Copyright...Copysh...rite!

Everyone has illegally downloaded at one point in their lives... it's literally complete rubbish if anyone says they haven't. Although, after the lecture on copyright and remix culture i do feel slightly apprehensive about downloading any songs that suddenly take my fancy.
The possible actions they can take against the user for downloading don't look much fun!
1)They can target downloaders and they give you a 3 strikes option. Caught 3 times and they can restricted your Internet connection butttt that to me seems like a human rights violation... surely the user will have a right to a fair trial or something to stop this from happening? And now i think about it, wouldn't someone have to monitor everything you do on the Internet to know whether its your third strike or not? IS that law even enforceable? It seems like a lot of bother and would upset human rights teams. I researched the 3 strikes idea for more detail and saw this;
"The European Parliament...proposed Amendment 138, which read: 'No restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end users without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information.'". I don't think this law would work as the Government would like it to... freedom rights would be breached which would result in many many many angry letters (as they won't be able to use email) to the Government. I'm also pretty sure that you can encrypt the file so that it can't be traced...Hmmm, yeah this one won't work.


2)The decoy files. This one, i have come across in my downloading times and yes, it is annoying! I would be downloading a song off of my usual file sharing application and the preview was a crude impersonation of Bill Clinton (i think) advertising a premium file sharing site. This has even happened when I've tried streaming some TV shows online. Though it is undeniably just plain annoying it hasn't stopped me and the other downloaders out there we just find another file to download or stream. Its not that hard to get around to be honest. I wouldn't say its a solution...more like a temporary annoyance that encourages the user to search for an alternative link. According to this site i found about it http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20030704/decoys_filesharing_030704?s_name=&no_ads= Madonna did a decoy file over one of her songs saying "what the f*ck are you doing?" Classic!

3)Net Neutrality- this is basically stating that the user should pay a certain amount for a level of internet usage and another user pays for the same level of access, so the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access. But this to me seems wrong. The whole point of the internet is that its FREE and Net Neutrality is trying to change this. This option seems to challenge the ability of broadband providers to use their ability to block Internet applications and content (e.g., websites, services, protocols), particularly those of competitors. In the US particularly, but elsewhere as well, the possibility of regulations designed to mandate the neutrality of the Internet has been subject to fierce debate.

4)DRM(Digital rights management). this one scrambles data that can only be readable if the user has permission to view the data, like a unlocking key. It can disable illegal distribution of the data. Nice plan in theory! But it seems that DRM is not in the best interests of the user on a website i found http://dhdeans.blogspot.com/2007/03/pros-and-cons-of-drm-protection.html says that "DRM evolved over the last two decades to serve corporations that needed a means to deal with information piracy, peer-to-peer file sharing, and various regulatory requirements. So in reality, DRM did not arise to meet the needs of end users, and in fact, it may be said to have evolved to spite the end user," says Robert Rosenberg, President of Insight. Not a perfect solution.

5)Anonymity- the controversial one! Conflict between freedom of speech and copyright laws here! This option basically means the loss of the option of anonymity which is essentially loss of freedom of speech. Its a overly simplistic solution to a accountability problem by removing content that needs its originators identified. This seems harsh and unnecessary to the user. One of the fundamental points of the internet is the freedom to express ones thoughts, feelings and ideas with everyone and this means that this privilege will be restricted and removed. The National Security Council study reflects that authentication is ruled above confidentiality. The first line of defense to most serious threats is authenticity(p.214)

Just goes to show, copyright laws and freedom of speech are arch enemies!

Get a Second Life and Online Representation.

Second Life. It's like Sims for people with even more time on their hands. The user can create an avatar that can resemble them in some way and have their avatar play out a virtual life. "Second Life really, if anything, has no limits. You can do just about anything," said creator Philip Rosedale, CEO of Linden Lab.
The programme allows the user to fly around the world and teleport to anywhere they choose. I don't mean to rant about this but i think the programme is pointless. At least with Sims you can play the God role and have fun with it. With this programme the way you represent yourself online is through flying over a virtual representation of the world and dancing for fifteen minutes for $5... Oh dear. The concept of SecondLife is a good one, basically living your life again on a virtual one or giving the opportunity to give yourself a new identity to see what it's like to be different from what you are.

Lisa Nakamura criticised this ability with her reference to the dog cartoon on a computer with the caption "On the internet no one knows you're a dog", which is exactly right. On the Internet you could be a 5" 4 porky middle aged man who works as a fishmonger but online he's a 6"2 Brad Pitt look-a-like with a modelling career. Nakamura referred to this as "computer crossdress". “I am my body to the extent that I am” (Sartre, 1943:326) this quote pretty much sums up the computer cross dressing trend.

Admittedly, i have “computer cross dressed” before... not so much to try and be someone else but to see if it could be done. And, my god, is it easy to do! I can't say it inspired me to make a habit of it but it was strangely a good experience to try and be different online it can show you a lot about yourself but in terms of cyberstalking is wrong and illegal.

But having your "identity" online, real or not, can seem exposing and may even assist users with indecent agendas in tracking people down. Sites like Facebook allow a user to find another user by typing their first and last name and location. So that means that pretty much anyone who knows a user's name and remote location can find them... not necessarily a good thing. But having an identity is key when interacting as it establishes the quality of the interaction. But virtually identity is disembodied making the concept of identity one that is open to change but only online.

Social Capital...Facebook.

THANK GOD FOR FACEBOOK! If it weren't for this site I would have never been able to keep in contact with everyone from home whilst being at uni. This is apparently called "friendsickness" (Paul & Brier, 2001) where a connection with a friend is lost or strained because of one or both of them moving away for college. I can honestly say that if I didn't have the option of social networking sites I wouldn't have kept more than two friendships going for more than a few weeks. Instant messaging helped as well but in the age of Facebook I’ve used it less and less over the passed couple of years of having Facebook.

A line of Facebook intensity caught my attention, “I feel out of touch when I haven't logged onto Facebook for a while” and my first thought was “Yep, that’s me all over” even when I’m not in the room I still leave Facebook on, I’m not sure whether it’s because I want people to be able to reach me at all times, I can check up on what other people are doing with their day when I return or I, simply, have a poor social life. But even when running a full screen program I am logged into Facebook and MSN (on some occasions I’m Twitter as well). I often refresh the page to see if any new updates have appeared on the homepage too. I’m beginning to wonder whether my face-to-face interaction is actually hindered by online social networking. I feel I’m freer to express opinions over Facebook and other social networking sites but in person I have noticed I’m more restricted in what I say. I guess being in front of a computer screen gives you some sort of feeling of anonymous power to say whatever you feel like and not get the full consequences of it. Like the hate comments on Youtube, because you can’t see the person commenting it is easy to say anything to them and not have to deal with the social awkwardness.

After reading "The benefits of Facebook "friends:" Social capital and college students' use of social network sites" it's actually weird how much of an effect social capital has on society. Can sitting in front of Facebook and MySpace really better public health, lower crime rates, and benefit financial markets (Adler & Kwon, 2002)? The point made about new forms of social capital and relationship building occurring in online social network sites. I defiantly agree with this point. People that i have met a few times face-to-face but not enough to develop a proper relationship with have developed over Facebook simply by writing on each other's walls and sharing links of similar interests which can be seen on the profile. Facebook it a way acts as a helper in friendship/relationship building, friends in common can be viewed on the profile, groups and fan pages also appear on the profile and the ability to comment upon each other's activity. Facebook assists the user in conversation topics to uphold a relationship. But then again, some people on Facebook i hardly ever speak to online are my closest friends offline and the people i talk more to online are people i don't usually see let alone converse with offline. Like Boyd and Hogan point out in their archive,
"All too frequently, someone makes a comment about how a large number of Facebook Friends must mean a high degree of social capital. Or how we can determine who is closest to who by measuring their email messages. Or that the Dunbar number can explain the average number of Facebook friends."
To me they're quite rightly pointing out how Facebook is not the same the same as "real life" as apposed to virtual life.
I have also noticed that people that I don't associate or even get on with are added to my Facebook account. Why does social networking not apply to the same rules in real life? Can people be friends on Facebook but not offline? Either way Facebook friends doesn’t actually mean that the users are friends. Just “virtual friends”.

Is the internet Killing our culture? Nah.

The workshop task was to read the debate between Andrew Keen and Emily Bell on the subject of whether or not the Internet is killing our culture. The room was divided into two groups and one side was given the task of putting across Andrew Keen's view that the Internet is killing our culture and the other with Emily Bell's. I was on the Emily Bell's side and read the article with great interest with both sides’ viewpoints. Andrew Keen's point of the Internet being bad for copyright costing music industries millions every year, however he sees it as a negative thing that anyone and everyone can publish something online. I am in agreement with Emily Bell on this one, amateur content will not destroy the careers of musicians etc. Surely because there is so much amateur stuff online it makes the professionals look even greater? The only problem would be that there is so much of it to sift through that the professionals could be buried under the amateur content.
The point Bell made about musical artists being discovered through the internet, such as Artic Monkeys and Lily Allen. The Internet offers fame of different sorts in a way. Youtube allows the user to publish their own ideas, thoughts and feelings on the Internet, this gives them their fifteen minutes of fame and even an opportunity to make money. Bell's point about how smart musicians and businesses and other creators are using the internet to promote their work was a point that i knew existed yet didn't really think about before. As an avid user of the Internet i was brought up around it and the opportunities it has offered the users has always been something that was there but i knew no better so acts like The Klaxons being discovered via the internet is the norm. Anybody can get their 15 minutes of fame but the elite hold it and get discovered.
Keen seemed fixated on how the Internet is changing society. He appears to be stuck in the dark ages and is blind to see the point that society is changing and will continue to change along with technological development whether it is wanted or not. Change happens and he is clinging onto the notion that a less technological advanced society is more beneficial. "Today's under-25 generation should be more focused on the laborious work of learning about the world than in expressing their often inchoate and ill-informed opinions." His view of the under 25s is arguably negative and therefore fogging his view of how beneficial the Internet is as a mode of freedom of speech.
It is strange that Keen is so set on criticising the Internet and it's abilities but he would have to have used the Internet himself to discover its faults, which seems hypocritical to me. If the internet is so terrible in what it offers to everyone who uses it then cease use of it. He could not possibly say that the Internet is a bad thing to have when he uses it himself.

The task, however, was throroughly enjoyable to express our own use of the Internet to try and get our point across.

Cyberstalking

The Narrative project was probably the part of the course that I was most looking forward to. Being able to run our own campaign (although fake) promised to be an interesting and challenging task.
So when it comes to online campaign projects the choosing of the topic for our campaign was a topic that caused a slight problem with the group of Rebecca Lucking,Emily Prue, Matthew Wilson, Katherine Downes, Holly Cook and I. What hadn't been done before that needed to be addressed? Our answer: cyber stalking.

The thought project by Simon Hogsberg shown in the new media art lecture was a particularly inspiring project. It was a great example of psychogeography as it gave me new awareness into what people that I’m walking passed everyday are thinking. Though, we couldn’t achieve something of this scale for our campaign, our aim was to also create a new track of thought in online safety for younger users in particular.We attempted to use psychogeography to try and get the same effect that the lecture showed us, a new way of thinking about aspects of the world that had been overlooked before.

"The motivations behind these works are the same as those that have driven most of twetntieth century art- ideology, technology, desire, the urge to experiment, communicate,critique or destroy: the elaboration of ideals or emotions, and memorialising observation or experience." Rachel Greene

The campaign took a while to get off the ground. We had the idea but what could we do with it to get the desired spread of our message? As we chose cyber stalking one obvious choice was over the internet. As a technologically advanced society, we are no strangers to the internet so we thought that making young people our target audience for the campaign would be appropriate. In the UK a national opinion poll survey reported that 75% of all children between seven and sixteen years old were regular internet users (Cyberspace Research Unit, 2002), which puts them at high risk of cyber stalking. As over half of the percentage of internet users the younger are more vulnerable to more mature users with less than honourable intentions. An example of this, though not within the age we were aiming to reach is still a prime example of cyberstalking, is the Pamela Gilbert story. After a casual dating period with a colleague for a brief amount of time she ended the relationship. Angered by this her colleague sent abusive emails and joined the sites that Gilbert was on to shadow her and used other colleagues as a reminder that he was there. (Bocij,2004: 177). Our campaign was slightly similar in the way we combined physical stalking with cyberstalking to enhance the realism of the video to make it appear more stark and unnerving.

The experience of making this campaign with my group has allowed me to see how my own media usage is not entirely safe or possibly even wise. I had msn messenger by 12 and accepted any user that requested to be a contact without a single thought to who it may be, the adolescent excitement of having a new contact took over logic. I think that there does need to be more funding and research put into safe internet use as younger users are on the internet everyday. Last year my six year old brother had set up a Facebook account and had set his age to eighteen as previous social networking sites such as Bebo had warned against under eighteens making their profile public, so in order to get round this he changed his age.

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/video/video.php?v=452459200724&subj=539018316