The No-Name Blog

Media has given rise to several positives in society with plenty of evidence to prove it. A person in North America can set up a podcast for someone to view in Asia. People can voice their opinion on heated issues via blogs, web sites, and discussion boards for anyone in the world to see. Artists can remix songs to turn something of the past into something unique and fresh. These examples of globalization and artistic creativity have something in common: people have the freedom to make them come to life. With this in mind, it is horrifying to know that internet providers want to limit these freedoms by filtering what sites people visit, and it seems asinine that something as seemingly innocent as adding a Top 40 song in a student project is illegal. Our freedom needs to be preserved, and the movement should start with keeping the internet censor-free and, as Larry Lessig mentioned in his TED talk, the law needs some common sense when it comes to copyright (no happy birthday in public? Really?).

This is not to say we should have complete anarchy and that we should let society run amok. There are some laws against serious crimes that are necessary because they are morally just, like murder and burglary. Also, sometimes filtering is necessary — whether it’s a bartender refusing to serve a belligerent drunk or a childrens television station refusing to advertise adult dating hotlines. However, if an act does not harm someone, there should not be laws against the act itself. There will be four situations discussed to counter the claim that freedom should continue: DJ Danger Mouse, hacking, internet censorship in China (and other places), and data collection for advertising. Even with the counter-arguments, freedom should overall be protected.

DJ Danger Mouse

Danger Mouse’s “99 Problems” remix has the vocals of Jay-Z mixed with the instrumentals of Beatles’ songs “Helter Skelter” and “Wild Honey Pie”.

In 2004, a professor brought up the mash-up artist named DJ Danger Mouse, who created “The Grey Album”. This album is a combination of The Beatles’ “White Album” and Jay-Z’s acapella version of “The Black Album”. The YouTube clip above is an example of one of his productions on the album, titled “99 Problems”. The hybrid of the songs resulted in something thought-provoking, and ironically, unique. As unique as this was, Danger Mouse faced trouble because the music was copyrighted. EMI, the company who holds the rights to the Beatles album, took legal action to stop DJ Danger Mouse. However, the album already generated enough buzz that the threats sent by EMI could not squash the album from spreading. This has happened on so many peer-to-peer networks, and while companies were able to contain the likes of Napster and Audio Galaxy, people can still download music for free through sites like LimeWire. Fighting this is as silly as getting every citizen to consent to planes flying over his/her house, as mentioned in Larry Lessig’s talk. While the intention may be good in a sense that they want to preserve the rights of the original artists, companies like EMI should not fight the hype. Instead, they should have seized the moment to market The White Album while it’s white hot again.

Hacking
In Sara Baase’s “Professional Ethics and Responsibilities”, she notes that “hackers argue that breaking into computer systems without authorization is not wrong because they do no harm” and calls it unethical. While I do not commend or promote hacking, harmless hacking should not be a considered a crime. By harmless hacking, I mean hacking just to get into one’s account. If credit card information is taken or private information is exploited to the public, like immodest photos and personal emails, then the situation should be handled as a criminal act. On social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook, there are plenty of people who are deceived by hackers. They gain access to people’s accounts by creating a faux sign-in page to mimic the sign-in page of a site like MySpace (so remember to look at the URL in the bar before proceeding to log-in). From there, they spam people’s walls with phony messages and links that set them up for being hacked. This is analogous to a worm versus a virus, more obnoxious than dangerous, and it legally does not need to be dealt with unless credit card numbers are stolen. Not too long ago, someone got a hold of my Facebook password and made me a fan of American Idol contestant Antonella Barba. No one ever made a claim to the prank. While I felt a tinge of privacy violation, I was more happy that there were no irregular charges in my bank account or signs of identity theft and took no legal action. If anything, it makes one more aware to take stronger precautions like setting up different passwords for different sites.

Internet Censorship in China (and other places)
CNN provides an in-depth, interactive site about web site censoring in China. The introductory pages says that the government blocks sites of “many topics it considers sensitive or controversial and often punishes those who try to get around those bans”. Email is scanned for objectionable words in subject headings and body text, keywords in blogs may cause the blog to be blocked, and IPs’ data can be halted by technology called TCP Zero Window. If you are American and think this censorship seems atrocious, you may want to take action now because the hindering of net neutrality may hit very close to home, according to the Humanity Lobotomy. This censorship has potential to violate about four of the five rights of our freedoms listed in the First Amendment of the Constitution. If large companies stifle the access to certain web sites, it could hurt bloggers, small and medium internet companies, and political groups online. Does this sound constitutional? Didn’t think so.

Data Collection for Advertising
There is a NY Times article about how personal data is collected when one goes online to place advertisements on web sites according to the surfer’s needs. Several of my female friends and I notice the amount of advertisements that we get for the Acai Berry Diet Pills on Facebook, so they must assume that girls in their 20s want a miracle pill to lose weight. Other ads on my page are for apparel sites like BlueFly, for musicians like Deadmau5, and, well, even more shopping sites. This sounds pretty accurate in terms of ad banners I am likely to click, and others probably would notice advertising banners directed towards their preferences, too. This is because internet companies are “taking the trail of crumbs people leave behind as they move around the Internet, and then analyzing them to anticipate people’s next steps”. Some people feel this is a violation of privacy. While data is collected without authority, it is harmless. Also, it is helpful on all ends. Advertisers may generate revenue for your clicks, and you are provided with links that are tailored to your lifestyle. I am happy to see designer Diane Von Furstenberg’s advertisements on the side rather than, say, golf clubs or Star Wars Conventions.

Drawing from these four arguments, while we need to take preserving our rights of freedom and creative expression, we also need not sweat the small stuff. People who fret or fight over data collection, harmless hackers, and using others’ music as a springboard for something innovative are wasting their breath because cases of this will come up time and time again and not with harmful intention. People are afraid to lose control, and as long as it does not result in physical harm or defamation, they should loosen their grip. Fight for net neutrality or more leniency when it comes to using copyrighted material, so long as it does not negatively affect the creator. If a large volume of net users become proactive in these respects, it can result in a more righteous and less manic Web surfing experience for the future.

This entry was posted on Monday, November 10th, 2008 at 7:21 pm and is filed under .edu, Response Paper. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.