Life on The Net in 2004 554
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?"
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
So what? Don't use their services! Those services were not there in the past and everyone survived.
Stories like this are so self defeating. What is the solution? If in fact it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to run a service (as it does now and always has) Then of course it needs to be paid for! By Who? Net fairies? No, by the users!
Just go back to e-mail and usenet. Give up the web completely. It was envisioned as a commercial vehicle from the get go. Then you can pay $19.95 a month for your dialup account and be happy as a clam never paying for another thing on the net.
Either participate or not. But this endless teeth gnashing about not getting everything in the universe for free is getting really REALLY old!
Just Shut it off and walk away (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
.
Re:It's called 'capitalism' (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Re:It's called 'capitalism' (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
/. Asleep at the Wheel - AGAIN (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's called 'capitalism' (Score:1, Insightful)
You think you're being clever by being the voice of 'realism?' You're not.
I'm sure people were walking around 300 years ago saying things like, "The world is not like some free utopia...where everyone's created equal.
The world thrives on slavery and if you have more slaves, whether you like it or not, you will get ahead."
Maybe people still aren't completely free but if it weren't for people who had the guts to stand up to oppressors and cowards like you, we wouldn't even have what little freedom we have.
Grow some balls already you wretched, unoriginal tool.
Not buying only exacerbates the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if it is just a donation, and you don't want the product, $10 can mean a great deal to a small company. If all of the startups and small web businesses become cautionary tales, then the future WILL be 10 mega-corporations.net, and minimum wage for everyone else, because it will be impossible to construct a competitive business model. Customers vote with their dollars.
If people don't want to buy from Big Company Inc., fine, just remember that Very Little Company Inc. can't lay off thousands of people to preserve their capital (if they had any to start with).
But the "I'll never buy anything" approach means that the big corporations win by default, because nobody supports their competition. Not everyone who plugs in a cash register is greedy.
It affects employment too. Big corporations are great for executives, but the guy with the mortgage and three kids is going to have at least one devastating ($10,000 in expenses or more) layoff in their career REGARDLESS of their qualifications, achievements or seniority. Wouldn't happen if he had a little cabinet making company (on-line or off) with a few dozen paying customers.
Just a thought.
Geek Minority (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
This sounds familiar... (Score:2, Insightful)
Kind of like Slashdot is doing?
Re:It's called 'capitalism' (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
The "axis of evil" is not going to win (Score:5, Insightful)
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 Internet Doesn't Exist in a Vaccum (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Just Shut it off and walk away (Score:2, Insightful)
Well to stick with the cable analogy, if television customers felt as passionately about the shows available we would have higher quality T.V. Maybe even an alternative sort of like a Linux for the idiot box. But wait, in order to do that we would need to jump all sorts of red tape, licenses etc. It's just not something that just anybody off the street can do.
Now we have a medium that is like that. I don't like the content on here, and I know that others think like I do and want to see the same thing. So I'll just start my own little web page and go take it from there. That's the beauty of the net. It's openness and resulting anarchy that is prevalent if your stray from the corporate spoon-fed television substitutes.The web really is an almost artificial world in many respects, were everybody contributes. People from Bill Gates, Linus Torvalds to everybody who posts on Slashdot add something no matter how insignificant and something is better than nothing right? Like it or not the internet is a better place even with something as small as a troll's rant.
It's ok if you don't want to dive deeper then AOL serving you MSN"S take on Brittany Spears new teeny-bopper cd, that's fine. However there is so much more, made by people all over the world who put their time, their effort to make this artificial environment made up of nothing more then silicon, solder, electrons and our thoughts. To simply walk away is just wrong. Too much collective effort has been expended to simply sit back and allow ourselves to be chained once again.
Anything a geek can create... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Nature of the Net (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:The day of BBSes will rise again.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps it's time to consider that. Something text based, searchable and fast. Hmmm... we could call it Gopher!!!
While this brings lots of hits to Aardvark.com (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Its always evil heres why (Score:2, Insightful)
Since we live in America (and I'm sure this is the case in most countries), there's nothing compelling you to pay for water. There's no laws forcing you to obtain it from the local water supply. If you prefer, you're free to collect it yourself, disinfect it and check for microbes. But I'm sure you'll find paying for someone else to do so is a far better use of your time/money.
Now that I've destroyed your simplest argument, I can safely assume that the rest of your post is just as factually oblivious.
Re:huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you mean, everyone would have an equal or nearly equal high annual income? In relative terms (compared to non-capitalist countries), yes. If you mean, "under capitalism, everyone will be a millionaire and live in a palace," no. Not unless the currency is devalued much further and housing materials and land get a lot cheaper.
Thats bullshit. I'm sorry but its just bullshit.
That's not an argument.
capitalism works by making as much money as possible
You seem to at least understand that. Before capitlism, people didn't say "make money." Money wasn't "made" before free enterprise -- the free exchange of goods among traders -- capitalism -- existed. Interesting linguistic tidbit there. It's because, unlike earlier economic systems (and some later ones), capitalism isn't a zero-sum game.
poor = working class, rich = buying class
The "poor" actually do most of the buying in any economy. Read Hernando de Soto's "The Mystery of Capital."
the rich make more than they need to survive thus they can buy stuff they dont really need.
I suppose you're qualified to make that statement. Dear egalatarian overload, waht may we purchase today? A car made my workers making above the median wage? No, it costs too much -- it's a luxury. A boat? No, it's a luxury. Etc. Tell that to the boat makers that go out of business. In the 80's, when a "luxury tax" was applied to boats, a lot of small-time boat makers went under. Did this tax "soak the rich?" Nope. It starved the poor.
fair? hell no!
What the hell is your definition of "fair?" And are you perpared to make people around you live by it? By what means?
Entertainment is not essential (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Limitless stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
In the past people used other services that will not survive into the future. Newspapers and other publications that once extraced timber from entire regions are going away. TV broadcast is moving to digital and encrypted pay per play if broadcasters have their way. Radio will follow. So where will you get your news and entertainment if all these greed heads have their way? People once lived in caves and they lived.
What trolls like you miss, or intentionally ignore, is the loss of public domain that all of this is leading up to. As many others have pointed out here, the DMCA can be extended to the death of all normal publications, making libraries impractical if not illegal. Newer laws that require govenment approved software in all digital devices will effectivly eliminate free publishing, so that those who WANT to give away their thoughts will not be able to. It's not that I'm worried that I won't be able to get cool toys for free, it's that I won't be able to share MY thoughts, MY programs, MY images without paying some trolls who want to control the internet and my computer.
May all your software be MicroShaft for the rest of your days, AwfulTroll.
Re:Americans believe Capitalism is perfect (Score:4, Insightful)
Thsi is true. We're also the most capitalist nation. It's not an accident that we're also the richest.
First, Capitalism is not perfect.
No system is. Capitalism is the least bad. Socialism is a far cry from the least bad. I work with a Romaniam who lived there while it was a Socialist State. He said it was a joke -- no motivation to work or make improvements, etc. He went back last year and said it's much better -- "they have freer markets and a lot more stuff is available a lot cheaper."
What I am saying is, we already ARE socialism, and becoming more socialist has its advantages because this is what the majority of the working class want
... FREE STUFF!
A democracy works until the people start voting themselves other people's money.
Re:While this brings lots of hits to Aardvark.com (Score:3, Insightful)
What are they going to do, format your hard drive if you connect with an older version of windows? of Linux?
No. You won't be ABLE to connect, because the protocols will all be secret and propietary - and if you "hack" them, you will go to jail.
Maybe it will not be as bad as this article predicts - but only if people like yourself wake up and put some pressure on Congresscritters to quit coming up with these insane laws like the DMCA and the SSSCA (or whatever DoubleSpeak they renamed it)
Keep looking! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Its always evil heres why (Score:2, Insightful)
There *is* middle ground between anarchism, communism, socialism and current right-wing capitalism.
IHBT.
-knots
Didn't Read The Article, Did You? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's called 'capitalism' (Score:2, Insightful)
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 [baeo.org] 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.
Re:The "axis of evil" is not going to win (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, they can always stop broadcasting their signal to him... he's not breaking into the transmitting facility to do it, you know.
Pre-commercial Internet wasn't exactly Paradise (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Americo-centric (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Do Something (Score:2, Insightful)