Thursday, March 15, 2007
File-Sharing to Bypass Censorship. I won't do the whole spiel, but I did feel like saying this article sounds a lot like Google News. Sure, so Google News is still only linking to established "traditional" news sources, but I'm amazed by where I find myself sent and the views I come across. It's not just NBC and BBC and New York Times anymore. I've read newspaper articles from out-of-the way corners of Asia and Australia. It may not be P2P, but it offers substantially broader access to news information than I had five years ago.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Hacktivism is the fusion of computer hacking and political activism. It is aimed at free information, removing censorship, etc. The focus of this article was mostly on the difference between hacking and hacktivism, and the number of activities wrongly defined as Hacktivism such as Denial of Service hacking.
It seemed to me that the most interesting aspect of this article was the idea that governments are trying to impose restrictions on the internet, which in and of itself, is supposed to be a free and ungoverned resource. That raises issues in my mind of the possibilities of a one-world government not based upon the unification of the nations of the world, but on the internet as a global environment. Is the internet its own nation, so to speak, and will we eventually see the internet come under the rule of a government? The Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace is flamboyant and idealistic, and I can't help but thinking that the America we live in today is not so much the true democracy the Founding Fathers intended when they made their own Declaration 240 years ago. We may believe the internet can and should be free and ungoverned now in its infancy, but the internet may become a global cybernation with its own non-terrestrial government in the future.
I find the concept of true Hacktivism to be fundamentally profound, although I did notice that a great deal of the article and the quotes from Hacktivists and experts seemed sensational and extremist. The question is, are Hacktivists really freeing information which should be universally accessible, or are they taking a non-discriminatory approach and endangering individual and group security? I think there is a great deal of grey area here. What is positive, constructive hacking that sends political messages, and what is extremist hacking that produces damaging results (and who decides)?
It seemed to me that the most interesting aspect of this article was the idea that governments are trying to impose restrictions on the internet, which in and of itself, is supposed to be a free and ungoverned resource. That raises issues in my mind of the possibilities of a one-world government not based upon the unification of the nations of the world, but on the internet as a global environment. Is the internet its own nation, so to speak, and will we eventually see the internet come under the rule of a government? The Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace is flamboyant and idealistic, and I can't help but thinking that the America we live in today is not so much the true democracy the Founding Fathers intended when they made their own Declaration 240 years ago. We may believe the internet can and should be free and ungoverned now in its infancy, but the internet may become a global cybernation with its own non-terrestrial government in the future.
I find the concept of true Hacktivism to be fundamentally profound, although I did notice that a great deal of the article and the quotes from Hacktivists and experts seemed sensational and extremist. The question is, are Hacktivists really freeing information which should be universally accessible, or are they taking a non-discriminatory approach and endangering individual and group security? I think there is a great deal of grey area here. What is positive, constructive hacking that sends political messages, and what is extremist hacking that produces damaging results (and who decides)?
David Scheck, Andrew L. Shapiro, and Steven Johnson, “Technorealism. Get Real! A Manifesto from a New Generation of Cultural Critics”
This article serves as a sobering wake-up call to all technophiles, as well as a reassurance to technophobes. In opposition to some of the other “digital manifestos” read this week (particularly John Perry Barlow’s “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace”) “Technorealism…” seeks to dispel digital idealist thoughts. The article professes that there is inequity built into all aspects of technology, and by no means is the Internet a signifier of utopian progress. Equally divisive is the piece’s open stance on government intervention, declaring that online jurisdiction of some sort is necessary and natural.
Regardless of slant, the articles read this week share a common thread in recognizing technology—principally the Internet—as not only an extension of society, but a highly influential, sovereign body. The lines regarding regulation, conduct, and control are highly blurred (as one article mentions, “moving with the technology”).
In regard to the copyright issues discussed this week, “Technorealism…” makes a very clear distinction between information and knowledge. To me this signifies a difference between the knowledge it requires to create a mash-up such as the .mp3 example I brought to class (which you can listen to here.) and the actual information the pieces of said mash-up came from (technically songs, which require a different type of knowledge to create). As technology proliferates and information moves faster throughout the globe in a number of different mediums, this new art movement seems only natural; especially to the United States, a nation that has struggled for a cultural identity for some time. Perhaps this mash-up culture is our culture, a sort of digital melting pot if you will.
The article on guerilla advertising reminded me of the recent “bomb” scare in Boston. Watch it here:
This article serves as a sobering wake-up call to all technophiles, as well as a reassurance to technophobes. In opposition to some of the other “digital manifestos” read this week (particularly John Perry Barlow’s “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace”) “Technorealism…” seeks to dispel digital idealist thoughts. The article professes that there is inequity built into all aspects of technology, and by no means is the Internet a signifier of utopian progress. Equally divisive is the piece’s open stance on government intervention, declaring that online jurisdiction of some sort is necessary and natural.
Regardless of slant, the articles read this week share a common thread in recognizing technology—principally the Internet—as not only an extension of society, but a highly influential, sovereign body. The lines regarding regulation, conduct, and control are highly blurred (as one article mentions, “moving with the technology”).
In regard to the copyright issues discussed this week, “Technorealism…” makes a very clear distinction between information and knowledge. To me this signifies a difference between the knowledge it requires to create a mash-up such as the .mp3 example I brought to class (which you can listen to here.) and the actual information the pieces of said mash-up came from (technically songs, which require a different type of knowledge to create). As technology proliferates and information moves faster throughout the globe in a number of different mediums, this new art movement seems only natural; especially to the United States, a nation that has struggled for a cultural identity for some time. Perhaps this mash-up culture is our culture, a sort of digital melting pot if you will.
The article on guerilla advertising reminded me of the recent “bomb” scare in Boston. Watch it here:
"Changing Copyright," Essay by NEGATIVLAND
This is a fairly long article for the amount of information it covers. I think that if the author had not used three adjectives to describe every noun, we would all be in bed by now. That being said, here is an overview of the article.
The thesis, or main point rather, is posed in the form of a question, located near the end of the entire article. The question is this, "Should those who might be borrowed from have an absolute right to prevent any such future reuses of their properties, even when the reuse is obviously part of a new and unique work? Do we want to actually put all forms of free reuse under the heading of "theft" and criminalize a valuable art form such as collage?"
The article does not neccessarily contain much statistical analysis or research pertaining to the question, but rather a basic opinion which I am sure is the opinion of most of us when presented with these questions. Your average reader would answer "no." The article gives some basic arguments for this. The main one seems to be that copyright laws are killing creativity in America.
What the article suggests in this argument, is that not eveything that is created, something completely original. I would agree with this in a sense. Many writers, film makers, or artists of any kind are heavily influenced by books which they have read, movies they've seen, paintings, songs, etc. Therefore, the article suggests that by not allowing for at least some degree of "borrowing," creativity in America is doomed. Unless someone were to come up with something that is completely original, they would generally be paying a high price, or worse, opting not to create anything at all.
Much of the the first half of the article consists of an intense amount of wordiness. The second half is the meatiest, and most easily interpretable. The basic premise is that copyright laws are too tight, which most would agree upon. The article just takes it a step further in saying that this rigidity of the legal system is destroying the creative spirit of artists in America. The article even makes comparisons to Communism, in that it disregards the human nature of its own people (artists), and instead, adhears only to the rights of publishers and manufactures.
This is a fairly long article for the amount of information it covers. I think that if the author had not used three adjectives to describe every noun, we would all be in bed by now. That being said, here is an overview of the article.
The thesis, or main point rather, is posed in the form of a question, located near the end of the entire article. The question is this, "Should those who might be borrowed from have an absolute right to prevent any such future reuses of their properties, even when the reuse is obviously part of a new and unique work? Do we want to actually put all forms of free reuse under the heading of "theft" and criminalize a valuable art form such as collage?"
The article does not neccessarily contain much statistical analysis or research pertaining to the question, but rather a basic opinion which I am sure is the opinion of most of us when presented with these questions. Your average reader would answer "no." The article gives some basic arguments for this. The main one seems to be that copyright laws are killing creativity in America.
What the article suggests in this argument, is that not eveything that is created, something completely original. I would agree with this in a sense. Many writers, film makers, or artists of any kind are heavily influenced by books which they have read, movies they've seen, paintings, songs, etc. Therefore, the article suggests that by not allowing for at least some degree of "borrowing," creativity in America is doomed. Unless someone were to come up with something that is completely original, they would generally be paying a high price, or worse, opting not to create anything at all.
Much of the the first half of the article consists of an intense amount of wordiness. The second half is the meatiest, and most easily interpretable. The basic premise is that copyright laws are too tight, which most would agree upon. The article just takes it a step further in saying that this rigidity of the legal system is destroying the creative spirit of artists in America. The article even makes comparisons to Communism, in that it disregards the human nature of its own people (artists), and instead, adhears only to the rights of publishers and manufactures.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
John Whalen, “The Mayhem is the Message”
This article basically sums up the idea of "Cultural Jamming," which is in essence a returning attack on advertising (be it on the internet through spam, or on billboards seen while driving down the highway) which involves altering content of the original advertisement. Joe Matheny, is one such "troublemaker" with the rain of frogs on Bill Clinton's website, who was rewarded with multiple automated thank-yous. Ham radio jammers are another example of these culture jammers, including examples of "foul-mouthed Mickey Mouse impersonations and other audio filth."
Digital-age jamming examples include the following: pirating radio and TV, computer hacking, media hoaxing, and counterfeit desktop publishing to name just a few. There are many names applied to this form of communication including: media vandalism, "clueless asshole-ism", and as they term themselves dissidents of mainstream media. One of the more interesting aspects of the article is the BLF, or Billboard Liberation Front, that makes massive printouts to edit billboard text or simply to add a blemish or many. Jack Napier, of the BLF, mentions that they "don't damage the property. I don't want to cut billboards down. It's just that I'm kind of tired of being communicated to constantly by advertisers who wane me to buy their product." I can't agree more with what they are doing, this advertising is very annoying, especially flash-based ads on the internet (which aren't too difficult to defeat).
This article basically sums up the idea of "Cultural Jamming," which is in essence a returning attack on advertising (be it on the internet through spam, or on billboards seen while driving down the highway) which involves altering content of the original advertisement. Joe Matheny, is one such "troublemaker" with the rain of frogs on Bill Clinton's website, who was rewarded with multiple automated thank-yous. Ham radio jammers are another example of these culture jammers, including examples of "foul-mouthed Mickey Mouse impersonations and other audio filth."
Digital-age jamming examples include the following: pirating radio and TV, computer hacking, media hoaxing, and counterfeit desktop publishing to name just a few. There are many names applied to this form of communication including: media vandalism, "clueless asshole-ism", and as they term themselves dissidents of mainstream media. One of the more interesting aspects of the article is the BLF, or Billboard Liberation Front, that makes massive printouts to edit billboard text or simply to add a blemish or many. Jack Napier, of the BLF, mentions that they "don't damage the property. I don't want to cut billboards down. It's just that I'm kind of tired of being communicated to constantly by advertisers who wane me to buy their product." I can't agree more with what they are doing, this advertising is very annoying, especially flash-based ads on the internet (which aren't too difficult to defeat).
A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace.
A motto, no a manifesto, for the digital community, the digital generation. The declaration, by John Perry Barlow, is the statement of the freedom of thought exchange, ungovernable by law or institution. It is a proclamation of self government; the freedoms allowed by a society truly governed by its people. It's an admonishment to those who fear what cyberspace is, and could be. It is an articulation of the power we now share in this digital medium.
It is a declaration.
The hope is that Barlow's assertions are true, that the cyber-realm is truly independent. If government and institution can somehow restrain the flow of thought, we will have lost our last community forum, the last of our power, the last of our independence.
A motto, no a manifesto, for the digital community, the digital generation. The declaration, by John Perry Barlow, is the statement of the freedom of thought exchange, ungovernable by law or institution. It is a proclamation of self government; the freedoms allowed by a society truly governed by its people. It's an admonishment to those who fear what cyberspace is, and could be. It is an articulation of the power we now share in this digital medium.
It is a declaration.
The hope is that Barlow's assertions are true, that the cyber-realm is truly independent. If government and institution can somehow restrain the flow of thought, we will have lost our last community forum, the last of our power, the last of our independence.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Gods Little Toys by William Gibson
Pretty much this article covers "cut-up," "collage," "reconstruction," "remix" stuff from way back in the 40's all the way to now. The jist of this collage like method is taking writing, or songs, or sound snip-its, or something and cutting it up and putting it together with other things of that sort and creating something entirely new. This is also covered in more detail in Scutze's article.
I thought it was interesting to read these articles the week after we read articles on copy right laws, because these remixes are violating them. I personall thought the laws are getting quite rediculous and I was very happy to know people out there are still "sticking it to the man," if you will.
One thing I thought was a bit questionable in this article was what he said about the record industry. Basically he said they are pretty much out of the picture, or at least heading that way. Does he think these remixes on the internet are going to take over? That is what is comic. I don't even like music remixes so I doubt I would like other kinds either. Not to mention, if the record industry became obsolete there wouldn't be anything new to mix with. But he seems quite sure that that is the way things are heading.
I did like the last but about who owns culture and especially the music in it. I do agree that we as a people own our culture no matter what big companies say or think. That is what makes us who we are.
Pretty much this article covers "cut-up," "collage," "reconstruction," "remix" stuff from way back in the 40's all the way to now. The jist of this collage like method is taking writing, or songs, or sound snip-its, or something and cutting it up and putting it together with other things of that sort and creating something entirely new. This is also covered in more detail in Scutze's article.
I thought it was interesting to read these articles the week after we read articles on copy right laws, because these remixes are violating them. I personall thought the laws are getting quite rediculous and I was very happy to know people out there are still "sticking it to the man," if you will.
One thing I thought was a bit questionable in this article was what he said about the record industry. Basically he said they are pretty much out of the picture, or at least heading that way. Does he think these remixes on the internet are going to take over? That is what is comic. I don't even like music remixes so I doubt I would like other kinds either. Not to mention, if the record industry became obsolete there wouldn't be anything new to mix with. But he seems quite sure that that is the way things are heading.
I did like the last but about who owns culture and especially the music in it. I do agree that we as a people own our culture no matter what big companies say or think. That is what makes us who we are.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Although this article was incredibly spread out and seemed a lot larger than is tackle-able, I did find a tutorial on this site that was very helpful to give some
direction. You can view the tutorial
if you didn't find it.
The most useful aspect of this website was the four factors test. These are nebulous rules surrounding the copyright laws. The questions were:
1. What is the character of the use?
2. What is the nature of the work to be used?
3. How much of the work will you use?
4. What effect would this use have on the market for the original or for permissions if the use were widespread?
Since this article was written for university instructors, it talked about fair use. One's work can be included in a university setting for critique, and also for
distribution to students (one copy to each student) without any financial obligations to the author. The author, by the way, is anyone who contributes to the original publication with new information or artwork, as long as other contributors are not hired on a work-for-hire basis. If the work becomes proprietary at any time, then the usage of the materials could be in question again. The example this text gave was that the instructor wanted to publish her work into a book, and since the instructor would benefit financially, the publisher asked if she had permission from each and all of the authors she was citing in the book. That would be a time consuming process. You can ask the author for permission to use their work, and then it wouldn't be a problem. If the author says no, you still might be able to use it,
however.
In short, there are no hard and fast rules as to when something is used in a publication. I thought the comic book would help me get a better hold on things, but it added legal issues that were not discussed in this article. Lawyers can be a good thing in the right setting.
Publication companies will set limits on how long a citation can be if the author is not responding to inquiries regarding usage, or if the author cannot be reached. There is still a liability issue, but by them putting limits on the length of the quotation, there is lesslikelihood that the author/publishing company/university will be sued (Yes, all of these organizations can be sued).
I think after writing this abstract, I understand why the information on this page was so disjointed. There are too many tangents to go off on before you can make it to your point. I guess that is what hyperlinks are for.
John
direction. You can view the tutorial
if you didn't find it.
The most useful aspect of this website was the four factors test. These are nebulous rules surrounding the copyright laws. The questions were:
1. What is the character of the use?
2. What is the nature of the work to be used?
3. How much of the work will you use?
4. What effect would this use have on the market for the original or for permissions if the use were widespread?
Since this article was written for university instructors, it talked about fair use. One's work can be included in a university setting for critique, and also for
distribution to students (one copy to each student) without any financial obligations to the author. The author, by the way, is anyone who contributes to the original publication with new information or artwork, as long as other contributors are not hired on a work-for-hire basis. If the work becomes proprietary at any time, then the usage of the materials could be in question again. The example this text gave was that the instructor wanted to publish her work into a book, and since the instructor would benefit financially, the publisher asked if she had permission from each and all of the authors she was citing in the book. That would be a time consuming process. You can ask the author for permission to use their work, and then it wouldn't be a problem. If the author says no, you still might be able to use it,
however.
In short, there are no hard and fast rules as to when something is used in a publication. I thought the comic book would help me get a better hold on things, but it added legal issues that were not discussed in this article. Lawyers can be a good thing in the right setting.
Publication companies will set limits on how long a citation can be if the author is not responding to inquiries regarding usage, or if the author cannot be reached. There is still a liability issue, but by them putting limits on the length of the quotation, there is lesslikelihood that the author/publishing company/university will be sued (Yes, all of these organizations can be sued).
I think after writing this abstract, I understand why the information on this page was so disjointed. There are too many tangents to go off on before you can make it to your point. I guess that is what hyperlinks are for.
John
"Bound by Law? Tales from the Public Domain" Keith Aoki, James Boyle, and Jennifer Jenkins.
This online comic book helps to outline the general concept of fair use in copyright law including elements that are inherently in danger of stifling artistic achievement.
The comic strip begins with consideration of the "clearing rights" concepts which involve the "process of finding the rights holder, and getting permission or paying to use material." This is supposed to be an effective measure that helps to protect previous creative work, however the crux issue of this work, is that Documentarians deal with more than just other people's rights. What it really comes down to is what is listed under copyright law as public domain, page 10 has a general outline. Broken down, the table shown contains the generality that any work created after 1/1/1978 will be protected "when the work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression." The eight types of works that are protectable are listed on page 29. A good portion of the comic book pertains to a little line on page 14, "Fair use Should mean you don't need permission for incidentally captured fragments. But the practice is often different." It seems a little outrageous to charge $10,000 to include a 4.5 second Simpson's clip accidentally included in filming. To prevent further problems and stifling creativity the comic strip author's suggest that filmmakers research fair use and make "collective decisions about what's fair"; though I'm not completely certain that it would protect them if they broke copyright law similarly as a group. Another powerful question was posed, "Do we want to give copyright holders a veto over history?", after inclusion of the Dr. King's estate claiming copyright over his speeches, photos, and interviews. Another important issue considered is the extension of term limits from 1978 to 1998 and on extending copyright terms from 28 years to 50 years to 70 years past the death of the author (95 for corporate authors). The end seemed appropriate with the inclusion the ecological, naming there are some entities or parcels that need to be private, however when it comes to creativity, fair use needs to be extended somewhat. This is definitely a complicated issue, whether copyright laws should be able to limit artistic creativity in order to maintain the source's originality. How should this be limited, and how should regulation occur, who decides.
This online comic book helps to outline the general concept of fair use in copyright law including elements that are inherently in danger of stifling artistic achievement.
The comic strip begins with consideration of the "clearing rights" concepts which involve the "process of finding the rights holder, and getting permission or paying to use material." This is supposed to be an effective measure that helps to protect previous creative work, however the crux issue of this work, is that Documentarians deal with more than just other people's rights. What it really comes down to is what is listed under copyright law as public domain, page 10 has a general outline. Broken down, the table shown contains the generality that any work created after 1/1/1978 will be protected "when the work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression." The eight types of works that are protectable are listed on page 29. A good portion of the comic book pertains to a little line on page 14, "Fair use Should mean you don't need permission for incidentally captured fragments. But the practice is often different." It seems a little outrageous to charge $10,000 to include a 4.5 second Simpson's clip accidentally included in filming. To prevent further problems and stifling creativity the comic strip author's suggest that filmmakers research fair use and make "collective decisions about what's fair"; though I'm not completely certain that it would protect them if they broke copyright law similarly as a group. Another powerful question was posed, "Do we want to give copyright holders a veto over history?", after inclusion of the Dr. King's estate claiming copyright over his speeches, photos, and interviews. Another important issue considered is the extension of term limits from 1978 to 1998 and on extending copyright terms from 28 years to 50 years to 70 years past the death of the author (95 for corporate authors). The end seemed appropriate with the inclusion the ecological, naming there are some entities or parcels that need to be private, however when it comes to creativity, fair use needs to be extended somewhat. This is definitely a complicated issue, whether copyright laws should be able to limit artistic creativity in order to maintain the source's originality. How should this be limited, and how should regulation occur, who decides.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Yes, I noticed as well that two of the articles are the same, and one of them, the most important of all I think, is one that we read a few weeks back in "Game Theories." I found myself making incredible article connections in my head before even reading the others and I didn't know why until I noticed that I'd already read them. My article for abstract, however, is new.
"From Sweatshops to Stateside Coorporations" By James Lee
This article seemed to pack a lot of information in just two average length pages. Hopefully I can explain it without tangling it all up. We have all heard of sweatshops in Asia, most notably sweatshops that produce for clothing companies and shoe companies. Lawrence prepped us with "Game Theories," for what we now read in this article, and that is sweat shops meant specifically to farm gold, IE the virtual money we learned could be farmed and sold as see in "Game Theories" as well.
The article mentions, buyer seller, supply and demand type aspect, but touches very lightly on the buyer. Lee writes the buyer as being the gamer with money to burn. The sellers are the newfound coorporations which implement sweat shops as a means of farming the gold, so that they might turn around and launder to this group of gamers with money to burn.
The article discusses the conditions of the sweat shops. Work days run around 12 hours. And according to some sources from the sweat shops who do not give their real names, there are not Holidays. The managers of these places are said to work even longer days of around 14 hours. They also live there. Lee writes "...if you lose your job, you also lose your home." when writing about the managerial conditions at the "farming centers." Work conditions then, could be considered vigorous. However, the article does go on to imply that the conditions are not at all comparable to a sweat shop that produces clothing or shoes. I would agree, that there is a major difference between sitting in front of a computer playing a game all day, and performing manual labor producing clothing all day. If I were forced to chose one, I would take the former.
To me the information this article reveals to us enforces the idea that this virtual economy, is just that, a virtual economy. You have larger coorporations buying out smaller ones, monopolizing the trade so to speak. IGE can be comparable to stores like Walmart or Target. Also, the biggest profiters in this economy, true to form, are inherently dirty. The article mentions that CEOs of these cooporations will use the same excuses that CEOs of so many other coorporations use when confronted with the sweat shop question, saying that these people "...earn a fair salery in relation to the profession in that country."
"From Sweatshops to Stateside Coorporations" By James Lee
This article seemed to pack a lot of information in just two average length pages. Hopefully I can explain it without tangling it all up. We have all heard of sweatshops in Asia, most notably sweatshops that produce for clothing companies and shoe companies. Lawrence prepped us with "Game Theories," for what we now read in this article, and that is sweat shops meant specifically to farm gold, IE the virtual money we learned could be farmed and sold as see in "Game Theories" as well.
The article mentions, buyer seller, supply and demand type aspect, but touches very lightly on the buyer. Lee writes the buyer as being the gamer with money to burn. The sellers are the newfound coorporations which implement sweat shops as a means of farming the gold, so that they might turn around and launder to this group of gamers with money to burn.
The article discusses the conditions of the sweat shops. Work days run around 12 hours. And according to some sources from the sweat shops who do not give their real names, there are not Holidays. The managers of these places are said to work even longer days of around 14 hours. They also live there. Lee writes "...if you lose your job, you also lose your home." when writing about the managerial conditions at the "farming centers." Work conditions then, could be considered vigorous. However, the article does go on to imply that the conditions are not at all comparable to a sweat shop that produces clothing or shoes. I would agree, that there is a major difference between sitting in front of a computer playing a game all day, and performing manual labor producing clothing all day. If I were forced to chose one, I would take the former.
To me the information this article reveals to us enforces the idea that this virtual economy, is just that, a virtual economy. You have larger coorporations buying out smaller ones, monopolizing the trade so to speak. IGE can be comparable to stores like Walmart or Target. Also, the biggest profiters in this economy, true to form, are inherently dirty. The article mentions that CEOs of these cooporations will use the same excuses that CEOs of so many other coorporations use when confronted with the sweat shop question, saying that these people "...earn a fair salery in relation to the profession in that country."
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Ok first I would like to point out that two of the articles this week are repeats, just incase no one noticed. Game Theories we read two weeks ago. It was the article from the Walrus. Also, Boring Game? Hire a Player and Ogre to Slay? Outsource it to Chinese are exactly the same as well. So I suppose Merin and I are going to be posting about the same thing. I also think these aticles would have been more beneficial if they had been in the same week or the week right after the first week we started talking about video games. Just a thought
"Boring Game? Hire a Player" by David Barboza
Pretty much this article talks about "farming" sweat shops in China. These are places that hire people, for rediculous pay, to run around in games and get the most gold, the best weapons and such, and to level the characters. In turn the company turns around and sells these things for actual money. This is what all of the articles talked about this week.
The first thought that comes to my mind is how wrong this is. That could just be me. I'm sure some of you in the class think this is perfectly fine. But let me go into why I think this is so wrong.
Let's start with the selling of virtual goods for real money, shall we? The gaming companies are very against this. In Clive Thompson's article he quotes Richard Bartle (who pioneered the first virtual world in the 1980s) as saying, "It's a game and what we are doing is inviting you in to play with the toys. But you don't own the toys. We do." That is it exactly. This is supposed to be a game... that you play... for fun. Wow, what a shocker!! For people to buy their way into a better part of the game defeats the purpose entirely and ruins the fun of getting there.
The next thing I had a problem with was how little these people get paid in China for doing this job. I can't imagine they could live off of that. The highest someone made in this article was $250 a month and the lowest was $75 a month. I would be out on the street with the bums drinking booze if that was me. I guess they chose to do that job and all they have to do is play video games all day, but it still seems rediculous. It makes it so much worse when you find out how much the company makes off what these people are doing. In the James Lee article, for example, one of these companies was making $1.5 million a year. And they can't afford to give their employees more? As said by Edward Castronova, mentioned in a couple of the articles this week, "They're exploiting the wage difference between the US and China for unskilled labor."
Apparently not much is being done to shut down these companies. I think something should be done. This isn't what playing games should be about.
Jessica
"Boring Game? Hire a Player" by David Barboza
Pretty much this article talks about "farming" sweat shops in China. These are places that hire people, for rediculous pay, to run around in games and get the most gold, the best weapons and such, and to level the characters. In turn the company turns around and sells these things for actual money. This is what all of the articles talked about this week.
The first thought that comes to my mind is how wrong this is. That could just be me. I'm sure some of you in the class think this is perfectly fine. But let me go into why I think this is so wrong.
Let's start with the selling of virtual goods for real money, shall we? The gaming companies are very against this. In Clive Thompson's article he quotes Richard Bartle (who pioneered the first virtual world in the 1980s) as saying, "It's a game and what we are doing is inviting you in to play with the toys. But you don't own the toys. We do." That is it exactly. This is supposed to be a game... that you play... for fun. Wow, what a shocker!! For people to buy their way into a better part of the game defeats the purpose entirely and ruins the fun of getting there.
The next thing I had a problem with was how little these people get paid in China for doing this job. I can't imagine they could live off of that. The highest someone made in this article was $250 a month and the lowest was $75 a month. I would be out on the street with the bums drinking booze if that was me. I guess they chose to do that job and all they have to do is play video games all day, but it still seems rediculous. It makes it so much worse when you find out how much the company makes off what these people are doing. In the James Lee article, for example, one of these companies was making $1.5 million a year. And they can't afford to give their employees more? As said by Edward Castronova, mentioned in a couple of the articles this week, "They're exploiting the wage difference between the US and China for unskilled labor."
Apparently not much is being done to shut down these companies. I think something should be done. This isn't what playing games should be about.
Jessica
Ogre to Slay? Outsource It to Chinese
The readings this week are an expansion of what we began in week six. The class was first introduced to the online MMORPG economies in Clive Thompson article "Game Theories." David Barboza's article follows the online economy through an examination of "Goldfarming" a phenomina that is happening internationally in digital sweatshops.
Gold farming is the term used when an individual, a small business, or a corperation pays gamers to simply accrue game currency, as well as build characters and earn rare items, which can be sold on the digital black market for real world profit. The ease with which this is done is prime for sweatshop labour, which Barboza tries to focus on in his article, but does so unsuccessfully. Instead the article has to do with the ability to make profit off of digital currnecy, which was already examined in Thompson's article.
Barboza's discriptions of the work environment become seemingly minor atrocities which occur in digital sweatshops. "Another operation here has about 40 computers lined up in the basement of an old dilapidated building, all playing the same game. Upstairs were unkempt, closet-size dormitory rooms where several gamers slept on bunk beds; the floors were strewn with hot pots, " Barboza observes. However, the comparison these sweatshops to the "thousands of textile mills and toy factories that have moved here from Taiwan, Hong Kong and other parts of the world to take advantage of China's vast pool of cheap labor," seems streched in the article, as if an afterthought.
The socio-economic impact of these goldfarms are worth studying, not just on the digital market, but with what it has done to the work ethic of our generation in not only International sweatshops but in the warm glow of computer screens in the United states as well.
Due to limitations in my internet access ability I was not able to view the multi media portion of this article. When I have the ability to view it, I may ammend my assertions.
The readings this week are an expansion of what we began in week six. The class was first introduced to the online MMORPG economies in Clive Thompson article "Game Theories." David Barboza's article follows the online economy through an examination of "Goldfarming" a phenomina that is happening internationally in digital sweatshops.
Gold farming is the term used when an individual, a small business, or a corperation pays gamers to simply accrue game currency, as well as build characters and earn rare items, which can be sold on the digital black market for real world profit. The ease with which this is done is prime for sweatshop labour, which Barboza tries to focus on in his article, but does so unsuccessfully. Instead the article has to do with the ability to make profit off of digital currnecy, which was already examined in Thompson's article.
Barboza's discriptions of the work environment become seemingly minor atrocities which occur in digital sweatshops. "Another operation here has about 40 computers lined up in the basement of an old dilapidated building, all playing the same game. Upstairs were unkempt, closet-size dormitory rooms where several gamers slept on bunk beds; the floors were strewn with hot pots, " Barboza observes. However, the comparison these sweatshops to the "thousands of textile mills and toy factories that have moved here from Taiwan, Hong Kong and other parts of the world to take advantage of China's vast pool of cheap labor," seems streched in the article, as if an afterthought.
The socio-economic impact of these goldfarms are worth studying, not just on the digital market, but with what it has done to the work ethic of our generation in not only International sweatshops but in the warm glow of computer screens in the United states as well.
Due to limitations in my internet access ability I was not able to view the multi media portion of this article. When I have the ability to view it, I may ammend my assertions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)