I've been thinking about the whole mp3 brouhaha lately (and spending a lot of time with Macster, searching out new music, and doing research at
allmusic -- thanks to
Jeff for the pointer) and it strikes me that the problem the RIAA et al. have isn't with publicly traded music
per se, but with a loss of control over the packaging/distribution. They've been distributing and promoting
albums and
singles, selected for their commercial impact (and for radio airplay) for so long that the prospect of people being able to choose which songs to listen to must frighten them to death. It's not just about loss of revenue (studies have shown that music sales are up since Napster launched, for example) but rather about loss of control.
Maybe this is
obvious to
some folks, but it struck me -- as I was cherry-picking music from various albums based on recommendations from reviews at allmusic -- that the music industry, just like the advertising industry, needs to be able to leverage the awesome statistical power of knowing what people are actually consuming. Take a service like
cddb (now Gracenote), for example, which sells (or otherwise makes available) aggregate statistical data on what CDs you're listening to, based on
a scrubbed dataset resulting from your inserting a CD into your PC (if you're running software that queries the cddb service for song titles). MP3s already contain this data, so there is no need to query anyone's database. The statistics that cddb provides are just part of the picture. I have to wonder whether Napster's endgame is to either sell information regarding what was downloaded to the music industry, or whether they are maneuvering to be purchased
by the music industry or one of its major players. In any case, it's a massive reversal of power for the industry. They're used to being able to promote a no-talent halfwit like Britney Spears, while ignoring entire genres.
I've learned more about the kind of music I like in the past month (thanks to allmusic and amazon and Napster) than I had in the past ten years. I'm taking my first tentative steps towards actually
collecting music based on genre, rather than sticking with tried and true favorites (I always liked fugazi, for instance, but now I'm listening to Rites of Spring, Knapsack, Christie Front Drive, Get Up Kids, Falling Forward, Jimmy Eat World, and the Promise Ring, all of whom play music in the same vein, and most of whom I am finding I really enjoy -- without help from the insane control policies of the old school distribution channels. I don't think I could even buy most of this stuff at Tape World in Bangor. Heh.) It's immensely liberating, and it's helping me get out of the ruts I'd fallen into (there are only so many times you can listen to the same two Toad the Wet Sprocket albums, even if you do really like
Covered In Roses...)
Here's a little something I wrote for
Webdesign-L back in April of 1999, when
Jamie Zawinski resigned from the
Mozilla project. I only call your attention to it because
Dinah recently reposted it to her blog, with my permission, and I think it's worth reposting. Unfortunately,
developer.com has screwed up their archives so badly that the article I wrote for them, discussing Mozilla (where I interviewed Jamie) is nowhere to be found. (sigh) If I can find the original, I'll repost it somewhere.
The post follows:
Oddly enough, I wouldn't have heard of jwz if I hadn't been rooting around
the underbellies of various technologies. I first became aware of him after
reading the XDefaults file for Navigator for X Windows, which remains one
of the best, most thoroughly commented things I've ever seen. And it's only
a set of property values used by Navigator, and to top that, he starts out
by saying that XDefaults files are dangerous and difficult to keep in sync
with the applications to which they are supposed to apply. It's not even
/code/, for heaven's sake :) He took the initiative to make a statement
about the use and applicability of a given form of technology, something
he didn't have to do, and did it well. I have an enormous respect for him
on that basis. Everything I've seen that he's had a hand in reflects this
commitment. It's inspiring, to me, anyway.
Later, I found about:jwz, xkeycaps, and various other excellent hacks that
were his fault. And of course, the fact that he can apparently code, write,
design, and build bookshelves out of Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse
specials, only increases my admiration ;)
I wrote an article on Mozilla.org for developer.com a year ago, and got a
chance to interview him. What I found was that he is obviously deeply
concerned with the standards process, though we disagreed on the nature
of the browser as a tool - he took the tack that standards documented
what worked, and allowed everyone else to implement them the same way.
Straight IETF dogma, but it's what worked for twenty years.
I took the tack that things were moving too fast to rely on post-hoc docs,
and that the W3C was trying to synchronize development /before/ the software
was released, rather than later, because the Web is more than just a word
processor or text editor - the universality of the medium demands it.
He was kind enough to write back and thank me for the chance to address
some of the issues, and noted that it was good to see them presented from
another perspective.
I don't know if it's just the timing, or the context (Netscape gobbled up
by AOL, the InterNIC transformed into a billboard for Network Solutions
- "the dot com company", the MS antitrust trial, and the release of IE5
with an obvious contempt for full standards support) but I'll admit that
it wasn't just the /fact/ that Jamie quit both Netscape and Mozilla.org,
but the fact that he was so conscientious about documenting his reasons,
that struck me with such force. In the midst of mass dissembling, Jamie
took some time to speak his mind.
I've always thought that the key to understanding the US Declaration of
Independence, and the thing that separated it from any other manifesto,
was the up-front statement of the belief that "a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should document the causes which
impel them to the separation". Jamie, in his writings about his resignation,
reflects this ideal, and I respect him for taking the time to document his
dissatisfaction, when, as many have pointed out, he could have just taken
the money and played the hermit.
Now, back to the issue at hand - is this representative of a sea change
in the culture and fundamental workings of the Internet? No, probably not.
It's symptomatic, perhaps, but not a turning point.
But Network Solutions isn't about to document why it took over the InterNIC,
Microsoft isn't going to give us anything that isn't spun through lawyers
or marketing staff, and Postel is dead and will tell no tales. Even Eric
Raymond, who seems to be buckling under the pressures of representing an
anarchy, has left a set of excellent discussion - both theoretical and
pragmatic - of why he is such a strong believer in the Open Source movement.
I think the important lesson here is that we can only expect to hear the
truth, or at least a declaration of "the causes which impel", from committed
individuals. Companies are not in the business of providing philosophy, at
least not unless there is a business plan and sound financials to back it
up. No surprises here, I know.
But when Jamie writes that an organization should be judged on its behavior
/as/ an organization, like AOL with regard to censorship, and even manages
to make a case without attacking the practices of a /single/ company,
placing the behavior into context of the whole, we should listen. He has
the freedom now to speak his mind on issues that affect us all, and he
presents a solid case damning them, without a lot of romantic claptrap.
I dunno - I suppose I'm rambling now, but I wanted to make those points.
It's really easy to say "Microsoft is evil", or "AOL is run by the Bavarian
Illuminati", or "corporations are soulless". I know :-) I've done it on
occasion. It's a lot harder to treat a subject with the distance required
in order to represent it fairly. The former allows us to blow off steam,
essentially a selfish act. The latter, if done properly, is a gift to the
society in which we all live.
It's up to all of us to determine whether we like the new Internet, where
commercial interests control the vast majority of "respectable" information
sources, where advertising and editorial are somewhat loosely defined, but
still hide behind the illusion of objectivity, where the machinations of
the old guard (the W3C, IETF, and similar organizations) are cast aside
by standards-flouting corporations with deep pockets. And whether we, either
as individuals or acting on unified fronts, can do anything to change it.
Even the Melissa virus has been played as yet another argument for why you
should trust the commercial interests and big name news outlets - you never
know, after all, who's being malicious when they provide information on the
Web and Usenet. It frightens me to think that the underlying rationale
boils down to "we're respectable, you know our brand, never mind the ad
banners". And, of course, such a statement also suggests that you can't
trust anybody but the big names.
There was a story on slashdot a week ago discussing a case of rape where
a woman met a man online, and then met in person. The details are graphic,
but the overwhelming message was that police dismissed the case because of
the Internet factor - saying, in essence, that she must have wanted to be
beat up and violated - after all, she led the man on in AOL chat.
We still have a long way to go if we're to fully integrate the Net into
the fabric of everyone's daily lives. I still refuse to distinguish in
conversation whether a given conversation took place in email - I talked
to someone, regardless of the medium. I'm better friends with people I've
never met in "real life" than I am with people I've known for years, and
probably spend more time deepening those online friendships. But if I
can't make my family understand the positive side-effects of this strange
ethereal existence, how can we expect to tame the evils?
Perhaps by trying to speak our truths, we can at least sleep easy at night,
knowing that we've not allowed ourselves to be silenced in a medium which
above all allows the individual the same /chance/ to speak or write. Even
if the large-scale corporate mouthpieces drown out our messages with long
streams of carefully spun nothingspeak, framed by ad banners on a distracting
30-second refresh.
And perhaps we can all find a place where we feel strongly about what we
are doing and don't need to struggle with the issues that finally drove
Jamie to hang it up this time around.
I guess Brewer, Maine had an enlightened bunch of teachers, at least at the high school, because I never said the
pledge of allegiance and nobody ever gave me any static for it. Of course, I never tried to drown it out by singing revolutionary workers' party songs or anything, but hey.
The thing is, it's always embarrassing to see
two wildly ignorant people argue over something they obviously don't know anything about. I'm all for education, as anyone who knows me will attest. But it seems to me that the real problem here isn't with the kid who wants to sit silently, or with the principal who doesn't appear to know anything about the law, but with the idiot teacher who decided to call attention to the kid and create the whole scene in the first place. So, the school is punishing the kid. Stupid. There is nothing worse in the world than a stupid teacher, no more horrifying a potential for the blind abuse of authority. The principal is just trying to keep order, probably bored stiff and overworked. The kid is just trying not to buckle under to mindless conformity; to establish or preserve a sense of herself as an individual. But the teacher -- the teacher has no excuse for being so fucking dumb.