Category: Mitch Donovan

See what I did there? So this week we get into Media Law. A few questions…

1. As iMedia designers, what role does the copyright law of others play in our work? I mostly ignore copyright regulations at the moment, but in what ways will I have to account for this in the future? Further, where is the line between “fair use” and “theft”?

2. How can we find a balance between piracy and corporate manipulation? The movie and music companies are relying on outdated sources of income while the rest of us are moving with technological progress. What’s the legal median between the pirates and CEOs?

3. What do I need to consider in designing my stuff, in regards to my own intellectual property? What process, if any, do I have to go through? Do I even care is my Flash project is stolen and not cited? How does this affect me?

In the second chapter of Jaron Lanier’s book, “You Are Not a Gadget,” the author brings up the concepts of Singularity and Rapture. Each term is a variation on the human apocalypse, as brought on by either robots or God. While Lanier discusses the topic in length, I want to probe further. Given theme of humans becoming obsolete, where do we stand as a society today?

“All of reality, including humans, is one big information system,” as Lanier describes the first tenet of a new technological culture. This concept, “that we’re all connected,” is far from merely a technological one. It is a philosophical one that stretches back as far time goes. Whether its Pocohantas singing with the colors of the wind, or Neytiri saying she sees you, many cultural philosophies theorize that all of life is a giant network. The difference today is that this network is scientifically measurable. Not only are there social networks like Facebook, we can also track dollar bills around the world or study trends in demographic data. Seemingly because of technology, our life is more systematic and connected  than ever.

By discussing this concept of a networked life, we must ask how this influences the obsolescence of humanity. Well I can see it being argued two ways: 1) the network empowers the individual for being part of a larger entity 2) the network renders the individual human insignificant within the grander system. Which argument you side depends on your perspective. Do we understand humanity through gestalt or detail? Do we consider a human being as a single person or a collection of atoms? My tendency is to look at these things as part of the whole. Therefore, each member of the network of life is empowered through the connections that it offers. Because of technology, we can find new friends and support groups, create and access more information, and form a stronger interdependence on our fellow man. While we can all do this in the pre-digital age, the methods to do so have never been as fast, effective, or efficient, as they are today.

Lanier infers that there is “a new kind of manifest destiny… making the digital system we call reality function at ever-higher “levels of description.” The issue is how and when computers surpass the human mind at these higher levels. It seems inevitable. What happens when computers can program other computers to be more efficient than themselves? What happens as this cycle continues to the point humans no longer matter? That would be the aforementioned singularity. While it seems obvious that we should simply not design technology like this in the first place, the human desire for artificial intelligence will only grow as we grow lazier and rely heavier on convenience. To ensure our own preservation, what do we do?

Consider Singularity’s counterpart, Rapture: the purported time when the evil are condemned to hell and the righteous are sent to heaven. Until then, we are recommended to follow a code of ethics towards our fellow man and to God. When developing increasingly sophisticated technology, we must also follow a code of ethics and not forget who the technology is being used for. If we create not for ourselves, but for humanity, than we can help ensure our own success. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. We are stronger as a society than as a group of individuals. Maybe if we all work together, we can stop the robot uprising and Arnold Schwarzenegger will never try to come back in time and kill us. Otherwise, we had better hope Will Smith is still around.

As Benkler is so quick to point out in his incredibly dense novel, everything’s changing you guys! This ain’t your daddy’s economy! Like the printing press, from hereon out, we shall view history as before internet and post internet. While this is true, that significant progress has been made towards a truly democratic media, I can’t help but reemphasize the fact the human nature does not change. No matter how many blogs and wikis pop up, the authority of and power of what is perhaps best referred to as “the man,” will never go away. And maybe that’s a good thing.

When we look at characteristics of the new economy, as described by Benkler, he brings up the concept of decentralization. I interpreted this as the idea that information is no longer distributed solely by media powerhouses and large companies. Blogs and social media have created a grassroots network of peer media which threatens the Big Brother-like control of the mass media. While we can go on and on about how groundbreaking this interpersonal network of regular schmoes is, I really don’t see this network toppling the totalitarian hold that mass media has upon our culture. In order to have the power and influence that mass media has, these by-the-people, for-the-people networks need not only management, organization and leadership, they need money. Money means either benefactors of advertisers. And soon enough, your anti-authoritarian blog is inherently spouting the American capitalist agenda. So sure, we can decentralize information, but I don’t think it will ever carry the same influence as the information machine that tells all of America what to think about.

Consider the motivations for producing information: benefit maximization and cost minimization. With the first, I can use my exclusive rights on certain information to make money, and my non-exclusive rights to get money and non-monetary benefits. With the second, I can save my own money by using public domain information or purchased or privately shared information. So in both regards, I’m either intending to get money back on my informational investment, or I’m trying to save money on the front-end. Although there might be nine different production strategies, they all boil down to the same strategy of leveraging the information you possess to gain wealth, in one form or another. Maybe its just me, but this concept seems at odds with the democratic themes of the new information economy. While Wikipedia, arguably the world’s greatest source of information, fulfills these ideals, it does offer a way for information producers to make a living.

And that’s really what it all comes down to. As long as people need to make a living, they’ll need money. Sometimes this is influenced by greed, but everyone needs to leverage their information production capabilities to their own advantage, especially the decentralized ones. That’s why huge corporations are here to stay, and so are intellectual property laws. As wonderful as a world with free information would be, I plan to utilize my iMedia degree to produce information and collect on the money that it sells for. It’s the way the world works, and no amount of blogs or social networks is really going to change that.

Wow there sure are a lot of words in this book, aren’t there? This whole book is free online in search-able HTML – pretty meta considering what he’s talking about.

He starts by mentioning “the Internet Revolution.” Are we really calling the Internet a revolution still? Let’s all get on MySpace and blog about Sanjaya guys, we’re hip. But seriously, in an age when even the term “Web 2.0” is cliche as they come, is an analysis of digital networks going to be that mind-blowing? Spoiler alert: we’re all related, amateurs are empowered, etc.

Benkler notes that a networked information economy has shifted the mass-mediated public sphere to a networked public sphere. What are the key differences, and is one necessarily better than the other? Was this shift a good thing?

He also makes sure to point out the rise of individual practical capabilities. As society becomes continually more interrelated and interdependent, what place does the individual still have in all of this? Is he pushed to the margins or a cog in the machine?

Another week, another response post. This week, we looked at comm theory from psychological and sociological views, basically paralleling our two theory classes: Interactive Media Strategies, and Theory and Audience Analysis, respectively. My first question looked at the early days of theory, and how much is still relevant? Well, the bottom line is, human nature doesn’t change all that much. However, collective thought does. There was a time when humanity was sure that the world was flat, the universe orbited the Earth, and the insanity was called by demons in your head. Although science has made tremendous strides in all of these areas, we still possess the same psychology and human nature. For instance, its not as if everyone conducted these experiments and all concluded that the world was flat, etc. There was an authority that told them it was so. Unable to see any curve on the Earth, would we not also logically agree?

Today, we learn about these communication theories, yet they come from the authority of a textbook, not from our own study. Yet, we can still identify why these theories seem true – we find truth in our own experience. Like those who did not see a curve in the Earth, today we understand the Uses and Grats theory because we too can identify uses and gratifications in our own lives. So when we look at mass communication theories, our knowledge is informed by a broader sociological and authoritative source, and then confirmed by our own psychological thought process. Even when this information is scientifically wrong, our minds are influenced by society to have a natural leaning towards the collective thought.

Let’s consider Agenda-Setting Theory. Agenda-Setting Theory tells us that the mass–news media have a large influence on audiences by their choice of what stories to consider newsworthy and how much prominence and space to give them (thanks Wikipedia). For example, since I titled this article “Is the World Flat?” I brought your mind to reevaluate this assumption. Of course it isn’t, but there mere fact that I made that the title directs our thought process. This is closely integrated with what I was just discussing. The idea that the mass media can direct the collective thought over a particular subject means that our minds will be inorganically led to placing importance on that subject.

But really, with out the influence of mass media, how do we ever determine what is important? We do this by measuring how much this subject will affect us. Yet, what if there is an invisible, scentless, poison gas seeping into our home? We can not identify it, so does this make the subject unimportant? Sometimes our minds need to be nudged towards something for us to realize its importance. So obviously, there is a balance that we, as media-savvy students, need to find. On one hand, we have all the information the media gives us. On the other, all the information that we gather ourselves. Neither are sufficient enough for us to live fully-realized lives, but we need to be able to discern all the information that is thrown at us.

Overall, be careful where you get your information. Some sources may have an agenda, and some (like ourselves) may just be blissfully ignorant.

At which point does a painting become art? After the first brush stroke, or when the painter signs his name? Does the painting require meaning, or can it simply offer a visceral experience? Such questions are where the beauty of art lies for some, and where the frustration or art resides for others. These same questions can be applied to other media: when does a movie become cinema? When does a book become literature? Society has generally agreed that for every medium, there exists a higher echelon of excellence, a category in which we place the best that medium has to offer.

Then why does a similar term not apply to the medium of video games? This proposed research paper seeks to answer, or at least rectify, that question. I’d begin with examining games’ place in our popular culture. Why do video games lack the credibility of their peer media? Is it their youth, their intimidation, or simply general public ignorance? Or are games somehow inherently unequal to other forms other entertainment? The disagreement between games being studied under theories of narrative and under theories unique to their medium have been called the “ludology vs. narratology debates.” What is being said on both sides of the argument, and is there a right answer, one or the other?

The paper would move on to provide a template by which society evaluates narrative storytelling, and compare and contrast how contemporary video games might fulfill or do not fulfill those standards. Such characteristics would include: narrative arcs, complex characters, and literary interpretation.

Assuming that video games do have equal credibility in terms of a narrative, the question would then turn towards “what meanings are made through games?” What stories and messages have already been told successfully through the medium?

Looking at games ludologically, how does the nature of interactive gameplay affect a narrative story? Additionally, what role does “cheating” on a game play in the story, and the medium in general?

With so many contrasting approaches on how to critically analyze individual games, and the medium itself, the paper will move towards analyzing a handful of specific games under both ludological and narratological methods.

• Uncharted – considered the “summer blockbuster” of video games. The acclaimed games feature a well defined and driven story, and a wide cast of characters.

• Red Dead Redemption – an open world action game that takes a new spin on the revisionist western. The game satirically comments on the American dream and the possible inherent violence in mankind.

• Heavy Rain – a truly interactive narrative. This noir/mystery tale allows the player to inhabit a handful of characters as they try to discover who is “the origami killer.”

• Bioshock – a first-person-shooter where you explore the once utopian underwater city of Rapture. The game makes a fascinating commentary on objectivism and the nature of choice.

What lies ahead for the medium of video games? What new technologies are on the horizon, and how will they possibly impact game narratives?

Methods: To accomplish the research, I would use a variety of methods. When discussing the role games play in society, I would rely on a literature review to note previous analyses of the topic. As for whether we should look at games ludologically or narratologically, the data would be mostly qualitative and anecdotal, including detailed interpretations of stories in games, and supported with some statistical data such as sales numbers, budgets, and the average length of games. As for the section dealing with specific games, the method used here would be a set of case studies, each looking at how the game tells its specific story using an interactive medium.

Motivation/Rationale: To my limited knowledge, there has been no strong examination of video games as literary medium. While those who play them will often note of a game’s particular brilliance, those outside that community continually fail to understand or see the value in a game as story. Whereas graphic novels are only beginning to overcome the public’s misperception that they are merely superhero comics for kids, contemporary video games are still in their relative infancy. I want to try to bridge the gap that is keeping this medium from the respect it deserves. There already exists a wealth of information concerning game theory in the humanities, but this paper would truly be insightful for the listed case study (all of which were released in the last 12 months, or at least a sequel was). The four games chosen all break new boundaries for how storytelling is treated in games, yet are remarkably diverse. They are considered some of the finest games the medium has to offer, and analyzing them would make the paper not only insightful, but relevant.

When a chapter on early developments in Mass communication Theory begins with a reference to The Lion King, the author clearly knows their audience. The message is clear: those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Thus, we study the origins of communication theory so that we don’t screw things like up like those guys did. From scanning over the first chapter in our reading, I think of when we talked about the Hypodermic Needle theory in class. When it was created, I’m sure it was very relevant and credible. But times have changed and we have seen it become obsolete. Yet is there still value in it? Looking at the roots of mass communication theory, how much have things changed since its first conception, and what value lies in those elements that have become seemingly irrelevant?

Looking at the second chapter, I immediately wonder how “the individual perspective on mass communication theory” will play into this class, as we focus more generally on society and culture. Considering the recent developments in technology, I’m interested to see how both the amateurization of the media and fragmentation of the media into niche segments have effected traditional mass comm thought. Both themes deal with how media is being broken down into smaller and smaller parts, which would make unique content more engaging for the individual who chooses to consume it.

And in this third chapter, we get to the broader themes of the class, with the sociological perspective on comm theory. I’ve always been intrigued by the Agenda Setting theory, as it can border the line the between whistle-blowing and conspiracy. We often call media “the fourth estate,” but how much power does media really have in controlling the thoughts of a society? Where do we draw the line between entertainment or journalism and manipulation?

After an entire week of training, I think its safe to say that we’ve officially become the Batmen (and women) of interactive media and communication. We are ready to get out there and solve the comm mysteries and restore to order to the chaos. No further explanation is needed right? In the likely the case that the bat-metaphor goes over your head, allow me to explain. Let’s consider what we learned in this week’s reading: types of knowledge, comm. theory genres, research principles and practices, research and measurement techniques, and the practical application of all these things. In essence, we’ve acquired a communications batbelt of tools. From this point on, whenever we encounter a new mystery, we can simply reach to our belt and pull out the right tool to remedy the situation.

As we discussed in class, that’s all these things really are, tools. A theory, or research methods like interviews or statistical analysis, merely give us the ability to tackle larger questions and issues. After all, Batman did not succeed because of any superpowers. Only through applying the right tool at the right time was he capable to take down the villains. So really, the responsibility still rides with us. We have to move beyond looking at the comm theories and definitions in our reading as vague generalizations, and onto using them in practical application, whether that is building a new flash site or exploring new online trends.

So what tools do we have on the belt, and can they help me answer of my previous questions? Well let’s consider my first quandary: do the old-school comm theory rules still apply? Well I guess it depends on what we’re looking at. The Hypodermic Needle might be a tad obsolete, but it does open up an interesting conversation. How influential is the media on individuals and how is that influence acted out? The Uses and Gratifications theory is a great way to examine how and why people consume certain media. And as for the more general techniques, like hypotheses, variables, constructs, and measurements… these are instrumental, not only to communications studies, but to any type of academic study. These techniques make it possible for us to focus our minds on specific cause-and-effect relationships.

My following questions dealt with the nature of interactive media and causality. Namely, how to provide the user with an optimal experience. Well that’s where we get into the research methods discussed in the third chapter. Aside from creating projects as engaging as we can, based on expert grad school educations, we’ll also have to tailor our projects toward the audiences whom we expect to interact with our creations. Whether through anecdotal research like interviews, or measure the ways people interact with the site, there are numerous ways for us to provide the best interactive media available.

So kids, looking towards the rest of the semester, program, and our careers, remember to have your belt strapped on at all times, for you never know when you’ll need to reach for another trusty bat-theory.

1. “Applied Mass Communication Theory,” begins quite broadly as one would expect of a mass communication book. Namely, it describes the ways in which all types of people acquire and share knowledge. While the listed terms and ideas are standard fare, I’m interested in discovering how such broad concepts can be applied to the more specific work we will be accomplishing in this program. Interactive Media, at least in regards to theories of mass communication, is the new kid on the block, and it is up to us for the most part to figure out the stark or subtle differences between standard mass comm theory and practical iMedia application. Do the old rules still apply? Tune in next week to find out.

2. In the second chapter, we get into some more specific research principles. Briefly mentioned is the term “causality.” As iMedia students, I think we should pay particular attention to this term, for more than any other medium, iMedia offers the most direct and measurable forms of causality. With interactive media, users get one-to-one immediate feedback. Their actions illicit immediate responses. My question is, how can we use the principles of causality to engage our users at the highest level?

3. In chapter three, we are introduced to the exciting and fascinating world of research methods. The methods vary from the impersonal cluster sampling, to one-to-one interviews. In iMedia, we are in the unique position that we can conduct research using our very own programs. It’s not like newspapers can gauge the reader’s reactions simply from reading the paper. So the question is, can/how do we use our own medium to conduct research? Should we embed hidden trackers? Make the research more apparent to the user? What about the ethical issues?