Wednesday, May 7, 2008
On my soapbox: Virtual Communities
April 19 2008 - the date that Facebook took over the #1 social network position from myspace. (Alexa, 2008). It really makes me wonder what is the good in all this web-based networking - I mean, sure its easy to reach people in one place on a fairly regular basis, and I know catching up on the lives of people from high school or even earlier in my life is much simpler. Sharing media, extending communications and gaining a sense of community are also up there. But really, in comparison to the good ol’ days of sitting around with a cup of coffee and catching up with old mates, the cold feeling of checking your wall on face book just doesn’t come close.
According to Rheingold, virtual communities are “social aggregations that emerge from the net when enough people carry on public discussions long enough with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace” (1994). The phrase ‘with sufficient human feeling’ worries me a little. Certainly, the concept of sending messages to one another, whether it be in the form of a wall entry or a ‘gift’ or a ‘tag’ or god knows what else, can be classified as showing some ‘human feeling’, but it still is not the same as interpersonal, face-to-face sharing of life and experience. Sitting in a dark room on a computer looking at you tube clips and ‘poking’ one another is not a real form of living.
I have a friend that said to me “There are two kinds of people in this world: Those that live, and those that blog.” Okay, so she may have been a little extreme, but it is something that stuck in my mind. I don’t want to turn into a computer zombie. I want to still go out and see live music and drink and party and generally socialise with REAL people. Not those who claim to be my friend because we sat on the bus next to each other once and I will probably never speak to again.
I know that this is extremely closed-minded, but I am scared about the future of society. I worry about the ways in which we are heading in terms of interaction and relationships. The concept of completely virtual relationships where you have never met the person you are conversing in real life - you have never looked them in the face, have never made eye contact with them, have never seen their smile or laugh - it cannot really be healthy.
There are a number of people who tend to agree with me for their own reasons: be it Umair Haque’s view (2008) of face book being evil, or Li and Bernoff’s view (2008) that face book is destroying the consumer as we know it. Facebook, although perhaps modern in terms of technology and virtual communities, is forcing us to go backwards in terms of social interactions - one of the things that define us as humans.
References
Alexa (2008) http://awis.blogspot.com/2008/05/facebook-overtakes-myspace_07.html
Haque, U. (2008) The Facebook Effect http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/haque/2008/05/http20bitscom20080506thestateo.html
Li, C. and Barnoff, J. (2008) Social Networking | Transformation http://www.changeboard.com/hrcircles/blogs/editor/archive/2008/05/07/social-networking-how-it-s-transforming-the-world.aspx
Rheingold (1994) in Bruns, A (2008) KCB201 Lecture Week 6 Online Communities. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology
Friday, May 2, 2008
Convergence: The centralisation of all media
Convergence of media is becoming a much more commonplace activity. The differentiation between one type of media is hardening as media forms are beginning to transform to meet the needs of new technology and society. The increase of interchangeable content from one media form to another is just an ordinary, everyday occurrence.
According to Jenkins, convergence refers to the “flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behaviour of media audiences” (2006, p.2).
I have begun to analyse some of the ways in which convergence is developing throughout the media universe.
Early-day media convergence started with simply being able to use mobile devices as computers – sending and receiving computer files through infra-red and blue-tooth or even USB capacities.
These days, media convergence looks more towards downloading film, television and music files from the internet, the adaptation of wireless technologies to stream online broadcast media including radio podcasts and up-to-date television programming, and even the transformation of gaming.
In looking at gaming, the internet has become a commonplace arena for tournaments to take place. People are now able to play computerised games with people from anywhere, with webcams and microphones set up to socialise the game (if the individual finds them necessary). The games can even be playing via wireless connection, sitting in a café in an everyday sense, whilst people around them are none the wiser.
Gaming is a big arena, as many individuals who are very media and technology savvy are consumers of gaming. Looking from a commercial angle, large media companies have been able to capitalise on the popularity of one media product by making others under the same brand – such as The Bourne Identity/Supremacy/Ultimatum. Not only was this a book transformed into a film, but a film concept transformed into a computer game that is immensely popular to gaming consumers – The Bourne Conspiracy. This is a very effective example of how one form of media can easily transform to fit into another – I mean, what kind of a media item would you classify Bourne as now?
Reality television has been another example that shows how we as consumers love the idea of participatory media. Jenkins (2006, p.59) mentions how television shows such as American Idol and Survivor have allowed audiences to become excited about voting for their desired winner/loser via mobile technology and internet resources. They are one of first examples of audience participation in media convergence – allowing their broadcast media and their new media technologies to coincide.
An alarming fact is the projected future of old media technologies, such as the newspaper. According to Henry Mayer, studies have shown that if current trends follow, the printed newspaper will become extinct around April 2040 (ACCC, 2005). Digital and Online resources will take over, changing the face of media forever.
The future of media in terms of convergence is based purely on consumption and technology. Where will it lead?
References
Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence culture: When new and old media collide. New York: New York University
Mayer, H. (2005) Media Convergence and the Changing Face of Media Regulation.
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=684901&nodeId=0212f46ad15b025ea7430a1b127a988d&fn=20050519%20Henry%20Mayer.pdf (Accessed May 2, 2008)
Sierra (2008) The Bourne Conspiracy Game. http://www.bournethegame.com/ (Accessed May 5, 2008)
According to Jenkins, convergence refers to the “flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behaviour of media audiences” (2006, p.2).
I have begun to analyse some of the ways in which convergence is developing throughout the media universe.
Early-day media convergence started with simply being able to use mobile devices as computers – sending and receiving computer files through infra-red and blue-tooth or even USB capacities.
These days, media convergence looks more towards downloading film, television and music files from the internet, the adaptation of wireless technologies to stream online broadcast media including radio podcasts and up-to-date television programming, and even the transformation of gaming.
In looking at gaming, the internet has become a commonplace arena for tournaments to take place. People are now able to play computerised games with people from anywhere, with webcams and microphones set up to socialise the game (if the individual finds them necessary). The games can even be playing via wireless connection, sitting in a café in an everyday sense, whilst people around them are none the wiser.
Gaming is a big arena, as many individuals who are very media and technology savvy are consumers of gaming. Looking from a commercial angle, large media companies have been able to capitalise on the popularity of one media product by making others under the same brand – such as The Bourne Identity/Supremacy/Ultimatum. Not only was this a book transformed into a film, but a film concept transformed into a computer game that is immensely popular to gaming consumers – The Bourne Conspiracy. This is a very effective example of how one form of media can easily transform to fit into another – I mean, what kind of a media item would you classify Bourne as now?
Reality television has been another example that shows how we as consumers love the idea of participatory media. Jenkins (2006, p.59) mentions how television shows such as American Idol and Survivor have allowed audiences to become excited about voting for their desired winner/loser via mobile technology and internet resources. They are one of first examples of audience participation in media convergence – allowing their broadcast media and their new media technologies to coincide.
An alarming fact is the projected future of old media technologies, such as the newspaper. According to Henry Mayer, studies have shown that if current trends follow, the printed newspaper will become extinct around April 2040 (ACCC, 2005). Digital and Online resources will take over, changing the face of media forever.
The future of media in terms of convergence is based purely on consumption and technology. Where will it lead?
References
Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence culture: When new and old media collide. New York: New York University
Mayer, H. (2005) Media Convergence and the Changing Face of Media Regulation.
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=684901&nodeId=0212f46ad15b025ea7430a1b127a988d&fn=20050519%20Henry%20Mayer.pdf (Accessed May 2, 2008)
Sierra (2008) The Bourne Conspiracy Game. http://www.bournethegame.com/ (Accessed May 5, 2008)
Thursday, May 1, 2008
The Modern Downloader - A Perspective
After watching an episode of the IT Crowd on ABC2 last night (see YouTube clip below), and reading Emmy’s blog regarding the illegal downloading of music products, I have begun to contemplate other industries that have suffered due to the increasing effects of web 2.0.
In comparisons to web 1.0, where the webmaster simply updated sites to allow for people to peruse in personal searches for information, web 2.0 has dramatically changed it, making the web experience more exciting and pleasurable, where people are able to share opinions, ideas, and files (Deelip, 2007). File sharing over web 2.0 is a serious problem.
It is becoming more and more commonplace that people are jumping online to download pirated copies of films, television shows and music. It seems that within web 2.0, people feel it necessary to share everything that they have in order to allow others to download the products for free and save their funds for a rainy day.
Intellectual property means that anything intangible produced - be it a song, poem, story, theory or invention - is legally protected. Anything copyrighted, patented or trademarked is legally unable to be reproduced without the go-ahead from the creator and their business. For the internet, this not only relates to music, but television, film, photography, and many many more forms. Rifkin makes the projection that "Concepts, ideas, and images - not things - are the real items of value in the new economy" (2000, p.5). This is to impact our society immensely.
Obviously the most controversial topic of illegal downloading is music, but as this topic has been covered a number of times already in this assignment by others, I’m going to leave it. If you are looking for more information, head here.
One aspect of illegal uploading and downloading that I would like to consider is video clips. They are available just like music or television on torrent programs, they are also made readily available on media sharing spaces like YouTube. Viacom has taken legal action against YouTube, due to the number of video clips taken from MTV and posted on the site. By posting videos on YouTube, the person posting the file is giving YouTube permission to copy and redistribute the video (Dan, 2007), which obviously isn’t the case as the poster does not own rights to the file in the first place - MTV does. This is another way in which the creators and legitimate owners of the files lose out, as royalties are not paid, as there are no funds received for the watching and redistribution of the files.
Films have the exact same problem. From purchasing the film in a legitimate sense, the creators receive renumeration for their product. Even in a cinema situation, every ticket sold has a percentage that goes to the distributor - although when downloaded, the creator misses out, and even though you may have loved the film, it could turn out to be a monetary flop.
When you next choose to press that “download” button, think about the consequences for those who really deserve the royalties - not the massive corporations, but the producers and directors of the content.
ARIA (2007) Internet File Sharing: The Myths Explained http://www.aria.com.au/pages/InternetFileSharing-TheMythsExplained.htm (Accessed May 2, 2008)
Dan (2007) Marco.org YouTube’s Legal Woes http://www.marco.org/235 (Accessed May 2, 2008)
Deelip (2007) Blogspot: The Differences Between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. http://deelip.blogspot.com/2007/02/difference-between-web-10-and-web-20.html (Accessed May 2, 2008)
Rifkin, J. (2000) The Age of Access: how the shift from ownership to access is transforming modern life. Penguin: London
In comparisons to web 1.0, where the webmaster simply updated sites to allow for people to peruse in personal searches for information, web 2.0 has dramatically changed it, making the web experience more exciting and pleasurable, where people are able to share opinions, ideas, and files (Deelip, 2007). File sharing over web 2.0 is a serious problem.
It is becoming more and more commonplace that people are jumping online to download pirated copies of films, television shows and music. It seems that within web 2.0, people feel it necessary to share everything that they have in order to allow others to download the products for free and save their funds for a rainy day.
Intellectual property means that anything intangible produced - be it a song, poem, story, theory or invention - is legally protected. Anything copyrighted, patented or trademarked is legally unable to be reproduced without the go-ahead from the creator and their business. For the internet, this not only relates to music, but television, film, photography, and many many more forms. Rifkin makes the projection that "Concepts, ideas, and images - not things - are the real items of value in the new economy" (2000, p.5). This is to impact our society immensely.
Obviously the most controversial topic of illegal downloading is music, but as this topic has been covered a number of times already in this assignment by others, I’m going to leave it. If you are looking for more information, head here.
One aspect of illegal uploading and downloading that I would like to consider is video clips. They are available just like music or television on torrent programs, they are also made readily available on media sharing spaces like YouTube. Viacom has taken legal action against YouTube, due to the number of video clips taken from MTV and posted on the site. By posting videos on YouTube, the person posting the file is giving YouTube permission to copy and redistribute the video (Dan, 2007), which obviously isn’t the case as the poster does not own rights to the file in the first place - MTV does. This is another way in which the creators and legitimate owners of the files lose out, as royalties are not paid, as there are no funds received for the watching and redistribution of the files.
Films have the exact same problem. From purchasing the film in a legitimate sense, the creators receive renumeration for their product. Even in a cinema situation, every ticket sold has a percentage that goes to the distributor - although when downloaded, the creator misses out, and even though you may have loved the film, it could turn out to be a monetary flop.
When you next choose to press that “download” button, think about the consequences for those who really deserve the royalties - not the massive corporations, but the producers and directors of the content.
ARIA (2007) Internet File Sharing: The Myths Explained http://www.aria.com.au/pages/InternetFileSharing-TheMythsExplained.htm (Accessed May 2, 2008)
Dan (2007) Marco.org YouTube’s Legal Woes http://www.marco.org/235 (Accessed May 2, 2008)
Deelip (2007) Blogspot: The Differences Between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. http://deelip.blogspot.com/2007/02/difference-between-web-10-and-web-20.html (Accessed May 2, 2008)
Rifkin, J. (2000) The Age of Access: how the shift from ownership to access is transforming modern life. Penguin: London
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
