File sharing is a touchy subject for most people. Many Internet users have downloaded something from the Internet illegally, whether it be a song, a program or even a picture from Google Images. All three are breaking copyright laws, yet music has been the primary target in the file sharing debate. The RIAA sees all forms of file sharing as illegal, but many users have a different distinction for what they consider fair and unfair.
I think that file sharing should be taken on a case by case basis. Downloading songs from a recording artist (no matter if they are famous or not) without permission from them is stealing. If it doesn't belong to you, don't take it. Many argue that recording artists aren't seeing most of that money or they're wealthy enough anyway. This is the equivalent to stealing a CD from a store. Besides, who is one to judge how much money someone should or shouldn't have? People should not take it upon themselves to be the arbitrator of wealth. However, if an artist makes an album available online for free (The Decemberists leaked their own album on bitTorrent for example) then it is legal. I think that it should also be legal to download songs if you already have the album. For example, if I had LPs and vinyls, should I buy another copy of the album so I can have it on an mp3 player?, I think that if I were to download digital copies of those songs, it shouldn't be punishable.
Another excuse that downloaders use is "try before you buy." Many of my friends download songs just to "see if they like the artist." This is unnecessary because most recording artists have a couple free downloads on their website, have streaming capabilities (some even make their entire albums available), or videos on youtube. If you can legally download some songs or listen to them, do you really need to download more just to "see if you like it." Most of my friends don't end up buying the albums anyway.
The last ethical dilemma in file sharing is uploading and making music available to people. Once you buy a CD, the RIAA states that you don't own the music, which I can understand. Lending a CD to someone so they can rip it to their computer is illegal, same with putting music files online for other to download (whether it be a few friends or everyone in limewire). However, I think a distinction should be made between people who let a friend copy a CD and those who upload torrents. The audience is much bigger, and each of those people who download it can in turn upload it to more people. People have been copying music from each other for decades, it is impossible to track down everyone who has ever copied a tape or CD.
In short, file sharing is not a black and white issue. Simple rules cannot be laid out for it. Each case has to be carefully examined and punishment should be based on each unique scenario. Also, I think it's costing the RIAA and major record labels more in legal fees than actual money they've been receiving from those they are suing. I think that the taboo on file sharing will pass eventually, like all new technological threats.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Week 7
The quickly changing formats for sound, images, and animation have revolutionized the entertainment industry, particularly the movie industry, in ways that were unthinkable a decade ago. Although I think that it's great that technology is easier to access now, and that film makers can expand their horizons in terms of special effects, the transition to digital media has had its drawbacks.
Back when I was a kid on my feeble Windows 98 o.s. I couldn't make images using photoshop, the best we had was M.S Paint. I'm not sure if photoshop was around yet, but if it was it was probably very expensive, difficult to use (I still don't understand the interface completely), and unaccessible to everyday people. Today, photoshop and other programs like i-movie and garageband are a staple on most computers. Gone are the days where the best image manipulation device possible was cheesy looking lines using the spray paint tool. I think that now it's better for people who are interested in music mixing, movie making, and image design to have these tools more available to them. My friend, for example, uses his gameboy to make music on garage band. It's the ultimate mix of analog and digital. However, the internet is home to junk, and a great deal of the creations made on i-movie or photoshop falls into that category. I'm really tired of videos on youtube that parody other videos. It was funny, ONCE, we don't need to see a photoshopped dramatic prairie dog wearing a monocle. The same goes for YTMND websites. And how many times have people photoshopped old pictures to make it look like there's a 'ghost?' Sometimes having technology available to 'everyday people' can have adverse, and annoying, consequences.
Another mixed issue in the analog-digital debate is special effects. Professional movies have come along way in CGI, blue/green screen technology, and even just movie quality in general. Older movies have faded colors and sometimes poorly mixed sound where the music is much louder than the dialog. I really enjoy new special effects in some movies. Pan's Labyrinth, for example, was a visually stunning movie. The effects, alongside a powerful storyline, made it one of the greatest movies I've ever seen. Then, there are movies created specifically to show off special effects. This is where director Michael Bay comes in. Transformers, though great special effects wise, made money only for it's novelty value. With new technology making film production cheaper and more accessible, compelling story lines and strong acting isn't necessary to make a blockbuster movie. Also, I think some creativity is lost with CGI. When Kubrick made 2001: A Space Odyssey, he used new and innovative techniques to match his dream, and the result was stunning. Now, if Kubrick was alive he would make the spaceships and cavemen on a computer with CGI, the Discovery One would just look like another spaceship from Star Wars. It becomes the staple movie maker, and after a while CGI is homogeneous and bland.
I think that we should mix analog and digital. This way movies will still have creative elements, and be able to stun audiences. If directors keep going the way they're heading, actors will be obsolete, why hire them if we can make the ultimate looking CGI actor who doesn't demand a high wage and bottled water? This is an extreme situation, but even so some forms of art are obsolete because of the wave of the future. How many traditionally hand drawn cartoons are still made in the US for example? I, for one, miss hand drawn cartoons and think that CGI singing rats are weird. Digital media has definitely made some great advancements, but it's important to not forget traditional art.
Back when I was a kid on my feeble Windows 98 o.s. I couldn't make images using photoshop, the best we had was M.S Paint. I'm not sure if photoshop was around yet, but if it was it was probably very expensive, difficult to use (I still don't understand the interface completely), and unaccessible to everyday people. Today, photoshop and other programs like i-movie and garageband are a staple on most computers. Gone are the days where the best image manipulation device possible was cheesy looking lines using the spray paint tool. I think that now it's better for people who are interested in music mixing, movie making, and image design to have these tools more available to them. My friend, for example, uses his gameboy to make music on garage band. It's the ultimate mix of analog and digital. However, the internet is home to junk, and a great deal of the creations made on i-movie or photoshop falls into that category. I'm really tired of videos on youtube that parody other videos. It was funny, ONCE, we don't need to see a photoshopped dramatic prairie dog wearing a monocle. The same goes for YTMND websites. And how many times have people photoshopped old pictures to make it look like there's a 'ghost?' Sometimes having technology available to 'everyday people' can have adverse, and annoying, consequences.
Another mixed issue in the analog-digital debate is special effects. Professional movies have come along way in CGI, blue/green screen technology, and even just movie quality in general. Older movies have faded colors and sometimes poorly mixed sound where the music is much louder than the dialog. I really enjoy new special effects in some movies. Pan's Labyrinth, for example, was a visually stunning movie. The effects, alongside a powerful storyline, made it one of the greatest movies I've ever seen. Then, there are movies created specifically to show off special effects. This is where director Michael Bay comes in. Transformers, though great special effects wise, made money only for it's novelty value. With new technology making film production cheaper and more accessible, compelling story lines and strong acting isn't necessary to make a blockbuster movie. Also, I think some creativity is lost with CGI. When Kubrick made 2001: A Space Odyssey, he used new and innovative techniques to match his dream, and the result was stunning. Now, if Kubrick was alive he would make the spaceships and cavemen on a computer with CGI, the Discovery One would just look like another spaceship from Star Wars. It becomes the staple movie maker, and after a while CGI is homogeneous and bland.
I think that we should mix analog and digital. This way movies will still have creative elements, and be able to stun audiences. If directors keep going the way they're heading, actors will be obsolete, why hire them if we can make the ultimate looking CGI actor who doesn't demand a high wage and bottled water? This is an extreme situation, but even so some forms of art are obsolete because of the wave of the future. How many traditionally hand drawn cartoons are still made in the US for example? I, for one, miss hand drawn cartoons and think that CGI singing rats are weird. Digital media has definitely made some great advancements, but it's important to not forget traditional art.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
E-Waste
The issue of electronic waste seems like a simple problem on the surface. By simply sending their old electronics to recyclers, a consumer has thwarted having their computer or cellphone tossed in a landfill. However, many consumers do not realize that underhanded recyclers sell computers on the 'gray market' overseas to third world nations. After the recyclers take the harmless materials and materials that can be easily reused, the remaining products end up in Nigera, China, India and other poor nations. Workers spend hours a day stripping metals and burning harmful materials like lead and cadmium for dollars a day. What is most startling about this issue is that most consumers, myself included, thought that recycling a computer was the safest and easiest way to handle e-waste. I never realized the money made by smugglers and recyclers selling products abroad. Like the Salon article noted, a school in Wisconsin thought they were doing good by recycling their computer through SWAP, yet their computers still ended up in Nigeria. Unless there is a federal law against exporting electronic waste abroad, there will be no end to the problem. Likewise, companies like scrapcomputer.com, send so much waste to different sources, making it difficult to track what is going to e-bay, what is being refurbished or what is getting sent to Africa. If there were federal laws against shipping to foreign countries, and forcing recyclers to organize their data and report what is happening with used products, the amount of e-waste that ended up in foreign landfills would diminish.
As a college student consumer I'm already pretty cheap. I only buy a new cellphone or ipod if I really need it, they're expensive and I only work part time. However, I will be more leery of where I send my old electronics, instead of recycling them I could donate them to GoodWill instead or find recyclers from the Basel Action Network which vows not to send their products to a third world nation. Additionally I'm going to hold on to my old electronics that may have a high resale value. I still have my Super NES from when I was a kid, and I actually have more fun playing 2d Bomberman or Mario Kart than I do playing a ridiculous tennis game on the Wii (seriously I don't like flailing around like an idiot). Also, I will pay more attention to politician's stances on e-waste. The US is the largest consumer of electronics and it's the only large scale consumer who hasn't ratified the Basel Convention. This is a big issue affecting both human rights and global warming, two major concerns of the presidential race, yet I haven't heard this issue brought up in a debate. As a voter who is highly attentive of the damaging affects of global warming, I want to be sure that the candidate I vote for will make every effort to support the Basel Convention.
As a college student consumer I'm already pretty cheap. I only buy a new cellphone or ipod if I really need it, they're expensive and I only work part time. However, I will be more leery of where I send my old electronics, instead of recycling them I could donate them to GoodWill instead or find recyclers from the Basel Action Network which vows not to send their products to a third world nation. Additionally I'm going to hold on to my old electronics that may have a high resale value. I still have my Super NES from when I was a kid, and I actually have more fun playing 2d Bomberman or Mario Kart than I do playing a ridiculous tennis game on the Wii (seriously I don't like flailing around like an idiot). Also, I will pay more attention to politician's stances on e-waste. The US is the largest consumer of electronics and it's the only large scale consumer who hasn't ratified the Basel Convention. This is a big issue affecting both human rights and global warming, two major concerns of the presidential race, yet I haven't heard this issue brought up in a debate. As a voter who is highly attentive of the damaging affects of global warming, I want to be sure that the candidate I vote for will make every effort to support the Basel Convention.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Week 5 Assignment
Part 1
1.) 1011= 2^3 + 2^1 + 2^0 = 8 + 2+ 1 = 11
2.) 101010= 2^5 + 2^3 + 2^1 = 32+8+2 = 42
3.) 11111= 2^4 + 2^3 + 2^2 + 2^1 + 2^0 = 16 + 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 = 31
4.) 10010 = 2^4 + 2^1 = 18
Part 2
1.) 31 = 2^4 + 2^3 + 2^2 + 2^1 + 2^0 = 11111
2.) 51 = 2^5 + 2^4 + 2^1 + 2^0 = 110011
3.) 7 = 2^2 + 2^1 + 2^0 = 111
4.) 103 = 2^6 + 2^5 + 2^2 + 2^1 +2^0 = 1100111
Part 3
1.) 56 Kbits/sec = 56/8 kbytes/sec = 7 kbytes/sec
7 kbytes/sec = (1/7) sec/kbyte
100 mb= 102400 kb
102400 kby * (1/7) kby/sec = 14,628 sec = 237 min = 3.95 hrs
2.) 5 mbits/sec = (5/8) mbytes/sec = 8/5 sec/mbyte
(8/5) sec/mb * 100 mb = 160 seconds = 2 min 40 sec
3.) 10 mbits/sec = (10/8) mbyte/sec = (8/10) sec/mybte
(8/10) sec/mbyte * 100 mbyte = 80 sec = 1 min 20 sec
4.) 3 mbits/sec = (3/8) mbytes/sec = (8/3) sec/mbyte
8/3 sec/mbyte = 3(60)/8 = 22.5 mb/min
22.5 (60) = 1350 mb/hr
1350mb/hr / 60mb = 22.5 mp3/hr
1.) 1011= 2^3 + 2^1 + 2^0 = 8 + 2+ 1 = 11
2.) 101010= 2^5 + 2^3 + 2^1 = 32+8+2 = 42
3.) 11111= 2^4 + 2^3 + 2^2 + 2^1 + 2^0 = 16 + 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 = 31
4.) 10010 = 2^4 + 2^1 = 18
Part 2
1.) 31 = 2^4 + 2^3 + 2^2 + 2^1 + 2^0 = 11111
2.) 51 = 2^5 + 2^4 + 2^1 + 2^0 = 110011
3.) 7 = 2^2 + 2^1 + 2^0 = 111
4.) 103 = 2^6 + 2^5 + 2^2 + 2^1 +2^0 = 1100111
Part 3
1.) 56 Kbits/sec = 56/8 kbytes/sec = 7 kbytes/sec
7 kbytes/sec = (1/7) sec/kbyte
100 mb= 102400 kb
102400 kby * (1/7) kby/sec = 14,628 sec = 237 min = 3.95 hrs
2.) 5 mbits/sec = (5/8) mbytes/sec = 8/5 sec/mbyte
(8/5) sec/mb * 100 mb = 160 seconds = 2 min 40 sec
3.) 10 mbits/sec = (10/8) mbyte/sec = (8/10) sec/mybte
(8/10) sec/mbyte * 100 mbyte = 80 sec = 1 min 20 sec
4.) 3 mbits/sec = (3/8) mbytes/sec = (8/3) sec/mbyte
8/3 sec/mbyte = 3(60)/8 = 22.5 mb/min
22.5 (60) = 1350 mb/hr
1350mb/hr / 60mb = 22.5 mp3/hr
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Net Neutrality
The underlying issue in Net Neutrality is the notion of free speech and economics. Because the internet is neutral now, anyone can start a website that is, in theory, equal to Google. However, most small websites don't reach Google or Ebay proportions. If net neutrality was disabled, bigger websites could afford to purchase "express lanes" to get their information around quicker than these smaller websites. It would be more efficient for high speed video and VOIP, yet it may come at the cost of smaller websites running slower.
Two groups in favor of net neutrality are Save the Internet and the owners of Google. They argue that taking away net neutrality will cause corporations to slow down other websites, favor their own creations, and hinder creativity from new innovators. They push for bills in Congress to regulate who owns and charges for use on the internet, and want to be sure that corporations cannot create a monopoly out of it. Google, in particular, argues that if net neutrality was disabled, a website created by small entrepreneurs would have a difficult time making it into the mainstream. Because they were once a small website which is now the most popular search engine, they fear that charging for a faster connection and better service will drive emerging companies out of business. A website like Google could be offering something great but be left out because of price.
Opponents of net neutrality come largely from HandsOffTheInternet.org, the Republican Party, and corporations like AT&T and Verizon. According to Hands Off, the internet works best with minimal government regulation. They also feel like new technology like VOIP, gaming, and high definition movies would work best if they could charge more for an "express lane" to get these demanding products through to the consumer without limitation. Currently, these products are required to share bandwidth with every other website online, and no special treatment is given between them or any other site.
In my opinion, net neutrality is a good thing. I would rather not have the internet be a monopoly, have tiered payments, or preferred bandwidth for certain things. Though I like watching movies online and talking to my friends abroad with Skype, I think they're both working fine right now and I don't believe that corporations need to control what I do online. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in the United States, taking it away from the internet would be a tragedy.
Two groups in favor of net neutrality are Save the Internet and the owners of Google. They argue that taking away net neutrality will cause corporations to slow down other websites, favor their own creations, and hinder creativity from new innovators. They push for bills in Congress to regulate who owns and charges for use on the internet, and want to be sure that corporations cannot create a monopoly out of it. Google, in particular, argues that if net neutrality was disabled, a website created by small entrepreneurs would have a difficult time making it into the mainstream. Because they were once a small website which is now the most popular search engine, they fear that charging for a faster connection and better service will drive emerging companies out of business. A website like Google could be offering something great but be left out because of price.
Opponents of net neutrality come largely from HandsOffTheInternet.org, the Republican Party, and corporations like AT&T and Verizon. According to Hands Off, the internet works best with minimal government regulation. They also feel like new technology like VOIP, gaming, and high definition movies would work best if they could charge more for an "express lane" to get these demanding products through to the consumer without limitation. Currently, these products are required to share bandwidth with every other website online, and no special treatment is given between them or any other site.
In my opinion, net neutrality is a good thing. I would rather not have the internet be a monopoly, have tiered payments, or preferred bandwidth for certain things. Though I like watching movies online and talking to my friends abroad with Skype, I think they're both working fine right now and I don't believe that corporations need to control what I do online. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in the United States, taking it away from the internet would be a tragedy.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Cybersquatting
Cybersquating is a complex issue in today's world; it can be argued that because of net neutrality and freedom of speech that it is legal to use someone's name for profit or make a website similar to another company to get hits. However, I believe that cybersquatting is only respectable when it is used as a form of political protest. For example, whitehouse.org would be, to me, legal because they are protesting the current administration. They are protected under the First Amendment. Cybersquatters who register domain names like stevejobs.com for the sole purpose of cashing in on a trademark or name are breaking the law. Unlike political protesters they are being manipulative and are breaking intellectual property rights. Unfortunately, as in the case for Nissan Motors, if two people share the same name whoever registers first gets the domain. The third form of cybersquating, registering a domain that is a typo of a popular website to host advertisements for money, may be unfair but I don't think it is illegal or can be protected by law. For example, the design website Gamil.com was around years before gmail.com but are often confused. If congress were to pass a law against typo cybersquaters, would they gave to go after gmail.com as well? A law against that would be too confusing to separate the profiteering websites from the legitimate ones.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
The Role of the Internet in Daily Life
From the beginning of high school until now the internet has changed greatly. Websites that I reference everyday and that I rely on for research didn't exist, and I couldn't keep in touch with my friends with peer networking sites. During freshman year I relied solely on AIM and email to keep in contact with old friends, but now thanks to Facebook and Myspace, I know pretty much everything about people who I otherwise would have lost touch with. Similar to peer networking sites keeping friends in touch, Craig's List has made local events and want ads so much easier. Thanks to them, the Penny Saver is nearly obsolete! Likewise, Wikipedia wasn't a prominent website yet. It's hard to imagine a time without Wiki, and as much as teachers dislike students using it, it's still a nice starting point for a topic. Lastly, newer video technology has made television available online, even for free on the network and cable station sites. I can watch an episode of Hero's on my laptop if I miss it. Additionally, I can order movies on Netflix and have them sent right to my house (very convenient if you don't have a car!). Because of all these websites, its easier to connect with friends, research, and entertain. However, for every great website that gets developed, there is always a not so great one to counter act it.
Though there have been many wonderful developments on the internet to make my life easier and better, sometimes these can make things a little worse. Thanks to Myspace and Facebook I talk mostly to my distant friends though a computer screen. It would be nice to write a letter but now this form of communication is archaic! Also, Myspace and Facebook are open, so everyone can see anything I post. I've received a lot of unwanted spam websites, "friend" requests from people who I'll never meet, and general junk mail because of networking sites. Easier ways to shop online or on Craig's list have made it so tempting to buy unnecessary things, and not being able to see what you're buying until it's too late has been risky. Having TV readily available at any hour of the day has it's drawbacks as well. It's hard to get homework done knowing that all the episodes of shows I watched as a kid are online (besides I can't see Are you Afraid of the Dark on TV anyway!). Though these are minor inconveniences and temptations for me, the pro's of the internet outweigh the con's.
Though there have been many wonderful developments on the internet to make my life easier and better, sometimes these can make things a little worse. Thanks to Myspace and Facebook I talk mostly to my distant friends though a computer screen. It would be nice to write a letter but now this form of communication is archaic! Also, Myspace and Facebook are open, so everyone can see anything I post. I've received a lot of unwanted spam websites, "friend" requests from people who I'll never meet, and general junk mail because of networking sites. Easier ways to shop online or on Craig's list have made it so tempting to buy unnecessary things, and not being able to see what you're buying until it's too late has been risky. Having TV readily available at any hour of the day has it's drawbacks as well. It's hard to get homework done knowing that all the episodes of shows I watched as a kid are online (besides I can't see Are you Afraid of the Dark on TV anyway!). Though these are minor inconveniences and temptations for me, the pro's of the internet outweigh the con's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)