The Madness of Crowds and an Internet Delusion | Hacker News Reader

The Madness of Crowds and an Internet Delusion

nytimes.com

30 pointsjoubert21 comments

I think the huge challenge is in the final sentence:

"The result is a problem a bit like trying to stop a mob of looters. When the majority of people feel entitled to someone’s property, who’s going to stand in their way?"

How many politicians will dare stand up to protect a small number of creative minds once 7+ billion consumers have grown accustomed to accessing info/media for "free" (in time and simplicity)?

Right now I think they mostly stand up for large corporate 'rights' - not individual creators/artists.

[Am I too cynical in suspecting that the congressional voices that support copy protection receive substantial campaign contributions from publishing industry giants (as opposed to the 'creative minds' whose intellectual property builds their empires)?]

::edited for clarification::

I think people don't feel so bad about stealing from the RIAA, because the artists only would get a tiny fraction of the paid sum anyway...

And stealing from thieves isn't so bad, is it?

"The big difference between Web piracy and house burglary, he says, is that the penalties for piracy are tiny and rarely enforced"

The big difference is copying vs theft.

Also, the penalties for copyright infringement are anything but tiny. "Downloading mom fined $80000 per song", etc.

These and other obvious mistakes show the author does not understand the fundamentals of the information age. While old media produces sequel after unoriginal sequel of movies, and clone musicians to push on us, the information age has spawned a new age of creativity. The incumbents can no longer keep down the truly creative because distribution costs have gone down so much. The internet has saved culture from monotone salvages of the old media, and sparked creativity in the new.

Very well put. I recently got hold of a very interesting book[1] that was all about how the "free press" effectively seek to raise the cost of production/distribution so as to stifle the voice of independent publishers and how this has lead to the conglomeration of media outlets under very specific political banners (and even shaped politics itself). Unfortunately, mine was an old copy, but it has since been heavily updated for the internet era. I doubt it shares your optimism, though I would certainly like to. I try to keep my eyes open for inde/underground publications[2] now, as I have a much better appreciation of their work.

[1: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Power-without-Responsibility-Broadca...] [2: one I've become aware of recently - Dodgem Logic (http://www.dodgemlogic.com/) that are very deliberately subversive. I think one of the guys out of The League Of Gentlemen is involved.]

> The internet has saved culture from monotone salvages of the old media

That's why whenever I hear about "piracy is killing the big production companies" and am thinking "and that would be bad because...?" They have been shoving junk down people's throats (or should I say "eyes" and "ears") for so many years, they make artists sign draconian contracts, etc, etc. If they disappear, I'll be alright with it.

The internet has saved culture from monotone salvages of the old media, and sparked creativity in the new.

What are some of your favorite examples of creativity in new media, which in your view were not possible before the information age?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ http://www.techcrunch.com/ http://redvsblue.com/home.php http://www.purepwnage.com/ And for music...well maybe this is niche for me, but I like http://www.jonathancoulton.com/ And things like this are really only possible now: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5482774

Not to mention hacker news.... ;)

"While old media produces sequel after unoriginal sequel of movies, and clone musicians to push on us, the information age has spawned a new age of creativity."

A common rationalization, but I believe, it's a straw men argument. For who's really interested in "creativity"? Maybe you and a few more others, but hardly the majority.

For example: Let's assume, there's been a law ten years ago that allowded anybody to redistribute a published movie. Is it conceivable to think anybody would have invested money to make a movie since then? Only a small minority, maybe.

The majority of movies, however, would have never been produced. We wouldn't have seen neither the Spiderman series, nor Lord of the rings, nor most other movies that were popular on the file sharing networks.

In reality, these movies were made and millions of people worldwide spend money to see them. That looks like proof, millions of people wanted to see them! The majority of people don't care whether a work is "creative".

It's not the job of the media industries to foster "truely creative" works. The industry's job is financing, filtering, and informing about creative works. Therefore, the "creative" argument is a straw men argument.

"In the 1990s, when I was writing paeans to the dawning spirit of digital collaboration, it didn’t occur to me that the Web’s 'gift culture,' as anthropologists called it, could turn into a mandatory potlatch for so many professions--including my own."

This is what I find, as a writer of nonfiction writings that take heavy research investment to produce. Twerps half my age think nothing of copying my Web-based writings in their entirety onto websites that bear only their name and not mine, and few readers indeed think of paying me for writing based on the Web, no matter how much value the writings have for the reader. I still need to study more current examples of more different nonfiction writers to see how they get paid for the best of research-based writing, but the trend lines don't look good for people being paid to write that which requires research, analysis, and careful expression. Opinion pieces that appeal to preexisting prejudices seem to have a ready market as blog posts that draw audiences with known demographics to view Web advertisements, but research pieces that might change opinions have an ill-defined payment channel in Web distribution.

In general, very few people have ever been compensated for their research in the past. In an era before the internet, you probably wouldn't have been published; if you had been, you probably wouldn't have sold enough copies to make any significant amount of money.

If you're not doing the research for the love, and you're not doing it as your job, and no one is paying you to do new research after being impressed by your old research, and it's not engaging enough to draw a consistent audience, you're completely right. It's hard to get compensated for it.

Blaming the web for that seems backwards; for the first time the average person has a shot at even distributing their original research and thought. It's better than before. We just need to figure out the best structure for compensating people. Since that's already happening in the realm of music and TV online, I'm hopeful we'll find some solution for thoughtful writing as well.

PS: Link to your online writings?

My site is going through a technical update with the help of the other HN participant in this household. Then I will be doing content updates, throwing caution to the winds and again posting a lot of content for free. I'll update my HN profile then to provide the link. Thanks for asking and thanks for the detailed, thoughtful reply.

"He blames the Web’s tradition of 'drive-by anonymity' for fostering vicious pack behavior on blogs, forums and social networks. He acknowledges the examples of generous collaboration, like Wikipedia, but argues that the mantras of 'open culture' and 'information wants to be free' have produced a destructive new social contract."

No, I don't see "vicious pack behavior on blogs". Just as I don't frequent sleazy bars in industrial districts, I don't frequent un-moderated, trashy parts of the Internet. Casting the Internet as something totally new is typical of fear-mongering articles from 15 years ago.

As for the "mantras" he mentions, in plain English, those are a couple of ideas, amongst a vast sea, popular in some areas of the Internet. Yes, people freely express their ideas on-(and off-) line. If he disagrees, good for him, but those ideas aren't new, and if he's seeing a lot of bar-fights, pick a better hang-out.

You don't need to frequent the dark corners of the internet to find yourself (or your family members) the inadvertent target of a pack of attack dogs.

Why is the NYT writing about this now? There really isn't any new information here that hasn't been rehashed hundreds of times over. In effect it all comes down to a question of what has value to people.

To take music for an example, a digital copy of a song has very little value when compared to something like a live performance which commands a much higher price. An artist bemoaning the economics of the digital world is like Dell commiserating about the decline in the average selling price of laptops because of the introduction of net books. If an artist, or anyone, is interested in making more money they should concentrate on making things people are willing to pay more for instead of complaining that people aren't willing to pay for what they want to produce.

>Why is the NYT writing about this now?

The story is that a guy changed sides.

And that guy has a new book to promote.

"The problem in each case is not that you stole from a specific person but that you undermined the artificial scarcities that allow the economy to function." ARTIFICIAL scarcities... They are necessary evil of free market (is it free when there is monopoly?), but you must be sure to have monopoly first, or someone will race down with price. My 2c, anyway

"it is striking how many of the top-grossing acts began in the predigital era, and how much of today’s music is a mash-up of the old."

this is what it's all about, the kids and their damn music.

why the downvote?? seems like you are just proving jaron right ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com