(Engels)

“When Napster told the district court that it had developed a technology to block the transfer of 99.4 percent of identified infringing material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4 percent was not good enough. Napster had to push the infringements ‘down to zero’. If 99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing technologies, not a war on copyright infringement.” (Lessig, p.74)

What is the percentage of identified infringing material on the Pirate bay? The discourse whether This portal is illegal or not shouldn’t be that complex. Free Culture, to me, is very important. We have should take the distribution of creativity very seriously! Creativity is the catalyst for inspiration, which in its place, is responsible for the social, political, and commercial development of our cultural identity. P2P – as an infrastructure – is a substantial contribution to the development of our cultural identity. The Pirate Bay (what’s in the name) facilitates this contribution as well! but, this has its influence on the revenue of honest creators. If we accept and normalize an amount of distributed infringing material, then, on the basis of the ratio between illegal and legal distribution, we could determine whether a facilitator operates illegal.

A few questions pop up… What really is illegal, when we accept a system that is old and based upon ‘property’ in a virtual world of endless reproductivity? Does a maximum compressed movie-file, which doesn’t comes near the original quality, is eligible for copyright infringement? Or, why should we prohibit or normalize illegal downloading when we technologically could enforce zero tolerance? Why isn’t the government being held responsible when a car driver is speeding and distrusting cocaine? P2P is held responsible in the same way! In my opinion, if the Pirate bay is excessively violating the norm (not 99.4%) then they should be punished! But what is the norm? Maybe we should be focusing on that!

(Engels)

As the Poken could be the archetype of off-line social networking, collecting Poken ID’s is still limited to the owner’s ability to travel. It’s simply not possible to connect Poken ID’s across the globe when one does not travel! I am organizing an event (#happokening020) which offers the Poken owners a place to bring the Poken handshake into action.

Mimicking social networks is only feasible when one is not limited to location. That’s why, I am suggesting a practice without the limitations of place. This is what I thought of. The PokenTelePortal should be a funny extension to the happening. The PokenTelePortal will offer (1) an entertaining contribution in bringing Poken owners together and (2) facilitate live meet-ups during Happenings simultaneously all over the world!

(Engels)

This scenario will illustrate the possibilities of social media like twitter to have a positive and substantial influence on ordinary life. In this case, the “flow regulator tweet” will very efficiently regulate the flow of people waiting in line and therefor Twitter could make waiting obsolete.

Imagine this: You have an appointment at the local district for the application of a social benefit, because your boss hasn’t extended your contract you haven’t got an income. At the counter, an employee reads you the following instructions: Go to Twitter and search for: ‘adamlocalaffairs’. ‘follow’ this account and send this message: “dontbsquare: @adamlocalaffairs #form16″. Next, you’ll open your favorite twitter application on your mobile phone and setup the instructions. The first message you receive is “adamlocalaffairs: @dontbsquare you’ve got 18 people before you in line. This will take approximately 30min.” Now, instead of waiting in line, you take a walk to the nearest coffee shop. Because, you haven’t got the resources to buy a cup, you have to put up with watching people drinking coffee… Meanwhile, the following tweet is popping up: “adamlocalaffairs: @dikkidik please, show up at counter 6″. You are wondering how many people are still before you waiting in line. So, you tweet: “dontbsquare: @adamlocalaffairs ?number”. Immediately, you are receiving “adamlocalaffairs: @dontbsquare still 8 people before you in line. this will take another 15min.”
next, you are done looking at the people drinking coffee and you’ve decided to gently return towards the local district. Within a minute, you receive this message: “adamlocalaffairs: @dontbsquare please, show up at counter 4″. At this counter, the employee of the local district helps you with the appropriate administration and within a couple of weeks, you will be able to buy yourself a cup of coffee again.

I think that twitter or similar social media could make the ordinary life a lot easier and definitely more efficient. It is not being said that we should be totally depending on these technology, but a minor increase of new media adaptation is welcome.

This year for the first time, I am going to organize a Happening. What is the plan?  ‘Hap-poken-ing020′ is set to be a spectacular and spontaneous event that will harmlessly disturb the public domain of Amsterdam’s Dam square. It’s a funny way to (1) mobilize people, to (2) bring the Poken to the attention, to (3) connect to new interesting people and to (4) get some experience in the organization of such an event.

“Happenings invite us to cast aside for a moment these proper manners and partake wholly in the real nature of the art and (one hopes) life. Thus a Happening is rough and sudden and often feels ‘dirty’. Dirt, we might begin to realize, is also organic and fertile, and everything, including the visitors, can grow a little in such circumstances.” (Kaprow 1961, Art News 60(3) p.39)

With this philosophical perspective in mind, I will ask you to join me on Saturday the 9th of May. At exactly 13:00PM, everybody with a Poken will gather in front of the Dam’s Palace. When the church clock hits 13:00PM, everybody will have the opportunity to start connecting and exchanging their Poken identities. Please, do not start gathering before the given time. Otherwise, this happening will lose its effect.

Interested? Go to the website and subscribe to Hap-poken-ing 020!* Some press will cover the happening as well! *Of course, I will be very discreet with your personal info.

(Engels)

Google has launched the Street View application in The Netherlands. This is another phase in Google’s mission to organise the world’s information by building a 3D-environment. Simon Davies, a surveillance watchdog, stated: “The cultural imperative within Google is anti-privacy”. From his perspective that is certainly the case, but then they probably would follow a different strategy (figure below).

Google's alternative anti-privacy strategy.

To regulate its content, Google uses a bottom-up approach of self-regulation. As Cherian George states on the bottom-up model: “[As] bloggers keep an eye over readers’ comments appended to their posts. Popular sites heavy with pictorial or video content, such as YouTube, have their own rules forbidding salacious material.(…) With the evolution of new technology, it is neither practical nor is there need for the state to play the role of a master moderator. (George)”

The bottom-up approach is very pragmatic in a sense that it is the only realistic way for regulation. Simply because, the effort to control its vast amount of ever changing content would be, in a top-down manner, an extremely labour intensive and costly practice. Even Google doesn’t have the resources to bring this into practice. So, Google uses a different strategy which is called: ‘flagging’ . The online Youtube community can get rid of inappropriate and sensitive video material by marking it as such.

The difference between YouTube’s approach and Google’s Street View approach, is the source which is generating the content. YouTube’s content is generated by its users, while Street View’ content is generated by its own apparatus. Because of the shear size of the content, regulation is mosty done by the user. From a psycho-analytical perspective, this relation between Street View and the user is rather disturbing, because the former lacks a proper conscience and the latter has to compensate this. So, when somebody stumbles upon a privacy sensitive image, he or she should be its conscience and flag it!

Google's imperative culture of anti-privacy?

Microsoft’s Photosynth also forms a 3D-environment, but it’s based on user generated content. Photo’s taken by individuals are uploaded to a server. Here, Photosynth takes over and stitches the photo’s, taken in the same location, together to form a 3D environment of that area. If everyone would upload their images, then, in time (like Google’s Street View), a whole 3D representation of the world could be created. Except, this world is created by the users, instead of a hegemonic company like Google. Even though, we would regulate that space bottom-up. I would rather regulate a world made by users, then by a corporation without a clear conscience.

an alternative 3D representation of the world