Over a month ago I posted this concert performance from Jack White, playing The Hardest Button to Button in Las Vegas in 2003. It is, in my opinion, the finest live version of this song available.
As of this morning it had three notes. Now it has 45 and counting. Internet, wut?
I guess this is how viral works. It’s kind of nice.
Because they’re not available as an e-book, and won’t be, for the foreseeable future.
When it comes to content that isn’t legally available digitally my mantra is the same as it is with any other out of print media: if you won’t let me buy it, I won’t feel bad about downloading it for free.
I already own physical copies of all of these books. That means that I am entitled to read them however I please, right? Why shouldn’t I head over to #bookz or demonoid and grab a copy that someone else (with a kind soul) has taken the time to digitize.
Is it theft for me to download a digital copy of a book for which I own a physical copy?
(Is it theft for me to download a copy of a computer game that has been out of print for 25 years? Is it theft for me to download a vinyl rip of an LP or a single that was never released on CD? Should it be?)
Dave Winer wants us to ignore the rapid adoption of apps — primarily driven by the genius generation of smart phones now on the market — because he says they ‘are not the future’. This reminds me of the Chico Marx line, ‘Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own eyes?’
Leaving aside the…
"Apps" are a stopgap solution to a long term problem. "Apps" are as much the future as they are the past. That is to say that apps are applications. Apps are programs. When I get a new desktop I install several kinds of programs (A browser, a media player, a text editor, a word processor, some games, etc.) When I get a new smartphone I do the same thing.
Apps aren’t the future, they are the now. The future has the idea of an application abstracted away into it’s most pure form. The future is computing hardware so ubiquitous that it is unrecognizable. The future is software that no one notices, software that sits in the background and gets things done without getting in our way.
If the “app” infrastructure can do that, then I’ll eat my damn hat. So long as consumers ha e to think about software, software isn’t working.
Have you ever read posts here and wondered, “how can we make things that fit into the future of the internet now?”
Today’s post is for this.
1. The internet as a platform for improved education — The internet has incredible capacity to redefine and modernize the education system at a lower cost…
The internet has a huge potential as a platform for education improvements. I’ve managed to further my education, gotten more out of my classes, and actually learned how to work, not just how to pass classes.
I would love to see someone (that isn’t me) take this concept and run away with it. Democratize education. Be disruptive.
This is interesting. Now they just have to figure out how to make the act of torrenting safer.
I don’t share nearly as much as I used to. Mostly this is because it’s about to become really easy to get caught (and disconnected from the internet) and that is a risk I can’t take.
So props for getting creative. Props for keeping TPB online. Now find a way to keep us safe while we use it. Be truly revolutionary, instead of merely iterative.
And when you say “SOPA is a good idea” what I hear is “I don’t care enough about my job to educate myself about the decisions that I’m making” or, if you are indeed sinister and not just incompetent “I don’t care enough about people to stop doing what the media lobbyist demand.” or, if you’re vulgar “Fuck you, internets.”
The kinds of people who read someone else’s opinion on a social media site and use it to supplant their own opinion are the same kinds of people who do that in real life.
Social media makes it easy for the masses to have conversations. It makes it easy for people who *already* agree with one another to get together. Opinions aren’t going to—or rather—are rarely going to be changed, in general.
Herd mentality has always existed and will continue to exist. Social media allows people to discover that not everyone is a member of the same heard.
The sword cuts in both directions: New ideas are relatively few and far between. When a new, disruptive, idea rears it’s tiny little head it build a following. Social media can speed that up. Disruptive chains of thought (the seeds of revolution?) used to take years to spread. Now they can be spread in days.
So yes, social media makes it easier for people to allow others to form opinions for them. Social media makes it easier for influential people to control the thoughts of a large group of the populous. You know what else does that? Traditional media. I think that social media also teaches us to question what we’re being told, and gives us the opportunity to find a voice that each of us agrees with individually.
What harm can come from groups of people standing together behind the ideals that they hold dear? Well, lots probably. But isn’t it more harmful to sit silently and alone as ideas that you disagree with are espoused by the majority?