Interesting article
Hi 501dc-ers…I hope all of you are well and enjoying our brief hiatus. I just wanted to pass along the following article…interesting and pertinent to some of our discussion this semester…
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-autoadmit1022.artoct22,0,3272457.story
Final Video Pitch
Here it is…self-explanatory. It’s a big file…you might want to let it buffer in before viewing. Runs 5:15.
Worth sharing…
Just for grins…
Persistence of Memory
I found the interviews with Gordon Bell, the life logger, and technology writer Clive Bell fascinating. Clearly Gordon Bell takes the cataloging of his life to an extreme few of us would be interested in doing.
My first reaction was geez, this must be one self-absorbed guy. But I suppose to a lesser extent there is a bit of that instinct in most of us. How many new parents snap away photo after photo of their new borns and toddlers and videotape everything from first real food to first step to first day of kindergarten. Eventually, the cataloging of your child’s life slows down. There are far fewer pictures and video taken as your child ages. And far fewer pictures/video of the second child. And the third…well, perhaps one photo for every 50 taken of the first.
“Put the damn camera away already,” was a fairly common request–order–when I would attempt to document the lives of our family.
But a funny thing happens years later when you look at them. “Oh, wow, I remember that. I’m so glad you got that,” is the more likely response. I recently began the process of transferring all of our old video–literally hundreds of hours–from VHS and 8mm to a computer hard drive. It’s a huge undertaking that will take me years, I fear. All those old dance recitals and early soccer games where the kids stop running after the ball to pick daisies. Watching the footage again does reinforce the memories. And my wife forgets all the grief she handed out over my ever-present camera.
When we travel now I take the best 100 or so still photos from the trip and digitally send them to Apple (flickr and others do the same thing). In just a week or so I get back a hard-cover book with fabulous reproduction and vivid color. This is the kind of “market of one” fabrication business that we read about in this week’s readings. No one wants to see my 500 vacation photos, but they are fabulous when put together in a great looking book.
So, while I’m not as compulsive as Gordon Bell, I do understand the instinct.
Cool ad
After viewing this week’s assigned Ted video (and not understanding much of it) , I watched a few others and stumbled upon this in one of the Ted talks. It’s just a very cool advertisement. I can think of many situations where this might be a good teaching tool.
NBC/copyright suit
Check this out…NBC sued for copyright infringement over Fonts.
Project Ethical/Legal Concerns
There are no major ethical/legal concerns for TVNewsTalentCoach.com, at least not that I can envision at this point. This is mostly a site to pitch a service–me.
Copyright will come into play if I use clips on the site to demonstrate good and/or bad performance. Permission would need to be obtained. I imagine those who use the service will want to maintain their privacy, so their works and even the fact that they are clients would need to be kept private unless otherwise approved.
Privacy
The CNBC program Big Brother-Big Business did a good job of raising the issues and concerns brought about by our new technological advances. Each positive advance brings with it the possibility of inappropriate use and abuse.
It is interesting to me that there seems to be a generational divide in reaction to privacy issues. That’s a broad statement, to be sure, and I wonder if anyone is aware of any research to back up or debunk this impression. Still, anecdotally, at least, it does seem that those who have been raised in this era of Internet, Twitter and Facebook, revealing to the world where they are and what they are thinking at virtually every moment, are less concerned about the what older folks often see as an incursion into their privacy.
Perhaps having lived through the era of the Former Soviet Union (FSU) where the government maintained extensive spy networks to monitor the movements and thoughts of its people is a factor in the attitude difference. References to George Orwell’s book, 1984, seem easily dismissed as “that was only a novel.” If I live a decent life, the reasoning goes, I should have no concern if all my information is public anyway. But it was not that long ago that people living decent lives still lived in fear that the government could use and mis-use information to individual detriment. And it’s not only the Soviet Union we’re talking about. In the McCarthy era in this country information about associations and reading material (that is infinitely more accessible today) was used to smear reputations and ruin lives.
To a large extent, the genie is already out of the bottle. Your life is out there for many, if not all, to see. But that’s the balance we have between an open society and privacy concerns. Long before the Internet, there was an immense amount of information you could learn about an individual from public records: how much someone paid for his house, how much he pays in alimony, political party affiliation, arrest history.
Now, street cameras are becoming increasingly popular in American cities and are already ubiquitous in cities like London. Surveillance in retail stores has been common for years. Your EZPass will show where you’ve been. Every credit card transaction, every phone call made, every web search, every everything you do creates a record.
There are definite advantages when all this data leads to more targeted advertisements for things you really may want. But I would suggest a moment of caution for all those willing to accept all this without any concern. Mistakes, like the mistaken identity case, are obviously possible and can do real harm. And It’s a short trip to abuse. Remember, the “right to privacy” is inferred. The US constitution does not explicitly guarantee–or even talk about–a right to privacy.
Piracy
The message of Steal This Film is that that it’s human nature to copy and share, it’s feasible now to copy anything produced so it will be done, so get over it. That’s all true. File sharing cannot be stopped unless you go into every individual hard drive, and that’s obviously not going to happen.
Still, there is something to be said for intellectual property rights. I know I come from the old school, old media where I have been a producer of a fair amount of product. I’m all for the new model where consumers are also producers. I get that. Now that virtually everyone has the tools for creation, go ahead and create. But, beyond fair use, leave my stuff alone unless you give credit, at least, and depending on your use, get permission and perhaps pay for the material. Perhaps we need a long discussion on the rules of fair use and attribution…perhaps another time. There’s got to be a balance between inhibiting creativity and just taking something that’s not yours.
Clearly the law has not kept up with technology and we have created a society full of law-breakers. I’m sure I have been among them. Is is just a bit distressing to see so many–I have never paid for music in my life–who don’t even acknowledge that there might be another view besides I can do it therefore I will do it and you can’t stop me.
There is a question of basic fairness that the advocates of unfettered sharing are missing. If someone creates something of value–especially with the intent of selling it– shouldn’t s/he get paid for it? Isn’t it just a little bit wrong to take it–the rabbit–just because you can? I’m not looking to stop new creativity. I understand and celebrate the instinct to create for creativity’s sake and not necessarily for profit. And I ought to be able to use a song to put behind my video if it’s only intended to be seen by frineds and family. But that all changes if I were to profit by selling my video to a travel site.
As our creative world evolves the rules will change. If something is produced with the understanding that it is out there for the taking, great. But let’s respect the creators by giving attribution and when it involves commerce, getting permission and giving compensation.
Net Neutrality
Yikes…so much to absorb this week.
You mean Al Gore didn’t invent the Internet? (Just kidding!)
I must admit that I did not have much understanding of the arguments over net-neutrality before this week.
According to Wikipedia:
At its simplest network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally….The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.
OK…isn’t that what we have? Yes it is. I’m for it. The democratization of publishing and the creative explosion that the Internet has spawned is a good thing.
Opponents of net-neutrality say it’s a slogan or “‘a solution in search of a problem,’ arguing that broadband service providers have no plans to block content or degrade network performance. (Wikipedia)
Frankly, the assigned readings and other articles I found on net-neutrality, did not compellingly make their case that the big communications giants are indeed plotting to slow access to content from other providers in favor of their own. They might, indeed, be plotting that, but the popular articles I read did not quote chapter and verse documentary evidence. It certainly makes sense to anticipate that the giants like ATT and Comcast would try to maximize their profits by giving preferential treatments to some content, I would like to see more evidence that this is where they plan to go, if allowed. If you know of something, let me know.
That said, the founding principles of the Internet are openness and unfettered access and it would be counterproductive and un-American to institute any system that would restrict that. If Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Vinton Cerf, the true “inventors” of the Internet are strongly advocating net-neutrality, that makes me stand up and take notice. According to Google:
Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online.
It is somewhat ironic that net-neutrality advocates want to impose regulations or laws on the Internet, which is the very embodiment of the wild, free, and unregulated. To save the unlimitedness of the Internet we need to limit what ISPs can do. Interesting.
I wonder if some of the doomsday scenarios envisioned by net-neutrality advocates are not a bit heavy on the hyperbole. The growth of the Internet makes clear that users are in control. If an ISP tried to institute draconian limits on access, users would revolt and pull away from that ISP, inflicting massive economic pain. The key, of course, is having competition among ISPs.