First of all: Thanks for the beer Ted! T’was awesome! Had a great time with everybody, debating and what not.
Anyway, Internet of Things eh?
"The Internet of Things brings many vectors together — pervasive networks, the miniaturization of networked devices, mobile communication, the refashioning of physical space as we cohabit and co-occupy space with Things. When the network that has facilitated a profound, unprecedented knitting together of complex, multi-valent social formations seeps into a space — the physical, geospatial world — which was previously void of such, what does it all mean?"(Bleeker, 2006, p9-10)
Yes, whoop de doo basil, but what does it all mean?"
I’m one of those people who believe that an iRobot sort of world is in store for us in the future. A future where we advanced things as far as they could go and we are eventually controlled by networking devices, all humanity woll be gone.
Too morbid? Sorry...
If we got this sort of tech out into third world countries and remote communities, we wouldn’t need volunteers and mercenaries to go back and forth I suppose. There could be regular shipment with exactly what these people need, with realtime updates with algorithms that could calculate disaster.
This sort of tech would have been awesome for the Japanese Tsunami that happened recently. There is definitely potential. But will it get there.
I feel like it will the Upper class move further away from the middle and lower classes, and the gap that it’s also quite large will become even larger. I feel like it will become the lazy alternative, no-one will want to go out anymore, just order in thai via a website and watch a movie through foxtel box office or something.
Also, if you don’t have time to do your groceries then you’re working too hard, simple as. Chillax hombre, sit down and have a cold beer...actually your fridge ordering beers to your house would be awesome.
But that’s not my point. I’m sort of apprehensive as to where this tech will lead us.
I think the only way I’d participate is if all my ‘things’ could have the voice of C3PO, and his humour :D.
Later dudes
Bleecker, J. (2006) 'Why Things Matter: A Manifesto for networked objects' [URL: http://www.nearfuturelaboratory.com/files/WhyThingsMatter.pdf]
Monday, October 31, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
Week 12 - VERSUS... KayOh!
Ha! The age old debate! You're either an iPhone or an Android.
First of all, I'm not a fan of Apple. I hate their stupid phones, I hate their stupid "tablet", I hate their stupid laptops (although, they are extremely light), I hate their stupid software. I hate their stupid rainbow wheel of death. HATE IT!!!
And yes I'm quite biased, I grew up with Windows machines, but I've had my fair share of Apple products.
I first started using Mac's in highschool, and I wasn't so keen.
Then, of course, who could forget the iPod? those "Jerk it out" ads had everyone hooked. I had an iPod Mini and was absolutely devastated when one day it wouldnt work. It showed a little dead iPod with a url for apple support. THAT DIDN'T REALLY HELP ME!!
Another thing I hate about Apple products, forced obsolescence. Not only is it terrible for the environment, it is extrememly expensive.
So I got a new iPod around the same time my family's computer crashed and Dad got us a Mac desktop. This was also around the same time as the "Hi, I'm a Mac" ads with Justin Long were out. Still wasn't so kee, but I guess I was thankful because I was forced to know how to use one. A few things I discovered while doing this:
NO PRINSTCREEN BUTTON
NO DELETE BUTTON
AND NO RIGHT CLICK!!!
Fast forward a few years and my parents go over to America and bring me back an iPhone. I wasn't so happy, but it was a present, so I took. Most of my friends laughed, they knew my disdain for the thing.
Eventually I wanted to get rid of it so much I used my boyfriends old Nokia E63. I wanted buttons, I wanted to make my own rigntones, I didn't want to have to sync my phone with iTunes and lose most of what I had downloaded elsewhere. I wanted the simplicity, and while Apple's main grab is that it is simple, it's waaaaay too complicated!
The only product I actually appreciate is iTunes and Genius. iTunes is funky, and it is easy to use, and Genius is exactly what I was looking for in a music player. I have all my music and if I feel like listening to a particular type I can just click the nucleus and I have an entire playlist.
I think it's funny how there is this Apple vs everyone culture, you're either with them or against them. You're with Apple because it's cool, or you;re a designer, or you're with the others because you like having something that works.
If I were to go with a Smartphone it would be a Samsung Galaxy, because it allows for more changable interaface.
I like this quote from Larry Page "That phone you're carrying around, we think of it as a
phone, but it's really a computer, right?[...]We've
learned from computers that it's really nice to have complete
connectivity, to be able to connect anything in a kind of open way...the phone is your main computing
platform. We look at those technologies and say, wow, we could do a
whole lot more."(quoted in Roth, 2008)
Page's quote really gets users, it shws what a consumer wants from their device. I find that mostly people buy iPhone's because it's the most popular, they don't really know much about it. If they did any kind of research they would know that an Android platform is a clear winner.
Mainly I hate Apple's because everyone has them, and the paranoid geek inside me envisages a future where we are all controlled through our Apple devices!
I'll leave you with how Family Guy creators feel about Macs
Roth, D. (2008) 'Google's Open Source Android OS Will Free the Wireless Web'. Wired, June 23. [URL: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/magazine/16-07/ff_android]
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Week 11 - Social networks know no boundaries.
The use of social networking in #MENA and #arabspring is, in effect, what we were talking about in the first couple of weeks with the declaration of internet dependence by Barlow:
“We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks.”
The internet, and moreover social networks know no bias, they are tools for users to do just that, use as they wish. Whether it be to declare we are in a relationship with our cat or to overthrow a government, or to highlight that the %99 are not happy with the 1% we can do that.
There could be an adverse affect of this, mobilising the mob to do bad things, like the London riots. Although they were mostly communicating through the Blackberry chat, (unable to be infiltrated by outside forces) they were notified and inspired by social media. Although it started out as a protest about England’s unhappiness with their current law enforcement situation it became an anarchists playground. Social media did not allow this to be contained.
On the other hand, most of the time you don’t it to be contained. You want it to be as widespread as possible to get the most coverage as possible. Social media can do that.
Barlow, J.P. (1996) A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace [URL: https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html]
“We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks.”
The internet, and moreover social networks know no bias, they are tools for users to do just that, use as they wish. Whether it be to declare we are in a relationship with our cat or to overthrow a government, or to highlight that the %99 are not happy with the 1% we can do that.
There could be an adverse affect of this, mobilising the mob to do bad things, like the London riots. Although they were mostly communicating through the Blackberry chat, (unable to be infiltrated by outside forces) they were notified and inspired by social media. Although it started out as a protest about England’s unhappiness with their current law enforcement situation it became an anarchists playground. Social media did not allow this to be contained.
On the other hand, most of the time you don’t it to be contained. You want it to be as widespread as possible to get the most coverage as possible. Social media can do that.
Barlow, J.P. (1996) A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace [URL: https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html]
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Week 9 - e-democracy, man
Last week I talked about how the internet allowed for a rise in citizen journalism. This is about a rise in citizen activism.
WikiLeaks is a massive grey area when it comes to ethics. What did they want to achieve? Did they want worldwide revolt/anarchy? The New Yorker articlehighlights one of the WikiLeaks personnel as being somewhat in favour of it: “[Birgitta] Jonsdottir has been in parliament for about a year, but considers herself a poet, artist, writer, and activist. Her political views are mostly anarchist.” (2010)
And the article also mentions he’s not so gracious or mature when dealing with “prospective” enemies, not proven ones: “‘WikiLeaks will not comply with legally abusive requests from Scientology any more than WikiLeaks has complied with similar demands from Swiss banks, Russian offshore stem-cell centers, former African kleptocrats, or the Pentagon.’ In his writing online, especially on Twitter, Assange is quick to lash out at perceived enemies.”(2010)
I’m all for what WikiLeaks is doing, which is forcing society to acknowledge that there is corruption and that’s it’s not just in those third world African countries far away that we don’t have to deal with; it’s closer than we think.
While it is the a leader in bottom-up activism there are others. We should take their lead, but not their example.
I admire the work of all these people.
Khatchadourian, R. (2010) 'No Secrets: Julian Assange's mission for total transparency' The New Yorker, June 7. [URL: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian]
Monday, September 19, 2011
Week 8 - New Practices of Journalism and News
Ted asks us the question “what do new forms of information gathering and dissemination such as citizen journalism mean for new media audiences, and the practices of traditional news media?”
Rule #1 of the internet should be “You should not believe the crap you read on the internet; however convincing it is”
Perfect example: I was in a Politcs tutorial and it was our last lesson so our tutor said we could ask her anything. One guy put is hands up and asked her opinion the alternate theory on the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. He said he’d read a conspiracy theory online that had said that 9/11 was a fake, that the World Trade Center would take too much to repair and so the attacks were to claim insurance. He also stated the theory had said that the American Government (more Bush than anyone else) was chummy with the Bin Laden family and therefore had planned the whole thing.
The same sentiment had been displayed in Michael Moore’s Farenheit 9/11, where he questioned why the Bin Laden family had been flown out of the USA just after the attacks happened, and why had Bush done nothing when he heard about the attacks.
You should have seen our tutor’s face. She was very gracious (she could have bit his head off) but she simply stated that the theories were exactly that, theories.
The students argument was that they were rather convincing. I couldn’t help but cringe as an academic who had probably spent most of her life studying politics and media was being questioned by a second year student.
But my story shows that people will believe anything, and while the internet is a powerful tool for getting the truth out there, it’s also just as powerful for getting bullcrap out, too.
There’s heaps out there, I did a Google search “September 11 was a fake” and got about 97,100,000 results, here’s one of them: http://bit.ly/deCrgL
Sometimes the irony or joke is lost on the user, and is used out of context.
Speaking as a journalism major, I feel I’m on a great position to be able to report the truth. You no longer have to pay your dues getting coffee for the editor before your story gets published. All one has to do is create a blog, or a free peer reviewed citizen journalist site and it’s up.
Of course, one good thing about major news outlets is that they don't usually print useless information (I said usually) and avoids kicking up too much of a fuss (less revolutions you see).
Is the internet a modern example of the Christian Bible? Years of reads, interpretations and rereads has created an entire religion that millions live and die by; the same affect could be said for the internet, many swear by what they read on the Internet too, but I don’t want to get into a religion discussion.
My personal advice is we have to take everything we see on the internet with a grain of salt, especially Wikipedia. Although, I heard the university was thinking of permitting Wikipedia as a verified source?
Rule #1 of the internet should be “You should not believe the crap you read on the internet; however convincing it is”
Perfect example: I was in a Politcs tutorial and it was our last lesson so our tutor said we could ask her anything. One guy put is hands up and asked her opinion the alternate theory on the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. He said he’d read a conspiracy theory online that had said that 9/11 was a fake, that the World Trade Center would take too much to repair and so the attacks were to claim insurance. He also stated the theory had said that the American Government (more Bush than anyone else) was chummy with the Bin Laden family and therefore had planned the whole thing.
The same sentiment had been displayed in Michael Moore’s Farenheit 9/11, where he questioned why the Bin Laden family had been flown out of the USA just after the attacks happened, and why had Bush done nothing when he heard about the attacks.
You should have seen our tutor’s face. She was very gracious (she could have bit his head off) but she simply stated that the theories were exactly that, theories.
The students argument was that they were rather convincing. I couldn’t help but cringe as an academic who had probably spent most of her life studying politics and media was being questioned by a second year student.
But my story shows that people will believe anything, and while the internet is a powerful tool for getting the truth out there, it’s also just as powerful for getting bullcrap out, too.
There’s heaps out there, I did a Google search “September 11 was a fake” and got about 97,100,000 results, here’s one of them: http://bit.ly/deCrgL
Sometimes the irony or joke is lost on the user, and is used out of context.
Speaking as a journalism major, I feel I’m on a great position to be able to report the truth. You no longer have to pay your dues getting coffee for the editor before your story gets published. All one has to do is create a blog, or a free peer reviewed citizen journalist site and it’s up.
Of course, one good thing about major news outlets is that they don't usually print useless information (I said usually) and avoids kicking up too much of a fuss (less revolutions you see).
Is the internet a modern example of the Christian Bible? Years of reads, interpretations and rereads has created an entire religion that millions live and die by; the same affect could be said for the internet, many swear by what they read on the Internet too, but I don’t want to get into a religion discussion.
My personal advice is we have to take everything we see on the internet with a grain of salt, especially Wikipedia. Although, I heard the university was thinking of permitting Wikipedia as a verified source?
Monday, September 12, 2011
Week 7 - The Long Tail
As I still don’t fully understand the long tail, but as Chris Anderson describes it: “You can find everything out there on the Long Tail. There's the back catalog, older albums still fondly remembered by longtime fans or rediscovered by new ones. There are live tracks, B-sides, remixes, even (gasp) covers. There are niches by the thousands, genre within genre within genre”
So as I see it, you are better off selling a lot of singular niche or unique titles, rather than a few of the more “popular” titles like Britney Spears. It’s sort of ironic I guess, Britney Spears is popular, but then again, so are the niche items, according to sales. I’m still a little confused...
Wait, more people are into niche than they are into popular?
“Combine enough nonhits on the Long Tail and you've got a market bigger than the hits.” (Anderson, 2004)
Oooooh! so I was sort of on the right track!
Moving right along... I get a little nostalgic when it comes to the tech and commerce of the 90’s. I tried finding a cassestte recorder so I could make actual mixtapes, and I never pass the record section in op shops (yes, I’m an opshopper). My behviour reflects the trend that as we are given more and more options, more ways to buy the popular, we find our tastes are in the niche and the vintage.
The rise of the hipster, which I think I have mentioned on this blog, is nurturing the Long Tail. A hipster loves everything old/“vintage” and ironic. Today’s hipster listens to his Walkman rather than his iPhone (which is in his pocket) wears tweed he bought not from the opshop, but from American Apparel, and rides a fixie that he spent thousands refurbishing to make it look older.
(click here for the evolution of the hipster, and see how they nurture the Long Tail market)
I’m saying that it’s now fashionable to have old and unique things. The eigthies saw “Freaks” (weeds smoking, army jacket toting rebellious types on the fringe of society) revelling in the niche of unique stylings, as did the 90’s. Now it’s everybody with a little quirky obsession that they bought from etsy.com. I’m saying there’s money in it.
While there is money in selling copious amounts of popular crap you could get in hot dollar, you can just as much, even more in marketing to the wide publics taste for the underground.
Anderson, C. (2004). The Long Tail. Wired, 12.10 [URL: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html]
Friday, September 2, 2011
Week 6.2 - CONVERGE
“In the world of media convergence, every important story gets told, every brand gets sold, and every consumer gets courted across multiple media platforms.” (Jenkins, 2006, p3)
It’s hard to imagine a world without convergent technology. I’m from a generation that brew up with the early stages of modern computers and mobile phones. I remember when Dad got a Palm Pilot and though it was the coolest thing ever... It didn’t even have wifi!
So according to our mate Jenkins, media convergence is “the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behaviour of media audiences” (2006, p2). In effect we haven’t been thrust into convergence culture like our older counterparts, but it has slowly infiltrated our lives, or flowed. As we were learning new things about the world, new technology came with it and we hardly batted an eye.
To show how completely oblivious people were back in the day of the effect computers would have on the world I have two quotes for you (bare in mind, the computers they’re talking about took up large halls and buildings). It was the chaiman of IBM, Thomas Watson, back in 1943 who stated "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
And then of course: "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.
Oh how naive they were! In the tute we spoke about how convergence affected our working life. Many of us told examples of being on holiday and wanting to check our emails, or the fading line between work and play time.
I think back to those futuristic films like The Fifth Element, where Bruce Willis can’t drive anymore because his license has expired and the car won’t work without enough points on his license (which he inserts into the car itself, doesn’t have to go to the RTA or anything). Or Eagle Eye, where a supercomputer uses all connecting devices (e.g. CCTV camera’s, wifi, ATMs, mobile phones, etc) to put into motion steps to kill off what it deems corrupt government personnel, through the likes of Shia Labeouf. Or even Back to the Future II! When Marty McFly gets fired through his television! But that’s a little morbid.
I’m not going to complain about convergence culture, it’s definitely cool, but I worry how far we will go before we can’t control it, before everything is connected and we devolve again into users, not produsers. It’s sad to think that in an age where we have more freedom to move and engage we find ourselves shackled more tightly to those things that keep us connected.
Jenkins, H. (2006). 'Worship at the altar of convergence: A new paradigm for understanding media change'. In H. Jenkins, Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide (pp 1-24). New York: New York University Press.
It’s hard to imagine a world without convergent technology. I’m from a generation that brew up with the early stages of modern computers and mobile phones. I remember when Dad got a Palm Pilot and though it was the coolest thing ever... It didn’t even have wifi!
So according to our mate Jenkins, media convergence is “the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behaviour of media audiences” (2006, p2). In effect we haven’t been thrust into convergence culture like our older counterparts, but it has slowly infiltrated our lives, or flowed. As we were learning new things about the world, new technology came with it and we hardly batted an eye.
To show how completely oblivious people were back in the day of the effect computers would have on the world I have two quotes for you (bare in mind, the computers they’re talking about took up large halls and buildings). It was the chaiman of IBM, Thomas Watson, back in 1943 who stated "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
And then of course: "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.
Oh how naive they were! In the tute we spoke about how convergence affected our working life. Many of us told examples of being on holiday and wanting to check our emails, or the fading line between work and play time.
I think back to those futuristic films like The Fifth Element, where Bruce Willis can’t drive anymore because his license has expired and the car won’t work without enough points on his license (which he inserts into the car itself, doesn’t have to go to the RTA or anything). Or Eagle Eye, where a supercomputer uses all connecting devices (e.g. CCTV camera’s, wifi, ATMs, mobile phones, etc) to put into motion steps to kill off what it deems corrupt government personnel, through the likes of Shia Labeouf. Or even Back to the Future II! When Marty McFly gets fired through his television! But that’s a little morbid.
I’m not going to complain about convergence culture, it’s definitely cool, but I worry how far we will go before we can’t control it, before everything is connected and we devolve again into users, not produsers. It’s sad to think that in an age where we have more freedom to move and engage we find ourselves shackled more tightly to those things that keep us connected.
Jenkins, H. (2006). 'Worship at the altar of convergence: A new paradigm for understanding media change'. In H. Jenkins, Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide (pp 1-24). New York: New York University Press.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Week 6.1 - I wouldn’t say it was “convergence” but impatience.
I wouldn’t say it was “convergence” but impatience. There was a demand for everything to be accessible. Everywhere because our generation wanted it that way, “I can’t be bothered to walk to my commodore 64 to send an email, hey IT companies? Do you reckon you could make my commodore more portable?”
Cue Osborne 1
“eh. Too big”
Cue IBM 5100
And so on and so forth. It still hasn’t stopped. My point is that once humans get bored of how cool the new “thing” is they’ll ask for more, with something a little different. Apple knows this, with their planned obsolescence strategy, where they create a product that has things deliberately left out of it (like flash, grrr) so consumers will be the upgrade (this also pumps out products faster because Apple don’t have to wait to test everything.
I don’t think it’s “how we’ve grown up”, it’s what we’re used to; Were used to things being requested and then brought within a couple of seconds. Smartphone’s have caused this impatience to manifest, a panel from a comic by the oatmeal displays this well.
So does more accessible media through convergence help or hinder our society?
I feel Henry Jenkins said it best when he compared how we choose to use media today to how George Orwell thought our world would be like in Nineteen Eighty-Four(1949). Jenkins mentions that Orwell though that Big Brother would be watching us all the time, but society is watching Him, and using our technology for justice, not just pleasure.
Cue Osborne 1
“eh. Too big”
Cue IBM 5100
And so on and so forth. It still hasn’t stopped. My point is that once humans get bored of how cool the new “thing” is they’ll ask for more, with something a little different. Apple knows this, with their planned obsolescence strategy, where they create a product that has things deliberately left out of it (like flash, grrr) so consumers will be the upgrade (this also pumps out products faster because Apple don’t have to wait to test everything.
I don’t think it’s “how we’ve grown up”, it’s what we’re used to; Were used to things being requested and then brought within a couple of seconds. Smartphone’s have caused this impatience to manifest, a panel from a comic by the oatmeal displays this well.
So does more accessible media through convergence help or hinder our society?
I feel Henry Jenkins said it best when he compared how we choose to use media today to how George Orwell thought our world would be like in Nineteen Eighty-Four(1949). Jenkins mentions that Orwell though that Big Brother would be watching us all the time, but society is watching Him, and using our technology for justice, not just pleasure.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Stolen or Borrowed, just tell me man
It’s never been okay to use someones work and get credit for it. It is by essence stealing their creativity.
You have a great idea, you create it, it gets big and you win big.
Not always the case though. How about it’s not your great idea, but you know how to make it better. Or the idea is yours and you create it but you get somebody else to get it off the ground. Either way your share gets smaller the ore people get involved. And that’s the money argument
The Levine & Boldrin article presents the progress argument, that without patents there is increased productivity and creativity.
Some people don’t believe it’s ok to use or borrow anther's work and use it in you own while citing the source, but I do.
I agree with Levine’s statement that without borrowing, technology would not blossom as it has. Sure, some people get left behind; you hardly hear about the inspirers or the first person there (you don’t hear about the first Nepalese person to climb Mount Everest, just saying) we only care about who did it better.
I heard that pretty much everything you see on an iPhone is patented, from the ringtones to the rounded edges, even (Ted’s favourite) the “swipe to unlock” function. The new Samsung (?) smartphone is having trouble even getting off the ground because of Apple’s patents on their own smartphone.
A perfect example of how copyright and patent can stem progress.
There was discussion in class with the question “why would you buy anything if you could get it for free?”. Most of us brought up music, as most of us have all downloaded music. There was the argument that the music industry is in turmoil because no-one is buying album’s anymore, they’re just downloading them.
I agree, the music industry as it was is in turmoil. I don’t agree that the future of a music industry is impossible.
Think about it. Artists get effed over by their record companies all the time, it’s a rare occurrence when they make it big off their first record sales. It’s touring that makes the mullah.
So, my argument is that if everyone downloads the album for free, they like it, and then they pay to go to concerts to see them. More revenue is raised through touring than record sales, for the artist that it. So, in theory, his new music revolution could turn out better for the artists, but not so good for record companies. But who likes them anyway!
And what about Disney? If he hadn’t ‘stolen’ mickey mouse we wouldn’t have the timeless classics we have today (even if his methods weren’t so honorable...)
Boldrin, M., and Levine, D.K. (2007). Introduction. In Against Intellectual Monopoly (pp. 1-15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press [URL: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/anew01.pdf]
Lessig, L. (2004). Creators. In Free Culture: How Big Media uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Strangle Creativity (pp. 21-30). New York: Penguin [URL: http://www.authorama.com/free-culture-4.html]
You have a great idea, you create it, it gets big and you win big.
Not always the case though. How about it’s not your great idea, but you know how to make it better. Or the idea is yours and you create it but you get somebody else to get it off the ground. Either way your share gets smaller the ore people get involved. And that’s the money argument
The Levine & Boldrin article presents the progress argument, that without patents there is increased productivity and creativity.
Some people don’t believe it’s ok to use or borrow anther's work and use it in you own while citing the source, but I do.
I agree with Levine’s statement that without borrowing, technology would not blossom as it has. Sure, some people get left behind; you hardly hear about the inspirers or the first person there (you don’t hear about the first Nepalese person to climb Mount Everest, just saying) we only care about who did it better.
I heard that pretty much everything you see on an iPhone is patented, from the ringtones to the rounded edges, even (Ted’s favourite) the “swipe to unlock” function. The new Samsung (?) smartphone is having trouble even getting off the ground because of Apple’s patents on their own smartphone.
A perfect example of how copyright and patent can stem progress.
There was discussion in class with the question “why would you buy anything if you could get it for free?”. Most of us brought up music, as most of us have all downloaded music. There was the argument that the music industry is in turmoil because no-one is buying album’s anymore, they’re just downloading them.
I agree, the music industry as it was is in turmoil. I don’t agree that the future of a music industry is impossible.
Think about it. Artists get effed over by their record companies all the time, it’s a rare occurrence when they make it big off their first record sales. It’s touring that makes the mullah.
So, my argument is that if everyone downloads the album for free, they like it, and then they pay to go to concerts to see them. More revenue is raised through touring than record sales, for the artist that it. So, in theory, his new music revolution could turn out better for the artists, but not so good for record companies. But who likes them anyway!
And what about Disney? If he hadn’t ‘stolen’ mickey mouse we wouldn’t have the timeless classics we have today (even if his methods weren’t so honorable...)
Boldrin, M., and Levine, D.K. (2007). Introduction. In Against Intellectual Monopoly (pp. 1-15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press [URL: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/anew01.pdf]
Lessig, L. (2004). Creators. In Free Culture: How Big Media uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Strangle Creativity (pp. 21-30). New York: Penguin [URL: http://www.authorama.com/free-culture-4.html]
Friday, August 19, 2011
Contemporary Capitalism
“We have to come to terms with the challenges and opportunities of contingent employment, precarious labour, and a structural sense of real or perceived job insecurity”(Dueze p2)
This week we discussed work seeping more into time that wasn’t necessarily work time before. In the last 10 years there has been a shift from business being rigid and confined to the office cubicle to “working from home” and sending proposals via your iPhone, while you sit sipping your latte at a café downtown.
The Dueze reading discusses that this shift from the conventional work environment will lead to a shift in other things. He outlines family: “The family has become […] a ‘shell’ or […][a] ‘zombie’ institution: people and policymakers alike still refer to the family as the primary unit in today’s society, even though in its traditional connotation of the nuclear family – two married parents and children at home – it has all but died.”
I can see a shift in other things. This constantly connected shift has been made possible by the boom of smart phones, wifi and the human fear of being obsolete. I carry my phone around “in case of emergencies”, and this is mostly the case. But it’s more of a security thing, like a blanket for a child. Also, I get reprimanded by my friends for not answering my phone a copious amount so it’s more a fear of being shouted at, and not being connected.
I think it’s a fear of being obsolete, and that if you’re offline, someone else can take over.
I had an analog experience when I moved house and had trouble getting internet for most of the uni semester. I was spending a lot of time on the computers at the BLD 17 labs at uni. I didn’t want to spend the whole day there though, so I found myself prioritising more (creating more lists, which I already do a lot!) and doing work, rather than trawling facebook. It was also the fact that I was using uni computers that I felt obliged to do work or I might get kicked off!
My job is very much online, I’m a media intern at an infrastructure research facility. I write articles for the newsletter and website as well as update facebook, twitter, youtube and the website itself, and most of my correspondence with my boss is via email. I was never a huge fan of email, but as I’ve moved into the working world I found email was easier. You didn’t waist phone credit and you could convey more content than in a text message. WIN WIN!
M Gregg talks of “coping mechanisms” for workers “to keep up with their workload regardless of formal paid hours and the impact of this “anticipatory labour” on home life.” (P1). Ted raised this question also in the tutorial…What are the skills needed to cope in this current concrete jungle (or as it becoming…ASCII jungle)? I say you need offline time. I think if you get too immersed either you’ll go a bit coocoo, or you’ll cope just fine, tough it out, and become a cyborg. I’m not sure I like either option though.
I think if you can have some time to differentiate between work and play time, the better of you’ll be.
p.s. my word processor doesn’t recognise the word “analog”, which I find ironic.
p.p.s too long...again... i apologise for my blog vomit
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
New Soft-world
I read John Perry Barlow’s “declaration of independence”, and I feel sorry for him. The poor guy, all he wants is utopia, is that too much to ask?
To be fair, at least he realises that utopia is practically impossible in the real world; this makes me think of our “where’s the line?” argument from last week.
Barlow’s “I have a dream”-esque manner of writing is nice, but also naïve. Nice, because he realises there is no hierarchy or distinction among race. Naïve because as he expressed in the previous paragraph, there is no discrimination among who “connects” so “your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us” is a nice thought but yeah, naive. With everyone having a slice, someone’s definitely going to try to monetise they’re particular brand of pizza (please bare with me and my analogies).
It’s interesting how the story of the internet has parallels even today, and I think I’ve come up with an equation of sorts:
Something cool comes along
Something cool is distributed to nerds worldwide. Those nerds with friends spread it to slightly more social people, Something cool becomes popular
Now, one of two things will happen:
a) Something cool is bought by a liberal company and distributed for free, or free-ish (known as open source or freeware).
b) Or, something cool is bought be not so liberal company and distributed not so free (known as expensive).
Kevin Kelly writes about “an emerging new economic order” or the “new economy”, and embraces this idea of option (b).
Kelly and Barlow do agree on something: the internet is not physical, almost metaphysical, and it consists of “transactions, relationships, and thought itself” as Barlow (1996) says and as Kelly expands, “the new economy has three distinguishing characteristics: It is global [and] It favors intangible things—ideas, information, and relationships.”(1999).
May I just mention the cute little similarities with these two?
Barlow: “Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind.”
Kelly “the principles governing the world of the soft—the world of intangibles, of media, of software, and of services—will soon command the world of the hard—the world of reality, of atoms, of objects, of steel and oil, and the hard work done by the sweat of brows. Iron and lumber will obey the laws of software”
Although they agree on the internet’s concept, Kelly and Barlow have different ways to use it. Kelly likes the grandeur in an economy consisting entirely on the internet, without space or time; and in this he sees no discrimination as Barlow described, you don’t need a suit or slicked hair to buys shares from your computer at home.
Barlow, I think, is one of those people who wants to keep everything in his control and clings to his rose coloured view that the internet-Triffid cannot be controlled. Barlow’s sentiments border on childish stubbornness, he should be careful because, as Kelly writes, “those who play by the new rules will prosper, while those who ignore them will not.”
eesh, this was a long one. Sorry about that!
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
A moral grey-area
One thing I have learned over the last couple of weeks is that the internet was never what anyone intended it to be.
It was envisaged that the internet, or “ARPANET” at the time, would ensure survival after a nuclear attack in the Cold War (how many technological advances have there been for fear of the Russians I ask you?), and it did that.
However it soon developed into “news and personal messages” (Sterling 1993 p2), and of course this is abused to gossip and schmooze” (Although the first big mailing list was “SF LOVERS" (for those enduring science fiction fans).
The theory of the internet also had a sort of closed network, in that only the military and academic institutions could use it.
But then it gets distributed and the boundaries no longer apply like they used to, so like now the internet in most places has no boundaries, but let’s not forget China (sneaky buggers).
A question posed in the sterling reading was “Why do people want to be "on the Internet?". The answer, he thinks, is freedom “a rare example of a true, modern, functional anarchy”, and an anarchy that is (usually) not punished or subdued. It’s all in the infrastructure, any node can speak to any other node as long as they speak the same language (TCP/IP Protocol), it’s technical, not social or political (1993, p3).
I liked Sterling’s analogy that the internet is like the English language, whereby it is what you make it (1993, p3).
With everyone with a different notion of what the internet as and what it can and should be used for, there is the question I raised earlier of boundaries. What’s right and what’s wrong, or what is appropriate, is not constitutional.
My personal opinion about this whole WoW funeral ambush thing is that, yeah, these douche-bags go and kill everyone paying respects to someone who actually dies (kind weird). That’s not what I’m concerned about. In WoW you pay real money for things, like weapons and stuff, and these people were AMBUSHED and lost their weapons and stuff, so they lost actual money...
Money exists in the real world, if you lose it, you have a right to be pissed. Just saying
Refs:
Sterling, B. (1993) 'A Short History of the Internet', The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction [URL: http://sodacity.net/system/files/Bruce_Sterling_A_Short_History_of_the_Internet.pdf]
It was envisaged that the internet, or “ARPANET” at the time, would ensure survival after a nuclear attack in the Cold War (how many technological advances have there been for fear of the Russians I ask you?), and it did that.
However it soon developed into “news and personal messages” (Sterling 1993 p2), and of course this is abused to gossip and schmooze” (Although the first big mailing list was “SF LOVERS" (for those enduring science fiction fans).
The theory of the internet also had a sort of closed network, in that only the military and academic institutions could use it.
But then it gets distributed and the boundaries no longer apply like they used to, so like now the internet in most places has no boundaries, but let’s not forget China (sneaky buggers).
A question posed in the sterling reading was “Why do people want to be "on the Internet?". The answer, he thinks, is freedom “a rare example of a true, modern, functional anarchy”, and an anarchy that is (usually) not punished or subdued. It’s all in the infrastructure, any node can speak to any other node as long as they speak the same language (TCP/IP Protocol), it’s technical, not social or political (1993, p3).
I liked Sterling’s analogy that the internet is like the English language, whereby it is what you make it (1993, p3).
With everyone with a different notion of what the internet as and what it can and should be used for, there is the question I raised earlier of boundaries. What’s right and what’s wrong, or what is appropriate, is not constitutional.
My personal opinion about this whole WoW funeral ambush thing is that, yeah, these douche-bags go and kill everyone paying respects to someone who actually dies (kind weird). That’s not what I’m concerned about. In WoW you pay real money for things, like weapons and stuff, and these people were AMBUSHED and lost their weapons and stuff, so they lost actual money...
Money exists in the real world, if you lose it, you have a right to be pissed. Just saying
Refs:
Sterling, B. (1993) 'A Short History of the Internet', The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction [URL: http://sodacity.net/system/files/Bruce_Sterling_A_Short_History_of_the_Internet.pdf]
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
"Networks know no boundaries"
"Power does not reside in institutions" a Michel Foucault quote in this weeks reading for DIGC202, which about sums up what we're doing in the subject.
Ma brutha Manuell Castells expands Foucault to say that "power does not reside in institutions, not even in the state or in large corporations. It is located in the networks that structure society"; Like this subject, for example, or this university, or this blog!
It is hard to fathom how many networks structure our daily grind. Networking isn't a new concept, but it has taken on new meaning with the obvious advances in technology, and the advances in human interaction with technology.
Never have we been so connected. A citizen with a computer or any device with internet capabilities has the same power that Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward had in Watergate now. Outbrake of violent and non violent protests around the world are no longer buried under the damage control arms of governments, large sketchy corporations and their subsidiaries.
"Information is an essential source of wealth and power"(p221). Information is more accessible now because "networks know no boundaries"(p222) thankfully!
Getting excited to kick on with DIC202 Global Networks, looks kinda fun!
Castells, M. (2004) 'Afterword: why networks matter'. In Network Logic: Who governs in an interconnected world? (pp. 219-224) [URL: http://www.kirkarts.com/wiki/images/5/51/Castells_Why_Networks_Matter.pdf
Ma brutha Manuell Castells expands Foucault to say that "power does not reside in institutions, not even in the state or in large corporations. It is located in the networks that structure society"; Like this subject, for example, or this university, or this blog!
It is hard to fathom how many networks structure our daily grind. Networking isn't a new concept, but it has taken on new meaning with the obvious advances in technology, and the advances in human interaction with technology.
Never have we been so connected. A citizen with a computer or any device with internet capabilities has the same power that Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward had in Watergate now. Outbrake of violent and non violent protests around the world are no longer buried under the damage control arms of governments, large sketchy corporations and their subsidiaries.
"Information is an essential source of wealth and power"(p221). Information is more accessible now because "networks know no boundaries"(p222) thankfully!
Getting excited to kick on with DIC202 Global Networks, looks kinda fun!
Castells, M. (2004) 'Afterword: why networks matter'. In Network Logic: Who governs in an interconnected world? (pp. 219-224) [URL: http://www.kirkarts.com/wiki/images/5/51/Castells_Why_Networks_Matter.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)