones trying to make laws like IPRED(antipiracy law) a reality in Sweden? Everything. These folks are currently making a living on distributing physical(and some non-physical) art to the people. They see filesharing as a threat to their way of putting food on the table(if it's true matters little). They don't care to try to see it on other perspective, they want what the know works(more about the security later). When you encounter something that you find as a threat it's hard, and for some people, impossible to change that view. No matter the logic, the scientifical facts or the arguments that exist: they will continue see at the filesharing as something bad.
Personally, I think history has shown several time the two only cure to this problem. Either wait until they are no longer with us(old way was really to kill them) or force them into the new thing. Now, in our world, where the change comes everyday and, hopefully, we are advanced enough to stay away from murdering each other, this option isn't plausable. Secondly, forcing people into something rarely works. It mostly just make them even more against whatever they are forced into. That is, if they are aware of it of course. There are many examples in the world where people are forced into a certain way without knowing it, for several reason; (1) the childhood forces them into beliving a certain way, (2) society has made them believe this or that is the certain way or (3) it's what works best with their instincts. For this case, with filesharing and the music industry, it's the third one that crashes. For both sides.
It might be hard to understand why people who are against filesharing act as they do when you have grown up in the opposite. I know, it's the same for me. However, understanding this might not be powerful enough to change the situation. And to get everyone to understand it won't be possible. We are far from as civilized as we would like to wish. The instincts you know, for now, they are here to stay. As for the filesharing people, do they behave in this way due to survival? Yes, but not in the exact same way. Most of them have grown up with filesharing. Having the possibility to reach most form of art within minutes, or at least in a couple of hours forms your life. Now, there is another need that is a part of survial. Security and stability of your life. Much of our life, especially when you reach an older age, is all about rutins. For us, the fileshares, it's a deeply entangled part of our life to be able to get access to copyright protected material, as for example: music.
There are always degrees of how much these two instinct works. There are artist that fully support filesharing and fileshares who do their best to pay as much as they can. What I painted up are the two major sides. But what do we end up with? One side, that struggles for their(imaginary) survival and another side that fight to keeps it's way of life. The Americans for example, use the phrase "defending our way of life" to justify several of their action. It's a strong argument.
Now to the interesting part. I have a theory, that the masses of people are the one holding stronges to the more extreme and stubborn way and the one that are more deeply involved have a finer way of looking at things. And this falls true for the leading figures when it comes to filesharing. They are fully aware of that a society that takes everything and gives nothing back would never work. But they see the problem, they are aware of it, and in this case, the copyright laws. They aren't adapted and optimized for the technology; and for many people, their way of life. They want to change it, make it better for the two only parts that really counts, the artist and the customer.
However, the opposite part doesn't. They are going all out in an attempt to save their income. Here does my theory fall short, but it wasn't much of a theory anyway. This is what creates the deadlock. But thanks to the possibility with internet this deadlock isn't complete. For as I said, this is just for the majority, there are other actors who are willing to adapt and learn the new things.
But this is where I think the problem currently is. The antipiracy folks inability to go against their instincts. With time, these people will be removed from the power, and the newer generation will enter with it's more modern and updated way to look at things. But do we really want to wait that long?
There is a third actor which I didn't take into this blogg entry. That is the state, who gets between fileshares and antipiracy cooperations. They are not important in this matter since they are only being on the strongest side. Currently, as we can see here in Sweden, it's the antipiracy. The laws they are trying to impose on us, the people, are nothing but a result of the antipiracy lobbying(also called power). In many aspect we are here in Sweden a democracy, but do never forget, that it's still people who make the decisions, and they work in the same way as everyone else does.
As I wrote about before, the actors on the copyright part, is acting like an animal. Which shouldn't see as something wrong. Stupidity and uncivilized maybe, but not wrong nor surprising. For it's acting is on the very basic level of humanity: survival and security. Survival is one of the most fundamental instinct. In the end, it's survival to spread your own genes forth. We all know this so there is no need for a deeper biological lesson. However, it's important to not forget that our society is crawling with these instincts. No matter how much we try to form our world around us to the better, we cannot, in this time, change our own animal behaviour.
Now, what really does this has to do with the ones trying to make laws like IPRED(antipiracy law) a reality in Sweden? Everything. These folks are currently making a living on distributing physical(and some non-physical) art to the people. They see filesharing as a threat to their way of putting food on the table(if it's true matters little). They don't care to try to see it on other perspective, they want what the know works(more about the security later). When you encounter something that you find as a threat it's hard, and for some people, impossible to change that view. No matter the logic, the scientifical facts or the arguments that exist: they will continue see at the filesharing as something bad.
Personally, I think history has shown several time the two only cure to this problem. Either wait until they are no longer with us(old way was really to kill them) or force them into the new thing. Now, in our world, where the change comes everyday and, hopefully, we are advanced enough to stay away from murdering each other, this option isn't plausable. Secondly, forcing people into something rarely works. It mostly just make them even more against whatever they are forced into. That is, if they are aware of it of course. There are many examples in the world where people are forced into a certain way without knowing it, for several reason; (1) the childhood forces them into beliving a certain way, (2) society has made them believe this or that is the certain way or (3) it's what works best with their instincts. For this case, with filesharing and the music industry, it's the third one that crashes. For both sides.
It might be hard to understand why people who are against filesharing act as they do when you have grown up in the opposite. I know, it's the same for me. However, understanding this might not be powerful enough to change the situation. And to get everyone to understand it won't be possible. We are far from as civilized as we would like to wish. The instincts you know, for now, they are here to stay. As for the filesharing people, do they behave in this way due to survival? Yes, but not in the exact same way. Most of them have grown up with filesharing. Having the possibility to reach most form of art within minutes, or at least in a couple of hours forms your life. Now, there is another need that is a part of survial. Security and stability of your life. Much of our life, especially when you reach an older age, is all about rutins. For us, the fileshares, it's a deeply entangled part of our life to be able to get access to copyright protected material, as for example: music.
There are always degrees of how much these two instinct works. There are artist that fully support filesharing and fileshares who do their best to pay as much as they can. What I painted up are the two major sides. But what do we end up with? One side, that struggles for their(imaginary) survival and another side that fight to keeps it's way of life. The Americans for example, use the phrase "defending our way of life" to justify several of their action. It's a strong argument.
Now to the interesting part. I have a theory, that the masses of people are the one holding stronges to the more extreme and stubborn way and the one that are more deeply involved have a finer way of looking at things. And this falls true for the leading figures when it comes to filesharing. They are fully aware of that a society that takes everything and gives nothing back would never work. But they see the problem, they are aware of it, and in this case, the copyright laws. They aren't adapted and optimized for the technology; and for many people, their way of life. They want to change it, make it better for the two only parts that really counts, the artist and the customer.
However, the opposite part doesn't. They are going all out in an attempt to save their income. Here does my theory fall short, but it wasn't much of a theory anyway. This is what creates the deadlock. But thanks to the possibility with internet this deadlock isn't complete. For as I said, this is just for the majority, there are other actors who are willing to adapt and learn the new things.
But this is where I think the problem currently is. The antipiracy folks inability to go against their instincts. With time, these people will be removed from the power, and the newer generation will enter with it's more modern and updated way to look at things. But do we really want to wait that long?
There is a third actor which I didn't take into this blogg entry. That is the state, who gets between fileshares and antipiracy cooperations. They are not important in this matter since they are only being on the strongest side. Currently, as we can see here in Sweden, it's the antipiracy. The laws they are trying to impose on us, the people, are nothing but a result of the antipiracy lobbying(also called power). In many aspect we are here in Sweden a democracy, but do never forget, that it's still people who make the decisions, and they work in the same way as everyone else does.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Scared animal
Basically we all have seen it, terrified animals who act against their rational nature and behave without any understanding of their action, human and "animals"(we are animals also and in several ways behave like them). The dog that has been terrified act in two way, either he covers, retreat with his tail between his legs, crawling into his safe corner wishing for it all to go away. Feeling completely powerless he hopes for nothing more then the bad thing to go away, wishing more then anything else, if he was capable of wishing.
Or, if hes trained, he goes full out, all muscles are tense, ready for anything, anything that might come against him, be it a cat or a tiger, he is ready. No matter the threat, he will attack and do his best to defend his area. For, no matter what anyone says, it's his. His alone and no one shall ever intrude on it! When the threat appears, he attacks without any thought about what it is nor its consequences. There are only two extremes in this battle, my way or the threats way, but 'I shall be damned if that ways win'. So, without any reflection of the consequences, the dog will attack whatever appears. With only a fraction of the shadow the dog attacks...
This is where we stand today regarding filesharing. The dog is the anti-piracy part, the shadow is those who are a part of the internet and its file sharing culture. What is not told from above, is the size of the shadow, for as in reality, the shadow in also unknown. There is no exact number of all the file shares, nor their power. It might be nothing but a shadow, yet there is a chance its one of the greatest being ever seen in our society. The result of the battle remains to be discovered, but I ensure you, the anti-piracy doesn't have a clue what they are up against.
We live in interesting times...
Or, if hes trained, he goes full out, all muscles are tense, ready for anything, anything that might come against him, be it a cat or a tiger, he is ready. No matter the threat, he will attack and do his best to defend his area. For, no matter what anyone says, it's his. His alone and no one shall ever intrude on it! When the threat appears, he attacks without any thought about what it is nor its consequences. There are only two extremes in this battle, my way or the threats way, but 'I shall be damned if that ways win'. So, without any reflection of the consequences, the dog will attack whatever appears. With only a fraction of the shadow the dog attacks...
This is where we stand today regarding filesharing. The dog is the anti-piracy part, the shadow is those who are a part of the internet and its file sharing culture. What is not told from above, is the size of the shadow, for as in reality, the shadow in also unknown. There is no exact number of all the file shares, nor their power. It might be nothing but a shadow, yet there is a chance its one of the greatest being ever seen in our society. The result of the battle remains to be discovered, but I ensure you, the anti-piracy doesn't have a clue what they are up against.
We live in interesting times...
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Random thoughts regarding filesharing
I know I only have one reader on this blog. Which suits me just fine, since I don't want to get involved in the blog-community, because then I have to pay attention to my language, grammar and make sure I have somewhat a 'red thread'. I can write anything that I like, in any way I like, without regarding whos reading. But, if, for some reason, someone else manage to fall into my little blog. This is a varning, be advice that I might write like a madman. And even though I am working in a larger essay towards the philosophy of filesharing, this has nothing to do with it. Just my ventilation. And the reason why I write in English is because I prefer it. Think it's more fun to write in then Swedish.
Today, after reading some blogs and surfing around, I got a quite interesting thought. On a show on tv, there was a debate regarding filesharing and the proposition for a new law (IPRED), where the defender of the law, Johan Pehrsson (fp) (the liberals), compared filesharing with stealing a lawn mower. Quite an interesting comparison, for it does truly show his competence within the area. A lawn mower... God damn. Anyway, let's make an example of it all to illustrate how well the new law works.
Now, imagen that your lawn mower get's stolen. It's in the middle of the summer and your grass is growing like only grass can. You really need cut it, otherwise your partner will, literaly, kick your ass. After looking around for a while, you see your lawn mower on your neighbours lawn. Of course, that bastard has stolen your very own lawn mower! The first thought would have been to just go over there and steal it back, but trying to be the really superb citizen, you quickly realize that you aren't allowed to take the law into your own hands. So you do what the law requires you to do, you call the cop and let them sort this mess out. The police comes over and arrest your greedy neighbour and you get your lawn mower back, all is well.
But what happens if we apply the new rules of IPRED in our beloved example of the stolen lawn mower? The pre-settings are the same, your lawn mower is stolen and you have seen it on your neighbours lawn. Now, instead of calling the police you call the new cooporation; that has it's own interest in lawn mowers (they came into being due to politicans who knew nothing of lawn mowers or their technology). Let's call them IPFI just for the sake of argument. They don't work in the same way as the cop though, but it's the only option you have(in truth, they would have come anyway, they just lurk out random places where lawn mowers have been stolen). Well, they show up and instead of having gadgets like the cops have, these just have a a briefcase. Like lawyers, in fact, that is exacly what they are. They don't even ring on your neightbours door. They just put a piece of paper in his mail box and leaves. They are sueing him. "Pay this idiotic high sum(that we decided with a dice and multiplied it by 10 000) or go to the court. Remember, you are alone with no economic or knowledgeable resources."
And of course, you, the true owned of the lawn mower, doesn't see a penny of the money your neighbour payed. In fact, the IPFI, took your lawn mower for themself and keep it with thousands other lawn mowers. They now, through some very "clever" (more as greedy) contract, own your lawn mower. Welcome to the world of music ... oh, sorry, lawn mowers.
Today, after reading some blogs and surfing around, I got a quite interesting thought. On a show on tv, there was a debate regarding filesharing and the proposition for a new law (IPRED), where the defender of the law, Johan Pehrsson (fp) (the liberals), compared filesharing with stealing a lawn mower. Quite an interesting comparison, for it does truly show his competence within the area. A lawn mower... God damn. Anyway, let's make an example of it all to illustrate how well the new law works.
Now, imagen that your lawn mower get's stolen. It's in the middle of the summer and your grass is growing like only grass can. You really need cut it, otherwise your partner will, literaly, kick your ass. After looking around for a while, you see your lawn mower on your neighbours lawn. Of course, that bastard has stolen your very own lawn mower! The first thought would have been to just go over there and steal it back, but trying to be the really superb citizen, you quickly realize that you aren't allowed to take the law into your own hands. So you do what the law requires you to do, you call the cop and let them sort this mess out. The police comes over and arrest your greedy neighbour and you get your lawn mower back, all is well.
But what happens if we apply the new rules of IPRED in our beloved example of the stolen lawn mower? The pre-settings are the same, your lawn mower is stolen and you have seen it on your neighbours lawn. Now, instead of calling the police you call the new cooporation; that has it's own interest in lawn mowers (they came into being due to politicans who knew nothing of lawn mowers or their technology). Let's call them IPFI just for the sake of argument. They don't work in the same way as the cop though, but it's the only option you have(in truth, they would have come anyway, they just lurk out random places where lawn mowers have been stolen). Well, they show up and instead of having gadgets like the cops have, these just have a a briefcase. Like lawyers, in fact, that is exacly what they are. They don't even ring on your neightbours door. They just put a piece of paper in his mail box and leaves. They are sueing him. "Pay this idiotic high sum(that we decided with a dice and multiplied it by 10 000) or go to the court. Remember, you are alone with no economic or knowledgeable resources."
And of course, you, the true owned of the lawn mower, doesn't see a penny of the money your neighbour payed. In fact, the IPFI, took your lawn mower for themself and keep it with thousands other lawn mowers. They now, through some very "clever" (more as greedy) contract, own your lawn mower. Welcome to the world of music ... oh, sorry, lawn mowers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)