Who Wants to Rule the World?

When we think of major corporations in the digital world, ones that come to mind are Apple and Google. Apple's claim to fame was the iPod, revolutionizing the world of music storage, eventually leading to the Mac computer and iPhone technology. Their empire has been growing in the eyes of the public, seemingly creeping into every aspect of our lives, turning anything we own into a possessive noun (iTV, iCar, iHuman). But Google has been creeping into our lives also, albeit much more subtly.


Think about it: it’s the first place you go when you have a question, or want to browse for pictures, or pretty much do anything on the internet.  It’s a gateway to other websites, therefore allowing and blocking access to anything it sees fit.


Not to say this is a bad thing.  It knows when to block the most malicious of sites, yet still keeps risky sites, simply cautioning us before moving forward.  Google muddies up searches sometimes, but it doesn’t forbid.


Because of this, I would rather have Google take over the world, than Apple.  Apple shoves ‘new’ products down our throats every couple of months, forcing us to spend money to buy a somewhat faster device than the previous one.  Google, on the other hand, invades our privacy by displaying advertisements that pertain to our interests.  People might be alarmed by this, but it’s true and less dangerous in my opinion.  Apple has us in hypnosis, tricking us into wanting whatever they make, regardless of necessity.  Google is upfront, explaining their intentions and giving us some freewill (Privacy Policy).


I can’t deny that Google isn’t reaching into the corners of our daily life either. While only recently they added interfacing to Youtube, Google has had the internet’s video storage in their wings since 2006.  They also are reaching into our hard drives, creating Android technology for phones, and Chrome, an operating system for specialized netbooks.  They’re even developing glasses straight from a science fiction movie.  Nicknamed ‘Project Glass’, the technology would be a way to basically do any features of a phone or computer in virtual reality terms. 


While all this expansion may seem scary, the companies don't hold the power; we do.  These powerhouses have come to where they are today because of our support of them.  In the end, their endless expansion into new territory can be stopped by our simple response of no.  If they breach a sector of our privacy they aren't allowed in, we step in and tell them this won't be stood for.  Apple and Google aren't self-sufficient machines; they rely on outside sources for their resources.  And if the farmers go on strike, and king and his castle will crumble.

He Sees You When You're Sleeping

                One major concern people have nowadays is that of privacy.  With more and more technologies being developed that can track where you are, when you were there, and other personal information, this fear is justified.  In one reading this week, the chapter ‘The Challenge of an Open Society’ from David Brin’s The Transparent Society, the dilemma was posed of which society to choose when both are straight from Orwell’s 1984.  Both of these cities have cameras round every corner, always watching.  In one city, only law enforcement or other government personnel can watch the video tapes, while the other one lets everyone view the cameras.  This difficult decision poses the question, is it better to have some privacy with the ‘safety’ of the government, or live freely but be stalked by the public?

                It’s a difficult choice to make, but I personally would choose the second society.  While it may seem easier to choose the first, and have the safety of knowing the police are watching out for us, they may be watching us doing things we don’t want to get out.  Whether illegal or embarrassing, they’re looking at us more diligently, and thus are more likely to be watching you at any given time.

                In the second society, however, everyone can watch each other.  It is easy to think, “Well, that means that all the stalkers will be watching our habits”, but I’m a bit of an optimist in this situation.  Even if we are being watched by malicious people, I believe that there would be someone benevolent that would also be watching, who could help in times of need.  For every bad person, there are two good people.

                Brin would agree with the second society.  He later argues that accountability is the way that we can strive in such a cautious lifestyle.  If we ask questions, and somewhat distrust government, this gives us a skeptical lens with which to peer into the lives of others.  As he says, “Whenever a conflict arises between privacy and accountability, people demand the former for themselves and the latter for everybody else” (331).  As an individual, privacy is our main goal, and it’s everyone else’s job to make sure we have it.  But it’s a two way street: we need to reciprocate this idea.

                This is precisely the reason why society two could flourish.  Supposing that, to quote Plato, we all minded our own business, living with 24 hour surveillance would be just fine.

                In a way, we’re already living in this society.  Our internet usage and phone call history can be accessed by non-government folks.  Yet no consequence befalls either end of this viewership.  This is simply because of the accountability.  They can watch us, and make sure nothing illegal occurs, but in the end, what is the point in observing an upstanding citizen?  If nothing of note is going on, why waste time watching for a slipup?

Avast, Ye Maties

For this week, let's talk about something serious: pirating.  We hear it all the time, about people getting songs or movies for free off the internet.  And why not?  You could pay ten dollars to see a two hour film at the movie theatre, or fifteen for the latest album of your favorite band, but it’s so much easier to just go online and find it for free.  While in my heart, I abhor this behavior, sometimes I’ll just go to Youtube and find a song that I can’t be bothered with finding in a store.  It’s infinitely replayable, and I don’t have to waste hard drive space on it.  But this is where the buck stops for me.

            Some people take it further, having a whole library of songs, into the thousands, of files found on torrent sites.  As a fan of music, I want to support my favorite artists by buying their albums.  When you bypass the marketing aspect of media, you’re hindering the musicians, producers, composers, and anyone else involved, possibly making it so they don’t make any more albums.  No one wins.

            But piracy can also be seen on the creative side, not just the consuming side.  This is the world of taking sound bites and using them in a new song, of taking characters from one show and putting them in another; in essence, remix.  By definition, it is taking pre-existing material and using it for something new.  While some consider it creative, others consider it piracy.  Take for example, Nelly’s ‘Just A Dream’, and a cover of it by Youtubers Sam Tsui and Christina Grimmie, which is shown below.


The original version of the video, while hosted by Vevo and thus doubly sponsored, has twice as many views as the cover.  Still, the cover version has 50+ million views, meaning we can safely assume that it’s been seen by legal companies.  This is piracy, and yet it’s alright by legal standards.

            As how it should be.  Most problems nowadays are focused so much more on the money, and about ‘this is mine, pay me’.  What should be the focus is on the art, about seeing that both are valid in their own way, and we can recognize that Nelly is the original creator of the song.  So long as that’s agreed upon, there shouldn’t be any troubles.  But in a society where money comes first, we start to stifle creative input, and shut down potentially groundbreaking art.

            Another example of this comes from a few years back, when some original content was being put on Youtube, and George Lucas wasn’t very happy about it.  This is to be expected.  Putting out media that you should be paying for shouldn’t be seen for free.  The interesting thing to note is that he is alright with parody material on Youtube.  It’s basically free advertisement, so why demand for that being taken down?  It’s piracy, taking intellectual property and creating something new with it, and yet major corporations allow for it.

            This is an ideal system.  So long as everyone gets the credit they deserve, everything is alright.  If we just ousted with the desires for money and glory, and focused on the entertainment value, we could turn to more pressing problems, instead of trying to shut down 3^rd party media sites.

            In all, piracy is bad.  We’re taught all through our educational life that plagiarism is wrong, and that’s just what it is.  But so long as you acknowledge that, yes, I didn’t make this song, but I did a karaoke version of it, then that’s fine.  It’s our creative outlet.  We all want to leave our mark on the world, but we have to remember the people who helped us get there.