Interesting. I just tried to post a link to another relevant article and it is being held for moderation. Nothing provocative about anything I've posted here. I wonder why it didn't go up immediately.
Interesting. I just tried to post a link to another relevant article and it is being held for moderation. Nothing provocative about anything I've posted here. I wonder why it didn't go up immediately.
I'm continuing to poke around this topic and I found this which suggests there is a connection between artists protecting their turf and software engineers protecting theirs.
Obstacles to Automated Code Generation
Skepticism
Risk Aversion
Resistance to Change
Skill Currency
Programmer Lobbyists
Quality of Generated Programming Products
Ability to Control Code Generation Results
Non-Standard Action Language for UML The Majority of the Obstacles Are Cultural (The emphasis is mine.)
I don't argue one way or the other about copyright because it's not my priority. I can't envision me putting in much energy on one side or the other.
But looking at the future of content/the arts/creativity, I am more interested those as a subsection of the future of work and world economics. Rather than focusing on copyright as its own little issue, I'm interested in how we provide for people and their needs at all levels. In my ideal society, everyone would be creative, but no one would necessarily be dependent on monetizing that creativity to cover basic necessities. Maybe everyone could have a 10 hour work week and then use all that extra time for the arts, relationships, recreational activities, and so on.
There are some interesting discussions across the Web on the future of work, the future of money, the future of capitalism, the future of the P2P economy, and so on. Copyright is a small part of that picture and it is likely that if we figure out some of the big questions, the issue of copyright will fall into place as part of that.
For the Internet, No More Innovation for the Fun of It - NYTimes.com: "Im increasingly wary of downloading an app, or signing up for a new service or Web site, for fear that the creator had an ulterior motive. Does Angry Birds really need to take my address book when I install it on my phone? Will I really want to see constant warnings popping up to tell me an app is taking this or that bit of once-private data?
For many other people, the privacy debate is eroding trust on the Internet."
For the Internet, No More Innovation for the Fun of It - NYTimes.com: "The Internet, with companies sniping at one another and blithely ignoring major privacy violations, is on the verge of the same fate as the true-blue American industries before it: losing its sense of fun."
I'll add that I think the big players are going to use whatever weapons they have to battle each other: media influence, lawsuits, lobbying, and anything else they can use to win an advantage. While in the past they may have been carving out separate fiefdoms, now they are converging on each other's businesses. Plus they have the financial resources to play these games for awhile.
As I read the various tech bloggers, some are unbiased, but others definitely favor one of the big players over the others. It gets really interesting reading who is justifying which company's actions.
This article, by Aaron Levie, co-founder and CEO at Box, touches upon one coming war.
Google Drive And The Cloud Wars | TechCrunch: "So get ready for a number of years of absolute rock-your-world style competition among major players fighting for your content and the cloud. Every photo you upload, every song you listen to, every video your capture. These guys want it. With around $200B in cash between Microsoft, Apple, and Google alone, cost is no issue; they see your data as the center of their universe. Theyll probably get it. Im just happy to be swimming in enterprise waters."
I've been a big proponent of corporate sponsorship. I got interested in it because I knew a number of Olympic athletes and that's how most of them made their money. They got funding from corporate sponsors.
When I got involved with music, I noticed that this industry was not nearly as sophisticated about sponsorship as sports is.
While I want to see more money go to promising athletes and creative types, I also look at it from a marketing point of view. (My background is integrated marketing communications.) If the sponsorship doesn't result in more incremental sales or a better relationship with current and potential customers, the company should consider spending its marketing dollars elsewhere. So the deciding factor from a marketing point of view isn't whether the content is crappy, but does it help the corporate bottom line in the near or long term? I'd much rather see a company sponsor a local kids event than throw money at a musician who doesn't help sell more product. There are so many potential sponsorships; sponsoring creative projects is only one possibility.
I have seen some bad music/corporate partnerships. (The wrong music used to pitch a product. No logical connection between the two at all.) It just ends up making both the company and the musicians look bad. I think the flaw is that the company decides to sponsor whatever is trendy without thinking it through.
My feeling is that when the paring works well, there's much less likelihood of the artists being accused of selling out. And when I say "works well," I mean at all levels including creatively and philosophically. If a band's music is used by a company that ethically doesn't represent the band, there are complaints. And for that reason I understand protests by bands when they see their music being used in marketing or political campaigns that they don't approve of. Bands should be able to say how their music is used because the implication is that if their music is associated with a company, the band probably approved it or at least allowed it to happen.
It used to be that Microsoft had all the power. Now Apple, Google, and Facebook are in the mix, all fighting each other for one reason or another.
It does make me think that big public (or soon to be public) companies behave in certain ways, no matter what the industry. I don't view the big tech companies as looking out for my interests any more than I view Walmart or McDonald's looking out for my interests. When it's all said and done, a lot happens to keep Wall Street happy. You need those quarterly numbers to look good to keep those stock prices high.
I'm hoping that all these battles keep these big companies in check. I don't want any of them to become so big they can't be taken down a bit.
although i disagree with the changes Google have implemented, why is Viviane Redding unhappy about this but not worried about peoples data being given out freely, based only on an accusation of copyright infringement, to the entertainment industries?
Europe has always had stricter laws about data collection than the US. So companies have had to modify their policies to do business in Europe. This isn't really a new thing. But the scope of Google's data collection (the many different ways it can collect data and then put it altogether to create profiles of people) especially puts it on the radar. That's what happens when companies want to work their way into people's lives at every level and then want to monetize that ubiquitousness. That's why I have a huge problem with Facebook's goals and refuse to play along. I won't run all my web activities through Facebook, though the company keeps trying to find ways to encourage people to do that.
I didn't sign up for Google+ because I was unsure of Google's privacy policies for that, and now I am glad I didn't. As data collection becomes more aggressive, I am modifying my web usage.
Between companies wanting to create massive files on you, and hackers continuing to find ways to break into servers, it does make you want to retreat and live as much of your life off-line as possible so it isn't all up for grabs.
Yes, we've lived with cookies for a long time, but when they started, the pitch was, "We've just linked it to your machine, not to you personally." Now, there's no pretense that this data collection is anonymous. Companies want to know every detail of your life: what you buy, where you go, who you know, etc. And the benefits returned aren't always that useful to you. In fact, if anything, it just becomes a way to bombard you with more commercial messages that you'll probably not want. If you aren't buying (either because you are trying to save money or because you want to consume less), then you don't want messages about buying no matter how targeted they are.
People are thinking about the Internet as a public utility these days. While one can argue about why they shouldn't be concerned about privacy, if they perceive the Internet as a commons area, they want to establish how the commons can be run. While companies may want to gather info, the perceived value to consumers isn't so high. The "people's Internet" doesn't "need" so much data collection.
My personal wariness about privacy has to do with having so much information about me being collected in one place. Corporate security measures have not been sufficient at many companies so I don't really trust companies to do a good job with identifiable data collection. At least with credit card companies, if you have been hit with fraud, the card companies limit the damage. In contrast, companies like Google and Facebook are not guaranteeing anything. And as a result, I do very little with my smart phone so there is less to track. For example, I don't use location-based apps. I won't log on to Facebook via mobile.
And I have been pulling off info from Facebook each time they change what they do with the data. There have been blatant abuses with Facebook and my account, so I don't trust the company in the least. (For example, asking me for my mobile phone number as a security protection and then publishing it in my contact info without my permission.)
In other posts I have suggested that the privacy fight will turn into an extension of the piracy fight because some (perhaps many) of those who want the Internet to be free, also want to avoid being tracked for marketing purposes. Here's a very recent exploration of that.
Advertising and the health of the internet The New Inquiry: "But one might argue that the fact that it seems as though we cant have an internet not fueled by advertising is a sign that the internet is already unhealthy, sick unto death."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A possible companion piece?
The future of work and money are huge subjects, so I won't begin to explore them here. But there are entire websites devoted to them. I'd say we are in the midst of a world change as significant as the Industrial Revolution and we don't have it all sorted out yet. And then if you toss in climate change and the possibility that life on the planet will change in huge ways, there's a lot to contemplate.
On the post: Isn't It Time Artists Lost Their 18th-Century Sense Of Entitlement?
Re: Re: Change is coming after all of us
I found this article, and it suggests that the same forces that resist change among artists likely exist among software engineers, too.
This is page 11 of this document: "Generative Programming & Component Engineering."
A Google search will provide you a link to the pdf of the entire presentation.
____________________________________
Obstacles to Automated Code Generation
Skepticism
Risk Aversion
Resistance to Change
Skill Currency
Programmer Lobbyists
Quality of Generated Programming Products
Ability to Control Code Generation Results
Non-Standard Action Language for UML
The Majority of the Obstacles Are Cultural
On the post: Isn't It Time Artists Lost Their 18th-Century Sense Of Entitlement?
Re: Change is coming after all of us
On the post: Isn't It Time Artists Lost Their 18th-Century Sense Of Entitlement?
Re: Change is coming after all of us
On the post: Isn't It Time Artists Lost Their 18th-Century Sense Of Entitlement?
Re: Re: Change is coming after all of us
The presentation is called:
"Generative Programming & Component Engineering"
http://www.program-transformation.org/pub/GPCE11/ConferenceProgram/slides-gpce11-shube rt.pdf
Page 11 says this:
Obstacles to Automated Code Generation
Skepticism
Risk Aversion
Resistance to Change
Skill Currency
Programmer Lobbyists
Quality of Generated Programming Products
Ability to Control Code Generation Results
Non-Standard Action Language for UML
The Majority of the Obstacles Are Cultural (The emphasis is mine.)
On the post: What Will The Future Of Copyright Look Like? Contest Offers Prize For Best Proposal
Rethinking the totality of the world economy
But looking at the future of content/the arts/creativity, I am more interested those as a subsection of the future of work and world economics. Rather than focusing on copyright as its own little issue, I'm interested in how we provide for people and their needs at all levels. In my ideal society, everyone would be creative, but no one would necessarily be dependent on monetizing that creativity to cover basic necessities. Maybe everyone could have a 10 hour work week and then use all that extra time for the arts, relationships, recreational activities, and so on.
There are some interesting discussions across the Web on the future of work, the future of money, the future of capitalism, the future of the P2P economy, and so on. Copyright is a small part of that picture and it is likely that if we figure out some of the big questions, the issue of copyright will fall into place as part of that.
On the post: Isn't It Time Artists Lost Their 18th-Century Sense Of Entitlement?
Re: Re: Change is coming after all of us
I've been browsing to see what is out there on the subject. Here's something I just found.
The case for software evolution
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~weimer/p/p205-legoues.pdf
On the post: Isn't It Time Artists Lost Their 18th-Century Sense Of Entitlement?
Change is coming after all of us
I've wondered about a time when developers will no longer command high salaries.
Here's a look:
Darwinism of Innovation: The Evolution of Automation and the Software Development Industry | FAST - Blog
On the post: Google Asking For Trouble With Its New Privacy Policy; EU Official Questions Legality
Re: Security concerns
For many other people, the privacy debate is eroding trust on the Internet."
On the post: Microsoft Hires Key Anti-Google FTC Lawyer To Be Its New Chief Anti-Google Lobbyist
Re: Re: Watching the war from all sides
On the post: The Secret To Brand Engagement Is For Brands To Support The Creative Process, But Not Meddle With The Creative Process
Re: Does it lead to measurable results?
Red Bull USA - Sports & Entertainment News | Teams & Athletes :: Red Bull
On the post: Microsoft Hires Key Anti-Google FTC Lawyer To Be Its New Chief Anti-Google Lobbyist
Re: Re: Watching the war from all sides
On the post: Microsoft Hires Key Anti-Google FTC Lawyer To Be Its New Chief Anti-Google Lobbyist
Re: Watching the war from all sides
This article, by Aaron Levie, co-founder and CEO at Box, touches upon one coming war.
Google Drive And The Cloud Wars | TechCrunch: "So get ready for a number of years of absolute rock-your-world style competition among major players fighting for your content and the cloud. Every photo you upload, every song you listen to, every video your capture. These guys want it. With around $200B in cash between Microsoft, Apple, and Google alone, cost is no issue; they see your data as the center of their universe. Theyll probably get it. Im just happy to be swimming in enterprise waters."
On the post: The Secret To Brand Engagement Is For Brands To Support The Creative Process, But Not Meddle With The Creative Process
Does it lead to measurable results?
When I got involved with music, I noticed that this industry was not nearly as sophisticated about sponsorship as sports is.
While I want to see more money go to promising athletes and creative types, I also look at it from a marketing point of view. (My background is integrated marketing communications.) If the sponsorship doesn't result in more incremental sales or a better relationship with current and potential customers, the company should consider spending its marketing dollars elsewhere. So the deciding factor from a marketing point of view isn't whether the content is crappy, but does it help the corporate bottom line in the near or long term? I'd much rather see a company sponsor a local kids event than throw money at a musician who doesn't help sell more product. There are so many potential sponsorships; sponsoring creative projects is only one possibility.
I have seen some bad music/corporate partnerships. (The wrong music used to pitch a product. No logical connection between the two at all.) It just ends up making both the company and the musicians look bad. I think the flaw is that the company decides to sponsor whatever is trendy without thinking it through.
My feeling is that when the paring works well, there's much less likelihood of the artists being accused of selling out. And when I say "works well," I mean at all levels including creatively and philosophically. If a band's music is used by a company that ethically doesn't represent the band, there are complaints. And for that reason I understand protests by bands when they see their music being used in marketing or political campaigns that they don't approve of. Bands should be able to say how their music is used because the implication is that if their music is associated with a company, the band probably approved it or at least allowed it to happen.
On the post: FTC Reminds EPIC That Suing The FTC To Get It To Investigate Google Might Not Be The Best Idea
Re:
But a Koch-purchased candidate doesn't strike me as a better alternative.
On the post: Microsoft Hires Key Anti-Google FTC Lawyer To Be Its New Chief Anti-Google Lobbyist
Watching the war from all sides
It does make me think that big public (or soon to be public) companies behave in certain ways, no matter what the industry. I don't view the big tech companies as looking out for my interests any more than I view Walmart or McDonald's looking out for my interests. When it's all said and done, a lot happens to keep Wall Street happy. You need those quarterly numbers to look good to keep those stock prices high.
I'm hoping that all these battles keep these big companies in check. I don't want any of them to become so big they can't be taken down a bit.
On the post: Google Asking For Trouble With Its New Privacy Policy; EU Official Questions Legality
Re:
Europe has always had stricter laws about data collection than the US. So companies have had to modify their policies to do business in Europe. This isn't really a new thing. But the scope of Google's data collection (the many different ways it can collect data and then put it altogether to create profiles of people) especially puts it on the radar. That's what happens when companies want to work their way into people's lives at every level and then want to monetize that ubiquitousness. That's why I have a huge problem with Facebook's goals and refuse to play along. I won't run all my web activities through Facebook, though the company keeps trying to find ways to encourage people to do that.
I didn't sign up for Google+ because I was unsure of Google's privacy policies for that, and now I am glad I didn't. As data collection becomes more aggressive, I am modifying my web usage.
Between companies wanting to create massive files on you, and hackers continuing to find ways to break into servers, it does make you want to retreat and live as much of your life off-line as possible so it isn't all up for grabs.
Yes, we've lived with cookies for a long time, but when they started, the pitch was, "We've just linked it to your machine, not to you personally." Now, there's no pretense that this data collection is anonymous. Companies want to know every detail of your life: what you buy, where you go, who you know, etc. And the benefits returned aren't always that useful to you. In fact, if anything, it just becomes a way to bombard you with more commercial messages that you'll probably not want. If you aren't buying (either because you are trying to save money or because you want to consume less), then you don't want messages about buying no matter how targeted they are.
On the post: Google Asking For Trouble With Its New Privacy Policy; EU Official Questions Legality
Re: Re:
On the post: Google Asking For Trouble With Its New Privacy Policy; EU Official Questions Legality
Security concerns
And I have been pulling off info from Facebook each time they change what they do with the data. There have been blatant abuses with Facebook and my account, so I don't trust the company in the least. (For example, asking me for my mobile phone number as a security protection and then publishing it in my contact info without my permission.)
What you end up with, when users start to doubt the safety of the system, is that people begin changing how they use it, thereby bringing it all down eventually.
More Facebook users are hiding their friends to protect themselves | Internet privacy - InfoWorld
On the post: 'We, The Web Kids': Manifesto For An Anti-ACTA Generation
Another companion piece?
Advertising and the health of the internet The New Inquiry: "But one might argue that the fact that it seems as though we cant have an internet not fueled by advertising is a sign that the internet is already unhealthy, sick unto death."
On the post: 'We, The Web Kids': Manifesto For An Anti-ACTA Generation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A possible companion piece?
Next >>