English 207: Cyberculture

2004-03-08T14:23:00.000-08:00

Presentations:

So far I found that most of the presentations have been really interesting. I found the site about file sharing and MP3's to be really interesting. I think that it was a neat site because you can really relate to the information that the site has to offer and it really hit home with me. I do use MP3's on a regular basis and I definitely still file share. It's just interesting how much it seems like the government is trying to crack down on this but I haven't seen any changes yet. Another interesting site was the copywriting and motion picture site. I found it really interesting how easy it is to obtain a movie that in many cases is still in the theatre or not yet out on video. It just seems like with the internet boom, it became so much easier to obtain illegal copies of movies and usually for free. I think that the motion pictures make such an extreme amount of money that even with the piracy that has seemed to increase with the internet, they are still making a ton of money. I don't necessarily think that it is right, but I think that they are spending too much time and money prosecuting people for this crime.

2004-03-01T14:42:00.000-08:00

"Smart Mobs" and Mobile Computing

After being in lecture on Thursday, it really hit me how much cell phones have changed our culture. Today almost everyone that I know owns a cell phone and uses it on a very regular basis. A lot of times I may call a person on their cell phone when they may be home and could easily be using their land line. Also a lot of people have stopped even using land lines and resort only to cell phones. This technology seemed to hit the world at such a fast pace that I don't really remember when it came to be such a world wide phenomena. The thing that really puzzles me is how we did anything before cell phones. How did we meet up with people or find each other at certain places? What happened when we got lost or our cars broke down in the middle of nowhere? How did we tell people we might be a little late and to not wait around? And most importantly how did we have the money to call our friends and families around the country and chat for hours and not get huge phone bill in the mail the following month? It just seems like with the emergence of the cell phone it not only changed the way we communicated with people but it changed our culture. The cell phone culture has lead us to focus less on time, less on how long we spend on our phones and more time on communicating with the outside world. We have made cell phones an extension of who we are. It is no longer a tool for convenience, but an extension of ourselves and our abilities.

2004-02-25T14:11:00.000-08:00

Computer Games:

I found the lecture on computer games to be one of the most interesting discussions that we have had in class so far. I think that computer games are really easy for people to relate to because everyone has either played computer games or knows friends and family who play computer games. I think that computer games and especially internet games are really allowing people to experience an entire new form of gaming where people are extending their realm of what is real and what is virtual. Today people can get online and find other real players whom they can compete or form alliances with. These combined players then compete in what seems like real battles where emotions are high and the feel of the game is all but fake. However I have to ask myself what do these online games with high violence and killing doing for the people involved in it? People say that there can be a line drawn between what is real and what is virtual and that people will always be able to know the difference. But can people who feel the same emotions in the real world and the virtual world maybe forget where the line is crossed? Could physical violence spring due to the fact that it is so easy to kill and be killed in the virtual world of gaming? I don't think that there is anyway to tell at this point if violence is or will increase due to online gaming, but I think sometime in the future we may better understand whether there really is an ability to draw the line between the physical and the virtual world.

Another interesting point that was raised in class was the idea that this online gaming community that has been rapidly increasing may in fact be forming a type of sub-culture. I think that this idea is very legitimate. First and foremost computer games extend beyond the computer itself. I hear people talking all the time about different games that they play and how far they are or how much they have accomplished in a certain game. I see groups of kids playing together at one computer all talking about the game and feeling like they are connected because they both understand exactly what is going on. Also in many cases people can spark long and drawn out conversations due to the fact that they both play a certain online game. Other sub-cultures form in the exact way. Take for instance a band that someone really likes. If they find someone else who really enjoys the same band they feel a certain bond with that person. They can spark up conversation with them and just the fact that they have the same common interest leads to a connection. I think that computer games give people that same sense of connection and forms bonds between people because of the common interest.

2004-02-23T14:11:00.000-08:00

Hypertext and Digital Aesthetics:

This lecture seemed very confusing to me. First of all it was really hard to relate to this topic, because I have never seen a online book that has used mostly hypertexts to illustrate things. However if we ever reach the point where most books are made in that manner I think we will loose a large part of our imagination. Books are what let us form places and people in our heads. They allow us to make a imaginary world in which anything is possible and where we are the only ones who know what this place is like. If we read books with hypertext everyone would see the same pictures and everyone would have the same image of who the characters were and what the places looked like.

However I do think that there are positive attribute to hypertexts. I think that they allow people to discover more information and to really find out more info about topics that are of interest to them. Before hypertext and even the internet people usually could only read just one piece of information about a topic of interest, and it was usually hard to find more information on topic without having to search in other areas or having to go to different libraries to find things. This was a huge time constraint and people often gave up after only finding a limited amount of info. The internet has allowed us to find some much information in such a short amount of time and with just a click of the mouse. Hypertexts have even shortened the amount of time it takes to find information and gives people a huge amount of information to choose from. I think that the internet has allowed us to become much more intelligent humans and lets us learn about our lives at such a fast pace.

2004-02-14T20:47:00.000-08:00

Intellectual Property and Copyright

If our property can be infinitely reproduced and instantaneously distributed all over the planet without cost, without our knowledge, without its even leaving our possession, how can we protect it? How are we going to get paid for the work we do with our minds? And, if we can't get paid, what will assure the continued creation and distribution of such work?

Serious writers, whose books have ever taken longer to sell, were especially affected. They denounced unauthorized editions -- and were denounced back by the people who printed them. Writers, the pro-copying forces argued, had long considered themselves vehicles for inspiration from Heaven. How could they lay claim to what had come from God? "Piracy" helped keep the price of books down, benefitting the public and facilitating the spread of ideas. Was it moral to restrict the flow of knowledge for writers' private gain?

If all property was made available for free on the internet and there were no rules or regulations stopping people from using and copying and redistributing all of the free information, do you think that music artists, authors, movie producers, etc. would stop crating any works that were of any meaning, knowing that what they were creating would make them no money? Are people only inspired through money and power or would people continue to make great works even if there was no hope for great wealth? What truly drives people to do things?

How we resolve this latest tension between copyright and technology will define our future ability to communicate, create and share information, education and entertainment. Indeed, if the play button becomes the pay button, our very ability to raise the world's standard of living and education will be jeopardized.

The above quote is a very strong statement about how the future of copyright laws may be linked to education and the ability to learn. Is there any truth to this idea and if so how will our society be able to maintain the education level that our future needs?

Downloading a copyrighted product does not diminish the product, as would be the case of taking and using tangible property such as a dress. At worst, it is depriving the copyright owner of a potential sale. The truth is, it may be causing a sale (through familiarity) or, even more likely, have no impact on the sale. My son often will become familiar with artists through downloading their music on the Internet and then will go out and buy the CD. Indeed, recent studies by independent organizations have shown this to be the case.

Is the impact of downloading copyrighted material completely different from actually stealing a material possession, or are the two very similar?

Do you think that we can relate downloading music to shoplifting or stealing and punish people in the same way? It seems as though we may be trying to use old laws for a completely different culture. The laws that were created for actions committed in the world before the internet is now also being used for actions committed in there. Do we need a whole new set of rules and regulations for the internet, ones different from the real world?

A time may soon come when what is available for free on library shelves will only be available on a pay-per-use basis. It would be a simple matter for a copyright owner to impose a requirement that a small fee be paid each time a digital book or video documentary is accessed by a library patron. Even the student who wants even the most basic access to only a portion of the book to write a term paper would have to pay to avoid committing a crime.

What do you think about that idea of having to pay to read books? Is there something wrong with this idea? With the ability to charge for all knowledge and education, do you think that it will draw an even more distinct line between the class with money and the class without money? Are we heading toward a world created and maintained purely through the upper class and with the lower class having neither a say in the matter or the knowledge to know what is happening to them? Would we be moving completely away from democracy?

For over 150 years, the fair-use doctrine has helped stimulate broad advances in scientific inquiry and education, and has advanced broad societal goals in countless other ways. In this emerging digital era, we need to return to first principles. We need to achieve the balance that should be at the heart of our efforts to promote the interests of copyright owners while respecting the rights of information consumers. We need to rewrite the law for the benefit of society as a whole before all access to information is irreversibly controlled. In short, we need to reaffirm fair use.

The idea of the fair-use doctrine is to help advance society as a whole, however the internet is a whole new field with completely different ideas, so should the fair-use doctrine extend to the internet and the downloading of music, movies, etc?

What do you think about sharing files, whether it is music, movies, etc? Are we committing crimes that should be liable for 250,000 dollars or three years in prison? If these seems too extreme what do you think should be the punishment for sharing files, or do you think we should even be punished at all? Do you think it is wise to spend time and taxpayer money trying to convict people sharing files or would you rather want our tax money spent out on the streets looking for criminals like rapists?

What do you think would need to be done, in terms of the government, to stop the sharing of files on the internet? Although at this point it is illegal to share files, how many people does it really stop? There are still 4.1 million people using Kazzaa and sharing over 800 million files, how will the government have the manpower to stop something that seems to be used by so much of the population?

2004-02-14T20:27:00.000-08:00

Privacy, Ownership, Hacking, and Surveillance

There was a large discussion in class the other day about viruses and the massive effects they have on people's computers. It seems as though viruses have been increasing recently and have become not just a funny joke but a serious issue, where people's computers are being ruined and the viruses are affecting millions and millions of computers in just days. I think that this increase in virus activity has really lead people to wonder if there needs to be some sort of government regulation imposed on the internet. The fact that someone's computer can be destroyed all because someone puts a virus out on the internet is a very serious matter and there soon will need to be some protection to people. I think that the boundaries are definitely being crossed when people are having to spend money and time to fix something someone else has destroyed due to them being on the internet.

There however poses a huge problem with the idea of the government stepping in and trying to create regulations on the web. First and foremost the internet extends to all countries of the world, so how and which government will step in? Do will leave it up to the United Nations or does each country need to set their owns rules and regulations? This becomes a very confusing problem due to the fact that many of the countries may not agree on all the rules and regulations that should be enforced and what punishment should extend to each violation. I think if there were to be any regulation enforced the companies involved with the creation of the internet should be the ones to step in and form some sort of prevention methods for the viruses. This may take a lot of time and money but I think that people will soon force these companies to create some sort of protection for computers.

2004-02-12T00:54:00.000-08:00

Posthuman Dreams:

The lecture on posthuman dreams was one that really sparked a lot of emotions about what it is like to be a person and what our lives really mean. First and foremost the idea that we could be moving into a future were we are merged together with machines working in some kind of super-human form seems like a future were only the most elite survive and anyone less than super-human has no chance at life. For me the idea of living and being alive involves so much more than my abilities to calculate mathematic figures or remember things at overwhelming proportions. Life to me is the feelings that are felt, the experiences that change one's life, the relationships that are formed, not the powers on has. And with the idea of people moving closer to machines really makes me feel as though we would be losing the sense of what it is to be human and to be alive. Machines lack the ability to have emotions, to love or hate, to cry, to do anything that is worth any real meaning in life. Therefore by merging with them, we as humans could lose our sense of what it is to feel the emotions that create us.

I do believe that before we move into a complete merge with machines people will start to realize the consequence behind the merging of such a powerful thing and possibly take a few steps back. I do think that some merging would be a benefit to many people, especially since we already have begun to create artificial products to maintain our existence. Take for example the pacemaker or even the simplest thing like contacts. It aides many people in their everyday life and allows us to live longer and more convenient lives. However there needs to be some sort of boundaries set as to how far we can merge with the machine. I'm not sure at what exact point there needs to be a line draw, but I definitely know that there needs to be a boundary between machines aiding us in our everyday life and machines taking over who we are and how we act.

2004-02-06T20:15:00.000-08:00

Virtual Bodies:

I think that the discussion on living in a virtual world was one of much interest. A very thought provoking point was the fact that how we are growing up in a world that shapes who we are. That was very interesting because I have never really thought of all the things that have influence who I am. I think that much of my teen and college years have began to be shaped around the need for knowledge and the different ways to obtain that information. In school we are taught to think outside of the box and to look beyond everything that is told to us. I really think that the cyber culture we are growing up in helps to facilitate that. We are now able to find many sources of information at our very finger tips and have the ability to look at many different points of view about any idea, theory, or any question we have about life. I believe that the internet is shaping us into different people of the future.

Another idea brought up was the idea of whether the virtual world is better than the real world? I think that this is a hard topic to cover, because in many cases it is hard to feel many of the emotions that are felt by the real experience. For instance the emotions provoke by actually riding down a river in a raft is incomparable to the feeling of playing a virtual rafting game. Also in a more physical sense, just the act touching real objects is something that cannot be felt in the virtual sense. Granted there can be a lot of emotions sparked in the virtual world. As has been proven before, people form very strong emotions in the virtual sense. They form bonds and relationships that are of as much importance as in the real world. However is there so sort of physical connection that is lacking with these relationships? Something that can't be compensated in the virtual realm? However, I do think that in many cases the virtual world allows people to go out of their comfort zones and experience things virtually they never would in the physical sense. Also many fascinating experiences that the real world has to offer may not be possible to experience because of lack of money or time to do them. I know in my life there are many things that I wish I could experience or have the option to see. However because of my money limitations I am unable to do many of the things I wish I was able to experience. I think that the virtual world allows me to experience so many things even with the wealth limitations.

2004-02-02T15:08:00.000-08:00

Review Of Thursday's Material:

Living In Cyberspace:

As recently as our generation many people have become very connected to the internet as a means to meet and interact with people. They have built these virtual worlds in which they feel as connected as in the real world. However is the virtual world leading us to avoid real life experiences? In the virtual world we can play games that simulate the real world in such a close manner that we no longer do the actual activities. (Eg: Virtual Rafting game, no longer allows us to actually go out and experience a day on the water, with real dangers and emotions that can’t be felt in VR)

Over time as the world progressed and populations increased rules were formed and systems were established to maintain order. Because of this we now live in a democracy with rules and sanctions that help to govern us. Do you think that with the expansion of the virtual world we will create a type of democracy that will help maintain order in cyberspace? Take a look at LambdaMOO and that rules and sanctions that were formed due to the rape that took place in their virtual life.

Is it really sensible to suggest that the way we revitalize a community is to sit alone in our rooms, typing and filling our lives with virtual friends? Has the virtual world lead to us in a new definition of what it means to be in a social community or have we created a life of solitude?

As stated in one of the articles do we really need to compare the virtual world and the real world or can we have the best of both worlds? And if we can combine the two worlds, how exactly can we benefit and get the best of both?

In the article called a “Rape in Cyberspace”, a couple of women claimed that they were raped on the internet and had been emotionally scarred. Do you believe that a virtual rape and an actual rape can even be compared to one another? In the virtual world we have the option to leave when we want, we can walk away at any point, but in the real world there is no option of getting away or escaping the pain of a rape. Do you think that in VR people feel as though they can’t leave this life they have created on the web and why didn’t these women just walk away from the online rape if it was so emotionally hurtful?

Can we even describe real emotions online? Between the translation and different interpretations meant how do we get across how we really feel? Is it even possible? In many cases our virtual personae is a reflection of our real self, how can we get people to understand our true selves if all they can see are words?

Where do you draw the line in cyberspace? Can there even be a line draw because it is virtual reality and there have been no real regulations set about what can and can’t be said? And if there were to be regulations set, would that be a violation of our first amendment, the freedom of speech?

Are we moving into a new virtual economy where we buy and sell nothing but virtual space, and what is this going to do for our future economy? As stated in one of the articles how do we assign value to immaterial goods? This new traffic of virtual goods is a new market and perhaps the only really new economy that our country has seen in recent years. And can these new online markets become the real markets of the future?

“I am buying nothing, selling nothing and gaining a profit.” What do you think this quote means in terms of the progression of cyberspace and is cyberspace moving into an unknown future with unknown consequences?

2004-01-26T23:52:00.001-08:00

Review of Thursday's Material:

In class on Thursday we discussed the issue of virtual identities and the fact the with the internet people can change their identity with even more convenience. I think that the ability to change one's identity has always been of interest to people, however before the internet their ability to do so was limited. I think that we change our identities in every situation we are placed in. Like what was mentioned in class we act differently at work then how we act in when say we are with our friends. I don't believe that we have one set identity, it changes with whatever situation we are placed in. I think that it has a lot to do with norms of society that are placed on us and the roles that we are to fill when put into different interactions with people. However with the internet the norms are lifted because people can hide their true identities and put on a cover so they are able to express whatever they want. This can be good and bad. Some people have many bottled up emotions that build up and add stress and difficulty to their lives because they are not comfortable sharing how they really feel with the real world. On the other hand people who make up things that others take to be sincere are toying with others thoughts, feelings, and confusing the public as to what people are really up to . The pros and cons of virtual identities are difficult to balance out.

2004-01-26T23:52:00.000-08:00

Review of Thursday's Material:

In class on Thursday we discussed the issue of virtual identities and the fact the with the internet people can change their identity with even more convienence. I think that the ability to change one's identity has always been of interest to people, however before the internet their ability to do so was limited. I think that we change our identities in every situation we are placed in. Like what was mentioned in class we act differently at work then how we act in when say we are with our friends. I don't beleive that we have one set identity, it changes with whatever situtation we are placed in. I think that it has a lot to do with norms of society that are placed on us and the roles taht we are to fill when put into different interactions with people. However with the internet the norms are lifted because people can hide their true identities and put on a cover so they are able to express whatever they want. This can be good and bad. Some people have many bottled up emotions that build up and add stress and difficulty to their lives because they are not comfortable sharing how they really feel with the real world. On the other hand people who make up things that others take to be sincere are toying with others thoughts, feelings, and confusing the public as to what people are really up to . The pros and cons of virtual identities are difficult to balance out.

2004-01-21T22:41:00.000-08:00

The Network Society:

Globalization has become such a large part of the world and especially American society. Since the increased technology in terms of the internet and online connection, globalization has moved forward at such a rapid rate. However even though globalization has helped keep prices low for American consumers and has helped large corporations succeed to their fullest, you have to ask yourself at what price have we been able to succeed? Take for instance a strong capitalist country such as the US and their abilities to have large corporations all over world. They are able to move their factories to third world countries where they can find cheap labor and then the citizens of that country are forced to work in those factories at whatever prices are offered to them. They are put in environmentally unsafe conditions to say the least and have no labor laws or regulations enforced to aide them. If they try to fight back they are fired in an instant, because there are a thousand other workers who can take their spot. These factories are able to run under no environmental regulations and contaminate the areas in which they operate in. These third world countries are forced to send their only labor force to work in the factories while those same factories are polluting their very environment. How were big corporations able to move their factories oversees? With strong help from the internet and computer based technology. They are currently able to track their inventory at such higher efficiency and can find out in an instant the progress of a factory oversees. The internet has allowed corporations to surpass time and space, and as technology continues to progress I wonder what else can corporations do in their pursuit for the most efficient and profitable capitalist state? Why is capitalism such a promising idea in the minds of Americans? Capitalism is great for a country like ours because we are one of the most powerful states in the world. Capitalism and globalization is something the aides the powerful and hurts the poor. When looking at globalization we need to realize that though it has its benefits it also hurts many countries that do not have the technology or power to control the way globalization affects their culture and surroundings.

2004-01-17T19:18:00.000-08:00

Review Of Thursday's Material:

There were many interesting points brought up in class on Thursday, but the issue on politics and the upcoming presidential election was one that sparked my interest. I feel that because there has been a progression of the electronic media, most currently the internet, in the last decade that elections have been and even more will change dramatically. Voting citizens, currently, have a much easier ability to research the candidates and the candidates have a much easier ability to campaign themselves to the public. Today there is such a large stream of information circulating through the internet and people are opened up to many different views of the candidates. I think that people are now able to make a better decision of who they would like to vote for and there is much more information being provided that is unbiased.

Another point that was of interest to me was the definition of social and how we define who is a social person and who isn't. I think that with the progression of the internet our society is slowly starting to recognize social interactions as being more than just a face to face communication. Communication over the web, such as chat rooms and instant messaging, has become such a large way of communication and some people have developed huge bonds with people they have never even met. Who has the right to say that someone who has face to face communication with another person is more social than a person who has many meaningful interactions on the internet?

2004-01-13T22:56:00.000-08:00

1-13-2004
Tuesday: In class many interesting topics were raised on the issues surrounding media and the influnces it has on every person's life. The media shapes cultures in many ways and with the new forms of media and electronic information that is formed the cultures themselves are reshaped by this transformation.