#n8547327

[kcb206group15]

Do not copy this post without my permission or I will sue you!

We live in a world where almost everything constitutes as copyright. Most moneymaking ideas have already been thought of and belong to someone else, but the copyright laws and regulations remain far short of satisfactory in this time of technological advancement and piracy worldwide. So how did such a temperament come to occur, and what can we do to solve its intrinsic issues? We will delve into this, and more, in our quest for answers.

I would like to start by telling you a story. It’s about a woman whose thirteen year old month baby danced in front of her and ended up in her twenty nine second home video, which she put on YouTube. However because the barely audible 'Let’s go crazy' song by Prince was being played in the background, the Universal Music Group were able to sue her under the copyright infringement act for up to one hundred and fifty thousand U.S. dollars (Lessig 2008). This ridiculous scenario draws attention towards just how outdated copyright infringement laws currently are. Flew (2014, 193) corroborates this by stating that “the changing digital media environment requires a reassessment of the underlying principles of copyright law”.

This highlights a serious flaw in all online content related industries, which is that it is more convenient for consumers to steal than it is to make legitimate purchases. This happens left right and centre to a lot of people very often. The vast majority’s use of social media is intrinsic to copyright infringement, as exemplified through viral parodies of music videos including Seth Rogen and James Franco’s spoof of Kanye West’s bound 2 video clip. We live in a piracy geared society (Flew 2014, 191). The risks associated in piracy do not seem to concern many consumers of content, as it has ingrained itself as a common practice. In response to this, companies along the likes of Netflix have emerged. Netflix’s nature of business is so cheap and so convenient that the company is able to strongly compel content consumers to make legitimate purchases rather than pirating (Sahagian 2013). Netflix is competed with by similar companies in this respect including Amazon, and is paralleled in other industries, as highlighted by Spotify’s central role in the commercial market of music. This reflects hope for the future, but also indicates that vast change needs to occur to reach such a future.

In his captivating video, Ferguson (2012) depicts how the evolution of ideas and society are conflicting, as new ideas evolve from ideas that already exist, as evidenced by the replications surrounding Ray Charles’ music discussed in the video. However by placing ownership and copyright on ideas, society is blocking this process. The main discourse throughout the video is that the economically driven process of ‘owning ideas’ inhibits creative evolution, as morphed versions of old ideas, adapted to new contexts in new ways, is how the evolution of ideas has occurred for thousands of years. And I couldn’t agree more. There is a need for change in the blockages of idea evolution, and the outdated and ineffective copyright infringement laws (Ferguson 2012).

Reference List

Ferguson, Kirby. 2012. “Everything is a Remix Part 4.” Vimeo video, posted 2012. Accessed May 2, 2014. http://vimeo.com/36881035

Flew, Terry. 2014. New Media. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Accessed May 2, 2014. https://qutvirtual3.qut.edu.au/qv/cmd_common_p.show_item?p_item_id=212874

Lessig, Lawrence. 2008. “In Defense of Piracy.” The Wall Street Journal, October 11. Accessed May 2, 2014. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122367645363324303

Sahagian, Jacqueline. 2013. “Did Watching Netflix Just Get Cheaper?” Accessed May 3, 2014. http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/did-watching-netflix-just-get-cheaper.html/?a=viewall

[kcb206group15]

In the old days monarchies would endeavour to prevent people from thinking too much. Is data allowing the same venture to be achieved today?

I’m writing this entry in a very concerned state of mind. And it call comes down to one thing: data. There is so much data out there which is playing such an increasingly influential and powerful role in society and our lives that it is just petrifying!!! In this entry we will explore the positive and negative effects of data, and analyse which one outweighs the other, through an exposition of how data affects us supported by valid statistics.

The ever-accumulating amount of data has become so hugely intrinsic to our daily activities in Western society that it now just seems second nature to us. Andrew Chung (as cited in The Economist 2012) explains that “whenever you click on a website, every time you make a purchase, every time that a light switch goes on and off, that’s generating a piece of data.” Why am I so scared by data though? Well let’s look at some figures produced by another video from The Economist (2012):

In 2011 an estimated total of 1.8 zettabytes (i.e. 1.8 followed by twenty zeros) was created and replicated over the year.

Roughly 300 million photos are uploaded daily to Facebook among the 65% of adult internet users on social media, whose information is accessible by 1.803,330,457 people under Facebook’s default privacy settings.

30 million security cameras exist in the united states, capturing each citizen 200 times per day on average in a surveillance system which is advancing to fund drones to fly around with super cameras capable of monitoring people from the sky.

So my horror in the face of data is clearly not ungrounded. The prospect of data destroying humanity is not so ridiculous after all.

The question is: what are the implications of these advancements in data? One primary use for data is the ability to base predictions off what is recorded in an ever increasingly accurate manner. Siegel (2013, 5-9) delves into some of the positive aspects of data collection, by showing how businesses are able to profit from it by targeting their marketing more effectively through accurate predictions. This is achieved through recording one’s online activity and noting where one gravitates towards online, as well as using advanced technology to gain insight into one’s psychological state and traits, which for banks and insurance companies provides insight into one’s sustainability. This phenomenon is clearly wonderful for businesses, and is sometimes good for people too, e.g. through the abilities to intercept mental illnesses such as schizophrenia much earlier than previously possible.  These positive aspects are corroborated by Harrington (2013, 26) who highlights how Twitter was able to assist in the rescue of the 2011 Queensland flood victims.

However one word jumps out at me from Siegel’s findings; predictions. These very technologies are double-edged swords, as they are sometimes extremely invasive. For instance, Siegel (2013, 5-9) draws attention towards the possibilities for data to predict quite accurately exactly when we are going to die, how it is going to happen, who is going to rob a bank, which convict is likely to re-offend, and essentially create a timeline of events for our life long before any of them happen. I can see how this may be viewed as beneficial in some ways, but surely it is as evident to you as it is to me just how much this is taking out the surprise, spontaneity and hence the beauty out of life. It seems that data is geared towards spurring maximum productivity among us, and minimizing the human element among people in our increasingly sterile society. To be honest it makes me depressed, and I’ll probably one day make a film about it to get my opinion out there, but I don’t know how much good it will do, as this seems like an inevitable process of doom.

  Reference List

The Economist. 2012. “The dark side of big data.” YouTube video, posted June 26. Accessed May 9, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raJOkguPrH4

The Economist. 2012. “What is big data?” YouTube video, posted June 26. Accessed May 9, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahZGEusG13A

Harrington, Stephen. 2013. “Ch 18 Tweeting about the Telly: Live TV, Audiences, and Social Media.” In Twitter and Society edited by Katrin Weller, Axel Bruns, Jean Burgess, Merja Mahrt & Cornelius Puschmann, 237-248. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Siegel, Eric. 2013. “Introduction – The Prediction Effect.” In Predictive Analytics, 1-16. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

[kcb206group15]

What if we slid down a slippery slide but it turned out to be a modern day dinosaur’s tongue and we became friends with him because he’s a sensitive soul.

Ha! Gotcha! I bet you’re not used to reading content that has pretty much nothing in common with what you normally read. That’s because Social Media is designed that way. It’s all a part of a master plan. They’re messing with your mind, man. In this blog entry we will explore how social media acts as an invasion of privacy, the positive and negative outcomes of these breaches, and how this relates to our evolving manners of living in a technologically centered society. 

My Mumma once taught me to be choose my words wisely, because once they’re out there, they’re out there for good. ‘How is that relevant?’ I hear you asking yourselves; because social media operates in an identical fashion. Anything and everything posted on the internet belongs forever to the deep abyss that is cyberspace, and social media provides a handy dandy platform for users to do just that – post details of their identity, as well as their thoughts, opinions, passions and daily updates including but not limited to culinary insight. Sauter (2014) sums up the fundamental process behind all of this, which is the currently blurring distinction between private and public lives. This is corroborated by Papacharissi and Gibson (2011, 78) who, as well as flaunting bad ass surnames, state that “Sociality has always required some (voluntary) abandonment of privacy. In order to become social, we must give up some of our private time and space so as to share it with others.” However the proportions are moulding, and the implications are HUGE!

Imagine if someone stole your identity and started up a business selling stuffed animals out of a garage in your name. Not only would that be creepy and very worrying, but it would also raise the question ‘out of all the opportunities that thief had with my identity, why did they choose to go down that path’. I digress. The very real risks associated with social media privacy issues are discussed by the academics with the funky surnames, Papacharissi and Gibson (2011, 82), who argue that “the persistence, replicability, scalability, and searchability of personal data deposited as individuals forge social connections present privacy challenges.” And they’re damn right! James (2013)exemplifies these challenges in contemporary society by pointing out the flaws in the privacy statement of Viber. It is certainly worth considering that users are able to manipulate privacy settings to suit their needs and wants, but within platforms that are constantly adapting such settings, very few people manage to keep up. I mean, we’re only human! The shame is that those who don’t keep up can face colossal social media disasters comparable to this.

So, in summation, am I the only one who thinks that the name ‘Paracharissi’ sounds like the name of an Italian Game of Thrones wannabe? Please comment your responses in the box below! Seriously though, with the blurring line between public and private lives, the constantly changing privacy settings within society’s social media addictions, and the intertwined human evolution, it is very clear that social media is full of risks and is just plain cray cray. It’s not all doom and gloom though, in fact it’s often juxtaposed with some very pretty rainbows, but the risks are undoubtedly existent, and are probably more likely to occur than the event of your fridge falling on top of you - a phobia to which I’m sure we can all relate.

Reference list

James, Hayden. 2013. “I refuse to sign up for Viber, here’s why.” Accessed April 5, 2014. http://haydenjames.io/i-refuse-to-sign-up-for-viber-heres-why/ 

Papacharissi, Zizi and Paige L. Gibson. 2011. “15 minutes of Privacy: Privacy, Sociality, and Publicity on Social Network Sites.” In Privacy Online: Perspectives on Privacy and Self-Disclosure in the Social Web, edited bySabine Trepte and Leonard Reinecke, 75-89. Heidelberg and New York: Springer.

Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “KCB206 – Internet, Self and Beyond: Week 2 lecture notes.” Accessed April 4, 2014. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-5267638-dt-content-rid-2202335_1/xid-2202335_1

[kcb206group15]

Drowning in a chaotic sea of madness

When you look at the foundations of social media, what do you see? I can’t speak for you, but I personally see the evolution of human interaction through a variety of platforms, which allow the very elements that form one’s identity to be exhibited. And this doesn’t refer only to the sunshine and the rainbows within us all, it includes the negative facets too. This blog entry will explore how humanity exists within mediums of social media, and will demonstrate the coherent link to its intrinsic systems of hierarchies, as discussed by Sauter in her Internet, Self, and Beyond week five lecture (2014).

An in look at any platform highlights to us that hierarchy, class, and power struggles form an underlying part of the system, as they do in any system. Gripsrud (as cited by Shefrin 2007, 276) corroborates this argument by stating that “those agents with the most economic and political power are strengthening their positions in the artistic field and are continuing to impose those norms and sanctions that best serve the preservation of the dominant power hierarchy.” However it is not all doom and gloom. Dominance of power and hierarchy have existed in societies worldwide throughout all of human history. Shefrin (2007, 263) highlights these more positive aspects by arguing that “Exemplifying a receptive flow from the fields of power and class relations, media entertainment is splintered by social distinc- tions—from target audiences to niche markets—and hierarchized by economic potentials—from calculations of fan base spending power to predictions of world- wide market sales.”

This clearly displays the effects of power and hierarchy in contemporary artistic fields, which is further explored in the world of music through Eric Whitacre’s virtual choir projects. Whitacre’s influential role within the music industry proved to be highly beneficial to the projects, as it spurred the virtual choir’s appearances on news items worldwide, their premiere at TED, as well as a presentation at the Coronation concerts at the Buckingham palace (Kickstarter 2013). Without Whitacre’s initiative to unite these 5905 talented singers from 101 different countries, the project simply would not have happened, which illustrates the importance of leadership in social media, which goes hand in hand with hierarchy.

This brings me to my next point, which is the essential nature of power dominance and hierarchy in social media. Social media doesn’t only allow everyone to talk at the same time, it encourages them to do so. To explain how chaotic this is, I would like to compare social media against a different context; an old fashioned town hall meeting. These meetings were governed by politicians and nominated members of society, and were able to function because few people talked and many peopled just listened. But imagine if everyone was speaking at once. There would be too much noise. It would be like drowning in a chaotic sea of madness.

Burgess and Green (2009, 16) further the argument that social media has evoked larger scale problems than before by arguing that “an under-regulatedsite of lawless, unethical and pathological behavior centered around youth as a risk category”. However these issues existed long before the birth of YouTube. Measures were taken to deal with these parts of society before, which can and should be applied in social media contexts.

In summation, power dominance and hierarchies do exist in social media, however the benefits of their existence outweigh the negatives. A regard of how issues which have existed throughout the entirety of history, including bullying and lawlessness, now exist on a larger scale in social media shows that these platforms are not the cause of their creation, simply the reason behind their existence in a new paradigm.

  Reference List:

Burgess, Jean and Joshua Green. 2009. Youtube : digital media and society series. Cambridge: Polity Press. Accessed March 28, 2014. https://qutvirtual3.qut.edu.au/qv/cmd_common_p.show_item?p_item_id=162250

Kickstarter. 2013. “Virtual choir 4: Bliss by Eric Whitacre.” Accessed August 12, 2013. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2085483835/virtual-choir-4-bliss?ref=live

Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “KCB206 – Internet, Self and Beyond: Week 5 lecture notes.” Accessed March 28, 2014. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-5284591-dt-content-rid-2294437_1/xid-2294437_1 

Shefrin, Elana. 2004. “Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Participatory Fandom: Mapping New Congruencies Between the Internet and Media Entertainment Culture.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 21 (3): 261-281

[kcb206group15]

#Alasdair Gardiner

In the both liberating and restricting current boom of social media, platforms such as Facebook allow users to manipulate the roles they assume and the content they are exposed to within the medium. This blog entry will explore the amount of power vested in users of Facebook, and will analyze the ways in which this power is utilized.

Sauter (2014) presents both positive and negative facets of social media, by highlighting each user’s opportunity to narrow down the scope of content entering into their news feed, and being spread by them, as well as exploring the reality of content overflows in this highly used medium, as illustrated in this photo. Green and Jenkins (2011, 109) elaborate on this issue by stating that social media are “enabling the mute to speak and the invisible to be seen.” Which evokes the question; how does one avoid being drowned in a sea of undesired content and still use social media? The answer is simple – empower users to decide on the width of the floodgates, and they will customize their needs to suit themselves as individuals. Green and Jenkins (2011, 113-114) emphasise the importance of this tactic by explaining that the decision to share content is only made if it exudes worth in terms of entertainment, interest value and/or relevance. 

This aspect of social media certainly applies to my personal use of Facebook. As appealing as cat and baby videos may be to other people, they don’t compel my use of social media. Rather, I would prefer to be informed of current movements happening in society, or interesting art projects, and have henceforth tweaked my settings to serve these preferences. The Queensland Government (2014)outlines that Facebook is geared this way in order to convenience all users, including those commercially orientated. However sometimes lines are blurred in the attempted creation of ideal scenarios for both businesses and personal users, such as breaches of privacy. This was made apparent to my brother in his preparation to propose to his fiancée, as his correspondence and noted interest surrounding rings and getaway proposal locations resulted in the constant appearance of related advertisements inside and out of the Facebook platform - convenient, but concerning nonetheless.

The relationship between personal and commercial users is identified by Green and Jenkins (2011, 114), who indicate that “people are duped into passing a hidden agenda while circulating compelling content.” This was exemplified in the past week by a video of twenty strangers kissing that went viral. I personally liked the video, and understand why it spread through social media so quickly. Girls were able to watch it and find it cute/heartwarming, and guys were able to enjoy it and share it while seeming like hopeless romantics rather than perverted weirdos; thus appealing to a large demographic. As it turns out, the video was made for advertising purposes, and was a clear success, as demonstrated by Lessig (2008, 224) who says that in a successful venture “you create value by giving people what they want”, which the advertisement achieved.

There are clearly a lot of users on Facebook, many making a lot of noise, and many business oriented, but depending on how one’s settings are organized and whether one’s online activity corresponds with one’s preferred strands of content, one will view interesting and engaging content.

Reference List:

Green, Joshua and Henry Jenkins. 2011. “Spreadable Media. How Audiences Create Value and Meaning in a Networked Economy.” In The Handbook of Media Audiences edited by Virginia Nightingale, 109-127. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Lessig, Lawrence. 2008. “Chapter 7: Hybrid Economies” In Remix: Making Art and Culture Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, 177-224. New York, NY: Penguin.

Queensland Government. 2014. “Benefits of Facebook for business.” Accessed March 13, 2014. http://www.business.qld.gov.au/business/running/marketing/online-marketing/using-facebook-to-market-your-business/benefits-of-facebook-for-business

Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “KCB206 – Internet, Self and Beyond: Week 3 lecture notes.” Accessed March 9, 2014. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-5273479-dt-content-rid-2228834_1/xid-2228834_1