From Producer to Consumer to Prosumer...

So this weeks topic is Media convergence...the idea of various technological platforms merging together and forming a transformer of sorts. Devices capable of numerous and varied functions that have changed the way we use technology not only personally, but also on an industry level. What I found particularly interesting is the whole idea of the prosumer, the merging of the producer and consumer. Where as in the past information has been produced by media industry corporations and then fed to us as consumers, the convergence of technology has allowed the consumer to produce it's own information of sorts. This is something that I noticed whilst having a discussion in another subject at uni.

The discussion focused on media audiences and the reasons why we use certain media. It was interesting that the topic of Amy Winehouse popped up and a large majority of the class mentioned that they only found out about her death through Facebook, myself included. Now if you looked back 10+ years the only way you would have found out this information was through the typical news outlets such as the newspaper, radio and television. If you didn't find out through these means you probably would have found out a day or two later at school or at work. However, this information was readily available almost instantly after the event occurred and most people found out through social network sites.

So I guess the question is where do we go from where? What will happen to things like newspapers, magazines, television etc? Has the notion of us as prosumers contributed to the demise of these media platforms? Are all these media forms soon going to die out or will the mutate as was discussed in yesterdays lecture? (Ted Miteow 2011). There is no real question that these forms are starting to lose their strength and people are getting information more freely and easily then ever before. If I ever want to check out the news I head to an online newspaper...rather than walk to the newsagent and buy the print version. This is simply because it is much easier, cheaper and contains much more information, hypertext and hyperlinks etc.

I however think that there still is some value in these media platforms though and we all know that it takes a while for a media platform to die. We all saw how many of us said we had bought CD's recently, even though we have access to the newest media music platform in the form of Mp3's, digital copies etc. I have no doubt that pretty soon most things will be digital and there will be no need to buy cd's, newspapers, magazines etc. Though for the most part I think we will still see these media forms around, simply because some people still want to consume rather than prosume products. Although as prosumers we like to be involved and actively pursue content and information, we also like being hand fed information.

Copyright....An over glorified ego booster!

You can't use that....It's mine....I own it! So the whole idea of ownership has been around for a while. As Ted described in today's lecture ownership is often linked with scarcity which is why it is applied to land for example. Land is somewhat scarce, valuable, it is tangible and it is a piece of property....Ultimately it belongs to someone. Is the same true for intellectual property, that which exists...but also does not, it is intangible, an idea, a creation...does someone own these?

I have always held the belief that should you create something it does indeed belong to you. If you write a song, invent something, think of a brilliant idea or manifest something intangible whatever that is, then it is your property. You can control it, who uses it and for what purposes. The reason for this is simple. It protects the owner from having what they have created used for the wrong purposes or used by someone who is claiming it as their own. However, after this weeks readings and tutorial discussion I have somewhat changed this view. Perhaps it no longer is about protecting this idea or invention or song....but more so about ensuring power and ownership in the eyes of others....As the saying goes 'knowledge is power.'

Boldrin and Levine's reading Against Intellectual Monopoly was of large interest to me as it showed the impact having a patent or copyright can have on a particular idea. In this case it halted the advancement of the steam engine, as no one else could put forward their own ideas for fear of prosecution. Once the ownership of the idea was over the product grew and flourished because there was input from many individuals, there was growth and progress. So the issue here is why exactly did James Watt want the invention for himself? Was it so that he could seek fame and glory for inventing the steam engine? Was it so he could rub it in the faces of everyone else, and show that he was better or smarter because of what he had done? Or did he simply just want to protect the invention he had created? I think the answer is all of the above, but I feel the last question is the one with the least amount of influence. Not for any fault of Watt's though, I believe he was just following human nature.

As described by Maslow's hierarchy of needs when we get to a certain stage (and have fulfilled particular needs) we start to seek esteem, a feeling of accomplishment and respect amongst peers.

                                  Source : http://www.newexistentialists.com/posts/07-22-11

I think this whole idea is what drives the concept of copyright. That people seek out the need to be attributed and acknowledged for what they have achieved. We all know how good it feels when we receive a compliment for something we have done or a decision we have made. It makes us happy and as humans we always have this drive to seek satisfaction and approval from others. I think this is ultimately why copyright exists. In a way one could look at it and say it's an over glorified ego booster...and I guess it is. I don't think it's so much about protecting the idea, but rather about showing other's who has the power and knowledge, due to what they have created.

What happens when you mix work and leisure...

So a rather huge issue that has been discussed this week is the whole idea of work and leisure merging together and becoming a rather blurred entity. Where as in the past work was separated by a particular period of time, I'm sure we are all familiar with the term 9 to 5, it is becoming more and more apparent that people are choosing to do various forms of 'work' outside of this period. In fact not only are they doing this outside of the considered normal working hours, but they are doing so in places and contexts outside of the norm (Parties, social gatherings, dinners, nightclubs, home etc). A term appropriate for this is 'presence bleed' coined by Gregg in his article Function Creep.

For me on a personal level this isn't such a new issue, nor do I think people realise we are conditioned for this type of behaviour and way of living. In today's society we are taught that it is not uncommon to have to work outside of work. Our earliest example of this is 'homework' which is exactly what it says it is. Homework is work that is to be done at home, and we are presented with this concept at a very early age when we are kids growing up. It than carries over to various levels of high school, college, university and will most probably carry over to most jobs people obtain in their life.

In the three jobs I currently have only one of them is the typical 9 to 5 environment....I turn up, do my job, leave and return when I have to and start again. My other jobs on the other hand involve doing tasks outside of a work environment in order to prepare myself for what the job involves. For example I will find songs and organise programs to teach my drum students whilst I am at home during my own time...or what is considered 'leisure time.' This doesn't particularly bother me, as I see it as part of the job and since I really enjoy my job I have no qualms whatsoever doing this. I actually see this as giving me more time to focus on the overall goals and end results of the job, rather than it taking away from my leisure time. Like most thing's in our life I see it as a balancing act, of which one needs to balance so many aspects of their life in order to live.

Having the ability to check emails on the go, receive important phone calls and do work as I'm out and about is a huge convenience. I can now take action on particular tasks straight away or as soon as possible and every spare minute I have can be spent assisting in the completion of a task. Where as in the past I would have to wait till my work period (9 to 5) to do such tasks, now I am a lot more flexible and can reduce my workload by doing tasks as they come up and as soon as they can be dealt with.

Bit of a self rant but I'm keen to hear other people's thoughts!


Gregg, M. 'Function Creep: Communication technologies and anticipatory labour in the information
workplace'.

Cyberspace - Too good to be true!

I found this weeks readings rather interesting, particularly Barlow's 'A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace.' When reading the article I was constantly thinking to myself that this sounds too good to be true. Having a place where everyone is equal, there is no control or rule by a certain party and the thoughts and relationships of anyone can be freely expressed is extremely hard to comprehend. That's not to say that its impossible, but highly unlikely. 


What stuck in my mind from the article was the continued reference to Government, and the sense of a higher power that it presents. Most of us living in western society are used to this, as in most cases there are things or people that have some sort of control in how we live our lives. Whether that be something related to religion, a boss, adults, friends, politicians, morals, ethics, laws and codes of conduct these things influence and can assert control on our lives. We are free to an extent, but there is always something bigger that determines what we can and cannot do in the world. Cyberspace changed this whole idea, by presenting the notion of a utopian system, and I think this is why Governments in particular,  are worried and scared about it's potential. 


Now in a perfect world a utopian society would be exactly what is described in Barlow's declaration. However, we all know that nothing is perfect. If we were to remove all the laws, ethics and various other guidelines that control the real world today it would be chaos! I cannot begin to imagine what it would be like. So having these rules in place is for a good reason, and I can understand why Governments have implemented them. The problem with cyberspace is that it has been designed to be a free world, open to anyone and devoid of a higher level of control. Why this worries Governments is because they are used to having some level of control of the people they govern. Whether this be for personal gain, to protect, to align with, no matter what the case they are always associated with control. When a Government or higher party is not in control, another group arises to take the mantle and implements a whole new level of control. You only need to look at uprising's, rebellions, riots, civil wars etc to see when this occurs. 


The potential of cyberspace is limitless and Governments know that when they aren't in control, it's never a good thing. In a world, albeit synthetic, where everyone is equal and free speech reigns it is easy to understand why they should be worried and why they are now trying to assert some level of control in cyberspace. Should they intervene? Or should cyberspace be left as it was always intended to be?

An ethical dilemma

For me an interesting topic and one that was brought up in class is the whole idea of ethics in cyberspace. We all  viewed the World of Warcraft Funeral raid clip from youtube and began to formulate our own ideas about what is wrong and what is right. Is this behaviour exceptable or not?

I guess the issue here lies in the mere fact that the acts of those involved takes place in cyberspace, a fictional world. True, each player in the game is controlled by a human operator...but it is their avatar, their character, their fictional being that represents them. Now it's pretty obvious that if a funeral raid was to occur in real life it would definitely not be acceptable behaviour, but I'm sure it does happen. So I guess my question is does the addition of a fictional character, a mask in which every player wears, make this behaviour more acceptable?

I'm sure many of you that play video games would have noticed the addition of the warning 'game experience may change during on-line play.' This warning is now frequently seen on any game that involves some sort of interaction or communication with real-world players...But why is that? Basically it is to account for the unpredictability of the on-line gaming world. In the past games have been scripted, with every detail set out in a particular order, much the same as a roller coaster. You simply jump on and enjoy the ride, no matter where it takes you. You have no power to change what is already a pre-conceived idea/plan, the game will simply play out how it was intended by it's creators...and whether you like it or not is up to you.

With the addition of on-line play, however, the whole notion of scripted and planned games changed. Unlike computers and AI, which still have to follow rules and guidelines, the human brain is not restricted by such limitations. A person can choose to play the game as they like...They can be arrogant, cocky, subdued, vocal, quiet, hardcore, angry, easy-going, laid back, carefree, silly, funny, they might be good at the game, they might be crap....the list continues. The significance of this are that these are real life emotions and actions, which have then be transferred into cyberspace. This is what makes on-line play unpredictable and hence why the above warning is so often featured on games. Other people can now have an impact on how you play games, much the same as they can in your real life, thus affecting your enjoyment or lack thereof.

Take a look at this example. Is getting an irate customer at your work any different to meeting an offensive or rude gamer on-line? Sure they are in totally different environments and contexts, one real and one cyberspace, but is not the end result the same? Ultimately both of the people mentioned above can make you feel angry, frustated, sad, annoyed etc. This also holds true for the WOW funeral raid which I'm sure made many people upset and disappointed, much in the same way the people would feel if it occurred at a real funeral. The only difference is that one is physically real, the other is artificially generated. Does this make it more acceptable or ethical? I say no...but I'm keen to hear your thoughts.

Thanks for reading!