WORD: Content, Value, and Identity, through the Virtual Fracture

Lately, "the man" has been quite active, attempting to gain back its ability to monetize intellectual property. This includes the S O P A regulations, the crackdown on file sharing services, and I'm sure, there are many more examples.

Anyone, who is somewhat acquainted with how things work on the net, would understand that on the global scale, unless Russia would join in the fight, these actions are pretty much pointless. As long as we have a working global information sharing network, monetizing access to information will become ever more difficult to sustain. At best, information can be quarantined, meaning, potentially, information can remain within closed hermetic circles, but that's the end of it. If an individual does not care for the "confidentiality" of the information this individual purchases, nothing can prevent this information from leaking in an unregulated, non-monetized fashion.

Still, this "struggle", when observed from a different perspective, exposes interesting characteristics of our contemporary reality. Our concepts of content, value, and identity, are obsolete, and I believe, it is this idiosyncrasy, which is the root cause, why this struggle exists.

Let me explain what I mean. Let us begin by agreeing on a basic characteristic of the internet. The internet contains, and transfers, data. The internet does not contain, or transfer, physical objects. While surely, many actions we do over the internet, result with physical changes, from us getting to know of a party, to the delivery of goods to our doorstep, still, all these occur outside the net, due to "non-virtual" social codes, and legal regulations. To explain, if I was to promise you, I would deliver you a car you bought on the internet, the internet itself cannot force me to deliver that car to you. Only the "physical" law authorities, or my social circle, or both, can force me to uphold my side of such an agreement. Regarding the issue of a "social circle", while a social circle can be virtual, its effect on us is psychological, meaning, it exists outside the digital boundaries of the net, as an inherent component of our consciousness. Without our social circle affecting our consciousness, in a manner no different than it affected humans from the dawn of human civilization, and without a legal penalty, the internet and all its inhabitants do not have a mandate over our lives.

So basically, when we are discussing anything related to the internet, we are discussing digital content. We are not discussing C P U's, RAM, routers, etc.

Potentially, we could add "access" to the internet, as related to it as well. However, issues of "access" always depend on issues, which the world wide web cannot decide. For example, if our government disconnects us from the internet, the internet cannot "stretch its arms" and reach us. Only physical devices, and "physical action" over our infrastructures can achieve this.

The thing is, our concept of digital content, is obsolete. To explain, we define digital contents, and its value, according to its manifestation in the "physical" world. As consumers, we do not have a pure "internetish" manner for evaluating content. For example, considering the latest actions of "the man", the idea behind these actions, is to preserve the value data had, in "pre-internet" days, meaning, when we could not gain such data, without purchasing a physical object, be it a book, CD, DVD, or a seat at the cinema.

Arguably, we can find individuals purchasing purely "data-composed goods" on platforms such as "second life", "i m v u", "world of warcraft", etc., which in turn, may lead us to think, we are slowly surpassing this obsolete concept. However, if we analyze the "goods" being purchased on these gaming platforms, we can see a repeating pattern. People purchase objects, who's worth is determined through our experience in the physical world. For example, in "second life", people would purchase "furnished digital houses", overlooking the fact, that we learned the value and use of "houses", in the physical world, as the place where we live in, as physical beings. A simulated 3 D avatar, does not require a house, nor does it require real estate. At best, an avatar needs a hard drive, to store the data defining such "virtual real estates". The same applies to weapons, magic, special objects, etc., on "world of warcraft". To explain, the very idea of giving a "price" for objects, is based on their physical scarcity. If everything was abundant, we would have had to pay for nothing. Indeed, some objects are "scarce" on some virtual platforms, but the decision to make them scarce is done in the physical world, and can be altered with software updates, deeming what was once scarce, abundant, and vice versa. Naturally, this happens also in the physical world. For example, this winter's fashion, would cost much more than that of last year's, sold in cheap outlets. However, such "scarcity" is autonomic to the physical world, while scarcity in the virtual world, always originates from the definitions and infrastructures existing and provided by the physical world. In other words, ultimately, value is determined by the physical world, even if not in the straightforward sense, as in a living breathing marketing guy determining the price of virtual objects.

Indeed, we could claim, that ultimately, being physical beings, indirectly, our concept of value must be determined by the physical world. Still, even if this is true, there is an aspect we do not comprehend, and which is the root cause for the struggle on intellectual copyrights, and that is, that the platforms themselves, consist of data.

Let me explain what I mean. As we all know, computer programs are stored in files. They are data, meaning, they are digital content, not so different from any MP3 or A V I file. In fact, when discussing intellectual copyrights, it applies, and is rigorously upheld, with respect to computer programs, in a much more severe manner than for audio and video content. For example, if you are a software house, and you are found using other company's software without license and/or permission, the level of harshness by which you will be punished, is much higher than if one of your employees is found with an illegal copy of Lady Gaga's latest crap, if you will be punished for it at all. In many ways, you punished yourself enough, in your choice of hiring.

Still, while this fact is both obvious, and well-known, somehow, we completely overlook the fact that the tools and services which piracy, file sharing, hacking, viruses, etc., utilize, are all digital content as well. To explain, naturally, if you use a shell or command line interface, these are all available as they are software, meaning, digital content. However, the torrent files, the download links, the software cracks, the hacking scripts, the viruses, these are all digital content as well. For some reason, we choose to overlook this fact.

Indeed, in itself, this observation seems irrelevant. Still, I believe, we can "extract" a relevant, perhaps even crucial, understanding, from this, or more specifically, from the reason why we overlook the fact, these torrents, download links, software cracks, etc., are digital content.

To explain, obviously, we understand these all represent digital content, and many of us spend most of our time on the internet, searching for this content. However, because essentially, this content is illegal, we do not think of it in terms of copyrights, as we automatically assume, that because it is illegal, copyrights do not apply to it. We think we can't "steal" this content, and hence, it lost its monetary value. Still, obviously, this content has value for the individuals downloading it.

So what am I getting at? Well, the problem is that we apply the same method of evaluation on this "illegal software", as we do in the physical world. We think of its value, in terms of how much it would have cost us, had we purchased it. Somehow, we forget, some people spent their time, energy, and ultimately, finance, to provide us with this content. As the saying goes, time is money, and the time spent on getting a hold on, cracking, and uploading digital content for illegal use, costs money.

The individuals downloading this content, do not "pay this money back" to anyone. Indeed, some file sharing services, allow you to purchase premium accounts, where you get a large bandwidth to download the content you want. Still, generally, all this content is available for free as well, and with a generous bandwidth, using torrents.

Indeed, some content becomes pirated, as act of financial warfare between content selling businesses. Still, this kind of piracy can be eradicated, as it has a "head", on which legal authorities can crackdown. However, a large majority of this content is provided without such "warfare" taking place, simply for the "challenge of it". For example, I can recall one case, regarding the music production software "Cubase", in which the people who "cracked" its anti piracy protection, wrote a full blown computer driver to simulate the dongle, used to ensure the user of the software bought a genuine copy. Moreover, as it turned out, its cracked version had better performance, exactly because it made accessing the external dongle hardware, unnecessary.

To summarize, it appears, the individuals who ensure pirated software is available, such as warez groups, have created their own method of evaluating digital content, which is very different from the manner digital content is evaluated by "the man". Their criteria are not, how much does the content cost if you purchase it legally, but rather, how fast can they deliver cracked software, how fast can they deliver a HD version of a new movie, how reliable is the cracked software (in the sense, that it offers full functionality, and does not crash, etc.).

This is the manner by which they evaluate contents, this is what matters to them, and this is their Achilles Heel. To explain, such individuals still measure value according to the physical world, meaning, according to competition with other individuals, all of which are living human beings, with real lives, real egos, and real weaknesses. By doing this all for free, they show they don't really care for money. By doing this all illegally, they show, they don't react to intimidation of punishment. On the contrary, it makes the challenge more compelling.

Therefore, if anyone wishes to fight for intellectual copyrights, the path cannot be through making it harder to crack software, or raising the penalty. The path is through the things, which motivate these individuals. While the first idea that comes to mind, is to provide "bad copies" to these individuals, so their "deliverables" would be "defected", I believe there is an even more effective method. Crash their pride. You know your software is going to be pirated? Great! Launch your own "warez group", and deliver, way before they do. Of course, you can still sue anyone who uses your product illegally, but make sure, no one fills their egos on your account. Don't feed the troll! Actually, there may be other, less self-destructive methods. For example, don't sue the warez group. Humiliate them instead, through their personal lives, and tie it to their "illegal past-time". Still, whatever you choose, don't feed the troll!

Obviously, I don't expect anyone to take this advice seriously (even if it might actually work in your favor). Still, there is a reason why I spent my time writing this, and it is not to give you advice, which you would most probably find "silly". No. The issue of piracy is just one aspect of a greater phenomenon, which I call "the virtual fracture".

To explain, we have a genuine problem on our hands. We all feel it, but we hardly know what to do with it. I am referring to the internet, allowing individuals to completely detach from their physical existence. The internet allows individuals to disconnect their sense of accountability and responsibility, from their existence. It is as if, in the internet, many of us become the assholes we become when driving a car, only in hyper.

While driving a car, we don't see people. We see cars. We get angry at the "virtual entity" driving this car, judging him or her, in manners we would never allow ourselves to, once outside of the car. It is as if by magic, we become hulligans.

The same applies to the net. We don't see people on the net. We see a name, perhaps a profile, but most of the time, we don't see anything other than anonymous content. The internet allows us to be anonymous, yet still have an opinion, which may sting even more, as it has no "physical" association. For example, if you told your musician friend, the song he wrote is not your taste, he can, and may actually, post a comment on your video, that it's the worst garbage he ever seen. Had you knew it's him, at least you would have known that its motivated by unrelated emotion. However, being anonymous, you can only guess, and you can't even bring up the possibility, in fear of offending your "friend" for nothing.

These kinds of occurrences are typical, and in my opinion, they are turning us to savages, on the emotional level. To explain, regarding the issue of piracy, I am really not sure if all the individuals offering MP3 files, would be as keen, had they been able to see the sad look in a musician's eye, seeing he or she hardly sold shit of their latest album, with all the financial consequences. Personally, I don't fit in this category, as I offer most of my works for free, but not all are like me. Really not.

I believe, it is time we take our head out of our asses, and realize, we cannot leave this situation "as is". No, I am not attempting to pass a pro "big brother" message. What I am saying is different.

People on the net, should not "want" to be completely anonymous. While there should not be a link between our physical lives, and our identity on the internet (as that would be oppressing our freedom), we must strive to establish some sort of consistency, regarding our virtual identity. A person must not be allowed to so easily play both sides. It turns us to backstabbing savages. We must unify our masks somehow, and reclaim our decency, by reclaiming our responsibility and accountability, in the virtual world.

I am really not sure how to accomplish this. I DO NOT think this can be done through "enforcement". No. There should be social privileges, which only individuals who care to keep only one virtual identity get, while the rest, do not. There must still be a disconnection between our physical existence, and our virtual existence, but that does not mean we can tolerate the identity anarchy we have today, as it only makes us hateful and distrustful toward one another in the physical world. It makes us hysterical, anxious, alienated, and I believe, this price is not worth it.

In many ways, this will help tone down piracy, much better than any law or lawsuit. People who cannot afford to have one identity, should feel it is a burden, rather than a benefit, as they feel today. There must not be glory, in inflicting damage on others without retribution.

I know this text is controversial. But sooner or later, if we want to remain human, and not hostile hysterical savages, I believe, we must address it.