The Republican YouTube debates were held on Wednesday, November 28, 2007. This highly-publicized debate featured (nearly) all of the main Republican candidates for president in the 2008 election. This debate mirrored the Democratic YouTube debates, held about 1-2 months prior. Each candidate was allowed a 30-second advertisement to be aired during the commercials. Fred Thompson made headlines by choosing to air an ad which attacked two of his rivals. Although aggressive campaign ads are certainly nothing new, Fred Thompson took the concept of media and ethics to a new level, by bringing a heightened level of interactivity to the debates. It is my opinion that regulation should be put in place for media manipulations such as this one.
Fred Thompson's 30-second spot discusses Romney's record of support for Roe vs. Wade, despite his anti-abortion stance. The commercial also dogged Huckabee for raising taxes as governor of Arkansas. When the live debate returned, Huckabee and Romney were forced to confront the issues brought up by this commercial. In the eyes of many critics, both candidates handled the razzing admirably. Romney said, "on abortion, I was wrong," and explained how he had transitioned to a pro-life stance since the Roe vs. Wade decision. Huckabee pointed out several tax cuts he had overseen as governor.
One might argue that this is not a new occurence. Political ads have aired during televised debates for many years. However, I believe that this incident is unique, due to the availability of Internet. In response, both Huckabee and Romney gave succinct quips, which may have even resulted in an improvement in their status in the eyes of viewers. Yet, when the Internet community replays the clip of Fred Thompson's ad, they won't see the responses unless they are watching the entire debate. Combined with the fact that Thompson's ad has made headlines, it can be expected that many more people will see Thompson's ad than will see Romney and Huckabee's responses. This is unique for modern times- in the past, such selective replays were entirely unavailable.
Despite the smooth handling of the situation by Huckabee and Romney, it should definitely be examined whether Fred Thompson's actions can be considered "ethical." On the one hand, an unexpectedly aggressive political commercial can certainly become an unexpected curveball to the candidates upon which it focuses. This could be considered a "low" tactic, since it is used as a surprise trick to throw off candidate. However, the purpose of these debates is to discuss controversial actions- if Thompson had aired a softer campaign commercial, then(when the live debate returned) simply stated his accusations against Huckabee and Romney, there would be no discussion of whether he violated morals, as his entire actions were within the normal frame of a debate. So, there's definitely a solid argument for both sides.
This definitely seems to indicate that technology will only make the U.S. Presidential race more "backhanded". So, should ads such as Fred Thompson's be banned from live debates? I am certain that I do not know the answer- both sides have strong and cohesive arguments. However, the potential for damage is there, so I strongly feel that a panel should be selected to review the laws governing political advertisements, with the goal of updating them for modern technology.
Source:http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2206460,00.html
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Prince Sues Three Fansites for Distributing His Image
Recording artist mogul Prince moved to sue three popular websites which distribute pictures and video clips of him. Although these websites are technically distributing unlicensed images of him, they are doing so for no profit, and are "fan sites" which exist solely to praise and promote Prince. Naturally, there are two sides to this argument, and both sides are significantly extensive.
First, one issue to consider is a matter of ownership. Prince legally owns the rights to copyrighted photos and videos. Is this right? To argue on Prince's behalf, he invested a significant amount of effort into creating these photos. Not only did he pose or perform, but he also arranged for the cameraman to film, and orchestrated the entire production. In a sense, most of these images can be thought of as products, since they are available for purchase at Prince's official website. So, it is a natural argument that Prince should own the rights to his own
product.
However, to play devil's advocate, there needs to be something said for the rights of the fans to enjoy Prince. If I wish to make a website to celebrate Prince's life and his music, it would be quite barebones if I had to display only pictures I took, myself. Therefore, I would conclude that it is right for Prince to own the rights to his own works, however, it is wrong for Prince to have 100% control over the distribution of these works, especially in the case of not-for-profit transactions.
Moving on, another issue which can be brought up for debate is that of restricting public access to the media. Prince went so far as to sue fan websites for displaying pictures of Prince-oriented tattoos and Prince-oriented license plates. This brings up an interesting concept- if one can outlaw the unrestricted printing of one's logo, anywhere, then how is fair media reporting, possible? Conceivably, Prince could walk around wearing a giant sign of his logo, and then sue the paparazzi for taking and publishing his picture. Naturally, that is a ridiculous notion, so one must ponder exactly where to draw the line.
At this point in time, I can only suggest possible solutions for this conundrum. Perhaps it would be best to treat a logo in a similar manner in which the law treats recorded songs. In other words, restrict the direct sharing of the logo, but allow a drawing of that logo to be shared, not unlike how cover songs are considered legal to record and perfom. Though this might work, the best solution is undoubtedly a full aand regular review of the way copyright law is viewed in regards to the Internet. Naturally, it is easy to see how copyright law can be fully outdated, despite efforts to keep up with the constantly dynamic Internet.
If Prince's goal was to anger millions of fans, then he certainly succeeded. This may be a horrible career move from the gentleman who already purposefully alienated himself from his record company and his distributors. However, if Prince was attempting to show the world the faultiness of modern logo protection, and chose to do this by playing the "bad guy," then his experiment could be considered a success, as the courts are now paying ample attention to his case.
http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2206460,00.html
First, one issue to consider is a matter of ownership. Prince legally owns the rights to copyrighted photos and videos. Is this right? To argue on Prince's behalf, he invested a significant amount of effort into creating these photos. Not only did he pose or perform, but he also arranged for the cameraman to film, and orchestrated the entire production. In a sense, most of these images can be thought of as products, since they are available for purchase at Prince's official website. So, it is a natural argument that Prince should own the rights to his own
product.
However, to play devil's advocate, there needs to be something said for the rights of the fans to enjoy Prince. If I wish to make a website to celebrate Prince's life and his music, it would be quite barebones if I had to display only pictures I took, myself. Therefore, I would conclude that it is right for Prince to own the rights to his own works, however, it is wrong for Prince to have 100% control over the distribution of these works, especially in the case of not-for-profit transactions.
Moving on, another issue which can be brought up for debate is that of restricting public access to the media. Prince went so far as to sue fan websites for displaying pictures of Prince-oriented tattoos and Prince-oriented license plates. This brings up an interesting concept- if one can outlaw the unrestricted printing of one's logo, anywhere, then how is fair media reporting, possible? Conceivably, Prince could walk around wearing a giant sign of his logo, and then sue the paparazzi for taking and publishing his picture. Naturally, that is a ridiculous notion, so one must ponder exactly where to draw the line.
At this point in time, I can only suggest possible solutions for this conundrum. Perhaps it would be best to treat a logo in a similar manner in which the law treats recorded songs. In other words, restrict the direct sharing of the logo, but allow a drawing of that logo to be shared, not unlike how cover songs are considered legal to record and perfom. Though this might work, the best solution is undoubtedly a full aand regular review of the way copyright law is viewed in regards to the Internet. Naturally, it is easy to see how copyright law can be fully outdated, despite efforts to keep up with the constantly dynamic Internet.
If Prince's goal was to anger millions of fans, then he certainly succeeded. This may be a horrible career move from the gentleman who already purposefully alienated himself from his record company and his distributors. However, if Prince was attempting to show the world the faultiness of modern logo protection, and chose to do this by playing the "bad guy," then his experiment could be considered a success, as the courts are now paying ample attention to his case.
http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2206460,00.html
Monday, December 17, 2007
Are you my mother?: Weaning kids off technology’s breast milk.
Darren Waters writes an article on the “$100 laptop could sell to public” on the BBC website. Darren later attaches a blog apologizing for the “misspoken statement” made by the executive of OLPC organization (One Laptop Per Child) to sell the computer to the public. PR at OLPC said the executive misspoke and that it was only a possibility, not a guarantee, to sell the laptop to the public.
Who cares about a silly mishap with words…why aren’t we commenting on the quote made by chief connectivity officer Michalis Bletsas, that his hope is “that the laptop project would help children enrich their lives to the extent that one day they could become consumers of they will one day become consumers of the types of technologies on display in Las Vegas.”
So the goal of the OLPC organization is to produce young consumers who will eventually buy more stuff? What happened to the idea of “enriching their lives” and the educational impact on these children in developing countries? If this organization stands for expanding education in developing countries, they sure have a consumerist way of showing it.
Mr. Bletsas also comments that “it will stimulate their interest in looking further- not waiting for some teacher or adult.” Mr. Bletsas completely downplays the role of the parent, giving the child full reign with their new $176 dollar laptop. Bletsas wants them to look further, look further into what? How will they know what to look for without the direction of a teacher or role model to influence their decision making? I am arguing to give children all the answers to the quiz, but adults need to be there to provide the right scantron to take the quiz. Nor am I arguing that all parents are geniuses, but I think that the participation of parents, teachers and role models should not be undermined when it comes to technology.
These children who are “connected” will have a lot of information at their fingertips, their brains are vulnerable, alive, and bright, but it is up to us as the “adult” to guide children.
It’s not about whether children have the technology or not but it is about what they do with that technology; how do they truly use it as a resource. A child could have all the technology in the world, but if you use it on gaming and chatting, are you truly “enriching your life?” Parents of the internet addicted teens would disagree.
I’m sure Mr. Bletsas would have a difficult time using the same argument in relation to the kids at the South Korean internet addicted boot camp.
This is where the parents come in. any medium can be constructive and educational for kids, but it is how the parent shapes that learning that is important. Take TV, would Mr. Bletsas make the same comments about TV “stimulating their interest to look further”? Without the parent’s involvement and participation, we don’t know what that kid could be watching. It’s the same idea with internet, it’s about participating in their learning.
Martin Flacker writes about a boot camp in Korea for internet addicted teens in the New York Times article titled “In Korea, a Boot Camp Cure for Web Obsession.” He writes about the boot camp “Jump Up Internet Rescue School” where young teenage boys in South Korea go to beat their internet addiction. “One participant, Lee Chang-hoon, 15, began using the computer to pass the time while his parents were working and he was home alone. He said he quickly came to prefer the virtual world, where he seemed to enjoy more success and popularity than in the real one. He spent 17 hours a day online, mostly looking at Japanese comics and playing a combat role-playing game called Sudden Attack. He played all night, and skipped school two or three times a week to catch up on sleep.” The children get no sense of participation and involvement of the parents. This article begs the question: Where are the parents? There is a lack of parental responsibility going on. They are living in their parent’s home, and at no time did the parent say, “No, you don’t get to use the computer because you have been on it all day” or “I’m worried about your physical activity.”
The theme of these articles is very simple: the importance of parental involvement or lack thereof. Technology can advance at the speed of light, but technology alone is not going to enrich children’s lives, I think it still takes a village for that.
References:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/intels-approach-to-laptops-for-poor-children/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/technology/18rehab.html?pagewanted=2&bl&ei=5087&en=7857a1f63763a21e&ex=1195707600
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6246989.stm
Who cares about a silly mishap with words…why aren’t we commenting on the quote made by chief connectivity officer Michalis Bletsas, that his hope is “that the laptop project would help children enrich their lives to the extent that one day they could become consumers of they will one day become consumers of the types of technologies on display in Las Vegas.”
So the goal of the OLPC organization is to produce young consumers who will eventually buy more stuff? What happened to the idea of “enriching their lives” and the educational impact on these children in developing countries? If this organization stands for expanding education in developing countries, they sure have a consumerist way of showing it.
Mr. Bletsas also comments that “it will stimulate their interest in looking further- not waiting for some teacher or adult.” Mr. Bletsas completely downplays the role of the parent, giving the child full reign with their new $176 dollar laptop. Bletsas wants them to look further, look further into what? How will they know what to look for without the direction of a teacher or role model to influence their decision making? I am arguing to give children all the answers to the quiz, but adults need to be there to provide the right scantron to take the quiz. Nor am I arguing that all parents are geniuses, but I think that the participation of parents, teachers and role models should not be undermined when it comes to technology.
These children who are “connected” will have a lot of information at their fingertips, their brains are vulnerable, alive, and bright, but it is up to us as the “adult” to guide children.
It’s not about whether children have the technology or not but it is about what they do with that technology; how do they truly use it as a resource. A child could have all the technology in the world, but if you use it on gaming and chatting, are you truly “enriching your life?” Parents of the internet addicted teens would disagree.
I’m sure Mr. Bletsas would have a difficult time using the same argument in relation to the kids at the South Korean internet addicted boot camp.
This is where the parents come in. any medium can be constructive and educational for kids, but it is how the parent shapes that learning that is important. Take TV, would Mr. Bletsas make the same comments about TV “stimulating their interest to look further”? Without the parent’s involvement and participation, we don’t know what that kid could be watching. It’s the same idea with internet, it’s about participating in their learning.
Martin Flacker writes about a boot camp in Korea for internet addicted teens in the New York Times article titled “In Korea, a Boot Camp Cure for Web Obsession.” He writes about the boot camp “Jump Up Internet Rescue School” where young teenage boys in South Korea go to beat their internet addiction. “One participant, Lee Chang-hoon, 15, began using the computer to pass the time while his parents were working and he was home alone. He said he quickly came to prefer the virtual world, where he seemed to enjoy more success and popularity than in the real one. He spent 17 hours a day online, mostly looking at Japanese comics and playing a combat role-playing game called Sudden Attack. He played all night, and skipped school two or three times a week to catch up on sleep.” The children get no sense of participation and involvement of the parents. This article begs the question: Where are the parents? There is a lack of parental responsibility going on. They are living in their parent’s home, and at no time did the parent say, “No, you don’t get to use the computer because you have been on it all day” or “I’m worried about your physical activity.”
The theme of these articles is very simple: the importance of parental involvement or lack thereof. Technology can advance at the speed of light, but technology alone is not going to enrich children’s lives, I think it still takes a village for that.
References:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/intels-approach-to-laptops-for-poor-children/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/technology/18rehab.html?pagewanted=2&bl&ei=5087&en=7857a1f63763a21e&ex=1195707600
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6246989.stm
“Can I get a non fat grande novel with no whip please?!”
While some people may argue the timeline that books have, the reality is that books will not go away because of the technology we have. Books gratify a different need then a computer screen, books can be categorized as a leisure activity. While a computer screen could be argued to be a leisure activity, the elements of the computer are not the same as a book. William Powers tells “On the Media” that a book requires the reader to use their hands more, “the hands are telling the brain where you are, how much further you have to go, and so forth.” According to Powers, paper- based, or close to it, is here to stay.
People are still reading books, they are just not going through the traditional way of the library or bookstore, but they are fusing two mediums, the Internet and books, in order to be more effective and convenient.
The invention of the car comes to mind: did people stop walking when Ford came around? No, people do both, it is just another addition to the repertoire.
Sara Nelson argues her point on NPR that there are too many books. But isn't that the point of digitizing, to have a lot of information available to you? Can there be such a thing as too many books? I think so, but we have to filter out what we can to find what we need.
Jonathon band, a professor at Georgetown Univ. Law center does make a strong point that Google allows for those books that are hidden in a huge school library to make it easier to access these diamonds in the ruff for students on a search for resources and references. The sampling debate rises out of this example and makes a case where sampling can be viewed in a positive light. The sampling does not show the entire book, but just enough to either help you in your research or to go out and buy a fresh paper copy yourself. Sampling in the case of books, drives the sales of books so that the reader will want to buy it at their local Borders.
The small bookstores are few and far between, being taken over by media conglomerates. While it may seem unfair to the small bookstore owner, technology is making books more readily accessible.
Jonathon bland claims that Google’s library search will make books more relevant or relative, a book is only worth anything if it is on Google library or Oprah’s book club. Our society is at the point where we don’t take the time to search ourselves, we just take what’s popular from Google and Oprah; what these media conglomerates are telling us we should read. If we go to back to Sara Nelson’s argument on the overabundance of books, then these popular filters perpetuate the ideas in our culture, because this is the book critic we use when deciding what to read.
Some authors claim that Google should have to pay for the books that they use in their library. With this debate, we fall back into copyright, but being that the library falls under “fair use” doctrine, Lessig discusses this type of use of the Internet media. It is used as a promotional tool for that book, and if the person wants more information, they have to buy the entire book. People may not necessarily settle for an electronic copy if they are interested in the book. Books are a collection of who you are, and downloading it to your favorites is not the same as collecting the books you love.
We are a culture of speed and convenience, and the new digital book called Kindle creates a light and accessible way to read something that is “book-like.” Bob Garfield interviews the vice president of research for E-ink, Michael McCreary who says that this new E book will have a real pigment of ink and actual books. The product is called the Kindle and it is a digital book. The digital memory can hold numerous books, and the battery life can last as long as five hours.
New technology, like the Espresso Book Machine is advancing the print of books and the speed of printing. Out of print books is no longer an option with this machine that can print any book in seconds.
As our new technology continues to progress forward, books still find a way to hold on to the coat tails of technological advances.
People are still reading books, they are just not going through the traditional way of the library or bookstore, but they are fusing two mediums, the Internet and books, in order to be more effective and convenient.
The invention of the car comes to mind: did people stop walking when Ford came around? No, people do both, it is just another addition to the repertoire.
Sara Nelson argues her point on NPR that there are too many books. But isn't that the point of digitizing, to have a lot of information available to you? Can there be such a thing as too many books? I think so, but we have to filter out what we can to find what we need.
Jonathon band, a professor at Georgetown Univ. Law center does make a strong point that Google allows for those books that are hidden in a huge school library to make it easier to access these diamonds in the ruff for students on a search for resources and references. The sampling debate rises out of this example and makes a case where sampling can be viewed in a positive light. The sampling does not show the entire book, but just enough to either help you in your research or to go out and buy a fresh paper copy yourself. Sampling in the case of books, drives the sales of books so that the reader will want to buy it at their local Borders.
The small bookstores are few and far between, being taken over by media conglomerates. While it may seem unfair to the small bookstore owner, technology is making books more readily accessible.
Jonathon bland claims that Google’s library search will make books more relevant or relative, a book is only worth anything if it is on Google library or Oprah’s book club. Our society is at the point where we don’t take the time to search ourselves, we just take what’s popular from Google and Oprah; what these media conglomerates are telling us we should read. If we go to back to Sara Nelson’s argument on the overabundance of books, then these popular filters perpetuate the ideas in our culture, because this is the book critic we use when deciding what to read.
Some authors claim that Google should have to pay for the books that they use in their library. With this debate, we fall back into copyright, but being that the library falls under “fair use” doctrine, Lessig discusses this type of use of the Internet media. It is used as a promotional tool for that book, and if the person wants more information, they have to buy the entire book. People may not necessarily settle for an electronic copy if they are interested in the book. Books are a collection of who you are, and downloading it to your favorites is not the same as collecting the books you love.
We are a culture of speed and convenience, and the new digital book called Kindle creates a light and accessible way to read something that is “book-like.” Bob Garfield interviews the vice president of research for E-ink, Michael McCreary who says that this new E book will have a real pigment of ink and actual books. The product is called the Kindle and it is a digital book. The digital memory can hold numerous books, and the battery life can last as long as five hours.
New technology, like the Espresso Book Machine is advancing the print of books and the speed of printing. Out of print books is no longer an option with this machine that can print any book in seconds.
As our new technology continues to progress forward, books still find a way to hold on to the coat tails of technological advances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
