Creating Change: Majority vs. Minority

Pirating has become accepted, and necessary in our technological word, as Matt Mason confirms in chapter two of his book The Pirates Dilemma. Throughout this chapter the main themes Mason conveys is that pirating is a good thing. He takes us through the history of pirating, explaining how it has been going on for centuries and evolved greatly in 1906. This is the time when DJ Fezzy broadcasted the first radio show with music and the voice of a human being. He was the inventor of the AM radio that we are all familiar with today. Radio was a breakthrough in piracy, and it sparked the interest of many. Others followed in DJ Fezzy’s footsteps and even resorted to broadcasting from international waters; in order to avoid the laws of copyright and theft. As it has, and continues to evolve it is affecting a great number of participants and viewers in every aspect of pirating. Pirates are not thieves they are just people who want to expand the population’s knowledge of existing material, express their opinions of it, provoke thought, and promote creativity.  Mason states that the common knowledge of pirating is society thinking about a man selling poor quality DVD’s of a movie only released in theaters. This is in part true but pirates are being given a false reputation due to their invasion of media platforms and scolding from corporations that created the original content.

We need to take advantage of the fact that these entrepreneurs are working on solo projects to project material to the population that may not have otherwise been acknowledged.

Society often looks down upon pirating acts because they are gaining more popularity with less political structure. Businesses are losing clientele because pirates are giving them material with easy access. The power has shifted from the “elites” or business corporations to us, the citizens with the help of Web 2.0. By making everything simply, and immediately available there is lack of necessity for these major media outlets. This forces them to inaugurate new policies and attempt to establish or reinforce copyright laws.

Democracy has a strong influence over our society, and today pirates and their audience is becoming the majority, while the law and law makers are becoming the minority. In order for any entrepreneur to be successful there must people who desire their commodity.  Commodities such as DVD’s, music, and blogs that express simplification of a subject, and other pirated materials are desired by the population, enabling the progression of pirates. A good example of pirated DVD’s causing issues for the film industry is the collapse of Blockbuster. With so much online opportunity for customers to find a more convenient, and close source for movies, Blockbuster had little choice; they were not meeting client demands.

Mason says that when pirates do something worth-while, or exceptional it creates a discussion that often leads to changing the law based around the newest idea of pirating. Based on this “discussion” spared by pirates Blockbuster created Blockbuster@Home to compensate for their physical loss and gain an invisible online purpose. There are two ways in which pirates avoid consequences pertaining to privacy – either change the law, or ignore it. Favourable of the two outcomes is ignoring it. This is seen in the illegal downloading of music, movies, and other copyright material.

As well pirated DVDs are not going to disappear anytime soon because the law says so. This is an income for the pirates and their discretion has become impeccable. It leaves me pondering: what’s next? Pirates changed the way in which we view movies by pulling people into the realm of Web 2.0, and I think this is just the beginning. Theaters are not closed due to pirates, and in this sense concerts are still taking place regardless of the fact that they can be streamed live to your computer without leaving your room. Piracy is changing the entertainment industry entirely.

I leave you with this thought: John Berger, the author of Ways of Seeing stated, with respect to art that art comes to us, we no longer need to go to it. He was referring to the media and the internet. This is what is happening with every other entertainment outlet as well. If pirates continue to do what they are inevitably going to, large corporations/companies should prepare for the next wave that washes over Web 2.0. (Berger 123)

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: Paris, 2008. Print.

Artists and Amateurs

Matt Mason’s book The Pirates Dilemma confronts the current scrutiny of copyright and pirating through remixes in the music industry. The Pirates Dilemma discusses how artists or even companies react to people (everyday citizens sometimes) taking something from them without authorization. In chapter three the main theme is remixing. Remixing has become an entire new aspect of the music industry.

Although we are used to remixing and recreating this does not mean we have lost the spark of originality, in fact, I believe remixing is an innovative way to make something different.

As Mason says “humans have always created new things by repurposing old ones” (Mason, 71) and music is an ideal example of repurposing. Songs that have been remixed clearly made an impact the first time, in order to even be considered for recreation. In this sense one song can be given multiple personalities, and appeal to a larger audience by appearing in different genre settings.

Mason refers to the Grey Album in his book, which is clearly a piracy act violation, however it is an example of a mashup. By taking the White Album (The Beatles) and The Black Album (Jay-Z) Danger Mouse was able to create an intensely diverse mixture of two completely separate artists. By giving the two albums a new voice he was able to prolong the lifespan of them both, and reconnect original fans in a different style. Today DJs are using mashups, remixing, and recreations of old songs to appeal to a new audience. 

Remix DJs are exceptionally talented, and they bring a new diversity to old beats. Hip-hop is today’s most influential music genre that speaks to the young population.  This can easily be used as a tactic to influence and promote revenue in clubs. By taking DJs such as Mikey Bo, who has talent for recreating songs such as Rascal Flat – What Hurts the Most, and Bon Jovi – Dead or Alive and giving them a new perspective. Mason suggests that “rather than taking big gambles on new, unproven ideas hit concepts are repackaged, repositioned, and sold again” (Mason, 84). Sounding as though this is a negative aspect of the remix, I disagree with Mason, by recreating something you can give it the original artist more publicity and create interpellation to a new audience.

Citizen Media is an advancement that should be terrifying to music producers, as this implies that anyone with access to a mix board, or technology such as traktor (which allows you mix songs within other songs and create different effects and sounds) can create their own mashups and remixes, and put them on the internet. Due to the explosion of Web 2.0 the internet has become a place of amateur DJs, and interested teenagers to express themselves. This does pose a conflict with music industry and artists by bringing in a third (uninvited) party who has just as much access to the material.   

The major issue that stands in the way of this remix culture we are creating through the web (youtube, podcasts, blogs ect.) is the copyright laws that currently stand. By changing these laws (which would be an extensive process) we would be able to collaborate successful artists with unprofessional DJs who can manipulate a mix board extensively and bring new innovation to the way each song is heard. There is a Fair Use Agreement which means that items usually under copyright protection can be granted a leeway in such circumstances as commentary, teaching reasons, or research. There should be a law furthering this agreement in the hopes that artists and amateurs can come to an understanding of remix culture. It is a part of society already, and although there are some loop holes, I believe it could bring a new dimension into musical appreciation.

Crowdsurfing into the age of Crowdsourcing

Trebor Scholz wrote an online article entitled Market Ideology and the Myths of Web 2.0,depicting the myths surrounding Web 2.0, but more so the future of the internet altogether. Within the article he touches on social networking, and states that “people like to be where other people are”. He uses this phrase to support the social networking sites such as facebook, and credits their success to the massive audience and dedicated users. Comparing it to previous networks such as myspce, and even before Facebook when there were sites, like Blackplanet.com for example, created for (in this case African-Americans) particular groups. Although Facebook and Twitter have been so explosive people are neglecting to remember that the internet has been used as a social networking site since 1973; when the invention of the first email, APRNET was introduced. As soon as social networking was exposed there came into being, a free labour execution partaken in by the clientele of the internet, and businesses. By going online and perusing the web you are acting as a host, and your actions directly correlate with marketing schemes. This has made it immensely easy for companies to draw in business without even selling a product, but rather selling a platform. The term crowdsourcing was introduced as a term meaning a job is offered, over the internet, to a large group of people who get paid little, to nothing for their labour. Flowing beyond the internet tasks are now being performed by customers themselves rather than the employees. Examples from this article are self-check-out counters, printing your own tickets in advance, or simply just disposing of trash when leaving a fast food restaurant.

Our society has glided towards a “self-help” alternative route, where we feel independent and assertive by performing our own tasks.

Technology has pushed us in this direction subtly but consistently. We can now use our credit, and debit cards to pump our own gas, and online banking allows us to remain responsible to our bills even in our pajamas. Crowdsourcing is a revolutionary and democratic design which allows the audience to conduct the show. This may be a metaphoric translation but it can also refer to the audience of shows such as American Idol, or Dancing with the stars. In both cases the audience decides who continues on in the competition and who is voted off. This is a marketing scheme to ensure that majority roles apply, and therefore more viewers will stay tuned in to, and support their favourite contestant.

Another example is that, regular citizens with hobbies like photography can be used instead of a real photographer that would be expensive to hire. Even using images that previously been taken can be obtained (with condolence from the photographer) and used again. In newspapers and magazines there are sections which share strictly readers’ comments, humours stories, or opinions. They are not getting paid to write in to these medias, but the media itself is filling pages without having to hire writers. It works because people like to hear others opinions, and be able to relate to them from the same perspective is desirable.

Technology is advancing and in doing so jobs are being cut. There is no longer a need for multiple cashiers at franchises such as Wal Mart, or gas stations because the customers can easily help themselves. Photography has always been a popular hobby among people, and candid shots have evolved with the new digital cameras containing many settings and features to look professional; not to mention the accessible editing programs like photoshop. In this case family members are even being asked to take wedding photos, or talented family friends to take portraits for little or no money at all.

Crowdsourcing is great for franchises and social media, but for independent entrepreneur’s this may mean a new career.  

Google Is Not An Academic Data Base

Vaidyhyanathan suggests, in his book The Googlization of Everything (And Why We Should Worry) that knowledge is confrontation of the “new and different”. He believes that Google filters each individual’s searches, and therefor they cannot gain insightful knowledge, but simply confirm what they already know, preventing them from “higher education”.

The Googlization of students, Vaidyhyanathan argues is that students especially, those in post-secondary education, are using Google as a primary source for information.  The arguments in The Googlization of Everything fear that Google is shaping the minds and expectations of students when it comes to any search engine. This is troublesome for academic searches, because if students are confused at the lack of immense simplicity they will ultimately retreat to Google.

Research is a vital part of education, and learning how to properly conduct research, through academic sources, is critical for students independency. Google is a tool that should be used for basic searches, to rely on this tool for depth into academic inquiries is unrealistic. The fact is that there are certain features which Google, neither has, nor should attempt to conceive.  To think of Google as shopping plaza or mall is similar to think of academic searches as a library; these are separate locations, and convey separate messages. The library is place for knowledge, to grasp meaning and plunge the depth of something new and mindfully intriguing, where the mall or plaza is an activity partaken in to rest the mind, to pursue less significant actions such as shopping, eating and chatting.

It is important that we keep in mind that academic institutions are accessible and driven to cater to the students as their dominant research tool. At the University of Guelph-Humber for example, they take the library and online data bases extremely serious and ensure the students are able to grasp a full understanding of every aspect related to these outlets. Librarians are assigned to each program, and present their knowledge to each class with the hopes of establishing a proper relationship between the students and their research assignments.

Because books are not the dominant resource for today’s students, the online data bases are designed to be accessible and informative. Students are able to access these research tools from anywhere on campus. With this being said, books should not be overlooked as they have been, and still are an incredibly reliable source. The reason students are overlooking these books and scanning the Google search results is laziness; it is difficult for our minds to immerse into a book, for a long period. Our attention span is dwindling because of the amount of other activity surrounding us; it is difficult to focus completely on one subject for any amount of time. This is not to say reading is dying, it is to say we are less disciplinary when it comes to books, newspapers, and magazines.

Even Google books are attempting to maintain literature in people’s lives, although it is online, perhaps Google will attract the readers that already use it as a search tool. I can agree with most of Vaidyhyanathan’s skeptical outlooks on the Googlization of everything, I agree that Google is a tool for secondary cognitive inquiries such as song lyrics, directions, or restaurant reviews, but not for primary academic research. Libraries and data bases have a purpose that cannot be overthrown by Googles intent to constantly absorb people’s minds.  

Google: the One Stop Shop for…EVERYTHING

Google is. Google just is, it is everything we want. We want shoes – Google, we want housing – Google, we want weather, news, directions – Google. It has become a part of our lives, it may just be a search engine to us, but in reality it is the search engine, and it is a massive company as well.

Google is consistently rated the highest used search engine (ebizma.com and seoconsultant.com) and it’s no surprise, it’s the easiest source to ask simple, to unthinkable/embarrassing questions. Yet, in this society this innovation is feared, and thought of as a threat, really? Well here is how I view this search engine in respect to the reason why people are fearful:

·         It caters to us we, use Google to find things that interest us on the web.

·         Google then uses web searches to find the exact article/picture/site that  we want

·         Google takes the information about ourselves (I call this our online profile) and stores it, using it as a reference to specify our proceeding searches eventually following a pattern created personally for us.

Isn’t this exactly what we enjoy about the internet? The fact that it is a tool catered to us, for our needs, our desires – retrieving this information lightning fast. Our society moves and grows at a quick pace, and this is just what Google has been formed to assist.

Some of the reasons why people are not impressed by Google is due to the feeling of their privacy being invaded. They also feel like it is threatening their extension of knowledge. By continually searching the same terms, pages, and areas they are missing out on the depth of information available. We cannot take full advantage of this tool (and that is exactly what Goolge is) without first being able to master it. In Siva Vaidhyanathan’s book The Googlization of Everything (and why we should worry) the author states that “Google is thus dangerous as the airplane and the automobile have proved dangerous in ways their pioneers did not anticipate in the 1920s. These technologies of mobility and discovery are dangerous not just because they physically endanger their users but because we use them recklessly, use them too much, and design daily life around them”. (19, Vaidhyanathan) After reading 100 pages of this book, I don’t think I have come across a more meaningful, perfect quotation to describe what Google is doing to our society.

We use this tool so recklessly with respect to careless inquiries, and idiotic/pointless searches for pure amusement. Google is a tool that should be used to enhance an understanding, to gain something meaningful, or insightful; instead because we rely on Google so heavily we have allowed it to slowly creep its way through every inch of the internet. There are no boundaries for Google, no corner of the World Wide Web left untouched by Googles caressing fingers.

The fact is that Google was created for searches but has since expanded to, email, RSS, blogger, youtube, calander, shopping, directions etc. and now it is being used as a social networking organization? Facebook is the place for social networking in my mind, of course there is also twitter but now a social network entitled “Google plus” is about to break new ground… well if you are as confused as I was watch this video and then try to imagine the future of our Google (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC_M6PzXS9g)

 Airplanes are still around, and so is the automobile, both come with their downfalls: pollution, cost, not everyone can use/operate them, there is limitations (age, speed etc.) but they have up as well: convenience, safety, connectivity, and style. They are always changing and being enhanced, and perfected, this is exactly how I see Google, with ups and downs, but ultimately here to stay and attempt to create a lasting impression on our world.  

Making New Media Make Sense

*I’m going to backtrack now, from my last entry, to the first chapter of the book Making Connections in the Digital Age*

Whether we like it or not, there is always going to be a new source of connectivity. From the wheel, to the telephone, to the internet; as a species we are always evolving, and therefore our surroundings must evolve with us. Our society has turned into a balancing act between culture and media.  

I don’t believe one (culture nor media) can really change without affecting the other. This can relate to a theory in Nancy Bayms book Making Connections in the Digital Age that is called “technological determinism”. Broken down, technological determinism is: technology driving the development of our society, and our cultural values.       

The internet has changed culture so much already, one huge example I can think of is dating. There are online dating sites all over the place, and why not take advantage of these tools. No more wasting time getting to know each other, instead you just view a profile and see if you have anything in common, or if this person would just be a waste of time. I guess this is an upside to the internet, but on the same spectra what about false profiling? There are all kinds of pedophiles and people who lie on these sites, and doesn’t this just defeat the purpose? It’s putting many legitimate people at risk, and not only for a heart break but for safety as well. One of Nancy Bayms readers was quoted in her book Personal Connections in the Digital Age say this: “I am deeply in love with a man who is handsome, smart, and loving. We are engaged and happy together. The problem? We met on the Internet. Abby, he thinks I’m 26, but I’m not. Everything I’ve said has been a lie. I’m really 12.” (34, Baym) This is just the reality of how our culture has progressed and been shaped by media. Although dating has always been a part of life, never before has been this veiled. It allows the mind to wander and contemplate the future of relationships.

…The future of anything for that matter, I remember watching a video entitled Did You Know? 3.0 – Shift Happens (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygMPyP7qIkU) I was completely blown away by the statistics thrown at me in under five minutes. What stood out though was the fact that because of the ever changing media, and the attempts to continually adjust and adapt; the information being taught to students in media programs in the first year, will be outdated by their third year. I am part of that statistic and it’s a bit intimidating, but I realize that it makes sense and that this program - this field,  thingswill always be changing and that’s the beauty of it - it's inevitable to expand our knowledge.

New media is evolving today, and we should not be scared or shocked because it has been this way since humans began roaming the earth. Their caves have turned into our penthouse suits, their oral entertainment has turned into our televisions oripods, and so on. If we fail to accept this process, we challenge society and insult the brilliant minds that have brought us to the 21^st century with such amazing contributions to our world. There will be downfalls, as there always is in life but all we can hope is that the up rise is that much greater.

Is Media Effecting Careers?

In the conclusion of Nancy K. Baym’s book “Personal Connections in The Digital Age” she suggests a thought that crosses everyone’s mind when introduced to new technology: “what they do to us, and whether it is good or bad”.(109, Baym) Of course this question is necessary. We are always searching for things that will improve our generation, and I wonder if this desire is pushing our acceleration into overdrive. Nancy also touches on a similar comment I made in my last blog about us being socially incompetent in reality, therefore making us socially powerful online. She foreshadows the concerns we have now, for lack of face to face conversations, and impersonal relationships with even our families. I fear that these concerns are so obvious today that we are about to struggle in many aspects of our lives, especially in our careers.
This class is part of the Media Studies program at Guelph-Humber, and although social networking has been a vastly expanding tool for our future jobs, I believe it is also damaging our field. Part of the course is journalism; this entails social skills, the ability to act comfortably around people, and perform interviews. Public relations suffer similarly in respect to event planning, and public speaking. If we cannot maintain the skills of personal communication (talking, striking up conversations, asking questioning etc.) where can we expect to gain the insight needed for news coverage? I don’t think journalism in drowning, in fact I think it’s thriving, language, and conversation will never die regardless of the medium. The issue I can see is that print media is declining. The internet has no doubt taken control of the majority of news coverage, it is fast and easily changed which coincides well with the fast paced, ever changing world we live in. When something newsworthy happens we are no longer hearing about days later, but with digital media it is instantaneous.
Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase "the medium is the message" under a century ago. His quote still holds true today, I think what he meant was the medium is more significant then the content it provides. If we compare that view to the internet then that means people have expectations of this medium: to have endless amounts of information and to have it all immediately.




Seven Ky Concepts


Baym also strikes a discussion worthy topic about seven aspects of affordances which digital media offer. Which is the most important of the seven key concepts (interactivity, temporal structure, social cues, storage, replicability, reach, or mobility) in shaping our communication in a positive, negative, or mutual way?
Interactivity is an interesting topic, it is the way in which all aspects of media work, and how they have multiple abilities. When the telephone was introduced for example it was one machine, created for one purpose. No wonder we are hesitant at the thought of a “cell” phone that will allow us to not only make the calls as a usual telephone but to also text, check Facebook, get directions, etc. The challenge with interactivity is that it may not be influencing us a positive direction. There are multiple usages for multiple technologies, but we are taking for granted the connectivity, something such as the internet, is providing us with and instead using it for (as Baym suggests) shopping for shoes. This is where the topic gets tough, are we advancing in technology for the greater knowledge? Or are we rather advancing for the greater leisure experience?