What Warrants Right or Wrong?

Let’s go back a few posts to an argument I discussed earlier in the semester. When I was discussing the arguments (on both sides of the ring) over digital piracy. Today I am going to analyze a single argument against illegal downloads that we constantly hear - the same argument that warrants federal protection. Downloading illegally is, essentially, enjoying a product without paying for it. According to Kofi Outlaw, people who illegally download films are “reaping the pleasure of a good movie without ever rewarding those who worked so hard to entertain them.”

Outlaw is arguing illegal downloads are bad because people are not paying for the products. Thus, the claim in this argument is that illegally downloading films is wrong. The grounds for this claim are that the people making it are not rewarded for their efforts because you are not paying. I guess it is safe to say the warrant behind this claim is that society generally feels it is wrong to take something without paying for it. The argument assumes that people value hard work, and it is up to the reader to assess whether this argument rightly appeals to them. Do you think these grounds are build a strong enough warrant to govern the decisions made in digital progress?

Regulating Innovation, A Personal Tale

I remember the first time I heard about LimeWire. I was visiting my family in Austin, TX, and my aunt insisted on showing my mom and I this handy program. My aunt, a digital immigrant, was showing me a program I had never even heard of that performed a task I had never even fathomed. I had no idea this kind of file transfer was illegal. To me, it was the evolving convenience of technology.

This introduction happened several years ago. Since then, LimeWire’s P2P software distribution was shut down in October 2010 after a series of legal battles. According to the September 15, 2011 Music Notes Blog, the finish of LimeWire had a heavy impact on track sales overall. Let’s think about this… I discovered LimeWire back in 2002. My discovery was very likely a later one. How many years was the recording industry experiencing these hits before legal action finally put an end to their losses?

In a world surrounded by the “evolving convenience of technology,” regulation runs at a speed far slower than innovation. How can the government establish long-standing policies to protect the record industry and other industries harvesting intellectual property? Is this even a possibility? With cases like the LimeWire example, it seems that regulators need to expand their focus to prevention. Not only are they behind the curve, they are 8-10 years behind. Maybe these affected industries should invest in researching preventative measures for future obstacles. What suggestions do you have?

“Randi Zuckerburg Runs in the Wrong Direction” on “An Abuse of Power”

In Eva Galperin’s Randi Zuckerburg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online and Danah Boyd’s ”Real Names” Policies are an Abuse of Power, both bloggers criticize Google Plus and Facebook’s “real names” policy and make vivid references to the “nymwars.” Both posts are knocking Zuckerburg (Facebook’s Marketing Director) for recent comments she made regarding the issue. However, while Galperin aims her fire directly at Zuckerburg, Boyd directs her argument more broadly at any party ‘enforcing “real names” policies in online spaces.

Galperin advocates for protection of “freedom of expression”. Boyd advocates against “abuse of power.” In my opinion, these two tasks are essentially the same thing. Both bloggers are arguing on behalf of individuals and free expression. Let me say this again, both bloggers are arguing on behalf of individuals and free expression. This should come as no surprise given their industry and likelihood. However, what I find most interesting is both bloggers use their real names in their blogs. Does this give them a louder voice in the discussion pseudonymity? Could be.

Both bloggers make reference to the online users that pseudonyms can both protect and give voices to. They argue on behalf of the weak and the victimized, a noble pursuit. Still, they attack Facebook and Google+, taking comments and decisions out of context to represent them as the power-hungry big businesses, who couldn't care less about the individual.

For example, Galperin states, “Facebook can and does choose real names over free speech and diversity of users –- that’s where the money is.” Facebook does choose real names. Personally, I don’t believe Facebook chooses it over free speech and diversity of users. In fact, I think Facebook does so for efficiency and to better protect their customers and advertisers. Yes, this is where the money is, but Facebook is a business. We need not forget that they are a private company, not a public service or government entity. Users choose to participate. If they want anonymity, they need to take advantage of the free market options available.

Boyd continues the hate when she says, ‘Real names are by no means universal on Facebook, but it’s the importance of real names is a myth that Facebook likes to shill out. And, for the most part, privileged white Americans use their real name on Facebook. So it “looks” right.’ I really do not want to focus on this statement because my main purpose for pointing it out is its stringently combative nature. Social networking sites are for exactly that, social networking. I understand the use of pseudonyms for protecting oneself but using pseudonyms has very little to do with skin color, particularly on sites where individuals post pictures of themselves, their friends, and their families.

Users should be able to protect themselves from others. Pseudonyms are a good method for doing so. However, Galperin and Boyd argue on behalf of pseudonyms for privacy. People should be able to choose who they expose themselves to, but expose who you truly are or you are wasting the purpose of a social networking site.

“Nymwars” – The battle for anonymity rights

In my past blogs, I discussed how a technological age has opened countless doors to policy controversy and set a stage for a brand new realm of legislation and social norms. I made reference to the high probability of unpredicted issues just waiting to be found. Now, I want to give you a peek into one of these issues.

Nymwars hit center stage in June 2011 with the launch of Google+. I will touch on the specifics of this case in further blogs. However, it is important to note that Google+ enforced their real names policy by suspending accounts that for name-related issues. Thus, the heated discussions over anonymity began.

As I was exploring this issue in detail for my next blog entry, I started thinking about my own opinions regarding this subject matter. I have always used my full name on social networking sites. Is this because I feel like I have nothing to hide? This method works for me, so my first reaction was to defend Google+ and Facebook. If your profile is representing you with pictures and events from your real life, putting your real name seems like just a minor piece to equation compared to the other information you share. Plus, both sites offer extensive privacy options.

Once I finished dwelling in my single narrative mind frame, I took a second to step back. I thought about cases where pseudonyms would be beneficial. One particular example came to mind. A friend of mine from high school plays Division I football for his university. His Facebook profile was listed as his real name in high school, so up until a few days ago, I thought he had deleted his Facebook. Whenever I had gone to search him, nothing came up. After his big game last Saturday, he posted a picture that showed up on my Newsfeed. He had changed his name to a pseudonym.

His reasons for doing so are somewhat self-explanatory. He wants to be able to get on Facebook and share his accomplishments with his friends and family, not the thousands of people who would friend request him otherwise. And when I say thousands, I am not exaggerating. Another friend of mine, who also plays D-I football and did not change his name, has somewhere in the range of 80-100 friend requests every time he logs on. After all, Facebook is most popular among college-age individuals. This friend has to sort through all of his incoming requests to distinguish whom he actually knows. It is certainly a hassle.

It is safe to say there are legitimate arguments on both ends of the spectrum. In the coming weeks, I will dig deeper into these arguments and explore the legislation accompanying these policies.