Com 125: Assignment #14

Finally some freedom to rant about what I think is important. I'll make my view short and sweet.

"Some play themselves to death. Last year, the deaths of at least seven people were attributed to excessive game- playing. In August, a 28-year-old man died after nearly 50 straight hours of playing online games. In December, a 38-year-old day worker collapsed and died at an Internet café; his logs showed that he had played for 417 hours in his last 20 days." - International Herald Tribune

Do you see something odd about this?

Virtual Worlds are ruining the real world.

There. I said it. I'm prepared to burn at the stake. I see no good that comes from virtual worlds. I cannot think of one redeeming factor of these terrible advances in technology that makes them acceptable. People should be living in the real world, holding real jobs, and interacting with real people. I do not support the cop-out tactic of living vicariously through a virtual avatar and ignoring problems that effect people in the reality.

Addiction to these massive multiplayer role playing games is on the rise probably won't stop until something is done to prevent it. There is no single person to blame for this epidemic. I tend to blame parents, unless the player is a legal adult and can make their own life decisions.

An article submitted to the website Planetpapers.com, and written by a user dubbed 'guardianbooya' reads, "computer games are addictive because they create challenges that can be overcome." What happened to overcoming challenges in real life in order to feel successful? Shit, if I get an A in a class I feel like successful. If I were to play one of these games for 20 hours straight in order to kill some monsters, I think I would feel the exact opposite. No offense to anyone out there who plays these games, but seriously, get off the computer and come back down to planet Earth. Do something good for yourself, those around you, or your community, and then I will understand your feeling of success. To me, it seems that one's life is the worst thing that someone could possibly waste away. Sitting in front of a computer screen playing a game might be the biggest waste of time I can think of.

Some say that people get addicted to these games because it helps them escape the real world, and let them forget about their personal problems. Everyone has problems. In my eyes, to be selfish enough to become addicted to a game to escape them is no different than getting hooked on heroin to escape real life problems. Sane people are now devoting time and effort into developing rehab-like programs to ease people off of video games. So, the way I see it, not only do we have millions of people hovered in front of a computer screen wasting time when they could be doing something positive for the world, now we have researchers devoting their time to the rehabilitation of these people. WINK News reports, "China is expected to become the first country in the world to officially classify Internet addiction as a mental disorder."

A mental disorder. Internet and game addiction is now about to be considered a mental disorder. Right next to schizophrenia, OCD, and post traumatic stress sits Internet addiction. That is unbelievable. How could we have done this to ourselves? At lease with these other diseases, it isn't the person's fault. Those who are addicted to the Internet have done this to themselves. Is it bad that I don't feel sorry for them?


Sources:

1) Virtal Addiction. Planet Papers. Accessed Dec 5 2008. http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/4191.php

2) Sang-Hun, Choe. Hooked on the Virtual World. International Herald Tribune. Accessed Dec 5 2008. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/11/business/addside12.php

3) Are You Addicted?. WINK News. Accessed Dec 5 2008. http://www.winknews.com/news/local/35188749.html

I'd like to begin by saying that I am fully supportive of federal strides to increase government transparency. I think that it is a great idea to make the public more able to see what is going on within the federal government. There is a broad legislative effort being created in order to secure this increased accessibility. This act, more specifically the Transparency in Government Act, includes sections of the bill devoted to the transparency of government sects that include Congress, the Executive branch, and information about lobbyists. I think this is a big step in the right direction towards a more democratic nation. But, one problem I do see is the fact that this could potentially be completely overlooked by the public. We already have television networks like C-SPAN that produce 24-hour coverage of things like congressional sessions and the law making process. Save for my high-school government teacher, I have yet to meet anyone who fully takes advantage of this view into the inner-workings of the American government. What good is more government transparency if no one will take advantage of it? Transparency is a good idea if it can be promoted and pulled-off effectively.

I like President Elect Obama's innovative plan to broadcast his weekly addresses via Youtube. With his campaign relying so heavily on the internet, and the success that it has brought him, I feel like his decision to continue his affair with the web is a smart idea. At least in my age group, I know that many more people will watch his videos on Youtube than would ever sit by a radio and listen for his address. I am really impressed with Obama's willingness to embrace the internet, and more specifically Youtube. With plans to set up a White House video channel on the site to keep the public informed about recent events in Washington.

I'm very down with the fact that I will be able to listen to President Elect Obama's messages via Youtube when I actually have time to do so. The public will no longer be bound by schedules of important announcements and addresses that they could potentially miss when they are broadcasted on television or radio. Also I think the posting of these videos on Youtube is a great opportunity for feedback from the public. There is an inherent general forum involved with people commenting on Youtube videos. I believe that with the ability to directly comment on, and discuss thoughts about Obama's planned videos, Youtube might turn into the new town-hall meeting place. Based on the recently ended election season, it is already heading in that direction. The possibilities are endless for this newly recognized media outlet. People from all over the country, and globe for that matter, will be able to respond to an important address or a simple weekly update instantly. Political discussions will run rampant across the site. Exciting stuff.

Now, obviously I'm all for Obama's plans for expanding his Youtube political empire. But, I am weary about the rest of the government's ability to break into the internet's ability to create a more transparent government. I would love to watch a five minute clip of Obama talking about issues within the federal government, or watch him shoot the shit about college football, but I don't know how thrilled anyone would be about watching boring stuff about Congress. Sad but true. I think it's good that that sort of information will be at Joe Public's disposal, but I doubt the American public is politically motivated enough to fully take advantage of it.

In this last election season, America saw a huge increase in voter turn out and political awareness within it's citizens. I hope this trend continues and Americans don't fall off the bandwagon that has had a tirade through the country over the past few months. If all of these plans do go through, and Obama does set up a internet-video-based national address system, I feel as though it might prolong the life of political interest that has been a breath of fresh air for the country. I hope people do not get lazy and resort back to not giving a crap about American politics and the federal government. I'd like to think that the new measures towards transparency will work, but I am not fully convinced.

Writing Assignment 12: Net Neutrality

In recent years, the concept of net neutrality, and the highly debated controversy surrounding it, has made a lot of news in the United States. Simply put, net neutrality is the principle that protects a free and open internet. There are a great amount of people who are staunchly for keeping the internet open for all users, while there is also a rising opposition to this ideal. Those who oppose net neutrality, most notably are some large telecommunication companies, seem to want to take as much money as they can from consumers by proposing extra fees in order to provide them with currently free services. These services might include the bandwidth of a website or how fast a website can be loaded on your computer. Personally, my main concern with this issue is the fact that it is an issue. This should not be happening. A legal retraction of net neutrality would be absolutely terrible for everyone who wasn't reaping the fiscal benefits.

Supporters of keeping net neutrality want to keep the internet open and accessible to everyone. A group made up of several bands and musicians called "Rock The Net" is in full support of the conservation of net neutrality for everyone. Their platform for this issue is composed of three distinct points that they discuss on their website. Their first demand is that internet service providers should provide everyone with equal access to all websites and services that they may provide. This group argues that people who pay more should not get preferential treatment based on the fact that they have the spare change to fund their internet usage. Their second idea in their platform on the issue points out that net neutrality encourages innovation in many areas. Claiming that unequal access to the internet can hurt the growth and innovation in the areas of creativity, technology, and the economy. The final idea that the Rock The Net organization advocates is the basic right that all people should be free to see websites in spite of the content or controversy surrounding a particular issue (Rock The Net).

Many people fear the fact that if net neutrality was no longer around, ISP's would favor the websites of constituents who pay the most money. To me, the fact that ISP's could potentially give priority to some data over the rest based on commercial advertising money is very scary. And this is something that is actually going on, not just a theory of what could possibly happen. Other advocations include the protection of consumers, small businesses, and the integrity of the internet and it's standards (Wikipedia).

Those against the concept of net neutrality have their own reasons for their attitudes towards the issue. From what I can gather from the confusing arguements and lingo thrown around in countless forums and websites that I have perused is that large telecommunication companies like AT&T, for example, want to impose themselves as gatekeepers between the internet and consumers. For a price, one can expect full priority of websites and services, while others who do not pay the price set by these companies must deal with slow connections, blocked sites, and little attention from these companies. This power would let these companies impose their own views and services while blocking the sites that might be competing against them.

Personally, I think this is a terrible example of greed of internet service conglomerations who are high on their own power to control consumers. I am for the preservation of net neutrality because I am for personal freedom that doesn't have a monetary price tag attached to it. I do not agree with these big companies imposing their will on citizens by spending millions of dollars lobbying congress for their own personal gain.


Sources:

1) Rock the Net website. Accessed 11/14/08. http://www.futureofmusic.org/rockthenet/index.cfm.

2) Net Neutrality. Wikipedia Article. Accessed 11/14/08

Writing Assignment 10: Journalism

With one of the biggest and most important presidential elections coming to fruition in a matter of days, each candidate is nearing the end of a seemingly endless string of months on the campaign trail. It is really no secret that news organizations and periodicals usually tend to lean one way politically, with the conservative spin of Fox News network, or the liberal powerhouses that include magazines like Rolling Stone. Although trying their hardest to keep the title of an unbiased, moderate news source, it is usually pretty obvious as to which way a television network or news periodical tends to support. Barack Obama has graced the cover of Rolling Stone three times since March, while only a scathing political cartoon of John McCain as a bratty baby has been published. For this assignment, I've taken a look at two articles about Barack Obama. One from the Fox News website, and one that is featured in the most current Rolling Stone magazine.

Rolling Stone's article is actually an interview by Eric Bates called "Obama's Moment". This article is about 5 pages long, including multiple pictures showing Barack Obama in ways that most people are now familiar with...smiling, teaching, etc. After reading the interview, it is apparent that Obama is very positive. Even discussions about the tough issues like foreign affairs, the failing economy, and is opponent John McCain, show Obama as a very positive person. I think the interviewer did a great job of asking questions that cleared up some confusion that I'm sure many undecided voters had. Direct questions were met with direct, decisive answers of how things will actually get done.

There is some negativity, although it is mostly directed to the failed policies of President Bush. When asked about John McCain's mudslinging tactics in the past few months, Obama responded by saying that "I just think he wants to win" (Bates 2008). It seems as though Obama was comfortable answering all of the questions...like he wasn't backed into a corner or something.

But, upon further research, I have found that I have been fooled by this positivity! Jeffery Beeson writes that 68% of Barack Obama's ads are negative, while only 62% of McCain's are (Beeson 2008). Oh, the humanity! Woe is me!

I also read an article off of the Fox News website about John McCain's feelings toward Barack Obama. It is blatantly stated that John McCain does not think that Barack Obama will be able to protect the United States like he will be able to. He is quoted talking about the economy, and how Barack Obama's plan will raise all of our taxes to the point where the economy will get even worse. There is talk about a few of his plans...but only the hopeful result of them...not how they will actually be achieved. Other than that this whole article seems negative. Like an attack on Barack Obama and is plans for America (McCain 2008).

As opposed to the Rolling Stone Obama article, the article on Fox New's website does not have any pictures, although it does have a comment section where people can instantly reply and discuss their feelings about the article, or the subject matter. In looking at these comments, there are two that are anti-McCain, and one that is pro. I found this interesting based on the fact that I was looking at an article that was based in conservative ideals, within a news source that has known to skew information to the right. I was expecting to see a bunch of pro-McCain comments.

Next week we will have a new president. There will never be an agreement of who should have the job. It's absolutely ludicrous to think that we are a unified nation. We are not, and this election year has proved it to me. McCain is currently down in the polls, but he vows to get back up towards Barack Obama's numbers (GMA 2008). Either way, I'd like to hope for the best, and hope that whoever wins realizes the dire need for a selfless leader who will do the right thing for the country and not themselves or their constituents.


Sources:

1) Bates, Eric. "Obama's Moment". Rolling Stone. 30 October 2008. Issue 1064, Pgs 74-81.

2) "McCain Doubts Obama Has 'What it Takes' to Protect America". Accessed via Foxnews.com. Accessed on 31 October 2008. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/29/mccain-doubts-obama-takes-protect-america/.

3) Beeson, Jeffery. "Presidential Candidates' Television Ads Most Negative In History". Published 30 October 2008. Accessed via Eurekalert.org. Accessed on 31 October 2008. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/uom-pct103008.php.

4) "McCain Promises to Overtake Obama Lead." Publised 31 October 2008. Accessed via Gmanews.tv. Accessed on 31 October 2008.http://www.gmanews.tv/story/130701/McCain-promises-to-overcome-Obama-lead.

Com 125 Assignment #8: Web Application Review

The web application that I decided to review is an internet radio station called Pandora. Found on the web at pandora.com, this site creates radio stations for it's users based on music preferences that the user provides.

And it's FREE.

I hadn't used my older account in a few years, so I created a new one when faced with this assignment. To sign up, one must provide an email address (which will be used as a user name), a password of their choice, and information such as age, gender, and zip code. I went into the FAQ section, which turns out to be quite extensive, to find out why I needed to provide those last three items. It turns out, I must be older than 13 to register for this service, hence the inquiry about my birth year. In addition, Pandora asks about your gender so they can provide advertising on your personal page that will be aimed more towards your chosen sex. They ask for you zip code because this service is only available to residents within the United States. After the registration process, one is able to delve into the endless music the Pandora provides.

To begin you type in the name of an artist or band that you like to create a station based off of them. For an example, I typed in the Beatles as my station. The first song comes up, Let it Be, and plays through. Now here's the cool part...the next song that plays is by a related artist based on the musical style, genre, or even instruments used by the band that is noted as my station. One can make as many stations as they desire. If you like a song that comes up, you can give it a 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' for your station's future reference. You can also buy any of the songs that you hear. You can skip a song you do not like, but you cannot rewind a song due to the licenseing agreements. The FAQs on the site go through many of the concerns that one may have about the site. Its a wonderful tool for those who don't have iTunes or a personal music collection. Also, it can be accessed at any computer to be listened to at school or work. Although I have found that it runs a bit slower on the school computers than it does my house. It is a great tool for finding out about new artists who are similar to your current favorites. I cannot tell you how many new, awesome bands I have found out about through Pandora.

The set-up of the website is rather plain, but that in no way takes away from the functionality of the website. There are large advertisements that periodically pop up, but that really doesn't bother me too much either. When I use this site, I put on a station that I know I will enjoy, minimize the browser that Pandora is on, and basically forget about it and let the music play. The layout of the site is pretty straightforward and I don't think there is any way to be confused about how to control the music player or other features.

There isn't a tremendous amount of social interaction on the site. But, you can share your playlists or listen to someone else's. There is a profile section where you can view your bookmarked artists, favorite songs, etc.

I think this site is a great application for music lovers or even music likers. It is very convenient that Pandora can be accessed from any computer, and your playlists will be there when you sign in. Also, I find it much better than radio because there is literally no commercials, and you can pick and choose what you actually want to hear. I think it is very interesting how the creators of Pandora have made this database of information about each artist or song and have connected them to others. Known as the Music Genome Project, this system gives the listener what he or she wants to hear, and can turn them on to new music that they have not heard.

And its FREE!

Com 125 Assignment #7: Community

Personally, I would define the term 'community' as a group of people who share a common attribute. This could involve ethnicity, location, interests, etc. Since the internet was originally developed to connect people who were far from each other, the concept of a virtual community was inevitable. Today, there are countless ways to be apart of one of these online communities. Personally, I am actively involved in a few of these communities including Facebook, Myspace, and assorted message boards. The one that I find most interesting, however, is Myspace.

I used to constantly update my personal Myspace page with pictures, comments, moods, blah, blah, blah. Now, I really only use the website to promote my band on our music page. I believe that the Myspace Music is one of the best things to happen to unknown bands in a long time, but that's a different story. I think there is a big distinction between a music Myspace and a personal Myspace. Based on content of the page alone, while personal pages are attempting to sell the attributes of the creator, band pages are focused on spreading creativity and the message of the music. I know that sounds a bit cliche, but think about it. Personally, I would much more readily accept a stranger's friend request on my music page than my personal page.

Myspace seemed to start out as a place for friends. Thats even their motto. Which brings up the million dollar question...what makes a friend a friend? I could click a button, and a complete stranger could be, according to Myspace, just as much as a friend as some kid I grew up with. This turns out to be a difficult question to answer. Danah Boyd writes that, "a friend is a relationship that involves some degree of mutual love or admiration (Boyd 2006)." I don't have mutual love or admiration for SeXiGuRl45...but I do appreciate the fact that she digs my band. People all over these social network sites have tousands of these 'friends'. But that's not what they are at all. In a few cases, maybe...there may also be a bunch of people that you have met once at a party or something. These people with the ungodly amount of people that they consider their friends are lying to themselves and are probably not that interesting or as awesome as they think they are. Tila Tequila has over a million friends (Boyd 2006). Case and point.

So is there any sort of relationships or actual friendships that can be derived from these crazy social network sites? I would say yes. In spite of all of the bad press and their many flaws, I would conclude that there is some meaningful relationships that can be etched from these websites. Wellman and Gulia write,

"If the Net were solely a means of information exchange, then virtual communities played out over the Net would mostly contain only narrow, specialized relationships. However, information is only one of the many social resources exchanged on the Net. Many Net members get help in electronic support groups for social, pysical, and mental problems along with information about treatments, practitioners, and other resources (Wellman, Gulia 1997)."

As much as people are beginning to love to hate these websites, they do provide some good. Relationships are created and the people involved ultimately benefit. Myspace and Facebook are prime examples of online communities because they bind people from all over the world who share common interests. I believe that this connection, and the ease at which it can be obtained, is very important in today's world that is so divided.


Souorces:

1) Boyd, Danah. Friends, friendsters, and top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. First Monday, volume 11, number 12 (December 2006), URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_12/boyd/index.html

2) Wellman, Barry and Gulia, Melina. Net Surfers Don't Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities. August 1997. http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/netsurfers/netsurfers.pdf.

Com 125 Assignment #6: Identity

Nothing is sacred on the internet. Although it is a wonderfully convenient technology that I could not really imagine living without (I have panic attacks when the Verizon network loses its connection) it is also one of the most dangerous places that everyone has access to. Assuming an identity is commonplace on the internet. I have assumed identities on sites like Facebook, Myspace, Instant Messenger, etc. although I like to believe that they are honest representations of who I am in person. The problem arises when these virtual identities are corrupted for any number of reasons or situations.

People can look on my Facebook page and get a good idea of who I am. Like just about everyone I know I list my favorite music, movies, books, and other interests. I allow pictures of me to be posted by my friends, although I try to scan through them as soon as they're uploaded, just in case. My friends, family, and absolute strangers who happen to be in my network can look at this information that I supply and get a good understanding of who I am. This really doesn't bother or phase me.

But, I recently found out that one of my friends who I used to go to school with at Geneseo had created a false Facebook based on a kid that he simply made up. Assuming this identity, he added me and many more of my friends that go to Geneseo as friends. Apparently he took pictures from some random kid from Canada's page, and posted them on his own. So of course I accepted the friend request and thought nothing of it, for I have a terrible memory for people and faces, and I figured that I had just met him at a party or in passing. So this was about a month ago, and I just found out last weekend that it was actually my friend behind this madness. Totally not cool. As it turns out, the innocent dude that had his pictures stolen somehow found out about this identity theft and contacted my friend, obviously very irate and probably scared shitless.

This is one example of identity theft that my (ridiculously oblivious) friend thought was harmless and apparently funny. However, I could not imagine being the Canadian boy who found my pictures strewn around Facebook under someone else's name. However, as more and more adolescents, and even kids now, put ourselves out on the internet in a freer manner, this is the type of things that could possibly affect us personally. In her article, "Identity and Deception in the Virtual World", Judith S. Donath discusses how people create identities on the web and the possible problems that could arise from the deception that could be enacted. When discussing how to stop people from being deceptive on the web, she writes,

" The spread of deception can be limited. In particular, imposing a cost to being caught deceiving - that is, punishing deception - is a deterrent...By imposing high costs on deception a social system can make conventional signals more reliable," (Donath 1996).

This almost obvious statement refers to how the government has dealt with this growing problem on the internet. And she wrote this in 1996! What insight! Honestly though, when we are talking to people on the internet, or looking at someone's Facebook or Myspace, unless we really know them, we really have no idea who is on the other end of the connection. This is not to say that I'm going to ask my friend a question only he would know before I start a conversation every time I IM him. That's a bit rash. But, I would like to think that I and everyone else should be careful and more aware of what we are doing, posting, and talking about online. Just in case.

Sources
1) Donath, Judith S. "Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community." MIT Media Lab. 1996.

Com. 125 Assignment #5: Privacy

So basically, internet privacy issues scare the holy hell out of me. And now that I'm finally starting to realize the potential risks that might accompany these choices that I've made about information that I have put on the internet, I'm terrified. There are many aspects as to the levels of privacy that one can put online. I think one of the most common scenarios is people putting their credit card number and other personal information onto online shopping websites. I am very guilty of this. I think that privacy is one's right for personal seclusion and freedom to keep information to oneself until they are ready to let that information out. But the problem of personal privacy on the internet is another story. People willingly hand out all sorts of information to thousands of ‘secure’ online resources. How are we to know if our identities are safe in the cyber world?

According to the MSNBC article “Privacy Lost” by Bob Sullivan, according to a recent survey, only 7 percent of Americans change their ways in order to achieve a greater level and sense of privacy (Sullivan 2006). 7 percent! Honestly, this is messed up. We seem to be a culture that puts too much faith into things we are given, never asking questions or really thinking about the future. And I repeat, I am guilty of risking my privacy on the internet. Wikipedia lays out potential ways that privacy can be infringed upon within the internet. There are ways to track users like ‘Cookies’ that HTML-writers can access. Internet Service Providers (or ISPs) can literally track and examine the content of every website one goes on and produce a list of one’s personal surfing habits (Wikipedia). Big Brother is watching. And we don’t even know it or begin to understand the power that these overseers have over us.

One time that I was personally affected by a privacy invasion was when my computer somehow got infected with spyware. Basically, Spyware is a malicious sort of virus that impedes one’s ability to fully control his computer. It redirected me to websites and randomly installed programs and accessories onto my computer. This was very annoying and I was uninformed and terrified that it was going to steal my personal information and break my computer. I got my computer fixed, and the spyware removed, but it cost a lot more than I thought it would. Now I try to keep up on virus and spyware protection updates in my privacy programs that have been uploaded onto my computer.

However, internet privacy is not solely confined to personal information being stolen by people or programs. This term can extend its reach to what people post on the internet, and more specifically, on social network sites like Myspace and Facebook. Especially in the young teen generation of this country, more and more personal information, pictures, and in-depth autobiographies are showing up on these sites. Danah Boyd writes,

“When asked, all youth know that anyone could access their profiles online. Yet, the most common response I receive is "…but why would they?" Of course, the same teens who believe that no one is interested in them are pseudo-stalking the ‘hottie’ they have an eye on (Boyd 2007).”

This quote perfectly explains this issue. Teens putting all of their information online, including phone numbers and addresses on Facebook, are seriously just asking for a real life episode of How To Catch a Predator. I don’t want to sound malicious towards these people…but honestly…how stupid can you be to put your phone number and address on Facebook? But I digress.

These sites have made efforts to fix this problem brought on by the ignorance of people who feel too comfortable and safe on the internet. Privacy settings are included on most every social network site and every shopping site that I have ever seen. But the thought sometimes crosses my mind that one day PayPal will be hacked into, and all of us will be screwed. Internet privacy is very important and all of us have to be very careful of what we put on this thing that has infiltrated our lives in almost every possible way.

Sources

1) Sullivan, Bob. "Privacy Lost: Does Anybody Care?". 17 Oct 2006. MSNBC.com. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221095/print/1/displaymode/1098/

2) Wikipedia Article. "Internet Privacy". Accessed 26 Sept 2008.

3) boyd, danah. 2007. “Social Network Sites: Public, Private, or What?”. Knowledge Tree. Accessed 26 Sept 2008. http://www.danah.org/papers/KnowledgeTree.pdf.

Com 125 Assignment #4: Gift Economies

Free is good. I like free. Answers to my questions are great. I love people answering my questions. Add those two up, mix in a dash of internet message boards, and Bam!...a perfect example of a gift economy.

The term 'gift economy', as defined by Wikipedia, is "a social theory in which goods and services are given without any explicit agreement for immediate or future quid-pro-quo," (Wikipedia). Gift economies have been part of human nature since the dawn of man. Literally. More recently, however, internet users have created an online gift economy in which information and things like software are traded freely and openly between users. According to Peter Kollock, a main difference between a physical gift economy and an online one, say an information message board, is that when one shares information, it is impossible for a receiver to repay them due to the anonymity of the internet by nature. Kollock goes onto explain how the original information sharer would most likely feel entitled to one of their own questions being answered on the message board in the future (Kollock 1999).

Another point Kollock brings up is the difference between a gift economy, and a system primarily run by commodities. Kollock explains that a gift exchange creates a unique situation where the gift is, to use his words, “inalienably” attached to the one who gave it. With commodities, however, there is no sense of debt or personal attachment to he who gives the product (Kollock 1999).

From the blossoming gift economy that the internet opened up, a movement called the Open source culture began to take shape. Open source refers to “the creative practice of appropriation and free sharing of found and created content,” (Wikipedia). This content ranges from music, to videos, to pictures and software found on the internet, and it can be freely distributed around the web. Although there is much criticism from companies who would normally make money off of this free software, some argue that open source sharing is a great way to get the best programs available. The article Why Open Source on Redhat.com states,

“And we believe open source simply creates better software. It multiplies one company's development capacity many times over. Everyone collaborates, the best software wins.”

This is quite valid because as the software, for example, gets passed around on the open source system, people are free to change and add improvements to it (Redhat).

As I think about it, I participate in many online gift economies. As an avid Wikipedia surfer, I realize how massive of an information gift economy it really is. People can log in and add valid information to real-time updated articles for no real reward except the satisfaction of helping a fellow user. Of course, the validity of what the people add to the sites is monitored and removed if needed, giving an extra sense of security to those who read the articles.

Another gift economy that I at one time was involved in was the sharing of audio files on programs like Kazaa and Morpheus. This peer to peer gift economy was set up in the way that one could chose to share his or her files while at the same time downloading others. Basically, if you were a team player in these communities, you were expected to share your files as a gesture of appreciation for downloading everything you could get your hands on. If you didn’t choose to share your personal mp3’s or what-have-you, you could still take others with no ramifications.

I think gift economies are a great thing. Open source cultures on the internet are a wonderful example of a giving community that I wish we could all be a part of outside of the virtual world. It is very comforting to know that, in spite of the incentive of free stuff, people still care to help their fellow man.


Sources

1) Wikipedia Article. Gift Economy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy.

2) Kollock, Peter. (1999).The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.htm.

3) Why Open Source? 18 Sept 2008. http://www.redhat.com/about/whyopensource/

4) Wikipedia Article. Open Source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

Com 125 Assignment #3: Copyright....or copywrong?!?!

In 2000, the file sharing website, Napster, came under immense scrutiny from artists and producers in the music industry. Built on the internet technology of peer-to-peer file transferring, or P2P, Napster and its subscribers were accused of illegally sharing and stealing copyrighted material. Now, what is a copyright?

Merriam-Webster defines the term 'copyright' as, "the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something" (Merriam-Webster). This means whoever owns the rights to anything has the sole legal ability to reproduce it. This idea goes way back. The brilliant framers of our Constitution even thought to include it in the sacred document that we hold so dearly. Although some of those great minds distrusted the "limited monopoly" that copyrights ensured their possessors, they decided to include the clause in the document to ensure social contributions from artists and inventors (An Introduction). Up until the Napster boom, this idea seemed to be working out just fine for everyone involved. With the introduction of file sending, however, a hazy gray area of indecision began to sweep the music industry and fans around the world.

In 2000, it seemed as though one band, and one member in particular, were leading the crusade of the music industry against Napster. Lars Ulrich, drummer for the metal band Metallica, became the figurehead of the movement, catching support and immense criticism from all angles. In an interview with the website Macworld on May 1, 2000, Ulrich is quoted as saying,

"We've sold about a thousand gazillion records and we're glad that we're set for life, that we don't have to worry about sending the kids to school. The stuff that's being lost on the Internet, it's pocket change, it's meaningless. But where is it going to be in five years? This is something that could really be out of control. Now people are sitting there with straight faces saying they deserve music for free. I think people are getting a little too comfortable with their computer as a tool and are taking it for granted," (Macworld).

A little cocky, sure, but I think this encapsulates what the music industry was afraid of with free file sharing venturing into uncharted territory. No one had any idea what this monster could evolve into. The record industry was terrified of this new technology not because of what it was, but because it had the potential to be something so much bigger. That speculation meant economic loss, and that was unacceptable.

In order to prevent this from happening, the RIAA, or Recording Industry Association of America, got involved. According to Grand Robertson, the RIAA basically represented the Big Four, as their known, record companies in litigation attempts to prosecute those who transfer music files. These companies, Sony BMG, EMI, Universal, and Warner, apparently do not even involve their artists in these civil cases (RIAA). For example, if I were to be arrested for downloading, or “stealing” the Jonas Brothers album, their names would not even grace the litigation report.

This point leads this fan to question…what do the artists care if their music is traded between users? Hell, if anything, it gets their name out to the general public on a broader level based on an enhanced word of mouth basis. These record companies steal their souls and first born children anyway…these artists make little to nothing on album sales. Personally, I like the idea that artists are sticking it to the huge record conglomerates. Artists like Nine Inch Nails, Radiohead, and Lil’ Wayne are releasing their music for free online to a larger audience than once thought possible. I believe that the music that these artists make should belong to them, and not the record companies that own them based on a binding, unfair contract.

When the framers of the Constitution created the clause that protected copyrights, I can say with the utmost certainty that it was not their intention for evil record companies to be able to sue innocent citizens for copyright infringement on mp3s. I think it should be up to the artist regarding how they want to spread their music and message to the people of the world. I believe that companies like iTunes and Myspace are a great asset to the music community, and are doing a great, legal job in promoting artists.

And for the record, I did not steal the Jonas Brothers record. I bought that shit fair and square.



Sources:
1) Merriam-Webster Online.

2) Ovalle, Carlos. 2005. An Introduction to Copyright. .

3) Ferris, David. 1 May 2000. Interview With Lars Ulrich.

4)Robertson, Grant. 7 Aug 2006. The RIAA vs. John Doe.

Com 125 Assignment #2: TCP/IP

So, the inner-workings of our beloved Internet is much more confusing than I could have ever imagined. I won't say I'm surprised...more like 'mind-numbingly startled'.

In perusing the web for a particular topic to cover, I decided that the "computer language" of TCP/IP was an interesting idea. In layman's terms, TCP/IP is a basic communication system set up between two computers connected by the Internet. Each computer has a device called a router, which can send and receive documents and information from its partner that it is connected to by using this basic protocol. Easy enough, right? This technology was developed by an organization called DARPA in the 1970's, but primarily worked on by Robert E. Kahn and Vinton Cerf (Wikipedia). So thank them when you get a chance. We would be very unhappy and unconnected without them.

Now, TCP/IP is made up by two different "layers". TCP is known as the "higher" layer, and IP has been dubbed as the "lower" layer. So, the TCP layer, short for Transmission Control Protocol, takes the message that you are trying to send to the other router across the Internet, and breaks it down into smaller pieces called "packets". Once the message reaches its destination, the second router's TCP layer will reassemble the pieces.

The way I think about it, this process by the TCPs is like that scene in the original Willy Wonka movie when the kid, Mike, who likes television too much is killed off. He gets shot at by a laser, and then you see millions of particles buzzing over the other people's heads. Then he gets reassembled in a tiny TV. So that is kind of like TCP, minus the creepiness of Gene Wilder, as Willy Wonka and his minions, the Oompa Loompas of Loompaland. The laser represents the source router, Mike's particles represent the message being the broken down by the TCP, and the television that he was sent into acts as the receiving router. Are you with me? Good.

IP on the other hand, which is short for Internet Protocol, and handles the address to which the packets are headed. So when the router instantaneously sends out its broken down message, thanks to the TCP, the IP takes care of actually sending the message or document to the right address.

But how does my computer know where to send these packets? Well self, every computer has its own unique IP address when it connects to the Internet. These addresses are made up by 4 numbers that are separated by a period. An example of this might look like 123. 45. 6. 78. To make this address easier to remember and more user-friendly, technicians developed the concept of the domain name, like www.blogger.com. Domain names are just the IP address numbers as assigned words (Source). Your specifically assigned IP address is used by TCP/IP to send messages and receive messages from others.

TCP/IP is a vital application to the Internet and world wide web. Without it, it would seem as though messages could not be sent or received between two computers. This means no e-mail, no websites, not even web browsers would exist (Source). Bad news bears, my friends. To me, this seems like one of the most, if not the most vital part of the Internet. No computer would be able to communicate to another without this technology, and what would be the point of that? Sure, other unbelievable advances in the realm of the Internet have come up over the era of it's existence, but this basic system of computer language is completely imperative to the web.

God bless TCP/IP. Kahn and Cerf for the White House '08.

About Myself

It's a weird phenomenon. It is really easy for me to talk about myself to someone in person. However, as I sit here, staring at this ominous blank text box, I have nothing to say. I'm totally blanking.

This isn't to say that I'm not a particularly interesting person. I have opinions. I have emotions. I'm deep, man.

I guess I should start out by saying that my name is Brian. I was born and raised in the suburban sprawl of Kenmore/Tonawanda, New York. Quite honestly, I'm not exactly sure which township I have actually spent my entire life in. It doesn't help that my school district was dubbed KenTon, combining the two names into one, mildly clever, super-name. The fact that I have put "Buffalo" on every return address I have ever written doesn't assist in this situation either. Either way, life has been good here so far. I've made friends, burned bridges (not literally), had some good times... the most normal life a charming young boy could want.

Somehow, in my early teenage years, I became utterly obsessed with two things. One of which is Jeopardy. I love it. Alex Trebek is a man amongst slightly less manly men. He deserves a holiday in Canada marked by mustachioed men shaving their faces, and responding to every statement with a question. I've been campaigning this for many years, with mixed reviews from my peers and the Canadian government.

My other area of unhealthy interest is music. I've played piano since second grade, drums since fourth grade, and I've taught myself how to play guitar for the past five or six years. I'm in a band called Bear Market Rally, where I sing and play guitar, and it serves as a nice place to put my creative energy.

I guess I could say that music has always been apart of my life, but the flood gates broke early in ninth grade. My friend put on an album called London Calling by The Clash, and my life was changed on the spot. It still reigns as my favorite album of all time, and The Clash sit on the mighty throne atop my favorite band list. I listen to all kinds of music and I try, as much as possible, not to limit my tastes and absorb everything I can. Needless to say, my iPod is an eclectic mess of music genres from punk rock to folk to hip hop.

I'm majoring in Communication at UB, and I'm starting to take classes at a local recording studio. I plan on pursuing audio engineering, which is just a fancy way of saying that I want to work in a recording studio for the rest of my life.

I really like reading too. I'm into poetry by Charles Bukowski and I'm reading this great book right now called The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde. It's totally bitchin' and I highly recommend it.

Movies are fun. Burt Reynolds is my favorite actor/hero. Watch Smokey and the Bandit and try and tell me that he is not awesome. I dare you. The fact that they parodied him and Trebek on SNL all those years ago is a crime.

I hope to learn a lot from Com 125 this semester. It already seems like a really cool class that will teach me much more than I already know about the internet, which is surprisingly little.


That's about it. Have a wonderful day.