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~

Community

Not like the typical suburbian dream community of block parties and unspoken lawnmowing competitions, but the community which exists between members of a technological community. The type of community which actively supports sharing of content and one's own creations with others for noncommercial usage.

This type of sharing began in small groups of hobbyists who built computers out of basic components before personal computers or computers with real displays even existed. Much like the group Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak developed their tastes for computer-building in. Wozniak especially would design something really revolutionary or a chip which gave a speed increase, and then just give it away to other members of the group. While Jobs eventually decided to capitalize of Wozniak's designs, when forming Apple Computers only a few short years later. However, that is another story entirely. But the point is, they would share brilliant technology and designs with each other for no charge. These small homebrew led to the distribution of a small OS kernel by the name of Freax (later renamed Linux, after its creator, Linus Torvalds) which is now distributed for free.

This community is something that I cherish. Whenever I have a problem with my computer, I know I can go to a forum and ask a couple questions and within a week, I will have several in-depth answers, and maybe even a link to a tutorial( written by an unpaid member of this forum community) on how to resolve my issue. But with more complex things like building a Hackintosh, or Rooting and flashing custom ROMs to my Android, the entire community is made of people who figured out, or wrote code (eg Tony Mac x86) to actually do these things. But the killer part is, they simply give away all of their brilliant engineering and programming for no charge whatsoever. Their only interest is to make the lives of other people better.

Or in the creation of indie games like ADOM, Dwarf Fortress, or Dig-n-Rig. These games are extremely addicting, feature-rich and people would definitely pay to play them. BUT-and that's a big but-the developers like to develop and just give away their hard work for free. That is America, my friends. That spirt of community is contagious, because it is just so exciting to see everyone enjoy free

//If you have a specific topic you would like to see me post on, comment below\\

version 1.0

permanence

We often think of the internet as a permanent addition to our lives. Sure. I'll agree to that. For the rest of time, humanity will be interconnected via an internet of sorts. But the goods and services provided on this everchanging internet will vary dramatically. We often think of facebook, and twitter, and even google as the titans of the internet. The permanent Apollo, holding up the very fabric of the internet. Facebook and Google account for well over half of all the web traffic in the United States

But...they will not be here forever.

GOING RETRO.

Take for instance geocities, it was "the thing" in the nineties. Anyone and everyone could and did make a page. Either a blog, or about a topic that interested them. People spent countless hours documenting the lives of their children and how their days went. But in the early 21st century ;) yahoo decided to remove all of it. Total, it was less than 2 terabytes. But one day in the summer of 2005, it was deleted. All of those pages were forever lost. Some people were up in arms, some (archive team) decided to download as much as they could, and then put it up on piratebay for all to download. But for most people, nothing changed. The next "the thing" came along and everyone migrated to it, restarting their digital persona on a new service.

RETURNING TO PRESENT DAY.

So with services like Facebook's Timeline, I don't think will really be that relevant. It will last 4 or 5 years more sure, but after that. Will the interest still be there? Will Facebook will have become the next myspace, friendster, yahoo, or lycos? The irrelevant service that rarely anyone uses. I don't see anyone who will really be able to compete with facebook on the horizon atm. Google+ does look promising, but come on. Google has tried social before and that didn't ever really pick up steam. SOO I'm thinking Google+ will never become the next Facebook. Just because social just isn't in the DNA of Google.

GOING TO THE FUTURE.

So what will happen when Timeline isn't relevant any longer? What will become of all of our data that we intrusted into this service? It's almost frightening to think of it, but just remember, someday, this will happen.

//version 1.1\\