What Is Internet Use?

What is Internet use? The answer: It depends and it might matter. Pew has some ongoing work about the demographics of Internet use. The classic term is digital divide. A few things pop out here. Is Internet synonymous with the Web? With broadband? Are things shifting such that whether one is on a computer or phone matters? Think HTML 5 here and the dream of program once for a range of devices. According to Pew:

African Americans have long been less likely than whites to use the internet and to have high speed broadband access at home, and that continues to be the case. Today, African Americans trail whites by seven percentage points when it comes to overall internet use (87% of whites and 80% of blacks are internet users), and by twelve percentage points when it comes to home broadband adoption (74% of whites and 62% of blacks have some sort of broadband connection at home). At the same time, blacks and whites are on more equal footing when it comes to other types of access, especially on mobile platforms.

Pew draws a distinction between Internet and cell use. That may not be wise, although it may capture some differences. More and more folks hop onto a phone or tablet (or excuse me while I gag on the word “phablet”) to access the Internet. Cellular companies are shifting to data plans more than calling and texts. Why? Folks are using mobile devices to get on the Internet.

Of course it matters that any group is not accessing, or is not able to access, information. HTML 5 seems to be doing well, but a developer I met said that native (as in designed for a particular device) still matters for high quality interaction and offerings (such as apps for a service). Perhaps the most heartening finding was “Overall, 72% of all African Americans—and 98% of those between the ages of 18 and 29—have either a broadband connection or a smartphone.” But there is a hidden cost.

As Paul DiMaggio noted some time back TV was expensive in that one might pay it off over a few years, but it kept delivering well after that cost. The upside to cable, the Internet, and more is less centralized control. The downside is continual payment to access information. Even if one uses only a smartphone for information, the annual cost is hundreds of dollars. Throw in cable and the cost goes up.

Although some heads will explode, I must ask whether a public data system would be the sort of infrastructure that unleashes all sorts of good outcomes. Yet as I write these words, I know that the upkeep of networks, bandwidth problems, and other issues plague such a dream. Then again, the slowness of current networks and the numbers of people unable to be online suggest the market is not doing as well as it could.

Public Domain? We ain’t got no Public Domain. We don’t need no Public Domain! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ Public Domain!

With apologies to B. Traven and John Huston, I note that Duke’s Center for the Public Domain has a nice post about what might have been in the public domain. In my paper The Life and Death of Copyright, I go over how a few authors rallied with American interests to extend copyright term. I also show that no matter which of the main theories one looks to for IP, none supports copyright after death. None.

In other words, folks who usually disagree about all sorts of nuances in copyright, (It’s labor! It’s the personhood! It’s utilitarian!) converge on, or at least have no good support for copyright after death. Paul Heald’s work shows that the dreaded under-production myth is just that, a myth. Aram Sinnreich’s The Piracy Crusade just came out and gets into the problems with locking up work. I’ve just started it, but his run through history, sociology, and more looks to be a great addition to the literature in this space.

So it’s a new year. Old fights are with us. New ones will come. The sun also rises. Time for naked lunch.

(Note: Burroughs claimed the phrase, Naked Lunch, meant a “frozen moment when everyone sees what is on the end of every fork.” or the truth albeit ugly).

Score One for the Commons (or maybe not)

I was just listening to Dave Levine’s interview of Mike Madison, which touched on his work with Strandburg and Frischmann on cultural commons. Here’s one more possible case study for the group, suggested by Michael Lewis via Felix Salmon:

[T]here are smart [high frequency trading] HFT shops, and then there’s Goldman Sachs. The smart shops execute their strategies using lightweight, open-source, flexible code. Goldman, by contrast, considers its enormous, clunky, proprietary codebase to be a source of competitive advantage — it has to, in order to justify the bonuses it gives to the people in charge of that codebase. Goldman knew that Aleynikov was its best programmer, but it never really grokked why he was good: he was an expert at replacing clunky Goldman code with much simpler and more elegant open-source solutions.

So while Aleynikov thought he was streamlining Goldman’s technology, Aleynikov’s bosses got million-dollar bonuses by claiming that he was adding to a proprietary codebase in which they placed enormous value. And when Aleynikov thought that he was simply emailing his own notes to himself, Goldman decided that he was stealing proprietary information of enormous value — and that, since it was enormously valuable, of course Aleynikov intended to use that code against Goldman in his new job.

Three cheers for open-source! Or maybe 2…or 1. Because the ultimate endeavor here–HFT–is not exactly a boon to the economy. As Wallace Turbeville has demonstrated, “HFT siphons value from the pipeline of capital intermediation, impeding the long-term investments the economy needs for sustained job growth.” I make the case against HFT here; let’s just say that it’s hard to make the case that a queueing rule keyed to thousandths or millionths of a second is any better than one that simply allocates trades that happen to come in at the same hundredth, tenth, or (horrors!) half of a second at random, or in (roughly) equal lots.

When it comes to HFT, Goldman’s hapless effort to propertize a codebase was a great example of the “upside of IP’s downside.” The enterprise itself is socially useless at best, pernicious and destabilizing at worst. Here’s to a decline in the commons in HFT code, and to the megabank bonus games that doomed it at Goldman.

Star Wars @ Disney

Now that Disney owns the Star Wars franchise, I wonder what will become of all the fan fiction works licensed by Lucasfilm.  I would suspect that Disney has an even more restrictive view of what fans should be entitled to do with the works than Lucasfilm did.  Anyone have any thoughts/info about the future of existing fan fiction works or the likelihood of new Star Wars fan fiction with Disney at the helm?