Earlier this year we talked a lot about copyright laws and pirates music. Publishers and labels have tried to stop illegal downloading of music because they feel they are losing out on a lot of money and view illegal downloading as a form of stealing. I do not agree with their views, but putting that aside, it seems that the publishers and labels have found a way to get some of their money back. The answer to their solution is iTunes Match.
In this article, the author speaks about his views on this new product. iTunes Match cost $25 a year and it allows you to store music not downloaded off the iTunes store in the iCloud. iTunes Match will also giv you a higher quality song if one is available. As one person on twitter mentioned, if you record a song on a radio, iTunes Match can match that song for you. But where is this money going? The rumors going around are that publishers will get 12% and labels will get 58% of all revenue generated by iTunes Match. The idea here is that if I go and download a new album for $20, and then get iTunes Match. 70% of that purchase is going to the label and publisher. So now,people who down illegal music and use iTunes Match are not getting music for free any more.
While it is not clear how big iTunes Match will be, I just downloaded it yesterday. I use it because 90% of library is either downloaded illegally or off CDs borrowed from friends. I now have access to 9000 songs on my iPhone and iPad. It will be interesting to see how this turns out in the future for people with libraries full of illegally downloaded music.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Extra Blog: Jailbreaking
This week in class we talked a lot about hackers and hacker ethics. One of the ideas we learned was how hackers used have more ethics in the 60's compared to the 90's and today. While we learned about their ethics, I could help of thinking about the jailbreaking community that I follow today and how they are still following such ethics.
Before I start on how the jailbreaking community works, I should explain what jailbreaking is. Jailbreaking is exploiting a flaw in an iPhone to allow people to install applications not approved by apple. In a sense, they are breaking the iPhone out of the jail of Apple's restrictions. Just as the hackers in the 60's wanted information and secrets to be shared, these jailbreakers want the iPhone to be free.
Jailbreakers, however, have a lot of ethics and rules to follow. First and foremost, they took apple to court and made jailbreaking legal. Some people in the media have said jailbreaking is only to install applications from the app store for free. Jailbreakers, as a community, do not support this. They refuse to release any jailbreaking software that breaks any copyright laws. They demand that any jailbreaking software must be free. These rules and ethics are very similar to the hacker ethics in the 60's.
The point I am trying to make by explaining this is that there are still hacker communities today that have ethics and do not use their skills just to break the law or get what they want. I only follow the jailbreaking community, but I hope there are more communities like this out there.
Before I start on how the jailbreaking community works, I should explain what jailbreaking is. Jailbreaking is exploiting a flaw in an iPhone to allow people to install applications not approved by apple. In a sense, they are breaking the iPhone out of the jail of Apple's restrictions. Just as the hackers in the 60's wanted information and secrets to be shared, these jailbreakers want the iPhone to be free.
Jailbreakers, however, have a lot of ethics and rules to follow. First and foremost, they took apple to court and made jailbreaking legal. Some people in the media have said jailbreaking is only to install applications from the app store for free. Jailbreakers, as a community, do not support this. They refuse to release any jailbreaking software that breaks any copyright laws. They demand that any jailbreaking software must be free. These rules and ethics are very similar to the hacker ethics in the 60's.
The point I am trying to make by explaining this is that there are still hacker communities today that have ethics and do not use their skills just to break the law or get what they want. I only follow the jailbreaking community, but I hope there are more communities like this out there.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Blog Rewrite Week 9 (Cyber)Bullying
Bullying, and now Cyber-bullying is a very important topic especially when it comes to kids. This week in class we looked at both. Kids have always bullied each other, but with the emergence of cyber-bullying, bullies can now reach their victims at home instead of at school. Cyber-bullying can come in many forms, but a common form is posting a video of something embarrassing on the web (YouTube).
South park dedicated an entire episode to cyber-bullying when Cartman started missing school and spent his time playing with dolls have said dolls tell him that he was cool and wasn't fat. Kyle and Kenny filmed Cartman doing this and sent it into America's funniest home videos. They did not tell Cartman they were doing this, and when Cartman found out he nearly exploded in anger. Cartman's anger was his way of dealing with the bullying, but other kids might have different reactions. There have been suicides attributed to Cyber-bullying.
The point I am trying to make is that we can't stop all bullying, it will always happen. But bullying happens outside the home, generally at school. Kids are meant to view their homes as a place where they are safe, and Cyber-bullying takes that away because as long as there is internet they can be bullied. I think its important that parents continue to make the home a safe place for their children and protect them from cyber-bullying.
South park dedicated an entire episode to cyber-bullying when Cartman started missing school and spent his time playing with dolls have said dolls tell him that he was cool and wasn't fat. Kyle and Kenny filmed Cartman doing this and sent it into America's funniest home videos. They did not tell Cartman they were doing this, and when Cartman found out he nearly exploded in anger. Cartman's anger was his way of dealing with the bullying, but other kids might have different reactions. There have been suicides attributed to Cyber-bullying.
The point I am trying to make is that we can't stop all bullying, it will always happen. But bullying happens outside the home, generally at school. Kids are meant to view their homes as a place where they are safe, and Cyber-bullying takes that away because as long as there is internet they can be bullied. I think its important that parents continue to make the home a safe place for their children and protect them from cyber-bullying.
Week 3 Rewrite (Participatory Culture)
Participatory culture is something that is growing throughout the Media, and can be clearly seen and understood through interactions between TV companies and their audiences. Participatory culture is an aspect of what Jenkins calls convergence culture; “Where old and new media collide, where grassroots and corporate media intersect, where the power of the media producer and the power of the media consumer interact in unpredictable ways” (Jenkins 2). Participatory culture stems from the media producer and the media consumer interacting in ways we have never seen before.
A clear example of Participatory culture can be seen in how audiences reacted to LOST, a popular show that lasted six seasons. Lost was full of mystery and different questions were asked in each episode. In an attempt to answer these questions many people created websites and blogs dedicated to LOST. People wrote about what happened in previous episodes as well as creating stories for what would happen in the next episode. Some of these stories continue today despite LOST having finished the series.
Participatory Culture has grown even more since LOST, and it will probably continue to grow. It will be interesting to see how the relationships between producers and consumers continue to change. It is important to remember, as consumers, that we have the power to chose what we consume.
A clear example of Participatory culture can be seen in how audiences reacted to LOST, a popular show that lasted six seasons. Lost was full of mystery and different questions were asked in each episode. In an attempt to answer these questions many people created websites and blogs dedicated to LOST. People wrote about what happened in previous episodes as well as creating stories for what would happen in the next episode. Some of these stories continue today despite LOST having finished the series.
Participatory Culture has grown even more since LOST, and it will probably continue to grow. It will be interesting to see how the relationships between producers and consumers continue to change. It is important to remember, as consumers, that we have the power to chose what we consume.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Smart Mobs
This week in class we discussed smart mobs. Smart mobs are people coming together and performing an action. They generally come together quickly through the use of social networks such as facebook or twiiter. Others simply use the messaging service on a phone. These mobs come together to form an action generally to protest something. As technology gets more and more advanced these mobs will grow.
A good example of this happened in 2003 where "flash mobs" (which are the same as smart mobs really) gather to do a type of performance art. The mob had a mailing list to notify people where to meet and when they did they would perform very strange acts such as admiring furniture in a store and then calling someone and talking about it without using the letter o. These flash mobs spread quickly throughout the world but also have died out since then. Still, other such mobs still exist today. Another example is the occupy wallstreet movement that has swept the nation. This is a more recent example, but it is still basically the same thing. In many major cities around the world people started to participate in the occupy wallstreet protest. It was unclear what the point of these protests where as the views differed from person to person, but the action still happened thanks to twitter and facebook.
The point I am trying to make is that smart mobs have been around for a while, but they are also growing. The occupy wallstreet protest is huge is the US, while the flash mobs performances also spread throughout the world. Even the rebels in Egypt and other middle eastern countries are a type of smart mobs as they used twitter and their phones to communicate where to meet and what to do. Smart mobs have been growing over the past few years and will only continue to grow as technology becomes more accessible to people.
A good example of this happened in 2003 where "flash mobs" (which are the same as smart mobs really) gather to do a type of performance art. The mob had a mailing list to notify people where to meet and when they did they would perform very strange acts such as admiring furniture in a store and then calling someone and talking about it without using the letter o. These flash mobs spread quickly throughout the world but also have died out since then. Still, other such mobs still exist today. Another example is the occupy wallstreet movement that has swept the nation. This is a more recent example, but it is still basically the same thing. In many major cities around the world people started to participate in the occupy wallstreet protest. It was unclear what the point of these protests where as the views differed from person to person, but the action still happened thanks to twitter and facebook.
The point I am trying to make is that smart mobs have been around for a while, but they are also growing. The occupy wallstreet protest is huge is the US, while the flash mobs performances also spread throughout the world. Even the rebels in Egypt and other middle eastern countries are a type of smart mobs as they used twitter and their phones to communicate where to meet and what to do. Smart mobs have been growing over the past few years and will only continue to grow as technology becomes more accessible to people.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Is Google Evil?
This week in Digital Cultures, we looked closely at Google, and how its effected what people know about us. Our teacher said that she wanted to scare us to the point where we think about what we search on the internet, but I was not scared. The question of this blog post is in the title; is Google evil?
In the articles from the book, Googlization of Everything, the author talked about how Google stores everything we search and every website we visit. Google uses this information to help to predict what we are going to search the next time we use Google Search, but it also uses this information to provide adds for us. Google does not sell this information to other companies, but agrees to put up another companies add if we search something that relates to that add in some way. The author also spoke about the privacy settings Google has a default, which is no privacy at all. He also warns us that if google defaulted and was bought out, they would warn us, but probably not give us a chance to delete all the data Google has collected on us.
I don't fully understand why we should be so scared that information about what we like is held by a corporation like Google. So what if they know I search about nerdy stuff or shoes or what clothes I wear? That kind of stuff only means that I won't be so pissed off the advertising I see around the internet instead of seeing advertising that doesn't mean anything to me. And yes, for some people, who maybe look up porn a lot or something like that might not want that shown, but thats who they are. These corporations are not likely to hold this information over us, like we have heard of the porn industry doing. This is because this information is really just for advertising, and that is how these corporations make money. So whats the worse that could happen? Good advertising.. thats very scary...
My point is that we should not be too afraid of what information we share with google. The information we give to Google is not overly secret anyway, and I am sure if any close friends already know the kind of stuff you would search on Google.
In the articles from the book, Googlization of Everything, the author talked about how Google stores everything we search and every website we visit. Google uses this information to help to predict what we are going to search the next time we use Google Search, but it also uses this information to provide adds for us. Google does not sell this information to other companies, but agrees to put up another companies add if we search something that relates to that add in some way. The author also spoke about the privacy settings Google has a default, which is no privacy at all. He also warns us that if google defaulted and was bought out, they would warn us, but probably not give us a chance to delete all the data Google has collected on us.
I don't fully understand why we should be so scared that information about what we like is held by a corporation like Google. So what if they know I search about nerdy stuff or shoes or what clothes I wear? That kind of stuff only means that I won't be so pissed off the advertising I see around the internet instead of seeing advertising that doesn't mean anything to me. And yes, for some people, who maybe look up porn a lot or something like that might not want that shown, but thats who they are. These corporations are not likely to hold this information over us, like we have heard of the porn industry doing. This is because this information is really just for advertising, and that is how these corporations make money. So whats the worse that could happen? Good advertising.. thats very scary...
My point is that we should not be too afraid of what information we share with google. The information we give to Google is not overly secret anyway, and I am sure if any close friends already know the kind of stuff you would search on Google.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Pirates and Piracy (oh my!)
This week in Digital Cultures we focused on Pirates and Piracy of music and movies. Many of the articles we read argued that piracy was wrong because it is a form of stealing. In this blog, I want to focus on piracy of movies, as it is something I have done before and will do again.
In an article by Jack Valenti, we are told that only one out of ten movies make money (after all the money spent to make the movie) in the movie theatre, and the only way they can make that money is by consumers buying them as CDs. When I read this statement from Valenti, I laughed.. a lot. Of those ten movies, which is the one that I am going to download? The one that made all that money in the movie theatre. The other movies are most likely B rated movies or simply bad movies that people do not want to watch. Plus I wonder, just as we learned with the music industry, where that money is actually going. Producers and actors are contracted for movies, so who is getting that money? Probably just the film industry, and if you ask me they already have enough money as it is.
Another interesting point I realized is that none of the articles we read mentioned iTunes, which makes me think they were written before iTunes became popular. iTunes as completely changed the way people go about getting their music and DVDs. I am much more willing to pay $3 to rent a movie on itunes than pay $40 to buy it. iTunes has given people a cheap way to get good quality music off the internet without doing something illegal.
The point I am trying to make here is that because of iTunes there are a lot less people illegally downloading music off the internet. The only downside is that iTunes does not provide high quality movies. I can go onto piratebay.com and get Avatar in full HD for free, while iTunes provides it in 460p HD, which is the lowest quality HD possible. What I usually do is rent a movie off iTunes, and if I like it enough that I want it, I will download it illegally. So I am still supporting the creators of the movie but I also get a copy for myself in a higher quality that would probably cost about $60 in DVD form.
Piracy is not a form of stealing, it is a way to share the content that we enjoy and we want others to enjoy as well.
In an article by Jack Valenti, we are told that only one out of ten movies make money (after all the money spent to make the movie) in the movie theatre, and the only way they can make that money is by consumers buying them as CDs. When I read this statement from Valenti, I laughed.. a lot. Of those ten movies, which is the one that I am going to download? The one that made all that money in the movie theatre. The other movies are most likely B rated movies or simply bad movies that people do not want to watch. Plus I wonder, just as we learned with the music industry, where that money is actually going. Producers and actors are contracted for movies, so who is getting that money? Probably just the film industry, and if you ask me they already have enough money as it is.
Another interesting point I realized is that none of the articles we read mentioned iTunes, which makes me think they were written before iTunes became popular. iTunes as completely changed the way people go about getting their music and DVDs. I am much more willing to pay $3 to rent a movie on itunes than pay $40 to buy it. iTunes has given people a cheap way to get good quality music off the internet without doing something illegal.
The point I am trying to make here is that because of iTunes there are a lot less people illegally downloading music off the internet. The only downside is that iTunes does not provide high quality movies. I can go onto piratebay.com and get Avatar in full HD for free, while iTunes provides it in 460p HD, which is the lowest quality HD possible. What I usually do is rent a movie off iTunes, and if I like it enough that I want it, I will download it illegally. So I am still supporting the creators of the movie but I also get a copy for myself in a higher quality that would probably cost about $60 in DVD form.
Piracy is not a form of stealing, it is a way to share the content that we enjoy and we want others to enjoy as well.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Flickr
For our Flickr project, my group chose to do an 'above the influence' article at Lawrence university. We wanted to show a student being invited to a party and what the consequences of drinking and smoking are. We showed this by telling two stories: the first is what would happen if the student partied hard and the second showed what would happen if he chose not to. In the first story we tried to make it clear that the student drank a lot and smoked and that because of this he did not have a good night as he threw up and woke up in the bushes missing class. In the second story we show him choosing not to drink or smoke and instead of throwing up he helps a friend who is feeling sick and wakes up in his bed on time. The slideshow can be seen here.
To be honest I did not do a lot of preparation for the project, and neither did my group. None of us came ready with an idea and storyboard, instead we brainstormed when we met up, came up with an idea, and made a quick storyboard. One of the interesting aspects we used was making the slideshow in first person. Also using the blur in some of the photos to help this idea of the first person view really helped to bring the story along. All in all, the entire project was fun from start to finish and wasn't too hard to do.
I, however, have some issues with Flickr as I don't think it's trying to be what it really is. When I think of Flickr I equate it to scrap booking, and that is really what it is. Why use Flickr to tell a story from scratch when you can use video or animations? Flickr can be useful for sharing pictures taken on vacation, but that's scrap booking. I think if Flickr tried to be a scrap booking website it would be more well known but I think as it is now that Flickr is trying to be something it is not.
To be honest I did not do a lot of preparation for the project, and neither did my group. None of us came ready with an idea and storyboard, instead we brainstormed when we met up, came up with an idea, and made a quick storyboard. One of the interesting aspects we used was making the slideshow in first person. Also using the blur in some of the photos to help this idea of the first person view really helped to bring the story along. All in all, the entire project was fun from start to finish and wasn't too hard to do.
I, however, have some issues with Flickr as I don't think it's trying to be what it really is. When I think of Flickr I equate it to scrap booking, and that is really what it is. Why use Flickr to tell a story from scratch when you can use video or animations? Flickr can be useful for sharing pictures taken on vacation, but that's scrap booking. I think if Flickr tried to be a scrap booking website it would be more well known but I think as it is now that Flickr is trying to be something it is not.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Wikipedia
One of the main topics in class this week was Wikipedia. The question concerning wikipedia is how reliable the information is on the site. We read articles defending both sides: Shirky claiming it was great because people worked together to make the information correct as well as the grammar and other aspects. While Keen informed us that because it is not worked on by experts we cannot trust the information there. Keen argues that because a seven year old has as much authority as a scientist there is not a lot of validity in the information. Because we do not know who wrote the information, there is simply no way we can trust what we are reading. Shirky, however, argues that because so many people monitor wikipedia it is unlikely that any mistakes will last.
When I was in high school citing wikipedia was becoming a terrible thing to do. My teachers would often tell our class that we can not use wikipedia as a source. If we want to use wikipedia, scroll down to the bottom and use the sources the article cites because you might find something there. Basically, my school banned the use of wikipedia as a source. This is not uncommon; A New York Times article written in 2007 talks about how the history department banned citing wikipedia as a source when a significant number of students had misinformation for a quiz saying that the jesuits supported the shimabara rebellion. This information was wrong and when the teacher realized his students learned this information from wikipedia, he got it banned. This story is not uncommon with wikipedia, which is why it is not considered a creditable source in many schools throughout the country. I had an experience where I was looking up a type of fish and in the middle of the article someone had written poop. This shows that while there are people who inspect and look over wikipedia articles, they can not catch them all.
Wikipedia does, however, have some quality articles and it is true that people watch and inspect wikipedia for correctness and grammar. Wikipedia is a great place to start looking for basic information on a topic you do not know much about, but it is not a trusted source. I often look at wikipedia articles in my free time and I have learned a lot of good information, but I have also learned a lot of misinformation. So reading wikipedia is fine, especially for a basic knowledge, but it should not be considered a source encyclopedia to be used on research papers. The point is that both Shirky and Keen were correct: Wikipedia is a great website with lots of good information (this is what Shirky wrote) but it also is filled with misinformation (what Keen said) so it is important to remember this and take what you read on wikipedia with a grain of salt.
When I was in high school citing wikipedia was becoming a terrible thing to do. My teachers would often tell our class that we can not use wikipedia as a source. If we want to use wikipedia, scroll down to the bottom and use the sources the article cites because you might find something there. Basically, my school banned the use of wikipedia as a source. This is not uncommon; A New York Times article written in 2007 talks about how the history department banned citing wikipedia as a source when a significant number of students had misinformation for a quiz saying that the jesuits supported the shimabara rebellion. This information was wrong and when the teacher realized his students learned this information from wikipedia, he got it banned. This story is not uncommon with wikipedia, which is why it is not considered a creditable source in many schools throughout the country. I had an experience where I was looking up a type of fish and in the middle of the article someone had written poop. This shows that while there are people who inspect and look over wikipedia articles, they can not catch them all.
Wikipedia does, however, have some quality articles and it is true that people watch and inspect wikipedia for correctness and grammar. Wikipedia is a great place to start looking for basic information on a topic you do not know much about, but it is not a trusted source. I often look at wikipedia articles in my free time and I have learned a lot of good information, but I have also learned a lot of misinformation. So reading wikipedia is fine, especially for a basic knowledge, but it should not be considered a source encyclopedia to be used on research papers. The point is that both Shirky and Keen were correct: Wikipedia is a great website with lots of good information (this is what Shirky wrote) but it also is filled with misinformation (what Keen said) so it is important to remember this and take what you read on wikipedia with a grain of salt.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Identity and Self
In Sherry Turkle’s Aspect of Self, she discusses how identity and self is formed in a virtual world. There are many different ways to explore the identity and self in a virtual world, and Turkle argues that a common use is to explore parts of our identity or self that we cannot explore due to real world constrictions. She gives us an example of a man upset with his alcoholic father, and tries to be a perfect man in his virtual world (MUD). After some time, he realizes that he is addicted to his MUD and his MUD character, and has a better understanding of what it means to be an addict to something. In another example, a high school student would start arguments in his MUD to blow off some steam to prepare for a test. MUDs have helped people to find themselves and to explore themselves in different ways because they are “an escape valve for anxiety and anger that felt too dangerous to exercise in real life” (Turkle 189).
When I was in middle school (junior high), I had a very interesting experience exploring identity through CMC (mainly Google Chat). I devolved a crush on another girl in my class, but she had a boyfriend. Her boyfriend, however, was mean to her and would break up with her on her about every month. I was always the shoulder that the woman would cry on (this sounds like a bad love story…lol). One day I confessed my feelings for her, and she admitted that she had similar feelings for me. She refused, however, to break up with her boyfriend, because she still loved him. I’m not sure exactly how it happened, but about a month after this event we both created other identities. Mine was called Tom and hers Angel. These identities would ‘come out’ when we were too stressed or too fed up with something in our lives and needed an escape from the real world. Tom and Angel also lived out an aspect of our lives that we could not in real life. After about a month of knowing each other, they got together. They went on hikes and dates and all sorts of other romantic adventures. They talked about their feelings for one another, which often was a way for us to communicate how we felt about each other, but they never met in real life. These personal identities allowed us to explore what it would be like for us to be together, without actually being together. Our freshman year of high school, her boyfriend cheated on her and their relationship was officially over. Tom, and myself, were there to comfort her throughout the entire thing. About a year later, we ended Tom and Angel because we did not need them. We were together in real life, and have been ever since =).
Turkle describes how MUDs can be used to explore aspects of the self we could not explore in real life. In my experience, although it was not a MUD, my girlfriend and I were able to do just that. We explored what it would be like if we were together, it gave me a chance to show the differences between dating me and her then current boyfriend, and it gave her a chance to compare between the two experiences. While it was easy to be more romantic than is normally possible in real life, the experiences we had allowed us to know more about the other person and understand how our relationship would be. Just as Turkle mentioned the student who used MUDs to be a perfect man, I used Google Chat to try to be the perfect boyfriend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)