Creative Transparency

Lecture seven's focus was on the notion of free culture and free content sharing, which takes place within the Internet meta-scape and how it relates to copyright in general. The fact that the Internet is significantly based upon the aspects of sharing information created by others, means that concerns can arise regarding copyright laws. So a mid-way of sorts was established in 2002, named 'Creative Commons'. Creative Commons, is a non-profit organisation whose duties allow net creators the ability to dictate how their creations are used by others. The whole point of it is protect the creator from another using their work, for purposes they did not intend. It can increase the freedom that users have to share information or decrease it. Six main license types can be selected from the site, starting with the limited attribution coverage to the more intense, attribution non-commercial no derivatives license.

According to our lecturer Adam Muir, much of the Creative Commons philosophy emerged from users who wanted more freedom with various computer softwear. Before there was a market in computer softwear, intellectuals shared embed codes among each other. When the industry began to take off more restrictions were put out by companies such as Microsoft. People like Richard Stallman began the idea of creating so called 'free' softwear, which could be altered and used by others as they saw fit. He believed that users should be entitled to the 'four freedoms'. Meaning, they should be able to; run the program as they wished, adapt it to their own needs, make copies and distribute their alterations and in general have the option to improve that softwear. Nowadays, the notion of 'free' softwear, has been replaced by 'open', because there are always costs involved.

Today there are many 'open' versions of soft wear available on the Internet, which are similar and or almost identical to 'propriety' programs. The plus is you don't have to pay for them and you can often change features, which you could not do with a windows version. Take FireFox for example (I happen to know a little trick where you can speed up certain features, like downloads). FireFox is also fairly secure, and in some respects almost better than Internet Explorer. 'Open' softwear is also necessary for students like me who can't afford to purchase Microsoft office for example. But, who desperately need a word processor!!

Well, the whole point of 'Creative Commons', seems to be to make it easier for users to share information and grow from each other. What I am concerned about though, is the protection of the artist. Problems can arise between general proof of authorship sometimes. We should be asking ourselves the question: does creative commons really protect the artist or creator? With the help of Creative Commons, another artist can build or inspire off another. Is this just? Is this not plagiarism? Apparently not if the author allows it. But, it all seems rather messy to me, especially if not handled correctly.

Though, one thing to consider, is that every creator has at some point been influenced by another. Many singers, dancers, authors, and painters have taken information or art, grown from it as artists and then made their own 'original' contribution.

It reminds me of a quote by the surrealist painter Salvador Dali,

"Begin by learning to draw and paint like the old masters. After that, you can do as you like."

If we can grow from each other as artists,surely, that is a great thing. I just hate to think that the original creators may be lost in midst of vast creative transparency.

My Video: Maybe You Should Reconsider Internet Chatting...

For week 6 we were required to post a short video about anything. This is a silly little video I made, about how chatting to people on the Internet is not all it's cut out to be...I realise that this is not exactly a work of art. But, I tried my best in the limited amount of time I had. I had to juggle a number of other assessments. To me it was important to make a video that actually had a social meaning behind it, relating to the Internet. Hope you like it. I now truly understand the meaning behind what many directors say, 'never work with children or animals!!!One out of two, and I'm feeling pretty exhausted....

A Consumer Revolution

Week six's lecture focused mainly, on how the lines dividing consumer and producer of media, such as videos, have become inextricably blurred nowadays. This is thanks to the new media sharing options out there. The major being the Internet. It is really needless to say that the incredible popularity of the Internet as a media and information source has a lot do with 'you' and 'I', the consumer. According to our lecturer, Josh Nicholas, in the past consumers have been "passive receivers" of content. Meaning, that they were only able to watch media but not affect its process. But thanks to what we can achieve with our humble computer, phone or other portable devices, this is changing significantly.

The Internet, has become increasingly popular as a form of media. Especially among the youth of society. In my opinion for two notable reasons. Firstly it allows the consumer to access a significant amount of differing types of content at one convenient source. Secondly, it allows for a high level of content control. This is most likely the reason why there has been a decline in revenue of other media,such as television and newspapers.

Like our lecturer mentioned, problems do of course arise when we use small portable devices such as our mobiles or personal media players to access content, due to the fact that often the file sizes are too big and the screens too small. Though, these types of devices are useful when assessing the news or the smaller 'episodic' videos on YouTube. Mobile phones are also frequently used today for people to write on their own or others 'blogs'. At the pleasure of their own convenience and privacy.

Not only can the consumer now choose what they want to watch by accessing the Internet, via their computer or a portable device such as their phone, they are also increasingly able to become the producer. There are many ways in which we the consumers are affecting the process of content. Thanks to various programs such as Windows Movie Maker and sites like YouTube, even the most meagre or inexperienced consumer, can try their hand at movie making. According to Josh many of the first movies produced by consumers for consumers on the Internet, were so called 'fan edits', or spin offs of particular films, series or paraphernalia, which In turn were guaranteed viewage by consumers who were also fans. The trouble the consumer faces nowadays, is sorting through a lot of rubbish available on the Internet and on sites like YouTube. A task which can be rather annoying if you are net surfing on you phone. But I suppose one man's trash is another man's treasure.

Those who in the past were just mere consumers of news available on television, are now able to often contribute in a multitude of ways. For example, the consumer can now produce videos, which can be used on television news reports. This was the case during a catastrophe, such as September eleven, where some of the content displayed on the news was sourced by those who were in the past, just consumers. Problems can arise when using a mobile phone to create a video, though. Notably, the picture and sound quality are rather poor, even on the best of phones. Budding camera men and women, can also upload their news related videos on various news sites. There is unfortunately, no real guarantee that the video depicted actually related to the news issue at all. Rather it could actually be a sadistic student with too much time on their hands, who thought they would mess with a few avid news watchers.

New media, such as portable entertainment devices, mobiles and the Internet in general, has revolutionised not only the way in which content is accessed but who creates the content. This was a step that was extremely necessary in a democratic society. Content by the people, for the people.

The Internet Tragedies

I heard a story on the radio a couple of nights ago, which got me thinking about about the power of the Internet. The story noted that during 2009 alone, there have been 29 reported 'Internet suicides'. These people who eventually took their own lives, did so after careful planning during 'chat sessions', where other suicidal users edged them onto a morose fate. Of course not all the people who took part in these 'chats' eventually took their own lives. Some, were much too concerned with giving dark words of suicidal encouragement to others. This truly disgusted me.

Surely, the people who decided to take part in these sorts of chat sessions, were really just crying out for help? These people felt immense inner pain, no doubt, and they needed someone to listen to them. Someone who could understand their pain.

So, a group of lost souls found themselves in the private, yet public, confines of the Internet meta-scape, ominously linked together in tragedy

I am not suggesting that these people who committed suicide on the Internet, were not unstable to begin with. What I am saying, is that very often people are greatly influenced by those whom they communicate with. Sometimes, all someone needs are the right words (or in this case the wrong words) to get them in just the right psychological frame of mind to commit suicide. The Internet, it could be said, is also an incredibly intimate form of communication. Meaning, that even though the Internet is a very public sphere, social networks, often make the individual feel as if they are in their own little world.

A great example of this was the case of another story, I heard about not long ago. It was the story of a young girl who was bullied so much over the Internet, that she eventually killed herself. This young girl did not plan to take her own life well in advance, but did so after being psychologically abused on a social network by another girl. Hanging sentences, to the affect of "why don't you just kill yourself" and "you're a waste of space", were sent to her repeatedly by the other girl. These things that were said to her, were obviously extremely painful and had such profound effects on her, that she ultimately took her own life.

These awful instances reminded me yet again of the power a communicative medium like the Internet, can have on an individual. the Internet can literally put us in touch with just about anyone on the face of the earth. A complete psychopath or a friendly loner, just reaching out. The Internet does not segregate. Various individuals can communicate with one another, who in the past would never of had the opportunity to do so.

I think that also because the Internet allows a person to be anonymous if they so wish, it has the capacity to produce a sense of 'grandeur' from the 'speaker'. In other words, people are more likely to say the things that they would not dare to day to another individual on a face to face basis. People get careless with their words on the Internet, I have found. Forgetting ultimately, that words are incredibly powerful. They have the capacity to hurt or to heal another individual. The written words stays out there, especially in the web meta-scape.

To read a story that also relates to the shocking issue of Internet suicide, check out the following link: http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23218368-5014108,00.html

The Web 2.0 Community

I cannot believe it is already week five! This week's lecture for New Communication Technologies, focused mainly on the growth of community media. Media is described as being all forms of technology that are used in 'social' and or cultural communication. The lecture emphasised the fact that the Internet is becoming more and more of a social network or community in itself. Where all people, from different walks of life have the chance to have their say. Because of the Internet, groups of people can easily link together within a social network, a luxury they would not have had thirty years or so ago. Thanks to the aspects such as 'Web 2.0', a great percentage of what is on the Internet is now 'user generated'. Meaning that people are creating News stories, videos and more, for the masses of society to view, via applications such as Youtube or Flickr. Web 2.0 is focused on generating 'community' spirit apparently, and with connecting individuals with similar issues, or hobbies together. This is a big change from the 'old media' that used to be around, where people were only allowed to view sites. Now days, on almost every news feed, there is a link where you can post your own personal comments, Which can be seen by other users. The lecture called this version of the web, where anyone who can read or write can participate, the 'read- write web'.

Many industries, such as the recording industry or news media, would prefer that applications like blogging or YouTube, didn't exist. Due to the fact that people with differing opinions can voice their beliefs on the net. Actually, some bloggers can become very popular, attracting thousands upon thousands of hits every day. YouTube, is another perfect example of the power of community media. Anyone can upload a video and sometimes artists are even discovered on the net.

The problems I find that arise with community media, is the fact that because you are sharing information with many other users, whether it be music, a video or just your ideas about an issue. Anyone can find it on the net via a search engine, take it from you and reproduce it. Copywrite is often very hard to fully establish in social networks like Deviant art, for example. Everything you share on the Internet in general in these social networks, are not secure. Someone could take your photo and reproduce it (and your picture might end up as part of a Russian dating site).

People, are exchanging ideas more and more and I believe that is a good thing. But I would never post my music or creative writing on a social network. Due to the fact that many sites such as 'Live Journal' keep your information. What you might have written ten years ago , will still be there fifty years from now no doubt. It makes you wonder doesn't it? How secure are those conversations you have on Facebook? Somewhere out there is probably an entire file on 'Sophie' the Green-Lefty, protestor, being updated as we speak.

A Distorted Sense of Reality

I don't personally use Msn to chat to people (shock horror), nor have I ever spoken to people on the life imitation game, Secondlife. Actually, the closest I've come to using something similar, has been one of those Facebook applications called 'Sorority Life' (where you make a character and act like Paris Hilton). But, I quickly grew tired of this because, I would rather actually go shopping, then pretend I am doing so.

I believe that people who take part in 3D chat rooms do so for several notable reasons. Firstly, they are able to hide behind a facade, to possibly a greater degree than with something like an Msn chat room. Due to the fact that they do not rely on their personal picture, but rather on a computer generated manifestation. Subconsciously, the fact that nobody knows what they look like means, that they are somehow free from their own personal inadequacies. For example, a person who is not necessarily outgoing in real life could appear outgoing in the comforts of a 3D world, such as SecondLife. Many people who lack the initial confidence to form deep connections with other individuals in real life, are at ease in a 3D world. Are people who have inherent social inadequacies, more likely to relate to an Internet application, such as Secondlife? Well, in my opinion yes.


In general all people seem more confident on the Internet. I have a number of friends, who come across as very loud and outgoing on an application such as Facebook, but who in real life are actually quite shy. You could ask are these applications, whether they be IM programs, or 3D programs actually a good thing? Do they encourage us to be ourselves or do they actually encourage us to be more socially inept?

I find that people are more likely to chat to those they actually know on applications like Facebook or Msn. Due to the fact that you are reliant on your personal picture and you connect to people via a social network and or email. Whereas, 3D applications like SecondLife or Habbo Hotel, seem to attract people who are looking to meet new people. 3D applications are also not concerned with your real physical appearance. Everybody dreams of being someone else at least once in their life, and games like SecondLife, give you the illusion of just that. Living a fantasy can be attractive. Human beings in general never seem to be happy with their lives, always wanting something more, because they are rather masochistic creatures.

Both applications can bring people together, but the 3D games are more focused on fantasy then IM. I also believe that people are more likely to lie in a 3D environment, due to the sense of other-worldliness and freedom it creates.



I consider it better to actually take a chance and go live, rather then live in a distorted sense of reality....

The Intricacies of Search Engines

Well, logically I thought the best way to find out how a search engine works efficiently, was to look at the home page of every body's favourite search engine (drum roll), Google! The reason why Google has taken over the search engine market, is because it is superior to its counterparts. The last tutorial task I did, proved to me just how awful the other search engines really are (with the exception of maybe Yahoo, which is not too bad at finding things, I suppose). According to Google, the heart of their search engine technology is called 'PageRank'. It is apparently a system for ranking web pages, created by Google's founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin (from Stanford University). In pigeon talk, the system works when a search request is submitted, 'it is routed to a data coup, where monitors flash results at blazing speeds. For each peck, the pigeon rank increases (or in human talk, for each person who searches for that item). The pages receiving the most amount of 'pecks are returned at the top of the user's results page, with the other results displayed in pecking order'. Parallel pecking, or the linking of groups of words is used to give the most relevant result possible (yes, that's right I thought I would use pigeon metaphors to confuse you). The Googlebot is an intricate system which finds web pages and automatically adds their full text to the Google index. This is done alphabetically of course. To improve its performance Google, does not list words such as; the, is,or, how, why etc (so if you have been including them in your search engine, sad you). It also, automatically converts all letters to 'lowercase'. All these little things help the intricate system work faster.