Stealing Our Own Content

I read two interesting articles on Netflix this week, but the one that intrigued me the most, dealt with Canadians streaming the American service. I found it particularly interesting, as we’ve both talked about it in class, and I’ve been doing it for years. The article itself wasn’t all that intriguing, as it really gave no new information, or went very deep into ethics and copyright infringement. At this point, it still appears to be something of a legal black hole. While it breaks Netflix’s terms, they have yet to do anything about it.

The most interesting discussion came in the comments section, where several people brought up the fact that there was Canadian tax-produced content available only on the American Netflix. The general argument made is that it was not piracy, since they were paying for the same content—some of it was just blocked.

This is the interesting debate. Who is controlling our content? And can we even call it our content? Is watching this content unethical, or is blocking the content the unethical thing?

Article
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/03/21/american-netflix-in-canada-vpn_n_5002916.html

My Public is not my Father's Public

An article I found interesting this week that related to the in class discussions focused on privacy issues related to Twitter. While it seems like a fairly basic idea—your tweets are either public or private, it’s actually a far more complex issue.

The article focused on the idea that tweets are being re published without any sort of permission, regardless of the content. The author suggests that tweets should not be held in the regard as previous forms of communication. While everything is ‘public’, it shouldn’t mean everyone is free to do what they want. Social media exists in a world between private and public. These sites and applications wouldn’t function if they were either completely public or private, so there should be some limits without having to go completely private.

The bigger issue this article points at is our shifting perceptions of ideas about what should be public, and what should be private. Only a decade or so ago, what the average person shares online would likely seem ludicrous. We are essentially living two lives, and one of them is free for anyone to view.

The impact of this has yet to be seen, and likely won’t be for a good many years. How will people feel that access their entire “virtual” lives online? Will nostalgia become irrelevant, when you can look back and see exactly what you were doing at any given point in time?

Link

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/digital-culture/twitter-is-so-public-it-makes-old-notions-of-public-obsolete/article17493591/

The Punks of Disneyland

An article I found quite interesting this week focused on an aspect of Disneyland I hadn’t known existed, mainly because it seems to be a new trend. Being a big fan of Disneyland and World, I find the history and the underground history quite interesting.

This article BY Crissy Van Meter, published on the alternate news site Vice, dealt with the new trend of Neverlanders—young adult fans that dress in an “alternative” fashion and act largely as a gang. While their behaviour is quite innocent, their image does not fit with the park, especially their pack behaviour. Essentially, they don’t fit the Disney brand at first glance.

Since the group is peaceful, and they are genuine fans, it seems wrong to think of them in a negative manner. If anything, they are a true indication of just how strong the Disney brand, the parks, and memories are. These are their ideal audience. They represent the idea that the magic of your childhood never goes away, and there are places where you can make that happen.

Are you going to see them used in advertising? No. The issue is that by advertising to this audience, you alienate others, and become unappealing. There is actually a large portion of these parks dedicated solely to adults, but even those parts are advertised differently.

The idea of a stunted adulthood, or adults not acting “grown up”, has always been seen in a negative manner, and it likely always will.

Link

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/the-punks-of-the-magic-kingdom

Fair Embedding

An interesting news article I’ve been thinking about quite a bit is Getty’s announcement to make a large part of their library free to use online via embedding, in an effort to combat piracy.

The first thing I thought of was how well this has worked for other forms of media, such as music, film, and TV. While not exactly the same context, adapting, rather than fighting or remaining completely ignorant has helped.

I think it is also an interesting step in the idea that the web is too open to be privatized, and letting people share benefits everyone. Piracy on the web will always be easy and prevalent, and the best thing to fight it is to give options that are just as easy.

The article does point out that many photographers are upset, and feel it will hurt them financially, as at this point, photographers will not be paid. This is understandable, but its important to note that commercial uses of the photos will still cost money.

I think it’s hard to tell how this will fare, but I certainly think it’s a step in the right direction.  

Link
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-26463886

Unapologetic in the 21st Century

One of the articles I found interesting this week was Barbie’s Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue Causes a Stir Online by Stuart Elliott, posted in the New York Times. While the article itself was not particularly engaging, I found the subject quite interesting. I know almost nothing about Barbie dolls, and don't really care all that much about Sports Illustrated, but I have to admire companies that aren't afraid to take a stance. It seems like in todays incredibly politically correct culture, companies have to apologize almost all the time. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I don't think companies should have to try and cater to everyone. As we all know, there are plenty of people that get upset over everything, and aren't afraid to write about it.

So for Mattel and Sports Illustrated to boldly state that they are "unapologetic" is quite interesting. There is a consensus that these two companies are inherently anti-feminist, and pushing the gender back. What this article, and the campaign point out though, is that there's really no reason to think this, and we have to look into things.

One of the things I question though is are these companies truly unapologetic, and can a company even be so in the 21st century? It seems like no bad deeds go unpunished these days, and public opinion can quickly put a company on its feet.  

Link
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/business/media/barbies-sports-illustrated-swimsuit-issue-causes-a-stir-online.html?_r=0

Instant Verdict

The first article that I found quite interesting was in The Globe and Mail, titled Is Woody Allen a sex offender? Over the weekend Twitter ablaze over Allen, and almost all of it was treating him like he was already found guilty. I found this article to be well written, insightful, and quite brave considering the often black and white nature of matters like these. Rather than take a side, or relay the news like the other newspapers did, Margaret Wente stated facts, brought up current misinformation, and questioned whether we should believe something solely on an allegation. Furthermore, the article brought up the idea that false allegations can be as evil as said allegation.

The article and the case itself bring up the current pitfalls of social media. Instant publishing and communication anywhere mean that we often end up forming options before all the facts are released. The Boston Marathon bombing comes to mind, where the internet quickly harassed a man online that they thought was the suspect, due to false publishing.

These are dangerous waters. Accusations are a dangerous weapon alone, but with the viral nature that they can spread now, we have to be even more diligent about waiting for all the facts. Reputations and lives depend on it.

Article
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/is-woody-allen-a-sex-offender/article16670511/

More To Come

Sometime in the future, there will be writing on this blog for the class VISM 2B41