Once again the guardian misses the not-so-subtlety of the debate. It’s not Governments and large corporations on one side of the “freedom of the internet” debate and individuals on the other. This is a completely outdated narrative.
The freedom of the internet debate has been totally co-opted. Google and other giant tech companies would have you believe they are fighting for your “freedom” when it’s actually their freedom to exploit us. Further they want to be beyond government control. Recently in The Guardian Sergey Brin was quoted as saying: “If we could wave a magic wand and not be subject to US law, that would be great”.
Personally we’d rather have a democratically controlled elected government regulating the internet, rather than a company like google which isn’t even accountable to it’s own shareholders. (see latest stock split).
Further Google, Facebook and others web 2.0 companies are all built on an “architecture of exploitation”. Or as Stephen Colbert smartly noted in his interview with Lawrence Lessig:
Colbert: Well let’s see (laughing)…so the hybrid economy is where everybody else does the work and Flickr makes all the money?
Wake up people.
Trichordist Editorial.
###
[ THE 101 ] [NEW BOSS / OLD BOSS ] [ SPOTIFY ] [GROOVESHARK ] [ LARRY LESSIG ]
[ JOHN PERRY BARLOW ] [ HUMAN RIGHTS OF ARTISTS ] [ INFRINGEMENT IS THEFT ]
[ THE SKY IS RISING : MAGIC BEAVER EDITION ] [SF GATE BLUNDERS PIRACY FACTS ]
[ WHY ARENT MORE MUSICIANS WORKING ] [ ARTISTS FOR AN ETHICAL INTERNET ]
The Trichordist 
So agree that this is about depriving individuals the opportunity of earning a “sustainable” wage from their work. It is also misses the mark in addressing the opposite. Individuals who operate file sharing sites are for-profit corporations.
So much for your pseudo revolution.