The FIRE-Wall of China

Soon I will be spending a month travelling through China, and a friend reminded me that there is a Facebook ban within Mainland China which is pretty much everywhere in China and where I will be going. How could I have forgotten? My first reaction was shock and then sheer laughter at the fact that I was so overwhelmed with disbelief at this sudden realisation.

“How will I keep in touch with people?” was my first question which is still lingering long after my friend had answered this for me – email. *Involuntary whole body shudder.* I had come to depend so much on the convenience of Facebook that I no longer knew what the pre-Facebook day and age was like. Email (long pause) – Really?

My research into why China’s government had banned such a popular social networking site took me back in time to July 5th 2009 of the fatal riots in the western region of the Xinjiang province in China. Facebook had been unceremoniously used to stir up ethnic wars and organised violence while YouTube provided video footage of the incident. Kathryn Foley writes in an article:

“Because of the pandemonium and outrageous behaviour of the citizens, China's central government has increased its great firewall and put a block on all access to foreign web services. They had already prohibited the use of YouTube and every Google service such as Gmail, Google Apps and Google Talk (all modes of communication) weeks ago.”

What this leaves me to question is whether or not this type of strict censorship is effective in eliminating ethnic tensions and organised riots. I understand China has had a very long and complicated history of political tension which continues to this day. But in stacking up their list of web server lockdowns, I can’t help but wonder, is this detrimental to their country’s already unstable image?

The question of fairness also comes into play. Does the Chinese government have the right to block major websites and censor online traffic? Well, it may not be just but they certainly have the power to carry out what they wish. This move has potentially alienated the rest of the world as it does not make China seem like a very pleasant place to live or visit.

Of course, it is arguable that it was the right thing to do by blocking Facebook as the potential and result of social hysteria caused the death of over 140 people. Though, Facebook and its millions of previous users of Mainland China are also victims in this situation. Despite Facebook’s strong online community of over 500 million users, China is a massive population to be dropped after the lockdown.

Also, what about the innocent users who just used the web server to keep in touch with their friends and people overseas? Even though people have quickly jumped on board to other social networking sites, they had still lost their freedom to participate in a social medium which has transcended ethnic boundaries and is considered an integral part of the 21st century.

And at the end of the day and at the end of my blog, will banning these web servers really solve China’s problems? Is the medium really the message? As coined by Marshall McLuhan in his 1964 book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, which states that the medium embeds itself in the message and influences how the message is to be perceived. I don't believe Facebook is at fault here; its services were vandalised by people who simply did not know better.

Only time can tell what China plans to do next, though I’m not hopeful they will re-establish Facebook any time soon or before my travels.

You, me or us: the audience

Generally speaking, the definition of an audience is one that refers to a group of listeners or a person within hearing range. But in a media context, these are thought of as a 'benchmark' term for older media forms of audiences. Media technologies can be understood as acting in a way which brings people together, creating an audience. An example of this is shown through broadcast media, where is takes a dispersed group of people and brings them together. Recorded media, such as print, also allows people to access the information at different times while still creating an audience. The history of media audiences differs in writing depending on what view you prescribe to, for example, McLuhan said that people were both fragmented or brought together depending on the type of media. Interactivity within audiences is usd to refer to a number of types of audience engagement, and can therefore be seen as a rather over used expression within media. Human interaction, also known as horizontal interaction, is peer-to-peer communication. Whereas human to media interaction, also known as vertical interaction, expresses a differential of status, with one being more knowledgeable than the other. So, can audiences today be seen as engaging more with media forms and more in control? or less powerful and unfulfilled?

We know better than you

The NZ Herald - old medium - states the problem of new media that the Government fancies it is currently wrestling with like this: "Media are regulated by standards of ethical reporting ... bloggers, tweeters and other internet users are not ... the Government is concerned about the adverse effect this could have on the justice system" (Herald print edition, this morning).

Let's just take a look at that. "Bloggers, tweeters and other internet users are not (regulated by standards of ethical reporting)..." Well, it depends on the blog, doesn't it? I think Russell Brown and the others on Public Address display spectacularly ethical standards compared to say Michael Laws on talkback radio. "The Government is concerned about the adverse effect this could have on the justice system." Really? Just let me get this right. The Government is concerned at the adverse effect freedom of speech could have on the justice system?

It really is getting tricky in New Zealand these days, isn't it. In the US they are currently wrangling over whether the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech) protects the rights of people who protest at the funerals of soldiers who have been killed in Iraq. The protestors are Christians saying the soldiers' deaths are evidence God is punishing Americans for approving of homosexuality. Well at least they're wrangling over something fundamental - some people are stopping other people from burying their dead with dignity. Here in New Zealand the Government is thinking about changing the law because it can't quite handle the fact that people are talking to one another in an unregulated environment. Spare me. Any day now we'll have to have a twitter licence.

All of this might make a tiny bit of sense if it weren't for the fact that a blogger was recently convicted in Auckland of breaching name suppression orders. So the law seems to have no trouble, as currently written, in prosecuting use of the internet which is deemed to be trespassing against something that our legislature has decided is not to be trespassed against. So what is the problem?

As David Farrar is quoted as saying: "... the law (applies) to all forms of publishing". It seems to me that what we're seeing in this notion from the Justice Minister that ethics on-line need to be regulated, is the basic twitch we always see from right-wing (even centrist right-wing) governments: we know better than you.

Nintendo: Keeping Women in the Kitchen

Last weekend I went into an EB Games store looking to purchase a Nintendo DS. While I was waiting for the sales assistant to get consoles to show me I had a look through the collection of games available for play on a DS. I was surprised to see the number of games reinforcing gender stereotypes, with games that were blatantly targeted at females being things like planning weddings, clothing and make-up, and traditionally feminine occupations like figure skating, teaching, and being a housewife. All such games featured cheery female characters on the cover, appearing to be satisfied in their feminine roles.

The above comic addresses Nintendo's ‘Cooking Mama’ series, which includes the original ‘Cooking Mama’ game, several sequels to ‘Cooking Mama’ and ‘Gardening Mama’, all keeping women firmly within the household.

Bertozzi suggests in her article 'You Play Like a Girl! Cross-Gender Competition and the Uneven Playing Field' that the games targeted at females are one of the reasons so few females are as avid gamers as males. The game store’s collection definitely supports her view. Though there are a few positive representations, such as females as journalists, the majority of Nintendo's collection appears to be encouraging females to play games that keep them within traditional gender roles and leave the more complex, action games to the boys.

Furthering my disappointment in Nintendo, as I dug up more information on their games for DS I found out that the first and second generation Pokémon games, one of Nintendo’s most successful games series, only give the option to play as a male avatar. I'm glad that Nintendo saw some sense and the newer Pokémon games offer the option to play as a female trainer.

Despite Nintendo DS games reinforcing gender stereotypes, and my disappointment in them doing so, I still purchased the DS, though not with the games Nintendo seems to want me to play. I’ve always felt that Nintendo have targeted females more than Microsoft or Sony have with their gaming consoles and games, which I thought might have been a positive move to get females into gaming. However, now I’m not so sure that’s a good thing after seeing the kinds of games they’re trying to sell to girls. I should hope that Nintendo take Bertozzi’s advice and create ‘powerful’ female representations in games that females play, so as to create an equal playing field for males and females in our technological world.

Illegal Downloads = Breakfast with your Dreamy Idol

Lazy people steal....

Then again, one could say Lazy people sell as well. Take for instance the music industry and all the tragic excited talk about it taking a dive due to the illegal downloading music. Have we really thought about what this means for the musicians? They still want to make their money, and people still want music. So how are they gonna do it?...wait...wait for it....hmm....perhaps the old fashion way...with a twist.

Thats right, with DVD sales being dramatically reduced, and the selling of individual songs on iTunes not quite cutting the mark, musicians are heading back on the road and back to their fans in a more direct route. Not only are concerts and touring becoming once again the major money maker, but the lack of recorded sales means they are racking their brains trying to think of new innovative ideas to get people to by their goods.

For instance, the beautiful young girl...ahem excuse me...I was just whispered I somehow had his gender wrong, lets try this again... young boy that HE is, Justin Bieber, sold his CD's by making an unheard of offer. One CD would be sold that has a Golden Ticket (Willy Wonka style) to win the good fortune of having the one and only Justin Bieber cook breakfast for them in their own home. Now which true fan would illegally download his music when they could have the chance to have their idol cooking them a morning meal?

The point here, is that people always have, and always will, take advantage of one system or another. However if you look on the bright side, this forces change. For the music industry, illegal downloads means, not a failure of the music industry, but a revamping of the current model of sales. It means being less lazy, and using the brain cells that haven't been destroyed through drug, sex, and rock and role, and finding ways to making people crave spending their money, once again, on their music.

Illegal downloads mean breakfast's with your favorite dreamy icon just became a reality.

Put that way...is it really such a bad things?

CCTV

I think that having CCTV’s around some streets in Auckland, streets such as K’Road or the dodgy parts of Queen Street would be very beneficial to society. England has seen a lot of crime rates decreased and crimes solved when installing CCTV’. These cameras do not invade private spaces but public spaces to help and protect innocent people. If everyday people obey the law and don’t mistreat it these cameras have nothing to do with them and they can carry on everyday lives with nothing to worry about. It seems that ever since the September 11 attacks and the London underground bombing more communities are all for CCTV’s for safety and having some reassurance. It also makes very good news and TV, one example the show “World Dumbest Criminals”. And the recent story of two guys who decided to pick on two cross dressers on the street, but what they didn’t know is these two were only dressed as women for fun and they were actually cage fighters who beat then beat the two cheeky guys up and was the CCTV footage was broadcast worldwide.

However if we promote and the public know about all these CCTV’s to ensure that they are safe does that mean that criminals and terrorist will only become smarter to try avoid getting caught ? Some people have nothing better to do but deliberately go smash or destroy these cameras in order to avoid punishment. And how quickly are all these CCTV’s for instance in England there is one for every fourteenth person, how do they keep up with each one?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJqWijknGPs

CCTV

I think that having CCTV’s around some streets in Auckland, streets such as K’Road or the dodgy parts of Queen Street would be very beneficial to society. England has seen a lot of crime rates decreased and crimes solved when installing CCTV’. These cameras do not invade private spaces but public spaces to help and protect innocent people. If everyday people obey the law and don’t mistreat it these cameras have nothing to do with them and they can carry on everyday lives with nothing to worry about. It seems that ever since the September 11 attacks and the London underground bombing more communities are all for CCTV’s for safety and having some reassurance. It also makes very good news and TV, one example the show “World Dumbest Criminals”. And the recent story of two guys who decided to pick on two cross dressers on the street, but what they didn’t know is these two were only dressed as women for fun and they were actually cage fighters who beat then beat the two cheeky guys up and was the CCTV footage was broadcast worldwide.
However if we promote and the public know about all these CCTV’s to ensure that they are safe does that mean that criminals and terrorist will only become smarter to try avoid getting caught ? Some people have nothing better to do but deliberately go smash or destroy these cameras in order to avoid punishment. And how quickly are all these CCTV’s for instance in England there is one for every fourteenth person, how do they keep up with each one?

Sending Signals – ‘Appear’ to ‘Become’

The majority of our understanding of those around us does not come from what people say, but rather from the signals they give off. Its not what they say, but the way its said, it’s the actions, the body language. For online networks this isn’t any less true.

You are judged by who and what you are associated with.

You can have the most uplifting post on your Facebook, Myspace, or Bebo page, but if the majority of your links, videos and music are dark or violent people will eventually, or sometimes immediately associate you with those attributes.

Then again, many people have learned to play this wave with much skill and thought. If an individual is considered popular based on the number of friends one has, then increasing your friends seems the thing to do if popularity is your goal. If a person is seen to have friends with important or well known persons, then that person must also be of ‘value’ in such a category.

Individuals have learned to ‘appear’ to ‘become’.

However, has the internet and social networking really created this? Definitely not. People have always tried to associate themselves with certain individuals, crowds, fashions, etc in order to be perceived in a certain way and reap the benefits, be they financial, emotional, or egocentric. However by having profiles online for others to view at any time, it has made this aspect of humanity even more clear, because we can map it, see it, and analyze it in ways not done before.

Perhaps the way people interact today is different than it has been in the past…but the reasons why people interact has changed very little.

Love, happiness, power, fame. You name it, the reasons behind action seldom change.

Free Downloads why not?

Yar in "The rhetorics and myths of anti-piracy campaigns: criminalization, moral pedagogy and capitalist property relations in the classroom" notes the many ways in which copyright industries attempt to challenge what they call "copyright theft" especially via the internet.
This highlights just how powerful the internet has become.
Why would people decide to leave the comfort of their homes to go watch a movie when they can do it in the comforts of their homes and if lucky in high quality without spending a cent?
There are two reasons why people would choose otherwise.
1. Is the experience achieved at the cinema which you can not get at home
2. Is peoples choice to not watch illegally downloaded movies
Yes copyright issues especially on the internet are getting worse and companies are losing Billions of dollars but is it mostly due to young people?
A UK based poll in 2004 found that 18-29 year olds owned pirated intellectual property of some type have young people really lost all morals? do they not care about the creative process, time, money and labour gone into making a movie, song or even game?
Most would say that they dont have enough money to buy the physical item from a store so do it illegally via the internet others would argue that everyone else is doing it so why not?
There is also the issue that when you download something from the internet the link is still there, others can download the same file an infinite number of times however when you take a physical object it no longer exists unless ofcourse its replaced but that particular movie or cd can no longer be purchased.
The truth is, downloading property of the internet has become not only easy but people can do so without being punished, why is it that people are less likely to steal a physical object from a store than download information off the internet...its simple there are less risks involved so why not??
Yes downloading other peoples property is bad, illegal and not moral does that mean people will no longer download files from the internet? No.
So until industries find a way to stop people from downloading illegally of the internet copyright issues will be a problem for a long time coming.

A Modern Pirate?

YAAARGH!!

I had to do it; now lets get to the serious business.

When I think about piracy in the modern age, the first thing that comes to mind is not these guys;

(A google image result of "modern pirate")

Thinking of "pirate"; a term for one existing outside the law, a thief, a crook and just an all around morally questionable person. Yet when I think of a modern pirate, I think of regular people; adults, teenagers and children from all economic backgrounds.

And that disturbs me.

In Majid Yars article, he outlines how the corporations are trying to change the entire cultural outlook towards intellectual property to be in favor of the commodification of information.

One of the reasons, they state is; because the artists need money to create, otherwise they will become poor and not be able to create all the great movies/songs you like.

As if the spring of creative ideas is bubbling to the surface only due to the fact that somewhere deep underground, money is involved.

I think that its ridiculous to say that mankind's creative spirit is seated within us as an economic interest. The true essence of creativity lies beyond the tangible and is something that mankind must do because it is intrinsic to his character. It is our nature to be curious, to experiment, to produce. It's how we became so dominant on this earth. Even if you removed all of societies rewards of financial/economic nature; I still think mankind would continue to create, for the sake of creating.

Because creation is such a natural process for society, we get ideas from each-other all the time, and draw inspiration for which to further come up with even better ideas. It is this information sharing that I find crucial to the advancement of our culture.

And yet the corporations are trying to own the collective scrapbook of society and use it for their financial gains by influencing little children into thinking that they are "stealing" if they copy a song from a CD that a friend bought.

In another class called Popular Music Industry 282, we learned the in outs of promoting your music online. One of the main examples they gave us during the class went like this:

Before mp3, when you wanted to promote your album you needed to give away a bunch of albums to get the word out about your music to the public.

Lets say you had 1,000 copies of your new album pressed, and you decided to give away 100 copies of it. This meant that the cost of those 100 promo albums came from your pocket. Because you had to pay for each of them to be pressed. Once those 1,000 CDs were sold/ given away they were gone. Just like milk at a supermarket; once a customer buys the milk, they take it away, thus removing that item from the supermarkets stock.

Now with mp3, the cost of releasing your album can be much cheaper because you can release it online and never actually manufacture a physical product. You can give away as many copies of your album as you like and never ever have to spend a cent doing so. Your album in its digital, online state becomes an infinitely replicating item of store merchandise. As opposed to a real world store where if you sell an item of stock, it is gone and you must replace it. With an digital album, if someone buys it, they are not removing a copy from a finite source of your album; they are merely making a copy of the original. Therefore when you promote your album, you can give away 1,000 copies at no extra cost to you, reaching more potential fans, who will come to your shows, buy your merchandise etc etc.

In this example, the mp3 is a hero because it removes the costly "finite-ness" of real world albums stocks and replaces them with an infinite stock of digital product, that takes up zero physical "real world" space, yet can be taken from infinitely. Kind of like Santas Clauses Toy Sack.

A lot of music bloggers have taken a radically different approach to this problem in the music industry. They make a point of not ever providing a free entire album download link on their blog. But will link to individual songs that they find interesting. This is because to them, providing an entire album download link, is taking away from potential revenue of the artist. But by including single songs, the bloggers are able to discuss tracks on the album, introduce readers to new music (which often leads to albums sales for the artist) and give a taste of what the entire album has to offer.

To me this represents a shift towards a responsible attitude towards online music and is sensitive to the industries concerns (although not enough I'd imagine). It preserves the sale of the album to a degree, by not giving it away for free. Yet gives away samples to readers to entice them to either buy the album online or at a store; or download through a torrent website. If the reader decides to download via a torrent, the artist still doesn't lose out completely as the reader may become a fan and attend a concert, for which they will hand out money for.

Making everyone out to be on the outside of the law, merely because they are taking advantage of the access to digital information that they wouldn't of had previously; due to financial shortcomings or otherwise; is not right. We live in an age where a vast amount of information is available to anyone with access to a computer and an internet connection. To label regular, everyday people pirates merely for copying something for their own use is unfair as it reflects an outdated model for which to address this issue. By the corporations definition Modern Pirates aren't just bad people who lie, steal and cheat; they're regular people like you and me.

Google TV

The internet giant Google is responsible for one of the world’s most powerful search engines, which not only answers basic everyday questions, but also academic sources and in a sense has become an online on demand library for students all over the world.
Now Google has developed ‘Google TV’ which is an on demand online streaming service which offers the same viewing experience as a regular television (all the same viewing channels) as well as the internet. No longer is TV and internet separate, this major conglomerate has found a way to combine two of the world’s greatest entertaining devises.
TV is no longer restricted to the channels available, as now you’re opened up to the vast entertaining channels available on the internet, Google TV also has the capabilities to be a photo slideshow viewer, a gaming console, a music player and much more.

Google has created an entertainment console that we have yet to see anywhere else, and this has been developed due to the progression and societal changes caused by the development of new media.

Let The Punishment Fit The Crime

Anti-counterfeit trade agreements are in process at the moment, currently in their final draft. Around 40 countries will be included in the law when passed, including New Zealand. Huge controversy has surrounded this issue as one area of the proposed legislation allows customs official’s unlimited access to your hard drive when travelling abroad. Some people will see this as a positive thing, being the first major act of state enforcement against illegal piracy such as the common music download. However a majority of avid technology users see this as a gross invasion of privacy and a complete over-reaction to the crime itself, shouldn’t the punishment fit the crime? Wouldn’t money and intellect be better spent preventing the piracy from the source, being websites like limewire?

Why not tighten up the laws surrounding the origins of websites like limewire? In a way this situation can be likened to drug crime; why put so many recourses into finding the drug takers rather than the drug dealers? They are the real criminals.

Target the source.

Thoughts are invoked of poor students being fined thousands and thousands of dollars for downloading a couple of songs because they cannot afford the cd while some computer nerd in a dark room feeds hundreds of songs into limewire a day, making it so accessible to everyone.

This is not to say that the downloader’s down know what they’re doing but simply that maybe they are not the ones to go after…besides you will never track down everyone who has ever downloaded a song, movie or file but there can only be a limited number of people providing the opportunity to do it.

Is this just another revenue gathering exercise?

Immortality- a matter of time part deux

A while back, I was discussing the possibility of 3D TV's with my friend. I guessed they'd operate similarly to those in Minority Report, and foolishly suggested that they would consist of three pylons projecting an image into the center of the triangle that you would be able to walk around. In response to this my friend said, "when that happens, we will be living in the future"

If you read part one of this blog article yesterday, you will know that the future is fast approaching and it brings far more extravagant technologies than my imagined pylon TV's. Currently at the Singularity Institute in the U.S are working on nanotechnology that will be able to reproduce organs and reverse ageing; they speculate that within 50-80 years, this technology will erase the "problem" of mortality.

Lets consider this

Pros

1. We're all going to become awesome at everything. In the original script for Groundhog Day, Phill (Bill Murray) was supposed to have experienced the same day so many times that he had managed to have read every book in a library. Essentially we will be able to do the same thing, we will have the time to learn and become experts at practically everything. Because if they mean what I think by using the word immortal then we are going to have a lot of time on our hands.
2. Immortal means, never having to say goodbye. No ones going to die! No more funerals no more mourning and no more ghosts/zombies - forget about it.
3. You can be you forever. Nanotechnology doesn't mean just no death from disease etc, it also means no physical ageing. So pick an age and you can be that forever, we will all be like reverse Jacks....sorta

Cons

1. Boring - dont you feel like this is kinda getting the cheats to life? So what if you can do all these things and know everything, doesn't it reduce the value of the human experience if everything becomes an eventuality and nothing really has to be worked for. At the end of the day (time) I feel like one immortal will turn to another immortal and go "so what?"

Things beyond me

1. In a Brave New World Revisited Aldous Huxley stated the the main problem in society is overpopulation. What happens if people stop dying. yet, continue reproducing? Will restrictions be put in place, some people can some people can't? Will we be able to go against our biological instincts and fight our desire to reproduce...will we even be given the option?
2. Who decides who gets to be immortal? Will this be a money based thing? Will the rich get to see the year 9999 while the poor take their pick of graves? Should access to this technology be governed by whether or not one can afford it? Is money any marker of the man?
3. Everything will change. Our existence and how we carry out our existence is built upon the knowledge that eventually we will die. So what's gonna happen when we don't?

Audience Engagement

Today with the power of the internet has there never been an easier and quicker way to be able to express your opinions, share your personalised videos, form entries and replies on blogs, from updating and uploading to YouTube to displaying your thoughts on facebook. We have the means, freedom and online communications to make our voices heard on topics we find important to us.

In light of the Paul Henry situation I have seen numerous groups pop up on my facebook newsfeed which people are joining: "Paul Henry, just saying what we're all thinking," "Get Paul Henry on 7 days," "Paul Henry start your own show" "Breakfast won't be the same without Paul Henry" and "What Kiwi wouldn't laugh at the name Dikshit (Support Paul Henry)." It became a hotly debated topic as the footage went viral and even got international coverage. This showed evidence of audience empowerment. New Zealand was completely abuzz and everyone had their own opinion on the matter, and they could share it with thousands of others. The outcry of offence by others and the subsequent announcement of the resignation of Paul Henry on the Breakfast show demonstrates the effect the public opinion has. The immense collectivity of an audience feeling strongly about an issue, displayed through the means of the internet, is a powerful tool.

Online communities produce user generated content where consumers became prosumers and do something with what is given to them e.g. textual poaching and reappropriation. Creators of television shows visit their show's forums where they read what fans have written and will acknowledge their discussions and fan fictions in the actual narrative e.g. Buffy the Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon would regularly check on their official online forum called "The Bronze." He would would discuss subtexts fans have mentioned, such as future relationships with characters, and would hint at future plot points. There have also been times when a show was close to being cancelled picked up for more seasons as audiences get together to sign petitions to show their support to the show e.g. "Roswell" fans campaigned to the WB network when they feared the show was to be cancelled during the first season. Audiences will participate actively in shows e.g. "Lost" episodes were discussed in detail as its extremely complex storylines made it a topic which fans could actively engage in and discuss with like-minded people.

Active audience participation is something which I see as positive for everyone and anyone who wants to engage in certain topics, interests, news discussions, etc. it creates unity espeically on fan communities and an arena for freedom of speech, where you can be anonymous if you choose to be.

"You wouldn't steal a car.." - I would if i could download it

"You wouldn't steal a car.."- I would if I could download it.

I wish I could say that I thought up this gem but I can't, but it's a Facebook group that not only comments on the annoyance and irrelevance of the anti-pirating message that we have all seen played in the movies and when watching DVDs, but also where users can post tips on where to get pirated music films and software.

The crux of the group: that stealing a tangible object such as a car is an ineffectual comparison to illegal downloading on the Internet.

I also think it comments on the weariness of this piracy campaign. As piracy becomes more frequent, the less relevant this ad will become.

Also, watch this video by Weird Al, Don't Download This Song. I tried to embed this video, but I couldn't get the code.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEmTbpvj9fM

The song provides a similar commentary on the moral panic used to suppress downloading on the Internet and the dominant attitudes by the public toward it.

"Cause you start out stealing songs

Then you’re robbing liquor stores

And selling Crack

And running over school kids with your car..

"Don’t take away money

From artists just like me

How else can I afford another solid gold Humvee

And diamond studded swimming pools

These things don’t grow on trees"

Who decides What?

Discussed in tutorial this week, the issue of piracy is very controversial and is hard to decipher what is considered “stealing” and what is “sharing”. This issue of pirating music has always been a main issue in not only the music industry but for basically any forms of media out there. Issues of piracy is often seen before a start of a film, although I understand maybe, “Yes, stealing a car or stealing a handbag makes me a criminal” the notion of “sharing” music or film never has. The fine line between stealing and sharing is always hard to find with different opinions that people have and the situations/time/place that is given when these acts happen. First of all, although I understand the effort/time and all factors in producing music, I disagree with the notion of downloading music is a criminal act. I wouldn’t think that bands or artists are losing revenue from this but are just not making anything off it (however, gaining popularity!). P2P or Torrent sites allow the world to share music through easy accessibility which I think allows the bands/artists to promote themselves to a wider market. We may not know the people on the other side of the world, but all it’s just a form of sharing through the web. I see that a band’s motive is promoting themselves to the many markets as possible, thus showing P2P/Torrents to be a tool in this process. This may also trigger the people into buying actual albums or records. As the controversy of file sharing/stealing (whatever you consider it as) is happening because of the digital age, more and more bands should take advantage in trying to promote them. I think maybe if it’s an upcoming band, they would wanna sell as much possible in order to profit, especially in small markets like New Zealand but for world renowned bands sometimes it is absurd with the statements they come up it. The issue of piracy in music is completely looked upon by the different perspectives of people and what social norms they acquire. We are not taking a Louis Vuitton bag and making a fake bag, which I would consider stealing or breach issues of piracy in this context, however we are just I guess consuming the music they have produce without altering the original form of the music. Downloading and selling is a totally different issue...

Michael

Giving credit where credit is due.

Throughout my years at Auckland university, studying media I have come across a substantial amount of theorists who speak of the internet as a new revolutionary medium which will transform the passive viewer in to one that is more active. I do agree with theorists such as Jenkins who argue that the internets characteristics such as affordability and accessibility have created a democratic domain where a variety of voices can be heard. On the News the other night was a story on a political blogger Cameron Slater, the internet had given him the opportunity to voice his opinions and be heard, even if they were at times controversial. To me this seems like a huge step for the little people in the world, as it gives us a place to put across our opinions. However, van Dijcks article and others has also shown me how participating with new media such as the internet is actually allot more complex than just saying that it has made us all more active agents. It is true how not all people who use the internet are active participants, I may have thought the internet has given me a more active voice but in reality I haven’t really created anything on the net beside my face book page which isn’t really a place I voice my opinion because it seems public and is just a place to see what my mates have been doing in the weekends and so on. These blogs are probably the most active thing I’ve done on the net so far, and I’m really enjoying it. Also on face book there is huge amount of control by advertisers I get ads filling up my private mailbox all the time. Also to think that they use and keep my data is kind of scary. I’m glad the internet has given some the advantage to become more active however I now see that maybe the internet should not be getting too much credit in relation to giving people more user agency and also should be seen as a form of control.

Processing Power and User Power: The Benefits of Semantic Interaction

While having a computer understand your instructions without needing to select an option from a list may seem supremely modern, semantic interaction actually predates any form of user interface of the type we know today. The earliest microcomputer interfaces involved entering low-level instructions which the computer would then execute. As computers increased in processing power, increasingly abstract (high level) sets of commands were created. As a single command now represented multiple instructions which could be combined in many different ways, the number of available commands increased rapidly.

The perceived shortcoming of such a method of interaction was that the user needed to learn a reasonable (or in the view of some unreasonable) number of commands in order to accomplish a task. Thus menu-based interfaces were created, in which the user could select actions to be performed from a list without having to memorise the names of commands.

The reason why menu-based interfaces were created — dealing with a large number of commands — is also their shortcoming. A lengthy list of items becomes difficult to navigate. Such difficulty can be ameliorated by organising items into a hierarchical structure — a list which presents a set of lists and sublists, for example the menu bar found in programs such as Microsoft Word or Adobe Photoshop. However, once menus are organised in a hierarchical structure, a user must memorise the location of a command in the set of menus, at least if any efficiency is to be expected. Doing so requires the same effort as learning the names of semantic commands.

Semantic interaction provides other benefits, for example the ability to execute a command based on a certain condition, or automatically run a command multiple times on different data. While menu-based systems may have less steep learning curves than sets of semantic commands, they offer the user comparatively less power and efficiency — the plateau at the top of the learning curve is much lower.

Anti-virus program and fraud

Security has ever been a recurring problem which brings anxiety to people. With the rapid process of globalization and fast changing and appearing new technology, it brings people easy access to everything (internet banking, online shopping...etc) but this is where the problem begins. With the increase in usage of internet espicially by office workers their security is directly at risk. Although the internet brought people many luxuries and easy access to internet banking, online chatting with long distant clients and many more, with the increase in internet usage, many fraudity is committed with new programmes to hack into peoples accounts. What people dont know is that with these hacking programmes, a stranger can read your e-mail, rummage through your instant messages without your permission or scan the websites that you visited. A casual glance through your credit card purchases or cell phone bills is an easy task with the ever evolving hacking programmes.

This kind of cyber-terror is a common crime in IT Korea. To relate to a news article from Korean news, a office worker Kim logs into his computer everyday and when he does, his messenger automatically logs on as well. Then he glances at the news before starting work. Afterwards he checks his e-mails and does all his financial needs through the internet banking. Sometimes he chats with his over sea clients through his messenger and downloads files and pdf for his work needs. This is a common everyday life in a Korean work environment. However this act of realising on the internet made Kim an easy target for cyber-terrorism. One day he received an e-mail saying that 'Your system might be at risk!!'. He then thought of all the news articles he read about earlier on issues with viruses and he clicks on the e-mail and downloads a file which was named 'Antivirus 2009 .' After he installed it the system constantly pops up saying that it found a virus, and when it does the program redirected to a site asking him to pay for the removal of the virus. Kim did so without any hesitation but after several repetitions he then realised that he became one of the victimes of a fake vaccine programme. This programe takes money by saying to remove a virus and when this system is installed on a person's computer, the hacker can view into Kim's computer. With these kinds of programmes it does not have a un-install function so it is difficult to dispose of. Also through this fake virus programme his messenger was hacked into and his friend's personal information and privacy was at risk aswell. A case like Kim is a common crime which occurs every day. (reference to article http://itnews.inews24.com/php/news_view.php?g_serial=430233&g_menu=020300)

With in increase in internet and IT usage, the notion of security and privacy must also be progressed further and faster. The two must be a parallel but today, IT is much further along, making cyber-terrorism one of the common crimes committed by many in most countries. People are now well aware there are internet cookies everywhere- there is abundant evidence that people live their lives ignorant of the monitoring assuming a mythical level of privacy. People write e-mails and type instant messages they never expect anyone to see. However we are now passed the question of "Are we safe? Are we protected" we now must 'act' in order to protect what's left of our security and privacy.

Piracy- not really stealing?

Piracy is an odd subject to talk about. Basically because it has been drilled in us since we became media consuming entities (for me that was pretty much birth), we have always recognised its classification as an illicit activity. The strange thing is on some level we all do it, for different reasons; we even do it without realising. Platforms like file sharing websites allow for such downloading. The odd aspect to it is that it feels as though you’re not stealing, because it doesn’t feel physical enough to be stealing.
Sure, it should be regarded as so, due to the fact that ultimately it is acquiring one’s property (being intellectual or otherwise) for free. The alternative to theft via piracy -is that the object isn’t tangible, you’re practically anonymous, and you’re not physically at risk of being approached, identified or even publically labelled as a thief. The adrenaline doesn’t flow through the veins. This is probably a motive behind why it is so prolific and why it doesn’t seem like theft.
In saying this, it seems as if piracy is a hard crime to eradicate. People are going to keep doing it because it doesn’t seem as if it is legitimately stealing. In Yar’s reading, he talks about the idea of putting responsibility into the hands of the parent. Unfortunately this can’t always be the alternative and there has to be different measures taken in order to inhibit the abundant nature of this type of crime.
Conversely, file sharing and piracy does cater to a new need found in society. We have become this demanding culture where we cut, splice and gather all forms of media that cater to our personal choices and identities. In tutorials some discussed that through piracy, there is a semi positive (especially in terms of music) - that music becomes created for its individual worth and not its album value, so that overall quality stands to increase. I would have to agree. Legal platforms like itunes where you can pay per song and buy only what you prefer, do cater to this and seem to encourage the artist to inspire greater melodies to each individual work, but this isn’t piracy.
Whether songs do increase in quality, doesn’t excluded them from still being pirated, and doesn’t deter people from engaging in piracy.
It is unfortunate that piracy exists, but it seems as though there would be a few long roads to travel before it could be eliminated. With the technology at hand today, creative content seems so easy to access illegitimately; to the extent where piracy doesn’t actually feel like genuine theft despite the advertisements and the various campaigns to highlight piracy. We do have platforms available that allow for legitimate downloads, but can these be improved? Or are their new systems we could incorporate?

Exaggeration of Harm: Pirate Style

I download music and movies regularly.

I share downloaded music and movies with my friends.

They share it with me.

And I don't think there's anything illegal about that.

In Yar’s article he (or she?) talks about the differences between tangible goods and intangibles goods. I thoroughly agree with him on this matter and believe that by downloading music or movie is not stealing because you are not in actual fact taking something from someone and depriving them of its use or value. You are simply making another reproduced copy of it and that marks the difference between tangible and intangible. If on the other hand you were to make a reproduced copy with the intention of selling it for self profit, then that is another story altogether.

I honestly do not see what is so morally bad about piracy. Authorities and major anti-piracy associations make downloading seem like such a criminal act correlating it with acts of theft such as stealing a handbag from an old lady or stealing a car. That’s grand theft auto! I don’t think downloading is that major to be used as simile for stealing a car! Now is it just me or is that too far?

So i was looking up some anti-piracy ads on Youtube and came across this PRO-piracy ad. It’s pretty awesome and the song is very very catchy. Read the first comment, totally true.

Sharing is Caring: Pro-piracy Commercial - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orEhUEcxHeY&feature=related

Nice song. Graphics not so good. Maybe should download a better copy?

I found plenty of anti-piracy ads featuring celebrities. There were two that really stood out to me. The first includes an all-star cast of adult entertainers speaking out about how piracy is affecting their lives. Funny how we were on the subject of online pornography near the start of the course and to find this video links up to the beginning.

All-Star Anti-Piracy PSA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqW7fHPCdtk

The second Youtube clip I found stars a comedic genius talking about how piracy is wrong. I really like this actor so this clip kept me kinda on the fence on piracy but still didn't stop me from downloading.

Tenacious D on Piracy - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA&feature=related

Who is piracy really harming? The big industry giants and stars who have enough money as is or noone?

Don't be a douche and buy into anything these anti-piracy commercials are saying. It's jsut loud noise.

The Price We Pay to Enjoy Media

In my tutorial this week, we discussed (or argued) on the topic of copyrighting. However, someone in class made a good point about the pricing of CDs and DVDs being quite ridiculous and I definitely agree. I never really thought about it but now that it was mentioned, it has been bugging me.

On my usual trip to my favourite technology-filled store, I would enter, my eyes light up at all the new pretty gadgets, I look over the laptops, cellphones, games...to put it simply, it is my version of the Willy Wonka Factory to Augustus Gloop.
I end up at the DVD section. This is my favourite section of the whole entire store because I love collecting DVDs. I will immediately get sucked into the obvious marketing scheme of "Cheap DVDs!", "Sale!", "Everything under (a price that is actually quite expensive when you think about it)!" and that dreaded yellow sticker on the cover that has been placed over another sticker to make you think that the DVD is on sale - when it isn't!!!
Yes, studying FTVMS has made me aware of these blatant schemes but for some unknown reason, I still get sucked into buying an over-priced DVD.

But back to the tutorial...the person in my class mentioned that it is cheap to produce a CD or DVD, a few dollars maybe. All that is needed to be done is copying the movie/music onto a cheap CD and then printing out the cover and sticking it into a case. I mean, how expensive can it really be to make?
However, Luke made a good rebuttal that made me realise that it isn't just the making of the product that has costs. Things like transporting the product, paying the people to transport it, paying for the gas, paying for the truck, paying for the packers who put the product onto the truck....I could go on and on. It is like a vicious cycle.

When I think of these costs, it does make me feel that I am justifying the throwing away of my hard earned cash on a cheap CD. And on the topic of copyrighting, at least I'm paying for a genuine copy of a movie, right? So I would like to think that I'm paying to enjoy this over-priced DVD for the greater good because no, I don't steal people's handbags, I don't steal from the video store and I certainly don't steal cars because "downloading pirated DVDs is stealing."
Oh wait, did I just get sucked into another marketing scheme?!? :P

I'm joking. No, I'm not going to stop buying genuine DVDs just because downloading pirated movies are free. People should be buying genuine copies because firstly, it makes you feel better about yourself, secondly, it's a much better feeling when you're exchanging money for a physical object and lastly, I'm sure you're taking this paper because you enjoy films and media so you should be supporting this industry, not ripping it off. How would you feel if your film was being distributed illegally? It's sort of an insult, as if your "fans" are saying that your film isn't good enough to be paid for.

Bottom line, pay to enjoy media the proper way, I say!

How will media help, when disaster strikes?

Natural disasters can hit the world at any moment, and this occurred recently in New Zealand with the Christchurch earthquake. After this the media was on a frenzy preparing the rest of the country in case we were struck again.
Emergency kits were portrayed as vital, with many news shows broadcasting the essentials needed, were the kit should be placed and how to act in an emergency situation.

However for someone who’s grown up surrounded by new media, would they cope if disaster struck? We live in a world dominated by the web, we socialize via these networks and for many of us we communicate with family abroad through programs like Skye, and for many cordless phones are the only type they’ve seen.

Therefore when telecommunication providers like Vodaphone have a backup generator that only last for 8 hours, how do we contact friends and family to make sure there okay? When the internet’s down how do we let friends and family overseas know that were okay? When the electricity’s down, how are we to access news bulletins,, to inform us of ‘safe places’ ?

Its only after a disaster that you think of these things, and now to an extent new media has been developed in a way that won’t survive when the world takes matters into its own hands.

You there, Hot Potato ;)

The audience can be anyone; age, race, gender, class... even species. They could be watching television, a movie, the opera, or be on the internet.

However, in recent times, the notion of the audience has changed quite a bit. Now it is possible for an audience to interact with media. All I imagine when I say this word ‘interact’ is a world like the movie Minority Report where we can fiddle around with technology with our hands moving around in the air wearing these special glove things. In some respects, this is the way that audiences are connecting to what they see (without the gloves of course). People have the freedom to view what they want, when they want. Adverts are no longer becoming an issue when watching television – we can always record and watch our programme at a later time while fast forwarding through the adverts. I like that I can now go online and watch the episodes I couldn’t watch because for some reason Starplus was a lot more important to watch that day than just normal mainstream television. I don’t just have to leave it at watching that episode, I can even comment on it and make suggestions about what should be written into the script in the future (if I really was that eager to do so).

Has this all effectively changed the belief of the Couch Potato?

My understanding of the mythological creature the Couch Potato was that it lurks in our homes at any given time of the day. It eats, sleeps, and occasionally prowls around the house environment, either to hunt or visit the bathroom… Yes, the Couch Potato is still very much alive, but in a more evolved form you might say. Everyone knows that the television (and I’m specifically referring to the television here) makes us all complacent potatoes who are inadvertently being stuffed with advertisements and underlying discourses about who we are and what we should consume. We are passive audiences sitting there and baking in a television screening oven. But now we have a choice we did not have before. Now we can actively go out there and look for what it is we want to watch, just as we select what it is we want to read in the news, and take it in actively. Actively pushing our brains to do something, to think something, to have something to say about what is being viewed.

My Proposed Copyright and Piracy Law

I've thought of copyright and piracy issues once or twice, but I dismissed it at those moments. I think I did because I would have felt slightly guilty if I actually thought deeply about the whole system of who owns what, whose money gets lost, whose music am I supposedly 'stealing' and what's going to happen to such artist. Well, the days following the Intellectual Property lecture only gave me the obligation to actually think about the issue. Concerning the differing opinions and arguments whether piracy is wrong or right, the lecture and the reading propelled me to either take a side, sit on the fence, or just remain far away from the fence as I've been. What did I choose? I chose to sit on the fence. Let me just point out that I'm not entirely sitting on the fence, I mean, I'm not planning to tip over or something, so let's just imagine the fence has a wide platform and I'm only sitting at one side of it. But anyway, there are two reasons why I'm sitting on the fence - 1) To support the notion of the mass-produced product as publicly-owned,  2) and the notion of the mass-produced product as an emblem of profit for the "original" makers of it.

For me, there's something not quite right about piracy being 'ethically' wrong - actually, that word just blows everything out of proportion - 'ethical' (RHETORIC FAIL..!). No. 1: Ethics is a pre-given societal rules that preach on about honesty and sincerity, and doing the 'right thing'. Well, when it comes to downloading a song off the net, who says it is wrong? Who says it is right? Who decides? I guess this is where the ownership issue comes in where I'd just like to start by saying something resembling the thesis statement for this post: I don't believe the owner of the song - be it the artist or the big fat recording company that produced it - completely owns the song. Why? Because it's out there in the public. So, if it is out there, it belongs to the people out there, it is out of the corporations' hands. I remember thinking this way about 'privacy' in one of my other blog posts and how I reckon if your private information gets out, it is no longer under your control, but the public's.

I have just established the first reason why I'm sitting on the fence and this is the fact that anything mass-produced and then disseminated into the public sphere - whether bound by profit or not - partially belongs to the public. Thus, it is the public's right to make use of whatever they want to do with it for their own pleasures. In fact, I'd like to support my argument with Walter Benjamin's idea that something may be "original" but when it becomes mass-produced, it loses its value and is no longer an original but a simulacrum (a Baudrillard notion meaning 'copy'). (His study made specific reference to photography e.g. the Mona Lisa becoming reproduced around the world that the real painting loses its aura). To apply this to mass-produced products that has found its ground in the public sphere, downloading and re-creating/ re-producing them does nothing to the authenticity or value of the original. In fact, where is the original? Does anyone know, more importantly, does anyone care? 'Original' is contestable if we're looking at it from the Barthes' "nothing is new under the sun" line of thought. Looking at it from that angle, downloading stuff does nothing to the value of the "original" simply because there is no original. HOWEVER............ my other side of the fence argument asks the question: "If there is no kind of authenticity lost, isn't there any other kind of loss great enough to stand for the 'piracy is ethically wrong' rhetorical argument?" Well, yes there is, and the answer is somewhat obvious: MONEY MONEY MONEY. But note: I still wouldn't use the word 'ethically' here, that word is just so unfit.

But anyway, I say money is the big loss. Sure, companies might over-exaggerate on losses due to piracy by adding extra zeros at the end of the factual losses. But still, money is a major loss that can make me feel sorry for upcoming artists that had a hit song I didn't buy but download. (Put the likes of Gaga aside, download or not, she'll still have money growing in her backyard). I'm talking about artists who are pushed to the back of the line, non-mainstream artists, World artists, and so on. Some of these artists are either signed with Indie labels or regional small sub-labels under the big 4 who themselves are trying to make ends meet. Here, I'm trying to establish one point that it doesn't matter whether an artist is "keeping it real" by investing real art and personal creativity guided by personal values or "selling out" by privileging the bland, predictable, pop-type, commercialization in their work. The bottom line is this fact: Mass-produced cultural products are primarily meant for public consumption in return for profit. In another light, the only way to make up for the loss of authenticity at the moment of distribution is profit (and yes, in cash). This is why I think even though a product has been distributed and is thereby the public's possession, I believe the public has an obligation to give something back. I've gotta admit, one of the Copyright kids argument is pretty convincing but it lacks a certain something. It goes along the lines of: "If you made something out of your time and sweat (regardless whether there are inter-textual influences), wouldn't you be mad if someone just took it from you". Sure, I'd be mad, heck, I'd be mad! I'd stick my head out the window and scream, 'I can't take it anymore!'. However, this fails to take into consideration that we're talking about mass-produced product and not one thing one makes and someone steals. Moreover, I think the sentence is incomplete as it does not make any mention of money. Therefore, I think the sentence best suitable for my argument would be: "If you made copies of something out of your time and sweat (regardless of inter-textual influences) for the purpose of selling it indirectly to the public for profit, wouldn't you be mad if someone just took it without paying, knowing that you've just lost a few cents or dollar?". This question is honest as opposed to the first. It tells it like it is: Artists make mass-produced music to get money in return even though there may be other reasons like "to impact lives" or what not. Seeing it this way then, I think piracy is wrong as the public has an obligation to give back to the artist who shared the product in the first place.

Concluding, I maintain my split position on the fence by advocating for the public's right to own a cultural product (screw copyright). As an artist, if you put your stuff out there, it belongs out there and less under your control. But at the same time, the public also has an obligation to pay for the work at its exchange-use value. It's no contradiction, it's simply a two-way thing: "I'll make you this record, do whatever the heck you want with it, as long as you give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar". That, colleagues, I think should be the new copyright and piracy law.

Look! People are THINKING!

Hooray! Rational thought has not left the world!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10674225

Internet and Identity

Identity on the internet is an interesting topic because of the potential of almost complete anonymity and therefore of multiple identities.

IP logging is main way of tracking who is doing what, and where, on the internet. On sites that don’t do that, someone can run around with several identities, and have conversations with themselves, and who is going to notice?

Multiple identities are a staple in what is referred to as ‘trolling’ online; deliberately provoking arguments and bad blood between users for no other reason that getting that response. By creating multiple identities it’s possible to even play both sides of the argument and keep it going.

Urban dictionary has several definitions of trolls and what they do: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling

The propensity of trolls has raised the need for moderators and other such roles to ‘police’ places on the internet such as message boards, and also leads to the creation of many different systems of rules or posting regulations that members must follow or risked being banned. It’s interesting that even with the freedom the internet offers, which allows for people to feel free enough to create huge amounts of open conflict, more and more regulations are being put in place to help self-police these people, and thereby strip parts of the internet of the freedom and anonymity that make it so different from offline lives.

More mundanely, multiple identities can be used to keep different facets of one’s online life separate. This might simply be using different names, with the person acting no different when using either. Or these identities might be for radically different interests and persona put forth in each just as different. The flexibility the internet offers is still significant, even with the increase in verification and policing that many websites perform.

It will be interesting to see how identity on the internet changes as the internet continues to evolve.

Girls vs Boys

Just recently I decided to play the Sims game, which I hadn’t played in years and years, with one of my guy mates. I found myself thinking about the game in relation to Bertozzi's argument in his article 'you play like a girl'. It was very interesting to see how I developed my character to be an attractive girl while he made his in to some fictitious super human, the gendered characteristics which had been embedded through our culture, that as a girl you want to be pretty and thin an attractive and for men to be tough and macho, were being reproduced through the Sims game. Within the game gendered characteristics and stereotypes are reproduced constantly, for example just the body language and manner of the Sims show the stereotype of how a man or women should act. Some of the things within the Sims cannot be helped and I think games shouldn’t be too badly scrutinized for reproducing stereotypes but some suggestions of Bertozzis could be taken into consideration. Like his suggestion to have characters which don’t stereotypically resemble a female or male, so then people aren’t restricted to the cultural categories. I also found myself doing things within the Sims in which I subconsciously did which reflected the stereotypical girly things to do for example learn to cook and take the fashion job. I was kind of stunned because I never really thought that much about how I had learnt 'how' to be a girl. However it is clear that toys were a big part in how I learnt this behaviour. I never had a play station or played computer games that often because I was not interested in fighting and battling I was happier playing Barbie’s, which Berrtozzi points out is because it is common for girls to want to play in a way which emotionally expresses themselves. I couldn’t believe how true this was as I only became interested in computers and got a play station when the Sims came out and that is an emotionally expressive game. Its so interesting how studying gender in relation to videogames and other new media can tell us so much about we learn and maintain gender roles and characteristics. Furthermore I have always and still to this day feel inadequate when playing a video game against a boy and I think Bertozzis idea to try and normalize cross gender play in institutions such as schools is a really good one. So then maybe boys and girls will feel equal and just as adequate when competing against each other virtually and non virtually.

Piracy of music considered as stealing?

"You wouldn’t steal a car" "You wouldn’t steal a handbag" sound familiar? Most people would have heard of it. This is the starting to any modern film which strongly emphasizes on the issue of piracy as a crime. Well I have a different point of view when it comes down to downloading of music. For me I think downloading of music is not stealing because it is an intangible property and by downloading you are just duplicating copies of music. By downloading, it does not stop other users from getting access to it and you are not taking the one and only copy of the original music and having it entirely to your own. Since it is a digital content it can be copied over and over again. I think it is fine to download music from the way I look at it because it is widely known that most recording artists earn their living from concerts and piracy helps to promote and widely circulate artist’s music all over the world. As mentioned in the lecture, those people who download free music are also the ones who are purchasing more music thus generating more profit for the artist. Tangible properties such as Cars and Handbags are limited by nature as to their use and can be used by one person at a time and be in one place at a time. If you steal my car, I’m denied of the usage and unlike music it cannot be copied and since the car is an original property it is a crime when you steal it. As for music downloading since it is an intangible property, I would not consider as same as stealing a person’s car or a handbag. I think of it as more of a sharing as the reading mentions that pirates are 10 times more likely to buy music, which shows people like me and others who download free music are more likely to buy music than the ones who don’t download it for free.

Music criminals!

For me, Yars article was really interesting, as their has been many of a time when I have sat in movies feeling ashamed and feeling my toes curl up as those anti piracy adverts come on, declaring that I am a criminal if I have duplicated music off the web. They are really intimidating and do instil that idea, or as Yar calls it that 'myth', that it is a criminal act and is the same as stealing from a store. However, I do not agree completely as I think there is truth behind the statement that if someone has created something they should have control over it and benefit from it. I think that the development of the internet has created holes in the music industry but is scaring people into thinking they are criminals the right way of going about trying to accommodate for this new media? I don’t think so. I think that because it has become so easy for people to download music on the net the music industry needs to adjust to. If someone does download an artist’s song off the net, I really do not think it is a complete bad thing as the artist is still getting heard and that one song downloaded could fuel a reaction in which the person could buy cds, merchandise and then essentially attend concerts. People are e downloading the song in the first place because they want to discover if they really do enjoy this artist’s music. An idea which I think is very good which was discussed in my tutorial was that the music industry maybe needs to give people the opportunity to listen to and download music for free. However the catch is, that the person can only listen to it certain a mount of times and then has to buy it, I think this is a great idea as you will just start to like the song and it will essentially fuel that chain reaction. So overall, I do think that the approach which is taken by the music industries is harsh and other approaches in which I have just discussed which don’t turn the consumer into a criminal.

To be, or not to be? That is no longer the question...

The question is: how long do you want to be? Nanotech can apparently make us live forever, but 60 Minutes would have left some things out.

Shakespeare can be used for any number of things and this nano-technology thing is no different. Since I've done some reading on this in the past, I'd like to shed some light on the subject and thus confuse you further. This isn't going to be in-depth because I'm doing English and FTVMS for a reason, not Physics or Engineering.

I will not discuss quantum computers because that is another subject and it would take up the entire post. But look it up, its very exciting stuff.

Nanotechnology is the art of controlling matter on a molecular or atomic scale. Quantum computers do come in here. By manipulating matter on such a scale, we can build materials and thus machines that are smaller, more efficient, stronger and generally awesome. By producing, say, solar panels that are mere millimetres across, you could potentially spray them on buildings, thus creating a cheap and efficient source of energy. This is already in development and is found to be MUCH cheaper than silicon cells.

Now, I didn't see the 60 Minutes thing but from the sounds of it, it wasn't completely uplifting. Let's put it this way. In the 1950's, people firmly believed that we would have colonised the Moon and generally be living in a technological utopia by the year 1994, ruled by our lord and master, Steve Jobs. So, in 2010, there is bugger all on the Moon and our cars don't fly. Just as well. Yes, nanotechnology has a myriad of uses and yes the benefits do in most cases outweigh the drawbacks. But it is still in its infancy as a science.

Controlling things on that scale isn't easy. Socks that contain silver atoms to control foot odour are released in the wash and may potentially kill off beneficial bacteria. My pool at home has the same thing but it definitely isn't nano-scaled. Recycling nanotech stuff would be a nightmare. You drop some of it and it'll be harder to find than a contact lens in... well anywhere. No technology is perfect.

So they say they can make us live forever with this stuff. Yay! Personally I'm all for extending human life and making aging less... wrinkly but living forever? I think not. We are supposed to die. And quite frankly, I don't really mind. Though it would be very useful technology for space exploration, when it takes decades to get anywhere even if you travel at 99% the speed of light. If I could live to 200, in the state of health comparable to that of a man a fraction of my age, I would. Significant plastic surgery might be involved but I'm sure I'd be able to pay for it. 180 years on Kiwi Saver? Hell yes.

Eliminating disease would be a politically contenscious issue on an unimaginable scale. The planet is pressed as it is! If we can't sort out the world as it is now, then living "forever" would hardly help things. Besides, people wear out. They see the world, raise their families and if they're lucky, they live a full life and feel satisfied. But what about those who have things they never did? Things they regret not doing?

Tough, say I. If you did absolutely everything you ever wanted to do, and then you were offered the opportunity to just switch off, would you? Would it be suicide, euthenasia or a natural death?
The implications of nanotechnology could be beyond imagining. Culturally, socially, medically, environmentally, politically.

Give me a nice round century and then I'll call it quits. Offer me another one and I'll think about it. But if the saying "history always repeats itself" is true, then I think I'd rather switch off.

Personally, I'm sick of re-runs.

Immortality - a matter of time

Whata bout these singularity peoples?

Last night there was a story on the Singularity Institute on 60 minutes. The researchers there are working on nanotechnology to which they propose will overcome the inevitably of death allowing humans to live forever. They claimed that nanotechnology is the science in which atoms can be rearranged to the 'arrangers' will, turning atoms into building blocks. Skipping the details, those at the singularity institute propose that they will be able to reverse aging, virtually eliminate disease and reorder atoms so one can organically reproduce the heart they had at twenty - within the next fifty years; they say, humans will have access to technologies that will enable them to live forever.

In the short segment on 60 minutes, there was no discussion as to what this meant for society, in fact the whole thing seemed pretty awesome. Yet, I think it is imperative that we all start to think about what it could mean if in fifty years from now we may have the opportunity to revert back to the level of health we had in our youth.

What does it mean for society if we can live forever?

I'm afraid to even consider this subject because it is so overwhelming, but that is what we will attempt to do in part two tomorrow, in the meantime sleep.

Better, Stronger, Faster: so long as I look like Steve Austin, not Stelarc

This Wednesday, 60 Minutes ran a story featuring a segment on nanotechnology, specifically its application in medicine. While Mike McRoberts examined how such technology could potentially "cure cancer within twenty years" (amongst promising anti-ageing and longer life), I started to wonder how this form of transhumanism would be socially received. Interestingly, the 60 Minutes piece touched on the ethical problems of 'have and have-not' - the divide created by those who could afford technology and those who couldn't, but pretty much just assumed that society in general would accept this advance in technology.

But why is this? Why is it that nanotechnology is seen as a medical breakthrough, yet other forms of posthumanism are more disturbing (thank you Stelarc) to us? Is this purely aesthetics - that nanotechnology is unseen, as opposed to the visible transgressions and extensions of the human body by Stelarc, or is it something more? Both forms of technology work within the human body, 'under the skin' as a part of the organism, yet nanotech is acceptable, and third ears are not. Am I alone in making this distinction?

Perhaps it comes down to what we perceive the technology to accomplish. In the case of the 60 Minutes nanotech reporting, the focus was on technology removing human 'problems' of ageing, illness and eventually death. Stelarc, on the other (perhaps third) hand, seems to be more interested in extending human capabilities, questioning why humans should be limited in ability when technology can make us better, stronger, faster.

But isn't this is fundamentally a false distinction? Illness and ageing are as much a part of being human, as having only two ears is. Isn't using nanotech to increase health just the same as using technology to increase number of ears? How does society decide what technology helps us be functioning humans, and what technology allows us to function beyond human limits?

(Stelarc's optional Third Arm also allows him to scratch all his ears at once)

Online Identity:

We establish ourselves in the online sphere through our continued presence and visits or contributions to particular websites. Through the development of social networking sites, we have gained control over our identity, and now have the ability to portray ourselves in the way in which we would like to be seen; something which we have little control over in the physical world. The online sphere allows a new type of freedom, to choose and create your own identity and to place yourself or your opinions in a canvas which is open to interpretation.

This is where we also encounter dishonesty, and scammers/schemers who manipulate the confines of such websites for the purposes of theft or even possibly for voyeuristic purposes. The blank and vast world that is the cyber realm is one which is limitless and faceless, free from obstruction, and quite often free from consequence. And in this situation we see people who set out to advantage and manipulate and deceive others by collecting personal information resulting in identity and monetary theft. It is important as users of these social websites that we do not reveal too much about ourselves, for fear of theft or deception, which can be terrible losses. With antivirus software, and other programmes, situations like this become harder to get into, but nevertheless exist. We have the ability to control how we are portrayed and what we put into the online sphere, so it is essential we limit such information the bare minimum, if we choose not to display ourselves on a public scale.

Facebook (+1) vs. Google

Facebook’s blog today revealed the latest attack in the Facebook vs. Google battle. Facebook have joined forces with Microsoft’s search engine Bing to make searching “more social” and take a significant amount of users away from the power-house search engine Google.

Facebook’s blog makes a point of how significant our friends’ preferences and opinions are to our own choices, and the new partnership with Bing aims to give you exactly that with regard to whatever you’re searching for. For example, if I were to search ‘the Expendables’ on Bing, I could see how many of my facebook friends liked the film, which is supposed to help me make the decision on whether or not I will watch the film or influence my own opinion on the film.

The concept basically evolves from Facebook’s agenda to recommend you things, whether it is a film, cafe, restaurant or another person, whatever your friends like or whoever your friends are connected to will show up at the top of your search list.

As far as the Facebook vs. Google battle goes, the new partnership with Bing aims to encourage people to use Bing rather than Google as their primary search engine online. Bing has a significantly fewer users than Google but considering the population of Facebook, the new social search feature could see Bing become a significant threat to Google.

Of course, Google won't be taking this lying down. After the failure of Google Wave earlier this year, Google have been working on another social networking site to compete with Facebook titled Google Me.

While Facebook and Google continue competing for the internet, I do wonder what effect something like social searching will have on social interactions in real life. Will we have less to actually talk about when Facebook is doing it all for us, and will the quality of a friends opinion become irrelevant in favour of the quantity of friends liking something?