Copyrights and Music

Back in 1999, I downloaded Winamp, a digital media player that specialized in MP3 files, for the first time.  Though there was nothing illegal about Winamp itself, MP3 files were often directly associated with music piracy and illegal file-sharing.  I worried that if my parents saw that I had downloaded Winamp, they would immediately assume I was illegally downloading music files for free.

And let's be honest; I was.

There's no question that what I did was, at least on some small scale, illegal.  By every existing legal standard, I was making copies of copyrighted works to which I had not purchased the rights. But somehow, it didn't feel wrong to me.  At the time I was 15 years old.  I had never purchased a CD in my life, and my music consumption was minimal.  I couldn't tell you who my favorite bands were; I could barely list any bands.  The music I played on Winamp was my first real introduction into modern popular music, and if I hadn't heard it there, I didn't have the resources to get it anywhere else.  There was a hole in the market that wasn't being filled.

Today, music vendors are starting to address that market niche.  Children under the age of 15, who make up an increasing portion of comptuer and internet users, are finally able to purchase music for their own personal consumption.  It's still a pain, though; anone who has ever tried to use MusicMatch Jukebox to transfer music to a portable music player can attest that the industry as a whole has a long way to go.

And that's the point I'm trying to hit.  Computer usage is becoming increasingly common among non-technical users.  My 12-year-old sister and my 80-year-old grandfather both use computers on a regular basis, and the internet is empowering them to interact directly with music providers.  If the music industry wants to remain relevant in today's economy, it needs to figure out how to interact with these users.  My sister knows nothing about copyright law, and my grandfather doesn't know a thing about MP3 files, but if the music industry can make it easy to legally obtain music then these non-technical users will do it.  People generally take the path of least resistance; if we want people to obey out-of-date copyright laws, we need to make it easy for them to do so.

If that can't happen, then the law needs to change.

Two poems on Computers and Society

Computers talking

The world is getting smaller

Where do I fit in?

The world is filled with computers
That play games from puzzles to shooters,
They'll take over your life,
You won't find you a wife
And you'll end up an unmarried tutor.

Internet Safety

When I was in middle school, my parents decided it was important to put a limit on the amount of time I spent on the computer, as I often spent three or four hours a day.  At the time I thought they didn't understand—it wasn't three hours of one activity; I played games, did homework, talked with friends, and followed my favorite websites online.  These were all distinct activities that all happened to involve a computer.  Such was my argument, anyway.  But as the world becomes more and more interconnected, I see this argument cropping up in other places.  These days, it seems you can do everything from buying groceries to babysitting the children over the internet.  It's important, though, to recognize that we were not intended to live our lives around a computer; computers exist to serve us, not for us to serve them.

The Flat World

I've recently been reading Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat, in which he describes the rising impact of globalization on our modern world and the forces which led to this rise. From the fall of the Berlin Wall to modern wireless communication technology, Friedman describes how the world is quickly becoming a place in which participation is based not on your location but rather your desire.

This flattening of the world means that more people are playing in the same field. If I want to get the top programming jobs, I don't just need to be the best at BYU or the best in Utah; I'm competing against Romanians, Indians, Russians, and Africans as well. As the world becomes flatter and smaller, location matters less and less. Telecommuting is becoming increasingly feasible in technical fields, so I can't just rely on my proximity to major companies any longer.

Competition isn't the only result of the flattening world, though.  International collaboration has the odd twist that there is no supreme governing body.  The United Nations, NAFTA, and other such organizations may have some say in the trade relations of various nations, but there is no Supreme Court Justice or universal code of laws to which all nations have agreed.  Many nations with which we collaborate may still have gross human rights violations.  Taxation issues aren't as clear-cut, labor compensation laws will vary—overall, these increase of globalization increases the complexity involved in doing business.

There are moral issues as well.  If Mexican or Chinese laborers will build your Go-Kart for 15% the cost of building it in the United States, should a businessman be required to take into account the working conditions of those laborers?  Regardless of the legality of such things, I feel that ethically, it's a concern.  The globalization of the economy forces us to confront issues we might never have faced before.

Technology is a good thing; it helps us be more efficient, more productive, more healthy, more focused, and more able.  There's no question about these things.  But we need to be aware of the consequences before we dash headlong in to the future.  We need to pay attention to our surroundings.  We need to be sure that technology doesn't turn us into slaves to the economy.  We need to be sure to keep our eyes up, carefully watching the coming changes.  We need to be sure that as the world goes flat, we don't get caught underneath.

The Silent Uprising

There has been a lot of talk lately about the recent Mark Zuckerberg (of Facebook fame) interview at the SXSW conference.  Audience members, who felt that Sarah Lacy handled the interview poorly, began to call out for an open Q&A session.  Tired of Lacy's interviewing style, the audience protested and ultimately got its way.  The interesting part of the story, though, isn't the audience reaction—it's the technology that led up to it.  At last year's SXSW conference, a social coordination tool called Twitter was introduced.

Traditional etiquette dictates that audience members remain relatively quiet while attending an event out of respect for the presenters.  In the pre-Web-2.0 world, this meant that apart from a quick note to your neighbor, nobody shared ideas until after the event had ended.  The new web has changed that, though; the Zuckerberg uprising was build of the collective feedback of the audience through Twitter.  A few discontented listeners in the back row began complaining online, other responded, and before long the crowd had coordinated a protest without speaking a word.

There's no question that user-generated content is changing our world.  Now we just wait to see how.

Voicemail for the homeless

Yesterday in San Francisco, Google announced a program to provide free voicemail for every homeless person in the city.  In recent years there has been a lot of talk about the "Digital Divide," that invisible chasm between those who have access to technology and those who do not.  In today's society, these digital "have-nots" struggle to find jobs and improve their situation.  It is difficult for employers to contact them, and even when they can be reached, they often don't have the skills necessary for many jobs.  Efforts such as the OLPC have attempted to bridge this divide, but these efforts are largely focused on third-world countries.   I applaud Google's push to help those at home, those hidden among our own.

The Cuckoo's Egg

A few months before beginning this semester, I read a news article about a hacker who had recently been sentenced to a prison term. I don't remember all the details of the story, but I specifically remember that the hacker said he first became interested in hacking after reading The Cuckoo's Egg. I decided then and there that The Cuckoo's Egg was a book I should never read.

Ever since we first got internet access at home, I've found myself intrigued by the idea of hacking. I've been fascinated with the idea that, with the right piece of knowledge, a person can gain access to increased stores of hidden information. The allure of “secret” information available only to those smart enough to find it was great. I've never been one to intentionally seek out illegal activities, but I can't deny a strong innate sense of curiosity. It didn't take me long to realize, though, that if I learned to hack, I'd quickly end up in more trouble than I wanted to face.

This semester, I was assigned to read The Cuckoo's Egg for a Computer Science class. I was actually excited to read it; I hadn't stayed away earlier because of dislike for the book, just fear of what it would do to me. In some sense, I was right to avoid the book—I finished reading with a slight desire to find out just what I could do.

More than a desire to break into a server, though, I came away from The Cuckoo's Egg fascinated with Cliff Stoll's notion of the network as a trusted resource. Stoll asserts that a network is only useful if the network (along with its stored information) can be trusted by its users. I've certainly been familiar with the idea of network security in the context of a wireless network, but it had never occurred to me that the network itself might be considered worthless if not properly secured.

The value of the network becomes even more apparent in light of the recent network outages which took place in the Middle East. Our modern society heavily depends on interconnectedness and information sharing. We've had no major September 11-esque attacks on our networks, and I fear that many are left with a false sense of security. The Cuckoo's Egg demonstrated just how apathetic many people are toward security, and I don't believe the situation has greatly improved in the intervening years. Most people are still security-ignorant, and I only hope that security education catches up before such a catastrophic attack takes place. Otherwise, it won't be pretty.