Back in Singapore, where I grew up, cell phones were interchangable. People could just swap out the SIM card, regardless of the service subscribed, and replace them with another SIM card. This was a common technique when buying a new phone, ensuring a convenient transition. All we had to do was just get a new cellphone and pop it in. When I went back home to visit my parents over the summer, I brought my Canadian phone over, hoping to do the same: just purchase a local SIM card and I will be good to go. I was sadly mistaken. Phones in Canada and most of the world are locked to only work within their specific countries. I could endure expensive roaming charges or I could purchase a local cell phone (so much for the reduction of waste). I did the latter. Upon digging deeper, I found that only 2 countries (in the entire world, mind you) had their phones unlocked off the rack: Singapore and Bulgaria.

To circumvent this problem, many resort to unlocking their phones. This not only revokes the warranty of that product but also, according to Bill C-61, is illegal. Since its legislative application in Canada in 2008, it has met with huge criticism. Many argue that this Bill is drawn up to protect the big industry players, ignoring the bigger crowd: public interest. The Appropriation Art Coalition reportedly condemned the Bill saying, “copyright is meant to nurture the rights of creators, not suppress and criminalize artistic practice. In compliance with this Bill, students will no longer be able to utilise other’s works for research or study. It is made acquiring learning resources that much more difficult if it has to go through tons of paper work before approval. News gathering would also slow down.

This is also a big dilemma for immigrants/students/tourists who bring their electronic devices from their home countries. For instance, the application of a regional code on DVDs ensure that many who bought legitimate DVDs abroad, can no longer view them with a local DVD player. Coming from a country with a very high percentage of immigrants, it is especially detrimental.

Many software developers are also stumped by the Bill, as it prohibits them from modifying available Open Source codes. This duly prevents innovative research and developing new network outlets.

Michael Geist, the founder of the Facebook group, Fair Copyright for Canada also criticised the Bill, citing environmental issues. He even drafted a revision of the Bill, in hopes that serious considerations for amendments could be made. More could be read on his blog: http://www.michaelgeist.ca

Perhaps instead of just implementing a total prohibition of network sharing of copyright material, I think that the government should find out what the actual problem with modification of copyright materials is and fix it. It is not necessarily a bad thing.

Back in Singapore, where I grew up, cell phones were interchangable. People could just swap out the SIM card, regardless of the service subscribed, and replace them with another SIM card. This was a common technique when buying a new phone, ensuring a convenient transition. All we had to do was just get a new cellphone and pop it in. When I went back home to visit my parents over the summer, I brought my Canadian phone over, hoping to do the same: just purchase a local SIM card and I will be good to go. I was sadly mistaken. Phones in Canada and most of the world are locked to only work within their specific countries. I could endure expensive roaming charges or I could purchase a local cell phone (so much for the reduction of waste). I did the latter. Upon digging deeper, I found that only 2 countries (in the entire world, mind you) had their phones unlocked off the rack: Singapore and Bulgaria.

To circumvent this problem, many resort to unlocking their phones. This not only revokes the warranty of that product but also, according to Bill C-61, is illegal. Since its legislative application in Canada in 2008, it has met with huge criticism. Many argue that this Bill is drawn up to protect the big industry players, ignoring the bigger crowd: public interest. The Appropriation Art Coalition reportedly condemned the Bill saying, “copyright is meant to nurture the rights of creators, not suppress and criminalize artistic practice. In compliance with this Bill, students will no longer be able to utilise other’s works for research or study. It is made acquiring learning resources that much more difficult if it has to go through tons of paper work before approval. News gathering would also slow down.

This is also a big dilemma for immigrants/students/tourists who bring their electronic devices from their home countries. For instance, the application of a regional code on DVDs ensure that many who bought legitimate DVDs abroad, can no longer view them with a local DVD player. Coming from a country with a very high percentage of immigrants, it is especially detrimental.

Many software developers are also stumped by the Bill, as it prohibits them from modifying available Open Source codes. This duly prevents innovative research and developing new network outlets.

Michael Geist, the founder of the Facebook group, Fair Copyright for Canada also criticised the Bill, citing environmental issues. He even drafted a revision of the Bill, in hopes that serious considerations for amendments could be made. More could be read on his blog: http://www.michaelgeist.ca

Perhaps instead of just implementing a total prohibition of network sharing of copyright material, I think that the government should find out what the actual problem with modification of copyright materials is. It is not necessarily a bad thing.

To say that the advent of the Internet has revolutionized the way we see the world is an understatement. We no longer absorb whatever we are given. No longer do we have to subject ourselves to the inane commercials that play repeatedly on the tube. It is now a two way street, a parallel play of sorts. The Internet is the new form of communication, with user forums, social networking sites and the likes. We create whatever we want to create.

The Web is now our stage and the whole world is our audience. In the past, I used to create print ads and music for a specific audience or clients. There was no way I could reach a global audience. Now, a single upload is all it takes to potentially garner views and comments. This interactive process enables feedback from like-minded people and hence a community to grow and learn together. Anyone with a camera, or a computer can easily upload custom songs or hacks for anyone’s viewing pleasure.

The telephone would be obsolete with the growing user base of the Web, but it is contrary to what you think. In fact, many people find themselves using the phone more often, hand in hand with the Web. The ease at which dialing a phone number has not changed. It is mostly fast, and direct, if the other participant is receptive. Social networking sites now allow members to put details about themselves for easy contact purposes. If I wanted to find an actor, recommended by a friend, for my grad film, I could look him/her up via Facebook and hopefully get in contact with that person, if he/she has her details posted. With the insane amount of networks people have, as well as the big groups that the members join, tracking down someone is not really that difficult anymore.

Also, TV advertisements do not get much viewership nowadays. Many people prefer to channel surf or take a break, instead of watching the ads. With the Web, we get to view the essential parts of a particular movie or TV show, without interruption, at any given time. We can essentially skip all adverts and watch the programme. And even if we wanted to watch the adverts, we could do it on our own time.

It has been a while since I personally bought newspaper to read. The last time I read a news article from a newspaper was when I was waiting in line at the doctor’s office. And that was only because it was right next to me. I picked it up because it was convenient. That’s why I read all the news on the Web. That’s why I watch TV shows on the Web. That’s why I interact with a global audience every time I respond to a question on a forum. Convenience is key.

I personally feel that CC has to be more forceful in its approach as there are easy workarounds to ‘clearing’ the copyright of a creation. I mean, we encounter a lot of web contracts and Terms of Service nowadays with each new application we install or website we register with, ones that forcefully carries out its threat of denial whenever a user fails to agree to them. With CC, it is acting only as a reminder to how we are SUPPOSED to obligate with their terms, without as much as a ‘punishment’ for those who infringe them. The CC organization is not meant to be the Web Police. Without the proper CC authorities acting upon these infringements, there is little reason to adhere to them. Users can afford to play fast and loose with these creative works. With little adherence to these contracts, there would generally be a smaller pool of contributors who are willing to be a part of the contributing community. They would rather profit from these all rights reserved works. Now, I understand that the ideal world that CC wants to create is a collaborative community of shared intellectual properties; a pool of resources from which anyone and everyone can just freely access and contribute original creations. Wouldn’t this lack of an authoritative force eventually result in something that is counter-effective?

But then again, CC is a simpler, easier and more effective way in reshaping the copyright model, a ‘copyleft’ if you will. It is a long ways off but at least it is a step forward in universalizing creativity and setting the terms in which it is to be shared. To have is better than none. Or in this case, an over-enthused and over-elaborate terms and conditions.

oh and by the way, by leaving out my name at the end, i realised that you can’t really tell that I did that…but i did do it…

i wanted to make a video about video art that can explain what it means….

by being super vague and cryptic, along with the digital voice narration, i wanted to encapsulate the sometimes ridiculous definitions people have of the term ‘video art’

my youtube account is larkenblu. go click the video to see more stuff i did….

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License.

Time and hassle was significantly reduced to a couple of quick clicks of the computer mouse. All anyone had to do was to search and join up once they found the right cause to campaign for, or promise, as Shirky would put it. If desired cause was non-existent, creating one was also simple. The many, many tools (facebook. Ning, blogs) out there to facilitate these creations make it easily accessible to anyone who has a computer hooked up to the Web. And one does not need to have a tremendous amount of computer expertise to do so. With the right promotion and proper attention gathering, you could easily elevate your cause to be a worthy political position, if need be.

Benkler mentions that because of the convenience brought by the Web to effectively lower the cost of broadcasting out to zero, the shift becomes almost common sense. Why pay for something that can be done legally and free? The multidirectional output, that the networked public sphere generates, is also vastly more effective in communication as well as letting individuals participating more actively.

The great thing about this participation is that every individual had an equal amount of ‘air-time’. Each post, no matter how short, would instigate certain debate about a certain issue. Subsequent members, or readers will read these opinions and each one has as much weight as the other. A fine example would be politicsforum.org/forum/ where readers can actively engage in discussions about global politics, without worry for the possible ugly confrontations that might arise from political opinion differences. The anonymous protection screen of the Web can also encourage individuals, who were on the fence, to opinionate, because they have nothing to lose. It is also a great way to generate discourse and the sheer simplicity in which individuals can link articles or pictures to prove a point (much like Benkler’s ‘see for yourself’ approach) makes the participation a livelier one.

Wikipedia is perhaps the most famous piece of evidence of how individuals are participating more often than ever before. With a couple of clicks, anyone can edit this networked encyclopedia. The collaborative effort of a community encourages even the tiniest albeit relevant contribution. Individuals, who only have the time to post a short writeup about a certain topic, can now do so, with hopes that someone else in the world can continue adding to the entry. The world is your friend.

Imagine a concert. The networked information economy is the microphone, stage, speakers, crowd and complete anonymousity. We are given these tools backstage. So many obstacles, all removed because of the networked information economy. Passivity is no longer the norm. What have we got to lose?

My point exactly.

When put under the microscope, it is definitely interesting to examine this so-called ‘Internet revolution’ and how it has taken a stronghold in our lifestyle. But beyond this major overhaul, if you look past all the wonders of the networked information economy, we see a bona fide centralized sharing community.

What started as a simple informational exchange between 2 computer terminals is now a massive plethora of networked self-motivated creationist groups. The consumer is now the creator. Nowhere is it more evident than in video games. From the humble beginnings of Pong, to the MMORPGs like World of Warcraft, to the self-created (or ‘modded’) games like DotA and Counter-Strike, video games have since been revolutionized, to say the least. Game developers are now increasingly allowing the consumers to be the driver’s seat, providing tools to help better the game (by providing beta demos, or even providing free development tools for modding). At times, they even designed the tools (like in LittleBigPlanet) with the non-tech savvy consumer-turned-creators in mind, allowing them to play, create and share just as easily as the programming geek. This accessibility broadens the audience to just about anyone would wants to give it a go.

Video games are not the only ones standing to gain from this revolution. Like in Benkley’s example of The Jedi Saga, just about anyone with a camera can create a film. However, what is different now is the emergence of movies or shorts created with scenes generated from a video game. Called machinima, they tell stories made directly from tools the developers provided, to meddle with the characters and camera, like in the famous South Park episode where most of the episode is comprised of cutscenes generated from World of Warcraft. As a new mode of communication, they (although not often) tackles social issues and gaming culture like in the popular Halo machinima, Red vs Blue, thus providing reflection that can attract the intended demographic. This method may not be suitable for those not well-equipped with programming languages right now but as with modding video games, I am certain that this simplification process will only be a matter of time.

But the fact remains. Anyone can now publish anything. This poster probably says it all.

We are coach potatoes no more.

my melody mash up of sorts!

i hope you enjoy it!

EDIT: as with the later post, i realised that i forgot to leave my name in it, so you can’t tell that i did it…but i did in fact created this out of video footage of me jamming and then piecing it together individually later in Final Cut Pro. The piano parts were especially tricky because i did not know how to play the piano at all. I had to shoot each key individually before joining it together in post-production. Took me a while. But it turned out great!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License.

Case in point, for the Student Art Sale collaborative project for this course, the promise is to connect ECU student artists to potential buyers. However, since it is catered towards the students, after graduation, are they no longer eligible to be part of the community? You might be better off asking a painter to refrain from using paint. If the equipped tools permit them, do they leave the group willingly and perhaps join another group that has promises, tools and bargains that they can adhere to? If they choose not to do so, they can remain within the group and continue to publish and sell their works with the tools, but that would be a breach of pre-determined bargained conditions. If enough of such situations arise, expanding the terms of bargain to include them would be a forced move on the creators’ part.

This makes me think about the power of the collaborative masses. They champion to take control when situations arise for them to stand up and be counted. Of course, as much as I wished that that would be the ideal result of any given situation, the recent Pirate Bay legal trial was evidence that sometimes, we need to have some form of legal governance, despite the faceless entity of the Web, allowing us the opportunity to misbehave.

With advertisers increasingly relying on viral spreads of information on the web, politicians cannot help but follow suit. What better way to mass organize, generate more awareness, and reaching a bigger audience than disseminating information through the same pipeline. Shirky mentions that the press do not make the headlines anymore; it is now the people who re-distribute the info. This branching of political awareness through community campaigns and organizations speaks volumes for the general public, who used to be ostracized and observing from the back. People who used to stand and watch can now be a part of it, because motivation is derived from ease of collective organization and management with social tools. They are now active participants, observers and public, all rolled into one. Also, sometimes, with the vast global knowledge of other political climates in other countries through the web, communities might urge their own congressman to advocate similar policies. Through progressive discussion and discourse with other community members, they might discover an alternate (perhaps even better) idea to go about championing a certain political/social cause.

The current ONE PASS NOW campaign is a testament of this phenomenon. Gordon Campbell promised a fair fare (haha…fair fare) pricings for all post-secondary students, and we have yet to see any action being done. Through the ease of gathering community members (or as Facebook call them, fans) and organizing movements with these social tools, this campaign is a championing for call to action for a consensual U-Pass for said students.

However, this begs the question, with more people giving more opinions and being heard by more people with less time, won’t there be more politicians? Should everyone consider themselves a politician then?

I beg to differ.

If this were so, whom would we listen to? This phenomenon of citizen politicians would result in a massive clutter of opinions on how to govern a country. Politicians would no longer be a legitimate job, except a faceless drone and figurehead for re-conveying information already available to the masses. They could be better off re-terming the word ‘politics’ to ‘Opinion-giving-istic’. Sure, the country would then be truly governed by the people, but without the proper training as one, are we all qualified to pick up the mantle?

As a tool, the web removes obstacles for better efficiency of campaign managements, but politicians must never forget that they are potential leaders and they must lead the people, not the other way around.