Final Project Link

Link to final project

Class Reflection Week 9

The first part of the lecture about what is enough for copy rights was very interesting.  It made me really think about the right of the creator.  I have been more toward no copy rights, but when I think of Leonardo Da Vinci (the Mona Lisa) or Ludwig Van Beethoven (Moonlight), I think that they deserve to be recognize forever, even if this means I have to pay in order for me to enjoy their art (150 years is not enough).  But I have to admit that when it comes to certain artist I don’t feel the same, because I think that only Masters should have copyrights, but what decides who is a master? 

The class discussions were very informative especially about the future of technology for the next 5000 days and about self policing.  I really don’t know how it’s going to be tomorrow, it change so fast!

In regards to We’re All Journalist Now, I don’t really know how internet will continue to change journalism.  Today, Yahoo announced that they launched buzz, which will allow regular people to vote for the best news which includes news from blogs.

Wikieconomics: the 4 ideas: core to open, peer production, sharing and going global.  This is really great! I red last week that Wikipedia is building a search engine to compete with Google.  I think they have the beta version now.  I don’t know what will come next! But would this be the end of monopolies like Apple?  Probably not as someone mentioned yesterday that they are doing very well.

Here comes everybody:  transaction cost, lower.  You don’t need to be part of an organization as long as they have a good plan.  Group action smartmob, that you’re groups don’t get corrupted.  How the correct or incorrect way to share data can affect.  Social networks, you need to have both the few friends one and the ones with 500 friends.  Technology is more socially interesting. Mobs to protest against the government and now is easier to organize.  

Finally, it is very sad to hear that Pandora, my favorite radio station may go out of business due to royalties.  This is really sad, but as a consumer, I’m willing to pay an annual fee just to continue listening to the music I like and no the music that someone else like and with tons of commercials.

 

Questions: Week 9

I don’t know who will be our guest speaker, but I have some questions in general.

1) In regards to digital business and what companies like Microsoft, Google, Yahoo etc. will do to ensure accesibility to internet for underdeveloped countries? or perhaps the US government?

2) Last April, an executive from Google visit the country of Chile and he mentioned that even though, Chile was a rich country, the universities there, where not preparing students (professionals) for the digital business demand.  What do professionals and students here in United States need to do to keep up with technology and its business demands?

3) Few days ago Wikipedia anounce that a search engine, built and mantained by peers/volunteers will be launched and will be able to compete with companies like Google.  As peer production continues to increase, how companies like Google or Microsoft need or will do prevent that one day digital content be free of cost?

Video Introduction and Book Review “We’re All Journalist Now”

We’re All Journalist Now. Scott Gant. Free Press: New York, 2007. 240 pp. 

Note: Please see the video introduction for the book review before reading the review. Thank you.

Click here to see video: Video Introduction for the Book Review

-Book Review-

Today I had the opportunity to create a news report on what students here at the University of Washington like to do for fun.  I interviewed students and business owners.  This video report included footage of restaurants, movie theaters, bars, coffee shops and the University Village mall. Then, I edited and created a one minute and 30 seconds video.  This video will hopefully be shown at Palestra.net The College Network (news for students).  Does this mean that I’m a journalist now?  Do I have the same privileges that professional journalists do? Am I protected by the freedom of press? After all I did everything that a journalist supposed to do including research and interviews.

The book We’re All Journalists Now by Scott Gant addresses two very important issues throughout its pages.  The first is what a journalist is.  The second is about the reasons behind the problems and consequences that journalists have to face in regards to freedom of the press.   Gant doesn’t provide direct answers to these issues; instead he provides enough information for the reader to come up with their own conclusions and answers. 

Gant mentions that according to a 2005 poll, 40 percent of the participants indentified Bill O’Reilly as a journalist. This opens up a door with many questions about “what makes a journalist?”.  One of the definitions available by the dictionary is “activity of profession or writing for newspapers or magazines or of broadcasting news on radio or television” (2).  In addition, journalists have the role to alert and inform the public about important issues and to serve as a “watchdog”.  This brings up a good point about “non-professional journalists” like bloggers who fit the definition of a journalist by the dictionary and who alert and inform the public as well.  According to Benkler in The Wealth of Networks; bloggers are individuals who use the Web as a medium to broadcast and sometimes bloggers had revealed certain news information in the Web before journalist from the mainstream media does.  However, Gant mentions that the definition and aspects about what makes a journalist are not being as simple it sounds.  He states that there are other implications, in which, only professional journalists have “preferential treatment” (88) such as given certain rights and privileges that are not available to non-professional journalists like bloggers. For example, professional journalists are provided with a press pass to have access to places for which non-professional journalist don’t have access to, like war zones, crime scenes, disaster areas and government buildings like the White House, Congress and the Supreme court.  Permission to access official records, the right to visit foreign countries to which regular citizen and non-professional journalist may not travel, like Cuba.   In addition, he states that there is not a specific law that defines what makes a journalist.  Consequently, is not very clear what makes a journalist, there is only a distinction about professional journalists and non-professionals journalist base on “privileges granted by state and local governments” (94).

Gant, also, brings another question about the reasons why journalists sometimes (professional and non-professional) are not fully protected by the freedom of the press.  According to Gant “in the view of some Court watchers, the justices have gone out of their way in recent decades to avoid addressing the Press Clause” and “Court will continue to evade hard questions concerning the nature of press freedom and the meaning of the Press Clause” (72).  This is a concern for journalists because they are being forced to reveal their sources’ names.  Gant mentions that there are certain States that have created laws that protect journalist from having to reveal their sources, but when the issue is brought to a federal court, journalists have no protection “the absence of federal shield statute leaves an enormous gap in protection for journalist” (151).  For example, two San Francisco Chronicle reporters were sentenced to as long as 18 months in prison for not revealing the information to prosecutors in the investigation of an alleged steroid use of athletes.   This creates confusion because the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; of abridging the freedom of the press (American Library Association: First Amendment of the Bill of Rights).  If journalists have to face the law and sometimes find themselves in jail for refusing to provide the information of their sources, then this means that there is a law that conflicts with what the First Amendment, in regards to the freedom of the press, says.

In conclusion, there is not a definite answer on what makes a journalist other than the distinction of professional journalists who have certain privileges that non-professional journalists like bloggers or I don’t have.  It is also true that neither professional journalist nor non-professional journalists are fully protected by the First Amendment under the Freedom of the Press and both can face the law in a Federal Court. This brings me back to the question of whether I am a journalist on not.  I think that I am a non-professional journalist without all the privileges that professional journalists have, but at least I have the same protection that professional journalists do under the Freedom of Press which sometimes is not any at all.

The internet and young people

It is true that with the internet’s arrival, connectivity with others increases.  Now, I can connect with someone living in Australia and I don’t have to leave my house or pay an expensive telephone bill to have a conversation or exchange information with that person.  Although internet not only has facilitated this connection around the world (wherever internet is accessible) for adults, it has also opened up an infinite portal of communication for young people as well.

 Livingstone, Bober, and Helsper, wrote a report on a research about young  people’s participation in society (Active participation or just more information? Young people’s take up of opportunities to act and interact on the internet).  This study covers the interactivity and participation of young people from UK, ages of 9-19.  The purpose was to examine whether using the internet draws young people into participation (in the public sector), developing websites, online forums, chat spaces, peer networks etc.  “Young people are dubbed ‘the internet generation’ or ‘online experts’ etc. “ 

This caught my attention in reference to the book We’re All Journalists Now, that talks about how the internet has opened up a door for everyone with access to internet; to be a journalist and how this is transforming the press. 

 This brings a very interesting subject about the participation of young people in the news.  Can this be possible?

One of the results, from the research done in UK, shows that participation of young people on civic/political websites depends on the distinct groups of young people and the opportunities to participate online.  The following characteristics were found:

Young people look for news online was only 26% and out of this percent:

·         41% of the users  between the ages of 18-19

·         34% of the users between the ages of 16-17

The highest percent of users interested in news are between the ages of 16 to 19.  They can easily become journalists among their own networks.  However, only 26% look for news online in comparison to 94% who seek information for school. This means that the majority of these users, use the internet for education purposes and not necessarily to maintain their peers inform.    

However, we must think if there is a possibility of young people to become journalists, even if they come up with a new kind of journalism like “teen journalism” (From teens to teens). Would this be beneficial for them? Can they trust their peers to communicate the news objectively? Can they be trusted? After all it’s already happening, but is known more as ‘gossip’ than news among their networks.

Reflection Week 7

Howard mentioned a very important point about providing education on how to use this technology as earlier as before high school.  He mentioned that literacy has to do with using the tools available, to do some questioning about the sources and how to do research in the internet.  However, I think that education has to go beyond that.  It is important to teach children how to use the tools to navigate internet and to question  the information they found there, but  it is also very important to teach them how to protect themselves from bullies , not to become a bully, not to respond to angry e-mails or postings etc.   I know that this is a challenge because this education has to come from both teachers and parents and many of them don’t have the time to do it.  I think that many parents and teachers will learn about the importance of this education the hard way, like many parents whose children have committed suicide due to internet bullying and other parents have faced the fact that their children are been perpetrators of that bullying and are facing jail time for their actions.

It was also interesting to learn more about smart mobs and the idea about preparing students for today’s technology, like being ready for constant change, new ideas and explore.  He made a very good point about education not stopping when you graduate; we have to spend time exploring and learning. This is a very important point because currently many universities in Latin America continue with their traditional way of teaching, which is a great disadvantage for many students, especially for those who are studying economy or business.  One good example of this is Chile, a country with money to invest in this type of education.  However last April an executive form Google went to Chile to explore more business opportunities and he found out that many students and professionals were not ready for the digital media economy.  He mentioned that the main factor is that there is a disconnection between what the universities are teachings and what it is happening in the companies. May be they need a program like ours (MCDM) to get them ready?

Reference:

Hrepich B. (2008). Google Points Out that Chile Lacks of Human Capital. El Mercurio.com, Santiago Chile. http://www.emol.com/noticias/todas/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=298868 Retrieve August 6, 2008.

 

 

 

Howard Rheingold Questions

The article Local Exchange Trading System mentions that this works a s a communal energy exchange, how does this systems regulates its members in terms of immigration status (undocumented members who will be able to pay their rent and buy their groceries in exchange of their work, let say that they are construction workers or carpenters)?  Would there be special rates for this population as it is now in the regular market (undocumented people are paid below the minimum wage)? 

How does this mechanism deals with the IRS?

Wouldn’t this method alienated people who has no access or doesn’t know how to use a computer? What about people who doesn’t speak English in this country, would this be available in other languages?

 

The article also mentions that if a member is caught claiming credits he/she didn’t earn, then he/she is not allowed to participate of this mechanism, but what about hackers? How is this mechanism protected from hackers who can manipulate or stole credits?

The Wealth of Networks: Peer Production and Distribution

Not many years ago, distance and time were barriers to keep humans around the world connected with each other.   Global community was only a part of a fiction book or a fairy tale. However, now thanks to the internet and the creation of social networks, humans are part of a global community. The Wealth of Networks provides an overview about how new technology has overcome not only distance and time, but has permitted peer participation as well.  Peer participation has created social production and distribution (part of a new non-market model).  In this new model, peers have the opportunity to create, participate and freely share their ideas, this way; it raises cultural diversity and justice delivery around the world.  In addition, the author offers information about some of the motives behind the reason of peer participation in this non-market model.  However, the author doesn’t spend enough time elaborating about the negative impacts of peer production and distribution. Especially because peers are the main participants of this new non-market model, hence why it is important for the reader to be aware that some peers will use technology to create and others to destroy or cause problems.

The Wealth of Networks talks about a transformation in the redistribution of power and money by providing more opportunities for individuals (peers) to create and become part of a global community by creating social networks. These social relations have democratized culture by building social ties with friends, family and people around the world.  As a result, a non-market model was born, in which, peer to peer production and distribution was vital.  However, this peer participation can affect the way that humans interact with technology, “One should treat the role of technology in the development of human affairs” (16).  For example, the author mentioned that different technologies can make different kinds of human action and interaction easier or harder to perform.  Even though, it is true that technology doesn’t work for everyone and some take advantage of it and some don’t, the negative impact that this technology is causing goes beyond this.  Now it is about using this new technology to destroy others.  The author neglects to mention that some of the risks of peer production and distribution are that some peers use social networks for other purposes (harassments, bullying, stalking, child pornography, identity theft and the creation of computer virus).  This misuse is a very important point to mention since peers are the main participants of it. 

 Peer production and distribution has created a process of social communication where they share information and exchange their points of view about social issues. This is described by the author as a public sphere phenomenon, in which, peers can debate and advocate on events happening around the world, like social justice. He explains how mass media has played a very important role in building the public sphere in liberal democracies in history.  Throughout most of chapter 6, the author provides some historical examples like Benjamin Franklin’s Pennsylvania Gazette during the revolution era or Radio Broadcast that proposed a national endowed fund to fund broadcaster.  He also mentions that nonmarket producers (peers) can complement commercial mass media and contribute to improve the public sphere, especially in authoritarian countries as he points out on most of chapter 7.  It is true that peer production has allowed many around the world to participate in the improvement of public sphere by advocating through e-mail, blogs, videos and news. However, he states that this new way of exchanging information and points of view can create too many observations, making it very difficult to filter all these observations.  Another problem, not mentioned in the book, is that sometimes this information created by peers can be manipulated or based on pure peer speculations and creating a sense of a false reality in the world.  For example, during the 911 tragedy many peers sent speculated information to peers living in Mexico about the 911 event and the future of many immigrants living in the United States.  This created fear for many families living in Mexico whose relatives were living in this country at that time.   

Lastly, peer production and distribution created a free and open software model, like the Linux system or Mozilla Firefox. This can create and incentive for peers to create and participate. Some of the motives of peer production and distribution can be monetary rewards and nonmonetary.   Some peers are looking for immortality rather than money and others will use this as a way of introducing their work to later charge for it through consulting or service contracts. However, the author mentions that this non-market exchange system requires fix costs and these costs are not possible to be paid by everybody in the world, especially for peers living in poor countries “peer-to-peer file-sharing systems build on the fact that individual users own vast quantities of excess capacity embedded in their personal computers” (83).  This provides awareness that this technology is not available to everyone in the world.  However, the author forgot to mention another very important subject about the possibility of these digital networks increasing copyright violations, which also makes rights holders to argue for increased copyright protection [Cheverie J. (2002) Managing Technology].  In this same article, Cheverie mentions that copyrights increase both quantity and quality of creative work.

In conclusion, The Wealth of Networks provides an opportunity for the reader to learn more about how the internet and social production and distribution has changed the market industry.  It created a new non-market model, in which, peers are the main participants and the motives for this peer contribution.  Although, the author neglected to provide more information in regards to some of the consequences created by pure peer participation and motivation, overall, it is a good book for someone who wants to learn more about social production and distribution, peer participation and contribution, and how this has allowed humans to be more connected than ever before in human history.