Alex Iskold wrote a very interesting article called “the danger of free“. He arguments, that the openness of the online society may have much worse results than we think or expect. He bases his thoughts on 4 reasons:

1. Free doesn’t make sense.

In the brave new world, subscription fees are gone and the salespeople are replaced by CPM advertising engines. The problem is, things are just not that simple. When the economy is bad (think 2008), then advertising is the first to be cut….The traditional subscriber base, which helps companies navigate through the economic downturns, is just not there, because it is no longer cool to charge people for the service.

I agree, that a good subscriber’s base could help a company get out of a bad situation. Being free doesn’t necessarily change that.

Openness hasn’t enabled only free services or products, it has also developed an increasing social sense of the public. Donations are not an alien practice anymore. Many bloggers have this cute ‘buy me a coffee’ button and wikipedia receives great amounts through donations.
If a company isn’t getting well, due to an economical recession, I trust its subscribers would donate to keep it working.

2. When free is dirty

While it is not clear that a lot of businesses in an economy can be supported only by advertising, we already know that free can be a powerful weapon in the hands of big companies.

Alex uses the example of IBM, which provided free services and opened the doors to sell the most expensive products and in the end created a monopoly, which led to a lack of innovation in software tools.
I don’t understand how a free tool can improve sales of another product, if these products are not combined or embedded. The Internet Explorer story is an example, yes. Microsoft embedded the online experience with its software. The IBM isn’t. As Brent posted in the comments (22nd comment):

…how can any IDE, open source or not, improve sales of commodity blade servers? It can’t.

I also don’t find it wrong, when an open source tool is so good, that there is no necessity for development. I’m not an expert, but isn’t the apache server doing this in the market too?

3. From free to an empire

In its endless quest to organize the world’s information, Google is also looking to kill off its archrival Microsoft. Just like Microsoft is going after search, Google is after one of Microsoft’s juiciest markets – Office.

A little competition never hurt anyone (almost anyone) and especially not the market and the consumers.

The point is that Google can afford to give away everything for free because of its success with search. This is being done openly now and it is just plain wrong. It is a dangerous poker game, where Google can raise stakes because it has a huge pile of cash.

And Microsoft can’t afford to give away?

4. Generation free

We are raising a generation of kids who do not want to pay monthly subscriptions for anything. Give me stuff for free and stick some advertising on it.

There I agree. It seems immoral or sold-out, to accept free stuff and accept being the ‘lab rat’ of marketing.
But I see a great difference between free products and free software. This is another field of discussion. We can’t compare hard working people buying material goods and web surfers using software. I find Friedrich Kittler’s text “There is no software” an interesting insight on the subject. (I actually suggest taking a look to more of his texts)

Conclusion

I suppose Alex’s post had on purpose a controversial structure. When the largest part of the online community advocates for openness, Alex’s post came as a big debate.

• I’m also one of the advocates of openness (not only in software). Probably, because I trust people will give something in return – and I don’t mean money. I also believe in balance. Do something good and it will come back to you. I believe in the wisdom of the crowd.
• The web has enabled the development of countless niches. Chris Anderson’s Long Tail explains perfectly, that each niche regardless how far in the tail it stands, receives attention. Openness has enabled users to develop more interests and to discover new possibilities.

But that’s where Alex’s thoughts are mostly intriguing. Is openness always used for a good cause?

Cisco has started developing software, that will allow big media companies develop their social -niche- networks. According to c|net news

The new software called Eos, which stands for entertainment operating system, will allow media and content companies to build online communities for niche groups. Specifically, the software will help these companies monitor the community’s interaction with each other and the content itself.

Eventually, it could even offer content recommendations from other parts of the Web site to community users. And it could help target community members with online advertising. In short, it offers content providers and media companies new ways to monetize content in a more efficient way.

I understand that the big, mass media want a piece of the pie called social networking, web 2.0 or call it whatever you want. So maybe they will buy such a software (paying a monthly fee), but how long could such a thing last?

I mean with all these social networks online, with this huge, vast variety (and with the recent data portability expansion of important online hubs), please name me a logical reason to join a social network, whose sole purpose is to “…monitor the community’s interaction with each other and the content itself”.

From January 20, restrictions will be issued in online chatrooms, websites and mobile phones to protect children from viewing unsuitable material.

The Austalian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will be able to force content providers to take down offensive material and issue notices for live content to be stopped and links to the content deleted.

(according to HeraldSun’s article).

Adults will not be affected by this law as explained by the chairman of ACMA, Chris Chapman.

“In developing these new content rules, ACMA was guided by its disposition to allow adults to continue to read, hear and see what they want, while protecting children from exposure to inappropriate content, regardless of the delivery mechanism.”

News, current affairs and personal communications will also be excluded by the new law.

The debate

Meanwhile a debate has risen in the slashdot community, in digg as long as in the controlcongress community. Should the government regulate the content children should have access to, or is it solely the responsibility of the parents to control what their children are allowed to see? As slashdot user, thegnu noted:

I would probably actually prefer my kids running rampant on an unprotected internet than living in Disney/Fisher-Price world. Kids are stupid enough as it is today. They need real experience, and while the Internet barely qualifies as “real,” it’s more real than a fake Disney Internet. As fucked up as I am from all the porn I’ve seen, I think I’m pretty OK. Especially when I compare myself to kids who grew up sheltered. And I’m probably more fucked up from all the things real live humans did to me. So let’s just leave the Internet alone, no?

That being said, as long as filtering along a top-level domain were voluntary to the parents, then I’m fine with it.
A discussion of similar gravity has started in Releaselog. Will the government regulations end in children protection? Is it impossible to witness a new law proposal ‘protecting’ adults too?

My Conclusion

I can’t see how regulating content can protect children - and to be honest I agree with thegnu’s view.

• Such law implies that children may become ‘corrupted’ by improper material. I find it a bit naive. Like blaiming heavy metal music or video games for the columbine tragedy (or any similar tragedy); its a solution, which does not identify the deeper problems.
• We underestimate childrens creativity. If they want to smoke they will find a way - and if the want to see porn, then they will see porn.
• Sugar coated reality, with teletubbies, disneyland and yellow/pink clouds of fluffy marshmellows? And enforced by the law? I totally agree with Thegnu.
• It reminds me of a Bill Hicks gig, you should check it out. He makes an interesting point.

I know its not as bad as it sounds, since (as noted by n4sa in the releaseLog) “…the focus will be on domestic content providers (.com.au) only and what they are allowed to display. Its not like they are filtering content thru the ISP’s.” And apart from that, the web is worldwide (duh) and Australia is just one country.

The question is: will it get worse?
Update: Traditional ‘hubs’ of the blogosphere have raised their voice against Australia’s movement.

• Scobleizer would rather raise his kids with freedom of speach rather than “…some government deciding what they can and can’t see”
• A news cast in Techcrucnch, proved (unfortunately) my worries that the Australian censorship will get worse.

The Australian Government has announced that they will be joining China as one of the few countries globally that broadly censor the internet.

As recently as the week prior to the election, Labor Party candidates were telling those concerned about the proposed law that the censorship wouldn’t be compulsory, and that the “clean feed” would be opt-in, not opt-out. Today’s announcement by Telecommunications Minister Stephen Conroy states that the censorship regime will be mandatory, although people will be able to opt-out of it. The problem of course then becomes if you opt-out questions will be asked as to why you want out, which in itself may lead to Government monitoring.

See also Mashable’s Australia to censor part of the internet for additional information.

Let’s see how our online rights will evolve.

From January 20, restrictions will be issued in online chatrooms, websites and mobile phones to protect children from viewing unsuitable material. The Austalian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will be able to force content providers to take down offensive material and issue notices for live content to be stopped and links to the content deleted. (according to HeraldSun’s article).

Adults will not be affected by this law as explained by the chairman of ACMA, Chris Chapman.

“In developing these new content rules, ACMA was guided by its disposition to allow adults to continue to read, hear and see what they want, while protecting children from exposure to inappropriate content, regardless of the delivery mechanism.”

News, current affairs and personal communications will also be excluded by the new law.

The debate

Meanwhile a debate has risen in the slashdot community, in digg as long as in the controlcongress community. Should the government regulate the content children should have access to, or is it solely the responsibility of the parents to control what their children are allowed to see? As slashdot user, thegnu noted:

I would probably actually prefer my kids running rampant on an unprotected internet than living in Disney/Fisher-Price world. Kids are stupid enough as it is today. They need real experience, and while the Internet barely qualifies as “real,” it’s more real than a fake Disney Internet. As fucked up as I am from all the porn I’ve seen, I think I’m pretty OK. Especially when I compare myself to kids who grew up sheltered. And I’m probably more fucked up from all the things real live humans did to me. So let’s just leave the Internet alone, no?

That being said, as long as filtering along a top-level domain were voluntary to the parents, then I’m fine with it.
A discussion of similar gravity has started in Releaselog. Will the government regulations end in children protection? Is it impossible to witness a new law proposal ‘protecting’ adults too?

My Conclusion

I can’t see how regulating content can protect children - and to be honest I agree with thegnu’s view.

• Such law implies that children may become ‘corrupted’ by improper material. I find it a bit naive. Like blaiming heavy metal music or video games for the columbine tragedy (or any similar tragedy); its a solution, which does not identify the deeper problems.
• We underestimate childrens creativity. If they want to smoke they will find a way - and if the want to see porn, then they will see porn.
• Sugar coated reality, with teletubbies, disneyland and yellow/pink clouds of fluffy marshmellows? And enforced by the law? I totally agree with Thegnu.
• It reminds me of a Bill Hicks gig, you should check it out. He makes an interesting point.

I know its not as bad as it sounds, since (as noted by n4sa in the releaseLog) “…the focus will be on domestic content providers (.com.au) only and what they are allowed to display. Its not like they are filtering content thru the ISP’s.” And apart from that, the web is worldwide (duh) and Australia is just one country.

The question is: will it get worse?
Update: Traditional ‘hubs’ of the blogosphee have raised their voice against Australia’s movement.

• Scobleizer would rather raise his kids with freedom of speach rather than “…some government deciding what they can and can’t see”
• A news cast in Techcrucnch, proved (unfortunately) my worries that the Australian censorship will get worse.

The Australian Government has announced that they will be joining China as one of the few countries globally that broadly censor the internet.

As recently as the week prior to the election, Labor Party candidates were telling those concerned about the proposed law that the censorship wouldn’t be compulsory, and that the “clean feed” would be opt-in, not opt-out. Today’s announcement by Telecommunications Minister Stephen Conroy states that the censorship regime will be mandatory, although people will be able to opt-out of it. The problem of course then becomes if you opt-out questions will be asked as to why you want out, which in itself may lead to Government monitoring.

Let’s see how are online rights evolve.

Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather….

…Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here….

…In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States, you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at the frontiers of Cyberspace. These may keep out the contagion for a small time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in bit-bearing media…

…We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.

John Perry Barlow, A declaration of the independence of cyberspace February 8, 1996

Yesterday a barrage of news, shattered Barlow’s vision of cyberspace. Legal concepts of copyright, governments and collosal companies made clear their presence in cyberspace.

First, in peer-to-peer networks. TorrentSpy was found guilty for facilitating the online exchange of films, music and TV programs without permission.

Then in the blogosphere. Apple succeeded in shutting down the ThinkSecret blog, for exposing unreleased information.

And finally in search engines. China found Yahoo! guilty of copyright infringement.

Are we slowly witnessing a fate that was feared and expressed by Lawrence Lessig (for example in: The furure of ideas and in Free Culture), Andrew Shapiro (in The control revolution ) and others?

Peer-to-Peer Networks

TorrentSpy - according to the verdict of a California judge - has violated copyrights owned by the MPAA.

TorrentSpy was also found guilty of destroying evidence (for example deleting logs of user IP adresses). A very noble act - if i may add - protecting the privacy of its users. After this behavior, it seems TorrentSpy will have difficulties participating in the file sharing community.

As Matt Jensen noted, “…this case sets a precedent for future cases, potentially making user information more transparent”.

Prominent figures (Chris Anderson, author of the Long Trail) have argued that p2p networks and file sharing are an ideal way of low-cost marketing and that the reason of the decrease in blockbuster sales is not just unauthorized file sharing. But Hollywood prefers to be short-sighted and to disregard the fact that the public is now more demanding.

The Blogosphere

A debate of similar context but in a different community rose, when Apple succeeded in shutting down the ThinkSecret blog. It seems to me that this subject has received much more attention (not that it shouldn’t). Legal discussions have taken place in Wired, ethical ones in gizmodo and the role of context in similar cases has also been accounted. Even possible settlement scenarios and polls are publicized.

I understand that this was a David against Goliath fight, and logically it received more attention. But the wider context still remains; putting the web under control.

Search engines

And the final strike: Yahoo was found guilty of mass copyright infringement by a Chinese court, while Baidu (who were also sued) got away with it. Nat Torkington suspects Baidu got off the hook because “…it is viewed as a local (chinese) product” and China supports its local companies. I agree, that this is a potential scenario.

Conclusion

I believe it all comes down to this: The cyberspace is increasingly gaining in popularity and everybody wants a piece of the pie; and control is the way to get that piece.

Update: Meanwhile, the Japanese file-sharing population explodes