Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Friday, May 6, 2011
Is Digital Media Bad for Us?
This question has been divided into several overarching themes that I will tackle individually.
Socio-Political concerns:
For politics, the Digital Age ushers in a new era of accountability where nothing is private and all you have done in your public past will catch up with you. I often wonder what the next generation holds as our future presidents and world leaders will have their childhood Facebook pages and various other internet sources unearthed showing us every facet of that person. In a sense, the era of privacy of open. Wikileaks has broken down the last barrier that separates the government and its citizens effectively acting as a watchdog for malpractice. I can honestly say I do not know where I stand on this issue. While it is important for citizens to know when their governments are breaking the rules, it is too early to tell whether this information will get into the wrong hands and create a mess of things. I suppose Wikileaks is a wait and see.
Interpersonal concerns:
Many people believe that Digital media is the death of intimacy. For every face to face conversation, there are ten one will have over the internet. People will text instead of call. They will send someone an e-card instead of actually sending something through the mail. The internet is believed to have made us slower, more static creatures and I find it hard to argue with that. With the advent of Facebook and iTunes, this blog post has taken twice as long to complete as it should have.
Psychological concerns:
For an internet addicted person, surfing the web consumes all of their lives. When they are in their rooms, they are on ten different websites. When out with friends, they are googling something someone said to fact-check it. I am one of these people. As much as I hate to admit it, I am a computer junkie. Over the past several years, I have not been able to finish a book or a homework assignment without using the internet on the side. It is completely consuming and truly hazardous to my overall well being. In the future people will watch movies with sidebars of other movies because they simply cannot focus on one thing. It is a shame.
I find all of these above concerns to be valid. For me, Digital media has been more of a nuisance than anything. It has made me a less attentive person, and has forced to read about things more than actually do them. It is the catalyst for inactivity and the one thing I devote more time to than anything. So thanks a lot technology, you have made me a much less effective human being.
Socio-Political concerns:
For politics, the Digital Age ushers in a new era of accountability where nothing is private and all you have done in your public past will catch up with you. I often wonder what the next generation holds as our future presidents and world leaders will have their childhood Facebook pages and various other internet sources unearthed showing us every facet of that person. In a sense, the era of privacy of open. Wikileaks has broken down the last barrier that separates the government and its citizens effectively acting as a watchdog for malpractice. I can honestly say I do not know where I stand on this issue. While it is important for citizens to know when their governments are breaking the rules, it is too early to tell whether this information will get into the wrong hands and create a mess of things. I suppose Wikileaks is a wait and see.
Interpersonal concerns:
Many people believe that Digital media is the death of intimacy. For every face to face conversation, there are ten one will have over the internet. People will text instead of call. They will send someone an e-card instead of actually sending something through the mail. The internet is believed to have made us slower, more static creatures and I find it hard to argue with that. With the advent of Facebook and iTunes, this blog post has taken twice as long to complete as it should have.
Psychological concerns:
For an internet addicted person, surfing the web consumes all of their lives. When they are in their rooms, they are on ten different websites. When out with friends, they are googling something someone said to fact-check it. I am one of these people. As much as I hate to admit it, I am a computer junkie. Over the past several years, I have not been able to finish a book or a homework assignment without using the internet on the side. It is completely consuming and truly hazardous to my overall well being. In the future people will watch movies with sidebars of other movies because they simply cannot focus on one thing. It is a shame.
I find all of these above concerns to be valid. For me, Digital media has been more of a nuisance than anything. It has made me a less attentive person, and has forced to read about things more than actually do them. It is the catalyst for inactivity and the one thing I devote more time to than anything. So thanks a lot technology, you have made me a much less effective human being.
Copyright
Copyright is a sensitive issue. Often times one may not even realize when they are in violation of it. Ever make a movie where one of your characters is sitting behind an Apple computer? What about a character driving up to the camera in a Volkswagon Beetle. If you show the logo, you are in direct violation of copyright. Using the sources provided for us, I will discuss the issue of copyright in all facets of digital media.
Following in the footsteps of Radiohead's 2007 release "In Rainbows," Issa, a popular female musician decided that she would release her music using the "pay what you want" business model. This was intended to be a criticism against industry regulation and the steps in which the records company have taken in its ongoing quest to end piracy. Do I find this business model to be sound? In some ways, yes. Issa knows that many of her fans will download it on the internet anyway, and this way her music is now available to a wider variety of people who may then ultimately buy tickets for her concerts thus increasing the volume of her tours. It is both a testament to her love of the medium and a sharp criticism of studio politics and interference.
Next, is a video by a band called "Atomic Tom," who after having their instruments stolen decided they would hold a free concert on a subway using applications from their cellphones as instruments. While I do not believe this was intended to be interpreted as "next generation marketing" or forward thinking, it is an interesting tidbit that shows how technology now allows us to perform our everyday tasks from literally anywhere on the globe. It also shows how they have included new media into their lives.
The next video is an exploration of the cosmetic products sold to consumers and what damaging chemicals they put inside them. This expose is interesting because it displays the power of YouTube as a 21st century watchdog Bernstein and Leeland could have used when they were cracking open the Watergate scandal. YouTube has eliminated much of the privacy that used to exist and has become a hotbed for both protesters and conspiracy theorists alike. Type in the words "9/11" and "inside job" and you should be in at least a few dozens videos.
Wikipedia is the subject of the next video which displays the page for "remixes" and the history of the remix. Beginning in Jamaica during the late 60s and early 70s, the "remix" is an art form that is completely reliable on new media. It is done with computers and could not have been around until before this big technological boom. While I admire it, I do not hold it in the same regard as a rock band or an orchestra.
Next, is an article of "fair use," or appropriating something one has borrowed in a way that does not infringe upon withstanding copyrights. Fair use is a complicated issue and one that features many, many loopholes. From reading this, I've learned to ALWAYS consult those you will be borrowing from even if you think you are staying in the bounds of the law because it is extremely difficult to be absolutely sure in situations such as these.
A "creative commons" license, or a permit allowing one to use copyrighted material is a relatively new idea that is once again quite tricky. Creative Commons are in place to allow artists to use material if it is absolutely necessary or educational purposes. It is a very strong step forward in closing the divide that exists between creator and consumer.
Next is a graphic novel which tells the story of a documentary filmmaker struggling to navigate through the loopholes and confusion of copyright and creative commons licensing. This is an interesting story in that it is an accurate potrayal of what this process is actually like. It shows the uninitiated what to expect when they enter this complicated process.
The next article is perhaps the most interesting of them all, entitled, "American Lawbreaking." Lawbreaking attempts to bring to light the fact that we all infringe on copyright laws everyday of the week. Anytime we burn a CD for a friend, host a public screening of a DVD at our house or upload a video with a Beatles song in it, we are breaking the law. However, considering these are so minuscule and insignificant in the landscape of crime, law enforcement officials choose not to enforce it.
The next video we watched "Right Wing Radio Duck" is an example of an education montage. New media allows us to take two videos of disparate content and combine them to create an overarching opinion or mood for a piece. Here, Glenn Beck is combined with the image of rambunctious cartoons to get an idea across. This is a fascinating new medium to create both satire and in many ways, manipulation material and is a product of the new Digital Age.
Lastly, the final artist tells the story of how remix artist, Pogo, known for his gibberish remixes of classic animated films, was sued by Disney for copyright infringement. I am at loss to say how Pogo using their clips is unlawful, but alas, it is. He seeks no compensation and is strictly using it to get his name out there. It is very sad that he cannot be allowed to do this. Nonetheless, this article is still a fascinating example of the complicated issue that is copyright.
Following in the footsteps of Radiohead's 2007 release "In Rainbows," Issa, a popular female musician decided that she would release her music using the "pay what you want" business model. This was intended to be a criticism against industry regulation and the steps in which the records company have taken in its ongoing quest to end piracy. Do I find this business model to be sound? In some ways, yes. Issa knows that many of her fans will download it on the internet anyway, and this way her music is now available to a wider variety of people who may then ultimately buy tickets for her concerts thus increasing the volume of her tours. It is both a testament to her love of the medium and a sharp criticism of studio politics and interference.
Next, is a video by a band called "Atomic Tom," who after having their instruments stolen decided they would hold a free concert on a subway using applications from their cellphones as instruments. While I do not believe this was intended to be interpreted as "next generation marketing" or forward thinking, it is an interesting tidbit that shows how technology now allows us to perform our everyday tasks from literally anywhere on the globe. It also shows how they have included new media into their lives.
The next video is an exploration of the cosmetic products sold to consumers and what damaging chemicals they put inside them. This expose is interesting because it displays the power of YouTube as a 21st century watchdog Bernstein and Leeland could have used when they were cracking open the Watergate scandal. YouTube has eliminated much of the privacy that used to exist and has become a hotbed for both protesters and conspiracy theorists alike. Type in the words "9/11" and "inside job" and you should be in at least a few dozens videos.
Wikipedia is the subject of the next video which displays the page for "remixes" and the history of the remix. Beginning in Jamaica during the late 60s and early 70s, the "remix" is an art form that is completely reliable on new media. It is done with computers and could not have been around until before this big technological boom. While I admire it, I do not hold it in the same regard as a rock band or an orchestra.
Next, is an article of "fair use," or appropriating something one has borrowed in a way that does not infringe upon withstanding copyrights. Fair use is a complicated issue and one that features many, many loopholes. From reading this, I've learned to ALWAYS consult those you will be borrowing from even if you think you are staying in the bounds of the law because it is extremely difficult to be absolutely sure in situations such as these.
A "creative commons" license, or a permit allowing one to use copyrighted material is a relatively new idea that is once again quite tricky. Creative Commons are in place to allow artists to use material if it is absolutely necessary or educational purposes. It is a very strong step forward in closing the divide that exists between creator and consumer.
Next is a graphic novel which tells the story of a documentary filmmaker struggling to navigate through the loopholes and confusion of copyright and creative commons licensing. This is an interesting story in that it is an accurate potrayal of what this process is actually like. It shows the uninitiated what to expect when they enter this complicated process.
The next article is perhaps the most interesting of them all, entitled, "American Lawbreaking." Lawbreaking attempts to bring to light the fact that we all infringe on copyright laws everyday of the week. Anytime we burn a CD for a friend, host a public screening of a DVD at our house or upload a video with a Beatles song in it, we are breaking the law. However, considering these are so minuscule and insignificant in the landscape of crime, law enforcement officials choose not to enforce it.
The next video we watched "Right Wing Radio Duck" is an example of an education montage. New media allows us to take two videos of disparate content and combine them to create an overarching opinion or mood for a piece. Here, Glenn Beck is combined with the image of rambunctious cartoons to get an idea across. This is a fascinating new medium to create both satire and in many ways, manipulation material and is a product of the new Digital Age.
Lastly, the final artist tells the story of how remix artist, Pogo, known for his gibberish remixes of classic animated films, was sued by Disney for copyright infringement. I am at loss to say how Pogo using their clips is unlawful, but alas, it is. He seeks no compensation and is strictly using it to get his name out there. It is very sad that he cannot be allowed to do this. Nonetheless, this article is still a fascinating example of the complicated issue that is copyright.
VIDEO R-R-R-R-REMIX!!!!
This video serves as both a cross-pollination of the royal wedding and a traditional montegnard wedding as well as an example of how digital media can subvert a message to fit a person's own interest. Notice how the second half is considerably darker and paints the groom out to be a scary person. This is done purposefully to show how tools such as video editing can be used to exploit someone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)