Monday, 25 March 2013

What Happens When Technology Converges?



As expressed in Lunenfeld's article our society is moving away from download based media towards upload based media.  Here he is describing how download based media was media that the audience has passively consumed and ‘downloaded’, whereas upload based media, demands the audiences participation to upload and create their own media.  He puts forth the idea that we are moving from a consumption model to a production model and describes television, which was once the main source of domesticated media, as “the high fructouse corn syrup of the imagination.”  This expresses how television requires no individual thought or imagination and instead the audience becomes sheep that passively consume what the advertisers paying want them to hear.  Uploading, on the other hand requires active audience participation which expands individuals opinions and knowledge of different forms of media.
As the Internet continues to expand we see how uploading for ourselves is possible more and more through the convergence of different types of media.  Take Facebook for example, what used to be simply a social media site to converse and keep up with friends, has turned into a website that connects video functions, audio functions, web pages for bands, movie stars and television shows and more functions that one could possibly hope to harness alone.  Like Sterne argues though, while its true we are able to upload for ourselves “our deepest commitments—to inclusion, equality and participation within a public—bind us to practices whereby we submit to global capital”.  In the example of Facebook, yes we are able to use the functions to our advantage, but we are still consuming main stream media and products by 'liking' the pages of television shows or other cultural product pages.  Corporations use social media that is based on active participation, to get people participating in what will make money for them in the long run.  So still in an era where active participation is encouraged, we are still essentially being controlled for the sake of consumerism.  This is however now the only way in which corporations can continue staying in business as forms of advertising on television have become less effective with the rise of the Internet.
Who would ever think that I would feel sorry for the large corporations that have been brainwashing my mind to consuming products but as the Internet is expanding towards new media, television, music, movie and advertising industries have needed to try extremely hard to keep the audience engaged in their products.  Since the age of “produsage” the music industry especially has been fighting hard for artists(and producers of course) to continue making money as it is now so easy to pirate songs of the Internet.  Similarly, movies and television shows are less consumed through businesses, and more so freely online with streaming and downloading website littering the Internet.  This being said, I am sure the corporations will find ways of continuing to make money, but they are going to have to exploit the new media that is continuing to emerge, such as through pages on Facebook.
 Everything is done online or on a computer now, and we are finding new ways to make the Internet accessible at all times, such as having it on phones or now on the iPad.  Technology has expanded so much that I would not be surprised if in the next 50 years that our use of paper could be completely erased and instead we will do all of our writing on individual iPad’s or something similar.  If the Internet and especially social media had not become so popular, I doubt that such technology would be created so quickly.  As Rheingold discusses it was the power of communities and connectivity, like Facebook, that are the heart of the digital era and not specific technology like the iPad. This of course would not be a bad thing as it would help the environment, but it just shows how much the Internet and the convergence of different types of media and technology have changed, and are continuing to change our every day lives.
            Through taking this course I have realized how many different tools for sharing your ideas are really on the Internet.  While I have always assumed that these sort of functions were possible given the immense library of apps and websites on the Internet, I had never before used them or thought of using them to spread my own ideas.  Now that I have had the opportunity to share my opinions on a virtual world I have to say that it feels good to see 775 pages views on my blog, a number that I would have thought unachievable for me, even if most of the views are my own classmates and professors.  The feeling that someone is actually reading and is interested in what I have to say makes me more inclined to continue to use forms of social media to do some of my own ‘uploading’.
 

Wednesday, 13 March 2013

Can We Become Our Own Journalists?


Canada has always been considered a democracy, citizens are able to vote and engage on who they think should represent them as a country.  With the rise of the Internet and social media, we are now able to take the term democracy to a new level as every citizen has access to social media and a voice to be heard.  In the past freedom of speech has been more difficult to achieve or every citizen didn’t exercise this freedom to the full extent.  Now freedom of speech in Canada allows every citizen the ability to become a journalist on any topic they are interested in or feel passionate about.  This was brought up in the article by Hermida who discussed the fact that journalist rely heavily on online tools, and since they are accessible to the public as well, more citizens have the ability to report on anything. For example just recently in this class we learned how to use Storify, and although I wasn’t aware of its existence before taking this class, I can see the benefits it possesses as you can research information from various social media sites and Internet stories to create a journalistic piece on any issue that is a topic of discussion.
I can really see the benefits that websites like Storify can have on social awareness and activism.  By putting websites together to connect to the main issue, information is easily accessible to anyone who searches that topic and wishes to be involved.  If that person then adds on to the issue by conducting their own research on the subject, the knowledge is expanded even further and a chain of events can occur.  If an issue is discussed enough online, the chances of it become aware in mainstream media is higher, and then the issue is brought to the eyes of a nation wide audience.  With this kind of chain of events, social activists are able to really connect with a large audience in a way that they could never do alone before.  We now have to voice to make mainstream media listen, and judge for ourselves what we want to see on television.  Although this chain of events doesn’t happen in every case, even having the issue circulating through the Internet is enough to make people think twice.  What was really noticed in the article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, was the fact that television, which is the majority of people's go to news source, is lacking in reliability.  Now that we have the ability to discuss ideas in an open environment, we are relying on each other to get the facts straight.
I have to say that through this course my eyes have really been opened to the world of social media and the outcomes that can come from using it as more than a way to communicate with friends.  I still have my doubts about getting into twitter to get my points across, but I have to say that I really enjoy this blog.  I feel as though I am part of something bigger than my own life when I’m writing in it and though I don’t think anyone is listening other than in my class, if I continue writing past this course on things that really inspire me or issues I’m passionate about, I will be able to make a difference to somebody.  I also hope to use it to document my life through my travels, things that I’ve learned about different cultures and myself in hopes of connecting with someone who has had the same fears and doubts as me.

Friday, 15 February 2013

Why Teach ESL in Korea?


Response to sarajnewman

Response to sarajnewman

I really like the passage you chose that highlighted the major motivations for piracy.  I feel as though sharing in an online community and sampling in the form of remixing songs go hand in hand.  Today, it is common to find music that is sampled from others music, including within the well known band Led Zepplin.  They used rifts and ideas from others songs to create some of the most well known music.  Now with technology available to the whole public, we are able to download music freely and use that music to sample and create new songs.  All music is a form of art and building off ideas in art to make something completely unique is a part of that.  Because music is an art, it should be being shared within the public to listen and create off of.  Copyright laws protect the rights of the artists claiming the music as their own.  We as a the public who participate in piracy are not violating laws because we are not claiming we wrote or performed the songs.  You also made a point that I addressed in response to another podcast which is the expense of music.  I'm a poor student and would not have been able to afford the thousand plus songs on my ipod, but does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to listen to them? Or should I settle for listening on the radio with advertisements playing every other song? As if we aren't surrounded by enough.  

Response to sperrier686

Response to sperrier686's Podcast

You make a good point when you say that money is required in this world and because of this artists should be rewarded for their fruits of labour.  While I agree with that as being true to our society, there is still radio coverage which they are paid for every time their song is played, as well as concerts and other ways to make money with their music.  People seem to be so concerned for the artists and producers in the music industry and while they should be rewarded for their efforts, we cannot deny that the ones who become popular, whose music is most pirated, are still making millions through various different means.  When music is pirated people are not stealing it and claiming it as their own, they are appreciating the song and the easiness it takes to download it online.  In this day in age I really cannot see piracy online changing so I feel as though it is irrelevant to say they 'should' be making money of the songs that are pirated, because they aren't and will continue to lose money because people will continue to download music for free.  

Response to afcallaghan

Response to afcallaghan's Podcast

As much as I would like to agree with you and spend the money to purchase music I have to say that I don't.  Maybe it is because I grew up downloading music off the internet on sites like Kaza since I was 11 years old that makes the difference.  I found that when I did purchase full albums at stores like HMV I would not even care to listen to full albums only the songs I like.  I understand that iTunes allows you to buy singular songs but as a student I honestly cannot afford to buy every single song.  Why is it that we are able to listen to music for free on the radio but it becomes a crime once we download them off the internet?  We are now so used to downloading that we even use the internet to watch movies now, causing retail chains like Blockbuster to be closed down.  We are moving into an age where copyright laws are harder to keep track of because of the immense data on the Internet that are copied.  Music started out as an art but as soon as we were able to commodify it, we did.  I understand paying to go see a concert because their is the experience of seeing them live, but in this day and age I really don't think we should need to pay for music when it is so easy not to.

Wednesday, 13 February 2013

Podcast

These actions are reflected by the means with which the Big Five record companies (EMI, Universal, Sony, Time Warner and BMG [Bertelsmann]) have extended their market dominance to the Internet. The Napster system of peer-to-peer sound file trading posed a serious challenge to the existing recording industry, but the decision in  A&M Records et al.  v. Napster firmly established the on-line intellectual property rights of entertainment industry conglomerates and reinforced the Big Five’s existing market oli-go-poly. The defeat of Napster puts an end to one form of unregulated Internet market exchange. The question remains what the new platform for music distribution will be, and what flexibility and sharing of roles between creators, publishers and consumers will be allowed.

https://soundcloud.com/gforsythe-1/alexa-reads-for-comm-2f00