tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9541869653851520702024-03-05T05:24:23.937-05:00DigiMedia10A blog for our Public Communication in Digital Environments graduate class in Fordham University's Department of Communication and Media Studies.Lance Stratehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13033954765699126246noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-20286025305596205292014-11-13T22:33:00.001-05:002014-11-13T22:38:15.850-05:00She's Lost Control - Trailer - Stockholm International Film Festival 2014<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hsZRorXeXKI" width="480"></iframe>Not sure but at 1:30 there is a guy or girl wearing a pink thong outside of his/her jeans...new fashion statement! And quite risquee...JessLuv75http://www.blogger.com/profile/13872958701471080453noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-25462014663952655312010-07-01T17:16:00.000-04:002010-07-01T17:18:02.959-04:00Final PaperAlexandra Petrello<br />Public Communication in Digital Environments<br />Dr. Lance Strate<br />Term Paper<br />July 1st, 2010<br /><br />Facebook—Beyond Social Networking<br /><br /> <br />The year of 2004 stunned our world with many remarkable events such as: the Boston Red Sox’s victory in the World Series, the city of San Francisco issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples, the finale of the ever-so popular Friends sitcom airing on television, capital punishment being declared unconstitutional in the state of New York, Hurricane Charley strikes strong in Florida, Martha Stewart is sentenced to five months in jail and Facebook joins the social networking scene. Since then, Facebook has come a long way within the media world and has formed many followers--about 400 million of them. Facebook claims that the average user has about 130 friends and spends over 55 minutes on Facebook.com per day. Over 100 million of these users are gaining access through their mobile device, however, they are also twice more active then non-mobile device users. There are approximately 70 site translations of Facebook and more than one million websites have incorporated the Facebook Platform. (Statistics provide by Facebook.com) As the Facebook craze continues and as it’s popularity grows; Facebook is now being utilized beyond it’s social networking means.<br /><br />Mark Zuckerberg, Founder and Chief Executive of Facebook, began this venture as an undergraduate at Harvard University. Many universities had actual face books, where students would be able to identify other students by their name and photo. Essentially, he took an everyday college item and turned it into a worldwide phenomenon. Originally, the site was only available to Harvard students; however, it quickly spread to other Ivy League universities, schools in the Boston area and then to other colleges/universities across the United States. In 2005 Facebook expanded to the high school network and to international schools. In 2006 work networks were added and Facebook reached 12 million active users. In the years to follow, Facebook Ads, Facebook Marketplace, Facebook Chat, Facebook Applications and Facebook Mobile launched. <br /><br />Facebook is known to many as a social networking medium that allows it’s users to stay connected with friends, family, coworkers, class mates, etc… Through wall posts, photos, private messages, chats, news feeds and poking it is easy to stay in touch with people you know. Moreover, users are allowed to share messages, photos, videos, notes and postings with their Facebook friends. Originally, Facebook was created for students to keep in touch with one another on the World Wide Web. However, throughout the last two years, Facebook has soared to becoming the fourth largest website. This is partially due to the further development of Facebook as more than just a social networking medium. What makes Facebook so popular is its ability to operate beyond its social networking means. For instance, it is used by employers /companies/institutions to search profiles of possible, future employees and as a digital venue for advertising/marketing.<br /><br />Facebook and Employers<br /><br />It is a known fact that many employers are now using social networking sites during the interview and recruiting process. When looking at many qualified resumes, many employers have turned to Facebook to search the profiles of candidates for a few reasons. Firstly, since Facebook is so accessible, it is extremely easy and time efficient to search. Secondly, many feel that information on Facebook is public information because it is on the Web and therefore, it can be observed by all. Thirdly, Facebook can be used to express oneself and employers view it as another way to learn about the candidate beyond their resume and cover letter. Even though this may be true to some degree, viewing a Facebook profile may also manipulate an employer’s decision for the incorrect reasons. For instance, consider this scenario provided by Peter Engler and Peter Tanoury:<br /><br />“A recruiter at a Denver based company has a stack of resumes on their desk from recent University of Colorado graduates. Due to time constraints and the fact that each applicant appears equally qualified, the recruiter decides to go online and check their Facebook profiles for any relevant information to aid in the hiring process. However, the recruiter does not have access to the CU Facebook network and asks one of their CU interns to log on for them. The recruiter begins searching through profiles based on the stack of submitted resumes. The first profile pops up. It doesn't take long before the recruiter sees that the applicant’s political affiliation is "very liberal" and listed under her interests is a pro-choice feminist club. Being a conservative Christian, the recruiter immediately throws away the applicant’s resume, never giving them a fair chance.”<br /><br />This really is a shocking reality but looking at the basic information of any given Facebook profile provides you with personal information such as, sexual orientation, age, relationship status, political and religious views. This gives employers the opportunity to gather addition information beyond the resume and make wrongful assumptions. For instance, an employer may have a strong Republican background and might discriminate against someone who has chosen to declare himself as a Democrat on their Facebook profile. Furthermore, an employer may assume that if a female candidate’s relationship status is engaged on her profile that they do not plan on working for a long period of time because of her marriage and possible future pregnancy. However, all of this information is illegal to ask in a normal, face to face interview for this is personal information that can not be used against anyone in their place of employment or used against them during a interview process. Is this what some employers are looking for beyond the resume and cover letter? Furthermore, employers can even judge you on old photos, a wall post, a group you are part of, your interests or even who you are friends with on Facebook. It seems to be unfair as a Facebook profile does not express your work ethic or your job performance. However, it seems that many employers are resulting to Facebook to help make decisions on prospective candidates. A survey was done among 5, 000 employers throughout the United States by the University of Dayton. “Forty percent of employers say they would consider the Facebook profile of a potential employee as part of their hiring decision, and several reported rescinding offers after checking out Facebook.”(Wiley) Unfortunately Facebook searching to screen candidates is increasingly becoming more of a reality and interviewees need to be aware. Some career services suggest increasing privacy settings. Will Facebook users that are job searching need to alter their profiles to land a job? Employers need to remember that Facebook profiles are not resumes and are not designed to be a part of the interview process.<br /><br /> “Students have become afraid to post information in their profiles because they<br />don’t know how a prospective employer would interpret the information. Students have also become afraid to share their personal lives with their fellow college students due to the fact that it is easier for corporations to access user’s information if their profiles are left unprotected. Such instances are unfortunate as they reflect Facebook’s trend from a social networking website towards a bland collection of impersonal resumes.” (Engler and Tanoury, p11)<br /><br />Even Facebook has something to say about this in their Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which can be found on the website under the Terms link. All of the key statements are in bold font below.<br />“Protecting Other People's RightsWe respect other people's rights, and expect you to do the same.<br />You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else's rights or otherwise violates the law.<br />We can remove any content or information you post on Facebook if we believe that it violates this Statement.<br />We will provide you with tools to help you protect your intellectual property rights. To learn more, visit our <a href="http://www.facebook.com/legal/copyright.php?howto_report">How to Report Claims of Intellectual Property Infringement</a> page.<br />If we remove your content for infringing someone else's copyright, and you believe we removed it by mistake, we will provide you with an <a href="http://www.facebook.com/legal/copyright.php?howto_appeal=1">opportunity to appeal</a>.<br />If you repeatedly infringe other people's intellectual property rights, we will disable your account when appropriate.<br />You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook, the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Wall and 32665), or any confusingly similar marks, without our written permission.<br />If you collect information from users, you will: obtain their consent, make it clear you (and not Facebook) are the one collecting their information, and post a privacy policy explaining what information you collect and how you will use it.<br />You will not post anyone's identification documents or sensitive financial information on Facebook.<br />You will not tag users or send email invitations to non-users without their consent.”<br />Firstly, if Facebook respects the rights of it’s users then so should all employers. This includes following all anti-discrimination laws based from the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). Employers are required by law to respect potential employees by not asking them personal questions about their sex orientation, race, religion, age, etc… Additionally, they can not choose or not choose applicants based on the above information. Secondly, number 7 indicates that one needs to gain consent in order to collect information from any user’s profile. Accordingly, employers should then be asking their applicants for permission to gain information from their Facebook profile. Clearly many employers have violated the Terms set by Facebook. Not only are the Facebook Terms being violated but it also seems that the anti-discrimination laws are being breached.<br /><br />Ultimately, Facebook profiles provide additional information that should not be part of any interview process and this information can be easily held against any candidate. Using Facebook or any other social networking medium makes the interview process an unfair one. Moreover, if wrongful assumptions are made and if some Facebook profiles are taken too seriously; employers might be missing out on many qualified candidates and fundamental assets to their team, company, institution, office or staff. Therefore, employers who rely on Facebook as a decision maker during the recruiting process might find themselves missing out on quality workers. The interview process should include things like a review of the cover letter, resume, face to face interview, criminal background check, drug test, etc… However, employers need to ask themselves--Is a social networking background check really necessary? It seems pretty unethical as it is hard to leave personal feelings and thoughts out of religion, political views or sexual orientation. To all the employers who Facebook search: Do you need to know if I’m a Liberal, a Republican, a heterosexual, a homosexual or engaged? Do you need to see pictures of when I was drunk back in college, when I played a prank on a old friend or dressed up for Halloween? Using personal information against a potential employee or making assumptions back on a Facebook profile should not be part of the decision making process when hiring for future employment.<br /><br />Facebook and Advertising<br /><br />Facebook has become the perfect site for advertisements with a large audience of 400 million users. It makes perfect sense to showcase Ads on a website that is viewed so many times a day by so many users. With such a large audience, advertising any product has become easily accessible.<br /><br />Facebook has extensive advertising guidelines available on the website. From destination URLs to targeting Ads with alcohol content—Facebook lays it all out there. For instance:<br />“Ads that contain a URL or domain in the body must link to that same URL or domain,” “Any targeting of ads based on a user attribute, such as age, gender, location, or interest, must be directly relevant to the offer, and cannot be done by a method inconsistent with privacy and data policies,” and “Ads cannot include content that might appeal to (or mislead) minors by implying that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is fashionable or the accepted course of behavior for those who are underage.” (facebook.com/ad_guidelines)<br /><br />Although detailed, Facebook advertising can easily target users by their profile interests, favorite music, movies and TV shows. Based on this information, Facebook displays Ads that we as users are interested in. Facebook states that they can “help transform existing advertising into messages that are tailored to the individual user.” Essentially, Facebook is catering to the user and their interests. Also, local businesses are now advertising on Facebook and targeting users that live in their local area. Local businesses are reaching out to their community right on the Facebook profile page. In addition, advertising on Facebook has become based on user-generated content. Not only are these advertisements being targeted towards Facebook users but users are also becoming part of the distribution of advertisements. Facebook gives companies the opportunity to directly seek out their best buyers as these advertisements run along side their profiles.<br /><br />There are several ways to advertise on Facebook. Firstly, you can create a social Ad that is placed along side Facebook profiles. This is where you can target consumers based on information that is provided on profiles. Secondly, you can create a Facebook page or group for your company or product. Here, users can become a member of the group or a friend. Creating a group or page gives companies the opportunity to post information, sales, promotions or upcoming events for your product/business. Lastly, companies can become friends with or click the “Like” option for other products/businesses to get their name out there. Eventually, users will notice these products or businesses on other user’s profiles or in their news feed. This is the prime benefit of using a social networking site as a way of advertisement. Facebook users have an average of 130 friends and those friends have friends—this circle continues. Therefore, it is extremely easy to reach out to consumers and their friends.<br /><br />Not only can advertisements use Facebook profile information to target users but users can also post, share, publish and chat about these product to their friends. This is the benefit of advertising on a social networking site as there is constant communication taking place. As Facebook’s popularity continues to soar, advertising on this site has changed the way companies reach out to their consumers.<br /><br />The future of Facebook will be interesting as they are continuing changing, upgrading and modifying the site to best serve the needs of the users. There are constant new additions to the applications and users are constantly staying tuned to see what happens next. Of course, competition lies between Facebook and MySpace, Twitter, Linkedin, Friendster, Ning, etc…There has been some buzz about an upcoming Facebook competitor from Google—“Google Me.” <a title="Click here to read more posts tagged #adamdangelo" href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/adamdangelo/">Adam D'Angelo</a>, a former Facebook Executive, stated that not only is it "not a rumor but that there are many people working on the project at Google” and he is “completely confident about this." It is always possible that another social networking site can become more popular than Facebook. Google is a major search engine and has the ability to create a successful social networking site. Users will need to stay tuned in to watch what happens among the social networking world. It will be interesting to see the further progress of Facebook in the upcoming year and how it matches up with current and future competitors.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02574069881799864478noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-9597876255840422112010-07-01T15:32:00.005-04:002010-07-01T15:40:29.446-04:00Is The Internet A Public Sphere? (Final Paper)Michael Vinciguerra<br />7/1/10<br />Dr. Lance Strate<br />Public Communication in Digital Environments<br /><br /><br /> Is The Internet A Public Sphere?<br /><br /><br />Some scholars, most notably German Philosopher Jurgen Habermas, believe that a true public sphere flourished in the 18th century salons and coffeehouses of Paris, London and Ireland. There, the bourgeois class of Europe gathered to read newspapers, discuss political affairs, and monitor their governments over cups of coffee. These coffee houses were public forums where private individuals, except women, could deliberate and be critical of their government without worrying that their government was monitoring or convicting them of treason.<br /><br />Habermas and other communication scholars believe that public opinion emerged from the discussions and deliberations that took place in these salons and coffeehouses of the 18th century. From their study of that 18th century phenomenon, 20th century scholars devised theories of the emergence of public opinion, democratic discourse and democratic participation. Jurgen Habermas brought the theory of the public sphere to the modern day forefront of communication discussion and argued that these once ideal places for discourse ceased to exist because of corporations, marketers, and advertisers, who have dominated the public sphere in a manner so the average voice can no longer be heard. According to Habermas (1964, 54), "because of the diffusion of press and propaganda, the public body expanded beyond the bounds of the bourgeoisie. The public body lost not only its social exclusivity; it lost in addition the coherence created by bourgeois social institutions and a relatively high standard of education." Rather than the public shaping their own opinions, corporate owned media, public relations, and economic factors shape the public’s opinion by keeping the public out of discussion. Habermas further argues that "with the interweaving of the public and private realm, not only do the political authorities assume certain functions in the sphere of commodity exchange and social labor, but conversely social powers now assume political functions. This leads to a kind of 'refeudalization' of the public sphere." ( Habermas, 54). Therefore, according to Habermas, large organizations strive for political compromises with the state and with each other, excluding the public sphere whenever possible.<br /><br />Habermas developed strict criteria for what he believed should constitute the modern day public sphere. Habermas argued that for the public sphere to be successful, one must be able to express his opinion freely and logically, one must have access to the public sphere, there must not be a hierarchy present, and those in the public sphere must have equal footing in there participation. Habermas further explained that "citizens behave as a public body when they confer in an unrestricted fashion-that is, with the guarantee of freedom of assembly and association and the freedom to express and publish their opinions-about matters of general interest." (Habermas, 49). Though there should not be any censorship in the public sphere, some rules of law should be enforced to ensure respect and tranquility among those participating in the public sphere.<br /><br />Habermas' criteria for the public sphere have not been universally accepted because it was considered by many scholars to be an idealized theory. Now, many scholars argue that the internet is a true public sphere, though Habermas, who is still living, has not weighed in on this argument. The goal of this review then is to summarize the findings of twelve of the most recent scholarly works that have attempted to determine whether the internet meets Habermas’ criteria of a public sphere. The articles reviewed in here were published between 2004 and 2010 and are extracted from three conference papers and eight communication journals. The three conference papers are from the annual meeting of the International Communication Association in 2004 and 2009 and the National Communication Association in 2008. The eight journals include Information, Communication & Society. Journal of Media Research, International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, Political Communication, NORDICOM Review, Communication Review, Information Society, and two articles from Javnost-The Public. The articles that comprise this literature review attempt to analyze questions in regards to the debate over the contributions of new communication technology to democracy, how the impairments of network neutrality might effect the public sphere on the internet, whether the theory of the public sphere can be used for an analysis of Internet web sites or online discussion, whether digital media introduce a new representative order of online political communication, whether democratic and fair public forums actually exist online, whether the public has speech rights in this medium, and what power relations are involved in defining what counts as legitimate online deliberation. While a few articles are more certain that the internet makes political debate more open to voices that are normally not acknowledged in the political field, a majority of the articles involved in this literature research are critical, seeking answers to questions such as why the advent of the Internet has not revitalized the public sphere to begin with and how the media tools used to enhance communication across the globe affects the transmission and reception of content in ways senders did not intend.<br /><br />The methods of research these ten articles share is their gathering of information based on prior research fused with current observations and quantitative research. Further, a majority of these articles suggest that further theoretical work and a variety of empirical studies are still required to answer the questions relating to the topic of whether the Internet is the modern day equivalent of a public sphere.<br /><br />In a series of conference papers called The Internet As A Public Sphere addressed at the International Communication Association, Soe (2004) argued that the Internet has the potential to be a public sphere, but is not reaching that maximum potential. In her abstract Soe (2004, 1) mentions that, “This paper is an analysis of online discussion sections based on Jurgen Habermas’ theory of the public sphere. Using the key concepts of the theory of the public sphere, this paper examines discussion sections of three different web sites to see if they can be called as promising electronic public spheres, where constructive public discourses could occur. The selected discussion sections are: ‘Online Community’ at www.oprah.com, ‘The Opinion’ at www.theopinion.com, and ‘Waking Life Forums’ at www.wakinglifemovie.com. In the analysis, the advantages and disadvantages of a virtual space in forming a public discourse are discussed. The needs of a mediator or a filtering system are further discussed at the end of the paper.”<br /><br />Soe is concerned about whether applying the theory of the public sphere to Internet web sites and online discussions fosters positive results for the Internet acting as a public sphere. Soe pays tribute to other scholars, who acknowledge the Internet as a promising electronic sphere, by claiming that the Internet significantly lowers entry barriers and other cost factors. This allows lower class income families equal access and space for participation in the electronic public sphere. In addition, the Internet is where a range of interests can be represented and updated. However, Soe also addresses the more cynical scholars, who view the Internet and the emergence of online communities as a worrisome phenomenon. Social divides and group polarization is common on the Internet and social divides are created by the web's ability to personalize content. Soe argues that the web is a place that is quite vulnerable to social fragmentation because the more easily people receive information, the more they are interested only in what they are already interested in. This means on the web people can easily find like-minded people by visiting a site with one point of view and are mostly hearing more and louder echoes of their own voice. There also exist a growing number of hate groups and extremist organizations that own web sites, who provide links to one another in an attempt to foster recruitment and discussion. Therefore, Soe concludes group polarization is more likely and more extreme on the web than anywhere else and this is damaging to a democracy because mutual understanding becomes more difficult when people do not listen to others who have different or opposing views.<br /><br />Like Soe, Rasmussen (2008) agrees the Internet poses some serious challenges due to increasing fragmentation and complexity. In “The Internet and Differentiation in the Political Public Sphere,” Rasmussen argues that when one examines the basic normative assumptions of the idea of a public sphere, it becomes clear that the Internet and personal media bring about changes in conjunction with other transformations in society, which pose new problems to democracy. While digital media brings increasing participation, inequalities, fresh viewpoints, and new solutions, it is harder to see how they enable consolidation and oversight. Therefore, Rasmussen suggests, the Internet contributes much more to diversity than to convergence within the public sphere. Similar to Soe, Kperogi (2008) acknowledges the potential of the Internet as having the requirements to deserve being conferred with the status of the public sphere in a digital form, but rejects the Internet as a vulgar, anarchic medium that is incapable of functioning as a site for rational-critical debate. In a series of conference papers called “The Electronic Village Square as a Transnational Public Sphere: Analysis of the Deliberative Practices of Diasporan Nigerians on the Internet,” Kperogi claims that the gains of Internet discussion groups in terms of opening up new vistas for advancing the concept of the public sphere are vitiated by the growing commercialization and commoditization of cyberspace by state and corporate concerns and a deficit of mutual tolerance. Kperogi seems to be saying that the same forces that caused the public sphere’s demise—state propaganda and corporate advertising—are already undermining the Internet’s potential to become a public sphere. In addition, Kperogi suggests the growing interventions of governments in the regulation of the Internet and the prevalence of filtering software are serious limitations to the Internet and detracting from the discursive openness that the Internet is supposed to provide. Kperogi postulates further that while the Internet meshes with existing and pre-existing social functions and extends them in many fresh fashions, the Internet does not fit easily in comparison to characteristically modern organizations and cultural institutions. Therefore, Kperogi concludes that while the Internet does have democratizing potential, it often fails as a public sphere in practice.<br /><br />In agreement with Kperogi, Stein (2008) builds upon Kperogi's notion of the government intervening in cyberspace and destroying the criteria for the public sphere. In her article “Speech Without Rights: The Status of Public Space on the Internet,” Stein states that according to communication-centered democratic theorists, the media should serve a vital public function in democratic societies, which necessitate that the public have some affirmative speech rights in these spaces. These spaces should be accessible, available, and free from government and private control. However, under the first amendment public forum doctrine in the US, “Private owners and public, government managers of property have speech rights over the spaces and resources they own or oversee, as well as the right to exclude everyone else from this property (Stein, 1-2).” Generally, this means that the free expression rights of Internet users take a back seat to the rights of corporations and government entities’ authority to censor the websites they own. The courts have applied the public forum doctrine to define the Internet as a medium subject to proprietary control or government or private owners. When proprietary and third party, or users’ interests come into conflict, the courts have consistently favored the rights of the proprietors. The speech rights of public and private service providers, infrastructures, website managers, and search engines have thus far prevailed over those of the broader public. Public and private service providers can restrict email traffic and access to websites, search engines can exclude content providers from their search results, public web site managers can refuse to allow hyperlinks on their sites, and publicity authorized domain name registrars can decide what names to award or withhold content providers. Rather than protect public space online, Stein argues, the courts have used public forum law to preclude the existence of open forum spaces. Consequently, while the Internet may offer many speech opportunities, these are privileges rather than rights and media owners may rescind them. Stein concludes pessimistically, by suggesting as conditions online change due to pressure from both government and private interests, the broader public may find itself with few accessible and available spaces in which to speak online. Similar to Kperogi, Stein's argument is clearly another extension of Habermas’ original theory, which states that a true public sphere can never exist.<br /><br />Koh (2009) would most likely agree with Kperogi and Stein in his examination of how network neutrality hinders the public from participating in the public sphere. In a series of conference papers called “Public Sphere and Network Neutrality,” Koh focuses on how the impairments of network neutrality might effect the public sphere on the Internet. He assumes that public spheres already exist on the Internet and he summarizes the public sphere as a buffer zone located between a private sector and a public sector offering a discussion area all interested groups can take part in. Ideally, according to Koh, the public sphere is the place that citizens can freely access, equally participate in, and recognize rules of procedure in a fully open way. The Internet, more than any other mass medium, has been in the spotlight in forming the perfect public sphere because of its interactivity, the relatively low cost, and its decentralized nature. However, Koh acknowledges that the Internet now faces threats that could impair these merits as a public sphere. Commercialization and concentration by huge conglomerates, especially network providers such as Comcast and AT&T, threaten the freedom and civil movements of users' rights to speech and they use three discriminatory practices: blocking, access- tiering, and quality degradation.<br /><br />What actions need to be pursued to combat corporations and ensure freedom of speech on the internet? Network neutrality and the public sphere are positively related with each other in that they favor free and open Internet. According to Koh, if Comcast continues to have monopoly power in a network industry without regulation, it could conduct any action to control the public sphere and play a gatekeeper role in the future. Therefore, network neutrality rules can be a precondition of a well-functioned public sphere on the net. Proposed bills concerning network neutrality are commonly used to maintain the freedom of telecommunications networks, including the Internet. However, Koh acknowledges that the problem is how exactly to solve and regulate network neutrality related issues. Therefore, Koh concludes that the Internet rules are what we make with our efforts. Due to the development of new technologies, network owners are in a position to change the architecture of the Internet in their favor. Like Comcast subscribers, it is necessary for Internet users to pay attention to the Internet so as to keep it free and open. In doing so, the Internet should give citizens a better communication place than any other traditional media.<br /><br />In his article, “The Emergence of a European Public Sphere,” Bârgăoanu (2010) acknowledges Soe's claim that everyone has the potential to use the Internet for online debate, but Bârgăoanu shows through quantitative research that not everyone actually has access or uses the Internet in the broader picture of the global community. Internet access across the European Union member states is unequally distributed and overall data collected by Bârgăoanu shows that one in two Europeans uses the Internet daily. If Bârgăoanu's assumption that a significant number of the people interviewed have not used the Internet for public debate over European affairs is correct, then one can infer that the percentage of people using the Internet for expressing their opinion with respect to European issues and for deliberation over such topics would be lower than the percentage of people using the Internet. The gap between the distributions of public participation in different European Union's member states is wider than most people probably could fathom and in countries where Internet access is at its lowest, genuine public debate over European topics simply does not exist in the world of cyberspace. As suitable to communication in the global era of instant transmission of information as it may be, the success of web sites and discussion forums in facilitating public debate over European issues depends largely on the reception of the content available by the readers. Therefore, Bargaoanu concludes given the significant differences in the rates of Internet access across European Union's member states, the uniformity of a pool of citizens involved in public deliberation simply cannot exist.<br /><br />According to Albrecht (2006), who the participants are determines to a certain degree what is communicated, and this, in turn, may influence who participates. In his article, “Whose voice is heard in online deliberation? A Study of Participation and Representation in Political Debates on the Internet,” Albrecht argues there are factors that influence who participates in an online debate and what is communicated. These factors include economic and cultural resources, their political interest or lack thereof, and their social environment. Albrecht agrees with Bârgăoanu in that economic and cultural resources are also determinants of access to the Internet and those countries in Bârgăoanu's study who lack access to the Internet most likely are also low on the list in terms of economic resources. Perhaps another reason for why the public is not participating in the online public sphere is due to the political disinterest of society and the limitations of the capacities of people to understand and absorb information.<br /><br />In Muhlberger's (2005) article, “Human Agency and the Revitalization of the Public Sphere,” he reasons that the online public sphere can be vitalized if the Internet as a medium offered more political cues. The logic behind his reasoning is that self-motivated people will attend to and act on political matters in the absence of political cues, others will attend when they encounter cues, and others will never attend. Therefore, since attention serves to determine which matters will receive thorough processing, then more people would participate in the online public sphere if more political cues were available to direct their attention to current affairs. For example, if publics were more aware of which congressional representatives were against a certain proposal, then these publics could debate online as to how that particular issue matters in their own set of political beliefs and what values are at stake in their votes. Ultimately, however, self-development and cognitive development explain why some people require political cues to participate and others are self-motivated and the ideal members of the online public sphere, according to Muhlberger, are systematic reasoners with integrated highly self-motivated selves who can act in the absence of political cues.<br /><br />Perhaps scholars who are pessimistic about the Internet’s potential for serving as a public sphere need to rethink their stance of how they look at the communicative breakthroughs of the Internet and the classic model of the public sphere theory. Rather than negate the Internet as a public sphere entirely, scholars should understand that the Internet is reinventing a public sphere different from the one Habermas envisioned. At least that is the argument of another set of scholars.<br /><br />Feenberg (2009) realizes that the debate over the contribution of new communication technology to democracy is far from settled. However, he argues that the most important contribution of new technology to democracy is not necessarily its effects on the conventional political process, but rather, its ability to assemble a public around technical networks that enroll individuals scattered over wide geographical areas. In his article titled “Critical Theory of Communication Technology: Introduction to the Special Section," Feenberg points out that politics is traditionally tied to geographically locality on the presumption that those who live close together share common interests and are able to meet to discuss them. Of course, there are likely to be disagreements, but as long as communication is possible, conflicts can be resolved by legitimate means, such as voting. Yet, in a more advanced phase of technological development, such as the Internet, this rather narrow definition of politics he just described is less plausible. Technologically advanced societies enroll their members in a wide variety of technical networks and these networks overlay the geographical communities and compete with them in significance in the lives of citizens.<br /><br />Feenberg describes how technical communities now use the Internet to coordinate their demands for a fuller representation of their participant interests. Further, the ease of communication on the Internet by those who can afford it has made it possible for these new communities to organize. The new forms of online politics can not replace traditional geographically based representation, but activity in the public sphere can now extend to embrace technical issues formerly considered neutral and given over to experts to decide without consultation. Therefore, Feenberg concludes, as a result of the Internet, politics is no longer the exclusive affair of traditionally constituted political groups debating the traditional issues. The range of issues and groups is constantly widening in the most unpredictable ways.<br /><br />As Trenz (2009) optimistically points out in his article, “Digital Media and the Return of the Representative Public Sphere,” new media are analyzed according to their potential to stimulate, engage, and integrate or alternatively to distract, disintegrate, and fragment audiences. The digital media are no exception in this regard because the digital media’s modern day self-description aims at a redefinition of the political space in which the public sphere unfolds, but not at a redefinition of its normative contents. Trenz suggests that the democratic credentials of the Internet measured against the old template of the public sphere should be analyzed not so much in terms of enhanced participation, but rather as a change in the representative mode of communication. Further, the Internet is unfolding as a representative space through which global diversity gains public visibility. Whereas in the traditional national public sphere, distinguished representative acts were performed in front of a larger audience, the Internet allows every single user to make a public performance. By publishing on the Internet, communicators create an aura of personal representation that does not primarily search argumentative force and consent, but seeks to proclaim truth and authority. Therefore, Trenz concludes the demonstrative publicity of the Internet should be understood as the rediscovery of the representative elements of the public sphere and through this new lens scholars can see that the Internet is not in conflict with the critical publicity of the bourgeois public sphere, but rather, continues its normative self-description.<br /><br />As the Internet continues to transform Habermas' original criteria for determining what constitutes the public sphere, more and more scholars are starting to rethink new criteria for this transformation. In agreement with Trenz, Dahlberg (2007) argues that rather than discard the public sphere, the conception can be extended and radicalized through the introduction of another public sphere understanding that is being deployed in Internet-democracy commentary and research. In “The Internet, Deliberative Democracy, and Power: Radicalizing the Public Sphere,” Dahlberg pays close attention to how the "marginalized group" uses the Internet as a means for the formation of counter-publics and the articulation of identities and oppositional discourses. The concept of a counter-public enables the articulation of rational-critical deliberation. Therefore, Dahlberg theorizes the public sphere is no longer understood as a singular deliberative space, but a complex field of multiple contesting publics, including both dominant and counter-publics of various forms. Dahlberg's positive stance is radically different from the viewpoints of Soe and Rasmussen, who view opposing ideas online and in discussion forms as dangerous and corruptive to the public sphere and humanity in general.<br /><br />Like Trenz and Dahlberg, Gripsrud (2009) present a positive and alternative lens for scholars when looking at the Internet as a public sphere. In his article, “Digitizing The Public Sphere: Two Key Issues,” Gripsrud argues because the online public sphere adds new dimensions and new forms of discourse, further theoretical work is required in order to better understand how these forms of discourse contribute towards the overall quality of health of democracy. Gripsrud does not believe these new dimensions are in any way damaging to the Internet as a public sphere. In fact, Gripsrud praises the Internet as an amazing vehicle for communicating and organizing across great distances and on a global scale. In addition, the Internet offers previously inconceivable opportunities for making available to a public any kind of cultural product or political utterance a person chooses to put forth. It therefore seems, Gripsrud suggests, that the Internet adds historically new and highly valuable forms of “publicness” to the traditional public sphere and the ability to now communicate visually along with written communication creates this new realm of “publicness.”<br /><br />The old concept of the public sphere, as highlighted in the beginning of this literature review, exists, but does not appear to still work. While some scholars agree there can never truly be one online public sphere, according to Habermas' criteria, more and more scholars are beginning to redefine a new criteria for what constitutes the formation of a new public sphere. Even within the online public sphere, however, many scholars still debate whether mutual agreement among discourse in the public sphere leads to peaceful democratic deliberation or simply a repetition of the same voices. Though freedom of speech should be a guaranteed right online, some scholars fear there are those who abuse this right and courts, owners, and corporations do enforce laws when they feel discourse is threatening to their goals. Also, there are those who choose not to or simply cannot afford to participate in the public sphere due to disinterest or economic restraints. How can an online public sphere exist with this many obstacles?<br /><br />Soe offers suggestions as to what the criteria should be in order for a web site to be considered an online public sphere. She suggests that web sites should consist of more openness and democratic debate with the notion of respect in mind, people should be willing to change their minds if necessary, there should be a willingness to modify or justify societal norms, and a trained moderator should be present to monitor the discussions. Discerning whether the Internet is the modern day public sphere only leads to more questions and many of the scholars presented in this literature review agree that more research and further probing may never be enough for a definitive answer. Dahlberg points out that we need to foster and expand the formation of new kinds of public spheres. We need to focus on not only fostering deliberation, but also upon the development of counter-publics of excluded discourse and the contestation of the discursive boundaries of the mainstream public sphere online. Muhlberger suggests that much research remains to be done to learn which cues trigger politically relevant selves and which selves matter for intensive political engagement in the public sphere. Feenberg believes that debate and further research in the belief that new approaches to politics are required by the technological changes reshaping our experience of ourselves and the world around us. Finally, Gripsrud suggests further theoretical work and a variety of empirical studies are required to better understand how democracy is affected by the introduction and functioning of the Internet. <br /><br />References:<br />Albrecht, S. (2006). Whose voice is heard in online deliberation? A study of participation and representation in political debates on the Internet. Information, Communication & Society, 9(1), 62-82.<br /><br />Bârgăoanu, A., Negrea, E., & Dascălu, R. (2010). The Emergence of a European Public Sphere. An analysis of Europe's News Website presseurop.eu. Journal Of Media Research, (6), 3-17. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.<br /><br />Dahlberg, L. The Internet, deliberative democracy, and power: Radicalizing the public sphere. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 3(1), 47- 64. (2007).<br /><br />Feenberg, A. (2009). Critical Theory of Communication Technology: Introduction to the Special Section. Information Society, 25(2), 77-83. doi:10.1080/01972240802701536.<br /><br />Gripsrud, J. (2009). Digitising The Public Sphere: Two Key Issues.. Javnost-The Public, 16(1), 5-16. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.<br /><br />Habermas, J., Lennox, F., Lennox S. (1964). The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article. New German Critique, No. 3. (Autumn, 1974), pp. 49-55.<br /><br />Koh, T. (2009). Public Sphere and Network Neutrality. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1-25. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.<br /><br />Kperogi, F. (2008). The Electronic Village Square as a Transnational Public Sphere: Analysis of the Deliberative Practices of Diasporan Nigerians on the Internet Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 1. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.<br /><br />Muhlberger, P. (2005). Human Agency and the Revitalization of the Public Sphere. Political Communication, 22(2), 163-178.doi:10.1080/10584600590933160.<br />Rasmussen, T. (2008). The Internet and Differentiation in the Political Public Sphere. NORDICOM Review, 29(2), 73-83. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.<br /><br />Soe, Y. , 2004-05-27 "The Internet as a Public Sphere" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans Sheraton, New Orleans, LA Online <.PDF>. 2009-05-26 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p113016_index.html<br /><br />Stein, L. (2008). Speech Without Rights: The Status of Public Space on the Internet, Communication Review, 11(1), 1-23 (2008).<br /><br />Trenz, H. (2009). Digital Media And The Return Of The Representative Public Sphere. Javnost-The Public, 16(1), 33-46. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.Michael Vinciguerrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10421479692626570608noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-708753312087448442010-06-30T20:01:00.000-04:002010-06-30T20:03:48.678-04:00Copyright Law: Can It Exist in Cyberspace?Copyright Law:<br />Can It Exist in Cyberspace?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Jantzen Rodriguez<br /> Digital Media Environments<br /> Professor Lance Strate<br /> July 1, 2010<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /> Copyright 1<br /><br /> The term cyberspace represents many things to people, not just computer technology. It is an outlet that provides a whole new world of possibilities for people to express themselves or convey some message, whether it is in the form of a typed message (e-mail), a term paper at a school level, business report at a working level, or a graphic work of art at an entertainment level. For others, it is a form of a “space” created where communication becomes possible between or among individuals who may either know each other or who could be complete strangers. The latter condition is one that seems daunting, to say the least. It is in this “space” where ideas are interchanged, works are completed, interaction occurs, and where commerce is conducted. Cyberspace is also a place where professionals, such as writers, musicians, artists, business people, and the like promote their various works to receive exposure to audiences all over the world, with the hopes of capitalizing on their work. In other words, the more exposure an artist (e.g. author) has on cyberspace, the more likely he/she will be recognized and their works will be considered for purchase, given that the artist’s work receives the promotion it merits and there is a mechanism which allows for purchase of the artist’s work online. At least, this is the ideal case scenario. Similar to our “earthly” world, in traditional ways, professional authors, performers, even artists rely on their work and their intellectual contributions to bring to the people a piece of their passion, thus enabling them to profit from their endeavors. It is these “professionals” that have sacrificed their time, or even their entire lives, to producing work that provides for them a standard of living. For this reason, individuals in any field, whether it is education, business, entertainment, etc. want to assure that their work and their intellectual efforts are protected by law, so that other people (followers) who may be tempted to obtain such work and “profit” off it illegally are prosecuted to the fullest extent. This seems quite simple to understand, at least in a centralized system where law and order work effectively. The scenarios that I have mentioned are examples of what constitutes the need for “copyright law”. It is a way of safeguarding those individuals that rely on their talent or their original ideas and allows for them to benefit monetarily from their inventions or their efforts. But what happens when you decentralize a system such as ours, make the marketplace more competitive, and “pass on” many of these ideas to everyday people who have possession of a machine known as a “computer”? <br /><br /><br /> Copyright 2<br />We are all connected to cyberspace and are fully aware that we are interacting in a “world” that is fueled by information. Can copyright law function in such an environment where the flow of information runs uncontrollably?<br /> We must consider that practically the entire world is connected to cyberspace. There exists a ridiculous commercialization of every single item there is. Not to mention, there is a terrible commercialization of “intellectual property” even online. Because of this change in the way we operate on a daily basis, copyright law appears to be losing strength, especially when it comes to protecting information that is considered “intellectual property” and that is circulating in cyberspace. Some proponents of preserving copyright law want to extend traditional laws to apply to the Internet. Other skeptics (or those trying to capitalize themselves on the argument of a free cyberspace) feel that copyright law is outdated and must be undermined. Easier said than done, it is an issue that affects us all. Some people complain that copyright law is binding and circumvents the old excuse of denying “opportunities”. On the other hand, those that defend copyright see it as a necessary evil to protect their hard-earned labor. Others, such as myself, sees this as another “fashion or fad” that tries to push the other one out when in fact we could just leave things alone and strengthen current laws. Like the old saying goes, “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it!” Ok, I will leave that topic for another paper! To fully understand the issues we face regarding copyright law, it would be helpful to begin by understanding the history of and the original copyright law, its intention, and its limitations. Then we can apply it to the current culture and determine if it is worth revamping, if the law should be eliminated or undermined, or if copyright law can be applied to cyberspace. These are important points to consider, given the “entropy” that we face in our decentralized society, but it is worth our time and our examination especially when the implications of such a law interfere in cases of learning and for personal use. Let’s begin by examining the history of the law and its intended purpose.<br /> According to the Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, copyright is “the set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of the work, including the right to copy, distribute, and adapt the work” (en.wikipedia.org). These rights can be assigned, licensed, or transferred, and copyright is said to last for a fixed period before it enters the public domain. During the copyright period, the work in question can be exclusively owned by the originator. Copyright laws came about with the advent of the printing press in the middle 15th century, as some form of royal privilege. <br /> Copyright 3<br />Nevertheless, our copyright laws stem from the “Statute of Anne” (1709), which was an “Act for Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned” (en.wikipedia.org). It was in England where the notion of what was considered “property” was conceived. The law is best explained by the reasoning of the World Intellectual Property Organization, which stated that its purpose was “to encourage a dynamic creative culture, while retaining value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public” (wiki). It is in this quote that we can see the reasoning behind copyright law. Mostly this was affixed to “tangible property”, meaning property that was owned by an individual. Copyright has also been considered under the umbrella term “intellectual property”, along with patent and trademark since the 19th century, and it is by this idea of “intellectual property” that creators have wanted to exercise full control over their work, not to mention the monetary benefits that result from the protection of the law (publishers are guilty of this). Initially, copyright was utilized for books. The Statute of Anne allowed for copyright protection of fourteen years, as opposed to a perpetual term, so this kept the system from becoming a monopoly. <br /> In France, royal privileges were needed to publish a book. This privilege was exclusive and allowed for up to six years. After that, the owner of such privilege could renew indefinitely. Later in around 1777, royal privileges were agreed to for ten years or the life of the author, whichever was longer. The author who purchased the privilege and did not transfer or sell the privilege could publish and sell books himself and pass on the privilege to his heirs, who would enjoy the privileges in perpetuity. It wasn’t until after the French Revolution that this “royal privilege” idea was countered because of a dispute with an art company named Comedie-Francaise for being granted exclusive rights to the public performance of all dramatic works. The argument was that anyone could set up a public theater and that any work, whose author had been deceased for five years, could be placed in the public domain. This abolished the royal privilege, so instead, a new copyright law was placed in 1793, which gave authors, artists, and composers the exclusive right to sell and distribute their works, and extend those rights to their heirs for ten years after the author’s death. This limited copyright allowed for competition and the protection against any monopoly that would result as a consequence. This law was labeled<br /> Copyright 4<br />“Declaration of the Rights of Genius”. As a condition, copies of work created had to be deposited in the Bibliotheque Nationale. This act was considered “utilitarian”, meaning for the common good of mankind, back in the 19th century.<br /> U.S. copyright law, on the other hand, was not so important for the early colonists because their culture was agrarian. There is record of only three copyright laws being passed before 1783. Two of the laws allowed for a five-year protection, the other lasted for seven. That same year some author’s petitions to the Continental Congress requested that “nothing is more properly a man’s own than the fruit of his study, and the protection and security of literary property would tend to encourage genius and promote useful discoveries” (wiki). However, under the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress had no right to issue copyright, but instead passed a resolution allowing the States to “secure to the authors or publishers of any new book not hitherto printed the copyright of such books for a certain time not less than fourteen years from the date of the first publication, and to secure to the said authors, if they survive the first term, the copyright of such books for another term of time no less than fourteen years” (wiki). In a way, this sounds like a renewable contract, but it was estimated that the most a copyright would last was the lifetime of the author. For the most part, early copyright law followed the pattern of the Statue of Anne and the Continental Congress format of fourteen years, while other states enacted a single term of fourteen, twenty, or twenty-one years, with no renewal. Actual copyright law can go as long as 99 years! The first inkling of a copyright law was seen in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention, where James Madison of Virginia and Charles Pinckney of South Carolina made proposals that would grant copyright for a limited amount of time. These are the formations of the Copyright Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which allow for setting copyrights and patents for a limited amount of time to stimulate progress in sciences and the arts, thus serving as a utilitarian function. Initially set out to serve a common good, copyright law has served its purpose over the years, but as media has changed, so have the expectations of the law. It is through these expectations that we experience firsthand conflicts among three parties: the producer of such works, the receiver (namely the consumer of the work), and the government which fabricated the law. For now, we have an understanding of what the origins of the law are. Now let’s look at how this law can be used, abused, and in today’s era of cyberspace, how it can be manipulated to achieve a desired end. Let’s also take<br /> Copyright 5<br />into consideration those who want to “do away” with copyright law as it is because, according to those skeptics, it doesn’t apply to an information “age”.<br /> We begin by examining what a copyright is all about. To begin, it is “a protection that covers published and unpublished literary, scientific, and artistic works, whatever the form of expression, provided such works are fixed in a tangible or material form” (whatiscopyright.org, 2010). This typically means that if you can see it, hear it, or touch it, it may be protected (ex: essay, play, photograph, song lyrics, sound score, video, dance move, HTML coding that can be placed on paper, recorded on tape, or saved on a hard drive, etc.). Copyright grants the producer or creator exclusive rights to reproduce, prepare related works, distribute, perform, and display or play the work in public. This only allows the creator, not the public, the right to execute any action he/she sees fit with the work in question. Protection of copyright begins when the work created becomes a fixed tangible form, such as when a person writes lyrics to a song on paper, signs on the bottom, and adds the copyright symbol© next to the name. This can be then sealed in an envelope and sent to the U.S. Copyright Office in order to be registered for protection. This also serves as protection for a creator in case someone else copies and redistributes the work without permission. The process applies to digital art and graphics as well. So, if a person produces, uses, copies, or distributes material, for commercial or personal purposes, without written authorization of the creator, the person is committing infringement of copyright and is, therefore, in violation of such. “It doesn’t matter if the person committing the violation is a ‘newbie’; and/or doesn’t know what copyright infringement is about” (whatiscopyright.org, 2010). In other words, ignorance of the law does not make a person exempt from responsibility. The person using such work must exercise due diligence before using the work. No sensible person would allow someone else to sell their personal letters for publication without the creator receiving any kind of profit for it in return. That is the gist of the existence of copyright law. <br /> Keep in mind that originally, copyright was intended for “tangible” property, meaning property that had physical form, such as books. There is another side to the argument of copyright, and that is the notion that property can also be “intangible”, meaning with no physical form, pertaining to the mind. Naturally, any work of art or science is the result of mental capacity which generates such work, for educational purposes or for aesthetic reasons. In our recent times, there has been a stirring debate about applying copyright protection to intangible<br /> Copyright 6<br />property, meaning ideas and creativity. Some people view it as another way of holding to a monopoly that already exists, as a means of doing business. Others view it the opposite way: it is the protection of a creator’s brain power which helped generate some invaluable work. The debate becomes difficult when two principles collide, according to Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr. and Adam D. Thierer in their article “When Rights Collide: Principles to Guide the Intellectual Property Debate”. Crews and Thierer see two important principles collide: “legal protection for intangible works butts up against free expression and exchange of ideas” (Crews, Thierer, 2001). On one hand, there are the “radical voices” that believe there is no such thing as a right to own intangible ideas and the whole system of limited grants on monopolies is outdated and needs to be tossed aside. On the other, there is some consensus that innovators should be rewarded for their intellectual creations. Crews and Thierer tend to agree that with this limited grant, entrepreneurs are given the incentive to generate important life-enriching products and ideas, thus re-enforcing the common good approach. It’s not just about the capitalization of the work in question but how those unique ideas can benefit all of humanity in their quest for advancement. There does seem to be some agreement by the authors of this article that some people take this issue too far when there is a desire to promote excessive terms of protection, thus undermining motivation for creators when the original creators are already deceased (as in the case of Walt Disney and the famous copyright protection of its line of characters). The article points out that we face a problem of intellectual property on the Internet and in finding a balance of artistic and entrepreneurial incentives with the interests of the larger community of users in a “free, unhindered exchange of products and ideas” (Crews and Thierer, 2001). To this, the authors propose 3 ideas to keep in mind when considering this responsibility that should be exercised: 1) Take the principle “To Promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts” seriously. Terms set for the amount of time copyright protection are valid and arbitrary. One must keep in mind that any copyright term that is indefinite or very long will provide diminished incentives for creativity. When copyright favors extended periods of time, the question to consider is whether this behavior leads to a monopoly, which only discourages the healthy progress of science and useful arts. 2) Don’t ban new technologies or business models to solve patent or copyright problems. This is the battle between the side of the argument that wants to restrict file-sharing technologies for the sake of reducing copyright control in cyberspace, while the other<br /> Copyright 7<br />side that shares copyrighted files sometimes ridicules newer technologies that in turn aid the process of copyright protection, technologies that make possible digital watermarking, encryption, and incorporation of digital management into security hardware, to name a few. 3) The last proposal is to remove government barriers to the marketplace’s ability to protect intellectual property. Here, it is important to determine when exaggerated antitrust laws interfere with private efforts to grant licensing of songs (e.g.). In other words, restrictive contracts that antitrust law might regard as suspicious could benefit a consumer by ensuring returns for producers. Some people in the academic world have suggested that antitrust law may force the “need” for more intellectual property law and enforcement than is needed. Overall, the three suggestions contain, as an underlying purpose, the idea that relaxation of copyright law can only benefit those whose “intellectual and tangible properties” are in question, especially when dealing with cyberspace. Yet, when you look at both sides of the issue, both have reasonable defenses to state their case. It is a battle of arriving at a middle ground. Later in this paper, I propose two questions that should be asked when attempting to determine the motives for utilizing a copyrighted work from cyberspace.<br /> Continuing with clarification of copyright law, the three most important topics of this law that merit attention and clarification are: plagiarism of text, infringement of copyright when using photocopying (Xerox) machines, and duplication of web pages and text on the Internet. Ronald Standler, author of the article “Some Observations on Copyright Law”, outlines what constitutes “fair use” of copyrighted material, and he dates this back to the Copyright Act of 1976, which points out where “fair use” can be applied: for the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or for nonprofit educational purposes, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Standler adds: “The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors” (Standler, 2009). In other words, whether the work is published or not, the laws of copyright protection can be applied to defend the work of a creator. According to this article, Standler mentions instances when copyright is being infringed upon when creating a website. For example, finding text or a <br /> Copyright 8<br />picture, uploading it on a website without any changes is outright copyright violation. The most favorable way of using copyrighted material in such a way is by posting a hyperlink for reference. Finding text, copying with a few changes or additions and uploading to a website is also copyright infringement, but if you take a small piece of text and include it in a quotation in your work, it is legal as long as you make the citation (as would be the case for writing a school paper or a book; it is debated that for educational purposes, the rules are different). One could also consider including a disclaimer on a web page calling to the author of some work to send an email requesting that the material be taken down, and if no answer, it is assumed that the creator of the work agrees with such action. This may be fine, but copyright law misunderstands that, according to Standler. One area of this article that I found most interesting was the section on how photocopying machines promote copyright violation. Examining a specific case, which applies to our educational field, Standler points to Princeton University v. Michigan Document Service, which was a case in which Princeton professors copied chapters from a textbook and submitted to Michigan Document Service to reproduce into custom-made textbooks for students. In light of the fact that no royalties were paid to the producers of the textbooks, the courts regarded this act as copyright infringement, thus sending a message out to all professors to show responsibility in demonstrating a good example for students in giving credit to the textbook authors.<br /> On the Internet, there are many ways of making copies of copyrighted material. Since copyright was intended originally for books, recordings, films, etc., there is a move to extend copyright protection to the Internet, but this direction is quite unclear. Yet, there are still basic rules that apply when downloading or uploading copyrighted material for personal use. To begin, the plain use of viewing a page on the Internet implies that a copy is being made on the spot because the image or text is transferred from the screen to the Random Access Memory of the computer. This act in itself is not considered infringement because “authors post documents on the Internet with the intent of having other people read the documents, so there may be an implied license to copy web pages during the reading of them” (Standler, 2009). In addition, when the computer is turned off, RAM is erased. Web browsers make a second copy of the material, such as Internet Explorer as a cache file, in order to make lookup of the work faster. Retrieving a document from the hard drive is much faster than reading the document from the<br /> Copyright 9<br />“source machine” and then transmitting the document through the Internet. This process of the copy in cache mode is acceptable by law, given that it is not used for any other purpose. The most practical way of making a copy is by using the Print command and printing your document. Here is where it becomes an issue. The act of printing immediately is considered an infringement of copyright law, or there may be an implied agreement or license for a set number of copies to be made by the author. This is why some web sites do not allow for printing of certain material. The way you know if material cannot be printed is if the article or the image either does not print out or generates multiple blank copies (as was the case when accessing one of the articles I wanted to use for this paper!) or increased slow time on the computer, which will manifest itself as a response to detection of copyright infringement (as in the case with some pictures). Another way of copying is to use the Save As command, which helps store HTML or JPEG files, as an example, on a hard drive. <br /> It appears that copyright law is quite clear when it comes to cyberspace. Apparently, if you know how to dominate the code, copyright can work effectively. It should not be taken as a given that cyberspace is this outlet of “free information” that is uncontrollable. That is not so, and many people will argue that copyright laws can be extended (and they already are extended with much success) to the Internet. The battle among the government, corporations, and the consumer is a classic case which seems to have no end, yet all three are interdependent on each other, whether willing or unwilling. Going back to our USA copyright laws, and just as is the case with the rest of the world, copyright also involves foreign countries. Let’s face it, we are in a global economy and in a state of globalization, and the World Wide Web (as the name implies) is a network that makes the world “interdependent” on each other (countries). There are cases where certain nuances in the laws are different geographically. Let’s look at the moral rights of authors. In the USA, there is no such consideration for moral rights of authors, but in France, this law is important. For the French, they believe that protection of moral rights of authors does not depend on the law of the country of origin of the work. According to Standler, there was a case of actor John Huston’s film “Asphalt Jungle” which was black and white and colorized by Turner Networks. Turner has contracted with a company in France to show the movie in color. In turn, Huston’s heirs sued in a French court claiming that his moral rights had been violated. The court favored Huston’s case, and it was decided that there was violation of his moral rights. <br /> Copyright 10<br />Sure, this case is clearly representing when entities other than the one you work for become involved in making decisions without the creator’s consent. To some extent, there is a corporate ulterior motive, as is the case with most entities in this corporate-driven country of ours. Needless, to say, the concept of copyright is quite forward and requires no need to misinterpret for the sake of tailoring it to our advantage (only if you have a solid foundation to your case). Continuing with the copyright issue on cyberspace, let’s look at the two sides of the issue, the one side which sees copyright as unnecessary and which “stifles” creativity and the other, which either sees the need for a balance to the copyright issue or ascertains that traditional copyright exists in the digital world, thus defending copyright law.<br /> To begin this examination, one of the prime proponents and advocates of net neutrality and protecting creativity on the web is Lawrence Lessig. A Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and author of the book “Remix”, he is one of the individuals that promotes the idea of abolishing copyright and sees it as some mechanism that is corporate-driven, which stifles amateur creativity. The first video “Where Do Artists Draw the Line on Copyright Law shows Shepard Fairey, the creator of the famous Obama poster “Hope” talking about how copyright affects his work and the issues he faced with the dissemination of his famous poster. Frankly, Fairey is an individual who is quite lax about copyright law but makes it clear that he would only go after “bootleg” operations. Lessig, obviously, expresses that in the “remixing” concept, there is creativity involved and that copyrighters should not “go after” those engaging in this practice because it stifles creativity. He proposes that companies need to ask themselves, to paraphrase him, “How will this affect my business?” Another video of Lessig, “Do Copyright Laws Stifle Creativity?” shows Lessig making a presentation of remixes utilizing copyrighted works, among them using a Superman film strip and videos of people dancing to R&B artists’ music. He puts these issues in front of an audience and implies that such works only allow for creativity to flourish. In other words, copyright laws are “oppressive”, according to Lessig, and Lessig continues to remark that this is “the language” of people today. One point in this video that bothered me was the way Lessig tries to “convince” people that posting YouTube videos and amateur remixes are harmless, especially the part of a mother videotaping her children dancing to music and “copyright owners” asking that the video be taken down. Here is where copyright may go too far, especially if a home video is being produced for entertainment purposes. We<br /> Copyright 11<br />should be aware that any social scenario typically features music of some artist which we play innocently just to have fun. In a country and an economy where “money matters”, that is just another example where money issues just go too far and making this a serious matter is unwarranted.<br /> The other side of the argument poses the opposite argument: that copyright law is the law and must be regarded, even with cyberspace; however at times, it may want to find balance. Anne Fujita from the University of Florida College of Law wrote an article titled “The Great Internet Panic: How Digitization is Deforming Copyright Law”. In this article, which I consider to be ahead of its time, she states that “the new technology in our present “Information Age” has upset the delicate balance created and maintained by copyright law between the rights of authors, users, and the industries that collect the money” (Fujita, 1996). This statement raises issues of concern, such as fear of authors not being compensated for their efforts, the moral rights of authors, and even the fear of losing their right to read. Fast technology appears, according to the article, to be undermining copyright laws, or as people like to loosely state, “Our world is constantly changing”. She continues to say that the one distinction that is blurred is among the authors, the people that write and create, and the companies that get the works published. The multinational corporations are blamed for the merging of these functions. Not to mention, this is a result of a “global” economy, diluted and blurred. The emphasis on the money issue seems to be the main cause of this blur. Obviously, if you factor the three components mentioned, the author, creator, and the publishing company, you will see that everyone wants a “piece of the pie”, so the fight emerges between those creators and authors that have control of the work they create versus the consumer who wants greater access to the material and for less money. Yet another battle surges when you match up the author, the publisher, and the consumer against one another when the publisher wants to “add information” to the author’s current work and the consumer wants greater access in order to utilize this work for their own to incorporate in some work of their own, usually at an amateur level. <br /> The reality of all of this is that the only ones here that are being affected are the authors themselves because publishers have more power to profit and manipulate any work that is circulating, with the intent of profit. The moral rights issue of authors become of concern. So in a way, copyright law is a necessary evil because it is these publishing houses that make<br /> Copyright 12<br />information available to the masses for the purposes of a “greater good” for humankind. This may sound practical, but when you look at all of the sides involved, the conflict of interest will be evident, and therefore, some balance must be achieved. Returning to the author’s moral rights claim, we have not made such an issue of it in our country because, according to Fujita, “traditional technology provides a great deal of built-in protection for author’s moral rights. With the current technology, it is very difficult for an ordinary user, a member of the public, to violate an author’s moral rights on a widespread basis” (Fujita, 1996). It is the publishing industry who would ever attempt to violate these rights, so Fujita claims that technology doesn’t cause this to happen. The real issue which affects the copyright issue in cyberspace is the easiness of digitization to copy quickly, cheaply, and easily with no loss in quality, which is then distributed to millions of users in a matter of seconds. Alterations can also be made in the same manner. Even the author’s name can be deleted and your name can be inserted. It is this easiness of the process that many owners of copyright are afraid of: losing money on account of individual users. Yes, we can claim that the copies that are generated by the users are not the same high quality as that of the original, but this is the point that copyright advocates and owners fear: the profit issue in which they can’t capitalize on the fast technology that makes this all possible. Needless to say, the technology still cooperates with copyright law. Encryptions, watermarks, etc. make protection against illegal access possible. To summarize this viewpoint, Fujita mentions that “balance” that should exist. It merely states that “copyright is not a natural right. It is a right created by law”. <br /> Because the new technology affects the balance to such a great extent, in ways never anticipated by the drafters of the Copyright Act, we cannot use the Copyright Act, particularly its specific language, as the starting point in our analysis” (Fujita,1996). These ideas of revamping copyright stem from the Clinton Administration’s Information Infrastructure Task Force, also known as “White Paper” and “Green Paper”, which represent the two sides to the copyright issue. Instead, she proposes that we start by attacking the issue of the moral rights of authors first. It would be a call to enacting a law that would prohibit the falsification, alteration, or removal of copyright management information which includes the name of the author, a law prohibiting the alteration and dissemination of the content of an author’s work, and the author, in turn, should receive notification on a work stating that it has been altered, indicating when the<br /> Copyright 13<br />original can be accessed. Regardless of whether these measures appear to be barriers to creativity or freedom of speech, Fujita claims that there is a need for a balance. It is about sacrifice in some area. Yes, copyright law in dealing with cyberspace is quite difficult but there needs to be some written “code” which people can abide, consumers and publishers alike.<br /> Her idea of balance is of first amending the current law, which factors in the fair use principle. As mentioned before, fair use means that we take four factors into consideration: the purpose and character of use, such as for profit or intellectual gain, nature of the copyrighted work, amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the work in question, and effect of the use upon its market value. While the White Paper side places emphasis on the economic side of the issue and is relentless, the Green Paper has some economic principle to it but is more concerned with the European commerce. More important, how we can disseminate more information in a global system? In the case of moral right, while the White Paper does not say much with regard to author’s moral rights, Green Paper suggests that this is important and could be resolved by requesting some kind of contract signed by the author permitting alteration to his or her work. In other words, if an author agrees to digitization of work, then he or she is bound to the conditions that may arise as a result. This alternative results in being more cooperative as opposed to passing a law requesting such behavior. Green Paper, therefore, offers this alternative. This is part of the balance that is being suggested when it comes to copyright because moral rights take the issue of intellectual property and appreciation for it one step further. The main balance here is a law amended to the copyright law that supports creativity in the sciences and the arts while protecting the dignity and privacy of individuals, rights that are granted to us by our Constitution. In an information age, this balance is the most desirable and perhaps the most complicated to achieve, but given our technology and its capacities, this can all work out with cooperation and responsibility. The key here is communication!<br /> Conversely, there are people who adamantly believe that copyright is the same for regular media as well as digital media. Brad Templeton, author of “10 Big Myths about Copyright Explained” attempts to answer “myths” about copyright and Internet publications. Let me explain them briefly, according to Templeton: 1) If it doesn’t have a copyright notice, it’s not copyrighted. As Templeton states “This was true in the past” and “If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is” (Templeton, 2008). He discourages people from scanning images from<br /> Copyright 14<br />magazines and posting them to the web. 2) If I don’t charge for it, it’s not a violation. If the work has no commercial value, it may not be a violation, but if you give some piece of work away, it is still a violation, especially if the action harms the commercial value of it. 3) If it’s posted to Usenet, it’s in the public domain. This is false because it is up to the creator to do so and announce that it is “public”. 4) “My posting was just fair use!” Fair use applies to comments or alternate takes, like parodies, to works already in use, but damaging the commercial value is wrong, and this may be the case when posting some work on the web. 5) “If you don’t defend your copyright you lose it. Somebody has that name copyrighted!” Once again, the copyright has to be explicitly “given away” for this to happen. Otherwise, nothing keeps a person from using a name, such as Pan Am. 6)”If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me.” Such is also false because these derivative works are still property of the originator of the work. 7) “They can’t get me; defendants in court have powerful rights!” Copyright law is a civil matter, not criminal, so the “innocent until proven guilty” adage does not work in this case. 8) “Oh, so copyright violation isn’t a crime or anything?” Depending upon the damage done, it could be considered a felony. 9) “It doesn’t hurt anybody – in fact, it’s free advertising.” This is contingent upon the creator if he/she wants this advertised free of charge. 10) “They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it.” Any email is copyrighted, but you won’t be able to receive damages if someone posts your email because, due to privacy matters, emails don’t have commercial value. These myths only go to show that we shouldn’t assume that cyberspace is “public domain”. While anything posted online may be easy to copy, paste, etc., all material is still subjective and the owner of such material has the exclusive right to exercise controls on what can or cannot be published. The same rules that apply to standard media, or old media, apply in the new new media sense (to quote Professor Levinson, and I will look at his views on copyright law up next).<br /> The book “New New Media” by Dr. Paul Levinson offers an example of copyright violation on the Internet with the example of YouTube. He posits an example of posting or uploading a video, an amateur creation, using Paul McCartney’s rendition of a George Harrison song. The video is uploaded with an embed from YouTube, people view it, and comments are generated, but within a month, you find out that the video is no longer available on the site because it violated terms of service. This results because “some person or corporation told YouTube that<br /> Copyright 15<br />the video violated its copyright. The hand of old media enforcement, withered but without power, has just pulled the rug and the fun out from under your new media blog creation” (Levinson, 2009). Although people may argue that creativity has been stifled here, there is no doubt that uploading a video with copyrighted material is a violation of copyright and somehow it would be nice to credit the originator with some compensation for using his/her material. Even Levinson continues that practices, such as downloading YouTube videos for free using special software such as RealPlayer, while legal in theory, could be considered some sort of copyright infringement. The rules may not be clear-cut when it comes to new new media and what is considered legal but, as I mentioned before, it is a law and there is need for recourse to old methods to solve problems in actuality. In addition, Levinson states as his bottom line: “Dissemination of copies of a work, whether an MP3 of a recording of a YouTube clip, is impossible to prevent in the realm of new new media, and probably should not be prevented, unless money is made from the dissemination or the work is plagiarized” (Levinson, 2009). This is the problem with new new media. There are two parts to this issue, and the only thing that can be done right now is to attempt to coexist with both sides of the issue and come to some conclusion. Levinson’s book demonstrates the love and hate relationship with new new media. He is very frank when determining that copyright on the Internet is a reality despite the assumption that it is a public medium and information is everywhere.<br /> So should copyright law be abolished, should there exist a balance, or should we assume that copyright law can be applied to cyberspace? Perhaps we need clarification to bring about a temporary solution, one that is practical and realistic, so there is no further confusion. I am going to resort back to the article “What Is Copyright Protection?” To begin, the Internet is NOT public domain! It may sound unrealistic to think, but let’s look at this argument closely. We may have the “power” to click on the mouse, access a web page, see a graphic photo, click on a hyperlink, copy the image, save it, print it, and yes, the copy is stored in cache mode. We also think that because it is on the web it is public domain, and we can take any work of another author without permission. This is false. To quote my source, “Just because your driveway is not inside of your house, is it in the public domain? Does that give anybody off the street the right to stay on your driveway without your permission?” (whatiscopyright.org, 2010) This principle applies to the Internet, and “material copied on the web may be copied freely if the<br /> Copyright 16<br />information is created by the 1) federal government, 2) if the copyright has expired, and 3) the copyright has been abandoned” (whatiscopyright.org, 2010). The second point to consider is that any material that you have been granted permission to use, such as images, javascripts, HTML, text, and the like to display on your website should not be a ticket to claiming copyright over it. The third point is that graphic images, such as logos, provided by “free” graphic sites are also not public domain, and even those images that you receive for a fee, are not given to a user in ownership. Fourth, graphics, sound files, cascade-style sheets, and others that are placed in the public domain do not grant a user to claim it as copyright. You can only claim copyright to work that you created yourself and not the public information you are using because other users can utilize a Coca-Cola logo (e.g.) for their work, and you may have done the same. That is not protected under copyright. Fifth, HTML coding, web pages, and blog postings can be copyrighted. Some people assume that they can’t be copyrighted, but if the HTML and the blog postings have been original works, they deserve copyright protection. The only material that is not protected is information that has been copied and pasted from information that is copyrighted. The sixth point is quite practical. If a user takes text or HTML and change it to fit his/her needs, the individual may “own” the new version with the consent of the creator. Otherwise, it is seen as an act of plagiarism. The seventh point relates to translations into another language. Yes, permission is needed to translate material on the Internet into another language while adhering to the desires of the originator of the work (a form of a license). The final point I will mention is the fair use argument. As I mentioned before, fair use allows for “parody, news reporting, research and education about such copyrighted work without the permission of the author” (whatiscopyright.org, 2010). <br /> To summarize the above-mentioned points, copyright laws serve their purpose and were constructed with every possible case scenario in mind. The action that has been done is to take current law and apply it to those cases in cyberspace in order to show people that the assumption of cyberspace being “public” does not give anyone a free pass to take information and misuse it. Even when users take information for entertainment purposes, they should be held accountable, at least to the extent of being knowledgeable or possessing some working knowledge of copyright law. I am not saying that we all have to be experts in copyright law but we have a moral duty, just like we have a moral duty to be civilized, to know our limits. When dealing<br /> Copyright 17<br />with cyberspace, this “space” that has been constructed has boundaries and territories. We can look at those lines as imaginary light beams that form barriers (as in science fiction movies that fence in a portion of space as exclusive territory).<br /> To return to Lessig for a moment, while a proponent of creativity, Lessig fails to understand the big picture. It is not that creativity on the web is bad. The problem with Lessig’s approach is that it attempts to parallel a decentralized and out-of-control system with a centralized and classic system. He supports amateur works, which are exposed in a medium that also houses or displays the works of professionals. When both interfere, the lines blur (as is the case with most things nowadays, political party lines, copyright issues, gender, etc.), so we can’t tell which is which anymore. Most of those amateurs that display their work on places like YouTube or create their blogs mostly do this for entertainment purposes, or simply don’t have much ideas of their own so they “borrow” from mainstream. The bottom line, according to the way I view the problem, is that most young people are not taught the incentive to work hard and progress as healthy humans. Instead, young people are encouraged to think that the computer can solve their problems because “it is their generation”. This is the result of a lack of responsibility on the part of the caretakers, educational institutions, and, in an indirect form, corporate demands everywhere, whether in education, entertainment, even parents working two or three jobs to satisfy corporate demands. Lessig obviously refuses to look at this side of the argument and proceeds to take it as a given that computers are the “language of our youth”. Sure, after the private sector successfully induced computer technology upon us, using young people as their targets, Lessig “washes his hands” and becomes an activist for amateur creativity. He is fortunate that the system that he defends made him rich! So now he turns around and defames copyright laws. I am quite sure that if someone took a portion of his book “Remix” and used it for his or her personal gain, Lessig would have a holiday in court with that person. Could he turn around and justify the poor soul that tried cracking his shot at fame? Is it possible that copyright laws, even in cyberspace, are placed to truly foster creativity and make people less reliant on the web for inspiration? That is something to really think about, considering that the monster that you create could turn against you! <br /><br /><br /> Copyright 18<br /> Until now, copyright law was a law written by lobbyists for publishers and movie studios, so authors do not have legal protections for their rights. Still, it is the law by which works are protected from illegal use by unauthorized people. One of the proposals is to eliminate copyright law because of the ability to make copies with a photocopying machine or with a computer. Some people see this as a “disguised attempt to further reduce authors’ rights. The fundamental purpose of copyright law is to provide an incentive for authors to create expression, by recognizing that expression as a kind of property” (Standler, 2009). Not to mention, copyright infringement hurts them enough, it is not likely that copyright law is abolished any time soon. Keep in mind that, with regards to cyberspace, the available technology supports protection of an author’s or artist’s work. The balance that has been proposed in Fujita’s paper presents the best possible case scenario when dealing with copyright on the Internet. Yes, it is a fact that it is difficult to control the flow of information when it is no longer tied to “tangible property” (as in the case of books and cassettes) but the information control can be sustained with a new “code” to counteract it or remedy the situation. Right now, copyright law is alive and well in cyberspace. Programs exists which can protect the work or vital information of creators, which create control mechanisms that set conditions over who is authorized to view and/or access material. Creativity is not stifled, but there is a need to “communicate” effectively the needs of both parties. If both can come to some agreement and the agreement generates the “greater good”, then we will see that both can help each other.<br /> In this “digital age”, problems will arise which need our attention, and copyright is one of those important issues which need to be dealt with. Yes, new media remediates old, but we always find ourselves resorting to old media for guidance. A system that has been utilizing a foundation for so many years cannot just “abandon” it and pretend like it doesn’t exist. It is our responsibility to “build” on the foundation and make good use of the opportunities that are available. Defending amateur works and diluting copyright law do not sound like a viable solution. Paralleling old media with new and making some connections is unrealistic. In looking at the consumer/producer concept, if these two could coexist then many years ago, when the first personal recording machines came out, such as recordable records and tapes, people that used these new devices would have had an opportunity to publicize their work and receive exposure. Even so, those who recorded personal works would still look for a talent scout with<br /> Copyright 19<br />the hopes of receiving an opportunity to attaining fame. Remember, this would be a setting in the old world, which was more centralized and order existed. This is also a system that enforced hard work and dedication. There was no need to debate about copyright because 1) we weren’t “gung ho” over money as we are today and 2) the lines were drawn: professionals did their work and amateurs respected their space. However, in today’s world, the World Wide Web decentralized the system by blending personal entertainment with business, education, hobbies, and the like. Amateurs are on the same playing field with professionals, and this condition, which should serve as an educational experience, becomes a game of “pretend”. Coupled with the money factor, you have a big fight that ensues for control of territory. Cynicism runs rampant; people are being second-guessed about their motives for posting some work on the web because, after all, there are still rules to follow. The media tell us that the Web is this public domain and the “new language” of young people. On the other hand, we must abide by copyright laws that protect those individuals or professionals that post their work online for maximum exposure. Hey, even individuals at an amateur level should have some degree of copyright protection! We just can’t take for granted the adage of a public domain and use it to our advantage, especially when the advantage being sought is negative. <br /> So can copyright law exist in cyberspace? YES! The balance that is being sought is one that allows for “communication and responsibility”. We also need to realize that while the Internet may appear to be public domain, copyright law is alive and well and classic copyright law applies to cyberspace at all times. It is not a matter of accepting current entropy and tailoring our specific needs to the situation, but instead, it is a matter of compromising and sacrificing for a desired end. However, we should begin by stepping back and asking ourselves two important questions before choosing to use copyrighted material: “Is the intent to use copyrighted material for an educational purpose?” or “Is my intent to use copyrighted material for a profit-driven incentive?” Sure, these questions may sound naïve and people may challenge me with a cynical outlook, such as, “You know that anyone can take information and use it!” If you, on the other hand, examine those questions, you will realize that it is a call to exercise responsible behavior and a call to be educated on the issue of copyright law. These questions can also be asked of people when entering cyberspace and people once again can argue if these questions are valid to ask when individual motives and feedback can be subjective. One thing I know and am aware of<br /> Copyright 20<br />is that ultimately, in an era that is commanded by information and where we face issues regarding the protections we are granted, the factor that can determine what actions we can and cannot take is the manipulation of the code. It is this language which can set us apart from those at a greater advantage. This code can create the new social classes, and it extends far beyond any monetary factor. This will be contingent upon who has the appropriate software to counter irregularities and who is knowledgeable in a program language, more like the computer programmers. It is this condition which will finally bring some order to cyberspace and will once again draw the line between those who take computers for entertainment purposes or those who use computers for serious motives, such as business. Copyright law may just be one of many issues, but if it merits attention, it is because it involves a very valuable asset, which is intellectual ability (property). This goes beyond protection of physical or tangible objects; copyright law is and will always be a “police force” that must enforce the law when it comes to protecting other people’s property. We may as well tie in intellectual property together with moral rights. As for teaching our society’s young people that they have limits, it is up to authority figures like parents and teachers to set an example and not allow some machine to do their thinking for them. Reality awareness, interface awareness, those elements are key to the protection of other people’s “space”, but responsible behavior is priceless, and it must start from the top, with those in positions of authority so we can regain a centralized system. It is all about being educated, something that can only be experienced from human to human, one person at a time.<br /> <br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Works Cited<br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright</a><br /><a href="http://www.whatiscopyright.org/">http://www.whatiscopyright.org</a> (2010)<br />Crews, Jr. C.W. and Thierer, A. “When Rights Collide: Principles to Guide the Intellectual Property Debate. <a href="http://www.cato.org.pub_display.php/?pub_id=4267">http://www.cato.org.pub_display.php?pub_id=4267</a>. (2001)<br />Standler, R.B. “Some Observations on Copyright Law”. <a href="http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm">http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm</a> (2009).<br />Templeton, B. “10 Myths about Copyright Explained”. <a href="http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html">http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html</a> (2008).<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjhjBlsuE3M">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjhjBlsuE3M</a><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXwB9FlkNXA">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXwB9FlkNXA</a><br />Fujita, A. “The Great Internet Panic: How Digitization is Deforming Copyright Law”. <a href="http://grove.ufl.edu/~techlaw/vol2/fujita.html">http://grove.ufl.edu/~techlaw/vol2/fujita.html</a> (1996).<br />Levinson, P. “New New Media”. Allyn & Bacon: New York, 2009.JessLuv75http://www.blogger.com/profile/13872958701471080453noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-85250808886249423622010-06-30T18:01:00.004-04:002010-07-01T00:53:52.745-04:00My Closing PostI can't believe how fast this class went! It sure has been an intense learning experience for me, and I am sure my other classmates will agree. Reading four books in one month sure sounds Herculean but the important thing is that it is done. This course has taught me many topics that I was unaware of (remember that technology is not my area of expertise) and which made me think of the current operations of the world as we know it. Cyberspace and computer technology have come so far since I sat in a college classroom in the 90s. The idea of interacting with a computer as a medium was one that I am still losing sleep over :-) but I am gradually getting some rest! It is this interactive quality of computers that make it fascinating to users, young and old, the ability to reach out your ideas and even feelings across some "space" that seems endless.<br /><br />Bolter's book fascinated me with the amounts of interactive technology that were displayed at the technology expo in 2000, exhibits that combined analog with digital, but it was the "experience" that each exhibit produced which was so appealing to the authors of the book. They conveyed their fascination so vividly with us, the readers. Manovich's book made the stunning correlation between film technology and computers, and his explanations made very good sense to me, showing me that film was taken up one step further with computers. It is amazing that we can, at an individual level, take these concepts of filmography and use them on our desktops. The third book co-authored by Professor Strate was probably the most complicated one to read, perhaps because of so many conflicting views by the contributors, but if there was one concept that summarized the compuer's function and purpose for existence, it was Professor Strate's analogy of the clock. This comparison made sense and literally resolved the conflict that existed among the authors. Finally, Professor Levinson's book turned a decentralized society into a centralized one on cyberspace. By explaining every entity on the Internet, such as Facebook, Twitter, Digg, and MySpace (to name a few), Levinson raised awareness of all the new new media that make that "social" component of cyberspace meaningful. To finalize the course, I took upon myself the task of writing my paper on copyright law and whether or not it can be used in cyberspace. This is a lot of work to do in one month, and I feel the satisfaction of achieving knowledge as a result!<br /><br />Hopefully, this course will help me look at communications in a different light, although I may be tempted to give my own views, which may not be in total agreement with current vibe. Yet, the purpose for learning, I feel, is not necessarily to agree with everything you are taught and what others think but rather formulating your own insights and opinions and using whatever experience you may have to effect change. So, we can say we have two roads to take: either we learn and become part of the solution or we learn and continue to be part of the problem. I wish everyone a safe and happy remainder of the summer and, thanks Professor Strate for this learning opportunity. Peace out...JessLuv75http://www.blogger.com/profile/13872958701471080453noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-27037016276022677402010-06-28T20:19:00.002-04:002010-06-28T20:28:09.463-04:00My Experiences Of New New MediaAfter finishing up Paul Levinson’s New New Media, there are a few highlights I would like to share as far as my own experiences with these new new media are concerned.<br /><br />Myspace is, or was, very addicting for me. That is, until Facebook showed up. Like all forms of new new media, each has its own strengths and weaknesses. As far as Myspace and Facebook are concerned, they are both great formats to communicate among friends, family, and long lost relatives whom you may not have spoken to in years. The convenience of having an inbox, comment section, and the ability to display photos and videos is remarkable. In addition, the virtual games and applications keep kids busy and the ability to make friends with complete strangers keeps lonely people coming back for more. Overall, Facebook more than Myspace is an excellent site for networking and building contacts.<br /><br />With all that being said, Myspace and Facebook is not without serious flaws. Facebook moreso than Myspace has almost absolutely no privacy. Sure, you can block certain features from being seen, but if you block things for one person, then you’d have to block it for all people. Unlike the old AIM features, you can not turn invisible on Facebook and just talk to who you want to talk to. If you turn invisible to ignore certain people, then no one can see you’re online. That's not fair. In addition, anything you post shows up on everyone’s home pages. You can only imagine how much trouble people could get in or how easy it is to get caught in a lie. Also, the ability to pretend to be someone else or mask your true identity is extremely easy. For example, someone has been posing as my best friend’s sister for months and making statements on Facebook as if he or she were my friend’s sister. This person even went as far as to use her picture. Anyone can steal anybody’s identity as long as they have a legit email and there are people who exist that have nothing better to do with their lives than wreak havoc on others. I know stealing someone’s identity is a crime regardless if it is done online or not. This leads me to my last point. That is, the bullying that occurs on Facebook and Myspace is so extreme sometimes it leads people to suicide, literally. I'm not lying. I've read cases where teens have killed themselves after being bullied on Myspace. I mean, sure, Myspace and Facebook are great ways to present scholarly works, blogs, and network, but leave it to certain individulas of the public to abuse something good. Still think everyone deserves a voice?<br /><br />At a time when Myspace became too spam infested and all I was receiving was friend requests from porn stars (and I know I’m not that lucky), I discovered Facebook. I thought Facebook was Myspace’s saving grace because at first it was only open to college students and professors. This was great because it weeded out all those immature punks that wreak havoc on others as I mentioned in the previous paragraph (although I understand people can be immature at any age, chances are the younger crowd, who have more time on their hands, would pose as someone they are not rather than college students). Also, as college students, who wants to associate with teenagers? I mean, college students should have a place of their own. Therefore, Facebook used to dominate Myspace in my opinion. Facebook used to be just straight-up messaging and commenting. It was easy to navigate and communicate among my college friends. However, now Facebook is no better than Myspace ever since Facebook opened themselves up to anyone that has an email. This is Facebook’s biggest mistake and I hate them for this. Facebook changes its interface frequently and this change takes some time getting used to. Also, there are so many new options, games, and applications that it has become Myspace all over again. Don’t get me wrong….I still prefer Facebook over Myspace and I check my Facebook daily, but why the addition of all these changes?<br /><br />I know Levinson is a huge fan of Twitter because he believes in keeping statements as clear and concise as possible … and boy you can not get more concise than Twitter. Twitter is basically Facebook, except without all the applications and games I was just talking about. One can post an update on Twitter and all his friends on his Twitter account can read it. This would seem like a good thing considering how sour I seemed about Facebook’s recent adaptations in the previous paragraph, but the problem is, rarely anyone I know has a Twitter account or uses Twitter frequently. I don’t know if my friends don’t like Twitter, the lack of space available to post updates, or if people have just gotten so used to Facebook that they refuse to switch.<br /><br />Podcasting is much easier than webcasting because microphones and sound recording programs are cheaper than webcams, usually. In addition, podcasts are available anywhere, from cars to bluetooths. Since my dream job is to work as a radio host, I personally like podcasting. Like blogging and Youtube, podcasts are open for the public so anyone who has a microphone and a sound recording program can make, stream, and store podcasts. If one wishes too, he can write up a script for a podcast before hand, or just stream live and talk as he goes. <br /><br />One of the last chapters of New New Media discusses the negative side to all these mediums I mentioned and before even reading this section, I already hit upon many of these drawbacks when I talked about things like bullying, flaming, stalking, and spamming. However, I’d like to point out that Levinson makes a great point when he compares new new media to weapons. There are weapons out there, like guns, used to harm people. However, the weapon itself is just an object. Pardon the cliché, but guns don’t kill people. People with guns kill people. It’s how a person uses a weapon that can either be harmful or helpful. For example, if someone uses a gun out of self-defense, then the person using the gun had every right because he was defending himself. I believe anybody who wants to continue living would shoot a gun to preserve his life if he was put in that kind of position. The same goes for new new media and essentially any technology for that matter. There is no technology that is inherently good or evil, but it depends on what people use the technology for. If one uses Facebook to gossip or stalk somebody, then obviously he is using the technology for evil purposes. The more sophisticated our technology has becomes, the greater responsibility we have inherited to do good with that technology. I would argue that the most important technology is the use of mobile media. Aside from the fact that cell phones are like basic computers now, the phone itself can and has saved lives. The ability to call someone when he is lost, in danger, or just to keep track of his kids. However, now that cell phones have been taken a step further, we can acquire information at anyplace and anytime. Even better, if one is lost, he can now bring up a map on his cell phone to guide his way home. Now that’s an example of using technology for good.Michael Vinciguerrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10421479692626570608noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-2908663282626560822010-06-28T17:00:00.003-04:002010-06-29T02:44:54.947-04:00Continuing with LevinsonIn continuing the reading of Dr. Levinson's book and working on my final paper for class, I can say that his descriptions of the current cyber-issue at hand make the convoluted mess seem more organized, at least in the way he expresses himself. His section on YouTube is perhaps the most interesting one. I admit that You Tube is my resource for all of my favorite clips and music presentations of my favorite artists from the 1970s, as well as old commercials (cigarette commercials especially)! It appears that YouTube is a better media compared to television. I will not take credit away from TV because, after all, it keeps me informed as far as news (even if some news are of poor quality) and a good classic movie, once in a blue moon (I hardly watch TV anymore). However, I do find appealing Dr. Levinson's idea that YouTube is a supplement of television.<br /><br />His example of President Obama as being called a "cybergenic" President comes to mind. Levinson stated that Obama was successful on YouTube primarily because he looked well on TV. Hey, this sounds like some "remediation" but more than that, it sounds like the old guard is still a benchmark for any success on new new media. There appears to be a blur here because on one hand, we glorify YouTube for being the media it is but we still say, "Hey! Not so fast. You are still accountable to the old man!" The convenience of YouTube is, apparently, that you can watch any video or clip at your own time, and even some news are broadcast almost immediately. But being that YouTube is somewhat an "amateur" medium, the real pros have to "check and balance" the arena. So there is some "gatekeeping" in a way that occurs. YouTube also respects copyright law (which is the topic of my paper) because at times, if copyright infringement occurs, videos are taken off. We may argue that it is not right, but remember, this medium is for the whole world to enjoy, from simple people to famous names, and with all due fairness, it is right to credit those individuals who have works of their art exposed on YouTube. They should have a chance to profit from any work that is taken by an amateur and posted for the public. With regards to "viral videos", the possibilities of becoming famous due to a viral video may be endless, but then again, we are bound to the same luck and chance that would exist in a real-life scenario of a person trying to "make it big" in the entertainment industry. There is so much ground to cover with regards to copyright, what is legal or illegal, and when we need to "draw the line" with regards to creativity. Needless to say, the tools are there: use them to your best advantage!<br /><br />Wikipedia is another medium that seems to be held in questionable terms. Traditionalists (like myself) prefer to hold a complete encyclopedia set and access information whenever I want, knowing with all certainty that I am looking up "the truth". Yet. sometimes, people would prefer to obtain fast information online, so Wikipedia serves its purpose. I will agree that the information is subjective, and here is where amateur quality needs to be scrutinized. I am not saying that we should deter people from making entries to Wikipedia, but it would belp for those posting to have their facts in line before making an entry, so we don't run into any embarrassing moments of "misinforming the public". If that is the case and this continues, Wikipedia may just as well get "written off" as pure entertainment, like most of our media has done already. In a meidum such as this where commoners are fighting the battle with "real editors or writers", a word to the wise would be to, like a former English teacher of mine back in high school said, "Pretend!" Yes, pretend that you are a pro and "break a leg"! (...unless you want one of your legs broken for giving false info!)<br /><br />With regards to Twitter, 1) I have never used it and don't see the need to use it, 2) Darn it, I hate when people generalize! If the average age of Twitter users is 37, then how come I am not part of that group? Ok, maybe that is my point: it is not fair to say that everybody gets "hooked" on new new media or that it is a given that one group behaves a certain way. That is the lovefest that our country has with generalizations and statistics, more like a sickness, so to speak! It is one that does not provide a realistic picture of who we are and the true diversity of opinions that exists. I mean, what's the point of sending a "tweet" when you can just get on the telephone and call someone, or even email them? Does anyone ever exercise any more? Yes, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, etc. bring people together and ideas across, but sometimes this virtual world becomes too real that it becomes easy to dissociate with the "real world" consisting of humans. Frankly, new new media should be regarded strictly as an avenue for learning and not some outlet which attempts to satisfy a fantasy world. We need to draw a line between what is real and what is not. The role of consumer/rpoducer should be established as one in which people decide whether they take this as pure entertainment or as a means of achieving profitable gain. But you can't involve profitable game in everything, even in pure enjoyment. This blurring of the lines nees to be cleared up and a new vision sharpened. Only in this manner will cyberspace claim its rightful place in our society.<br /><br />Point blank, the idea of consumer/producer, does not sound right to my ears quite well. Like the old saying goes, "You can't have your cake and eat it, too." Let's not take it as a given that we should go ahead and consume and produce everything. We need to seriously examine whether our endeavor is done purely for pleasure or if we want something beneficial to come out of the experience. This is the only way that new new media will ever be taken seriously: if we start screening the bad weeds out and seeking the truth via people who take this seriously. Otherwise, if new new media is another form of entertainment, then we may as well see this as another alternative of passing time or going to see an overpriced and overrated New York Yankee ball game (Let me clarify that I am NOT making fun of Yankee fans!).JessLuv75http://www.blogger.com/profile/13872958701471080453noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-85816706880858166742010-06-28T15:03:00.004-04:002010-06-28T15:47:58.048-04:00New New Media-Part 2I really have to say that I enjoyed this book. It continued to be very informative and humorous at times. Not only was it an enjoyable read, but I also learned some interesting facts--specifically about Twitter.<br /><br />Levinson dedicates Chapter 8 to the world of Twitter or rather the "new kid on the media block." (p133) Twitter has become a outlet for users to broadcast to the world as it has become the fastest "growing social medium." This surprised me as I thought Facebook took the lead on this. Levison even writes about a tweet from outer space in 2009. THAT is fascinating to me.<br /><br />Twitter allows usres to tweet about anything--what you are doing, your thoughts, your feelings, your emotions, etc... Whatever comes to mind you can tweet AND it is a instant publication. However, not only is it instant but it also is instant to all Twitter users. What makes it so instant is that you are only allowed to tweet a max of 140 characters. As you all know, 140 characters is a small amount. Meaning--every word counts. When I first became a Twitter user I was annoyed about the 140 character limitation. However, after using Twitter, I'm glad that this limitation has been put in place because I would not want to nor do I have the time to read a page long tweet. So yes, it makes sense. My favorite part of this section is his shout out to Fordham Road Pizza--Professor Levinson and I had conversations about the pizza in this area in his Targeted Writing class in Fall of 2009. It just made me think back and laugh about it all.<br /><br />Another good point that is brought up is that you can become someone else as a Twitter user. Your user name can be something different, you can pose as someone else--a celebrity or whoever! This reminded me of our discussion in class last week about "digital self." Twitter allows you to create another you--your digital self. Perhaps we can say that some use it as an escape from reality to be or act as someone else...<br /><br />Something to think about--are we making ourselves vulnerable on Twitter? This is another point that Levinson brings up. As Twitter keeps growing and as the millions of users keep increasing, I wonder about who is really reading my tweets. Furthermore, there is now an option on Twitter that includes your current location with every Tweet. In one tweet you can tell the world what you are doing and where you are instantly. Twitter puts you in touch with the outside world and has the ability to let them know everything.<br /><br />Levinson perfectly explains Twitter, Interpersonal + Mass communication=Twitter. Users can send a tweet instantly and the receiver can read the message and immediately tweet back. However, this can be one on one communication and it can also be seen by the mass users (mass communication). As I have studied interpersonal communication and mass communication here at Fordham, it makes perfect sense to me.<br /><br />Finally, what I found most interesting is that Levinson explains that the average age of Twitter users is 37 years old. WHAT?!? This blew me away. Twitter seems to have become more for the adult user. Which leads me to think--is Twitter appropriate for children? If the adult population is the main Twitter user then perhaps there should be some restrictions or privacy settings for children of a certain age.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02574069881799864478noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-25134168221001631192010-06-24T14:03:00.002-04:002010-06-24T14:50:16.502-04:00New New Media...or Late Late ShowUnlike my colleagues that have takn Dr. Levinson's classes already, I will be experiencing one of his classes, Media and Social Awareness coming up in the Fall. He sounds like a very experienced and quite technical man. His heavy involvement in "new new media" is quite "daunting" and scary at times, the way he describes the plethora of new new media that exist. I will have to agree with Mike that I also think of new new media as anything digital, as in the case of HDTV and the infamous iPod (however I always thought that you could also become creative with the iPod and produce some kind of work with it)...anyhow, never mind me, I am not that technological. As you may already know, my technology goes as far back as Quadraphonic Stereo! But Levinson's descriptions of MySpace, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Digg were explained with so much care and consideration you can't help but get to appreciate the art behind these media. They do serve some purpose, and like I always say, they are there to "pick and choose" to your personal needs.<br /><br />The book appears well written, with the student in mind, unlike the other books I have had to read for this course, which appear to be too technical at times. The idea of being a consumer and producer sounds quite appealing. However, my personal opinion is that the few new new media that I use put me at the consumer's end more than on the producing end. I don't know how to produce a video segment for YouTube, I am not involved in Twitter, have never sent a "tweet" from an iPhone or Blueberry (pun intended, to quote Levinson!), I am lucky to even have a cell phone! What troubles me is that many authorities in education and the media assume that every young person knows how to use new new media, without considering that there are people (like myself) who are just barely learning how to post on a blog. The blog for this course offers great exercise in blogging. At least my theory is that if you have working knowledge of a computer you can virtually pick up all of these new new media nuances in a flash. But does our work on new new media really receive the attention it truly deserves at a grand scale or does it become "written off" as a form of "entertainment" for the masses? How serious are amateur works taken to effectuate real change?<br /><br />I couldn't help but title my post "New New Media...or Late Late Show! This new new media is a carryover from the original new media, which comprise of the Internet, email, chat rooms, etc. These former are still used by the way, only that new things like Skype, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, etc. are further adaptations to what was already new media. Coversely, the old media of print, newspapers, and even television have all influenced what we now have come to embrace as alternatives. Just like when watching the Late Show movie at night, the Late Late Show is a carryover of the Late Show, featuring another movie, perhaps more violent or containing graphic content. You may disagree with this comparison, but here is the other side of this comparison: The Late Show is experienced by those still awake around 11:45PM, and so was new media, which was embraced rather quickly by the masses. On the other hand, The Late Late Show is given much later around 2AM and not that many people are awake to watch. New new media, with its interactive consumer/pruducer quality may be open for all to use and there may be lots of blogs about important topics, but the important people to whom the blogs or the amateur works are aimed at are "asleep" and probably don't care to see who is trying to make a difference using these new new media. If you get my point, then you fully understand that new new media receives too much hype and only becomes relegated to pure entertainment offering some false sense of security. <br /><br />I am quite sure that Dr. Levinson has a great reputation and that anyone who sees his posts, including famous people, will respond with great ease because they know the work Dr. Levinson does and has done, going back to his contact with one of the stars of "Mad Men". It appears to me that no matter how much we are convinced that our amateur work is recognized or even matters, there are certain people who are more educated or "information wealthy" that can receive recognition or even receive contact from a top celebrity. I will give you an example: if you wanted to add Jennifer Love Hewitt as a friend on Facebook, you would be directed to her Fan Club. Let's face it, even if you made some poster or wallpaper with all of Jennifer Love Hewitt's phtos and even if you sent her a comment about her role on "Ghost Whisperer", she would not get back to you personally, especially if you are not some famous wirter or person in the entertainment world, or even someone with some connections. Our interaction with new new media has its limits, and the push for copyright laws to protect artists work is a step in the right direction, especially in cyberspace. Regardless, it is a pleasant idea to know that we can use these "tools" to teach us a lesson in life and even a lesson in creativity. That goes back to my initial premise of the computer, as a "learning tool" which acts as a "medium" but is not fully a medium.<br /><br />Finally, the money issue always seems to make its appearance, even though personally it is sickening to me to have to hear it mentioned. I KNOW: we all need money and we all need to make a living off of it, but do we <em>have</em> to mention it all the time; it is a given, why waste time talking about the cost factor? Can't we at least talk about the pleasure something gives us or the satisfaction it provides? If we know that new new media usage promotes entertainment, then why do some people have to insist on discussing dollars and cents? If some people can make money off of blogs or uploading YouTube videos, then good for them! Making people believe they are in control of their work when in fact they aren't is <em>not</em> realistic. The corporations that have brainwashed most of the world are to take responsibility and reassess priorities. The buck stops here!<br /><br />Overall, the book is probably the most enjoyable that I have encountered for a while. Regardless, it presents a grim outlook on education and how the outside world and corporate demands have seeped into the classroom and shattered traditional learning. It is unfortunate that students in a classroom are distracted by new new media and don't pay attention to a professor. Then what is the use of spending so much money (AHA!! Here is where we TRULY must discuss the value of money!) in a college classroom when it is poorly assumed that "kids know more than teachers"? Naturally, I don't buy that argument. If you are in a classroom, you come to learn and to be educated. If you are going to waste time texting and playing your iPod, for the sake of new new media, then don't waste your time in class and leave. Otherwise, two thumbs up for Dr. Levinson!JessLuv75http://www.blogger.com/profile/13872958701471080453noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-36197057584694628272010-06-24T00:14:00.004-04:002010-06-24T01:03:19.454-04:00New New MediaWell, I have to hand it to Professor Levinson. New New Media is very informative, easy to understand and even humorous at times. The book is a great resource of what new, new media is and how new media became new, new media. The book was well-organized with chapters dedicated to blogging, YouTube, Wikipedia, Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, Podcasting, etc...<br /><br />It is interesting how new media is now considered to be new, new media. However, it makes sense as it is always advancing and changing.<br /><br />Overall, I found that Levinson was realistic throughout his book. For instance, I completely understand that in order to understand new media and new, new media--you need to experience it and practice it. This is where the user plays a large role in the creation of new media for the user becomes the creator--the artist--the publisher--the director. New media and new, new media consist of the creations of the user. As they are creating they are fully engaged and are becoming experienced. This all makes sense to me. YouTube is a great example of this.<br /><br />I found it funny that in his book, Levinson compares YouTube (new, new media) to Television (new media/"old media"). However, for me...I would compare newyorktimes.com to the actual newspaper. I'm going further back in time as Levinson is compaing new, new media to new media.<br /><br />Thus far, I really enjoyed the blogging chapter. It was very detailed and it acted as if it was a how-to guide to blogging. From taking past classes with Levinson, I know that he is very involved with blogs and has a lot of experience with them. This goes back to fully understanding new media by engaging yourself with it. I agree that new, new media is something that just can't be read about it--it is something that you need to particpate in for it is a large part of our society and effects us daily. Even-more-so, many enjoy it.<br /><br />I have not finished the book yet but from what I have read, it seems to be great overview of new, new media. And if you have taken a class with him, he makes sure to let everyone know that he is heavily involved in the new, new media world with this tweets, podcasts, Facebook account and tons of blogs. Therefore, as he is fully engaged he understands new, new media and is knowledgeable enough to write this book.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02574069881799864478noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-72258453203761560652010-06-23T19:04:00.002-04:002010-06-23T19:15:48.239-04:00Highlights Of New New MediaI have taken Paul Levinson’s classes twice in my Fordham career and plan on taking two more classes with him in the upcoming future. There’s just no escaping this guy. I would just like to point out that the preface he wrote was very nice. Knowing that we, the students, have inspired and impacted professors in the way they write, think, and teach makes any class more meaningful and lively and I can certainly see why Communication teachers, like Paul Levinson, would have to change their teaching topics frequently. Unlike other subjects, where two plus two is always four and Columbus sailed to America in 1492, Communication and the technologies involved are always in a state of change. More importantly, the topics in Communications are all relevant and impact the lives of millions even if they are aware of this or not. As students and professors, its our job to bring light to these topics and changes so we can best prepare ourselves and others for the future of Communications.<br /><br />I feel like this book has a comical, sometimes sarcastic, tone to it, but then again, that’s the kind of guy Levinson is. This book was also intended to be instructional. Levinson is trying to explain to us what the new new media are and how we can best benefit from using them instead of just using this new new media during class while teachers are lecturing.<br /><br />Its interesting how he didn’t list IPODs and HDTVs as part of his catalog of new new media. I always thought anything digital is considered new new media. However, according to his criteria for new new media, we aren’t producers of IPODs and HDTVs. We only consume them. The fact that we can produce our own media, interact, and receive feedback so fluently, like blogs and Facebook, is the defining characteristic that makes up new new media. In addition, even though new new media comes in various platforms, such as blogging and Youtube videos, we still apply old methods to provide content, such as writing and talking. My question is a concern about whether or not we have allowed ourselves too much power and whether the ability to express ourselves freely is ultimately a good thing.<br /><br />According to Levinson, the best way for a student to actually learn what new new media is all about is to engage in this media himself. This makes sense on a practical level. I mean, the only way to really learn and absorb anything is through experience and interaction. Its one thing to read about how to operate on a brain, but it’s a whole different experience actually performing the operation. I have great respect for Communication classes in which professors encourage students to do their work in other methods, such as video and audio presentations, blogs, and podcasts, besides a traditional paper. As great as Plato was, these aren’t the Platonic days anymore. This is 2010.<br /><br />On the surface blogging seems like a wonderful innovation. The ability to have your own free page where you can talk about anything, link up to other blogs, and have them comment on your blogs is great. Even better is the ability to post at whatever time you feel like it and adding pictures, sounds, and video to further make your blog posts stand out. The problems, however, are tremendous. Most people online do not know what they are talking about, are so quick to disagree with others, and a lot of people provide false or misleading information. In addition, a lot of people just flock to those blogs and comments that agree with them. This is what happens when everyone is allowed to have a voice and express it freely; complete chaos. I mean, for all I know there could be people out there reading this who think that what I say is complete nonsense. Even still, I completely agree that it is necessary for everyone to have a voice and express themselves freely. If newspapers have editorial sections where only qualified individuals can be noticed, why can’t those who don’t have connections or are qualified, but not being hired, let out there opinions? As far as making money on your blog is concerned, that doesn’t work well. The support of ads, such as Google, on your blog page makes pennies. If you do manage to make money, certainly don’t expect an income sufficient enough to survive off of it.<br /><br />Youtube, another form of new new media that Levinson talks about, one ups blogging by allowing videos to be seen on the computer. Videos are tremendously powerful because visuals aid in stimulating emotional responses. Though Youtube hasn’t replaced television, the responses people provide by watching videos on Youtube can sometimes be completely different from the responses those make by watching the same videos on television. Again, because anyone can produce whatever videos they want and put it on Youtube, what you tend to see a lot of on Youtube nowadays are random videos that serve no purpose other than fun or amateurish videos by those desiring to become big in the film industry. I also find people who post old shows from the 90s on Youtube and this really brings me back. In fact, I rarely watch television anymore. The only shows I watch are reruns on Youtube of older shows and cartoons because I miss the 90s that much and shows and cartoons these days can’t top those from the 90s. The problem, however, occurs when certain shows that people put on Youtube get taken off due to copyright infringement. The point is, anyone can be a producer on Youtube and star in his own show, receive feedback from others, and comment on the videos of others, and this is the power that new new media has over older media.<br /><br />I believe Youtube is direct competition with broadcast television and this argument interests me for various reasons. First, Youtube acts as another outlet for distributing and accessing media which draws eyes away from the television sets. As a result of fewer eyes watching television, rating decline and when ratings decline, advertisers begin to cease paying for broadcasts. This could leave a broadcast network in disarray. In addition, once a user subscribes to You Tube, he can post anything on You Tube he desires for free, whether it is a personal video or a television rerun from years ago, as long as it does not contain extreme indecency (which is purely subjective.) Indeed, every show I looked up on Youtube, whether primitive or recent, I was able to find for free. This endangers broadcast television because this poses the question of why advertisers should have to pay to support shows on the networks when the public is simply posting these shows to be accessed on You Tube for free? The primary reason for the writer’s strike occurred as a result of the writers of broadcast television shows feeling underpaid and wanting to profit from the shows they helped create being aired on outlets like Youtube. This raises issues of how the networks should distribute the money if there is even any money to distribute. Finally, Youtube calls into question the very notion of what broadcasting is. Traditionally, broadcast television has been thought of as the major networks sending content over the air to as many eyes as possible. Youtube is a new type of personal broadcasting and while its not going over the air, the content of Youtube is still reaching as many eyes as<br />possible. Therefore, Youtube is stealing away those who traditionally sat in front of a television set and broadcast television must learn to somehow adjust and deal with this new form of accessing media or risk losing viewers and advertising in the future.<br /><br />Wikipedia, another form of new new media that Levinson talks about, is probably the primary example of how easy it is to acquire false information….but is it really? I’ll never forget when a Professor at Fordham told me that the amount of false information reported on Wikipedia is equal to the amount of false information presented in the famous Encyclopedia Britannica. The ability to see just how many times an article has been edited or updated on Wikipedia obviously should lead one to suspect just how legit the information is. Another problem with Wikipedia is that the sources behind the articles are tough to cite, if there are even any sources present in the article to begin with. When I write research papers, I always pick EBSCO over Wikipedia for the simple reason that EBSCO has its articles cited whereas Wikipedia articles are tough to cite. I don’t believe Wikipedia is the reason that libraries are unnecessary because Wikipedia doesn’t contain books in the way a library does. However, ever since I discovered EBSCO and other online journal articles, I have not stepped foot in a library because articles that I need can be easily researched and accessed online from the comfort of my own home.Michael Vinciguerrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10421479692626570608noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-59279424060529377692010-06-21T20:47:00.007-04:002010-06-22T14:03:33.632-04:00Communication and Cyberspace-Part 2<div>The second portion of this book was very thought provoking. The realities of cyberspace are not only extensive but have come to effect many aspects of daily life interaction and communication. Cyberspace has allowed many to communicate 24 hours a day/ 7 days a week. Communication in cyberspace is constant and always evolving. From chat rooms to AIM to Myspace to Facebook to blogs to Twitter--we are constantly connected through many different venues. Not only is communication in cyberspace continuous, it is also instant. A "single keystroke" can connect you immediately. The access is instant.<br /></div><br /><div>Of course there are both positives and negatives to this continuous and instant communication. The positives are obvious--you are always connected, it's easy, you are always informed, etc... However, I know frequent users that rather communicate through cyberspace then on the phone or in person or perhaps, they first find themselves sending an email rather then picking up the phone or meeting someone in person. Obviously communication in cyberspace seems easier because it is ALWAYS available. However, has cyberspace caused frequent users to become lazy? Why write a letter when you can send a email in a few minutes...we don't even need to pick up the newspaper from our front stoop anymore because we can read it online...we can even find a date online! Beyond communication, cyberspace has changed many facets of our lives. Yes, cyberspace makes things easier and I love the great conveniency that it brings to my life. However, I'm worried about what the future holds: Will people only rely on online dating? Will newspapers/magazines/CDs/DVDS become extinct? Will conversations over a cup-of-joe not take place? I think we have become addicted to cyberspace and eventually...it will only get worse.</div><br /><div> </div><br /><div>Another idea that really came to mind while reading this book was that cyberspace communication has completely decreased face to face contact. Furthermore, it gives many a chance for many to form a "digital self." I see it as false personalities. With the lack of face to face interaction, cyberspace allows one to change oneself. Anyone can pretend to be something they are not, change themselves or even portray to be another person. Cyberspace is an adult version of "dress up."</div><br /><div> </div><br /><div>Through reading this book, the realities of cyberspace slapped me right in the face. Of course I think there are great advantages of cyberspace and the constant advancements are fascinating. However, this doesn't mean that I want "old fashioned" communication to disappear. I, like many others, enjoy face to face contact, conversation and real socializing. As Douglas Rushkoff says..."We don't socialize with anyone when we visit a web-site; we read text and look at pictures. This s not interactivity." (p357)</div>Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02574069881799864478noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-56200703892276928072010-06-20T00:35:00.004-04:002010-06-21T20:55:21.193-04:00Cyberspace and Real Space: The Blame Game!To be quite frank, with you, after continuing my readings in this book, the people that are giving their viewpoints (not just the authors who have done, in my opinion, a marvelous job defending their views, but we at the receiving end ) are not even sure what they are fighting for or against! Some say cyberspace is a reality that opens up new possiblities; others think that cyberspace is a made-up reality that does not need to exist. One view sees cyberspace as a force to be reckoned with and embraced because, as the old cliche goes, "This is the wave of the future", while another view states that we are still grounded on earth and cyberspace should be controlled. Neil Postman wonders if we really need cyberspace, meaning that we can actually live without it. One of my classmates feels that we are "corporate pawns", but I highly have to disagree with that because that statement makes us all look like some ignorant buffoons with no brain. The reality is that we <em>do</em> have thinking ability and we <em>don't</em> need to be influenced by anyone because we have a choice. While this matter may be difficult to resolve, it is not hard to realize that there are conflicting sides to this issue. It is also safe to say that the main perpetrators of this cyberspace issue like to be engaged in what I call "The Blame Game".<br /><br />Yes, the blame game, because the private sector (meaning business) infiltrated every nook and cranny with computers and in a way monopolized their industries by cutting and downsizing their companies in favor of computer technology. By convincing the government to receive funding for their technological research, the corporations made Clinton's government an offer it couldn't refuse (quoting "The Godfather"). When you cut out jobs, you weaken the economy. It's like giving illegal immigrants cheap labor to do, thus shifting the income potential to those higher up. Talk about decentralization, computers devalue work and produce an inefficient economy and industry because those higher up the ladder hoard all of the money and don't give anything back. Also, the corporations that invested in this technology went out on an advertising rampage to subliminally seduce the weak minds of those in the population, young people of course, and then adults followed suit, leading them to believe that they <em>have to</em> own a computer because it is the future and it is modern. So the ones who perpetrated the whole thing turn around, blame the millions who got hooked on cyberspace like a drug, and pointed the finger back at them blaming them (the people) for their crazy demand of computers. In turn, corporations begin crying foul (Microsoft, Google, etc.) so they now want to start regulating the marketplace for tons of reasons: copyright infringement, privacy, cybercrime, you name it, a bunch of made-up maladies that plague cyberspace, and all because these companies gave the people what they "thought" they wanted, when in fact, this was a made-up reality to fatten their pockets. And now you talk about regulating cyberspace? GET REAL!!<br /><br />I honestly believe in copyright protection. Let's look at it from a professional point of view. I have heard the recent phrase that with computer technology, the user is both the consumer and producer of his/her work. Now examine that statement closely. By allowing a commoner to publish or produce his/her work online and "borrow from other sources", the person is "cheapening" (and I mentioned it in a previous post) the art or the profession of Public Commuincations, which should only be reserved for those like us who are investing thousands of dollars on an education to work in a capacity that proves rewarding, for those professors we have who impart their knowledge on us, and for those professionals who do this work for a living. Their ideas AND work should be protected and should not be susceptible to the hands of those that possess little to no skills or who do it with the intent to capitalize from it at a low-end scale. This is a slap in the face for us, and this merits that work done on our part receives the protection it deserves under copyright protection. However, I also think that copyrighted work should be available to the masses for acquiring knowledge and for reflection when used in the education field or just for the sake of being informed about life. As long as the work is not reproduced for illicit gain, any copyrighted work should be shared amongst people assuming that broader knowledge will be attained. See, it is a complicated issue but it needs to be dealt with carefully. On the internet, copyright law should be enforced, especially if it is work that has been published and is out in the market. A word to the wise: maybe with regulation of the internet people will become discouraged in putting their work out on cyberspace and will resort to traditional methods of distribution, which have proven very effective over time. It seems that people all over, businesses included, need some "wake-up call" to let them realize that a virtual reality is not such a happy place to live in. This is probably the best way to tell those heavy users of cyberspace, "The honeymoon's over!"<br /><br />Is there a way to stop this technology machine from becoming a monster? Sure, Just Say NO! Sounds easy to say but difficult to do, sure, but it is not impossible. As Postman suggests, we need to search within ourselves and sometimes look at our society to understand and deeply examine if this is something we can live without or curtail to some degree. Hey, we lived in a world without cyberspace and there was more of an order. Today, it is all a mess, yes decentralized. And ironically, the behavior online mirrors the trends in human behavior. I'll give two examples: years ago you could go to McDonald's and people would make two or three lines to order. Today a line is a convoluted mess. People step all over you and no one seems to know what register to go to, that is <em>if</em> there are more than one cashier available! Their reduction in personnel is another idea rooted in our cyberspace or the idea of "flextime" at work, as Professor Strate mentions in his chapter on Cybertime. Another example is in the way people dress, it's like they just woke up from bed. Years ago, people, especially men, would dress up or be more orderly in their appearance. This similar attitude is present in cyberspace. Decentralization is not the best world to live in. Too much decentralization leads to entropy, and entropy could lead to some conflict. Corporations need to stop playing the blme game and take responsibility for the troubles they have created in creating cyberspace. People, in turn, need to start weakening corporate power, by not continually falling into the cyber-trap set out for everyone. One of the ways to do it...exercising self-control when it comes to the use of a computer and what you want to be displayed. Amen.JessLuv75http://www.blogger.com/profile/13872958701471080453noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-83556743817356835772010-06-19T05:15:00.004-04:002010-06-19T05:36:51.400-04:00The Internet and Information WarfareAfter finishing the second half of Strate’s “Communication and Cyberspace,“ I have a clearer understanding that communication technologies alter the relationship between space and navigation and the positives and negatives linked to that statement. Both the body and mind are necessary for concept of self and physical interaction stimulates body, which in turn, stimulates the mind. However, the line between living people and artificial environments is blurred when one interacts online. We can never get a sense of who we are REALLY talking to online, where we are in the electronic environment, or who WE really are. When I say who somebody REALLY is, I’m not talking about their identity. Indeed, a lot of people online are honest about their age and name. I’m talking about acquiring a sense of what they are like in person, their behavior, and their body language. I learned in Communication classes that body language speaks volumes of truth that vocal language can not. Therefore, a concept of self can not be developed properly without face to face interaction. However, to remediate this, webcams change what I was just talking about so we can have face to face interaction, but is it really face to face interaction or face to machine interaction? This blows my mind because sometimes when I’m talking to someone online, even if it’s a personal friend who I know, I forget that the person I’m talking to is a real human being with thoughts and emotions. Thinking like this can cause someone to just say whatever they want, not realizing that this very real person will respond to your every word. From my experience, its easier to say harsher words online than it is in person.<br /><br />Symbol systems of cyberspace involve oral, literate, and iconic modes. Everything about a computer, except the hardware itself, is symbolic. Thinking about computers in this way actually makes me feel immersed into cyberspace. The illusion of immersion in a virtual landscape is based on the interface between user and computer and boundaries between form dissolves. Everything in cyberspace is symbolic and these symbols are mere representations of what should be there in real life. Therefore, links and icons become symbols of what they should be, such as a virtual trash can on the interface representing a real trash can. Traveling in cyberspace takes on new meaning by clicking links because we can travel across a virtual country that is supposed to be a symbolic representation of a real country. Even the language used in conversations online has taken on a new form of rhetoric where we abbreviate words, misspell them, and use symbols as substitutes for words. I have already asked whether cyberspace is real or not, but thinking in terms of symbols, then cyberspace is not real because everything is a representation of what it should be.<br /><br />Jurgen Habermas and other communication scholars believe that public opinion emerged from the discussions and deliberations that took place in 18th century salons and coffeehouses of Europe and emerging from these communication scholars in the twentieth century came ideas of public opinion theories. Habermas developed strict criteria for what he believed should constitute the modern day public sphere. Habermas argued that for the public sphere to be successful, one must be able to express his opinion freely and logically, one must have access to the public sphere, there must not be a hierarchy present, and those in the public sphere must have equal footing in there participation. The Internet is considered by many scholars to be the modern day equivalent of a true public sphere, but my argument is that this clearly not the case. In trying to form a virtual community, I would argue computers actually decentralize us. Cultures, that are continuous, colonize cyberspace and results in information warfare (I like the phrase information warfare) because everyone HAS to have a voice now. Rarely does mutual agreement among discourse in the public sphere leading to peaceful democratic deliberation occur. Most of the time one simply sees a repetition of the same voices. Though freedom of speech should be a guaranteed right online, some scholars fear there are those who abuse this right and courts, owners, and corporations do enforce laws when they feel discourse is threatening to their goals. Also, their are those who choose not to or simply cannot afford to participate in the public sphere due to disinterest or economic restraints. Finally, flaming, or cyber bullying, is common online and caused by the limitations of computers. I find it rather funny when one becomes mad at a post by a complete stranger who they will probably never meet and feels absolutely compelled to strike back. What’s the point? Anyway, keeping in mind the fact that a virtual community does not necessarily mean an online public sphere, even still, how can an online public sphere exist with this many obstacles in the way?<br /><br />Online publishing requires less distribution, its cheaper, and breaks up monopolies. That, to me, is a good thing. The problem that is always on everyone’s mind, however, is how easy it is to plagiarize another’s work. Let’s look at students and teachers for example. On one hand I don’t think the authors mind if a student takes quotes directly from their work. In fact, I think most authors would be happy the student chose to pick them and write about their works. If all a student did was mention the author’s name and cite them, then all would be fine, but the problem is not all students do this or not all students do this correctly and that’s when plagiarism becomes an issue. Teachers believe the student simply took another’s work and didn’t bother to cite them or rewrite their words out of sheer laziness. In larger scenarios, like Disney … well I don’t understand Disney. They are way too stingy. I also don’t understand why an author has to turn his works over to the public domain after a certain number of years. The poor guy probably has died, can’t defend himself or reclaim his work, and the only contributions he made to society and means of remembering him has been handed over to the public domain for someone else to take credit for. Also, the reading claims that traditional classrooms will forfeit books and replace them with hypertext, but this is too expensive to imagine at the moment. Even if hypertext replaces textbooks, hypertext still limits readers and I doubt readers will absorb the information on a screen better than they would in a traditional textbook. That’s an example of taking technology a little too far.<br /><br />Technology also made information into a commodity that is bought and sold. This idea is very interesting to me. Technologies, which deliver information and have advanced over the years, cost money. We pay to acquire information, which at one point was thought of to be free of charge, and most people are not even aware of this. In addition, most people are in denial of the side effects of computers. For example, unstimulated by actual reality, people seek virtual reality, online interaction, and video games. Now I don’t know if Neil Postman is saying the magnitude of this problem is huge, but I don’t see it as a big deal. I mean, you can not spend every minute of every day outside interacting with people. These new interactions and technologies are alternative forms of entertainment in the same way one would go see a broadway show or catch a movie at a theater with a friend. Just because they are done inside the house, does not necessarily mean people are unstimulated by actual reality. Also, a lot of technologies can be performed outside of the house nowadays anyways. For example, an arcade is a real place that exists in reality. One has to travel to an arcade in order to interact in a technological environment and play video games.<br /><br />The last highlight of the reading I’d like to point out is the idea of a computer as a clock. This part of the reading was yet another new way for me to think about computers. The computer is a numerical extension of a calculating machine. Computers and clocks are devices to be set up and produce information (kind of reminds me of Deism - we are the gods and designers of computers). The computer is a clock that determines when one’s operation has ended and another begins. The clock is a self operating automated machine. The processing speed is the speed of the clock inside computer. One can obviously draw parallels here between a clock and a computer, but what is interesting to me is that digital time displayed by the clocks in computers offers a new concept of time. That is, time as a sequence of numbers. Microseconds are turned into information to give an EXACT time. This EXACT time was never available on analog clocks. Computers also represents time symbolically and the interactions people perform on computers is not necessarily time based. For example, we do not have to be on a computer at a certain time to receive email. It gets stored and we access it at our own time, like phone messages.Michael Vinciguerrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10421479692626570608noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-43612097409876900842010-06-17T16:20:00.005-04:002010-06-17T17:32:28.639-04:00Communication and CybrespaceFirstly, I enjoyed the introduction. The material was easy to understand. Several definitions of cyberspace were given such as, where data is located, social interaction, virtual reality, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">cyberculture</span>, etc...<br /><br />Cyberspace is something that is part of our daily lives and has become necessary for our social lives, education, knowledge, employment...However, I have never sat down and thought about what cyberspace really is, what it is made of, how it works or why it works. Perhaps this means that I don't have a true understanding of what it really is or maybe I don't apprecaite it. This makes me think that I really view the computer as a machine/appliance...<br /><br />Moving on to the history of telecommunications--its hard to believe that the telegraph was only invented in the mid-19<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">th</span> century. It is amazing to see how far we have come from the telegraph with radio, fax machines, satellites, etc...<br /><br />I'm <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">alittle</span> confused about the term hypertext--Professor <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Strate</span> will you go over this?<br /><br />I thought the idea of defining spaces in cyberspace was interesting--for we define these spaces by access rather than ownership. When you access the World Wide Web, you have everything available <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">right</span> at your fingertips.<br /><br />The <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Internet</span> is seen as a "transport medium"--transporting information or providing information to the user. However, cyberspace is considered to be the "environment" where all of this information is kept and regulated. furthermore, "cyberspace can be a place to go and get things to use, a place to ask questions and give answers..." (p54) So, the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Internet</span> and cyberspace have a constant connection.<br /><br />I do witness how virtual reality can be "overwhelming." How many times are you on the computer, watching TV and on the phone at the same time? Since we are taking part in so many mediums at once--Charles Larson suggests that we lose our sense of community. He compares this to watching a movie--the audience can cheer or boo but there is a sense of community established. However, when on the computer--many tend to be engaging in other mediums simultaneously and community is lost. Prior to reading this book, I would have never thought about creating a sense of community within the cyberspace world.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02574069881799864478noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-43427839340608570482010-06-17T02:49:00.004-04:002010-06-17T14:32:10.126-04:00Cyberspace: Reality or Forced Reality?It was kind of refreshing to take a break from the last two books and open up to one which sounds more earthy. at least from my point of view. The introduction to the book clarifies cyberspace in a way that I didn't understand and it simplified the meaning and the angles which other writings that I have come across don't do. Professor Strate does a good job explaining this and giving us the historical timeline of what events have constituted our arrival to this notion or concept we know as "cyberspace". I like the way that space is defined, as existing independently from human beings. It is a conceived notion we have of some "area" that we designate to be for our use. The three types of space: physical, perceptual, and conceptual present three dimensions in which we can effectuate our exchange of ideas and/or physical exchange of actions. (We can call this the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of the blessed trinity for those of us who are Catholics). The cyberspace myth is one that has been created to make sense of the perceptual and conceptual spaces, but it is the conceptual space that is more befitting for cyberspace. It is here where the exchange of ideas, communication, and actions (such as making an online payment) takes place. This results from the "interconnection" of computers along a network making communication between or among individuals possible.<br /><br />Another element that stood out for me was the element of seeing people as "cyborgs". Yes, The Terminator gave us an example of what a cyborg is and what it does, being half man-half machine. However, it is our relation to the computer and the way we use it, by clicking on a mouse, scrolling down a web page, and multitasking on the desktop which, according to the authors of the book, render us as cyborgs. The term may sound far-fetched but it does provide some technical description to what we as individuals perform on a daily basis. In a way, computers dictate our behavior and in another way, we control the machine to perform the functions we desire. It is that relation from man to machine which turns us into some technological "creation" because we are relating with an inanimate object that communicates in some foreign language (code). But it is this cyberspace where we are now connecting with people, sending and receiving money, accessing information, producing works of art and/or business, emailing, etc., the list goes on and on. Although many people will want to believe we have entered the "Twilight Zone", it is an environment that has been created so that tasks that need immediate attention can be completed in a shorter amount of time. Yes, this is the reality that has been created, or as I like to say, "forced upon us". 99 percent of the population may think it is a work of nature and of the "powers that be". I am quite sure that there is no Divine Intervention here, but this is the "space" that has been bestowed upon us, attempting to undermine our "physical space" as humans.<br /><br />To say that this creates some form of a culture, as the introduction implies, is, in my opinion, something that can be argued. To me, a culture requires physical one-on-one interaction. Let's look briefly at cultures that have been created in the past. Aside from foreign cultures, such as ethnic ones, let's look at our current 20th century cultures that have come about. One that comes to my mind is the Hippie culture of the late 1960s. Here we have a group of kids, mostly in their late teens and early twenties, who believe that the Vietnam War is wrong and refuse to go fight. They backlashed against this government of ours that has been and is to this day "square" and unrealistic to the needs of people, which was sending people abroad to get killed to fight against Communist intervention. These kids got together, dodged the draft, and began changing their way of dress, promoted demonstrations for peace, and believed in the principle of peace and love (of course sex, drugs, and rock and roll were also part of it!). Most important, there was people interaction, human, which made possible a counterrevolution, one that is deeply needed in today's world or at least a resurgence of it. Unfortunately, with the digital age and computers, that does not seem to have the same effect. Here, codes, binary information, etc. are phenomena that have been created but do not present that human interaction necessary. It is a weak culture which is only getting absorbed by corporate greed and ulterior motives, promoting a false sense of security to the users of the technology. I wouldn't call this a culture, but rather, a progressive alternative to accomplishing tasks. It seems like the more we use a computer, the more aloof we become to our surroundings and human ineraction is not fostered, so this results in decadence and corrosion of our society. Think about it, cyberspace may be faster, it may provide some type of a "voice for some", and perhaps a ray of hope for others, but since there is no "physical space" in cyberspace, it vanishes into thin air, leaving some cloud of dust and confusion for all.<br /><br />To answer the question of reality or foced reality, I see it as a forced reality. For those who want to accept it as a reality, it's their choice to do so. We won't discredit the internet for what it has done for us in the last fifteen years and we won't deny the existence of cyberspace. Calling people cyborgs is not appropriate just because some person knows how to handle a computer. We are still humans beings and we have mental functions and abilities that render us as being above-average in intelligence or even geniuses. Knowing how to use a computer does not make us smarter than an average person. I also don't want to sound like a skeptic but I do see where it is not necessary to take cyberspace and embrace it in its entirety. It should not be taken as the sole source for communication; it should be an "alternative" source of communication. Otherwise this action would justify the streamlining principle, or searching for uniformity in things, and that would defeat the initial purpose of the technology to begin: the purpose for individuality. Regading policing methods for cyberspace, yes, policing and even regulations would be appropriate to "regulate" behaviors that would seem inappropriate, but I wouldn't classify those measures as comparable to physical policing of streets and a justice system comprised of humans. These latter two have thinking abilities and provide for physical interaction, providing a more meaningful "experience". These things should be examined first before getting lost in a "fantasy world" with no concrete nature.<br /><br />To finalize my post, it all comes down to choice. Put it this way, this is one of the features of our human life that is difficult but the most rewarding. Making a choice is what really makes a difference in the way we want our lives to run, especially with cyberspace as a phenomenon. We can choose whether we want this to control our lives or we can opt to control it and reduce it to its intended purpose, in other words give it its place as an expedient of information. I like the bit about Neil Postman asking, "Do we really need cyberspace?" In other words, here we can really take stock and determine if this is what we truly need to operate our lives. There are things in life we can go without, and perhaps we can determine, in time, if this cyberspace concept is one we can sacrifice, especially when we know for a fact that it makes us grow father away from our society.JessLuv75http://www.blogger.com/profile/13872958701471080453noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-9864862747340881242010-06-16T21:23:00.006-04:002010-06-16T22:03:10.936-04:00Cyberspace And The Need For ItThe intro to Strate’s Communication and Cyberspace is very technical. The computer and new media related definitions provided in the intro do an excellent job of summarizing the development of telecommunications and where we stand in the electronic environment. This book aims to explain the ways in which communication and social interaction is mediated by computers and apply forms, functions, and meaning to cyberspace. In addition, this book attempts to explain how cyberspace functions as alternatives for traditional locations and how cyberspace differs from their real-life counterparts.<br /><br />The contributors of this book seem to struggle with defining the terms they present, but do an excellent job of providing multiple definitions from various sources that also tried to define these terms. The term that still puzzles me after reading through the first half of this book is how to define cyberspace. What is cyberspace? Of course, this term puzzled the authors most too. This is my take on cyberspace: Telecommunications led to a convergence of media which then led to computers. Computers led to the idea of cyberspace, but the internet can also be used to define cyberspace. I believe the best way to define cyberspace is not through technological terms or social interactions, but simple through the space itself. Let's examine the word CYBERSPACE itself. I define space not in a physical or social way, but as the absence of something physical or social. Space is just there and it's empty until something or someone occupies it. I picture cyberspace as a vacant parking lot. The space of the lot is already there and empty. It simply just exists and when we add cars or buildings the space becomes filled. I see cyberspace in the same way. This “cyberspace,” though it doesn’t have any physical existence, is already there and was empty at some point. However, we have occupied this space with the addition of websites and we continue to take up more space through the addition of more websites everyday. In turn, due to the linking of these websites, cyberspace then becomes an interconnection among different computers and closed networks. I'd also like to point out, though I'm not sure if this is correct or not, that the Electromagnetic Spectrum is real and plays a large part in the way technologies are distributed to companies, governments, and the military. I would guess if one had to point to something real and call it cyberspace, then the Electromagnetic Spectrum would be that vacant parking lot I was talking about. It is safe to assume that no matter how one attempts to define cyberspace, new media effected our idea of physical space.<br /><br />As humans we like to control and manipulate content and we use this information to control and govern our environments. This is one of the benefits of digital technology. Following that logic and figuring that almost every new sector of our lives use computers, which incorporates digital technology, it begs the question of whether we have total control of our environments or not. Also, what environment are we in control of? If you are referring to our actual environments in reality, I doubt we are ever in complete control of that. We are never in complete control of our electronic environments either because computers can always be hacked, tweaked by others, or prone to viruses. In fact, at any moment a computer can break down. There's no reason for it other than the physical technology wearing out over time. My brother bought an HDTV 3 years ago and the store that sold it to him said the HDTV has a lifespan of an estimated 10,000 hours. Who determines that number and how do they determine something like that? It's like telling a patient in a hospital he has cancer and only 6 months to live. Anyway, if hardware is being designed so the user is more distant from his computer, then software seems, or should seem, to be doing just the opposite. Relating back to Bolter, one of the benefits of appreciating the interface is so that we become designers of our own environments. In turn, we become less distant from our hardware as we create our own perceptual space and try to control our own electronic environments.<br /><br />Also as humans, we have needs and desires. In fact, one branch of communications (and even psychology), called Uses and Gratifications, is devoted solely to explaining how technologies aid in fulfilling our own desires. This approach was developed in the 1940s to study the gratifications that attract and hold audiences to the kinds of media and the types of content that satisfy their social and psychological needs. This theory assumes users of media take an active part in the communication process, are goal oriented in their media use, and users have alternate choices to satisfy their needs. One of our biggest needs, and indeed for some this becomes a fear, is the need to be with, among, or connected to people. No one really ever wants to be alone. Therefore, we have adopted technologies to fulfill our own needs and desires and have advanced so far in these technologies that we use cyberspace to function as an alternative for traditional reality and locations. For example, instead of going on an actual date or to a real zoo, people can now go on virtual dates or to a virtual zoo. No one ever has to be alone anymore as they can just sign on, enter a random chat room, and start babbling away. Obviously, these virtual gimmicks come no where close to their real experiences, but the goal of the designers of these gimmicks is to design an interface so convincing and interactive you feel as if you are actual on a date or at the zoo. Another example, is social networking sites. In fact, I can not think of a better site than Facebook to prove technology satisfies our need to be connected and never alone. Through cyberspace, we acquire social lives and go to virtual places and this becomes a substitution for public life. In fact, for most people, we have developed such a dependency for social interaction in cyberspace that one of the first things people do when they wake up is check and update there Facebook as if it has become part of their everyday, morning routine. Whether this should be the way we conduct our social lives is the result of online networking and interactive sites and at this point, it seems more of a psychological question than a communication's one.<br /><br />I certainly believe there is a digital divide, especially during these economic times, not only in this society, but in the world at hand. The gap between who can use technology and gain access to information is large and growing. The very worst case scenario is that possibly in the future, those nations that are not currently or do not become technologically advanced will ultimately die out because communicating with them through our sophisticated media will be difficult, forcing those nations to become more distant and eventually isolated. This is like Darwinism, except it's the Darwinism of technology. To illustrate this point further, think about the way HDTV has revolutionized television. If one did not buy an HDTV or a converter by now, he is not able to watch television or become informed of the outside world, unless he buys a newspaper or goes online. However, if he can not afford a converter box, then he probably can not go online either. Also, dial-up modems used to be fantastic, but if one does not switch over to the faster DSL and cable modems, then he will have difficulties online and become frustrated accessing websites, talking online, and downloading large file sizes. How can a teacher of grammar school expect kids to do research and homework online when possibly not all of the kids can get access to a home computer? I have noticed this in my own life. Though I still watch television, use the internet, and talk on the phone since grammar and high school, I was forced to upgrade the technologies behind all the electronic media I use for speed and convenience purposes and the reason for this is that I had to adapt to the changing times otherwise I would have become left behind as far as communication is concerned. I wasn't aware of this change as a kid, but I am now.Michael Vinciguerrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10421479692626570608noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-86477605123074087842010-06-13T22:20:00.006-04:002010-06-13T23:04:56.695-04:00Manovich-The Language of New Media, Part 2As I continued reading <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Manovich's</span>, The Language of New Media--I realized that he offers A LOT of information. It it safe to say that he gives quite a detailed timeline of new media/photography/cinematography. I was able to connect a lot of my previous knowledge on this topic with the information that he presents, which was helpful.<br /><br /><br />Throughout the second part of this book, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Manovich</span> answers the following question: "How does computerization affect our very concept of moving images?" (p287) The beginnings of cinema or rather "the art of motion" was able to convey a "<span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">convincing</span> illusion of dynamic reality." <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Manovich</span> helps <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">differentiate</span> between old cinema and new cinema. Old cinema consists of filming reality, live action footage. New cinema generates scenes on the computer with 3-D animation and includes special effects (which are <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">also</span> generated by the computer). I would also like to note that at times, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Manovich</span> makes out the computer to be a machine. A machine that generates a product (film/photography).<br /><br /><br /><div align="center">Old cinema=reality</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="center">New cinema=elastic reality.</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="center">(Here, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Manovich</span> makes the difference between the two simple to understand. Old cinema portrays reality as new cinema portrays a changed reality.)</div><br /><br /><div align="left">Due to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Manovich's</span> art background--he makes several references to different art forms when explaining the history of old and new cinema. I appreciate his knowledge of art history and how he is able to relate to other art forms, mediums and styles. He relates old cinema to the art of the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Renaissance</span>. A main medium during this time was known as fresco painting. Once dry, fresco paintings are difficult to alter--<span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">similar</span> to old cinema--what you see is what you got! However, he then relates new cinema to oil painting. Oil paint is known to be very forgiving and if needed, oil paintings can be altered with water and/or additional paint--just how new cinema can be changed with computer technology. Think of editing software such as Adobe <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Photoshop</span> or After Effects as the new oil paint. Oil paint allowed for the original to be changed just how these computer programs can change or add to the original product. I LOVED this part of the book. I was able to understand the history of cinema due to my previous knowledge and it made perfect <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">sense</span> to me! </div><br /><br /><div align="left">Here is an example of fresco painting: (In case some of you did not know--fresco painting entitles painting on wet plaster)</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="left"></div><p align="center"><a href="http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/medieval/art/pictures/botticelli2.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 338px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 280px" alt="" src="http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/medieval/art/pictures/botticelli2.jpg" border="0" /></a></p><br /><br /><br /><div align="center"></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />(Above Fresco is by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Boticelli</span>)<br /><br /><br /><br />Something that I learned throughout this reading--<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Avant</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">garde</span> cinema (painting directly on the film or combining several images into on frame.) This film was completely altered and was taken far from the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">original</span>. One example below.<br /><br /><br /><br /><p align="left"><a href="http://www.plurall.com/blogs/roosevelt/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/ballet_mecanique.jpg"><img style="WIDTH: 340px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px" alt="" src="http://www.plurall.com/blogs/roosevelt/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/ballet_mecanique.jpg" border="0" /></a></p>Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02574069881799864478noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-38211996419760301122010-06-13T20:46:00.002-04:002010-06-13T21:35:00.680-04:00Language of New Media: Is It Truly New or Is It Recycled?In continuing with Manovich's book, it is quite unclear yet what his intended purpose is. You may say that he is attempting to help us understand this idea of "new media" by outlining its components. His overall purpose is to try to "impress" us with his vast knowledge of computer technology and cinematography. Indirectly, he acts as a "marketing" agent of some sort in convincing us why we need to utilize new media in our everyday lives, thus creating him as another reinforcer to a behavior we already possess. But you know, it is not that simple. Individuals still possess thinking ability and creative possibilities, and from Manovich's point of view, he may (although that is also unclear) believe that compuers can 1) help a person achieve that creative ability or 2) become the subject of a computer and allow it to "think" for the user. This point made me a bit wary and adds to my deep concern about the technological dependence that we humans have developed as a result.<br /><br />Manovich spends much time differentiating between digital and analog media, providing similarities and differences alike, with the hopes of finding what really distinguishes new media from old. He also invests time pointing out that digital media can lose some of its information in the process of transferrence from an analog source, which made me realize that he accepts the shortcomings of a "digital" form of communication. His 6 points in scrutinizing new vs. old media results in both not having much of a difference but rather, these two media are alternative takes. Cinema has perfected, over the years, the qualities of discrete representation, random access, and multimedia, and these are present in new media, so we cannot say that the above-mentioned are exclusive of new media. While film involves scenes that are "fixed" and involve successive time as its order of presentation, digital media involves discretion, and its parts can be modulated. Manovich also claims that digital works are never the same, that they can be "customized", whereas in analog technology, copies are made of an original production, not allowing for customization. Apparently, he doesn't really defend his points well enough because he later admits that there is a shortcoming to any new media, especially when dealing with the "personal" factor involved. <br /><br />I found one issue quite hard to fully understand: the issue of the cultural layer versus the compuer layer. The cultural layer involves: encycloclopedia and short story; story and plot; composition and point of view; mimesis and catharsis; comedy and tragedy, whereas the computer layer encompasses process and packet; sorting and matching; fuction and variable; computer language and data structure. Because new media is created on computers, it is expected to significantly influence the traditional culture of logic (p. 46). It doesn't seem that Manovich offers a valid explanation as to how and why the computer layer affects the cultural. From what I understand, a computer is fed, through its program, a logic or pattern of thought and, in turn, it produces some desired outcome. To say that the computer layer is some divine power that affects culture sounds bogus.<br /><br />So far, the one possible response I could find in this book is not that positive. It appears that new media has undermined traditional media and the communications field by allowing common individuals to become "producers" of their own work, which is amateur at best. It tricks us into thinking that we have power, but we really are dummies that have lost all thinking ability and, in worst case scenario" any logic. The people who do this kind of work for a living are the ones being harmed because they go to school and acquire job experience so they can be professionals at their art, and they want their talent to be recognized. By doing so, I hate to say that new media "cheapens" the art form of communications. Turning media into some mathematical equation is a very narrow way of interpreting an effort that has taken a century to perfect. There is room for two methods of producing and providing media to the masses, the old and the new. Continuing with illusions, such as that of virtual reality, only destroy language. If we are going to allow a machine to destroy our reasoning capabilities and reduce us to mere animals, then we might as well (to use an old phrase) "turn in our membership cards to the human race"!JessLuv75http://www.blogger.com/profile/13872958701471080453noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-65435167161847344392010-06-12T07:04:00.002-04:002010-06-12T07:19:22.791-04:00The New Language Of Our SocietyAfter finishing Leo Manovich’s “The Language of New Media,” I can certainly understand why he titled this book the way he did and realize his observations are mere guesses as to what the future may hold. Similar to the way film has its own technical language, such as chiaroscuro, continuity, splicing, etc…, new media also has its own technical language, such as modulation, encoding, algorhytms, etc… The term “language” is not to be taken metaphorically or overanalyzed, but rather the “language” is simply the nuts and bolts that make up computer technology similar to how our alphabet makes up our English language.<br /><br />So what is the “language” of computers (or new media in general)? As mentioned already in previous posts, new media consists of numerical representation (data), modularity (elements existing interdependently), automation (automatic modification), variability (multiplication of objects), and transcoding (ability to change formats). Technically speaking, thinking of new media in these terms reduces computers to nothing more than a machine that carries info, but as we all know, computers do so much more than just carry info. All new technologies from here on out are or are most likely going to be computer based and follow the above language. Again, this language reduces new media as numerical data accessible for computers. This begs the question whether our society has become so dependent on the development and fostering of new media, such as digital technology replacing film, that we have or will soon abandon our old language and become a mathematical, technological society, like the Jetsons. Can you imagine having even the simplest tasks, like walking on floors and preparing meals, computerized for us so that floors move and meals are prepared with the push of a button? <br /><br />New technologies often help construct a new type of society. Clearly the society we live in today is different from that of the 1800s and I agree with the class discussions that the discovery of electricity had everything to do with that. Manovich writes about how strategies of working with computer data become our general cognitive strategies of our current society. At the same time, the design of software and the human-computer interface reflects a larger social logic, ideology, and imaginary of the contemporary society. This sort of relates back to my earlier point and what Bolter was arguing for in “Windows and Mirrors.” If society, especially computer designers, have become so accustomed to working with computer data, then they should be more aware of the interface they are using because the interface shapes how users see the computer itself. ALL of our actions on computers, though the outcome may be different, use the same commands and buttons. Therefore, we should be more aware of the icons we open up into folders, the start menu, and the way we navigate through the programs. Going back to the Jetson's comparison, a nice interface on a computer screen displaying detailed information about the selection of food categories would be very helpful in preparing meals. Hey, it could happen. This seems to be the direction we are heading in considering, again, that most new technological innovations are computer based and the language of our current culture consists of automation, modularity, variability, etc....<br /><br />Manovich seems to heavily favor cyberspace and virtual reality when he talks about computer games. It seems like I can never escape talking about virtual reality in any of my posts, which makes me wonder if that too will play a center stage in our culture's new language. However, for now my position on virtual reality remains the same. That is, we as humans are fixed to our physical laws and space and can never completely enter into another. When we do enter into a new reality, that is called death. Manovich writes about how the majority of navigable virtual spaces mimic existing physical reality and relates this to the free roaming capabilities present in video games. While I’ll admit you certainly can free roam in video games, even there you are fixed to a certain amount of space. While first person games with the ability to free roam may come the closet to the illusion that we are in a virtual world, I think it is safe to say every gamer knows he is still in our present reality.Michael Vinciguerrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10421479692626570608noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-76723880604163762882010-06-11T15:32:00.003-04:002010-06-11T15:44:26.962-04:00Continuing with ManovichYes, Manovich is quite an interesting cat, I tell you! He comes from humble beginnings, a product of the old school (which is by far superior!) and this foundation helped him become a creator or one of the founders of the computer technology we now use and abuse. It is proper when he begins by determining that all computer technology or new media relies on a "numerical" foundation. His five principles are:numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability, and transcoding. I see here two key elements: continuity and randomness. These are by far the two most dominant conditions present in our technology today. Remember the term random access memory: this is an example of the "unpredictability of accessing information. When you put these elements together , the result is a computer serving as a medium. One of the five elements I found very interesting was modularity, where you can make a whole sentence or program with distinct parts to it and yet the parts remain independent of each other. Plus, you can modify each part using the original program that created it. The discretion aspect also appealed to me when Manovich linked discretion in a computer program to language. it makes perfect sense! We talk using sentences, different forms of expression, and we attempt to mirror that in our programs. This, in turn, allows for automation to take place, that end result we see when some figure "jumps out" on the screen. <br /><br />I also agree that Manovich ties new media well with old media. Remember that without old media, the new would not be possible, so in a way, it is helpful to understand this idea. Taking old photographs, newspapers, documents, etc., and transforming them into numerical bits of information can lead to endless possibilities. I also like the idea that computers, with their sets of instructions, work quite the same as a factory assembly line. Instead, this rote behavior is left to a machine that operates when this "digital" or numeric information is translated into some intelligible language.JessLuv75http://www.blogger.com/profile/13872958701471080453noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-88170228878509195482010-06-11T00:22:00.005-04:002010-06-11T01:52:16.583-04:00Manovich-The Language of New MediaFirstly, I wanted to say that I enjoyed reading about <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Manovich's</span> background. Although he wanted to be a painter, he went to "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">matematicheskaya</span>" school (mathematical) instead. However, he then took art classes. He seems to have an interesting back ground at first. However, it seems like the perfect emergence of a new medium--digital computer.<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Manovich</span> opens with discussing what is new media and what are the main principles behind them. This was simple to understand--numeric representation, automation, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">transcoding</span>, modularity, variability. I found it interesting when <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Manovich</span> discusses how one would determine what exactly new media consists of. He gives a good example--a photograph on a CD that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">neeeds</span> a computer in order to be viewed vs. photographs in a photo album. A <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">photogrpah</span> on a CD is considered new media and the photographs in a photo album are not. However, he goes into further detail describing how new media is also a combination of computers and media technologies. He also gives example of this--"graphs, moving images, sounds, shapes and texts." (p20)<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Manovich</span> brings up the idea of the computer as a machine for media production vs. the computer as a tool for media production. This is <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">similar</span> to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Bolter</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Gromala's</span> idea of a computer being known as an appliance.<br /><br />It also seems that this new media seems to be about data and mathematics. "...an image or a shape can be described using a mathematical function." (p27) I always assumed that it all had <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">alot</span> to do with commands.<br /><br />Something that I learned was the difference between high level <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">automations</span> and low level <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">automations</span>. High level automation are objects being generated because the computer "<span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">understands</span> the meanings embedded in <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">the</span> object." And low level <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">automations</span> are created as the "computer <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">used modifiers </span>or creates it from scratch. "(Professor <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Strate</span>--can you go over this in more detail in class next week?).<br /><br />Overall, the most interesting concept was seeing the world through a frame. This begins with paintings and evolves into computers, cameras, etc. Due to new media--we see everyday life through frames...all day long. These frames are everywhere and help create continuous images of the world. As these frames are part of our daily, rountine lives--it is easy to see how people take these for granted.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02574069881799864478noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-24975679928707982462010-06-09T17:25:00.003-04:002010-06-10T14:51:59.625-04:00Linking Remediation with Manovich's New MediaIn our last class, we talked about remediation and how it is a way of "assimilating the new technology with the old". Throughout history, we have seen older technology being replaced with new, and consequently, people that have encountered the new technology have dealt with the issue by applying knowlege of the old to deal with the novel. The use of new ways of technology continue striving for "immediacy" but now aim at establishing "hypermediacy", meaning we want to achieve a compelling experience while at the same time not becoming too transparent. The interface and our relating to the interface is necessary, especially when something goes wrong.<br /><br />So, in a way, this last concept that I mentioned works itself into Manovich's book and his explanation of "new media". Manovich begins by giving us a tour of how film technology has created some form of a "virtual reality", with the way a camera operates in filming and the different techniques used. This is similar to what the computer does for us on a daily basis. However, he makes a good point when he mentions that computer technology has a shortcoming which film has an advantage: new media designers have to learn how to merge database and narrative into a new form (Manovich, xxviii). As long as that is not implemented and the research is not done which will remediate this situation, film, in my opinion and possibly in manovich's, film technology will be regarded as superior. Sure computers create some form of virtual reality for us but they have yet to offer some type of experience that still makes us aware of the "interface", meaning, we are still on planet Earth and we are human beings interacting with a machine which we control. Manovich also points out and realizes that much of new media relies on older (8) and so far in his introduction paralleles filmography to computers.<br /><br />It is important to understand that in the process we should not detach from reality. rather, our goal is to achieve knowledge necessary to engage simultaneously between immediacy and hypermediacy. But then again, as I mentioned in a previous post, the more power someone has, the more he/she wants it. It's an addiction...JessLuv75http://www.blogger.com/profile/13872958701471080453noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-12470628402299458432010-06-09T15:08:00.005-04:002010-06-09T15:17:47.457-04:00Development of Film and Digital TechnologyNowadays, the jaws of most people drop when they witness spectacular explosions and horrifying camera illusions that have come to dominate today’s American films. I consider this not only a tragedy, but a terrible nostalgia for the classics.<br /><br />Since I’m a big film buff myself, I enjoyed the way Leo Manovich parallels the development of new media with the development of old media, especially film, in his book titled “The Language of New Media.” Technologies that are outdated today, such as the kinetoscope, were just as fascinating to those in 1890 in the same way computers bewilder us today. He also wishes to explain the logic driving the development of new media similar to the way historians attempt to trace the development of film. Computers have redefined old cultures, such as film and music, and created new cultures, such as video gamers and digital animators. One can argue that computers have completely taken over our culture and can represent all forms of old media, such as digital animation taking over classic film production or IPODs taking over CDs.<br /><br />Manovich claims that film is a realistic representation of reality in which the effects and camera angles of film create the language used to express this reality. This is all true, but I’d like to argue that digital film and new media does not always represent reality in the way classic film does nor do they represent reality in the way Manovich claims it does.<br /><br />I agree that film is a systematic account of narrative strategy and agree that the language behind film is rich in history. Since the early days of the Kodak Camera introduced by George Eastman in the 1880s, inventors wanted to take their own series of still images and trick the mind into seeing motion based on the theory of persistence of vision. Inventors from this point forward worked towards advancing the tricks and theatrical techniques one would associate with a cinematographer today. Examples of advancements in cinema technology include Thomas Edison’s introduction of the Kinetoscope and splicing in films, George Melies’ stumble upon editing, Edwin Porter’s use of close-up shots, D.W. Griffith’s syntax of motion pictures, and Alfred Hitchcock’s brilliant uses of montage, mise en scene, and chiaroscuro effects.<br /><br />I also appreciate specific films in American history, such as Casbablanca, Vertigo, Citizen Kane, and Star Wars, that originally utilized the effects which tremendously contributed to the kinds of illusions people see in today‘s movies. These films are the best examples which demonstrate how the elements of special effects, music, editing, cinematography, and other technical aspects overlap and add meaning to each of these films, bring life to the characters, and assist the directors in portraying the messages they are trying to convey. However, today’s films fall short of delivering the experience retro films do. In favoring theatrical glamour, digital effects, and high expectations for large earnings, Hollywood movies recently have been subjected to denying the public of new experiences. Instead of classic films being produced, what the public sees today is predictable, repetitive content of what film studios think the public wants to see. Meaningful plots and story lines have been sacrificed for eye candy and overused special effects. The explosions in disaster scenes in modern films, for example, do not necessarily contribute to the film in any significant way, but simply allows the viewer to see more of the same things. In addition, a digitized sword fight may represent a real-life sword fight in theory, but it can never come close to the intensity and excitement of a real-life, actual sword fight portrayed by real actors. Therefore, while the adventation of computer technology may be progressing us forward in terms of value, production quality, and technical language in films, we have suffered a great loss in film that no advancement in digital cinematography could ever replace.<br /><br />I speculate Manovich would argue my point by saying that "synthetic computer-generated imagery is not an inferior representation of our reality, but a realistic representation of a different reality." Indeed he is right, IF that is what movie and game developers claim they are aiming to do. I’ve played many video games and seen digitized movies where the worlds I am placed in or view on the screen are strictly fantasy. After all, isn’t one of the many great aspects of movies and video games is that we can do things or go to places we can not do or go to in real life? As long as video game companies and digitized artists claim that Aeos is a fantasy world, I have no problem entering into that reality for a time being and playing pretend. However, the graphics behind video games and digitized movies are beginning to look so real one must not confuse the differences between reality and fantasy. One of the goals of most video game graphic designers is to acheive the most realistic graphics possible. The problem occurs when creators of digitized fantasy worlds claim with their realistic graphics that these fantasy worlds are representations of our reality and our world. This is where, again, Manovich’s point about how these worlds are a realistic representation of an alternative reality comes in handy.Michael Vinciguerrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10421479692626570608noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-954186965385152070.post-71029536296586925492010-06-08T16:14:00.003-04:002010-06-08T17:17:21.821-04:00Windows and Mirrors-Part 1 and 2.David Bolter's and Diane Gromala's Windows and Mirrors puts a different spin on computers, computer technology and all of it's capabilities. Like any other form of technology--computers have changed over time. Instead of viewing a computer as an appliance, Bolter and Gromala explain how the computer has evolved into a informational appliance and has now become a form of media similar to the radio, TV and film. The following quote helped me understand what Bolter and Gromala are trying to explain--"It is the task of digital art to fascinate, exhilarate and sometimes provoke us. Appliances on the other hand don't fascinate us, they brown our toast." (p2) Here, I completely understand why and how computers are far from a typical appliance like a toaster. In the past I have thought that computers were just an appliance--it was just something that helped me complete tasks. However, a computer today does far more than help me complete tasks. A computer can act as art, a book, a photo album, a television, a radio, etc... Computers have become a larger part of the entertainment world--Bolter and Gromala refer to this as the digital entertainment.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Due to my back ground in visual arts and art history I found the Art Gallery of SIGGRAPH 2000 very interesting. SIGGRAPH 2000 was far more than an art gallery as it was also considered a conference where "computer specialists and industry researchers met to review work on subjects like psycho-physiological models of shading and lighting, the moderling of snow, the animation of clouds and non-photo realistic virtual reality." (p10) It was a clear combination of art and technology. Due to this combination, the audience's experience while viewing this art was out of the ordinary. Instead of connecting with a painting on a museum wall, the audience was taking part in an interactive experience. The viewer was becoming involved with the art. My favorite piece is titled, TEXT RAIN: Catching the Falling Letters. This piece is completely interactive and the viewer becomes physically involved. The viewer stands in front of a screen of falling letters. However, the letters stop once the come into contact with the viewer's image on the screen. The viewer becomes part of the show and interacts with the digital art. When viewing traditional art in a museum, the audience is just an observer and their is a clear divide between the art and the audience. What I love about this digital art is that the audience has a chance to manipulate the artwork. As the viewer and the art come together in TEXT RAIN--the viewer has the capability to interact and make their own art as they choose how and when to move their body on the screen. This is something that is far different from traditional art but this is one way that art has changed over time--just how the computer has changed from an appliance to a medium in media.<br /><br /><br /><br /><p align="center"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq_lys44CpqjRmkEkkrWz38g_ZMI7BKJ6pzZYl7iQjyTVdIBobFuWi6EC0jOkhkFNaR7GSoKCBV0t6PjgcOEco39CHmzOIj0o41PXj3PnP2DDwz0c5OMTUQIP3bd1g4CbLdozYvWcrXnbu/s400/21c+Text+Rain+Installation.jpg"><img style="WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 359px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq_lys44CpqjRmkEkkrWz38g_ZMI7BKJ6pzZYl7iQjyTVdIBobFuWi6EC0jOkhkFNaR7GSoKCBV0t6PjgcOEco39CHmzOIj0o41PXj3PnP2DDwz0c5OMTUQIP3bd1g4CbLdozYvWcrXnbu/s400/21c+Text+Rain+Installation.jpg" border="0" /></a></p><br /><br /><br /><br />This also leads to defining the differences between visual art and graphic design/digital art. Both are engaging and can be experimental at times. However, graphic design/digital art involves "the user."This is something I would like to pose to the rest of the class--What do you think is the difference between visual art and graphic design/digital art? What do you prefer?<br /><br />At the end of the book, there is more conversation about digital art and how it is defined. Bolter and Gromala relate it to playing a "musical instrument...as users we perform the design." (p147) Digital art forms a interactive relationship with the user. As the user interacts, designs are created. The user designs their own art due to the interactive relationship. Most importantly--the user has control within digital art to create and design.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02574069881799864478noreply@blogger.com1