The next part of this book tries to address complex issues such as paying for creative bits of information instead of everything being free. The author references a time early in the 80’s, when the skeptics believed that there would be a small minority of people that would write online for others to access and read. How wrong the skeptics were, instead today we have a world of millions of active voices online. We liked the idea mentioned in the book that bits of information should have only one copy and that they should have value tied to the work. It went on to suggest that if people want to use other’s creative ideas they enter into a social contract and pay a reasonable fee. We discussed that personal input would have more value in this structure and we believe that as a result the information out there that does not have value would not get the attention it seems to get today. We wondered if the useless, tasteless information on the web would take a back seat, since a hopefully a small minority of people would be interested in investing in these bits of information.
This topic becomes very tricky. It seems if we structure a digital economy it may require some government intervention. Many are concerned that it would be a violation of freedom and more like socialism in nature. They mentioned other systems that run through the government that we all benefit from such as; currency, military and the court system. Another example listed was the “Do not call” list that seemed to serve a majority with great success. The book questions whether or not it is too late for us to move from “open copying to paid access”. We all agreed that this would have to be a system that had global universal buy in. It’s overwhelming to think of how could we get to this and who would regulate it??
We then discussed the ideas mentioned to help make a universal transition. The first idea mentioned is called “Telegigging”. We thought telegigging was very much like a pay per view type option. You could get high end, real time interactive media for a price. People that are very interested would pay a fee to access the information. We also discussed that prices could vary based on the type and demand of the information.
The next idea was called a songle, which would allow you to retrieve music or a song with a small piece of hardware that would plug into a computer. It mentioned that you might be able to attend a party with your songle necklace that would include the music you purchased that you want to hear. It sounds very much like what an IPOD like device accomplishes today. The difference might be that the songle would be a more universal device and not proprietary.
The last part of the sections we discussed in Chapters 7&8 was the concern that the newest generation can’t seem to dump old ideas for something new and fresh. The book compared Wikipedia to the old concept of an encyclopedia and that Linnux is nothing more than a stable and secure Unix platform. The book suggests the progress since the eighties has been pathetic. We discussed how the book thinks that the Web 2.0 world seems to stifle innovative creation. We all think and believe that the web 2.0 tools have enabled us to go places that we would have never gone in our classrooms. As users of the tools we have benefited (both students and teachers). So, I wonder if the availability and ease of obtaining these tools has put a lid on our creative and innovative ability or simply opened the door to our ability to be more innovative and creative?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Pages 126-150
ReplyDelete--In this section, Lanier recounts the creation of UNIX which indirectly led to the development of Linux and later the expanded free software movement. Lanier emphasizes that while he is not anti-open source software, he thinks that "the politically correct dogma that holds that open source is automatically the best path to creativity and innovation is not borne out by the facts." While Lanier goes on to explain why, we thought he got seriously distracted, yet again, on a rabbit trail about music. We agreed that he eventually got back to the point, but his rantings about music distracted from his point rather than strongly supporting it. We agreed that his overall point seemed to be that most "artists" in the music industry are simply rehashing and mashing up things that have been done previously, just like the world of web 2.0 and open source software are mainly just rehashng old ideas. We didn't all agree with his points about music, but he did open our eyes to be more critical (or at least discerning) as we evaluate products from the world or web 2.0.
We agreed that Lanier has a valid point when he says that cutting edge technologies, like Spore software, the iPhone, and Pixar movies were the result of personal expressions. Even though they involved large groups of collaborators, the collaborators earned salaries (unlike open source workers), and there was a Will Wright, a Steve Jobs or a Brad Bird conceiving the vision, and directing these collaborators.
We agreed with Lanier's point that there are still reasons to publish a book on paper (not just because it is the only way to get decently paid at the moment), but because there is a much greater liklihood that the reader will actually read the whole thing rather than just look at part of a video or a blog, or something else posted on the web.
We were intrigued by Lanier's discussion of ThinkQuest from the early days of the web. Some of us remembered the name, but none of us had spent extensive time using the website. ThinkQuest set up contests that required contestants to learn how to present ideas from a wide variety of subject areas. The major difference in the way ThinkQuest ran compared to Wikipedia is that the contestants had to create new products including simulations and interactive games. In Wikipedia people are "simply transferring material that already exists into a more regularized anonymous form (p. 146)." We wonder as Lanier does, what the Internet would be like now if it had developed along the lines of the ThinkQuest model instead of the wiki model.
Conclusion of Gadget:
ReplyDeleteIn the conclusion of the book, the author mentions that software development doesn't always keep up with the changing/improvements in technology. Often, the software slows down the computer because there are more opportunities for errors. He discusses the need of making software that can recognize patterns and learn from them. It could eliminate locked-in methods like MIDI that have become the standards. With the new opportunities present today, there is good and bad. Good includes great outlets to display imagination , "unbounded hope, innocence, and sweetness". Bad includes bullying, selfishness and non-intentional or intentional display of private information. For him, 'the prospect of an entirely different notion of communication is more thrilling...but a deepening of meaning is the most intense potential kind of adventure available to us."