Catatonic

The Starr article analyzed the role of simulations both in real-world and gaming applications. The point was made that simulations have important limitations, and shouldn’t be relied on as completely accurate reproductions of situations. I enjoyed the way Starr wrote about the cross-identity of simulations in these two seemingly different applications. One quote from the article in particular caught my attention about this point.

Much of the research behind advances in computer graphics was originally sponsored by the Department of Defense and space programs and grew out of work on flight simulation, which in the 1960s and ’70s was centered at the University of Utah. The defense and space programs had a similar catalytic role in the development of the Internet. Virtual reality has followed the same route.

Improved graphics hit the home market with the growth of video games and the advent of the Macintosh. Even flight simulation has crossed over the become home entertainment.

As a policy tool, the article mentioned the role of simulations in the Congressional Budget Office. Obviously, criticism is considerable in a goverment setting. It’s a valid point, too, that social programs and policy are perhaps more difficult to simulate because of their complexity. It’s not simply a cause-effect relationship that can be easily predicted. It seems that the strongest critics are the ones who are expecting too much out these simulations. They are indeed useful tools when their limitations are kept in mind.

Looking at SimCity for instance, particularly the more recent versions of the game, it’s a pretty intricate simulation in city planning, considering it’s just an entertainment experience as a computer game. Graphics technology is becoming so advanced that the gaming experience is now becoming more real than ever. It’s making the distinction between simulation in gaming and practical application simulation less defined. I think the two can work off of one another to improve.

The Felten lecture on emerging technology and copyright brought up some interesting points about how the Betamax VCR in many ways established important legal precedent for issues of copyright involving technology today. I think it’s important to understand that the people representing “Digital Rights Management” are willing to fight to resist any kind of new technology that may possibly facilitate copyright infringement. I guess the fine line is determined by whether or not a function of the technology itself is a part of the copyright infringement itself, as was the case with Napster. The VCR was such a versatile technology that its legitimate uses outweighed the potential for skipping commercials.

Felten foresees “The Great Earthquake” within the next twenty years as something significant in terms of implications for universal digital media. I can’t disagree that such a landmark technology can be expected within that frame of time. It’s humbling whenever you step back and take a look at what’s changed in the last even five years. For me, looking at even what’s changed in the course of my lifetime, a mere twenty years, it’s simply remarkable. So, to even try to imagine how things will change in the next twenty years is a bit beyond my realm of comprehension, as much as I’d like to believe I have an idea of what the future brings. I think there’s potential for great new things. Looking at music, too, it’s certainly evident that it changes significantly with the times.

Getting back to the issue of copyright, it also seems inevitable that copyright interpretation will have to adapt to new technologies. While the Betamax decision may have been the Magna Carta of digital copyright law, there’s more change to come. And yes, the Fritz chip is an idea that is constantly being sought in one form or another, and I think there will be gains on that side of copyright protection as well.

Typically, when I consider the length of five minutes, I think it’s a really short length of time. Five minutes is maybe a song and a half if you’re listening to music. When I did this exercise of taking away IT and simply doing nothing for five minutes, I realized how our constant daily activity is what makes time go by so seamlessly. As for my thoughts, I had a lot of trouble putting them aside entirely. Music kept creeping into my head. I was able to zone out for a few seconds at a time, which was kind of nice.

What’s also interesting is that it bothered me a bit to be spending five minutes doing nothing. Sure, I waste lots of time each day, but it just seems wrong to spend time actually not doing any activity at all. For whatever reason, wasting time on the Internet or watching TV is not something that’s ever really been a problem in my mind. Maybe it’s worth the effort to take time a little more often to just reflect. I’m sure I can speak for my classmates as well in saying that our lives are pretty frenetic at times.

I guess my method of finding information about Jason Gallo is kind of traditional and uninteresting, but there’s a lot you can find simply by querying “Jason Gallo” in a Google search. I also mirrored that search in Yahoo! to see if there was any other particularly relevant information that I was missing. If you wanted to be somewhat stalkerish and get his home address and phone number, you could query his name at http://directory.northwestern.edu. Really I’m elaborating probably a little too fully about the options, but I guess the point I’m trying to make is that a simple search can still be a good one, and I don’t feel like I’m missing much by not doing much more than that, although I’ve had some fun also toying around with the idea of running queries on Google’s blog search

I think the Lessig article highlighted some very important points regarding the role of the Internet in free expression. The background about Disney and borrowed content was particularly noteworthy. Copyright as it is today is completely different from what it was even a single generation ago. It’s now considered taboo to even use other content as a launching pad for new creative expression. While it’s important to protect the integrity of artists, I think current copyright law thwarts creativity more than it protects it.

I agree with the positive sentiment the article conveys towards blogs. They allow for free expression of ideas that otherwise may not be able to be shared. In my mind, there are essentially two conflicting forces. The “good” side promotes freedom of thoughts and ideas on the Internet. Such projects as open source software development are manifestations of this side. The “bad” side is represented by powerful lobbyists such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). While the objective of protecting artists is in and of itself a fair and noble cause, I don’t think they are really out to simply protect artists. They seem to be more like headhunters who are just looking to take advantage of people who don’t really even pose much of a threat. Sure, they can argue that it’s a principle they’re enforcing, but they’re more transparent than they may think.

Without a doubt, one of the most signifcant issues being confronted with the Internet is copyright protection. The Healy article makes the complexity of this matter evident. First of all, there’s the fundamental question of how media in its many forms can be fairly shared online without compromising copyright. As we’ve discussed in class, fair use, especially on the Internet, is more or less a gray area. The article references Napster as an example of a music exchange service that was challenged by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). We’ve also seen major efforts by movie studios to cut down on movie piracy online. These questions are also relevant in regards to online publishing of various texts.

It seems like the law is still being written about what kind of media exchange is permissible online, as the Internet is certainly an emerging outlet of cultural goods. With copyright law in place, there’s also the issue of dealing with enforcement. More and more, music and movies are being coded in such a way so as to try to prevent unauthorized reproduction.

The kind of disconcerting element about these issues, which the article discusses, is that the Internet itself is being censored and is certainly vulnerable to future government filtering and censorship. Regardless of the intent, it seems like we should be conscious of government intervention. I also found it somewhat alarming that Congress has lengthened copyright eleven times in the last forty years. By nature, the Internet promotes the free flow of information. Copyright protection online is always going to be a difficult struggle because technology is difficult to control. For all the people who are working to create ways to protect content, there are others working to try to break through the safeguards.

Google’s at it again. Now they’re making news with the release of Google Print, a service that digitizes books that are in the public domain. The future of the project has raises questions about copyright and fair use, which is something we just started discussing in class. Of course, Google feels that they’re exercising fair use. Publishers, however, contend that Google is guilty of copyright infringement.

Here’s an article about the project.

Be sure to check out this article about Google that appeared in the New York Times on Sunday. It discusses issues we’ve brought up in our class discussions about search engine advertising. The article provides a more detailed explanation of how Google’s advertising is different from that of their competition, and how they look to impact the advertising market in the future.

The Boyd article on Friendster discusses how the service has evolved in its usage. For me, the article is most relevant as a comparison to what Facebook offers. They both are similar services, but certain social circles have embraced one or the other. In that sense, it’s directly relevant to the Greenstein article on viral marketing through “word of mouse.” Another site offering nearly the same kind of social networking is MySpace, and then there’s Orkut, which has become a big deal in Brazil.

The article brought up an interesting point about the primary purpose of Friendster being facilitating dating. I always just thought it was more of an online community for friends to share.

Anyway, I think it’s important when considering these sites and their users to realize that they change as soon as users start to fill the “social network.” If the creators envisioned something very specific about how the site should function, they may have unrealistic expectations. Facebook seems to have a bit more of a controlled environment in terms of the risk of fake profiles because they require an e-mail address with the domain of the institution of the user to register. Friendster and MySpace have no such restrictions. That being said, Facebook isn’t immune to such issues.

Mostly, users of these social networking sites need to realize that content posted by other users can be unreliable. These sites shouldn’t be taken too seriously because not everyone has the same motives for using them.

The Greenstein article made me look at the Internet as a collective enterprise. Everyone wants a piece of the action, but it’s really one big popularity contest. “Viral marketing” is definitely an important concept. I also agree with Greenstein that a major component in catching interest is just good fortune. When there are multiple sites out there offering a new service, chances are pretty good that only one or two will be very successful. Even though the online marketplace has changed since 1999, there are always new services being offered, and the ideas here are still relevant. However, it appears to be somewhat near the e-commerce boom when this article was written.

Applying the article to current trends, it is evident that viral marketing has allowed some sites to catch fire. Google is the most obvious one that comes to mind. As the word spread from user to user about the new search engine, it quickly became more popular. Google effectively marketed their product to rise to the top in a heated field of many competitors that offered similar services.

It seems like the prevailing concept to take from this article is that it’s worth investing in many different projects online instead of pooling resources into just one idea. There’s no telling what will happen.