The Internet has Affected the Meaning of Ownership

Historically, ownership has taken a rather different meaning than most of the Millennial Generation know it to be.  In the past, if someone owned something, they had a physical object that was in their possession.  People were able to strictly control who could have access to something that they owned, but in the modern age, and with the advent of the digital files, things that can be easily and silently copied and then distributed all over the world. In that act the concretely defined concepts of ownership that we have always held to be true have been blurred. For the most part, the internet has a culture that really embraces these foundational aspects of its nature. It deeply understands and loves that when something is posted on the internet, it is inherently going to be shared, copied, viewed and changed by lots of people, often times, people unknown to the original poster. “Owning” something on the internet is rather unlike owning really anything else, as the internet allows that idea, text, or image to be virally distributed to a massive user-base in the blink of an eye.

This classical notion of ownership that has applied to the artifacts of the physical realm is not strictly transferrable to pieces of the digital one. There are key differences in the conditions in which they exist that demonstrate that we must consider them separate and individual from one another.  An object that one can classically owned is a single, unique item that is defined as existing in one 3-Dimensional spot at a time and therefore must always belong to only one entity at any given time unless otherwise stipulated by societal conventions. This is rather obviously because ownership is limited by the number of objects up for grabs. However much I know that it would benefit my neighbor by lending him my shovel, if I did so, I could not use it until he gave it back to me. However, when something is translated into digital information, by its very nature, it can be copied and shared effortlessly, thereby eliminating the most significant contributor to our present notion of ownership. If we are no longer restricted by the number of objects in existence, as creating copies of digital information is impossibly easy, perhaps a new set of rules should be instated that govern the proper ownership of these digital objects. If my neighbor were in need of my digital shovel, it would do good by me to give him a copy of my shovel so that he could use it anytime he needed it. I would have been philosophically working toward a better humanity. By giving my neighbor what he needed, especially when it cost me nothing and would actually enable him to accomplish more now that he would be armed with a shovel.

It appears that the internet embraced these concepts of freely sharing information with others long ago. It cherishes the ability to collaborate and share things instantly with one another (Carter). The internet removes all obstacles from embracing our collective humanity and sharing freely with each other. Now, for free, people can have access to the products of millions of man-hours. If I give away my shovel but yet, I still have my shovel and can dig remarkably ordinary holes with my shovel, then I am in just as  grand a position as I was before I gave it away. The ability to share has allowed for the shift in perspective that humanity has been begging for. There are not really any benefits to sharing your knowledge on the internet but millions of people do it every day. The internet is a pleasant creation that breeds upon our innate desire to be a member of a community.

However, currently, laws don’t seem to be structured exceedingly well to cope with the rapidly changing landscape of sharing information over the internet. Of course crimes can be committed on the web, but current legislation is ambiguous enough that the laws (and punishments) can be used against people who may not have necessarily committed a crime. This was demonstrated most prolifically with the prosecution of Aaron Swartz as it was never definitively decided if a true crime was ever committed. However, the federal government was fully prepared to hand out a nearly life sentence, apparently in an attempt to send a message to other “cybercriminals” (Schwartz). The ambiguity regarding what exactly constitutes a digital crime and what does not needs to be more clearly defined, in addition to updating the numerous antiquated laws that currently restrict online activities. The internet endears collaboration and sharing, but the current iteration of copyright laws make such enterprises awkward at best, and punishable by a prison sentence at worst. The current spirit of the members of the web is to come together as a collective body, and to embrace humanity as the sum total of human effort, rather than the divided interests of the constituent parts. Each individual can make an important contribution to the overall good of mankind. The internet is enabling each and every man to see their role in shaping a grander future. Because aren’t just sharing funny cat pictures anymore, but they are creating ways that people can teach themselves to program or learn a language entirely for free. The internet is the interim next phase of human evolution as it allows the summation of a grand number of efforts for the common good. Some forward thinking companies have been using this motif of the internet to combat crime and build innovative services. This culture is developing quickly on the internet, but the whole of society seems to be shying away from this innovative model of sharing and uncompensated contribution to a goal. People are no longer restricted by their access to money or status in order to learn and to improve the lives of others. Literally anyone can change the world with the right idea.

• How then can we develop any further as a society unless we are able to get past our traditional and wanton views of ownership.
• Also talk about what is being shared and expand why the government does not want it.

Sources

Carter, Zach. "Carmen Ortiz, U.S. Attorney, Under Fire Over Suicide Of Internet Pioneer Aaron Swartz." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 14 Jan. 2013. Web. 10 Sept. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-carmen-ortiz_n_2472146.html>.

Peters, Justin. "Aaron Swartz Wanted to save the World. Why Couldn't He save Himself?" Slate Magazine. The Slate Group, 07 Feb. 2013. Web. 10 Sept. 2013. <http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/02/aaron_swartz_he_wanted_to_save_the_world_why_couldn_t_he_save_himself.html>.

Schwartz, Aaron. "Internet Activist, a Creator of RSS, Is Dead at 26, Apparently a Suicide."Ny times. The New York Times Company, 12 Jan. 2013. Web. 10 Sept. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/technology/aaron-swartz-internet-activist-dies-at-26.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>.

Food for thought, my friends.

 ~V 1.1~