Check this out

Place:  Experience Music Project (JBL Theatre and First Level Lobby)

 

Date:  March 29, 2005

 

Time:  7:30pm

 

Price:  Absolutely FREE and open to ALL ages

 

Description:  Be the first to hear the new NIN album "With Teeth" - a
month before anyone else.  The first 200 people to show up will receive a
limited edition poster (that only people attending the event will have). 
There will also be a screening of their DVD, along with an art exhibit
from fans all over the Seattle area.

resource for surveillance,privacy & ethics

A quite note to those who may be doing their final project on the topic of Surveillancs, privacy & ethics.
I just read the first novel from Dan Brown called "Digital Fortress" 1998. This is the guy who later wrote "The Da Vinci Code".
"Digital Fortress" is about exactly what we were talking about in class today. The book is filled with discussions and musings about privacy, ethics, government and the internet. It reads very fast so anyone could finish it in a weekend.

"Free-est" of Spaces?

The part of the Denegri-Knott article that I found most interesting also tied in with some of our small-group discussion during class: Is the Internet the "free-est of spaces" intellectual and creative utopia some people think it is meant to be? I think an answer can be examined by considering two different definitions of 'free': that is does not cost money, and that it is lacking controls.

For the first definition, the Internet itself is literally free, but the cost of accessing it can be prohibitive. Purchasing a home computer and paying for Internet access is a luxury many households cannot afford in the U.S. Connecting Internet lines is also an expensive logistical problem in some rural parts of the U.S. and many countries in the world. While it is true that people can access the Internet without cost at a library or school, many prominent web-hosting companies charge money for hosting a site, or for a domain name. Additionally, many research tools such as newspaper archives and Lexus Nexis charge a subscriber fee. My group began to get a bit creative and suggest that even driving to the library to get the Internet costs money for gas, and time that one could be working. But even without stretching the possibilities, I think the Internet is not quite as "free" as utopian purists might believe.

As to the second definition, the Internet may be "freer" of controls that traditional publishing, but it is controlled in many ways, both overt and unintentional. My group discussed intentional, overt controls such as pricing of Internet service providers and subscription websites; obscenity filters such as NetNanny and webmasters who threaten user removal for content deemed inappropriate such as thefacebook.com; privacy policies that outline what information may be used and how; age restrictions, such as not allowing children under 13 to register for some things, or not letting people under 21 access the Corona website; and membership, such as Google's invitation-only beta version of Gmail. There are also (probably) unintended restrictions, such as: computer availability; the learning curve of different groups; resource allocation of where public funds invest money in Internet technology; and computer speed, such as users of low-end computers who cannot download as quickly and effectively as people who can afford high-tech computers; and social restrictions, such as ignoring or insulting somebody in a discussion group who makes unpopular remarks.

I greatly respect the idea of a free, equal, and decentralized Internet space, but it seems to me that people who are richer, better educated, and agree with more popular ideas will consistently have an easier and more successful time using the Internet. Based on the preceding two definitions of 'free', I think it would be fair to say that the Internet is a "freer" space, or perhaps "the free-est space currently available", but I do not agree in absolute terms that it is the "free-est" of spaces.

Do justifications make it right?

Just because an artist is rich or has more money than we do how that does equate with being perfectly legitimate to down load their songs for free? We can’t all be musicians, I know I couldn’t. This is their job and how they make money. Just because their kids aren’t starving if we don’t buy their CD it doesn’t make it right.

If I publish a book online should you be able to download the whole thing at no charge if I am selling the book in print at a price and have not given you permission? If I take photographs and post them online for sale, should you be able to down load and print those photos out for free? What if I am already rich?

If an artist thinks that music should be available for everyone to download and file share allow them to post and share their music. If an artist is upset by this and not will to cooperate allow them to specify this.

Many musicians don’t just write and produce music for fun they do it for the money. Producers also don’t sign of for free. If music prices are too high don’t buy. Ban together to send a message, write a petition flood their e-mail. You may feel violate by roles that stop you from getting music for free, but why. You didn’t write these songs, you don’t work for free and most likely wouldn’t give your goods and services away for free so why would you expect someone else to?

My Thoughts on File Sharing

The discussion on P2P networks and file sharing was very interesting. I do not download songs just because I don't have the time and my friends usually end up giving me cds. I never really thought twice about it when I would get these songs illegally from my friends. But, for some reason, I always thought downloading movies was wrong while I never thought that downloading previously shown television shows was wrong. The way I see it is: songs and television shows are readily available on the radio and on t.v. while you usually need to pay to see movies. These songs are played on the radio to gain more popularity and I also think that file sharing also raises popularity of a song or artist. I know that my brother and friends download a lot of songs that they then buy the cd for because they like it so much. And there are a lot of unknown artists I have heard of when friends would send me the file.

I can understand artist's fear that they will lose a lot of business from file sharing, but at the same time it is important to see that they are gaining a lot of fans from file sharing as well. Also, the presenters said that most of an artist's money comes from concerts and selling merchandise at these concerts...I really believe that file sharing is attracting more fans and therefore more people to there concerts...Stop being so greedy, artists, and just realize you guys are all much richer than the people who are downloading your music! If it was really about the music then you would be thankful that file sharing is allowing more people to hear your music!

Hollywood files more Web lawsuits

"Hollywood's major movie studios filed a new round of lawsuits nationwide Thursday against people who trade illegally copied films and TV shows on the Internet. " (CNN article)

I was just on CNN and came across this article (a couple minutes after I posted my entry). This topic's gettin' hot!

Check it:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/24/technology/hollywood_lawsuits.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

Space-Shifting

I thought the discussion on P2P network was really good. There were a lot of controversial issues discussed, one of which was the idea of space-shifting. After Meghan Dougherty’s example of space-shifting, I found myself pondering to the idea. From Webopedia, space-shifting is defined as “The act of copying digital content for use on a device other than the one for which it is was originally intended, such as copying a music from a compact disc to an MP3 file for use on a portable MP3 player, or copying an MP3 file onto a compact disc for use in a digital audio player.” (Webpodia: “space-shifting”) From this definition, there is no idea of file-sharing. However, does copying a digital content from one computer to another computer fit into this definition?

This leads to my next thought. File-sharing, specifically downloading music. First of all, I’m tired of this “I have to feed my family” statement from artists that complain about people downloading their music, especially from artists living large and blinged up. Creativity is not stolen when a download occurs. No one downloads music to steal lyrics or beats; people download to listen to it, and be inspired by the music; everything’s for personal benefits. I actually don’t know what is lost. However, I know that when a song is downloaded, it becomes a promotional item. “Sampling” is a good terminology to use, and I believe that’s what most people see themselves doing. It’s like borrowing the album from a friend. One wants to hear it before buying it. Hmmmm…what if someone sends an actual CD around to a community? Would this be relevant to the idea of file-sharing? Anyways who wants to pay 15 bucks for an album that has only one or two good hits? I believe that most people will go buy a CD if it’s quality. If it’s not, “can I get my money back”?

If a person buys an album, and sends the songs to his friends through digital media, is that legal?

Peace, Love and File-Sharing

The topic of file sharing is a very controversial one and in doing research for the presentation I am conflicted about it. While artists like Elton John saying please don’t download, I have to make a living is absolutely ridiculous being that he is filthy rich, I do feel sorry for the more independent singers and songwriters that this might actually effect. The counter argument to that is that file sharing could actually be positive for them in that it will give them more exposure. I guess I am still more on the pro-file sharing side of the argument because in my own experience with downloading music over the internet I have downloaded songs and liked them so much that I went out and bought the artist’s CD.

Moreover, I do not feel entirely sympathetic toward the RIAA, especially after the guest speaker on Wednesday. I kind of feel that the RIAA has dug its own grave when it comes to file sharing, if they did not purposely over charge for CD’s then maybe I would feel bad for them. I also did not really think about the fact that the RIAA is trying to shut down file sharing entirely. That is a scary concept to me, that a big corporation could have regulative power over technologies does not seem right. The RIAA should find a way to harness the powers of file sharing for their own good. Hopefully there will be a way for the RIAA and file sharing sites to peacefully co-exist in the future.

What do you think?

P2P networking or sharing is a very controversial topic in our society. Many feel that P2P sharing should be allowed while others primarily, the music artists feel that P2P sharing should not exist. Many music artists such as the band Metallica are strongly opposed to downloading songs for free on the P2P networks. Artists like the band Metallica feel this way because they consider it stealing and that they are losing lots of money because of the sharing of songs. Boo hoo! I think this is so stupid! I believe that artists who oppose to this topic are simply greedy. Many artists before P2P existed, stated that they perform and sing because they love the "art" of music and it was not for the money and fame. But now many of them are complaining that they are losing money when the majority of their income comes from concerts and merchandise.

The RIAA is taken this situation way out of context. Our guest speaker in class said that RIAA are comparing the act of stealing computers, t.v's, and other physical objects with the act of downloading and sharing an artist's song. This is a horrible comparison because when stealing a computer from a store you are taking away their "actual" merchandise that is a necessity for the store to sell, therefore no longer allowing them to earn profit whereas, when you download a song, the artist still has that song and the song can still be sold. I never thought of it in that way before until our guest speaker Meghan Dougherty brought it to my attention in class.

Many artists do not realize what P2P networks can do for them. In a way it is free advertisement in that I have heard many songs that I liked but would have never heard it if it wasn't for the P2P networks. I would then play these songs for my other friends and so forth causing a chain reaction (more and more people hear the artist's songs). Because of the P2P networks, I am able to sample more songs and personally I have bought more CD's than before.

I am a dedicated fan to music and just because I have the capability of downloading a song for free does not mean I do not have respect for that artist. However, when artists start to complain about money issues I begin to lose respect because artists are not suppose to complain about their fans playing their music. Sure they may gain a little more money by complaining but they will lose "a lot" of respect and fans and I think that should be their focus --to please their fans by providing creativity and talent through their music. Because after all, they are role models!

Continuing the theme...

Here is another opinion from the peanut gallery... :o) Well, I went back to the website, musicunited.org to look at more opinions that singers/songwriters had on the issue of piracy. It wasn't surprising to me that they all sounded alike. "it's stealing" "its a crime" and "you are taking away from our livlihoods," seemed to be the common theme. They did make some good points that I couldnt help to agree with like that its important for us to support them as artists, and we do that by buying the CD's.

I guess I have a hard time understanding how much is really effecting them. I heard from somewhere that there revenues have dropped less than 5 % since downloading online has started (I'm sorry I dont know where I heard that information, so don't be go quoting it! Well, what did I just do?). The opinions mention that they work hard and have struggled to get there so stealing is bad...Serioulsy hasn't everyone stuggled at some point? Thats life! We are constantly being faced with obstacles and different things to overcome everyday of our lives. So the singers have struggled...now they're not becasue they are making millions, how is a couple downloads really going to affect them?

I have been a downloader in the past, but have stopped. I still know plenty of people who do though but still go out and buy the CD's after downloading the songs. Its actaully hard for me to stick to a concrete opinion about this subject, but thats just me I guess. I like looking at it from both sides and agree with Vanessa Carlton when she says that you should "get a taste of somthing before you buy it," but only to an extent. It doesnt seem though the law is backing down at all, so for all those downloaders out there...enjoy it while it lasts!