Fictional online identities are becoming a thing of the past. Instant Messaging has lost its grip around America’s youth and has been replaced with social networking forums like FaceBook and MySpace. People who partake in online social networking forums almost always identify themselves with their first name and not a nickname or pseudonym because they want to be credited with their contribution, whether they are videos, photos or even opinions. I believe people can’t describe themselves in one nickname. Human beings are too complex to be described in one nickname. An online nickname like Mr. Democrat for example is too broad. Are we to assume that this person will always take a stance with democrats on all subjects? My answer is no. I believe in providing ones real name online because it doesn’t lead to any assumptions about that person and that your expectations and opinions of that person are neutral prior to viewing their work. Providing your real name online establishes your credibility with a larger audience, who will read or view your work and not just turn you away based on your name. To provide support to my idea of online credibility, Judith S. Donath states “No matter how brilliant the posting, there is no gain in reputation if the readers are oblivious to whom the author is” (Donath).
Building ones credibility online is more crucial than ever with all kinds of attempts of deception and misinterpreted information online. Knowing an actual name of someone who contributed something online automatically increases their status in the virtual community and is a small yet significant step towards more credibility online. As users of the internet, we should not identify ourselves by nicknames because nicknames are for infamous hackers, who contribute nothing to the online community and are pathetic deceptive individuals in my opinion.
Social networking websites dedicated to matching someone with their significant other have become a prime example of the transition of pseudonyms to actual names as forms of online identification. An article written in the Toronto Star by an unknown author describes the problems faced by many men on the website Lavalife, which is very similar to eharmony and match.com. Many of these men would describe themselves in a short paragraph, which would generate interest among many women, but when the women tried to interpret the men’s nicknames, they became confused. One example of a nickname was “curious cupid,” which didn’t match his opening line of “1000 words are worth a picture” (Toronto).
The article focuses on a man named Frank, who has been on sixty different dates and has been disappointed on every one. His main complaint is the person he meets face to face isn’t the person who he had chatted with online. It can be argued that providing ones real name online is one step closer to online credibility. In fact, that would be an interesting study for social scientists to perform to see how providing ones real name online effects the trust and believability of recipients of that information.
Even though I have not condoned the use of nicknames online created by the user him or herself, I don’t see anything wrong with nicknames being generated by other people to describe a person. For example, a famous writer named Stephen Glass for the New Republic made headlines everywhere providing his readers with very provocative readings that seemed to match with main stream stereotypes. These readings were later discovered to have been fabricated in 1998. A movie was made about him entitled “Shattered Glass” and a book was written entitled “The Fabulist,” by Stephen Glass himself, which is what people called him after his downfall (Wikipedia).
An online blog that I participate in is Home Theater Forum. As an electronic retail salesman, I need to know my product and be as knowledgeable as I can for the customers. Becoming a member of Home Theater Forum is free, but does require a user name. That user name must be a real name; it can’t be a fictitious name like Plasma Man for example. They want to create a very formal atmosphere without profanity where people can discuss the latest technology and be personally credited for their work.
I believe that nicknames in general aren’t bad, but sometimes when they are used online, it creates a sense of distrust and lack of credibility. Look in any newspaper or academic journal and I guarantee you won’t find a credited author represented by his or her nickname. I also believe that the popularity of nicknames will decrease with the ever rising use of online social networking forums.
References
Donath, Judith S. (1996, October 12). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community.
Retrieved February 21, 2007 From
http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html
Toronto Star. (2006, April 7). A few more good men. Retrieved February 22, 2007 From
http://web.lexis-nexis.com.gate.lib.buffalo.edu/universe/
Wikipedia. Stephen Glass. Retrieved February 23, 2007 From http://wikipedia.org
Friday, February 23, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
Internet Privacy: Is it Possible?
My Definition of privacy is being able to seclude ones self from any unwanted attention from another person. Because privacy has always been and will always be an issue, it is often times taken advantage of.
Crimes that are performed on the internet that intrude on ones privacy have been labeled as “cybercrimes,” which would involve any crime performed electronically via the internet that is not physically visible until after the crime has been committed. In order to commit a cybercrime, personal or organizational privacy must be invaded. These cybercrimes have become a very big concern and show no sign of slowing down any time soon according to Gregory M. LambStaff of the Christian Science Monitor. An example of a cybercrime would be any form of identity theft, where ones identity is stolen through a social security number retrieved on the internet and used to make purchases.
Another form of privacy invasion on the internet involves self disclosure and the dissemination of ones personal life and attributes online for anyone to see. This has become an increasingly debated topic in the past two years due to the intensifying popularity of websites like my space and face book, which allow people to network to each other and share friends and experiences virtually.
The problem with self disclosure on the internet arises when people disclose too much information that puts them in danger. For example many pedophiles join these websites and pretend to be teenage boys and schedule arrangements with young girls within their residential area. It’s a sickening truth that has been featured on all news programs including NPR, which is one of the most respected news providers in the country.
Even though self disclosure on the internet can lead to dire consequences, it can be prevented, whereas identity theft for example is much harder to prevent.
It is obvious to all people, whether one is computer literate or not that cybercrimes are an increasingly menacing plague on society, which take millions of dollars away from the economy and pilfer money from citizens. More money is spent each year trying to prevent these crimes from happening. The fact that many of these crimes could not have been prevented by the average person, even if they were being cautious is what makes cybercrimes so daunting.
I saw a special documentary on hackers on the discovery channel and when one infamous hacker was interviewed, he said that there will always be a loophole in computer and network systems. He further stated that advances in firewalls and other security devices will only delay hackers from getting in; it won’t prevent them. This shows that if computers are built by man, then they can be taken apart by man.
As for my personal experience with privacy on the internet, I have none that are personal because I don’t disclose much information about myself online. I don’t have a my space account, nor do I have an instant messenger account. Although I have witnessed a security threat occur within the network of the company I work for, which is Best Buy.
Around a year ago, our whole company intranet was down due to a virus that made its way into the Best Buy server, causing all credit transactions to be manually overridden, called through and verified with the bank. You can imagine the long lines that customers had to wait in and the stress this caused employees. In fact many customers walked out, which I don’t blame them for doing. This caused the company to provide more labor for the four days our network was down, costing a lot of money in labor dollars and lost sales due to long waits.
This type of security issue is not uncommon within many organizations and corporations. Companies have to pay people to monitor the servers to prevent possible threats because the loss of money isn’t the only concern; the loss of client’s personal information is another huge concern. Losing client’s information has even occurred within the FBI. It is easy to see how these types of security threats can hinder the growth of the internet. An unknown author for New Age Media points out that “concerns over privacy and security are a major obstacle to businesses wishing to make wider use of the internet.” This author suggests that it would be easier and more cost efficient to use the internet for certain business operations, but if something were to happen, then it might depose the company.
Byron Acohido and Jon Swartz of the USA Today state that U.S. businesses lose 67.2 Billion dollars per year due to computer-related crimes according to the FBI. Individual citizens have lost 93.8 million dollars since 2005 due to stolen personal information.
In my opinion, the so called hackers of the internet are winning and we as citizens are losing. A couple of things can be done to combat cybercrime. We should educate young people, who are the ones mainly using computers about precautions to take when online and eventually that information will disseminate to less computer literate people. The government also has to fight back a little harder and close these so called “hacker forums,” that sell services that help in stealing peoples identities. Stricter sentences should be served to those caught.
I think cybercrime is here to stay, at least for my generation. But we can help the situation a little more than we have been by putting more resources towards stopping these people and encouraging children interested in computers to aim for a professional and honest career in the computer market.
References
Acohido, Byron & Swartz, Jon. (2006, October 12).Cybercrime flourishes in online hacker
forums.
Retrieved February 14, 2007, From http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/.
LambStaff, Gregory M. (2006, June 28). Does digital age spell privacy’s doom? Retrieved
February 14, 2007, From http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/.
New Media Age. (2006, March 24). Online Security: Customer Privacy. Retrieved February 14,
2007, From http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/.
Crimes that are performed on the internet that intrude on ones privacy have been labeled as “cybercrimes,” which would involve any crime performed electronically via the internet that is not physically visible until after the crime has been committed. In order to commit a cybercrime, personal or organizational privacy must be invaded. These cybercrimes have become a very big concern and show no sign of slowing down any time soon according to Gregory M. LambStaff of the Christian Science Monitor. An example of a cybercrime would be any form of identity theft, where ones identity is stolen through a social security number retrieved on the internet and used to make purchases.
Another form of privacy invasion on the internet involves self disclosure and the dissemination of ones personal life and attributes online for anyone to see. This has become an increasingly debated topic in the past two years due to the intensifying popularity of websites like my space and face book, which allow people to network to each other and share friends and experiences virtually.
The problem with self disclosure on the internet arises when people disclose too much information that puts them in danger. For example many pedophiles join these websites and pretend to be teenage boys and schedule arrangements with young girls within their residential area. It’s a sickening truth that has been featured on all news programs including NPR, which is one of the most respected news providers in the country.
Even though self disclosure on the internet can lead to dire consequences, it can be prevented, whereas identity theft for example is much harder to prevent.
It is obvious to all people, whether one is computer literate or not that cybercrimes are an increasingly menacing plague on society, which take millions of dollars away from the economy and pilfer money from citizens. More money is spent each year trying to prevent these crimes from happening. The fact that many of these crimes could not have been prevented by the average person, even if they were being cautious is what makes cybercrimes so daunting.
I saw a special documentary on hackers on the discovery channel and when one infamous hacker was interviewed, he said that there will always be a loophole in computer and network systems. He further stated that advances in firewalls and other security devices will only delay hackers from getting in; it won’t prevent them. This shows that if computers are built by man, then they can be taken apart by man.
As for my personal experience with privacy on the internet, I have none that are personal because I don’t disclose much information about myself online. I don’t have a my space account, nor do I have an instant messenger account. Although I have witnessed a security threat occur within the network of the company I work for, which is Best Buy.
Around a year ago, our whole company intranet was down due to a virus that made its way into the Best Buy server, causing all credit transactions to be manually overridden, called through and verified with the bank. You can imagine the long lines that customers had to wait in and the stress this caused employees. In fact many customers walked out, which I don’t blame them for doing. This caused the company to provide more labor for the four days our network was down, costing a lot of money in labor dollars and lost sales due to long waits.
This type of security issue is not uncommon within many organizations and corporations. Companies have to pay people to monitor the servers to prevent possible threats because the loss of money isn’t the only concern; the loss of client’s personal information is another huge concern. Losing client’s information has even occurred within the FBI. It is easy to see how these types of security threats can hinder the growth of the internet. An unknown author for New Age Media points out that “concerns over privacy and security are a major obstacle to businesses wishing to make wider use of the internet.” This author suggests that it would be easier and more cost efficient to use the internet for certain business operations, but if something were to happen, then it might depose the company.
Byron Acohido and Jon Swartz of the USA Today state that U.S. businesses lose 67.2 Billion dollars per year due to computer-related crimes according to the FBI. Individual citizens have lost 93.8 million dollars since 2005 due to stolen personal information.
In my opinion, the so called hackers of the internet are winning and we as citizens are losing. A couple of things can be done to combat cybercrime. We should educate young people, who are the ones mainly using computers about precautions to take when online and eventually that information will disseminate to less computer literate people. The government also has to fight back a little harder and close these so called “hacker forums,” that sell services that help in stealing peoples identities. Stricter sentences should be served to those caught.
I think cybercrime is here to stay, at least for my generation. But we can help the situation a little more than we have been by putting more resources towards stopping these people and encouraging children interested in computers to aim for a professional and honest career in the computer market.
References
Acohido, Byron & Swartz, Jon. (2006, October 12).Cybercrime flourishes in online hacker
forums.
Retrieved February 14, 2007, From http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/.
LambStaff, Gregory M. (2006, June 28). Does digital age spell privacy’s doom? Retrieved
February 14, 2007, From http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/.
New Media Age. (2006, March 24). Online Security: Customer Privacy. Retrieved February 14,
2007, From http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
The Increasing Importance of Gift Economies
For about the last two and a half years I have worked as a retail salesman for Best Buy. My area of expertise is Home Theater. If you have a question about surround sound, plasma TV’s, audio amplifiers and whatever else, which pertains to home theater, I’m the guy to ask. Usually when I am asked a perplexing question regarding home theater connections and troubleshoots, I have an answer or a plausible solution. But when a very intricate question is asked and I don’t know the answer, I’ll turn to a particular gift economy found only on the internet.
Before I begin explaining my particular uses of a gift economy, let me explain what a gift economy is according to Peter Kollock of the University of California. Kollock labels a gift economy as an economy where “help and information is offered without the expectation of any direct, immediate quid-pro-quo.” Essentially in a gift economy participants assist other participants without the expectation of reciprocation. The reason for this is the suppliers of information (just as an example) assume that the recipients would do the same for them had they been in the same situation. Kollock presents a great analogy in his writing regarding gifts in a gift economy. He states “gifts are unique: it is not simply a sweater, but rather the sweater-that-Bill-gave-me” (1999). In a sense, the exchanges in a gift economy are unique and don’t require any form of payback from the recipient.
A gift economy differs from a commodity economy in that commodities are driven by price, not social relations, which gift economies are driven by. Referring back to the gift section of Kollock’s writing; “commodities are not unique and derive no special value having been acquired from person X rather than person Y” (1999). Simply put, it’s just business. There is no other connection required between person X and Y.
When I need to find an answer to a perplexing question at work, I don’t always have the tools or accessories necessary to experiment possible solutions within my work environment. Sometimes, finding the answer requires much more advanced measures that only an engineer would know. In these scenarios, I can’t stand not knowing the answer to everything. In fact it makes me feel like I am not qualified for the job, which of course is ridiculous for a $10 hourly wage. So, what do I do? I turn to avsforum.com, which stands for Audio Visual Science Forum, where people from all over the world post all types of questions and information pertaining to my field of work. Once you become a member (which is free) you can post any question about surround sound, plasma TV’s, projectors and so on. The crazy thing is that you are almost guaranteed to get a response. I guess you could consider it a blog.
According to Kollock (1999), I am participating in “generalized exchange” gift economy. This means that there is no particular person to whom I am posting a question to (although you could). Anyone is free to comment or participate in my delayed conversations.
According to Kylie J. Veale (2003), gift economies offer mainly intangible rewards like information or mp3 files. These intangible rewards are generated because usually one of two reasons. First, “The giver may feel there is a sense of need for their gift, therefore they produce and contribute a public good for the simple reason that a person or the group as a whole has a need for it.” Second, “attachment is a motivation where the giver contributes to the group because that is what is best for the group” (2003). To me, both of these reasons cause me to make my contribution to this online forum. I feel somewhat obligated because I have been helped countless times by people I have never met, nor will ever meet. Second, I enjoy talking about my interests and feeling a sense of belonging to a group who share those same interests. In fact, I felt even more attached to the group when I was e-mailed a Happy Birthday card the day of my birthday, which is standard among all members. There is also a sense of seniority within this forum due to the fact that everyone is labeled as having been a member of the forum since 19** or 20** or whatever year.
Richard Barbrook’s (2005) intellectual online article discusses less of what a gift economy is but rather what a gift economy does for this world. Barbrook claims that gift economies have created an ever growing free market where people don’t buy information or media before checking whether it is available for free. He states “once the first copy of a piece of information is placed on the Net, the cost of making each extra copy is almost zero” (2005). Barbrook emphasizes the rapid evolution of the net and warns “most politicians and corporate leaders believe that the future of capitalism lies in the commodification of information” (2005). So Barbrook clearly believes that gift economies are eating away at capitalism. He talks in depth about the whole distribution of digital music as a threat to record labels, which depend on CD sales.
In my opinion, gift economies are here to stay because they increase efficiency like nothing we can imagine. I can’t even begin to imagine how I would find my answers to these perplexing A/V questions posed to me at work. Without the internet, I would be reading books on engineering. Gift economies have only started to expand and demonstrate their potential influence.
References
Richard Barbrook. (December 2005).
The Hi-Tech Gift Economy. Retrieved February 6, 2007, From
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_12/barbrook/
Peter Kollock. (1999).
The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace. Retrieved February 5, 2007, From
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.htm
Kylie J. Veale. (November 11, 2003).
Internet gift economies: Voluntary payment schemes as tangible reciprocity. Retrieved February 8, 2007, From http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_12/veale/index.html#v3
Before I begin explaining my particular uses of a gift economy, let me explain what a gift economy is according to Peter Kollock of the University of California. Kollock labels a gift economy as an economy where “help and information is offered without the expectation of any direct, immediate quid-pro-quo.” Essentially in a gift economy participants assist other participants without the expectation of reciprocation. The reason for this is the suppliers of information (just as an example) assume that the recipients would do the same for them had they been in the same situation. Kollock presents a great analogy in his writing regarding gifts in a gift economy. He states “gifts are unique: it is not simply a sweater, but rather the sweater-that-Bill-gave-me” (1999). In a sense, the exchanges in a gift economy are unique and don’t require any form of payback from the recipient.
A gift economy differs from a commodity economy in that commodities are driven by price, not social relations, which gift economies are driven by. Referring back to the gift section of Kollock’s writing; “commodities are not unique and derive no special value having been acquired from person X rather than person Y” (1999). Simply put, it’s just business. There is no other connection required between person X and Y.
When I need to find an answer to a perplexing question at work, I don’t always have the tools or accessories necessary to experiment possible solutions within my work environment. Sometimes, finding the answer requires much more advanced measures that only an engineer would know. In these scenarios, I can’t stand not knowing the answer to everything. In fact it makes me feel like I am not qualified for the job, which of course is ridiculous for a $10 hourly wage. So, what do I do? I turn to avsforum.com, which stands for Audio Visual Science Forum, where people from all over the world post all types of questions and information pertaining to my field of work. Once you become a member (which is free) you can post any question about surround sound, plasma TV’s, projectors and so on. The crazy thing is that you are almost guaranteed to get a response. I guess you could consider it a blog.
According to Kollock (1999), I am participating in “generalized exchange” gift economy. This means that there is no particular person to whom I am posting a question to (although you could). Anyone is free to comment or participate in my delayed conversations.
According to Kylie J. Veale (2003), gift economies offer mainly intangible rewards like information or mp3 files. These intangible rewards are generated because usually one of two reasons. First, “The giver may feel there is a sense of need for their gift, therefore they produce and contribute a public good for the simple reason that a person or the group as a whole has a need for it.” Second, “attachment is a motivation where the giver contributes to the group because that is what is best for the group” (2003). To me, both of these reasons cause me to make my contribution to this online forum. I feel somewhat obligated because I have been helped countless times by people I have never met, nor will ever meet. Second, I enjoy talking about my interests and feeling a sense of belonging to a group who share those same interests. In fact, I felt even more attached to the group when I was e-mailed a Happy Birthday card the day of my birthday, which is standard among all members. There is also a sense of seniority within this forum due to the fact that everyone is labeled as having been a member of the forum since 19** or 20** or whatever year.
Richard Barbrook’s (2005) intellectual online article discusses less of what a gift economy is but rather what a gift economy does for this world. Barbrook claims that gift economies have created an ever growing free market where people don’t buy information or media before checking whether it is available for free. He states “once the first copy of a piece of information is placed on the Net, the cost of making each extra copy is almost zero” (2005). Barbrook emphasizes the rapid evolution of the net and warns “most politicians and corporate leaders believe that the future of capitalism lies in the commodification of information” (2005). So Barbrook clearly believes that gift economies are eating away at capitalism. He talks in depth about the whole distribution of digital music as a threat to record labels, which depend on CD sales.
In my opinion, gift economies are here to stay because they increase efficiency like nothing we can imagine. I can’t even begin to imagine how I would find my answers to these perplexing A/V questions posed to me at work. Without the internet, I would be reading books on engineering. Gift economies have only started to expand and demonstrate their potential influence.
References
Richard Barbrook. (December 2005).
The Hi-Tech Gift Economy. Retrieved February 6, 2007, From
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_12/barbrook/
Peter Kollock. (1999).
The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace. Retrieved February 5, 2007, From
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.htm
Kylie J. Veale. (November 11, 2003).
Internet gift economies: Voluntary payment schemes as tangible reciprocity. Retrieved February 8, 2007, From http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_12/veale/index.html#v3
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Copyright Infringement
Copyright infringement has become a bigger issue year after year since the 1990’s and the advent of digital media storage and internet peer to peer (p2p) sharing. As computers became more of a necessity than a luxury, internet users began to take advantage of media sharing from ones computer to another. This has been one of the most debated topics of copyright infringement. There are two extreme positions most people take stance with and discuss in regard to this copyright infringement. I believe that both sides are to blame for each others misfortune. Society must come to a new mutual resolution because let’s face it; we will never go back to the way media usage originally was because technology is constantly changing.
Many consumer interest groups would point to the cause of copyright infringement as due to price fixing by record label companies, who sell CD’s or movie production companies selling DVD’s or VHS tapes and charge too much for them. Schram (2005) argues against accusations that p2p sharing is “morally wrong” by saying “If the industry wants to have a discussion on morality, let’s have a closer look at this black kettle, the house of glass they want to throw stones from.” Schram describes how the media industry is very hypocritical because the industry has overcharged consumers for many years and finally the tables have turned for the worst against them and now; they want to label many consumers as morally wrong.
Referring back to Schram (2005), who happens to supply the reader with a good point regarding the CD industry. Schram states “knowledgeable observers have long since figured out that p2p is not about copyright at all. Instead it’s about disintermediation – getting the labels out of the middle, removing them from between the artist and the listener.” That statement suggests that the artist will not be hindered financially from losing the record label. Instead the artist’s popularity is increased by p2p sharing.
Before making a quick judgment, it is always better to hear both sides of any argument. The media industry and music artists are entitled to sell their finished product for a price. According to Webb (2004), the Los Angeles Times quoted a representative of the MPAA supporting all of the lawsuits filed against citizens who have taken part in any kind of illegal media distribution as saying “The future of our industry, and of the hundreds of thousands of jobs it supports, must be protected from this kind of outright theft using all available means.” This statement highlights a possible negative economical effect of free media distribution. It states that many thousands of people’s jobs rely on the production and sales of media content in retail stores and online stores. It would seem that there would be no financial benefit of supplying media for free. Webb (2004) also points out that the MPAA has filed lawsuits against people, who have only downloaded one song or movie. John Malcolm of the MPAA supports this action by saying “One copy, he added, 'could easily become tens of thousands of copies available around the world” Schram (2005). Malcolm is emphasizing how fast information can spread in today’s electronic world. In fact in many DVD’s before you get to the feature presentation, there is an ad that warns about the consequences possible if you make or take part in the distribution of DVD’s illegally, whether it be online or on the black market.
As for what should be done about copyright infringement, Dr. Norbert J. Michlel (2004) takes a strong stance on the issue but suggests that a law should be amended specifying that copyright infringement should be clarified so that not one single person is exempt from this crime. He suggests that many bills proposed thus far are too broad and that many of the accused can often times find loop holes to escape through the court system. Dr. Michel also states that the proof of sales decline is not apparent yet, but soon will be because if a person has a choice to purchase music or download it for free, they would take the easy way out by not paying, at least until we clarify and take definitive action on these crimes, which are classified as theft.
References
Jamie Schram. (April 21, 2005).
The Phony Moral Debate. Retrieved February 1, 2007, From
From http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/04/new_arguments_a.html
Norbert J. Michel, Ph.D. (August 23, 2004).
Internet File Sharing: The Evidence So Far and what It Means for the Future. Retrieved February 1, 2007, From
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternetandTechnology/bg1790.cfm
Cynthia L. Webb. (November 17, 2004).
Hollywood’s One Strike Policy. Retrieved January 31, 2007, From
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NTQ/is_2004_Nov_17/ai_n9510419
Many consumer interest groups would point to the cause of copyright infringement as due to price fixing by record label companies, who sell CD’s or movie production companies selling DVD’s or VHS tapes and charge too much for them. Schram (2005) argues against accusations that p2p sharing is “morally wrong” by saying “If the industry wants to have a discussion on morality, let’s have a closer look at this black kettle, the house of glass they want to throw stones from.” Schram describes how the media industry is very hypocritical because the industry has overcharged consumers for many years and finally the tables have turned for the worst against them and now; they want to label many consumers as morally wrong.
Referring back to Schram (2005), who happens to supply the reader with a good point regarding the CD industry. Schram states “knowledgeable observers have long since figured out that p2p is not about copyright at all. Instead it’s about disintermediation – getting the labels out of the middle, removing them from between the artist and the listener.” That statement suggests that the artist will not be hindered financially from losing the record label. Instead the artist’s popularity is increased by p2p sharing.
Before making a quick judgment, it is always better to hear both sides of any argument. The media industry and music artists are entitled to sell their finished product for a price. According to Webb (2004), the Los Angeles Times quoted a representative of the MPAA supporting all of the lawsuits filed against citizens who have taken part in any kind of illegal media distribution as saying “The future of our industry, and of the hundreds of thousands of jobs it supports, must be protected from this kind of outright theft using all available means.” This statement highlights a possible negative economical effect of free media distribution. It states that many thousands of people’s jobs rely on the production and sales of media content in retail stores and online stores. It would seem that there would be no financial benefit of supplying media for free. Webb (2004) also points out that the MPAA has filed lawsuits against people, who have only downloaded one song or movie. John Malcolm of the MPAA supports this action by saying “One copy, he added, 'could easily become tens of thousands of copies available around the world” Schram (2005). Malcolm is emphasizing how fast information can spread in today’s electronic world. In fact in many DVD’s before you get to the feature presentation, there is an ad that warns about the consequences possible if you make or take part in the distribution of DVD’s illegally, whether it be online or on the black market.
As for what should be done about copyright infringement, Dr. Norbert J. Michlel (2004) takes a strong stance on the issue but suggests that a law should be amended specifying that copyright infringement should be clarified so that not one single person is exempt from this crime. He suggests that many bills proposed thus far are too broad and that many of the accused can often times find loop holes to escape through the court system. Dr. Michel also states that the proof of sales decline is not apparent yet, but soon will be because if a person has a choice to purchase music or download it for free, they would take the easy way out by not paying, at least until we clarify and take definitive action on these crimes, which are classified as theft.
References
Jamie Schram. (April 21, 2005).
The Phony Moral Debate. Retrieved February 1, 2007, From
From http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/04/new_arguments_a.html
Norbert J. Michel, Ph.D. (August 23, 2004).
Internet File Sharing: The Evidence So Far and what It Means for the Future. Retrieved February 1, 2007, From
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternetandTechnology/bg1790.cfm
Cynthia L. Webb. (November 17, 2004).
Hollywood’s One Strike Policy. Retrieved January 31, 2007, From
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NTQ/is_2004_Nov_17/ai_n9510419
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
