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

Sharing our Ideas

Throughout each century, society’s ideals, norms and cultures have dramatically changed. First information was able to be freely accessed and then copied, next society focused on physical ownership such as owning property and resources, but as we have moved into the 21st century, ownership transferred from physical property to abstract property including ideas, information and patents.  We entered into an age where products and ideas are bought and sold, so copyright laws are put in place to protect people's assets as copying is much cheaper than creating an original. As discussed in Kirby Ferguson's documentary  ' We hate losing what we've got'.  I remember when I was a kid how big of a deal it was if somebody copied your idea, it was even tattle tale worthy.  We have no problem copying if we are the ones doing it but as soon as someone tries to copy an idea, we become very territorial, wanting all the credit for our own cleverness.  What I should have listened to as a child and what we should remember when discussing copyright laws is that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  If we are sampling riffs from other songs like artists have done time and time again, it is only because we think it is good, but is that enough? 

Music and movies have always been an ongoing sociological factor throughout history and expresses the mentality, values, and ideas of culture: the reflection of society.  They also reflect a huge amount of existing material as Ferguson discussed that through social evolution we copy, transform, and combine ideas to create new or better ideas. With the advancements in technology, our society has changed, placing creativity and expression in the hands of the everyday consumer, and allowing the sharing of ideas and information to become effortless.  Through downloading, sharing and sampling, editing, music and movies have changed with each decade, becoming more technologically advanced. There are even musicians now who only base their music only on sampling, such as Girl Talk. With the ease that it takes for regular people to create and edit media, it becomes harder for the system to control copyright laws over material on the Internet.  This allows us to create freely accessible cultural commons on websites such as YouTube.  We now have to power to put out our own versions of songs sampled and remixed from others without too much thought to copy right laws.  That being said there is the fear of copyright laws that probably hinder a large portion of the population from playing around with sampling.  We have more power now than we ever did before, if every person was to be sued for the sampling they put out online, then the government would have to go through the effort of locating all of the culprits.

We have come so far with the advancement of technology that it is about time power is given to the people in the form of editing and creating.  All ideas are interwoven anyways so the notion that we cannot take a previously recorded song and mix it with others seems silly.  Musicians and movie producers have been basing ideas on previously invented ideas for years so why should we be hindered from mixing our own ideas and freely distributing them on the Internet?

Moving Pass Borders

Both Jenkins and Miller discuss in their articles on New Media convergence the concept of new media and how it changes Canadian society for the good and the bad.  With new media comes a whole new kind of community, one that has no borders and exists purely online.  As Pierre Levy states with the rise of common technology, "Not everybody knows everything, but everyone knows something, all knowledge resides in humanity."  This collective intelligence he speaks about, binds us together making us equal in the fact that we can all access knowledge, but at the same time exploits us as we are not in power of that knowledge, instead five media conglomerations monopolize most of what we attribute as "common knowledge".  Here Miller's ideas come in as he believes new media is first a new form of commodified consumption and second form of exploited media labour.  When we take Canadian media as an example, you see just how much it lacks in Canadian identity.  This is because of the five companies that control our Western media, and the Americanization of Canadian media.  Like Miller discusses this is a form of exploited media labour, leaving us with a lack of national identity. Our borders are so blurred with the rise of media and the Internet, that our neighbours to the south engulf our media.  With the rise of new media convergence we have to wonder if it is a positive or negative aspect of Canadian media.

For Better or for Worse

I have always been obsessed with new technology, and since cell phones have become popular, I have been sucked in to getting a newer and fancier phone each year.  With every phone that I have held in my possession through the years, each one has had a new feature by the next year.  From texting first, to MP3 players, to Wireless Access and finally to my IPhone which takes Internet access to a new level.  As much as cell phones have changed and impacted my life, I only really started noticing my reliance on them within the last couple of years, especially since buying my Iphone.  Though not everyone is as connected to mobile technology as I have been, as Josgrilberg (2008) states, "Even those who are not 'connected' have somehow been touched by the social changes that information and communication technologies promoted- for better or for worse."  For better or for worse.  That is a concept that I wish to explore because although I can admit to a minor obsession with technology, as I grow older I see the impact that being in constant communication can have.  The constant need for technology urks me as I feel that I should not need to rely on something so much even though I do.  With mobile phones it used to be texting and the need for constant communication with my peers.  With the rise of the Iphone and other smart phones, the need for communication and new technology became even greater for me.

Since Smart phones were created as Goggin discusses, the world of mobile technology has been steered away from mere conversations with our peers, to include the whole world, interconnected by the Internet (Goggin 2009).  Smart Phones could now be considered portable and light computers, with many of the same functions.  The downside as a consumer to this, as discussed in christainsblog91, is the growing need for businesses to move their advertising to the mobile world.  If there is a new form of Internet and technology, businesses must capitalize on this, by forcing advertisements onto personal devices.  As if we do not see advertisements enough, we are now being bombarded by them in every form of technology.  Since the Internet is now on our phones, so is the media and the ads that come along with it.  It is a smart idea for businesses but as a consumer and regular citizen, I have to wonder whether the line will ever be drawn or should we just come to accept that advertisements through forms of technology are here to stay.  Here the struggle of 'for better or for worse' comes in to play.  On one hand, we have the incredible power of the Internet in the palm of our hands, on the other, we are forced to be consumers through the advertisements not only placed on television, radio, and magazines but now on our own individual phones as well.

Iphone and smart phone users are not only permanently connected to the Internet, they now have the capability to do 'real life' things easier than ever before. Cell phones started with talking to your peers anywhere you wanted, but Smart phones now have more underlying technology than we could have ever possibly imagined (Walker et. al. 2008).  A video from the early '90s called "Knowledge Navigator", portrayed what Apple predicted technology would come to in the future.  The video shows a touch screen device that organizes dates, to-do lists, reminders and more.  The device did not look far off from the Ipad of today, but had many of the capabilities of an Iphone, a portable device which organizes dates, offers to do lists and reminders.  Even though Apple predicted such a device, they could not have predicted the expansion of mobile communication technology, connecting us wherever we go.  As discussed in Raymond's Blog, the features of Iphones have expanded to give us Apps, every day functions which make daily problems seem simpler.  There is no need to visit the bank anymore, you can just transfer money through an App on your Iphone.  Need a calculator? Look no more, as you can simply use the App on the device that is constantly glued to your side.  We rely on Smart phones now for not only communication, but also simple tasks that we could very easily accomplish without them.  Smart phones make us lazier with pure convenience in the palm of our hands.  For the 'best', they make our lives simpler, for the 'worst', we are becoming increasingly lazy through technology.  Technology will always create a wedge between an easier lifestyle and truly looking out for the best interests of society.

http://www.glasbergen.com/tag/comics-about-smartphones/

They've Really got a Hold on me

As discussed in the Social Implications of Mobile Telephony  by Scott Campbell and Yong Jin Park, mobile technology is the cutting edge of technology in our generation and has impacted the world by spreading the message "you cannot function without a mobile phone".  The article discusses the relationship between communication and the body, and how cell phones have made communication possible at any point in time.  Our generation seems to feel the need to be in constant communication at all times, especially with the popularity of texting.  If we are not communicating on our phones, we are waiting to be communicated with, waiting for that phone call or text message, waiting so much so that we are incapable of leaving the house without our cell phones.  If we do indeed forget our phone, we have minor to major anxiety attacks over whether it was misplaced or wondering if we will miss anything important.  Since cell phones are seen by the majority of working society as essential, Cell phone providers capitalize on this big time by setting out a newer version of the various models every year.  Now we not only think that cell phones are essential, but with the new conceptualization of smart phones, we have inner competitions, wanting to get the newest and best phone.  When I recently went home for Christmas vacation I saw a group of friends I had not seen in a couple of years,  what I noticed instantly was that in a group of ten people only one did not own an Iphone, and she stood out.  We are influenced by our peers as much as we influence ourselves into wanting the newest and most high tech phones.  If we get the newest phone before others, we consider ourselves superior, if we purchase it late it is because we feel pressured by our surroundings to be 'in the loop'.  Cell phones create competition and obsession, and as of this point Western society could not function without them, a sad thought when twenty years ago we could.

Globalization's Role in Communication

With the rise of information and communications technology or ICTs, our world has been shaped into a completely different place where many countries rely on technology and the internet.  As our society moves into an information age, the concept of globalization affects the world before us, connecting cities, provinces, and countries together with no worry about distance or time.  While globalization opens new doors for the possibilites of the world and further advancements in technology, it also acts as a set back to specific cultures national identity.  As I talked about previously, ICTs create an idea of control, as those who possess the knowledge(leading to money) are the ones who benefit most from ICTs.  This can be associated with culture and the lack of national identity that globalization has brought on.  Take for example universities as described in the book by Kevin Robbins and Frank Webster.  They argue with the new found reliance of ICTs, the typical national university is jeopardized as they are "ceasing to be essential to an increasingly transnational global economy."  The idea that universities represent a nation or a nation state is no more with the rise of virtual learning, distance education and information resources.  We no longer need to access the physical library as we have access on our computers.  As we continue to move through the information age, technology will be used more and more , eventually leading to little need in a physical institution.

What is more the rise of globalization and ICTs can affect a countries national identity in other ways, taking the control away from citizens and their day to day experiences with culture, and allowing corporations to define what culture means today.  Take Canada for example, with our proximity to the United States, the borders between our two countries have always been blurred and because of this we have been affected by American culture, and often identified as part of America.  With the rise of technology and globalization, culture products in American are constantly present in Canada such as television shows, movies, magazines, and internet sites.  As to combat the global market and further Americanization, Canada is forced to regulate technology and culture products, in order to keep our Canadian identity.  Culture used to be a way of life, but especially in the Western World, culture has turned into a commodity and a way to regulate how citizens should define culture.  With that being said if we did not have regulation laws in Canada on media sources, our national identity would become completely immersed into American culture.  ICTs are constantly becoming ways to control nations, as the media perpetuates what citizens should think.  As a result we as intellects need to be analytical to media sources, and instead decide for ourselves what we define as culture.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/From+marriage+spills+Canada+Party+hopes+solve+America+woes/7758257/story.html

Information Societies

To say that today we live in an information age we are referring to the simple fact that information can be found and shared easily through different sources of media such as the internet, television, and radio.  The information age or 'information societies' allocate to every citizen a voice, and a feeling of empowerment through freedom of speech.  Though our society has moved into the information age, it was not without criticisms throughout history that got us to where we are today.  In 1951 Innis criticized the use of information and it's correlation to our social, cultural, and economical growth, stating that information was not necessarily right for the well-being of humans.  Years later in 1986 information was subjected to scrutiny by Miles and Gershuny.  They believed that even if the coming information age did positively influence the economics of society, that it would only influence a specific amount of people instead of equally distributing information resources.  In my own opinion I believe there is validity in their arguments. In fact I believe that since human beings acquired knowledge, and with it technology, we have created a society of inequality.  This is because in society those who possess the knowledge hold the power and those who do not have the knowledge are belittled in society.  Though people are able to speak their minds through ICTs such as the internet, it is only those who possess the information resources that are thoroughly benefiting from the information age.  What is more through the popularity of the internet, an 'addiction' to information through ICTs is forming, and though people are able to voice their opinions, the internet becomes a form of control over the user.  Think about it, how do we know if the information we are getting through the internet is valid?  We blindly choose to believe everything ICTs are telling us, which gives the advantage to those who possess the knowledge.  They are essentially telling us what to think, not to mention what to buy through the bombardment of advertisements we are forced to view.  Their is little to no control to the commercial advertising simple because those in control do not see the need as they are benifiting financially.  Though technology and information has on the surface progressed our society, when you get down to it we probably had more freedom for our own thoughts before the post-industrial society.