newmedia10sch89

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster

Napster

Our blog assignment this week was to pick a Wikipedia entry related  to some of the issues we discussed regarding “new media” this semester. I chose an article about Napster on Wikipedia. The article originated on June 16, 2006 but has been edited over 300 times since then. Some of these edits have been minor and some include just posting external links, but the article had been altered in some way over 300 times! The article is about Napster, the online music sharing service that was created by Shawn Fanning. The article discusses Napster’s origins with Macintosh, legal challenges it faced, the shutdown of the service, its current status, as well as Napster’s place in pop culture. The beginning of the article seems fairly objective. It introduces the services Napster provided and how Shawn Fanning came to create Napster. The legal challenges section seems to be a bit sparse. The authors mention issues that the band Metallica as well as Madonna had with Napster but seems to be lacking detail. I am not familiar with the detail of Napster’s legal challenges but I am sure it was more extensive and included more than these two artists. The section that discusses the Shutdown also seems to be a bit sparse and reads more like a timeline of events with little detail.  The current status section and popular culture sections are also not very detailed but are straightforward. Overall, the article seems unbiased but I think that may also be because there is not much written here to be biased about. The only thing I wonder about is if what they included versus what has been left out could be a form of information control bias, but this is unlikely since the article has been collaborated on by many different people.

The discussion section of this article shows that the major issue is that the article needs more work and more information. The specific section that the discussion seems to keep coming back to is the legal section of the article. They say the article needs more case and court information such as on the judges or even the official name of the case. Also, they wanted more information on copyright law and Napster’s circumstance regarding that law.  It seems that there was great support for this but citations and referencing here was an issue.

I think the idea of collaboratively-produced knowledge is awesome in an ideal world. However, it seems that there are so many contributors and so many articles that organization is something Wikipedia can reach for but I’m not sure they will ever achieve. Using the Napster article as an example, there seemed to be much discussion and disagreement over an article that is maybe two pages long. I would imagine that this discussion would be endless over a more extensive article. But then again, maybe endless discussion is an achievement.

Rated: from 4 votes

Whether or not our fellow undergraduates are more or less well-informed than the people in our position ten years ago is a tough question to answer. First of all we need a definition of well-informed which is not a concrete term that can easily be measured. What does it mean to be well-informed? How much “stuff” do we need to know about to be well-informed? Are their certain types of journalism that contributes to being well-informed whereas other types of journalism don’t? For example, what weight does an online article on the health care debate compared to the latest update on the Kardashian family?

Fenton discusses some changes in news over the past couple of decades that are important to consider when evaluating this question. He says the news has become more globalized, there are fewer people who own the majority of the  journalism outlets, and the advances in technology. One of the chief changes between an undergrad getting their news now opposed to 10 years ago has to be connected to the advances in technology. We are all on our smart phones and various devices that allow us to be connected more of the time than our “10 year ago counterparts.” While I would confidently argue that we spend more time getting information through the internet now, I’m not sure if this means that we are more or less informed. Much of the online journalism is repetitive in that many sites highlight the same stories. It seems that a lotof the information is presented in the same way with the same intentions (to appeal to the most people to make the largest profit). Also, online journalists are sometimes so concentrated on getting the story out their first that they may be less thorough in their reporting. I know that ten years ago my parents got their information through print newspaper and magazines and now a large portion of what they read is online. However, the fragmentation of the news (probably a result of faulty business models) makes it difficult to measure how much we are really getting from these online sites. In conclusion, I would say that the way we get our information is undoubtedly changing and while these new mediums may have the potential to make us more informed, they haven’t necessarily yet.

Rated: from 10 votes

A little over a year ago, Facebook  removed pictures of women breastfeeding deeming it inappropriate on the basis of nudity, which is prohibited on Facebook. From one perspective, photos of breast-feeding are controversial because of the fact that the woman’s breast is exposed. On the other  hand, the act of breast-feeding is natural and few would interpret it as sexually explicit material. However, after some complaint, Facebook decided to remove all material that showed women breastfeeding.

The response, not so surprisingly was a group of angry women. These women came together on Facebook and started their  very own group/petition called “Hey Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene!” (Here is the link: you don’t have to join to view it as it is open to the public http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2517126532). The group has over 250,000 members with over 6,500 photos of women breastfeeding and over 30 videos. Part of the description of the group reads, “Facebook, we expect more from you, and we expect you to realize that nursing moms everywhere have a right to show pictures of their babies eating, just like bottle-fed babies have a right to be seen. In an effort to appease the closed-minded, you are only serving to be detrimental to babies, women, and society.” Regulation on Facebook brings up questions of freedom of speech and expression and what is considered obscene and what isn’t. Obviously, people thought Facebook was a  forum to freely express themselves but it is a forum with boundaries, those of which aren’t always clear. Facebook eventually changed its policy and allowed breastfeeding photos, a testament to the importance of discussion in forming policy and establishing boundaries.

Rated: from 3 votes

.

The UN General Assembly endorsed a two phased World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Representatives from over 175 countries attended the summit with a goal to endorse a political resolve  to establish the foundations for an “information society.”  The summit adopted a “Declaration of Principles” that were organized in several sections with a total of 67 principles. Overall, I think that the number of principles could be condensed as I found many of the same goals and reservations were repeated several times throughout the document. Above all a condensed version may allow for higher levels of clarity. Regardless, I think that some of the central goals and concerns were addressed in section B2 which you can see here:

These three declarations basically deal with the issue of access to information and technology. Their goals here reflect the idea that developed communication networks and information providing technologies should be accessible to all communities. The key here is that these networks have to be “easily-accessible and affordable.” In areas that are more disadvantaged, there should be ICT access in public venues such as post offices, schools, or libraries.

I think one of the most important and perhaps more grueling challenges is to make the Information Society as inclusive as humanly possible. The rate at which the internet has transformed American society in just the past several decades is tremendous but also overwhelming in a broader sense. I’m afraid that developed countries have had such a thriving head start that it will be difficult for undeveloped countries to catch up. This could lead to the overall gap in access to resources widening even further and faster than before, leaving undeveloped countries even farther behind. This idea is not limited to an international level but also the divide between distribution of resources within a nation, state or even community. Access to technology is access to information. Access to information is access to opportunity. The advances in technology should be used as a tool to narrow gaps of inequality, not to widen them. The most fundamental way we can prevent the widening of these gaps is by making sure that the information society is inclusive to all, and this will not be possible until there is access for all.

This is not only one of the most important challenges in the WSIS goal but also one of the most difficult ones. Providing such technology will take rigorous planning, consulting, and (often the highest hurdle in most efforts) $$$. Without funding, this endeavor is hopeless, and I imagine the capital needed to attempt a fully inclusive information society would be astronomical

Rated: from 10 votes

Joseph Turow writes his article, “Audience Construction and Culture Production: Marketing Surveillance in the Digital Age” about the transformation of focus from a broad targeted audience to a more specifically targeted one. Technological innovation has allowed marketers to more effectively find and track these more specific audiences. The degree of customer surveillance (and perhaps the degree of effectiveness in customer surveillance) has been made possible by the technological advances of our digital age. As Turow makes clear, however, this new approach was not a result of technology, technology just augmented the movement. The bottom line here (as we have seen so many times before) is money.

The first goal of marketers and advertisers is to maximize profit from their product or service. Turow addresses the idea of “constructing” the consumer, where marketers stay informed and thus, can more easily anticipate the consumer’s next move. Turow referenced two ideas from economist Pareto. The first was that a small number of customers contribute to most of the profits and the second is that it is almost always more expensive to gain new customers than it is to hold on to current ones. In the context of maximizing profit, a marketer’s best bet is to hold on tight to the best smaller number of customer’s they have. To do this, the consumer’s are tracked and are made feel special by marketers through incentives and rewards. If all goes as planned, the consumer feels good to be a “best customer” and values their relationship with the company. The consumer does a cost-benefit analysis themselves, because (for most) when “consuming” their bottom line too is money. They ask themselves, are the rewards and incentives I receive worth the invasion of privacy? Often times, the answer to this question is yes.

The problem that develops with CRM is that this approach may give off a feeling of exclusivity, which what marketers want the “best customers”  but may piss off other people. Now, I am not naive enough to think that the majority of companies care if people are pissed off but most do not want the reputation of being discriminatory. Often times, this consumer relationship is kept relatively quiet for this purpose.

Rated: from 5 votes

Twitter: An individual’s public experience.

Rated: from 1 votes

Twitter. We hear about it all of the time, usually its negative. The whole thing is based on the idea of 140 characters in response to the simple question “What are you doing?” However, having used twitter for a little less than a year from now, I’ve found those 140 characters are rarely dedicated to actually what you are doing. It is a medium to exchange information about…well about anything. Of course there are annoying people who post tons of useless information on Twitter, but there are annoying people who post useless information everywhere on the internet. I’m not sure why people hate on twitter so much. You choose who to follow, and thus, what type of information you are being exposed to. Virtually everyone’s twitter experience is different than the next person’s and if you enjoy being updated on what I find to be useless information that’s fine by me. I’ll follow who I follow and you follow who you follow.

Among the popular topics of today involves “BBC” referring to their recent business and coverage of the Olympics as well as “Justin Bieber’ and “TGIF.” Just in these top three topics we see the diversity in topics on Twitter. The one I decided to click on was labeled “Thingswewantback.” This topic intrigued me because I didn’t understand what it meant and thought I was missing something that the Twitter community understands (I don’t usually look at these trending topics.) Turns out, its exactly what it sounds like. The topic invites people to respond to the prompt “things we want back.” Among the responses were

“1 dollar gallons of gas”

“Easy-E and Marilyn Monroe”

“all the songs on itunes to be .99″

“my childhood”

“skies with no smog”

“democracy would b kinda nice”

“the ability to smoke weed legally”

All of these responses, although under 140 characters and the opinion of  just an individual actually represent society in a larger sense. Gas prices are hurting everyone and a new era of music causes some to miss an old one. One of our past posts dealt with the pricing of online media and we’ve spoke in class about the music industry and the way it has evolved from .99 pricing across the board to a bit more price differentiation. Wanting your childhood back is a common psychological feeling, especially when times are tougher. Our time has been filled with talks of restricting green house gas emissions and, more recently, people have felt a threat to democracy in the United States with the perception of signs of socialism sprouting from the new presidency. The legalization of marijuana has evolved into current political issue as people have come to question the cost-benefit of such a law. In just one click on an ambiguous trend, the opinions surrounding some of the largest issues today are shared by  a set of “ordinary people.” An interesting aspect of twitter is that these latest posts are changing by the minute and no one post is more prominent than another. (Since I’ve started writing this paragraph there has been 800 new tweets on this thread).

In regards to the 140 character limit- it is genius. The pro of anyone being able to tweet would turn into a MAJOR con if people weren’t limited. Otherwise we would see people go on and on about god knows what. The 140 limit allows us to filter the “garbage” out more efficiently and effectively. If a topic in the 140 characters catches your eye, click on the link. If there is no link available, search the web. If in 140 characters it doesn’t sound something your interested in, your probably not going to be interested in reading more than 140 characters…so move on to the next tweet!!!

Rated: from 4 votes

In the excerpt “World Wide Mush” Jaron Lanier discusses collectivism and collaboration on the internet. He argues that creativity and excellence is smothered in digital collectivism. I understand his call for boundaries and privacy but I’m not sure I make the connection to how greater boundaries will lead to greater innovation. Shouldn’t true creativity have no boundary? Personally, I believe creativity shouldn’t have boundaries nor should it be private. Of course, with all of the voices “piling up” many voices are indeed“drowned out,” but isn’t this idea a large component of creativity? Digital collectivism gives everyone the chance to be heard but only few will stand out from the crowd. Unlike Lanier, I believe this is a good thing. Also, user generated content can seem like a “piling up” of futile voices but together can prove very meaningful. Similar to what Caterina Fake was getting at, I believe that Lainer only addressed small aspects of digital collectivism that may be off target. He seems worried about a final product (in his paragraph where he calls attention to the way Silicon Valley works). However, digital collectivism isn’t necessarily supposed to be a means to an end. It many cases it is just the journey. The conversations we are having via collaboration on the internet are ongoing and, thus, credit doesn’t have to be an issue as the “finished product” is ever evolving.

On a somewhat different note, what concerns me about this digital collectivism is not an issue of creativity or innovation but an issue of reliability. As someone who uses the internet to understand more about the world around them, I am most alarmed by the possibility of false claims. I’m  fine with everyone collaborating, I just wish I could be certain that I can rely on the outcome of that collaboration to be accurate. At my high school we were told we couldn’t cite Wikipedia because anyone could post anything they felt like on there. Can we trust these collaborative sites and how do we know we can trust them? With all of the different messages we receive every day through the myriad of different technological mediums, sometimes its difficult to decipher the truth. That’s the problem. It seems as though it shouldn’t be so hard to figure out the truth. If we are inclined enough to put the effort in to expand our knowledge of the world around us, we shouldn’t have to worry as much as we do about finding who or what is reliable.

Rated: from 11 votes

The Skype Group was originally founded by a Swedish entrepreneur named Niklas Zennstrom and a Danish man named Janus Friis (the man who also developed Kazaa). Skype allows users to make voice calls over the Internet, operating on a peer-to-peer model. . Calls to other Skype users are free but calls made to landlines and mobile phones have an additional fee. Skype also allows users to instant message, file transfer, and video conference. The applications initial release was in August of 2003. By April of 2006 the number of registered users on Skype reached 100 million and, as of 2009, user number increased to 521 million. The Skype Group has its headquarters in Luxembourg but also has offices in California, Prague, Stockholm, Tallinn, and Tartu. Since Skype is free between Skype users, they only make money when a Skype user calls a non-Skype user. This is interesting because it means that Skype actually needs people to not be users to make money. Skype also has upgrades available that are offered for a nominal charge for additional features like the ability to receive voice mails and SMS messaging.

The Skype Group was originally acquired by ebay for $2.6 billion in 2005. Skype has now been written down to $1.7 billion and a public stock offering has been announced for 2010 for Skype to spin off as a separate company. “Now Skype, which lets users call each other for free over the Internet, could be headed for the largest initial public offering of a technology company since Google Inc.’s 2004 IPO, says Paul Bard, director of research at Greenwich, Connecticut- based Renaissance Capital LLC.” Bard went onto say that if Skype can increase its profits to $400 million by 2010 it could go public at a valuation of $4 billion. This means Skype may take market share from companies like Verizon and At&T. However, Skype may have trouble getting support from larger corporations since the Internet is less-secure in terms of a phone service. Vanessa Alvarez, an analyst at Frost &Sullivan says “Enterprises aren’t completely comfortable bringing a consumer Internet Company that’s mostly used for chitchat.” It will be very interesting to see what happens with this company.

Rated: from 5 votes

Obviously Amazon has made a move to prove their power in the ebook industry and everyone loves to hate the big bad corporation (myself included). However, as a person who would support people reading more, I would hope that the ebook catches on. Although I would prefer to read paper books myself, I am sure that with all of the advantages of the ebook (convenience, storage, etc) it will lead to an increase in book reading. However, if Macmillan got their way, then ebook prices would be higher which will cause less people to read. As a consumer, and a soon-to-be broke college grad (I know I’m not alone), I wouldn’t mind to see book prices fall. It saddens me to think about what the ebook in general will do to the bookstores I like to get lost in every now and then, but I have to face the facts: times are changing.  I respect artists and old-time music shops (Empire Records anyone?) but  I can’t remember the last time I bought a CD from one. Economically, why would I? And without Itunes (or whatever online medium), there is no way I could enjoy the diverse amount of music that I do. I do not understand all the ins and outs of this issue, and until I learn more about it I am not ready to take a “side.” That being said, it makes me wonder… if prices are lower for the consumer, more people read, wouldn’t that be good for both the author and the consumer? And isn’t that who the book industry should really be about- those writing the books and those reading them?

Rated: from 13 votes