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!
Friday, 23 April 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)