After reading Josiah’s post about the philosophical and cultural implications of strict internet publishing laws, I decided to write my own response rather than a long comment. The reason being that his thoughts really got me thinking.
Originally, I was going to comment, saying that I agreed with his post at a fundamental level, but that a) restrictive copyright laws affect not only the youth but any artist who wants to express their creativity using the internet as a platform and b) that I thought the reason the government was so restrictive and uptight about remixes of copyrighted work was because they would make less of a profit from tax revenues on royalties. But did I actually know that? How much is the government actually making under the current system?
To summarize my brief and not-so-in-depth research, the government loses money for individual pieces of work published on the internet because individuals don’t make much money from it, and the hosting sites (while they do generate a huge profit) do not get much revenue from individual works– they rely on the volume of the content that they host.
You can read my process under the cut. Continue reading
At the beginning of the week, Paul posted a TED talk and commentary about fair use. He asks: “Does the fight against piracy end up, in some ways, encouraging it? I wonder how the general public’s view of piracy has changed over the last decade or so. I’d be interested to hear what the class has to say about that.”
There are three kinds of people that use the internet. The “casuals” who don’t do much on the internet aside from checking their facebook and email, and maybe repinning things on pinterest every so often; the people who are slightly more invested in the internet, who maybe know a little bit of code, are consistent online gamers, or run a blog in addition to the daily activities of the casuals; and the people who build their lives off the internet i.e. web developers, internet celebrities, etc.
What does that have to do with piracy? Well I think that each of these kinds of people have different prerogatives when it comes to illegal uploading and downloading. Casual internet users are probably the most likely to download movies, music, and other entertainment media. They don’t have much use for software programs and aren’t at much risk for legal action if they steal or reproduce that kind of data. The middle group is probably more likely to download software programs in addition to entertainment files. They’re also more likely to have the know-how to perform more complex acts of piracy like creating torrents and streaming files. The third and final group is probably the least likely to steal or reproduce data simply because they are at the highest risk for getting caught, and have greater access to certain kinds of files and programs because of their work– not because they don’t know how to do it. However, they are still likely to pirate media that they only intend to use privately. The only exception to this group would be the people who make a living out of internet piracy.
The common denominator between these groups is that they will most likely illegally download entertainment media, whether that be movies, TV shows, or the entire discography of The Mountain Goats. Everyone knows that it’s illegal to get these kinds of files without paying for them, but because sites like the iTunes store, Google Play, and Amazon Media offer individual tracks, entire seasons of TV shows, and movies for a much lower cost than buying them at the store, people think that downloading won’t be stealing much from anyone. In that sense, I think that the “methods to protect against piracy” have encouraged people to pirate data.
Otherwise, I think a majority of piracy occurs simply because people don’t really care. Internet piracy has become a widely accepted part of our culture, which is pretty well represented by our reactions to anti-piracy warnings:
Because there’s so little risk involved with internet piracy, unless you’re operating a large-scale pirated movie business, I think people generally don’t worry much about stealing. If the internet were a different kind of platform where file sharing could be controlled, I think that attempts at stopping piracy would have been more effective. But as it is, the attitude about piracy has always been either “whatever” or “I think it’s probably wrong, but I’m going to do it anyway.”
I think I want to make a post just to wrap up my thoughts for creation/consumption week.
Something about the whole “three wolf moon” argument that we had in class the other day has really got me thinking. Sure, there are a lot of people that spend a lot of time on the internet consuming information and products, and maybe it’s gotten to the point that the consumers exponentially outnumber the producers. But I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing at all.
The internet works in the exact same way as a capitalist economy– where there is demand, supply will be created, and in some cases, a supply will create a demand as new things become more and more popular. By that logic, consumers become creators in that they create the demand for content and for new products. Without consumers, there would be no platform for creation.
But one thing I definitely notice about internet culture is that there’s really no precedent or limitations for who can create content. Thus, we see a diverse representation of artistic/creative viewpoints that can be shared with people of all backgrounds. The infinite possibilities for new content inspires creativity in others that would not necessarily have pursued art (in whatever form) in a non-virtual setting. Most importantly, the internet has provided the platform, the how-to knowledge, the collaborators, and the cheapest available materials for people to attempt to bring their ideas to life. And with that you get videos like the one above, where you need nothing but built-in laptop webcams, basic video editing software, and 100 or so volunteers from around the globe to create a beautiful choir made up entirely of strangers.
Tl;dr, Even though a lot of the internet is made up of people who do nothing but instagram the waffles they had for breakfast, every so often you’ll get a little gem of creative genius like this that restores your faith in humanity and all its possibilities.
With the advent of social media sites like Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook, the way that we receive our information has changed. At one time, longer newspaper articles and TV news stories were the primary source of breaking news. Now, it seems as though Twitter is often a faster and sometimes a reliable source of information. Not only can you see information from major news networks (with differing political biases), but also live feeds of information from civilian reporters, and all of the reactions and opinions surrounding that news. Thus, when events occur you can instantly form an opinion from primary and secondary sources in addition to feedback to those sources, all while scrolling a single, organized hashtag. I use Twitter as an example because the algorithm that it uses makes the sharing of information rapid and comprehensive, as opposed to facebook which filters out ‘offensive’ posts (source), and tumblr which frequently adopts a liberal bias and promotes misinformed posts.
Often, what we see is that Twitter hashtag movements spark outrage that lasts as long as the tag is trending, creating a brief period of social empathy. For example, the Ferguson shooting from last August, the #BringBackOurGirls movement from early summer, or the infamous Kony 2012 fiasco.
Many would argue that the brevity of these movements and their lack of real, tangible results make social media activism pointless. But I would argue that social media activism brings attention to pressing problems, and has a sort of “drop in the bucket” effect. One person alone tweeting, Facebooking, and Instagramming their version of the ice bucket challenge has little effect on the bottom line of the ALS Association. But when those sorts of things go viral, there’s an infinite number of possibilities, as is shown by the $114 million that said ice bucket challenge has raised.
While hashtag activism is mostly ineffectual now aside from increasing awareness, it has the potential to become a great source of social change. Recently, Ray Rice of the Baltimore Ravens was ‘indefinitely suspended’ from the team because of a scandal involving the abuse of his wife, Janay Palmer. The reason for this was (unsurprisingly) not because of the abuse itself, but because Anheuser-Busch beer company, one of the NFL’s biggest sponsors, noted their disapproval of the way the NFL had handled Rice’s crime. They did not want to be associated with the NFL in its current state for fear of how it would impact their sales.
Therein lies the key. If social media activism can somehow graduate to become a method to influence consumer culture, a lot more is likely to be done. Memetic spreading of ideas or causes, a la the white house petition site, kickstarter, or the ice bucket challenge, is a great way to get the attention of people in power, whether they be government agents, corporate CEOs, or wealthy celebrities. The proles themselves may not be able to influence change, but even the most basic plebeian can influence the Man if he has friends by his side.
I think this video is an absolutely fascinating view of how we can maximize our internet usage. In the video, Dr. John Barrett explains how the internet has progressed from the very first public web servers in the late 80’s and early 90’s to the web today– which contains over 4000 exabytes of data. He explains how the internet now, or in the near future– the “internet of things”– is an internet in which the physical world is entirely connected and monitored by the internet. He talks about how some of our applications like traffic, news, travel agency, and restaurant apps can tell us exactly when things are available for us to use or not. For example, you can use a restaurant app to not only see how long the wait will be at a particular restaurant, but to book a table as well. In a similar manner, he says that the “internet of things” could be used in the future to improve the quality of life for everyone, especially those living in cities. For example, to send feedback from a patient’s heart monitor to a hospital, no matter where the patient is. He talks about how we can expand the use of green energy by limiting nonessential electricity use through the internet– your washing machine only turns on when there are enough clothes in it, and when energy levels are high enough to warrant it. This way, no one goes without energy, and no one has a surplus. Essentially, Dr. Barret talks about how far we’ve come, and how far we have the potential to go.
Barrett addresses the idea of “big brother” in the video as well. In order for his “internet of things” to work, basically everything important has to be monitored. But he says that he would hope that the benefits of such a system would outweigh the lack of privacy. He also addresses concerns about security risks, where one hack could bring down a vital system and cause loss of life or limb.
In any case, I think it’s good food for thought.
Hope you’re looking forward to the How It Evolved Panel tomorrow and Thursday night. Can’t wait to see you all there. Hopefully you’ll be ready to have a vibrant and stimulating conversation! So, in order to prep you for that, we want you to consider the following questions:
- In what ways have interactions and information shared on the internet changed over time?
- What is your opinion on online dating? How has the internet changed our deepest and most innate human desire to find a mate?
- Do the benefits of online dating/social media outweigh the potential risks? What are those potential risks?
- How has the internet connected us for reasons other than social interaction?
- In what ways has our interconnectedness put us and our digital identities at risk?
In general, we hope to get into a discussion about how the internet has been used to connect people, how the ways in which it connects people have changed over time, and the effects of those connections. We will be focusing more specifically on online dating, cyber crime, and social media in the medical field.
In a world where everyone is glued to a smartphone, the market for Applications, usually shortened to Apps, has exploded virtually overnight. Apps allow users to do… well… pretty much anything. “There’s an app for that,” after all. Apps have been created to serve what seems like every form and function: mobile gaming, mobile banking, and mobile learning have all become phrases commonly used in our vocabulary today. It seems like things we once had to go out and do in the “real world” can just as easily be done from a phone’s touch screen, and you can bet that people are making a profit from it. But what exactly is an app? And how does it work?
As explained in the article, How to Create an App, Apps can divided into two categories: Native and Web apps. As you might be able to guess, Native apps take advantage of built-in hardware and software on the device to perform whatever functions they were designed for, and Web apps use the internet to do the same thing– that is, they actually function in the web browser, but “look and feel like a Native app”. Many apps are a combination of the two, having features that can be accessed with just the phone’s hardware, and additional features that are only available with an internet connection.
Once past learning and writing the basic code for the app, app builders can use storyboarding design tools to format the layout and look of the app. Next, they program the logic and data storage of the app, which ensures that the app functions as you would expect it to. For example, you press a button and the button responds by leading you to a new page, where you then enter information, press another button, and have your information stored in the app for future reference. Once this is complete, the app can be tested, and then published for public consumption.
The article goes more in-depth about the programs available for app creation and development, and concludes by stressing the importance of continued development of mobile apps as people continue to demand these applications on their mobile devices.
This article, titled “Cybercrime, Cyberweapons, and Cyber Wars: Is There Too Much of It in the Air?” discusses how the capabilities of criminals and terrorists has evolved with the advent of increased online traffic. Criminals can produce and/or sell fake documents, malware, credit card and bank information, bulletproof web hosting, and hacking services such as DDoS attacks and bot spamming for a relatively low cost. And they still make a huge profit because the market for those things has expanded so greatly.
The use of malware and hacking techniques is not limited to the criminal underbelly of the internet. In fact, law enforcement and counter-terrorist forces have had to don the black hat in order to prevent so-called “cyber-terrorist” attacks. These attacks are easy to launch with very little skill in computer programming– in fact, according to the article, they can be waged with little more than the malware available on a petty cyber-criminal’s website. Even so, counter-cyber-terrorists seem to be one step behind their adversaries, and the effects of their efforts have been mostly negative for the general populace. Violations of privacy and freedom of information by intelligence agencies in its attempts to combat terrorism have become more and more popular in the news, especially following the Snowden leaks.
Go look up computer virus in google images, it’s hilarious.
You may or may not be surprised to know that viruses (and their cousins, including worms, Trojans, and malware) have existed for about as long as the internet itself. In this article by Gregory Benford, one of the first scientists to work with the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANet), Benford explains how the first virus came to be, and some of the consequences of its creation.
As Benford tells us, the very first computer virus was largely harmless but very, very annoying. It simply used a chain reaction to add bad/redundant/superfluous code to certain programs and sap the processing power on computers infected with the virus. Benford, who had created the virus himself, notified the appropriate authorities at the main ARPANet server and warned them of the potential for viruses to do actual damage to computers on the network. Nonetheless, new viruses were created, sparking an entire market for virus protection.
As technology and programming have become more and more advanced, more malicious bugs have been created to take out computing systems. Benford focuses on the famous (or perhaps infamous) worm called Stuxnet, which was used to infect and shut down an Iranian nuclear power plant in 2010. The worm used a false certificate to gain access to all computers on a network using Windows. Then it found its way into a program called Siemens Step7, which programmed many of the industrial processes of the plant. Next, it compromised the system that received input from those industrial processes and subsequently dictated changes to the output. By gaining access to the input, the creators of the worm could see exactly what processes were running in the plant and could change the output so that– essentially– the plant blew up. The worm could then replicate and spread to other computers on the network.
Benford warns in his conclusion that Stuxnet is proof that digital viruses can be used to affect the analog world. As our society becomes increasingly “connected” to computing systems, we must be vigilant and protect our networks from such viruses. The damage that potent viruses can do could be catastrophic.
If you’re interested in the Stuxnet virus and its effects, I’d recommend this article (complete with pictures!)
And here is a timeline of how viruses have evolved over time, courtesy of Wikipedia.