finally updating my blog! from having a read through everybody else's blogs, it sounds like we're all in the same boat... i have been flat out with other assignments and stuff for a couple of weeks now, and i have an internal exam in only a week! starting to panic :S
i think one of the first things i think about when i think "copyright" in an online context it would have to be music. from the time i first heard about napster, it has been apparent to me that - even though its against the law - the anonymity of the internet has allowed thousands and thousands of people to share music online via downloading. this blatant disregard for the law has resulted in huge losses for the music industry, but many people argue that those in charge of that industry inflate the price of cds so much that the big music exec's are in a sense getting what they deserve after selling music to the public while making a huge profit. i've never used itunes to download music, but the idea of selling songs online for a lower price shows that the problem is so inherent that those in control have been forced to change in order to survive.
i guess i am in two mind frames regarding copyright. on one hand, i believe that people should be able to profit from something that they themselves actually created. however, when it comes to copyright for other things (such as information) i think that restricting access is unfair and disadvantageous. the beauty of the internet is that a wider world is available right at our fingertips; however that in itself is one of the downfalls of the internet. the problem is deciding where you draw the line, and in fact who decides where to draw that line? also, what makes music or software (things i don't have a problem being charged for) different from say, an article? it is all still the intellectual property of the creator, and therefore i think copyright is still a valid concept. but just because a concept sounds good in theory doesn't mean it works in real life. the reality is, the vast majority of people who use the internet without paying attention to copyright laws would never get caught for using something illegally. the internet is such a vast space, and the content available seems largely unregulated. therefore enforcing copyright laws seems to me to be a potentially impossible task.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
digital divide
as i have often said here in my blog, i have never really considered myself an overly technical person. however in saying that i am not so completely unaware that my circumstances find me lucky enough to have a cellphone, laptop, television etc - in stark contrast to many others in the world. in my flat of 6 people, all of us have cellphones (a couple even have more than one, on different networks), our own laptops and 4 of 6 have televisions. the boys have their ps3's etc, we all have stereos, dvd capability, we have sky digital, digital cameras... yet there are people who have none of these. i use my laptop to watch television shows, listen to music, download stuff, type assignments and surf the net... and the occassional procrastination on bebo or perez hilton. so it would be fair to say that technology infiltrates my life on a regular basis, yet i certainly consider myself a slave to technology. i have obviously gained this perception from somewhere; apparently in my little corner of the world this kind of usage is the norm.
even in countries that aren't 3rd world - developing countries - infrastructure is so far behind us that things like the internet definitely do not exist in the way we have it here. i'm from invercargill and all the supermarkets are only just getting those self-scan machines - exciting times! last time i was in christchurch (beginning of 2007) the pak n save near the backpackers my friends and i stayed at already had them. so that's just one example i can think of when it comes to the differences between highly urbanised areas, and those areas that aren't as metro.
however, there are countries that are miles ahead of us as well. i had never thought of those less fortunate of myself in terms of their access to technology - i always thought there were more important things to be concerned about. however, the fact is that technology is now a part of life for many of us and does indeed allow many opportunities to learn and develop - the amount of information available to myself in comparision to other people is huge, and the potential educational opportunities those people are being deprived of is just another example of social inequality. obviously things like proper nutrition and erradicating disease is deservedly put on a higher plateau than providing people with access to technology, but ideally everybody would have the same access/opportunities as each other.
even in countries that aren't 3rd world - developing countries - infrastructure is so far behind us that things like the internet definitely do not exist in the way we have it here. i'm from invercargill and all the supermarkets are only just getting those self-scan machines - exciting times! last time i was in christchurch (beginning of 2007) the pak n save near the backpackers my friends and i stayed at already had them. so that's just one example i can think of when it comes to the differences between highly urbanised areas, and those areas that aren't as metro.
however, there are countries that are miles ahead of us as well. i had never thought of those less fortunate of myself in terms of their access to technology - i always thought there were more important things to be concerned about. however, the fact is that technology is now a part of life for many of us and does indeed allow many opportunities to learn and develop - the amount of information available to myself in comparision to other people is huge, and the potential educational opportunities those people are being deprived of is just another example of social inequality. obviously things like proper nutrition and erradicating disease is deservedly put on a higher plateau than providing people with access to technology, but ideally everybody would have the same access/opportunities as each other.
surveillance
one of the things i would like to focus on in this blog is the rise of people (namely employers) using social network pages (such as facebook) to gain information that they would otherwise probably not have access to. this has been a topic in the news lately.
check out http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10477932 for a pretty interesting article in the nzherald archives: it makes a very valid point, saying that 'the cost to a person's future can be very high' if something a bit embarassing/risque/private they post on facebook is seen by their employer. from everything i have seen and heard about this subject, it seems like this is becoming a more common practice for employers - i wonder if figures actually support that, or if its all just hype and techno-fear? also mentioned in the article is the perceived practice of social networking sites of giving out information about their users to other brands and companies. surely this goes against ethics?
speaking of employers, this topic also raises the question of whether or not your employer should be able to monitor your emails. i took some time off from uni last year and worked for 6 months - the government-owned company i worked for had a message come up onscreen whenever you logged in each morning that said all website visits were monitored, however thinking about it now it was unclear whether or not workplace emails were monitored. while i think it is overstepping a boundary, i can certainly understand why a workplace would have a policy like that - especially if, like where i worked, information gleaned within the workplace was very confidential. other blogs have raised the point that maybe work email surveillance is ok, but personal email surveillance isn't, and i agree. however, in certain fields it would not surprise me if some employers did not.
in some ways, it could be argued that what people do in the privacy of their own home - and what they post online - is their business. on the other side, you could justify an employer looking at a potential employee's facebook page by saying that if you post something online you're inviting people to look at it, as the internet is a public domain. so the idea of online surveillance really is a contentious one, and a subject i am not sure i'm decided on.
check out http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10477932 for a pretty interesting article in the nzherald archives: it makes a very valid point, saying that 'the cost to a person's future can be very high' if something a bit embarassing/risque/private they post on facebook is seen by their employer. from everything i have seen and heard about this subject, it seems like this is becoming a more common practice for employers - i wonder if figures actually support that, or if its all just hype and techno-fear? also mentioned in the article is the perceived practice of social networking sites of giving out information about their users to other brands and companies. surely this goes against ethics?
speaking of employers, this topic also raises the question of whether or not your employer should be able to monitor your emails. i took some time off from uni last year and worked for 6 months - the government-owned company i worked for had a message come up onscreen whenever you logged in each morning that said all website visits were monitored, however thinking about it now it was unclear whether or not workplace emails were monitored. while i think it is overstepping a boundary, i can certainly understand why a workplace would have a policy like that - especially if, like where i worked, information gleaned within the workplace was very confidential. other blogs have raised the point that maybe work email surveillance is ok, but personal email surveillance isn't, and i agree. however, in certain fields it would not surprise me if some employers did not.
in some ways, it could be argued that what people do in the privacy of their own home - and what they post online - is their business. on the other side, you could justify an employer looking at a potential employee's facebook page by saying that if you post something online you're inviting people to look at it, as the internet is a public domain. so the idea of online surveillance really is a contentious one, and a subject i am not sure i'm decided on.
copyright
finally updating my blog! from having a read through everybody else's blogs, it sounds like we're all in the same boat... i have been flat out with other assignments and stuff for a couple of weeks now, and i have an internal exam in only a week! starting to panic :S
i think one of the first things i think about when i think "copyright" in an online context it would have to be music. from the time i first heard about napster, it has been apparent to me that - even though its against the law - the anonymity of the internet has allowed thousands and thousands of people to share music online via downloading. this blatant disregard for the law has resulted in huge losses for the music industry, but many people argue that those in charge of that industry inflate the price of cds so much that the big music exec's are in a sense getting what they deserve after selling music to the public while making a huge profit. i've never used itunes to download music, but the idea of selling songs online for a lower price shows that the problem is so inherent that those in control have been forced to change in order to survive.
i guess i am in two mind frames regarding copyright. on one hand, i believe that people should be able to profit from something that they themselves actually created. however, when it comes to copyright for other things (such as information) i think that restricting access is unfair and disadvantageous. the beauty of the internet is that a wider world is available right at our fingertips; however that in itself is one of the downfalls of the internet. the problem is deciding where you draw the line, and in fact who decides where to draw that line? also, what makes music or software (things i don't have a problem being charged for) different from say, an article? it is all still the intellectual property of the creator, and therefore i think copyright is still a valid concept. but just because a concept sounds good in theory doesn't mean it works in real life. the reality is, the vast majority of people who use the internet without paying attention to copyright laws would never get caught for using something illegally. the internet is such a vast space, and the content available seems largely unregulated. therefore enforcing copyright laws seems to me to be a potentially impossible task.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
belated week 7...
the aspect of week 7 i found most interesting is the construction of an online "self". i've been thinking about that a lot lately - i guess hardly surprising, as i decided to do the virtual communities topic for my critical essay.
everybody has heard the scary stories about people creating fraudulent identities on the internet - for me personally, i remember when we first got the internet at home that my parents gave us a big lecture about how anybody can pretend to be something/someone online. but there is more to the construction of online self than the stereotypical creepy old man.
i have never been into the whole role playing games online, but it is evidently something that so many people participate in, truly an example of the global village that the internet has provided. it reminds me of a daytime show i saw briefly a few weeks ago - oprah i think - where the topic was centred around a young teenage girl, who spent basically all of her time (and pocket money) on this online game. she had created an avatar, a house for her avatar, a car for her avatar... it wasn't so long ago i didn't even know what an avatar was. even mtv has jumped on the role playing bandwagon and created virtual communities in relation to their programming - virtual hills or pimp my ride, anyone?
the renaissance of these online communities (mmorpg is definitely easier to remember than 'massively multi-player online role playing games') has led to the question of where does it end? will mmorpg gradually replace real-life interaction? these days you can get your groceries online, your clothing online... and now you can also "live" online. my generation, and certainly the ones following, are interspersing their RL's with their VL. how far will it go? no doubt for some, it has already reached the point where living vicariously through a fictional, three dimensional self has overtaken reality.
everybody has heard the scary stories about people creating fraudulent identities on the internet - for me personally, i remember when we first got the internet at home that my parents gave us a big lecture about how anybody can pretend to be something/someone online. but there is more to the construction of online self than the stereotypical creepy old man.
i have never been into the whole role playing games online, but it is evidently something that so many people participate in, truly an example of the global village that the internet has provided. it reminds me of a daytime show i saw briefly a few weeks ago - oprah i think - where the topic was centred around a young teenage girl, who spent basically all of her time (and pocket money) on this online game. she had created an avatar, a house for her avatar, a car for her avatar... it wasn't so long ago i didn't even know what an avatar was. even mtv has jumped on the role playing bandwagon and created virtual communities in relation to their programming - virtual hills or pimp my ride, anyone?
the renaissance of these online communities (mmorpg is definitely easier to remember than 'massively multi-player online role playing games') has led to the question of where does it end? will mmorpg gradually replace real-life interaction? these days you can get your groceries online, your clothing online... and now you can also "live" online. my generation, and certainly the ones following, are interspersing their RL's with their VL. how far will it go? no doubt for some, it has already reached the point where living vicariously through a fictional, three dimensional self has overtaken reality.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
political blogging
i have to say out of all the topics we've covered so far, i found this one to be particularly interesting. i feel like i say that every week; i guess i'm just suprised at my level of enjoyment stemming from this paper. i wasn't convinced it was a subject i was interested in, but i was proved wrong. i'm studying pols here in dunedin (but communications is my major) and have always been an avid follower of both domestic and international politics. i'm known amongst my friends to get pretty riled up about it all sometimes.
in one of my other papers, we spent some time focusing on the situation in china/tibet, and the level of censorship faced by those within china. so relating my own views and knowledge to last week's readings was pretty easy (and interesting!) for me. the lecturer even showed us a website that (somehow... not sure entirely how it works...) lets you see whether or not particular websites are accessible in china. from the websites tested in class, it was pretty restricted. i also heard something on the news the other night about how wikipedia was now able to be accessed within china. even though i don't agree with a lot of the political blogs i come across, viewpoint wise, i appreciate that here in new zealand, unlike china, we don't get so censured when it comes to voicing our own opinions. or even our right to read whatever we like. and even though i read quite a few, i had never really thought about political blogs being the domain of right-wing males - until i read it in this weeks readings. so i had a bit of an "ahhh" moment when reading. on the other hand, sometimes coming across certain political-based writings in the blogosphere makes it hard to be of the opinion that free speech is always a great thing. there are lots of blogs out there that spread not only ignorant bias (on the lower end of the scale) but also full-blown hate at the other end. but i guess that's the way the world is really.
again, another one of my papers this semester has had elements focusing on the use of new technology such as the internet in the political arena. i'm currently working on a group assignment, where my role is to basically pretend i'm a member of the green party's campaign team, whose area of research is the benefits of utilising the internet. i've come across blogs from political parties and mmp's themselves... but not sure really how significant social platforms and that kind of thing are on election results. i dont think you can really argue the fact that the internet is a fast growing communication medium, and political uses are continuing to increase. but do political blogs, facebook pages etc cater only to those who are super interested in politics? does average joe bloggs (no pun intended, but doing it anyway) really care about john key's facebook page, or even heard of http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/? will political writings online have any effect at all on the politically apathetic or noncommittal?
in one of my other papers, we spent some time focusing on the situation in china/tibet, and the level of censorship faced by those within china. so relating my own views and knowledge to last week's readings was pretty easy (and interesting!) for me. the lecturer even showed us a website that (somehow... not sure entirely how it works...) lets you see whether or not particular websites are accessible in china. from the websites tested in class, it was pretty restricted. i also heard something on the news the other night about how wikipedia was now able to be accessed within china. even though i don't agree with a lot of the political blogs i come across, viewpoint wise, i appreciate that here in new zealand, unlike china, we don't get so censured when it comes to voicing our own opinions. or even our right to read whatever we like. and even though i read quite a few, i had never really thought about political blogs being the domain of right-wing males - until i read it in this weeks readings. so i had a bit of an "ahhh" moment when reading. on the other hand, sometimes coming across certain political-based writings in the blogosphere makes it hard to be of the opinion that free speech is always a great thing. there are lots of blogs out there that spread not only ignorant bias (on the lower end of the scale) but also full-blown hate at the other end. but i guess that's the way the world is really.
again, another one of my papers this semester has had elements focusing on the use of new technology such as the internet in the political arena. i'm currently working on a group assignment, where my role is to basically pretend i'm a member of the green party's campaign team, whose area of research is the benefits of utilising the internet. i've come across blogs from political parties and mmp's themselves... but not sure really how significant social platforms and that kind of thing are on election results. i dont think you can really argue the fact that the internet is a fast growing communication medium, and political uses are continuing to increase. but do political blogs, facebook pages etc cater only to those who are super interested in politics? does average joe bloggs (no pun intended, but doing it anyway) really care about john key's facebook page, or even heard of http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/? will political writings online have any effect at all on the politically apathetic or noncommittal?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
