technoculture314-09

It's a universal truth that anyone with access to the internet has the power to create and share content. This has left the traditional cultural gatekeepers – the television executives, newspaper owners, book publishers, record companies and movie producers under siege. There's no denying that Web 2.0 has been a bonus for budding film makers and musicians, or more appropriately the produser and cocreator. Take amateur filmmaker Jason van Genderen who last year won Tropfest New York with a 3 ½ minute short film about homelessness, which was shot on a mobile phone and made with a budget of $57. Forget the traditional distribution channels, just put your movie up on YouTube for free. It's a huge finger wag at the traditional gatekeepers who have until now controlled the tide of talent; now culture has been liberated and democratised. The downside is that you have to wade through a lot of D-grade content to find the gems. It may sound patronising but can readers, viewers and listeners be trusted to identify the best content without the guiding hand of authoritative gatekeepers? I think it's more likely that users themselves will sift through the dross and establish a list of people whose opinion they trust. The amount of unsubstantiated content online is annoying, even for user-generated sites like Wikipedia, the so-called poster-child for Web 2.0. In a move that caused a lot of flak, the board recently announced an editorial review system. At this stage these “flagged revisions” apply only to articles about living people but may conceivably be extended to other topics. The Sydney Morning Herald reported Wikipedia's board chairman as saying: “We are no longer at the point that it is acceptable to throw things at the wall and see what sticks.” It's sparked a heated debate about the “purity of Wikipedia's original charter as a fully open user-generated reference work”. It's obvious that user-generated copy is here to stay and the traditional media gatekeepers have to adapt. Is it possible for there to be a hybrid model of both? Jose van Dijck comments in his essay Users like You, that Hollywood producers “hesitate whether to see YouTube-Google as a friend or foe:either they go after them and use their historic prowess to impose their old (content-protection) rules on this newcomer, or they side with them in creating new business and marketing models to create buzz for conventional broadcast products.

The concept of a "global village" has become a reality in the last couple of years, as a result of the rapidly increasing Usage of the Internet: an estimated 30-40 million users are now active within this network, either as private individuals (e.g. for E-Mail or "Web Surfing"), or for business purposes. Most companies now have their own website. As one alternative trade platform, consumers can visit these websites and obtain the information, products or services they want by registering in these websites. When registering, they always are required to sign up the service terms and conditions and provide their personal information. If not, perhaps they will be not permitted to log in and visit these websites. However, it is unfortunate that the personable information provided by the consumers is not be used properly by the relevant companies.
 As a powerful medium, the internet promotes the mutual communication among people and expanding of international commerce. But many people just use it as a tool to commit illegal acts. Indeed, the Internet has enhanced criminals’ abilities to commit traditional crimes more efficiently and anonymously and it has also created new opportunities for crime, such as Internet crime. Internet Fraud is such a kind of Internet crime. On the one hand, it seriously destroys the normal management of Internet information system, and makes people suspect the truth of Internet information. On the other hand, it also seriously damages the other social and economic interests. Hence, it is necessary to take the practicable steps to prevent and combat Internet Fraud so as to protect the benefit of net-users and make the Internet become a safe place for transaction and exchange.

Bibliography: Preventing and Combating Internet Fraud
Introduction

Controlling the gaze is probably the crux of what this site is all about.. The main point being that by taking their own photos they are, in their own minds, not being exploited. But is this the truth?? Are they not inviting anyone and everyone onto the site to ogle at them, no matter which part they choose to display, the fact remains that somebody, somewhere is taking advantage of the image..

That beauty is in the eye of the beholder is what attracts most girls to this site, and that in displaying their outer beauty they are also inviting viewers or followers into their minds. They do so by putting specifically chosen photos up, for example, as mentioned in the reading, a close-up of their eye, is this to signify the idea of "in the eye of the beholder"? And by posting blogs to show their intellect they are maintaining a site that promotes beauty as well as brains they think that the control is within their grasp.

I would say that while this might give them the sense of control but really they are still being exploited in the way that viewers can do what they like with the photos that they post. And by saying that they are sick of being discriminated against because they don't fit the bill of what is "beautiful" they are only making another group in which only girls that fit their own bill can be apart of. In effect, they themselves are discriminating against others. While I give them credit for trying to be different, I think that they should at least realize the hypocrisy in which this site occupies.

At the tutorial on Thursday, we discussed New Zealand's copyright law and someone asked if similar legislation had been introduced in other countries. I found this article in The Sydney Morning Herald which reported on the French lower house of parliament recently passing a law that would cut off internet access for those caught pirating movies and music. Nick Galvin reported: “If the bill makes it onto the statute books, draconian is not the word. Offenders face having their access suspended, fines of up to almost $500,000 and even jail time. Oh, and Parents will be held responsible if their children are caught with illegal downloads.” Not surprisingly The French entertainment industry, is behind the legislation. New Zealand legislators are reconsidering section 92A, but as discussed in the tutorial it's more likely we will fall into line with American legislators and introduce stiff copyright laws. The issue of copyright is a hot topic among publishers, journalists and authors. Writers can be a feisty lot and the debate about Google Print shows that there's still some might in the pen. The New Zealand Society of Authors lashed out at Google, claiming that the search engine giant has “stolen our intellectual property, our most valuable possession.” Here's the back story: In 2005 the US Authors Guild and a coalition of publishers filed a class-action lawsuit against Google for copyright infringement. Google argued fair use. In October 2008 formal resolution was cut short when the parties announced they had reached an out-of-court settlement. This settlement is subject to a final approval hearing in a New York Federal Court on 7 October 2009. Authors affected by the settlement had until last month to opt-in or opt-out of Google and among the high-profile New Zealand authors choosing to opt-out were Margaret Mahy. NZ Herald recently reported that The US Justice Department has advised a federal judge that a proposed legal settlement giving Google the digital rights to millions of out of print books threatens to thwart competition and drive up prices unless it's revised. The latest missive comes from The Authors Guild of America, who are suing Google Inc in a federal court, alleging that the web search leader's bid to digitise the book collections of major libraries infringes individual authors' copyrights. What's interesting is that Google Print has exploded into the top ranks of US internet sites, rising to the 30th most visited site for the week ending September 17 from 90th a week earlier. Google's official response to books online is that it directly benefits authors and publishers by increasing awareness of and sales of the books in the programme. And yes, only small portions of the books are shown unless the content owner gives permission to show more. But books, like music are still subject to illegal downloads. The Guardian reported that pirated copies of Dan Brown’s new Robert Langdon thriller The Lost Symbol started appearing across the internet only a day after the book was published: available for download via peer-to-peer sites including The Pirate Bay and Scribd.com. Nothing like a good thriller to incite a crime.

In the era of Web 2.0, the rise of the ‘prosumer’ signals an increased blurring of the roles and domains of the professional/producer and the consumer. With a focus on the increased participation, agency and creativity of user generated content, the fact that the term prosumer also signals the subsequent blurring of work (production) and leisure (consumption) is often bypassed. This notion it seems is to the advantage of corporations who are increasingly capitalising on user generated content (UGC).

The notion of the prosumer is generally viewed as potentially liberating and challenging to traditional corporate and industry standards. Nevertheless corporations are using UGC to their own advantage and making it work for them. For example, fan based appropriation of mainstream content can be seen as a challenge to traditional media, whereby fans take what is significant to them from mainstream content and appropriate it in creative ways in order to make it more meaningful to them - to create their own sense of individuality within a homogenous society. However, this fan produced content produced for ‘fun’ during leisure time, has been increasingly embraced if not encouraged by the corporations who own the rights to the original mainstream material as a means of generating publicity. The blurring of work and leisure becomes evident in this instance when it is the corporations, not the fans who benefit financially from such prosumer activity.

It is interesting to consider how something that seems like play and leisure can be infact a form of work. Along these lines it is the corporations that are benefiting from the developing forms of voluntary labour which ultimately add to the value of sites and infrustructure. It it important to dig deeper when considering these issues. The term 'prosumer' it seems has been constructed as a kind of buzzword, wrapped up in notions of active participation and cultural citizenship. These claims need to be carefully considered as there is a danger of buying into the rhetoric and hype.

I find myself in a dire situation. Contemplating my choices for a Friday night viewing schedule, I notice a distinct lack in quality, a common sight for most television stations in New Zealand. Between the usual suspects of Rove (who by all accounts offers nothing but culturally imperialistic, American-style hogwash) I contemplate my choices and can’t help feeling distraught. On a whim, I decide to go on to the internet and have a poke around to see if I can muster anything with a soul, something provoking, something enjoyable and something that I can really enjoy. I end up a surfthechannel.com, which unless you have been living underneath a rock for the last year or so, offers links to pretty much anything that you desire - television shows, movies, pretty much anything that you desire. A quick search finds me settling in with a decent movie, Bruce La Bruces’ ‘The Raspberry Reich.'

This annoys me. I find myself in two minds, contemplating the nature of piracy and the affect that has on me as a viewer and the greater affect that it has on the film industry. I feel slightly guilty in the fact that I am enjoying a great art house movie, which presumably was produced on a limited budget, shown to a limited audience and properly not making much money in the process. I find that watching the drool that we are offered during regular hours of television completely mind numbing, yet the only chance of watching a great original movie is at the ‘Art House’ cinemas, or forced to reckon with the uncomfortable chairs in the audio visual library or waiting for the annual International Film Festival to arrive, in the hopes of finding an indie gem. Where does the blame lame? And should I feel guilty? Perhaps I should contemplate watching Rove, atleast knowing that by not watching art house cinema illegally, I possibly be able to catch a gem at the next film festival. Maybe.

NB: I stopped watching the movie and went to the AV Library the next week. I endured Rove for a few more minutes and was then saved by John Stewart. I find that C4 and Maori TV do offer some interesting shows from time to time. Keep an eye out.

In a recent conversation with some friends, I put forward the question of whether or not any of them had an NZDating account. I quickly scanned their faces, knowing full well that none of them would admit to using one, instead looking for slight red flashes of embarrassment as two of them cast their eyes downwards. I find this interesting on a few levels:

a) I don’t understand the embarrassment (unless you’ve got a profile on this site, shame on you). Surely when you sign up to NZ Dating you are forgoing any privacy that previously existed, the whole aim of ‘the game’ being that you are advertising yourself in the hopes of dating. I think this bespeaks a much-overlooked aspect of the site. The act of being anonymous offers a sort of thrill, almost similar to the thrill that is offered by the creation of an avatar in second life or World of Warcraft. You are able to exist separate from your actual self, and through this, you create persona that you are inherently embarrassed about, because it IS NOT YOU.

b) Secondly, I find it interesting that they reasonably expect people to actually meet in real life. Surely a virtual relationship offers little but visual images, simulacra if you will, a copy of the real you. Perhaps I’m a die hard romantic, but what ever happened to love at first sight?

c) Interestingly, the animosity that we are supposed to have does not exist. I find in New Zealand that everyone knows someone who knows someone, who knows someone’s brother, who dated his flatmate (ad infinitum). Our Six degrees of separation seems to be all but measly two (portrayed expertly by 2 degrees mobile advertising campaign, I must admit).

We are inherently copying ourselves continually online, only really offering representations of ourselves. Surely this means that love at first sight online is never truly achievable. Love at first simulacra really doesn’t have the same ring now does it?