The deeper meaning behind an asian culture - Aluba

A few days ago my friend send me a link towards wiki link http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Corner . It explain a asian country tradition, Aluba; often seen performed by asian high school students. Aluba is basicly a act of a single male being held up by many other males, the male who is being held up are than being driven towards an object( a tree or a poll etc); colliding at his precious part. Even tho Aluba seems to be just an stupid act done by younger boys to kill time during school, it actually have some deeper meaning behind it. From reading of the web page, i learn that Aluba is used against those who is not corperating in a group of people; to punish them in a humorous way; not neccersary used to bully younger or smaller kids. Aluba were later band in asian schools because of it's hidden symbol to sex, also some argue that it may lead to damage to the sexual organs. Since the web page is in chinese, there is still a drawn picture of how Aluba is performed; for those who are curious of how aluba is performed.
word count: 192

gatekeepers

I find this concept of ‘gatekeepers’ that was spoken of in our most recent lecture fascinating, particularly when applied to an individual’s relationship with the internet and particularly the computer he/she uses.

Living in a democracy where we like to think we are all equal and possess equivalent rights and chances, we can openly question those in or holding power above us. We notice the influence of Google and question the procedure behind its page listings. Whether its rankings are legitimate results of popularity, or if there is a deeper suspect reasoning behind this pecking order. We are quick to judge and find fault with those in authority, yet do we notice or critique in the same way those in control of the computer with which we access this material within the confines our homes?

Now I’m not saying ‘kids rebel against your parents and take the computer as your own’. I’m purely wondering if we think about the gatekeepers that exist in and around the computers we daily use, particularly in the home.

These gatekeepers exist physically close to us and usually know us on a personal level. In my own home they are my parents, in particularly my dad in whose office our family computer lives. In having the computer there my dad is effectively acting as a gatekeeper in that for instance I would not feel comfortable surfing through pages of porn while sitting right next to him. Other gatekeepers are the ‘administrators’ of the computer who have control over what is loaded on in terms of software and what levels of access specific users posses. These gatekeepers could put in place further gatekeepers in the form of spyware or Norton protection software etc.

I wonder whether we realise and consider these more personal and individual gatekeepers and the hegemonic relationships between us and them. Sure you might say that you possess your own laptop and therefore this all doesn’t apply to you, but I think it does, possibly in a different place such as at work, university or at a friends home. How much do these gatekeepers personally impact our use and relation with the computer and internet? Is it for the better or worse? Where does privacy and democracy come in relating to gate keeping in general?

Piracy in NZ

The issues discussed in lectures and tutorials this previous week on piracy and hacking etc were probably the most interesting topics, for me, we've done so far in FTVMS 203 this semester. Thus, after the lecture I came home and 'googled' NZ Piracy laws as I found it astonishing that our laws meant we could not even copy our own CD's etc.

I have never myself pirated a DVD and do not necessarily condone it. However, I do think the "You wouldn't steal a car" advertisement you constantly see before movies at the theatre and now even on bought material is a bit ridiculous! How can you compare? Yes, it is similar as they are both theft but I'm curious as to whether others think it could or should be considered different as it is a bit less personal than physically grabbing a handbag from an old lady?

In the link above it states that our copyright laws where this is concerned is governed by the 'Films, Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Act 2005' which is an amended version of the 'Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993'. According to this, "This Act makes it an offence to possess or trade in "objectionable" publications. Individuals convicted of knowingly trading in objectionable material can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. Convictions for knowingly possessing objectionable material can result in a fine up to $50,000 or a five year term of imprisonment." Although this is on a slightly different scale to that I was talking about above, as in it is referring to trading rather than copying, I would be very interested to know what people thought about this sentence for trading. Personally I think the fine seems perhaps reasonable but, depending on the extent of the crime obviously, is the term of imprisonment a bit over the top?

-Lydz
(A.K.A Lydia McKinlay)

The right to speak?

I've been doing this blogging thing fairly diligently so far, just to keep on top of it because it's worth marks and I have also started to find it really helpful as far as understanding course information is...
I have been reading through posts and responses and have come to a couple of startling (or not) conclusions. We have ourselves found ourselves inside an echo chamber of ideas and opinions, along with that, we talk like we want feedback on our ideas, but we really know that compliments on how good we said something would be mostly appreciated. We also stumble over questions of a right to speak.

I have nothing against blogging as I have found it an immensely helpful academic tool while the majority of blogs I see are opinions and experience, personally I prefer the academic tool model. Because you own a computer, you are in the top 5 percent of the richest people in the world. If you have one in your room, top 2 percent.This means that the 'opinions' of all bloggers are from a minority and wealthy few.

What blogging also gives is everyone their chance to speak (the death of newspapers as some call it), their chance to voice an opinion. My argument would be that most bloggers aren't that well informed on current affairs and don't have the proper gift of writing to express themselves, I still see a big place for newspapers and magazines in the modern world, where crafstman of our language can set up a persuading point of view from lots of research based analysis. (Ok, maybe not New Zealand papers).

So the 'world' comes to blogging with a view on every issue and decides everyone must hear it, like we have some 'right to speak' that others without computers or internet or cash don't. Journalists and researchers may have their own blogs, but I will say with much confidence that they are in the minority. There are arguments for the diverse range of viewpoints you can get on the blog, but really, how diverse are they?

I don't want to see blogging stopped, basically I'd be out of marks and wouldn't get other (slightly dissimilar) views on the topics, but it doesn't seem to me to be a form of legitimate and carefully planned rhetoric. As isn't this one, I'm going to spell check, but not proof read.

What will they think of next?

Perhaps I am a little late in posting this as it would have been more topical when we were discussing MUDs and the alternate lives folks live in the many online communities. I don't know if the concept of 'Second Life' (SL) is well known but I only heard about it yesterday and believe it or not, prior to this course I was almost oblivious to the fact that this sort of stuff was out there.

Anyway SL is an online community where the individual you create is represented in 3D and there are opportunities for you to start your own business, buy land and interact with other people in the community.

This however is not why I'm writing this post. The thing I'm impressed with is that a lecturer at Bradley University who is creating an undergraduate course in "Field research in SL".

20 years ago, we wouldn't have been allowed to study television academically, 10 years ago we wouldn't have been able to study the internet academically.

Is it feasible that in 10 years time we will be laughing at how foolish we were for not be able to take a media paper on how people interact in SL? I think it might be possible, however I am not very informed on this topic so I require someone with wisdom to tell me whether this is as strange as it sounds.

-Andrew

Just Another Number

Here's the ''Quotation of the Day'' from yesterday's NY Times, yeah I know the NY Times, but it kind of ties back to web surveillance & identity metioned in the lec and tute:
"My goodness, it’s my whole personal life. I had no idea somebody was looking over my shoulder." - Thelma Arnold, an AOL user who was identified through her Web searches."
Here's an excerpt from the article "A Face Is Exposed for AOL Searcher No. 4417749" by Michael Barbaro & Tom Zeller Jr. (Being the NY Times, they wouldn't let me link)
"Buried in a list of 20 million Web search queries collected by AOL and recently released on the Internet is user No. 4417749. The number was assigned by the company to protect the searcher’s anonymity, but it was not much of a shield...And search by search, click by click, the identity of AOL user No. 4417749 became easier to discern... It did not take much investigating to follow that data trail to Thelma Arnold, a 62-year-old widow who lives in Lilburn, Ga., frequently researches her friends’ medical ailments and loves her three dogs. “Those are my searches,” she said, after a reporter read part of the list to her. AOL removed the search data from its site over the weekend and apologized for its release, saying it was an unauthorized move by a team that had hoped it would benefit academic researchers. But the detailed records of searches conducted by Ms. Arnold and 657,000 other Americans, copies of which continue to circulate online, underscore how much people unintentionally reveal about themselves when they use search engines — and how risky it can be for companies like AOL, Google and Yahoo to compile such data... the unintended consequences of all that data being compiled, stored and cross-linked are what Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a privacy rights group in Washington, called “a ticking privacy time bomb...”
There's also an interesting pic from a NY Times Store ad for a photo print of an early MIT computer. Stella

Sex sells?

I'm 110% certain the music people listen to influences the way an individual acts,thinks and feels.

I think that pop music has had a huge impact upon the teenagers of today whom are having sex younger,drinking earlier and involving themselves in things they definetly aren't ready or mature for.

In New Zealand's situation, we are very much influenced by American culture but we remain, in my view, a very diverse musical nation, yet we constantly hear on radio these songs that young kids are meant to be aspiring to and become influenced by.

This is just one example of the lyrics that young adolscents are digesting when at a party listening to "music"
CLICK HERE
I'm pretty much disgusted at these lyrics and the fact that they are able to be freely played on radio.

If these lyrics and other songs are so freely digestable, we must ask questions of what other ways music such as this is affecting adolescents. It is in changing the mindsets of the young so that music like this doesn't populate our radiowaves.

It can be linked back to the music industry where artists are made to increasingly submit to the SS anecdote-"sex sells" this can be seen in the likes of Nelly Furtado whom used to lie in a patch of flowers care-free as ever and then now she sings a song about a "premiscious boy".... exemplifies why i don't listen to radio. ha!

Is it that young adolescents like to submit to youth culture and do what everyone else is doing? listening to that type of music to fit in? I think it's time a change was made.

Any extra thoughts on this?

ALSO LINK HERE:Does what you listen to, affect who you are?

More on that cc concept

I really like the idea of the Creative Commons but I think it has a few drawbacks in it's statement of a sharing your work as much as you want to.

What it ultimately achieves is giving artists etc license to tell people to what extent and for what they want their work used, meaning I can say "you can use my song, but you can't".

I don't think this has any more grounding than the 'c' that we already blantantly rip off, because if someone sees the cc they are unlikely to go and see what they are allowed to use it for and just use it unknowing that they might be breaking some poor kids heart.

It's a good idea in concept, but I think in reality it will create a lot more copyright problems as people who misunderstand or don't even read the 'rules of use' as such start using cc files for everything and artists, lawyers start fighting against the 'illegal' use, because it wasn't used quite legally.

I don't really know what the solution to this problem is though, I really like the idea which sucks because I don't think it can really change much in reality. People will rip off cc and c, they just might feel better with cc.

As an aside, I don't think it will catch on to corporate America anyway, as a I don't think they want to give up any copyright on their products, brands etc.

Hummmm. I could be way off base, any thoughts?

Lessig Fans: Have Mercy!!

While Lessig largely presents a carefully constructed, creative and thus unusually interesting response to the war on piracy, it’s not completely flawless.

Beginning his argument identifying “Constraining Creators” as one of the consequences of continuing this war is the following prediction: “In the next ten years we will see an explosion of digital technologies. These technologies will enable almost anyone to capture and share content (2004, p. 184).”

Stemming from this assumption, he makes the rather utopian contention that “The technology of digital “capturing and sharing” promises a world of extraordinarily diverse creativity that can be easily and broadly shared. And as that creativity is applied to democracy, it will enable a broad range of citizens to use technology to express and criticise and contribute to the culture all around (2004, p. 184).”

Now a number of holes can be picked here. Although there is no doubt that in the next ten years an explosion of digital technologies will occur in the West, across the digital divide in the East and its third world countries, the difference a decade will make is far less certain. So whether “almost anyone” will be able to capture and share content with all the benefits of digital fidelity and power is arguable at best.

The promise of “a world of extraordinarily diverse creativity that can be easily and broadly shared” will remain just that, irrespective of piracy laws, unless the emphasis is placed on bridging this digital divide rather than the expanding capabilities that those on the other side are missing out on.

Regarding Lessig’s claim that when this creativity is applied to democracy, “a broad range of citizens” via digital technology will be able to engage in “the culture all around”, on the flip side of that digital divide not all countries are democratic and even with the resources many would hesitate publishing “an essay about the inconsistencies in the arguments of the politician you most love to hate (2004, p. 184).” Again the solution here does not lie in piracy laws but in targeting oppressive governments such as those leading Zimbabwe and North Korea.

Obviously these predictions and assumptions serve to strengthen Lessig’s push for a change in piracy laws. However, their lofty and perhaps deceptive nature should not be overlooked. Piracy laws may constrain digital creators in the West; across the digital divide the opportunity to become one is yet to exist.

I know there are a lot of Lessig fans out there. Feel free to disagree…….

Shan

Free ©ultutre?

In Lawrence Lesig's reading 'Free Culture...', one line that has intrigued me immensely is "..the consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never be exercised, or never be exercised in the open". This statement has been made by Lesig in regards to the 'war-on-piracy'; something I have never really stopped to think about, hearing and reading the media about law-suits from major corporations on people for supposed copy right infringments via downloading music, movies, etc.

What really caught my eye was how Corporations were getting permission from the courts to get ISP's, so they see what people have been downloading in hopes of being to take legal action and effectivelly financially crippling people whose only crime was downloading music, movies, etc. I understand that pirated music and movies is making the movie and music industry lose out on money and that their actions are to make examples of these 'war-on-piracy-casualties'. The penalties incurred by some people through the courts can't seriously be justified compared to other crimes that are committed.

However I think that it doesn't necessarily mean that they lose out on money, whether people use p2p software programme's to share music and movies, I don't think that people will stop going to the movies and concerts. The internet is a great place for business and a great place to share information. Look at the success of bands like the Arctic Monkeys whom used myspace to get themselves out to potential audiences. This sharing files on the internet of whatever is something that has been happening for centuries between the only difference is that we have found a new and better to facilitate this sharing in ways and at speeds we were previously unable to.

This is issue is quite the conundrum as Lesig claims has the potential to destroy "free-culture" and having repercussions on the creative works of people for instance, I can't remember the exact name of the play but in tutorial Kevin mentioned a production musical which was going to be based around the movie Silence of the Lambs, which was quashed due to copyright issues. I believe that we must find common ground to suite both sides, a possible way for regulating file sharing; however that in it self is another issue altogether.

-RIX

More Copyright Infringement Notices - Thanks to the Pirate Bay

Hey people, check out the Pirate Bay's "Legal" page here to read all the legal threats they get, then their replies to such companies! It’s very amusing. It's always good to see someone giving it back to the RIAA and MPAA. Though I think this legal page and their whole stance is probably the whole reason the MPAA had the U.S government threatened the Swedish government with trade sanctions (to which the Swedish complied, which is a very bad no no bowing down like that in Sweden). I guess Americans don't like a smart ass like them huh!

Creative Commons and the Big "C"...

I was interested to watch the video illustration about Creative Commons that Luke showed in the last lecture. Before watching it I didn’t even know that anything apart from “The Big C” existed.
I think that Creative Commons is an excellent idea, not doing away with Copy rite, but working in partnership with it to clarify the rules of creativity. Allowing someone to use your ideas as long as they give you credit for it. Creative Commons opens the way for the development and even improvement of ideas because people are invited to think about those ideas for themselves and add to them. The good thing about it is that the initiator of the ideas can still have some control over their ideas if they want to, it’s up to them. I believe that Creative Commons develops a body of free culture that authors and other artists can draw upon, making it possible for new and better schools of thought to emerge. CC is particularly good for the internet, where different ideas are constantly exchanged and used by other people. Creativity always builds on the past, and CC allows for this to happen, whereas Copy rite did not.

Well… I think it’s a good idea. What does everyone else think?

Blog problems

Something odd has happened to the blog. I'm aware of it and will try to get it back to full health soon... UPDATE: seems to be fixed now. There was a post containing lots of HTML code which was causing the problems. Best to avoid pasting in code as part of the content - it should be used just for formatting. Thanks.

Music Industry Afraid of Change?

The technological world is a rapidly moving and redefining one. Companies, like Google as we discussed today, are always looking at new trends in how people use the net - and how to make money out of them. Google Labs (a Google sub-domain where the more developed ideas that have come out of employees' '20% time' are shown off and tested) is a good example of the corporation's willingness, and in fact their need, to continually change and redefine the way they do business and the types of services they offer.

Examples of this somewhat fluid business strategy can be found right across the web, not only in web-based companies like Google, but in other industries such as 'the media'. I invite you to comment on other companies you feel follow this approach to business. I feel that this whole notion of a fluid, ever-changing and consumer driven market place is what the internet is all about. Its an exciting place to do business, and more and more companies are joining in.

But one industry that is dragging its heels and resisting any small bit of ideological change is the big ol', bung ol' music industry. It has been more than 7 years since 'peoples hero' Shawn Fanning started the file-sharing revolution with the invention and popularisation of Napster way back in 1999. Since then there have been countless lawsuits by various big music industry players against countless peer-to-peer services. But for each service that is crippled and shut down by legal pressure, another one appears and is quickly taken up by the masses.

You'd think the music industry (most often represented in court by the Recording Industry Association of America... (what's with America and putting their finger in the global pie??)) would have got tired of the same old line of 'copying music is really naughty! not sexy naughty - illegal naughty!' and the same old court procedures of big-guy-screws-small-guy... But they've been playing that same game for 7 years, and has anything changed? From what I can see it certainly hasn't.

Now here's where I get confused, cause isn't today's music industry supposed to have been founded on those revolutionary Rock n Roll ideals of challenging authority, rebelling, and just having a bloody good time?! Or am I romanticising things a little?

Yes, I am.

All those rock n roll pioneers are either dead or falling out of coconut trees. They don't have a grip on the music industry at all. The industry is owned by businessmen (and perhaps women). Exactly the same type of people who own your favourite multinationals Nike and McD's. And we know what they're in it for - The Money.

Well, I've got a business proposal for all those big wig RIAA members:
Give music away for free

Now, at first this does seem like some crazy idea that must have been coined by a guy who regularly exceeds his 10gb limit downloading music (which is in part true). But if you explore the idea further it isn't that crazy at all. In fact it is following the same logic that web companies figured out a few years ago. Don't charge people to use your product, give it to them for free and charge advertisers for exposure to those users. That way your product gets to more people, who are happy people - because they're getting something for nothing.

Apply this principal to music and you've got something pretty radically different to the current system, but something I think could work if record labels could face the idea of changing the way they do business. Free packaged downloads with embedded advertising (nothing that taints the music, but perhaps an audio advert between each song, or even a video) would be beneficial to bands, listeners and advertisers. The music is reaching more people (good for the bands) for free (good for listeners) and with advertising that is targeted to the demographic of the band's fan base (good for advertisers).

At this point the artier ones in the class might be thinking "hang on, advertising has no place amongst art", which I respect, but it is already happening without much uproar: When you go to a free concert in a park; that relies on advertising to run. Even a paid concert like the Big Day Out relies on advertising to subsidise ticket prices. When you go to an exhibition at the Auckland art gallery - often that will be sponsored. No one really has a problem with any of this. So why should they have a problem with receiving music for free as a result of advertising?

I realise there are many things that would need to be refined in order for this concept to work:
- How to embed advertising (audio clips? ID3 tags?)
- How to ensure people can't share the music without the advertising embedded
- How much advertisers would pay
- The role of the record label in all this (could this work better for independent bands?)

But I think those issues are ancillary to my main argument: the music industry must make a major ideological change if it wants to truly keep up with the 'file-sharing age'. Maybe they should all listen to David Bowie...

(turn and face the strain)
Ch-ch-changes
Dont want to be a richer man
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
(turn and face the strain)
Ch-ch-changes
Just gonna have to be a different man

By Popular demand - MPAA Infringment Notice

From: abuse@....
Subject: FW: Notice ID: ... Notice of Unauthorized Use of Paramount
Pictures Property
Date: July 17, 2006 13:34:28 GMT+12:00
To: ...

-----Original Message-----
From: paramount-no-reply@copyright-compliance.com
[mailto:paramount-no-reply@copyright-compliance.com]
Sent: Monday, 17 July 2006 11:43 a.m.
To: abuse@....
Subject: Notice ID: ... Notice of Unauthorized Use of Paramount
Pictures Property

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash:

Notice ID: ...
16 Jul 2006 23:42:55 GMT

... Telecommunications Ltd

Dear Sir or Madam:

BayTSP, Inc. ("BayTSP") swears under penalty of perjury that Paramount
Pictures Corporation ("Paramount") has authorized BayTSP to act as its
non-exclusive agent for copyright infringement notification. BayTSP's
search
of the protocol listed below has detected infringements of Paramount's
copyright interests on your IP addresses as detailed in the attached
report.


BayTSP has reasonable good faith belief that use of the material in the
manner complained of in the attached report is not authorized by
Paramount,
its agents, or the law. The information provided herein is accurate to
the
best of our knowledge. Therefore, this letter is an official
notification to
effect removal of the detected infringement listed in the attached
report.
The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works,
the
Universal Copyright Convention, as well as bilateral treaties with other
countries allow for protection of client's copyrighted work even beyond
U.S.
borders. The attached documentation specifies the exact location of the
infringement.

We hereby request that you immediately remove or block access to the
infringing material, as specified in the copyright laws, and insure the
user
refrains from using or sharing with others Paramount's materials in the
future (see, 17 U.S.C. 512).

Further, we believe that the entire Internet community benefits when
these
matters are resolved cooperatively. We urge you to take immediate action
to
stop this infringing activity and inform us of the results of your
actions.
We appreciate your efforts toward this common goal.

Please respond indicating the actions you have taken to resolve this
matter.
The provided link has been assigned to this matter
http://webreply.baytsp.com/webreply/webreply.jsp?customerid=.... For
email correspondence, please reference the
above Notice ID in the subject line
mailto:paramount@copyright-compliance.com?subject=Unauthorized%20Use%20o
f%20Paramount%20Pictur
es%20Property.

Nothing in this letter shall serve as a waiver of any rights or remedies
of
Paramount with respect to the alleged infringement, all of which are
expressly reserved. Should you need to contact me, I may be reached at
the
following address:

Mark Ishikawa
Chief Executive Officer
BayTSP, Inc.
PO Box 1314
Los Gatos, CA 95031

v: 408-341-2300
f: 408-341-2399
paramount@copyright-compliance.com

*pgp public key is available on the key server at
ldap://keyserver.pgp.com

Note: The information transmitted in this Notice is intended only for
the
person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. Any review, reproduction, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
this information by persons or entities other than the intended
recipient is
prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender
and
delete the material from all computers.

This infringement notice contains an XML tag that can be used to
automate
the processing of this data. If you would like more information on how
to
use this tag please contact BayTSP.
Evidentiary Information:
Notice ID: ...
Recent Infringement Timestamp: 16 Jul 2006 23:37:04 GMT
Infringed Work: Over The Hedge (DWA)
Infringing FileName: Over.The.Hedge.TS.Divx-Loki.CD2.avi
Infringing FileSize: 383727594
Protocol: eDonkey
Infringing URL:
ed2k://|file|Over.The.Hedge.TS.Divx-Loki.CD2.avi|/
Infringers IP Address: 0.0.0.0
Infringer's DNS Name: 0.0.0.0
Infringer's User Name: ....
Initial Infringement Timestamp: 16 Jul 2006 23:37:04 GMT

Everyone must watch this!

I will write some more on it later, but I just saw this and I think everyone should watch this.

Telecon

Piracy and the Prosumer

Heya. Lessig's reading is fantastic, the free culture aspect of his argument is spot on. Currently, piracy actually fuels creativity in conjunction with digital technology. I do not have the statistics to back it up, but just for fun I'm going to provide a case study. Name changed.

:o)

Frank currently has 30 GB's of illegal MP3's music on his hard drive. Let's just say it's roughly 5 MB per song, giving him a library of around 6000 songs. Let's say a standard CD has 10 tracks, so he'd own something like 600 CD's. If each CD cost $10 to buy instore (which they aren't), his current collection, if bought, would cost him $6000. Take note that many of the songs of his collection are of artists who have not released CD's into the NZ market.

Frank is a musician. He plays the guitar and he likes to record his own songs. So he gets a few pieces of software illegally off 'people' he know. He gets Reason, Soundforge, Acid, Sibelius, and a couple more programs he's heard about. He accesses online tutorials and communities and forums, all of which are free and very helpful as he navigates the software. He eventually settles on one program he likes, after extensive experimentation over several months with all the ones he has had access to. He is a student, so he qualifies for an academic licence if he buys the software. This might cost him something like $2oo per program (oversimplification, yes, but let's just go with it, just some numbers).

Frank records the songs in his bedroom, and because of the wide range of music he listens to, comes up with a new style of music that combines folk guitar, drum machine, body percussion and sampling of reverse public conversation. He releases his songs onto the net. He starts up a MySpace page. People listen to his songs for free. They love it. He gets signed. Happy happy happy.

Now multiply this by 30000 or some insanely huge number. Maybe some people aren't productive. Maybe some people don't create cool new genres or innovative music or short films or podcasts or online novels or webcomics. Maybe some people put their songs on the net and then get bored and their songs are crap and no one listens to them. But the fact of the matter is: there is an astounding amount of stuff being created out there that just simply would not be possible without the aid of piracy. I'm sure you could find ways of working around it - but let's face the facts - a 16-year old kid shelling out their life savings of $___ for a student copy of Photoshop and then finding it outdated within 18 months just doesn't sound as appealing as a free DVD from ____ that has the entire Adobe collection. Furthermore, imagine the amount of education the consumption of these pirated media would provide for future media creators that would just simply not be happening because it's too expensive, too tedious, not-available (i.e. films that just aren't released in NZ) or something else. I'm not saying piracy is right, but I am saying that piracy is a staple of prosumerism, at least right now.

Being an aspiring/student filmmaker, I've always heralded the arrival of DV as 'democratising' film as a medium. Obviously that's a bit naive - DV cameras still cost a couple grand, the best 'manual' features are still reserved for higher-end models, editing software still costs me something like two Arts papers. However, the fact that there's YouTube and free or at least cheap hosting on the net means that the distribution isn't as regulated as it used to be - at least I don't actually have to get a distribution deal before my movie gets to see the light of day. With the right promotional strategy, you could get a fairly sizable audience for your films online. It's not the same as getting your film projected in a theatre, but hey, it's pretty damn good.

Piracy and the internet help in a similar way - look at how many videos on YouTube are segments of movies or tv shows. All this is supposedly 'illegal' (it's not always enforced, but hey). Imagine talking to someone on MSN:

'I'm making a movie, in the style of ____.'
'Yo, what's that like?'
'Oh, here's a segment of his film, leaked onto Youtube.'
'Dude, that's awesome, I was thinking...'

Brain waves. Inspiration. Blah.

Ten years later the two friends emerge as Hollywood producers with a lot of bling. They've just made the latest blockbuster which - surprise: is making the studios money. Lots and lots of money.

It's only a matter of time before the 'Generation-brought-up-on, inspired, influenced and aided by-pirated-media' become the majority of those churning out mass culture.

Successful prosumers will eventually graduate to become producers. Prosumer culture and its relationship with online audiences will become a naturally talent-selecting aspect of the media industry that it'll become vital as the primary way 'amature' artists are qualified and fed into the so-called 'pro industry'.

Sure, I have a romanticised view of it all, as obviously not everyone consuming pirated media will eventually 'give back', so to speak. But hey, enough of me talking, what do you think?

Dennis

Following Hayden’s post, - Yep, ‘myspace’ and ‘Google’ have signed a deal.

Hey 203,

More news about ‘myspace.com’ and News-Corp (as was initially discussed in Lecture 3):


Following Hayden’s post, yep, it was reported on BBC-WORLD television news overnight (08/08/06) that ‘myspace’ and ‘Google’ have signed a deal. And with the Google deal, it means that News-Corp recoups most of the money it paid this year for the popular social networking website 'myspace.com'.

The BBC-World News report is as follows:

"It is now two decades since the launch of the Fox Broadcasting News-Corporation, and Rupert Murdoch once again sits on the cusp of another media revolution. He recently acquired the fast growing online community website ‘myspace.com’, paying (US) $585 million dollars. It is all part of his online strategy. The trendy website has been looking for a friend in advertising; it found one in ‘Google’. The Internet search engine is to provide search and advertising on ‘myspace.com’, and other websites owned by News-Corporation Fox International Media. The deal will see ‘Google’ pay Fox at least (US) $900 million dollars over three years, provided certain web traffic targets are met. While Mr Murdoch’s been busy making new friends he has not neglected the other parts of his empire. Over in the US his Fox TV & Cable channels continue to attract viewers, with hits like ‘American Idol’. The strategy of generating content and pushing it through its own distribution channels is paying off; advertising revenue continues to rise. And the impact of Italy’s success in the World Cup has not been confined to the playing field. The performance of the team in Germany is believed to have helped Sky-Italia score big profits. Add to that the completion of the ‘Myspace/Google’ deal, and News-Corporation’s line-up looks pretty formidable."*

* Reported by Michelle Flurry, World Business Report, BBC-World News; 08 August 2006.

(See: bbcworld.com)


What, then, might halt Mr Murdoch’s global online ownership and distribution strategy in its tracks? The US Government Gatekeepers!?!

Have a look at the article by NZ media analyst Russell Brown in the latest ‘NZ Listener’ (Aug 12, 06), titled In Bad Faith (see the ‘Wide Area News column’, p.54). Along the lines of topics discussed in today’s Lecture 4, the article discusses the potential impact of the new US Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA) legislation (which was passed basically out of moral panic) that threatens access by minors/children to social networking websites like ‘myspace’.

(See: listener.co.nz)


Also, there is an article in today’s NZ Herald (08 Aug 06) about the whole News-Corp, Myspace, Google deal. The article is titled Murdoch in $1.5b net deal, NZ Herald, Business Section C6, (Markets).

(See: nzherald.co.nz)


bests,
Andrea

How much are a few friends worth?

Google have just payed News Corp US$900 million to be the search engine used for searches within Myspace. $900 million!!! That's an insane amount of money!

Here's the full story.

The Google empire just keeps on growing... I'm already thinking of moving to San Fran, where Google has launched FREE wi-fi internet access across almost the entire CBD.

Free Culture & Piracy

"Overregulation stifles creativity" and "Overregulation corrupts citizens and weakens the rule of law" are two very thought provoking quotes from this weeks reading (Lawrence Lessig "Free Culture..."). I find it very hard to argue with this author because I totally agree with him, it’s a very interesting and fresh view on piracy and so called freedom.

He definitely clearly conveys the truth of the music industry and the war against piracy. Though I wouldn't describe it as a war, like the war on drugs and on terrorism. But it gets across the idea anyway. I don't think piracy could ever be as important as a war on drugs or terrorism, but piracy carries most probably the highest monetary penalties in law for so little offense (compared to murder or rape). It’s completely irrational. The RIAA and MPAA are totally control freaks and bullies, even taking the life savings ($2000US) off a 12-year-old girl to settle a claim. Read the reading and you'll know what I mean.

This is a very American based story, I wonder about the similarities of cases within New Zealand. I think it must be quite slim, as in single consumers being taken to court over downloading a song, I know they have done busts on actual pirating sellers. I also wonder about the percentage of kiwi's illegally downloading/copying pirated material, how many people in this class can say they don't have 1 single illegal MP3, have never taped a show off TV, have never watched a pirated movie or have never recorded music onto another CDR or blank cassette tape?

After reading that great article, here's some links to add to the experience:

Download the PDF version of H. G. Wells "The Country of the Blind" (1911) here. This is the short story mentioned at the beginning of this article, and don't worry this book is public domain, totally legal.

Keep up-to-date with the latest piracy news here. A good news site for keeping up-to-date with news and especially the craziness of the RIAA and MPAA.

Stay up-to-date with the latest pirated releases here. Movie releases here. These are 2 very interesting and useful sites. Use the sections on these site to view the NFO's (information text files) that come with every pirated release. These contain basic source information on the release. It’s also interesting to read the NFO's of pirated media that are released online illegally before the actual public release date, they sometimes include how they did it to some degree. These 2 sites are handy for assignments on piracy and researching the pirated history of a release.

-Karl

Does what you listen to affect who you are?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14227775/?GT1=8404

Yet another study to suggest that what you listen to has a profound effect on how you act. If we ignore the statistical anomalies, and the fact that there is no proof of a causal relationship, simply a correlation, we are left with more questions.

If music lyrics can effect our sexual activity, can our web-surfing have a similar effect? If we read underground news sites, are we more likely to be a dissident? If we read erotica, are we more likely to become "sexually deviant"? If we post opinion pieces, or write a blog, are we more likely to become outspoken in real life? Or is the relationship slightly more confused than that?

In the words of Nick Hornby:
"Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?"

::Mark S::

Cyber Affairs: How Real Are They?

"Hello Goldilocks,
Thought of you all of last night. Hope you were thinking of me.
Yesterday was great. Luv ya.
Magic boy."

If this note fell out of your girlfriend's jacket pocket, how would you feel? And what if you found it in her Inbox?

What is infidelity?
Twenty years ago people were sure about what constituted infidelity. A husband seen in a restaurant with his secretary, pink lipstick on his collar, strange silent phone calls, unexplained absences.

With the advent of the world wide web, you don't even have to leave the comfort of your home for dalliances. But does the romantic message in the Inbox wreak the same kind of havoc as lipstick on the collar?

Turns out it does indeed. It is the concept that the spouse feels they are not adequate compared to the virtual affair outside of real life. But should we treat online affairs as part of real life if they have such an effect to minister such actions?If is getting to the point where it is interfering with normal everyday life, then i think it acts inside Real life.

What do people think?

The Echo Chamber Effect?

Seeing as this is my first post in the class blog, and last weeks lecture was based on blogging, I’m kinda guessing that this initial entry will work out best if I discuss…wait for it…“The Blog”. I narrowed this large topic down to an interesting point that was brought up during the lecture; the idea of blogs creating a type of ‘echo chamber effect’. Just how effective is the use of this term to describe blogs?

Using the definition that was presented in the GNN clip on Wednesday, journalist Andrew Coyne stated that the echo chamber effect is “people talking to themselves and repeating their own opinions back to each other”. In the same clip, GNN’s Stephen Marshall says that this is apparent in his own site, as “huge contingents specifically come for what they’re looking for.”

It is a very persuasive idea, summing up bloggers as people who connect only with other people of the same mind. Although the statements were made in reference to political blogs, I find it applicable to all blog genres; our own class blog for example. This is the only blog that I have ever kept a regular watch on. Why? (apart from the grading) Because it involves people/students like me who are studying/interested/getting interested in digital media. This in turn has led me to search for, and look at other blogs which are also concerned with digital media, like MediaShift. I haven’t bothered to search for or kept track of any blog about “analog” media as such. I see this as an echo chamber effect of sorts.

However, I can see where the echo chamber effect has its limitations. On blogger.com dashboards for instance, (as is the case on many other sites) drifting away from your original intent is easy to do. With links to “blogs of note” to “recently updated blogs”, and even to the personal blogs of class users, I can’t say that I have been able to resist clicking on links that I would otherwise not have been interested in. Many posts in the class blog have comments that argue against the post itself. And a lot of Kevin’s posts too have led me to sites and articles that I would probably never have looked for.

On the one hand we have this “birds of a feather, sticking together” complex, where people use blogs and the internet to reinforce, and validate their interests/beliefs. Yet on the other hand we have this type of idea from the first lecture about constructing non-linear narratives that diversify our interests/beliefs.

So, is it valuable to describe blogs by using the echo chamber effect? For me and my experience of blogging, I would have to say no. I think that both of the above concepts are put to use when I’m online. Because although I start out on the internet to search for/read specific things of interest, I’m always finding that I tend to click on ‘this’ and ‘that’ link, which are pretty much irrelevant to what I begun looking for.

Hope the post wasn’t too long of a read.
Allan

Is that a Blackberry in your pocket, or are you just...oh no wait, it's just a Blackberry.

On 20/20 earlier I watched a story about Americans and their ever increasing responsibilities at work. It wasn’t that people are now working more that I found interesting, but the way that these people utilised technology to make themselves more mobile and give them an edge in their competitive modern workplaces.
That’s how they saw it anyway.
I don’t find the idea of taking calls and sorting through texts while driving all that disturbing, having partaken in that sort of behaviour myself on the odd occasion (I know I know, that’s dangerous). Nor does the idea of multi tasking to the point of working off over three types of communication device at once even make me batt an eyelid. However, I did find it somewhat surreal when a couple featured on the show said that they emailed each other from different rooms in the house rather than just talking. Or the one guy who literally had his Blackberry strapped to himself like an extra limb! Or perhaps the most interesting (disturbing) of the lot, the CEO of a firm who had phones and televisions installed in EVERY room in his house. Yes, he did take calls while in the shower. No, not video ones…
All of these people worked long hours, keeping themselves connected to the workplace virtually 24/7, for little more overall productivity or personal financial reward, which kind of seemed like they kept themselves constantly linked up in this way for other reasons (maybe just because they feel that they can't not?).
I can’t help but wonder if that distant point on the horizon called the ‘future’ has arrived…maybe we have already been enslaved by technology by making ourselves completely open to it. Is this a relationship that can last? We are by now completely physically reliant on technology, is it on its way to becoming so all consuming that people wont be able to emotionally survive without its presence? Or has that day already arrived?

Happy 15th birthday to the WWW

In a few short years the web has become so familiar that it is hard to think of life without it.

Along with that familiarity with browsers and bookmarks goes a little knowledge about the web's history...

IT"S ALIVE: Our relationship with technology and how men are creating a new bred of women

My Dad and my Brother are car and motorbike crazy. Our garage is full with road bikes dirt bikes and my brother's skyline and our family ute. (My little peugeot 306 is left outside in the cold). Anyway my Dad and my Brother are constantly refering to their machines as if they were alive and not only that, they refer to them as women, "She drove like a smooth single malt wiskey" (how masculine is that sentance!! But I have heard my dad say it before). If you pick up any car magazine and read the articles they are constantly refering to the cars as living things, and mostly they take on the pronoun of "she" (This may be a marketing ploy but it does say something about the relationship we have with technology).. Boats names are always feminine... you get the picture. I was "in the loop" with my dad and my brother until I developed breasts and then the invitations to woodhill to ride dirt bikes stoped and I've been thinking why this is... Is it because they are freaked out about me having a lesbian relationship with thier "girl"?? And I'm sure you've met thoughs guys who are so hesitant to let anyone eles drive thier cars (Of course they lie and say it's for insurance reasons, even if you only want to drive it up the driveway) but i reckon it's becuase it would be like thier girl was cheating on them with another driver. I think we've already started to develop a moral code of conduct for technology which is very semilar to the human moral code of conduct, but it kinda creates a problem for women if we want to have a hetrosexual relationship (like men seem to) with technology becuase technology has been gendered female...

The love for technology is a masculine thing - this can be proved by the ratio of men to women in our class in a ARTS subject never the less ( I've never experienced a higher number of boys in tuts before!) - But as a result, these hetrosexual (It seems) men have created a species of women in the form of technology.

I mean I have been guilty of personifing my little peugeot - some big bully of a car scrated my poor little baby in the parking lot the other day - see? But I think, maybe women view technology, if they have a sentimential attachment to it, as a non-gendered baby - that we have to nurture and protect, and maybe we cannot subsitute technology for men and have some form of sexual realationship with it because men have already substituted technology for women...

Feel free to disagree.