Microsoft - bad for consumers and the environment?

Sian examines how the big computer companies operate. Are they bad for consumers and the environment

You probably noticed that Microsoft launched their latest operating system ‘Vista’ this week. Three years late and containing about half the promised innovations, it’s already in for criticism, not least from me and my colleague Derek Wall, Male Principal Speaker for the Greens.

We are not only disappointed Vista isn’t better, but have some serious concerns about consumer rights and its impact on the environment too. The comment I made in our press release on Tuesday that, “Future archaeologists will be able to identify a ‘Vista Upgrade Layer’ when they go through our landfill sites,” was rightly spotted as a minor exaggeration, but I was trying to illustrate something significant.

The point is that thousands of bits of hardware like graphics cards, monitors, and even whole computers, may be junked when people upgrade to the new operating system because Vista is either too memory-heavy or just too pernickety to run on perfectly good equipment that, in some cases, is practically brand new.

The main problem is the new ‘Digital Rights Management’ tools built into the system. These insist that any piece of hardware used to play high-definition music or videos formats like Super Audio CD, High-Definition DVD and Blu-Ray, must use Microsoft approved encryption codes. If monitors, sound cards and graphics cards do not, the content will not play at all.

Unfortunately, until very recently no hardware had these codes included, so even a supposedly ‘high-definition ready’ monitor bought six months ago, won’t play ‘premium’ DRM-protected songs and films and will need replacing, leading to a lot of nice equipment in skips and landfill sites.

I discussed in my previous blog, ‘Sian’s been very naughty’ how, as a consumer or creative artist, there are 'fair use' copying, viewing and recording rights we are all supposed to have in law. But these are being denied by new DRM technologies like those in Vista. As a consumer, you should have the right to back up (i.e. make a copy of) things in your library for your personal use, and you should have the right to choose which video screen or monitor you use to view it, including your old one.

In fact, DRM is not a feature that has any benefits at all for the end-user. In fact, its only reason for existing is to protect the profits of big corporations. And Microsoft isn't doing all this just to please Hollywood and the music industry - they hope to set the price for copy-protection The Microsoft Way – and make a lot of cash.

And in case you’re taking all this in and thinking of getting a Mac instead, Apple is a big culprit in the whole DRM scandal as well, through iTunes. Apple iTunes users might be beginning to sniff out the fact that their music collection is slowly being locked into a format over which they have little control. Each song bought is a 79p commitment to stick to Apple's store and iPod players, since iTunes songs cannot be legally transferred to another format. This is at last attracting the attention of some consumer protection agencies, so far in Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and France.

And going back to landfill nightmares, how many iPods have you been through so far? It appears that many of these cute little machines are breaking down suspiciously soon after their warranty runs out, and that Apple provides precious little support for repairing them after this happens. People are therefore obliged to replace their iPod with another one when it dies (since no other brand of more reliable mp3 player will play the proprietary iTunes format) and consumer groups are starting to object. The ‘Stay Free’ group in New York, as well as setting up the iDud campaign, is making the best of the situation and asking for broken iPods to turn into art. If you have a couple tucked away, why not send them in?

None of Apple’s machines are as green as they could be either, containing more toxic chemicals than many other hardware brands, which is why Greenpeace in the USA has produced a clever skit based on the iconic American adverts featuring their Mac and PC characters (now being reprised here with newly sold-out comedians Mitchell and Webb).

This is staring to sound very depressing. If we’re all sleepwalking into a conglomerate-controlled, Blade Runner future, what’s the answer? The Greens believe that ‘Free and Open Source’ software (FOSS) is the model to look at.

We'd advocate that more technical people look at the open source Linux operating system. But even if you aren’t a techno-nerd, there are plenty of individual open source tools and programmes that will work on your current computer. You might already have the Firefox web browser installed, seeing as it had the popular ‘tabbed’ layout long before Internet Explorer 7 took it up, but there are loads more, including whole suites of useful software such as Open Office which, for businesses, schools and government, is an increasingly practical option. I'm typing this on Open Office, for instance, and it works completely fine. Why not try it? It's free!

Other FOSS programmes that might come in handy include Scribus for professional document production (it’s rather like Quark or InDesign) and the Gimp photo editor (clearly not named by a marketing guru!).

Back in the music world, independent record labels have started to experiment with unprotected mp3 downloads, deciding to trust the fans. I think it's worth betting that if you like a band, you'll want to pay for their music to keep them writing new songs.

Other artists collaborate by sharing music files under 'creative commons' licenses where they give you free access to the files, but ask you to respect their conditions – for example by giving them a credit, or not using their work for commercial projects, such as adverts.

The net could even bring us right back to the way things started by directly supporting artists, making art ourselves, and generally by-passing the commercial middle men. But not, of course, if Microsoft and their friends have their way.

Sian Berry lives in Kentish Town and was previously a principal speaker and campaigns co-ordinator for the Green Party. She was also their London mayoral candidate in 2008. She works as a writer and is a founder of the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s
Getty.
Show Hide image

Just face it, being a parent will never be cool

Traditional parenting terms are being rejected in favour of trendier versions, but it doesn't change the grunt-like nature of the work.

My children call me various things. Mummy. Mum. Poo-Head. One thing they have never called me is mama. This is only to be expected, for I am not cool.

Last year Elisa Strauss reported on the rise of white, middle-class mothers in the US using the term “mama” as “an identity marker, a phrase of distinction, and a way to label the self and designate the group.” Mamas aren’t like mummies or mums (or indeed poo-heads). They’re hip. They’re modern. They’re out there “widen[ing] the horizons of ‘mother,’ without giving up on a mother identity altogether.” And now it’s the turn of the dads.

According to the Daily Beast, the hipster fathers of Brooklyn are asking their children to refer to them as papa. According to one of those interviewed, Justin Underwood, the word “dad” is simply too “bland and drab”:

“There’s no excitement to it, and I feel like the word papa nowadays has so many meanings. We live in an age when fathers are more in touch with their feminine sides and are all right with playing dress-up and putting on makeup with their daughters.”

Underwood describes “dad” as antiquated, whereas “papa” is an “open-minded, liberal term, like dad with a twist” (but evidently not a twist so far that one might consider putting on makeup with one’s sons).

Each to their own, I suppose. Personally I always associate the word “papa” with “Smurf” or “Lazarou.” It does not sound particularly hip to me. Similarly “mama” is a word I cannot hear without thinking of “Bohemian Rhapsody”, hence never without a follow-up “ooo-oo-oo-ooh!” Then again, as a mummy I probably have no idea what I am talking about. If other people think these words are trendy, no doubt they are.

Nonetheless, I am dubious about the potential of such words to transform parenting relationships and identities. In 1975’s Of Woman Born, Adrienne Rich describes how she used to look at her own mother and think “I too shall marry, have children – but not like her. I shall find a way of doing it all differently.” It is, I think, a common sentiment. Rejecting mummy or daddy as an identity, if not as an individual, can feel much the same as rejecting the politics that surrounds gender and parenting. The papas interviewed by The Daily Beast are self-styled feminists, whose hands-on parenting style they wish to differentiate from that of their own fathers. But does a change of title really do that? And even if it does, isn’t this a rather individualistic approach to social change?

There is a part of me that can’t help wondering whether the growing popularity of mama and papa amongst privileged social groups reflects a current preference for changing titles rather than social realities, especially as far as gendered labour is concerned. When I’m changing a nappy, it doesn’t matter at all whether I’m known as Mummy, Mama or God Almighty. I’m still up to my elbows in shit (yes, my baby son is that prolific).

The desire to be known as Papa or Mama lays bare the delusions of new parents. It doesn’t even matter if these titles are cool now. They won’t be soon enough because they’ll be associated with people who do parenting. Because like it or not, parenting is not an identity. It is not something you are, but a position you occupy and a job you do.

I once considered not being called mummy. My partner and I did, briefly, look at the “just get your children to call you by your actual name” approach. On paper it seemed to make sense. If to my sons I am Victoria rather than mummy, then surely they’ll see me as an individual, right? Ha. In practice it felt cold, as though I was trying to set some kind of arbitrary distance between us. And perhaps, as far as my sons are concerned, I shouldn’t be just another person. It is my fault they came into this vale of tears. I owe them, if not anyone else, some degree of non-personhood, a willingness to do things for them that I would not do for others. What I am to them – mummy, mum, mama, whatever one calls it – is not a thing that can be rebranded. It will never be cool because the grunt work of caring never is.

It is not that I do not think we need to change the way in which we parent, but this cannot be achieved by hipster trendsetting alone. Changing how we parent involves changing our most fundamental assumptions about what care work is and how we value the people who do it. And this is change that needs to include all people, even those who go by the old-fashioned titles of mum and dad.

Ultimately, any attempt to remarket parenting as a cool identity smacks of that desperate craving for reinvention that having children instils in a person. The moment you have children you have bumped yourself up the generational ladder. You are no longer the end of your family line. You are – god forbid – at risk of turning into your own parents, the ones who fuck you up, no matter what they do. But you, too, will fuck them up, regardless of whether you do it under the name of daddy, dad or papa. Accept it. Move on (also, you are mortal. Get over it).

Parenting will never be cool. Indeed, humanity will never be cool. We’re all going to get older, more decrepit, closer to death. This is true regardless of whether you do or don’t have kids – but if you do you will always have younger people on hand to remind you of this miserable fact.

Your children might, if you are lucky, grow to respect you, but as far as they are concerned you are the past.  No amount of rebranding is going to solve that. This doesn’t mean we can’t change the way we parent. But as with so much else where gender is concerned, it’s a matter for boring old deeds, not fashionable words.

 

 

 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.