Dumb individuals, smart crowds??

This crisis has many lessons for us, and one of them is that there is no such thing as "wisdom of the crowds" or "smart mob". I don't know who first came up with this nonsense, but it is so obviously stupid that it is hard to believe these phrases actually entered our vocabulary. What is the premise? That a bunch of people who make stupid decisions on their own would somehow be more capable of making correct decisions by being in a large group? Or is it so that their own stupidity is counterbalanced and diluted by the wisdom of others in that group? (But if that's the case, wouldn't we be better off with just the good decision makers, without the need to counterbalance the fools?)

This fallacy was, supposedly, reinforced by the Word Wide Web, which seemed to prove the Marxist thesis that sufficient quantity will transform itself into quality, in other words, a gigantic pile of garbage will create such a pressure that it will beget diamonds.  One has only to read the comments left by readers of articles and blog posts to know that this can't be true.  It is, in fact, rather depressing that so many of us are such idiots. Among the 327 comments left undearneath an excellent interview with Niall Ferguson, there are  "insighful" analyses like this one:

Paul Collins from Canada writes: Niall Ferguson is not the voice of reason but is in fact as mad as those in government and in industry. Those in power are mad if they can hold onto power forever. Nothing lasts forever. THESE PEOPLE ARE MAD!

Sure, this drivel is outnumbered by many more sane - even if negligibly so - comments, but how does this make the crowd of commenters smarter? Garbage does not produce diamonds, just makes them more difficult to find.

Evil DRM

I have always believed in paying artists for their work. This included, of course, music. Except for a short-lived "lets give it a try and see what the fuss is about", I did not participate in peer-to-peer sharing. Early on I signed up for the subscription-based Musicmatch, and was pretty happy with it, occasionally buying songs and creating compilations for listening in my car. Obviously, I did not expect that I will end up feeling like a total sucker, thanks to that evil scheme that must have been concocted in the devil's head: DRM (Digital Rights Management).

I had misgivings about it from the very beginning; initially. Musicmatch restricted transfer of purchased songs to a limited number of instances (5 or 7 in a lifetime, if I remember correctly). I was not planning to buy an MP3 player any time soon, but I had a laptop and a desktop, which I used to replace every 2-3 years. This meant that only after two replacement cycles I would no longer be able to transfer my music to new machines. What then? Luckily, this was amended later and I could only have 3 "active" devices at any time, but I could "deactivate" a device, and transfer purchased songs to a new one. This looked like I could keep moving the music I owned from one computer to another for as long as I lived.

I had no idea that the licenses for my songs were tied to the service I bought it from: Musicmatch. So when Musicmatch was acquired by Yahoo!, I faced the real prospect of losing the ability to transfer my songs, unless I agreed to move to the new service, which would then continue to provide the licenses. I did move and for a while everything seemed fine, except that every now and then the DRM system used by Yahoo! would stop recognizing my ownership of certain tracks and would force me to re-license them. This was but the first circle of the DRM hell...

A few days ago I found out that 40 of my songs were no longer showing as licensed... My attemtp to re-license them produced errors that Musicmatch was no longer available... This, many months after I transfered my subscription to Yahoo! and all my songs to their DRM system.  What the bloody hell?? When I contacted Yahoo! customer service, the answer I received was that since these songs had been purchased from Musicmatch, they could no longer help me with licensing... Musicmatch no longer existed.

Well, I knew that! So I argued that I transferred to Yahoo! and expected Yahoo! to provide licenses for these songs, as I had been promised. This generated a response that "it does not matter where you transferred them. It only matters that they were purchased from Musicmatch". This is just too f..d up to comprehend! Imagine buying a CD from your local music store. This CD will play only for as long as that store remains in business. A new chain takes over the store and agrees to keep allowing you to play the CD, if you continue to buy music from them. Then, one day, you still have your CD in pristine condition, but it stops playing. You complain and hear, "Sorry, but you bought this CD from someone else. Can't help you".  If that's not getting screwed, I don't know what is...

So I feel like a total idiot for being honest and law-abiding, and getting suckered into the game of Let's Screw the Loyal Music Fans Who Actually Want to Pay Us Money. Would you buy a CD, whose playback depended on the existence of the store you bough it from? Or a car that runs only for as long as the dealer that sold it to you is still in business? You would not even consider such a deal, beacuse that would not be a deal, that would be a con. And that's exactly what was done to me (and countless other): we were conned. 

Now Yahoo! is getting out of the music business and offering its customers transfer to Rhapsody. I'm afraid that this will just push me deeper into the DRM hell, so I think I will decline. Should I reconsider my decision not to be a part of "illegal" sharing?  Well, if the "legal" side of this business means that I'm getting robbed at will, then I think the answer to that is not as simple as I thought it to be.