Alternate Realty Games are becoming a new phenomenon. In the reading Jane McConigal argues that these games can be taken to serious by some people, but used in real life setting, it can cause group think, increase problem solving and increase teamwork. The question that arises is this, do players get so immersed into the game that they lose their own self into part of the game, or are they consciously aware of their surroundings, knowing they are part of a bigger online, “pseudo world?”
The argument towards readers getting carried away games from Richard Schechner, he describes two types of play. These two types are “make believe, and make belief. [40, p.35] He states that the first protects the boundaries between what is real and what is pretend, while the latter intentionally blurs them.” This can happen to those who get wrapped up in gaming and believe that they play an actual role in the game, and take form of the character they play. It can lead to addiction or delusions or those who lose all track of time and social life consumed in these fake worlds. However, the lesson that came be learned from the ARG games seem to outweigh the cons. McGonagall argues that , “when(addiction) perceived negatively, immersion in games nevertheless has been seen as a conscious, if ill advised, choice to surrender the pleasures or narrative, role-lay or well-defined goals and limit. ( 8) Even lessons game be learned from these games. For example, a Norwegian boy saved his own sisters life, using skills he learned in World Of Warcraft. Now this may seem to be an outlandish type story, however, conventions such as the following, “Dr. Strangelearn and his army of Mad Scientist friends are all characters in Tandem Learning’s latest alternate reality game designed to enhance the upcoming DevLearn 2010 conference in San Francisco from November 3rd to 5th. The conference, sponsored by The eLearning Guild, will focus on technology-enhanced organizational learning and knowledge-sharing strategies. The Mad Scientists are being played by learning industry experts whose true identities will be unveiled at the conference and on Twitter. At DevLearn10, there will be sessions at the Dr. Strangelearn Information Stations where participants will have a chance to meet the experts. This year, attendees of DevLearn10 will be exposed to many new learning strategies, and Dr. Strangelearn’s Learning Laboratory will help DevLearn10 participants handle organizational objections to implementing those strategies when they get back to the office. Through the game, research, case studies, and academic papers are being shared with players to arm them with what they need to convince their organizations of the feasibility and value of new learning strategies,” are using ARG games to education, create information and even arm them with more knowledge.
So the question remains, are ARG games bad or the future of learning and knowledge. I would have to aim on the side of good. Users are self conscious of what they log into and what they are viewing. It takes time and effort to search out these games, become part of these worlds, and work together for the common good. Just as McGonagall mentions viewers searching out the Blair Witch Project webisodes, it takes effort to become part of these online realities. Without the proper time, knowledge, skill or interest the gamers and participants or ARG games enthusiasts must search out these well known treasures. Who knows, the next Einstein may develop because of skills he learned in an ARG.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Viral Marketing, The Key To Reaching Out To Many Media Outlets For 1 Goal
"Consumers are learning how to use these different media technologies to bring the flow of media more fully under their control and to interact with other consumers. The promises of this new media environment raise expectation of a freer flow of ideas and content." This is what Henry Jenkis said in the text, and I could not agree more. Technology and media companies have to work hand in hand to help spread the word and make all facets of technology intertwine to keep viewers on their toes, as well as make them feel even more a part of whatever television show, video game, or even movie they are promoting. By using video games, internet scavenger hunts and viral marketing, they are making viewers become more interactive and make consumers feel like they are a part of this community.
I will discuss two separate viral campaigns, one for a movie and the second for a musician that aimed to get fans to follow the trail at his concerts and discover USB drives, that contained clues and even hidden tracks, that were hidden at the venues . Both of these campaigns tied into either a CD release or a movie release, got fans interested and let them feel a part of the “hunt.” This not only provided fans to delve into the world of Batman: The Dark Knight, but also into a secret scavenger hunt at Nine Inch Nails shows.
First off, the website www.whysoserious.com, was dedicated to Batman: The Dark Knight. Here is a synopsis I found on the web, with all of the details behind what was involved.
In May 2007, 42 Entertainment began a viral marketing campaign utilizing the film's "Why So Serious?" tagline with the launch of a website featuring the fictional political campaign of Harvey Dent, with the caption, "I Believe in Harvey Dent."[ The site aimed to interest fans by having them try to earn what they wanted to see and, on behalf of Warner Bros., 42 Entertainment also established a "vandalized" version of I Believe in Harvey Dent, called "I believe in Harvey Dent too," where e-mails sent by fans slowly removed pixels revealing the first official image of the Joker; it was ultimately replaced with many "Haha"s and a hidden message that said "see you in December
“WhySoSerious.com directed fans to find letters composing the Joker’s message "The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules," to send in photographs of these letters, and then featured their photos in a collage.
During the 2007 Comic Con’s, 42 Entertainment launched WhySoSerious.com, sending fans on a scavenger hunt to unlock a teaser trailer and a new photo of the Joker. On October 31, 2007, the film's website morphed into another scavenger hunt with hidden messages, instructing fans to uncover clues at certain locations in major cities throughout the United States, and to take photographs of their discoveries. The clues combined to reveal a new photograph of the Joker and an audio clip of him from the film saying "And tonight, you're gonna break your one rule." Completing the scavenger hunt also led to another website called Rory's Death Kiss (referencing the false working title of Rory's First Kiss), where fans could submit photographs of themselves costumed as the Joker. Those who sent photos were mailed a copy of a fictional newspaper called The Gotham Times, whose electronic version led to the discovery of numerous other websites.
Numbers In March 2008, Harvey Dent's fictional campaign informed fans that actual campaign buses nicknamed "Dentmobiles" would tour various cities to promote Dent's candidacy for district attorney.”
This was a brilliant way to incorporate fans, and make them feel part of something large. It helped to build hype over many different facets of media, and got fans extremely excited. It tied all media facets working together to build massive hype, months before the movie was released. (info came from Wikipedia, directed from the actual whysoserious website, all info has been approved by film producers, or else I would never have used Wikipedia.)
Secondly, Nine Inch Nails did something that no other band has ever done. They band created an alternative online game called Year Zero, the title of their upcoming game. If you want to read more about the game just research Nine In Nails, Year Zero Game. The band would hide clues for this game in clothing they sold at their tours, as well as plant random USB drives with new songs, clues and other goodies throughout venues, and give fans that were part of their online community clues as to where they could find them. All of the members of this community would have to team up, and combine what they received on their drives, to fully complete the game, it was almost like Second Life. This facet combined music sales, with an online game and even a scavenger hunt, the first time in history that this has been done, and has yet to be repeated. The concept was so deep it even invoked the interests of USA Today, Rolling Stones and other newspaper as well, and also every major music site.
Both of these ploys could have done without any of the promotion, however it only helped to build hype and get fans even more involved, especially the die hard fans. This is exactly what Jenkins was talking about. Having many different platforms such as scavenger hunts for USB drives, or even just becoming even more intrigued by a scavenger hunt and game online for Batman, definitely broke boundaries, and I believe that television and the movie and music industry need to embrace spreading their wings, and reaching out to people over various media outlets. People need to adapt, and if they do, Jenkins message will have worked.
I will discuss two separate viral campaigns, one for a movie and the second for a musician that aimed to get fans to follow the trail at his concerts and discover USB drives, that contained clues and even hidden tracks, that were hidden at the venues . Both of these campaigns tied into either a CD release or a movie release, got fans interested and let them feel a part of the “hunt.” This not only provided fans to delve into the world of Batman: The Dark Knight, but also into a secret scavenger hunt at Nine Inch Nails shows.
First off, the website www.whysoserious.com, was dedicated to Batman: The Dark Knight. Here is a synopsis I found on the web, with all of the details behind what was involved.
In May 2007, 42 Entertainment began a viral marketing campaign utilizing the film's "Why So Serious?" tagline with the launch of a website featuring the fictional political campaign of Harvey Dent, with the caption, "I Believe in Harvey Dent."[ The site aimed to interest fans by having them try to earn what they wanted to see and, on behalf of Warner Bros., 42 Entertainment also established a "vandalized" version of I Believe in Harvey Dent, called "I believe in Harvey Dent too," where e-mails sent by fans slowly removed pixels revealing the first official image of the Joker; it was ultimately replaced with many "Haha"s and a hidden message that said "see you in December
“WhySoSerious.com directed fans to find letters composing the Joker’s message "The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules," to send in photographs of these letters, and then featured their photos in a collage.
During the 2007 Comic Con’s, 42 Entertainment launched WhySoSerious.com, sending fans on a scavenger hunt to unlock a teaser trailer and a new photo of the Joker. On October 31, 2007, the film's website morphed into another scavenger hunt with hidden messages, instructing fans to uncover clues at certain locations in major cities throughout the United States, and to take photographs of their discoveries. The clues combined to reveal a new photograph of the Joker and an audio clip of him from the film saying "And tonight, you're gonna break your one rule." Completing the scavenger hunt also led to another website called Rory's Death Kiss (referencing the false working title of Rory's First Kiss), where fans could submit photographs of themselves costumed as the Joker. Those who sent photos were mailed a copy of a fictional newspaper called The Gotham Times, whose electronic version led to the discovery of numerous other websites.
Numbers In March 2008, Harvey Dent's fictional campaign informed fans that actual campaign buses nicknamed "Dentmobiles" would tour various cities to promote Dent's candidacy for district attorney.”
This was a brilliant way to incorporate fans, and make them feel part of something large. It helped to build hype over many different facets of media, and got fans extremely excited. It tied all media facets working together to build massive hype, months before the movie was released. (info came from Wikipedia, directed from the actual whysoserious website, all info has been approved by film producers, or else I would never have used Wikipedia.)
Secondly, Nine Inch Nails did something that no other band has ever done. They band created an alternative online game called Year Zero, the title of their upcoming game. If you want to read more about the game just research Nine In Nails, Year Zero Game. The band would hide clues for this game in clothing they sold at their tours, as well as plant random USB drives with new songs, clues and other goodies throughout venues, and give fans that were part of their online community clues as to where they could find them. All of the members of this community would have to team up, and combine what they received on their drives, to fully complete the game, it was almost like Second Life. This facet combined music sales, with an online game and even a scavenger hunt, the first time in history that this has been done, and has yet to be repeated. The concept was so deep it even invoked the interests of USA Today, Rolling Stones and other newspaper as well, and also every major music site.
Both of these ploys could have done without any of the promotion, however it only helped to build hype and get fans even more involved, especially the die hard fans. This is exactly what Jenkins was talking about. Having many different platforms such as scavenger hunts for USB drives, or even just becoming even more intrigued by a scavenger hunt and game online for Batman, definitely broke boundaries, and I believe that television and the movie and music industry need to embrace spreading their wings, and reaching out to people over various media outlets. People need to adapt, and if they do, Jenkins message will have worked.
Facebook Update: I'm Naked (Wait That's Supposed To Be Private)
Is society aware of what Facebook has done to “privacy,” Danah Boyd would argue that many are completely unaware of the implications we are getting ourselves into when opting in to these “cool,” websites. Many are uneducated, and getting themselves into a lot more than what they bargained for in the end. Is privacy still alive, or has the definition of privacy changed since Facebook, Myspace and other social networking sites have popped up online in the last 10 or so years?
An excerpt from Boyd’s “Facebook Privacy Settings: Who Cares? Reads:
“When Facebook introduced new options for sharing content, the default was to share broadly. For example, when the site introduced a setting that allowed users to choose whether or not their basic profile content would be shared with search engines, the default was yes, meaning that people’s profile content would come up whenever someone searched for their name on Google, regardless of whether or not the person searching was logged into Facebook. As with many other changes made by Facebook, when Facebook chose to make the content available to search engines, it simply introduced a new setting: “public search” and enabled sharing to search engines by default. Default settings matter, because research has shown that most people rarely change them (Mackay, 1991)”.
This shows just how tricky the people at Facebook are and how socially aware people must be when new options are integrated into their Facebook accounts, because many do not take the time to go in and change these settings, or even read the long drawn out disclaimers that pop-up each time a new privacy issue goes into effect of Facebook. According to Boyd’s research only 26% of current Facebook users have changed their privacy settings 4 or more times throughout all of the changes Facebook has made.
However, this is not really the issue, what is, is what used to be considered taboo and strange, such as knowing where people are, seeing random pictures of them drinking or even knowing the minute they get engaged is now public knowledge because of Facebook. No longer do we have any privacy, if we choose to post these pits and pieces of information onto the Internet. Instead, all we have to do is click someone’s profile and we can see them at the most recent party bonging a beer. This used to only be known by those who were in attendance, however now we are able to see all of this information at the click of a mouse.
What once used to be considered sacred and private, seems to no longer matter to anyone, or at least the majority of the users of Facebook. What we as society used to see as unacceptable and taboo, is no just common knowledge that everyone seems like the have the right to know. If you do not keep your profile updated, people get upset with you, because they are unable to know what is going on in your life. It is scary to think what some of the images and information we post on Facebook now, could be used for in the future. Will it cost us jobs, promotions, Presidential nominations? It just may, but “privacy,” as we know it has changed and things seem like they are only going to get more personal and less private as new social networks begin to appear.
An excerpt from Boyd’s “Facebook Privacy Settings: Who Cares? Reads:
“When Facebook introduced new options for sharing content, the default was to share broadly. For example, when the site introduced a setting that allowed users to choose whether or not their basic profile content would be shared with search engines, the default was yes, meaning that people’s profile content would come up whenever someone searched for their name on Google, regardless of whether or not the person searching was logged into Facebook. As with many other changes made by Facebook, when Facebook chose to make the content available to search engines, it simply introduced a new setting: “public search” and enabled sharing to search engines by default. Default settings matter, because research has shown that most people rarely change them (Mackay, 1991)”.
This shows just how tricky the people at Facebook are and how socially aware people must be when new options are integrated into their Facebook accounts, because many do not take the time to go in and change these settings, or even read the long drawn out disclaimers that pop-up each time a new privacy issue goes into effect of Facebook. According to Boyd’s research only 26% of current Facebook users have changed their privacy settings 4 or more times throughout all of the changes Facebook has made.
However, this is not really the issue, what is, is what used to be considered taboo and strange, such as knowing where people are, seeing random pictures of them drinking or even knowing the minute they get engaged is now public knowledge because of Facebook. No longer do we have any privacy, if we choose to post these pits and pieces of information onto the Internet. Instead, all we have to do is click someone’s profile and we can see them at the most recent party bonging a beer. This used to only be known by those who were in attendance, however now we are able to see all of this information at the click of a mouse.
What once used to be considered sacred and private, seems to no longer matter to anyone, or at least the majority of the users of Facebook. What we as society used to see as unacceptable and taboo, is no just common knowledge that everyone seems like the have the right to know. If you do not keep your profile updated, people get upset with you, because they are unable to know what is going on in your life. It is scary to think what some of the images and information we post on Facebook now, could be used for in the future. Will it cost us jobs, promotions, Presidential nominations? It just may, but “privacy,” as we know it has changed and things seem like they are only going to get more personal and less private as new social networks begin to appear.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Wikipedia and Politics
"A Wikipedia article is a process, not a product, and as a result, it is never finished," says Clay Shirkey, author of Here Comes Everybody. He describes Wikipedia as a collective knowledge base where anyone can contribute information on any topic at any time. What results is one of the most up-to-date, detailed, and (usually) accurate sources of information on the web.
Because of these things, Wikipedia is currently one of the most visited websites in the United States. So, in the search results for nearly any subject on any popular search engine will have the Wikipedia page near the top of relevant sites. Of course, there are many positive and negative implications that come along with Wikipedia's ease of accessibility and editing.
To exemplify the fluidity and popularity of Wikipedia, let's examine the way in which the site was used in the 2008 elections.
Wikipedia articles were one of the first pages to appear after a search for any given candidate. And because these pages were completely user generated, campaigns had very little control over what was posted on their candidates page. Of course, it is the campaign's desire to paint their candidate in the most positive light possible. So, naturally, they want the page to be as factually accurate as possible. Or do they?
Supporters of former North Carolina Senator John Edwards apparently wanted to omit the highly publicized $400 dollar haircuts he received on the campaign trail. Mitt Romney's campaign were attempting to leave out details of his two weddings--one for a Mormon audience, and one for those who were not part of the religion. And Fred Thompson supporters were allegedly trying to conceal the fact that the former Senator from Tennessee's birth name was "Freddie."
Of course these are all minor biographical details about each individual, but all these pieces of information ended up being accurate--and they would have probably not been as widely known had it not been for Wikipedia. Because any one can post anything on any subject, that information sees the light of day.
However, this free and fast information comes with a price. Wikipedia, being user generated, often faces questions of legitimacy. And sometimes this questioning is legitimate, as the site has seen it's fair share of vandalism. For example, the page for President Obama has been attacked with false information and pictures on several occasions. In one instance a picture of a naked black man was posted as a picture of Obama on his Wikipedia page. However, in this case, the picture was taken down only two minutes after being posted.
Shirky says, "Mass amateurization of publishing makes mass amateurization of filtering a forced move." He claims that this publish-then-filter system is the only working system in social media. So while Wikipedia is definitely susceptible to its pitfalls, this is the only way it can work. However, in the end, what makes it vulnerable to such vandalism is also what makes it such a valuable tool in the information age.
Because of these things, Wikipedia is currently one of the most visited websites in the United States. So, in the search results for nearly any subject on any popular search engine will have the Wikipedia page near the top of relevant sites. Of course, there are many positive and negative implications that come along with Wikipedia's ease of accessibility and editing.
To exemplify the fluidity and popularity of Wikipedia, let's examine the way in which the site was used in the 2008 elections.
Wikipedia articles were one of the first pages to appear after a search for any given candidate. And because these pages were completely user generated, campaigns had very little control over what was posted on their candidates page. Of course, it is the campaign's desire to paint their candidate in the most positive light possible. So, naturally, they want the page to be as factually accurate as possible. Or do they?
Supporters of former North Carolina Senator John Edwards apparently wanted to omit the highly publicized $400 dollar haircuts he received on the campaign trail. Mitt Romney's campaign were attempting to leave out details of his two weddings--one for a Mormon audience, and one for those who were not part of the religion. And Fred Thompson supporters were allegedly trying to conceal the fact that the former Senator from Tennessee's birth name was "Freddie."
Of course these are all minor biographical details about each individual, but all these pieces of information ended up being accurate--and they would have probably not been as widely known had it not been for Wikipedia. Because any one can post anything on any subject, that information sees the light of day.
However, this free and fast information comes with a price. Wikipedia, being user generated, often faces questions of legitimacy. And sometimes this questioning is legitimate, as the site has seen it's fair share of vandalism. For example, the page for President Obama has been attacked with false information and pictures on several occasions. In one instance a picture of a naked black man was posted as a picture of Obama on his Wikipedia page. However, in this case, the picture was taken down only two minutes after being posted.
Shirky says, "Mass amateurization of publishing makes mass amateurization of filtering a forced move." He claims that this publish-then-filter system is the only working system in social media. So while Wikipedia is definitely susceptible to its pitfalls, this is the only way it can work. However, in the end, what makes it vulnerable to such vandalism is also what makes it such a valuable tool in the information age.
The New and Improved Transmedia Storytelling of Marvel Comics
Henry Jenkins has layed out a set of basic characteristics and components for what he calls transmedia storytelling. According to Jenkins, "Transmedia storytelling represents a process where integral elements of a fiction get dispersed systematically across multiple delivery channels for the purpose of creating a unified and coordinated entertainment experience." It is storytelling created by horizontally integrated media companies, which is oftentimes encyclopedic, and built off of the creation of entire fictional worlds.
Transmedia storytelling is something that is becoming increasingly popular. In a culture that is becoming driven by consumption and consumers that are, more and more, accessing media in a variety of ways, it is something that is becoming almost necessary for the ongoing success of a franchise. To exemplify this, let's take a look at Marvel Comics.
Marvel Publishing Inc., which most people will recognize for their characters such as Spider-man and Iron-man, are increasingly making use of such transmedia storytelling, and becoming very successful in doing so. Marvel began primarily as a comic book publisher, but in recent years have extended their brand into television, film, video games, toys, and more. They have developed characters and storylines and worlds across all of these platforms to the point where it is encyclopedic (Marvel Comics Database).
Up until recent years however, much of this storytelling on Marvel's part has been disjointed, with special regard to the relationship between movies and comic books. Many of the storylines in their movies ignore or even contradict the stories from their other movies and comics. Each one existed as it's own separate entity, or as a direct retelling from an already existing comic book. And even within the comic books there exist a multitude of realities, unrelated to one another. To exemplify this, look no further than the 60+ different incarnations of Spider-man.
Now, however, Marvel has become more aware or more skilled at transmedia storytelling. A few years ago, they launched a massive reboot of movies based on their characters, including Iron-man and the Incredible Hulk, with future plans of releasing movies based on Thor, Captain America, and Ant-man. They are even planning to release new Spider-man films, so that the character can be part of the rebooted canon.
And all of these movies are intertwined. They may not feature all of the same characters, but through cameos and other storytelling devices, it has been made apparent that all of the events in these movies are taking place in the same fictional world. With the reboot of these movies, Marvel has also had launched new comic book series' and created video games that are meant to expand on story. They even have plans on making an Avengers movie, which would take all of the characters from the above mentioned films and put them all in the same film.
They are doing all of this through following the basic guidelines put forth by Henry Jenkins, and they are staying very successful because of it, in spite of waning comic book sales. They have learned to reach a variety of audiences through a variety of mediums, without abandoning any particular medium. And all the while they are able to make each individual piece of fiction coherent and enjoyable, regardless of the platform. Because of this, I think Marvel exemplifies how good transmedia storytelling is something that is and will continue to be important for the success of many forms of fictional media.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Piracy, it is a problem
On Monday in class, we discussed the issue about piracy. According to W. James Potter, "Piracy, in its simpliest form, is the unauthorized use of copyright material" (p.302). Anything everything can literally be pirated by somebody else, whether it is the music you hear, the book that you read, or the movie that you watch, it can all be pirated by someone else or even you, the reader of this blog, can pirate something. Now, while most people will not come right out and say that they have pirated something illegally, people do it all the time and believe that it is a perfectly fine thing to do, I mean, who would want to pay the money to go see a movie in the movie theather or rent it from a store when they can just burn a copy of it at home on their computer? Most of the people the pirate things believe that they are doing a good thing, when in essence, what they are doing is actually a bad thing and technically, what they are doing is illegal and wrong.
Piracy is a becoming quite the controversial topic, but it is not a recent issue actually. According to what Potter says on pages 303 and 304 of our textbook, "Piracy has been a problem for the music industry for decades. As early as the 1950s, people used tape recorders to pirate music by recording it off the radio. People could also make a copy of a record or tape cassette using home-recording equipment, but to do so, they had to already have a copy of the recording and could make only one copy at a time." Wow, people in the 1950s copying and pirating music off the radio....and to think people are making burnt cds with music on it in today's modern society. People back then where making copies of music on blank cassette players, and that actually kept on happening for quite some time as I actually used to have a couple of cassette tapes with music on it that was copied from radio stations, but now, not just music is being copied illegally as movies are becoming quite to item to pirate nowadays too.
Movies have become to hot commodity to pirate here lately it seems, and pirating movies has gotten so out of hand, the lawsuits have been filed against some websites, especially thepiratebay.org. In the following YouTube video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qsm1gd8EuA, it talks about how Sweden filed a law-suit against Pirate Bay for breaking Sweden's copyright laws. What ended up happening is that on the second day the law suit was in place, Sweden dropped half of its charges on Pirate Bay because they made a technical error on how a bit torrent works. The lawsuit itself ended up being a rather big financial issue and fines were placed and other things happened, but as of today, Pirate Bay is still up and running, and you can get pirated music, movies, and other things from that website too.
So all in all, I feel that pirating is in fact a big issue although most seem to believe that it is not. Whenever someone makes an illegal copy of a movie, cd, etc they are stealing things that are not theirs from the original creator that made it. Yes, I am sure that people will still be pirating things long after I am gone and I am fully aware of this as well. When people pirate things, they are breaking copyright laws and literally taking away money from the person or people that made the original music, movie, etc. I strongly believe that people should not pirate things illegally from the internet which is way I feel that certain website, expecially music ones like LimeWire, should be taken down, but I am sure that the general consensus would disagree and believe that all pirated websites, not just LimeWire, should stay online because it's an easy way to get music. Pirating will always be a controversial issue to talk about because people feel that getting movies, music, etc from places like piratebay.org is fine, but really, everyone that goes to those type of places are breaking laws and do not seem to care.
Piracy is a becoming quite the controversial topic, but it is not a recent issue actually. According to what Potter says on pages 303 and 304 of our textbook, "Piracy has been a problem for the music industry for decades. As early as the 1950s, people used tape recorders to pirate music by recording it off the radio. People could also make a copy of a record or tape cassette using home-recording equipment, but to do so, they had to already have a copy of the recording and could make only one copy at a time." Wow, people in the 1950s copying and pirating music off the radio....and to think people are making burnt cds with music on it in today's modern society. People back then where making copies of music on blank cassette players, and that actually kept on happening for quite some time as I actually used to have a couple of cassette tapes with music on it that was copied from radio stations, but now, not just music is being copied illegally as movies are becoming quite to item to pirate nowadays too.
Movies have become to hot commodity to pirate here lately it seems, and pirating movies has gotten so out of hand, the lawsuits have been filed against some websites, especially thepiratebay.org. In the following YouTube video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qsm1gd8EuA, it talks about how Sweden filed a law-suit against Pirate Bay for breaking Sweden's copyright laws. What ended up happening is that on the second day the law suit was in place, Sweden dropped half of its charges on Pirate Bay because they made a technical error on how a bit torrent works. The lawsuit itself ended up being a rather big financial issue and fines were placed and other things happened, but as of today, Pirate Bay is still up and running, and you can get pirated music, movies, and other things from that website too.
So all in all, I feel that pirating is in fact a big issue although most seem to believe that it is not. Whenever someone makes an illegal copy of a movie, cd, etc they are stealing things that are not theirs from the original creator that made it. Yes, I am sure that people will still be pirating things long after I am gone and I am fully aware of this as well. When people pirate things, they are breaking copyright laws and literally taking away money from the person or people that made the original music, movie, etc. I strongly believe that people should not pirate things illegally from the internet which is way I feel that certain website, expecially music ones like LimeWire, should be taken down, but I am sure that the general consensus would disagree and believe that all pirated websites, not just LimeWire, should stay online because it's an easy way to get music. Pirating will always be a controversial issue to talk about because people feel that getting movies, music, etc from places like piratebay.org is fine, but really, everyone that goes to those type of places are breaking laws and do not seem to care.
Monday, December 13, 2010
We Are All Pirates, Because We All Own At Least One Burnt CD....OH NO!
Arrrgh Maity. Media piracy is threating both the Music and Movie Industry severely, however what must people do not recognize is that it actually benefits these industries as well. There are both negative and upsides to this issue both which will be addressed and how piracy will never end. It has been happening for ages, such as Napster, LimeWire, KaZa and IRC and has just lately become the forefront of news with sites such Pirate Bay being all over the news. Even though PirateBay was “shut down, they just switched server locations and are alive and well once again. Some companies realize people want free or cheap media and are starting to adapt to this theory by allowing new means of getting media.
Music artists do not suffer from music piracy, this is a fact, that has been told to me by many musicians I have interviewed in the past when asking them about how they feel about illegal downloading. Most musicians do not see any money from record sales, all of their income is derived from tours and merchandise they sell on tour. The suits, or label owners are the ones that take all the profits from record sales. Most bands never see a cent from an album they release on a major label unless the record goes platinum or they release it independently. This has spurred many bands such as Radio Head to create websites where they allow fans to name their own price for an album. It can be anywhere from free to 1 million dollars, they feel like the fan show know what the music is worth.
Another upside to piracy is that it is allowing many bands to become exposed to the masses, because someone has downloaded their CD illegally. This leads them to become a fan and in return go to concerts, buy merchandise and may even buy the album if they want the full feature with album art extra. Vinyl records are also becoming more popular because they cannot be pirated and come with amazing artwork and special edition colors of the albums, this is another way bands are trying to combat piracy.
When a record company tries to sue a grandma for downloading Lady GaGa songs for $100,00, and saying each song on a computer is worth $10,00 dollars, they are just infuriating consumers even more. If the RIAA is going to fine someone for a song they downloaded, charge them what iTunes charges, $1.29. The legal tactics are not scaring anyone, because most lawsuit cases have been thrown out of court.
Bandcamp.com, a newer website has started up, allowing bands to offer their albums at name your own price, or lower costs for a digital download and offer the album in every bitrate possible. You can get HI-FI audio or just plain old MP3 quality, this is offering fans to purchase music at a much more reasonable price than what larger retailers are selling music for. Comeandlive.com, is the newest site to evolve, where they allow you to download any artist on their roster for free and then if you enjoy the album, you can purchase different limited edition versions that come with rare sweatshirts, limited pressings of the record and other material that cannot be pirated. (Check this site out, they are a christian label that has an amazing roster, not all bands preach to you and all music is free. If you do purchase they donate their funds to charitable organizations. Give it a whirl, I've found some great artists here, especially Showbread)
It seems like the only people that are really worried about piracy are the larger major labels, who refuse to adapt to the techniques smaller labels are using. These smaller labels are making music more accessible and they are even starting to chart on the Billboard top 100, where as some major label release fail to even do that. Major labels need to realize that times are changing and they must adapt or else people will continue to steal their music, because they are offering their consumers nothing but an album, whereas these other sites offer rare goodies and other benefits if you purchase their albums.
Movie piracy is something that I think may begin to decline, now that Redbox has come about. It is nice to be able to rent a movie for a dollar instead of $4.99 at Family Video, and it is much more convenient. However, as society becomes more technologically savvy, people are going to find it easier to find free media online. The industry is going to have to adapt or else piracy is going to continue at a rate faster than the speed of light.
Music artists do not suffer from music piracy, this is a fact, that has been told to me by many musicians I have interviewed in the past when asking them about how they feel about illegal downloading. Most musicians do not see any money from record sales, all of their income is derived from tours and merchandise they sell on tour. The suits, or label owners are the ones that take all the profits from record sales. Most bands never see a cent from an album they release on a major label unless the record goes platinum or they release it independently. This has spurred many bands such as Radio Head to create websites where they allow fans to name their own price for an album. It can be anywhere from free to 1 million dollars, they feel like the fan show know what the music is worth.
Another upside to piracy is that it is allowing many bands to become exposed to the masses, because someone has downloaded their CD illegally. This leads them to become a fan and in return go to concerts, buy merchandise and may even buy the album if they want the full feature with album art extra. Vinyl records are also becoming more popular because they cannot be pirated and come with amazing artwork and special edition colors of the albums, this is another way bands are trying to combat piracy.
When a record company tries to sue a grandma for downloading Lady GaGa songs for $100,00, and saying each song on a computer is worth $10,00 dollars, they are just infuriating consumers even more. If the RIAA is going to fine someone for a song they downloaded, charge them what iTunes charges, $1.29. The legal tactics are not scaring anyone, because most lawsuit cases have been thrown out of court.
Bandcamp.com, a newer website has started up, allowing bands to offer their albums at name your own price, or lower costs for a digital download and offer the album in every bitrate possible. You can get HI-FI audio or just plain old MP3 quality, this is offering fans to purchase music at a much more reasonable price than what larger retailers are selling music for. Comeandlive.com, is the newest site to evolve, where they allow you to download any artist on their roster for free and then if you enjoy the album, you can purchase different limited edition versions that come with rare sweatshirts, limited pressings of the record and other material that cannot be pirated. (Check this site out, they are a christian label that has an amazing roster, not all bands preach to you and all music is free. If you do purchase they donate their funds to charitable organizations. Give it a whirl, I've found some great artists here, especially Showbread)
It seems like the only people that are really worried about piracy are the larger major labels, who refuse to adapt to the techniques smaller labels are using. These smaller labels are making music more accessible and they are even starting to chart on the Billboard top 100, where as some major label release fail to even do that. Major labels need to realize that times are changing and they must adapt or else people will continue to steal their music, because they are offering their consumers nothing but an album, whereas these other sites offer rare goodies and other benefits if you purchase their albums.
Movie piracy is something that I think may begin to decline, now that Redbox has come about. It is nice to be able to rent a movie for a dollar instead of $4.99 at Family Video, and it is much more convenient. However, as society becomes more technologically savvy, people are going to find it easier to find free media online. The industry is going to have to adapt or else piracy is going to continue at a rate faster than the speed of light.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Did Steve Jobs Steal Shawn Fannings Apple??
Shawn Fanning, a college student at Northeastern University in Boston, created Napster in 1999. (Potter 218) Over 70 million users had downloaded the program in less than a year and the program was the first of its kind. Allowing users to upload and distribute films, music and software, for free. This program soon became public enemy number one for the Recording Industry of America (RIAA), Motion Picture Association (MPA) and even the FBI. In 2001 Napster was shutdown, because of its blatant disregard for copyright infringement and basically allowing anyone the ability to become a thief all while sitting in their bedroom. The question however remains, without Napster, and its illegal fire sharing capabilities, would we have had a need for devices with MP3 capability and would iTunes and other online music services have ever surfaced?
Before Napster, only computer savvy nerds could access music through programs such as IRC or other text based software. However, with its easy user interface, Napster introduced the world to something new and exciting, it was the .MP3. Users could now find full albums or hit singles, hosted on their peers computers and download for free, and the term peer to peer or P2P sharing was born.
During this time millions of songs were downloaded and no one knew where to store them. A man by the name of Steve Job’s (APPLE) announced the iPod, meet one of the world’s most popular MP3 players. This device could take the songs you had downloaded and store them all, neatly on one little device. The question however, was how to obtain legal music for such devices. According to Apple, their iPod store did not launch until April 29, 2003. (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/aug/10itms.html) With Napster being shut down, the market was ripe for someone to take over and lead the pack with legal alternatives. The text points out that more illegal programs such as, Lime Wirte, KaZaA, Gnutella and BitTorrent (Potter 218) would take over Napster’s illegal presence, however if Napster had become legal, and offered a service like iTunes, in its prime and before it went bankrupt and had to offer legal alternatives once coming back, would iTunes still exist?
I would bank on no. Napster was the first of its kind, and Fanning was greedy. Steve Jobs saw a major opportunity, selling music online, for a device he created in response to Fanning’s Napster, and soon he became the king of the castle. If Fanning’s greed and possibly pride had not gotten in the way, Napster could and most likely would have been what iTunes is to the market today.
Before Napster, only computer savvy nerds could access music through programs such as IRC or other text based software. However, with its easy user interface, Napster introduced the world to something new and exciting, it was the .MP3. Users could now find full albums or hit singles, hosted on their peers computers and download for free, and the term peer to peer or P2P sharing was born.
During this time millions of songs were downloaded and no one knew where to store them. A man by the name of Steve Job’s (APPLE) announced the iPod, meet one of the world’s most popular MP3 players. This device could take the songs you had downloaded and store them all, neatly on one little device. The question however, was how to obtain legal music for such devices. According to Apple, their iPod store did not launch until April 29, 2003. (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/aug/10itms.html) With Napster being shut down, the market was ripe for someone to take over and lead the pack with legal alternatives. The text points out that more illegal programs such as, Lime Wirte, KaZaA, Gnutella and BitTorrent (Potter 218) would take over Napster’s illegal presence, however if Napster had become legal, and offered a service like iTunes, in its prime and before it went bankrupt and had to offer legal alternatives once coming back, would iTunes still exist?
I would bank on no. Napster was the first of its kind, and Fanning was greedy. Steve Jobs saw a major opportunity, selling music online, for a device he created in response to Fanning’s Napster, and soon he became the king of the castle. If Fanning’s greed and possibly pride had not gotten in the way, Napster could and most likely would have been what iTunes is to the market today.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Tweetback14
I felt like I managed to know the people in class a LOT more through Twitter . It is said that individuals are more open on the internet. Twitter allows us to share short snippets about ourselves and make fun of others. I feel like the anonymous nature of the internet really helped some of us share things about ourselves that we would otherwise not share. I also found out that I have a lot more in common with some people than what I thought I did, simply because we tweeted about similar issues.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Invasion of Your Privacy
In this week's reading, we discussed how people and companies are getting your personal information through the Internet. Six different ways come to mind: monitoring, selling information, spam, identity theft, hijacking and infecting, all of which are ways that our information that is put up about ourselves online can be taken away from us without anyone knowing it. In this blog, I want to discuss one of these six, which is selling information, and how this is potentially the worst way to have your information stolen from you.
According to what Potter says on page 287 of our textbook, "Many Internet companies mine data on all sorts of topics and sell this information to anyone willing to pay, such as advertisers, future employers, prospective romantic partners, identity thieves, and predators." Yes, you did read that correctly, the companies sell your information to anyone that is willing to pay the company to take it. Some of this information can be found freely online, and the textbook lists a few websites where you can go to access this, such as: (Google.123people.com), (PeekYou.com), and (Snitch.name) (p.287). As a side note, I actually checked out all three of these websites, and the first one did not seem to work but the other two did.
So let's put this into prospective and look at an example of this. Say that you are really into golf for some reason and you list this as one of your hobbies that you like to do on your MySpace and/or Facebook profile(s). Advertisers try to come up with ways to have people buy their latest and greatest golfing equipment, so what does MySpace and Facebook do, they let those advertisers have your information so that just about everytime you log in, you see ads about golf cubs, golf balls, etc. on your profile pages. Now, did you ask for this stuff to start appearing on your profiles? I would hope the answer to that question would be "no".
Of course though, some people think that when they sign up to websites such as Facebook, MySpace, etc, they think that everything they put on those websites is safe from harm and that they will be fully protected from their information being used in harmful ways, and those believe this are wrong. Although there are indeed user agreements that people are supposed to look at before making a profile online, do people really read those things? I would bet not because most people either do not have the time or do not seem to care, so they just click the little box that says they have read the user agreement, and away they go. PBS actually made a couple of videos that are up on youtbe, and in the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAnz1QxLvIk, it talks about some of the issues regarding Facebook and its private policies. In this video, it talks about how people have claimed that Facebook is sharing the information collected on its website and is sharing this information with advertisers. It also shows ways that the users of Facebook can change their profile settings to where only friends of the profile user can see their information, but if unchanged that person's profile and look at that person's information freely. The video also mentions that Facebook users are now in control of who can see what, but have to go through a lot of different things to make sure that they get the settings the way that they want them to be which can seemingkly become a hassle to most people.
So all in all, are the things that we post online really safe and will our information be used in ways in which we never intended it to be? I believe that there will always be ways for people to take the information that we post online without us knowing it. As for the second question, I believe that as long as advertisers will try and sell us things online that go with our interests and hobbies that we post online, companies will be giving those advertisers our information as long as they get the money from those advertisers. I personally am really big ito music and things of that nature, but do I really want to see ads on Facebook talking about the latest System of a Down cd or Yellowcard cd, not really honestly. So be sure to actually read those private policy stsatements that MySpace, Facebook, and other websites want you to read before you go posting up information about yourself that could wind up in the wrong hands. Yes, this means that you may have to take fifteen or so minutes of your times to read all of that, but think about it, it will be better in the long run to read it and understand it before clicking, yes I have read it and agree to it when you have no idea as to what you just agreed to. By actually reading it, you are more aware of what you are signing up for, so just keep that in mind before signing something completely blindfolded.
According to what Potter says on page 287 of our textbook, "Many Internet companies mine data on all sorts of topics and sell this information to anyone willing to pay, such as advertisers, future employers, prospective romantic partners, identity thieves, and predators." Yes, you did read that correctly, the companies sell your information to anyone that is willing to pay the company to take it. Some of this information can be found freely online, and the textbook lists a few websites where you can go to access this, such as: (Google.123people.com), (PeekYou.com), and (Snitch.name) (p.287). As a side note, I actually checked out all three of these websites, and the first one did not seem to work but the other two did.
So let's put this into prospective and look at an example of this. Say that you are really into golf for some reason and you list this as one of your hobbies that you like to do on your MySpace and/or Facebook profile(s). Advertisers try to come up with ways to have people buy their latest and greatest golfing equipment, so what does MySpace and Facebook do, they let those advertisers have your information so that just about everytime you log in, you see ads about golf cubs, golf balls, etc. on your profile pages. Now, did you ask for this stuff to start appearing on your profiles? I would hope the answer to that question would be "no".
Of course though, some people think that when they sign up to websites such as Facebook, MySpace, etc, they think that everything they put on those websites is safe from harm and that they will be fully protected from their information being used in harmful ways, and those believe this are wrong. Although there are indeed user agreements that people are supposed to look at before making a profile online, do people really read those things? I would bet not because most people either do not have the time or do not seem to care, so they just click the little box that says they have read the user agreement, and away they go. PBS actually made a couple of videos that are up on youtbe, and in the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAnz1QxLvIk, it talks about some of the issues regarding Facebook and its private policies. In this video, it talks about how people have claimed that Facebook is sharing the information collected on its website and is sharing this information with advertisers. It also shows ways that the users of Facebook can change their profile settings to where only friends of the profile user can see their information, but if unchanged that person's profile and look at that person's information freely. The video also mentions that Facebook users are now in control of who can see what, but have to go through a lot of different things to make sure that they get the settings the way that they want them to be which can seemingkly become a hassle to most people.
So all in all, are the things that we post online really safe and will our information be used in ways in which we never intended it to be? I believe that there will always be ways for people to take the information that we post online without us knowing it. As for the second question, I believe that as long as advertisers will try and sell us things online that go with our interests and hobbies that we post online, companies will be giving those advertisers our information as long as they get the money from those advertisers. I personally am really big ito music and things of that nature, but do I really want to see ads on Facebook talking about the latest System of a Down cd or Yellowcard cd, not really honestly. So be sure to actually read those private policy stsatements that MySpace, Facebook, and other websites want you to read before you go posting up information about yourself that could wind up in the wrong hands. Yes, this means that you may have to take fifteen or so minutes of your times to read all of that, but think about it, it will be better in the long run to read it and understand it before clicking, yes I have read it and agree to it when you have no idea as to what you just agreed to. By actually reading it, you are more aware of what you are signing up for, so just keep that in mind before signing something completely blindfolded.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Why Alternate Reality Games Aren't For Everyone
The idea of alternate reality gaming is somewhat of a new frontier in the world of media. The alternate reality game is a relatively ambiguous concept that involves taking elements from a fictional world or fictional set of circumstances and implanting them into the real world for users to interact with as if they were a part of their reality. These alternate reality games can be implemented in a variety of ways, usually taking advantage of the the ubiquitous technology we've all become so entrenched in. Also, they can be implemented for a variety of purposes such as advertising (The Art of the Heist), storytelling (The Lost Experience), and even social action (Evoke).
Alternate reality games provide a unique, pervasive form of "play" that is becoming increasingly popular, and amassing small groups of hardcore fans and followers. But, a few of the factors that make these games so intriguing to some, make them nearly or completely inaccessible to others. Alternate reality games are definitely not for everyone.
First, for someone to get involved in such a game, one must have a committed and deep interest in the content. Second, even if that interest is present, one must have a certain knowledge base to attain or understand most of the content from the game. Because of this, the number of actual participants in these games is quite small compared to the number of passive observers, or people who are completely oblivious to the game.
To examine these limitations more closely, let's look at The Lost Experience. In a nutshell, the Lost Experience was an alternate reality game that provided an unfolding narrative parallel to the narrative of the ABC television program Lost. Most of the content from this ARG was web-based, however there was also a tie-in novel that was published, and at least one live event that was considered part of the game.
However, for a user to even become aware of this game, he/she must have enough of an interest in Lost and enough media literacy to discover the allusions made to the ARG.
In addition to this, once one became aware of the game or "fell down the rabbit hole," an entirely different and unique set of skills were required to actually play it. According to the Lostpedia wiki-entry on the game, to find all of the clues and fully comprehend all the information from the game, users must have some knowledge of web-browsing and source code, Adobe Photoshop, cryptology, mathematical coding, classical mythology, foreign languages, and more!
Undoubtedly, the game was designed to be a cryptic and difficult "scavenger hunt" and to require a great amount of collaboration among users. However, this isolates the vast majority of the Lost audience and leaves The Lost Experience to only the most hardcore of fans. And in the case of this particular ARG this was more than likely the intended outcome by the creators of the game.
There is definitely an exclusivity factor underlying all of these alternate reality games. Sometimes it can enhance the game, as in the case of the mysterious narratives of The Lost Experience. But this same exclusivity factor could easily be detrimental in the case of ARG's that are designed solely for the purpose of promotion and advertising. While alternate reality games are very interesting and becoming more prevalent, they aren't reaching mass audiences in the same way other forms of media are.
-Dustin
Friday, December 3, 2010
Synergy in Resident Evil Games
Continuing with the idea of synergy in Resident Evil, let’s look at the games themselves. First, let’s remember that Synergy is defined by Wikipedia as “two or more agents working together to produce a result not obtainable by any of the agents independently.” As we look at the Resident Evil games themselves, it will become clear that synergy is one element that is lacking in the franchise.
Within the games there was not a great deal of corroboration for synergy with one another, not to mention a lack of synergy within each individual game. In this list of canon inconsistencies on the Resident Evil Wikipedia, there are discrepancies even within the games themselves. For example, in the first game there are two playable storylines based on which character was chosen. The stories themselves do not contribute to one another very well so both stories contain inconsistencies which remove major events and even characters which makes both scenarios partly non-canon. Capcom actually remade the first game into part of a first-person shooter for the Wii console that follows a set path with determined events that the company recognizes as canon. This of course means that the company does not recognize the first game’s storyline as canon.
The third game also has problems with synergy with game play that has the player make decisions that affect the story significantly. Since these decisions do not add up to one complete story, there are once again instances where major events and characters’ fates are altered significantly which renders it non-canon. Again, Capcom remade the third game into part of the same first-person shooter game as the first one and also follows a set path with determined events which Capcom recognizes as canon. Just like with the first game, the events of the third game are rendered officially non-canon because of Capcom’s remake. The funny thing about these remakes being considered canon by Capcom is that fans of the series do not consider them canon because they point out that some important events in the original games were not incorporated into the remakes and also that some of the scenarios are made to be retellings of events that had happened by characters that were not there to witness them.
Then there are spin-offs like Resident Evil Gaiden which was made in a partnership between Capcom and a European company. Some of its plot points have been ignored or even contradicted by later games that were considered canon. Since the contradicting games are recognized as canon, the game is considered non-canon by both fans and Capcom.
Because there are so many inconsistencies within the games, it is not hard to believe that there is no synergy with other media platforms such as the movies or books. As I have said before, Resident Evil is a wonderful franchise with an engaging story; but with all of the inconsistencies and altering storylines that make the overall story hard to follow, it separates and alienates fans, something a franchise should never do.
Synergy in Resident Evil Media
I wish to discuss convergence within transmedia storytelling using synergy. According to Henry Jenkins, synergy is important to a given story through different media platforms to convey a complete story; or better defined by Wikipedia as “two or more agents working together to produce a result not obtainable by any of the agents independently.” On page 107 of his chapter Searching for the Origami Unicorn, Jenkins says “While the technological infrastructure is ready, the economic prospects sweet, and the audience primed, the media industries haven’t done a very good job of collaborating to produce compelling transmedia experiences.” This is very true to my favorite franchise: Resident Evil. Although it is a great franchise, the different media platforms simply do not add up to a complete story.
For a quick overview, Resident Evil is a story about a virus that was created by the Umbrella Corporation that created horrible monsters and ravenous zombies. Main characters were made to survive in situations where enemy numbers were high, ammunition was low, and the characters had to uncover the truth about the evil Umbrella Corporation. Although most of the video games and all of the movies have been touted as huge successes, there have been many examples of how the different media platforms did not contribute to the overall storyline with much of the franchise becoming non-canon.
The movies make no attempt to follow the storyline set in place by the original games; instead, they create their own storyline which is completely independent and use characters differently, such as Chris being a member of the military instead of being Raccoon City STARS team captain, or create entirely new characters as is the case with the main protagonist Alice. Same for some of the enemies like Nemesis, who was created for the second movie by experimenting on a survivor named Matt from the first movie, despite the game making no mention of this scenario. The books are also regarded as highly non-canon. They were created by an independent author who did not collaborate with the game creators; because of this lack of collaboration, the books tend to alter the storyline with events that are never mentioned in the main story of the games and make connections between characters that resemble more fan fiction than actual franchise storytelling.
Although Resident Evil is one of my all time favorite stories, I would have to admit it is a poor transmedia convergence. I do believe it is still a great story and if there would have been better corroboration between the Media platforms to create a more complete story like in The Matrix; Resident Evil could have been an even better franchise with a lot stronger following.
Fans, Vandals, or Both?
This week, we are discussing Wikipedia which is a user generated online encyclopedia that can be used as a reliable research tool on par with Encyclopedia Britanica. The reason Wikipedia can be used to research reliably despite many criticisms is because users are willing to post accurate information and defend articles from vandals. As Clay Shirky (pgs.136-137) said “Evidence that enough people care about an article, and that they have both the will and the tools to defend it, has proven enough to demoralize most vandals.” But what if those who care for an article are also the vandals? This is just the case for Daniel Tosh, a television host whose show portrays online videos while he comments on them with humorous jabs and jokes.
As seen in this link to the Tosh.0 blog (Warning: video clip and hyperlinks to wiki page edits contain vulgar language, view at your own risk), Daniel Tosh told his audience to go online and edit his Wikipedia page much like Stephen Colbert instructed his audience to edit various Wikipedia pages. Unfortunately for Tosh, his followers are not quite as devout as Colbert’s followers. Instead of positively contributing to his Wikipedia article, his fans thought it would be more fun to vandalize his article by inserting a wide array of jabs, bashes, flames, and their own brand of humor. The end result? Wikipedia was forced to lock the article down and fix what had been done.
Although this might be an isolated case, what if this became a reoccurring trend on Wikipedia? Although Tosh’s article was vandalized, it was done by his fans which shows that those who care about a subject will not necessarily have its best interests at heart when editing its Wikipedia article. In short, what this all means is that although Wikipedia is generally a reliable source of information, viewers must be very careful of the information they see and still further research their subjects.
Youtube Video Compensation?
Youtube is an interesting platform as it promotes free media. As Jean Burgess and Joshua Green said “Youtube is not in the video business-its business, rather, is the provision of a convenient and usable form for online video sharing (pg. 4).” The key component of this statement would be that of “sharing” as in no monetary exchange. But should people who post have some right to monetary compensation if they draw in a massive viewing audience? In any other media, the answer would be yes, but does the fact that it on the internet via Youtube make a difference?
In this clip from South Park, the boys are poised to have been the creators of the “What? What?” Youtube video sensation and try to collect monetary compensation for their following. They then are made to sit in a waiting room with an array of other Youtube video sensations who also want to collect money for their videos. The funny part is that they all refer to all the “theoretical” dollars that their videos are worth. The video itself is funny because the actual clips of these videos have been spliced into the scene. But it does raise the question, are these videos worth money?
All of these videos have brought in a vast amount of online views who have all been subjected to the ads that Youtube posts with each video and on each page, shouldn’t the original poster get a small percentage? If it where any other media, the answer as I said would be yes, but I think that things are different with Youtube videos due to several facts. First, they posted on a site that they know and have agreed to as a share site. Second, Youtube videos can be easily copied and edited into a different media which would cause a large copyright issue in the event of monetary compensation. Not to mention that the material that becomes a sensation may itself be tied to another established franchise such as the case with the Tron guy using the Tron franchise property. In short, I do not think that we will be seeing monetary compensation for Youtube videos anytime soon.
Do Our Social Networking Sites Own Us?
According to James Potter, “Social networking web sites are designed to give all kinds of people the means to connect with others for all sorts of reasons (pg. 214).” Some use it to chat with friends, post pictures or comments, even share ideas and videos. But do the social networks own everything we post?
In a video posted by MoneyTalksNews entitled Social Networking Sites Own You, they have found just that. By reading the user agreements of social networking sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, They have found that almost all of the sites have some sort of ownership clause in their user agreement. LinkedIn had the worst by far, claiming any and all things posted on their site belonged to them despite whether or not an account has been deleted. Twitter on the other hand, took no ownership of anything posted on their site. While on the surface this may seem like a potential user may just have to be more selective of which site they use, in actuality things are worse than that. What makes things worse is the fact that any social networking site has the ability to change its user agreements anytime they want which means that they can take ownership at any time.
Let’s think about this, people post all kinds of things on their respective social networking sites. We post pictures, conversations, videos, songs, everything important to us. Most of us also do not read the user agreements before we sign up, which means that we are practically giving away everything about ourselves that we post to the site we post it on. This makes me think; maybe these “free” sites are not as free as we are led to believe. I mean, at what price do we value ourselves?
Branding
The topic of this blog is that of branding. The company brand has nothing to do with the product that is being sold, but the image or message a company wishes to convey about itself.
Naomi Klein says in regard to companies and branding is that “What these companies produced primarily were not things, they said, but images of their brands. Their real work lay not in manufacturing but marketing (pg. 4).” Many would confuse this in thinking that branding is little more than advertising, but this is not the case. On page five of Klein’s No Logo, she says “Advertising any given product is only one part of branding’s grand plan, as are sponsorship and logo licensing.” This clearly conveys that advertising is only a part of the branding picture and that there are many other factors that contribute to the overall company brand.
The people at Thunder Tech would agree with Klein. In their segment of Good Morning Marketers: Your Logo Is Not Your Brand, they talk about the various things that do contribute to a brand. They believe that just about everything a company does will contribute to the brand image. From naming of the company and products, to the services offered, affiliations, staff interactions with customers, even how the company interacts with the community; all of this conveys to the consumer a message about the company itself.
To analyze the idea of branding as the overall message or image, I will use The Home Depot as an example because of my personal dealings with the company both as a customer and employee. The advertisements present the idea of the do-it-yourselfer with the mantra “You can do it, we can help” which empowers the consumer with a sense of self reliance and ability. Next, the products themselves are of very high quality and most have a warranty; this, coupled with a very easy going return policy in the store, gives the consumer the peace of mind that if something is wrong with a product or it is the wrong product, The Home Depot will fix it. Then there are community-build programs which employees volunteer to help build playgrounds for the community using materials that are all donated by the company. These are just a few examples which all contribute to a helpful, trustworthy, and community-friendly image about The Home Depot.
Violence in the Media
In chapter 11 of James Potter’s Media Literacy he discusses the content of the media. In pages 177-179, he focuses on violence in the media. He says that not only has violence in the media increased over the years, its frequency is portrayed in the media more often than it actually occurs in life. In an example he gives about the television show COPS, he says that “FBI figures for murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault were 13.2% of all crimes, but in the television world, these four violent crimes accounted for 87.0% of all crimes. (pg. 179)” It sounds like Potter is saying that violence is portrayed more to the audience to gain ratings. It makes sense, what average viewer wants to watch a police officer making mundane rounds and ticketing average speeders without any dramatic actions or conversations; sounds pretty boring.
According to Dr. George Gerbner in ChallengingMedia’s The Killing Screens: Media & the Culture of Violence it is not the audience that wants to see all the violent acts; there are three simple reasons why violence has become so prevalent. First, since the main characters in the programs are usually men in the prime of health, the easiest story to write that suits them is one of conflict and violence. Second, violence is one of the easiest things to market in a global economy because it is understood without translation. Finally, because human beings can adapt to a given stimulus very quickly, they also become bored with a certain level of violence quickly and must be given a higher dose to remain entertained.
Thinking about what Potter said about violence in parallel with what Gerbner said about violence, it appears that the audience is not responsible for the amount of violence they watch. No, the corporations are trying to package something that will appeal to the broadest group of people they can reach and repeatedly advertising that given media until the audience believes that they really want violence to the point of needing it. It makes sense to me; there are a lot of high grossing programs that do not have very much violent content if any at all that do better than violent based programs. The question doesn’t seem to be how much violence should be in the media anymore, but rather, how much violence are you willing to watch?
Public Opinion in the News
In chapter ten of James Potter’s Media literacy, he discusses how the news is not a reflection of events but is instead a construction that the news broadcasters create. He says that the news is constructed through a variety of constraints and bias’ including time and resource limitation, ownership, use of sources, branding, and even a set story formula.
One of the news-framing constraints that Potter specifically advises to be cautious of is the use of public opinion. He says that we have the technology to record accurate public opinion, but only if it there to record. On page 158 he says that “the problem is that often people don’t have an opinion about something, or they are not sure what their opinion is-they are ambivalent.” He then illustrates this point by asking the reader to conduct an informal poll. He assures that most of those polled will have an opinion, but few if any of those will not have sound reasoning for having that opinion.
The views of Potter on public opinion resonate in the youtube video by ChallengingMedia featuring Justin Lewis. Lewis says that public opinion is often guided by the media. One of the ways he says that the opinion of the public can be swayed in is the actual coverage time that is spent on an issue. He illustrates this in two ways.
First, he shows that when environmental threats were highly covered by the media, public opinion on those issues went up. But even when the problems were getting worse, public opinion went down as coverage went down. Next, he spoke about presidential candidates during an election. He showed that even though the candidates were basically the same on all major issues, they were portrayed as being completely different due to their stances on civil liberty issues.
Both of these examples show that not only is Potter right on the issue of poll takers often being undecided and quickly forming opinions during a public opinion poll, but that the news media actually counts on it and does not hesitate to feed on it. This is why public opinion must be very cautiously viewed, because those whose opinions were taken may not have really had an opinion at all, or maybe they just saw something about the issue just a few minutes early in the media and hastily formed an opinion on what they saw covered. The point is that unless the opinions being recorded are well founded with clear reasoning, experiences, or information, the views of those polled may only be of those that are running the news.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Tweetback13
Twitter was also useful for venting my frustration about things that were happening. Sometimes it is difficult to tell people what makes you angry because it appears they don’t care. In the world of Twitter, you say it just to have it out there, and people talk about it just because it is out there. It is amazing how many people actually listen to you when you use a micro-blogging tool like Twitter to express your feelings.
Tweetback12
As far as other uses that Twitter has served for me than just updating my status, it has served as a communication tool with others that are in some of my other classes. Ben, Jo, and Dustin are in some of my other classes this semester and I have used Twitter as a tool to communicate with them so that I can ask them what is due in what particular class and what were are going to be doing in that class as well. I have used twitter to make sure that I am not confused as to what I will be doing in not only this class but in the other classes that I am also in, and in turn, I have helped Ben, Jo and Dustin with assignments over Twitter by tweeting them to make sure they are not confused in turn. I think that Twitter can be used for purposes that I have used it for throughout this semester but Twitter should be a thing that I feel every student should have so that they can freely communicate with others and I feel that every class, whether it is an online class or an actual class that meets every day or so, should have a class twitter account so that students in that particular class are not confused about assignments that are due and students would be able to communicate with each other as well as the teacher of that class to make sure that they are on track and not way off course.
Tweetback11
Before this class started back in August, I honestly was not a really big fan of Twitter and I thought that it was a useless website. I actually gave a speech in one of my classes a couple of semester ago about how Twitter needed to go off the web as I perceived to it to an absolutely useless website . During this class, however, my thoughts on Twitter changed dramatically as I am now constantly checking Twitter before and after every class to see what others our doing as well as checking to make sure that I am following assignments correctly for this class.
Tweetback10
All in all, I sincerely do believe that I was wrong in thinking that Twitter was a useless plaything for bored people. Now that I have become acquainted with it, I’m now not sure if I can go without it. Honestly, I think it may be beneficial if more classes incorporated Twitter to keep classmates and their teacher connected and increase participation in the class. In short, it was fun, it was useful, and I really enjoyed it!
Tweetback9
As far as interaction goes, Twitter is very useful. I was able to communicate with my classmates usually within an hour if not a few minutes which made it really easy to find out what was going on with classmates and also if I had a question with what was due for class. I also started following some of my favorite show hosts, musicians, and game developers in the beginning of the course just so I wouldn’t be bored, but I found that I was never bored with what was going on for class and those additions became a bonus! I also felt free to write what I wanted because I didn’t feel that there was ever an issue with privacy. The only problem I ever had was that I sometimes grew impatient with waiting for someone to respond to me and this resulted in me constantly trolling Twitter in the hope that someone would write something!
Tweetback8
I must admit that when I heard that we were going to use Twitter in this course, I was less than enthusiastic. I had always felt that it was a tool used to post random events in a person’s life that no one else cared about. In the beginning, I did what I thought was necessary to pass for participation. As the semester went on, I started using it more often; especially when I missed the tweet that dealt with class being cancelled for the day. It was at that point that I saw that Twitter could be used to actually relay important information and not just a toy for people to do when they were bored.
Tweetback7
Overall, the class experience and my own experience with Twitter has been nothing but great. When Twitter went down, I found myself hoping it would come back in case I missed something. I believe that I will definitely continue to use Twitter after this class ends, to stay in touch with both my instructor who will always be known as @masteryoda, or just to chat with Super Scuba Steve. Twitter made these jokes possible, fun and shows the entertainment side. “@masteryoda, Twitter paper due on Wednesday,” is just one of the hundreds of examples of the educational uses that our class used Twitter for. Twitter was a brilliant idea and the sky is the limit as to what other users may use this social site for next.
Tweetback6
Twitter seems like it has endless possibilities in the future. Being able to just post jokes like we did at times, update each other with assignments and also discuss readings were uses that even novice users figured out . Advanced users could use this tool to update followers during elections, update about terror alerts, post breaking news, or even use the tool to sell new goods by posting links to products. The possibilities seem endless when you have the interest of many followers. If the government could get their hands on Twitter, and become a mandatory follower of everyone in the United States, these terror alerts, election news and other alerts the government sees fits could be right of our fingertips.
Tweetback5
Our class quickly all caught the Twitter fever and started posting jokes but more importantly anytime someone had forgotten what assignment was due, missed a class or just had a question about material or wanted to chat they began taking to Twitter to post their question. Usually, a fellow classmate or even the instructor gave a response within minutes of posting. Sometimes it took a little longer, but it seemed that everyone was connected to Twitter and responding as quickly as possible, so that they could be of assistance to their classmate. I quickly found myself saying, “I’ll Tweet you about it,” to fellow classmates when I needed to look something up and get back with them.
Tweetback4
As a character on a popular sitcom said just weeks ago, “When a kid does something great, I tweet them about it right that second and for those few moments, that kid knows that I get him and understand him.” A few days ago, a game was played amongst the great women and men that I follow in which, you Direct Messaged a number to someone and they then in turn said something awesome about you. We were able, in one short afternoon to make everyone understand that the world is a great place and that all it takes is niceness, fairness, and love. And as the great Robert Langdon says at the end of The Lost Symbol, “I never did understand how to send a twit.” Tweet, Robert, it’s called a tweet and you are known as tweetheart or tweetiepie.
Tweetback3
Twitter has taught me that it is only the self important people that feel the need to tell everyone that they are making a midnight Slushie run to the 7-11 down the street or that they cannot believe that their mother asked them to help fold a load of laundry. Over the past three months, I have seen my twitter friends rally to support Cancer Research , Premature Birth Research, Plagiarism, and help convince a mutual friend to end an abusive relationship. I have been able to watch the trending topics and see that people are really active in a lot of different things and that they can find people that share those interests. Instead of being a place to “toot your own horn,” when used correctly, Twitter is a place that people can find others with common interests and goals. It can be used for good and help in world changing. People are genuinely concerned about others and are looking for different ways to show it.
Tweetback2
I now believe Twitter to be a valuable and versatile tool—and I know I am a little late on that one. It is effective for dispersing and receiving information from wherever you can get cell phone or Internet service. While this was very helpful for our M210 class, it’s also a good form of entertainment. Not only do I follow my friends and find out what they are up to, I also follow a wide variety of comedians, musicians, authors, as well as other public figures and organizations that I am interested in . I can get my news, entertainment, and find out what is going on in my own circle of friends and acquaintances all in the same place. When used to it’s full potential, Twitter enhances communication probably better than any other emerging social media today.
Tweetback1
I think most of Twitter’s incredible success can be attributed to how streamlined it is. With messages being limited to 140 characters, there is no information overload going on. There are already a multitude of web pages and blogs chock full of information that we can access if need be, so Twitter doesn’t even try to do this, nor does it need to. If more information is needed, it has been made incredibly easy to create short URL’s to link into messages.
Tweets are easy to produce and access on the go, as these short messages are easy to type out or read on a phone. This is a sort of mobile convenience that popular social networks like Facebook are now trying to implement, but because they are more complex, they aren’t as effective as Twitter. I’ve found that if I want the quickest and most to the point information, I now visit Twitter before any other social media sites. So, the simplicity and character limitations of the site that some may view as a hindrance, are actually enhancing the user experience.
Tweets are easy to produce and access on the go, as these short messages are easy to type out or read on a phone. This is a sort of mobile convenience that popular social networks like Facebook are now trying to implement, but because they are more complex, they aren’t as effective as Twitter. I’ve found that if I want the quickest and most to the point information, I now visit Twitter before any other social media sites. So, the simplicity and character limitations of the site that some may view as a hindrance, are actually enhancing the user experience.
The Double Function of YouTube
In YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture, Jean Burgess and Joshua Green highlight two distinct functions of the popular video hosting site. On one hand, YouTube serves as a video repository, archiving and redistributing video from existing popular culture. And on the other, it has become a forum for user created video, allowing anyone with a camera and an internet connection to upload and share whatever they desire--hence YouTube's mantra, "Broadcast Yourself."
Burgess and Green, seem to believe that these two functions work independently from one another, and dilute any singular definition of what YouTube really is. However, I believe that there are many instances in which YouTube has been used to perform both functions simultaneously. To explain, let's examine the YouTube phenomenon of Numa Numa.
This video became an internet sensation, and has now had millions upon millions of views. It was a user uploaded video of said user lip-syncing to a song called, "Dragostea Din Tei" by the Moldovan pop band O-Zone, although most Americans know the song as simply the "Numa Numa Song."
The video became a sensation, not because of the song, but because of the way the song was used in the user's video. However, in turn, O-Zone also gained popularity because of the viral success of the video. Many American's are now familiar with their song, that would have otherwise never reached them. The song has garnered so much popularity that it was even sampled in the popular hip-hop song "Live Your Life" by T.I. and Rihanna.
And so, the sensation surrounding the "Numa Numa Song" exemplifies not only the two distinct functions of YouTube, but also how these two functions can work together. It is cyclical in a way--first, the song was created by professionals, and then further popularized by user generated content, which was, in turn, capitalized on by professional media creators.
While there is some distinction between the two major functions of YouTube explained by Burgess and Green, the line between the two isn't always clearly defined. And the "Numa Numa Song" is not the only example of this. So, let's not forget about the Tron Guy this winter when we are going to see Tron: Legacy in theaters.
- Dustin
Burgess and Green, seem to believe that these two functions work independently from one another, and dilute any singular definition of what YouTube really is. However, I believe that there are many instances in which YouTube has been used to perform both functions simultaneously. To explain, let's examine the YouTube phenomenon of Numa Numa.
This video became an internet sensation, and has now had millions upon millions of views. It was a user uploaded video of said user lip-syncing to a song called, "Dragostea Din Tei" by the Moldovan pop band O-Zone, although most Americans know the song as simply the "Numa Numa Song."
The video became a sensation, not because of the song, but because of the way the song was used in the user's video. However, in turn, O-Zone also gained popularity because of the viral success of the video. Many American's are now familiar with their song, that would have otherwise never reached them. The song has garnered so much popularity that it was even sampled in the popular hip-hop song "Live Your Life" by T.I. and Rihanna.
And so, the sensation surrounding the "Numa Numa Song" exemplifies not only the two distinct functions of YouTube, but also how these two functions can work together. It is cyclical in a way--first, the song was created by professionals, and then further popularized by user generated content, which was, in turn, capitalized on by professional media creators.
While there is some distinction between the two major functions of YouTube explained by Burgess and Green, the line between the two isn't always clearly defined. And the "Numa Numa Song" is not the only example of this. So, let's not forget about the Tron Guy this winter when we are going to see Tron: Legacy in theaters.
- Dustin
The Hypocrisy in The Anticorporate Attitude
"It is an attempt to capture an anticorporate attitude I see emerging among many young activists. This book is hinged on a simple hypothesis: that as more people discover the brand-name secrets of the global logo web, their outrage will fuel the next big political movement, a vast wave of opposition squarely targeting transnational corporations, particularly those with very high name brand recognition," Naomi Klein states regarding her book No Logo.
Klein writes extensively on culture jamming, which is a process by which people interrupt the "one-way information flow" of corporate advertising and oppose the general messages and/or ideologies of said corporations. She separates culture jamming into three basic forms--Graffiti, Adbusting, and Media Collectives--all of which target and criticize established and recognizable brands and their advertising.
The problem with culture jamming movement and the anticorporate attitude it creates is that the entire process can easily become hypocritical and self-defeating. In attempting to deter consumers from one lifestyle, they are in turn promoting and advertising their own agenda and lifestyle. Of course, not all culture jamming is guilty of this, but there are more than a few parties guilty of making such superficial criticisms that they themselves could also be criticized for.
To exemplify this, let's examine Adbusters Media Foundation and the "Black Spot" sneakers that they are currently selling. Adbusters is an anti-consumerist organization that is also a major proponent of "Buy Nothing Day." The sneakers that they are selling resemble the classic Converse Chuck Taylor design, and are called "Black Spot" sneakers because of the black spot that is present where a logo would normally be present. This black spot is supposed to represent a lack of branding.
However, I think one could easily argue that this black spot, or declared lack of brand, can be interpreted as a brand in itself--and an expensive one at that. These shoes retail at $65 a pair, whereas Chuck Taylors retail at least $15 to $20 cheaper. And not only that, but Adbusters ran a $500,000 dollar campaign promoting these shoes on television on CNN, and also in the New York Times. So, how is this anti-corporate organization selling a product and promoting a brand any differently than the corporate organizations they oppose?
-Dustin
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)