ISP: In Shocking Pink

QotW10: virtual plastic surgeries and endless shopping

2007-04-08T03:23:00.000+08:00

Meet my Second Life avatar, Shelly Martinek.

One of the amazing things I've discovered after creating an account with SL is the amount of control you have with your avatar. I could virtually perform painless and effortless plastic surgeries on myself anyday and anytime! And tada! I changed my facial features in a matter of seconds.

From small to huge eyes!

Flat nose bridge to high nose bridge!

Thin lips to full lips!

Actually, I think that my avatar hardly looks like my real-self, except that we both have long hair. So why did I create an avatar that looks nothing like myself? Because I feel that it's one of the many perks of an avatar on SL. On one day you can look really similar to your real-self and the next day, you can look nothing like it. Or you can look like a fancy robot or anything that is impossible to look like in your first life. Everyday can be halloween.

How could I miss visiting Singapore in SL?

As I started to explore around, I was really intrigued how realistic some things looked in SL and fashion got my attention first. Since I love to shop, one of the first things I got to doing was getting new clothes, shoes, earrings and the like. I realized that there were lots of freebie stores. Many of them were laggy and packed with loads people and boxes containing the freebies. The problem was that most of these freebies weren't sorted. One box could contain 40 different sets of outfits. And chances are, I probably don't even like 39 of them.

Boxes and boxes of unsorted freebies. Which one to choose?

Thanks to the payment details I gave when creating an account, I got 250 Linden dollars free. So I actually had a bit of money to spend. Though with only 250L, I couldn't afford expensive stuff either. But it's okay, since my latest favorite hangout is the GNUbie store, where everything goes for only a dollar! And in my opinion, they have much better designs compared to the ones you find at freebie stores. Let's see some pictures I've taken in the GNUbie store.

Nice! All designs are neatly shown on the.. um.. board?

Ah! The perfect pair of jeans!

Your mums and dads might actually approve these tattoos!

Maybe I could buy some other SL essentials, like houses?

Taking a break after all the shopping. :)

QotW9: what is citizen journalism?

2007-03-31T16:24:00.000+08:00

"We all must recognize that the rules for newsmakers, not just journalists, have changed, thanks to everyone’s ability to make the news" (Gillmor, 2004). This statement seems to be supported by Straits Times Online Mobile Print (STOMP), an interactive portal owned by the Singapore Press Holdings. STOMP allows interaction in three forms, namely print, online and mobile ("About Us", 2006). Regular people like you and I can contribute to news to STOMP by SMSing or emailing them. As a response to this week's question, I attempt to analyze if STOMP is an ideal form of citizen journalism for Singapore.

First of all, let's see what is citizen journalism. In Wikipedia, citizen journalism is defined as is the act of citizens "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information". It is also known as “participatory journalism" ("Citizen Journalism", 2007). STOMP certainly fits this definition of citizen journalism, since Singaporeans do play an active role as "journalists of STOMP". Then again, Wikipedia further explains that "the intent of this participation is to provide independent, reliable, accurate, wide-ranging and relevant information that a democracy requires". STOMP may allow citizens to participate in publishing the content, however the fact that content is moderated before it can be published does not really constitutes to independent information. "Citizens are interested in participating and contributing to subjects that traditional news outlets ignore or do not often cover" (Bowman & Willis, 2005). Therefore, in this sense, citizens may still be disappointed when some news are not eligible or chosen to be published on STOMP.

Yet, it is impossible to have an online interactive portal with unmoderated content. Content can end up being inaccurate and misleading. This may sound contradicting, but an online portal is not unlike a personal blog in the sense where the owner of the blog is responsible for all the content published. In this case, STOMP is responsible for the content published on its portal. As the characteristics of citizen journalism and STOMP are established here, I believe that STOMP may not be ideal yet but it is closest to the ideal form of a mainstream and collaborative citizen journalism we can get in Singapore now.

However, STOMP has still some of room for improvement. In fact, if I have the power, the first change I will make to STOMP is to change the layout of the website. In my opinion, the layout of the website can be improved to be less cluttered and more clean cut with less animated pictures. This is especially crucial for the index page, where visitors first determine the comfort level of surfing the website. When I first saw the website, it also didn't seem like an online news portal to me. Frankly speaking, at first glance, it looks like a website with filled with animated advertisements and banners.

The idea of STOMP is great, as it provides an avenue for freelance journalist wannabes. Nevertheless, I feel that the layout of the website is less than appealing. It may be just me, but I believe that the aesthetics of a website can make or break it. Never mind how mind blowing the content of the website may be, a less than perfect layout may not bring back visitors. With that being said, as one of the pioneer interactive news portal in Singapore, STOMP shows great potential. STOMP must listen to its contributors and viewers for making improvements to the website and in time to come, it can reach greater heights in both Singapore and the virtual world.

(Source: CartoonStock.co.uk)

References

About Us. (2006). In STOMP. Retrieved March 30, 2007, from http://www.stomp.com.sg/about/about.html

Bowman, S. & Willis, C. (2005). Neiman Reports: The Future is Here, But Do News Media Companies See It? Retrieved March 31, 2007, from http://www.hypergene.net/blog/weblog.php?id=P327

Citizen journalism. (2007, March 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 31, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizen_journalism&oldid=118429022

Gillmor, D. (2004). We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People. Retrieved March 30, 2007, from http://download.nowis.com/index.cfm?phile=WeTheMedia.html&tipe=text/html#chap3

QotW8: when blogs and politics come together

2007-03-24T16:15:00.000+08:00

Adopted blog's information at a glance:

Blog’s Title and URL: Singabloodypore @ http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/
Blogger’s Name (or Pseudonym): Blog owner is Steven McDermott from the UK, a one-time resident in Singapore. The pseudonym he uses is soci. Other contributors to the blog include Clyde, Xenoboysg, Eng Chuan, Charles,Mister K, Locky2K, Elia Diodati, Pantalaimon, Chemgen, AmicaCuriae, Yuen.
Blogger’s Occupation (politician or citizen blogger): Blog owner is a research student. For the other contributors, I am assuming that most of them are citizen bloggers, according to their blogger profiles and blogs.
Blog’s Date of Birth (look for the first post): 3rd July 2003
Technorati Rank: 156,018 (84 links from 28 blogs)

This blog contains entries by a group of bloggers on political and social issues in mainly Singapore, and sometimes South East Asia. Many of the posts contain anti-government sentiments. They also frequently questions and openly opposes and criticizes to the decisions made by the government and the People Action's Party (PAP). For example, one of their latest posts featured an article calling for a protest to ANU's Honorary Doctorate for MM Lee Kuan Yew (Soci, 2007). Despite the controversial content of the blog, the number of comments left on the blog are not overwhelming.

In response to the question this week, that is, if blogs allow for greater democracy in Singapore, I would say yes, but to a limited extent. Here are the reasons why.

Some local political blogs represent views of ordinary citizens, not PAP politicians or politicians from the opposition parties. These views are invaluable, because they can reflect the opinions of you and I and people around us, who may be too afraid to speak up. These blogs encourage us to read their views, and share our thoughts with them. Being part of an Internet community, like a community blog, is metaphoric of being in a party, where someone needs to start a conversation. In this case, these political blogs discusses these issues, that are considered relatively sensitive in Singapore. There may not be many comments, but at least these posts pose an alternative point of view to many readers.

Like how Thornton (2002) puts it, "the role of traditional media (television, magazines and newspapers) in modern democracy is increasingly problematic, and serious questions have arisen about its capacity as a site for political criticism or rational debate". In our local context, our traditional media has always been questioned with the democracy issues. I remembered following the media coverage of 2006 Parliamentary Elections last year. Although there were news and footage shown on television on opposition parties, they were significantly limited compared to the PAP's. In the past, we could rely on these forms of traditional media to obtain information. Now, with the Internet, we can obtain more information and even discuss about them.

So, why is it that blogs only allow greater democracy in Singapore to a limited extent?

The reason is because there are ways to control the Internet as well. For instance, last May, Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts Balaji Sadasivan announced a ban on “explicitly political” podcasting and vodcasting during the General Election period (Giam, 2006). As Giam (2006) reasoned, this was to counter the availability of podcasts and vodcasts provided on Singapore Democratic Party's (SDP) website. In the end, SDP had no choice but to comply with the new regulation.

In addition, "a post-election survey by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) revealed that only 33 per cent of Singaporeans — mostly young adults — said that the Internet was important to shaping their voting decisions" (Giam, 2006). If the result is accurate, this evidently shows that although the nature of the Internet allows of the promotion of democracy, it is not to an astonishing extent.

Therefore, I believe that blogs do increase exposure to democracy in Singapore, but not to a huge extent. At least not yet.

References

Giam, G. (2006, December 31). Review - The politics of Singapore’s new media in 2006. Retrieved March 24, 2007, from
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2006/12/31/review-the-politics-of-singapores-new-media-in-2006/

McDermott, S. (2007, March 23). Snap Action! Protest ANU’s Honorary Doctorate for Lee Kuan Yew. Singabloodypore. Retrieved March 24, 2007, from http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/archive/2007/03/23/snap-action-protest-anu-s-honorary-doctorate-for-lee-kwan-ye.html

Thornton, A. (2002, October). Does Internet Create Democracy? Retrieved on March 24, 2007, from http://www.zip.com.au/~athornto/

QotW7: so what are u doing now?

2007-03-17T01:22:00.000+08:00

According to Dictionary.com,

twit·ter

–verb (used without object)

1. to utter a succession of small, tremulous sounds, as a bird.
2. to talk lightly and rapidly, esp. of trivial matters; chatter.
3. to titter; giggle.
4. to tremble with excitement or the like; be in a flutter.

The second explanation could be the best fit for Twitter, a website COM125 students were asked to join as part of our blog assignment this week. When I first attempted to use Twitter, it felt like I was tagging on a giant tag-board, except that it'd appear on my "followers" page instead on just one tag-board. Also, I can see my "friends' tags" on my main page. Well, it is certainly more convenient than a tag-board!

The question is whether Twitter is considered as an online community. Technically, I believe it can be considered an online community. First of all, it can be updated using the web and secondly, it consists of a group of people communicating with one another. Additionally, Twitter calls itself "a community of friends and strangers from around the world sending updates about moments in their lives" ("Twitter FAQ", 2006). But, is it really one? Let's explore other factors to find out.

In my opinion, Twitter has features that are commonly seen by other social networking sites. Yet it has its own unique features. Here's a small list I've made up based on my knowledge on online social networking sites after slicing Twitter up.

Common features

Signing up for an account is entirely free of charge (like most online social networking websites)
Allowing you to use either your real name or a pseudonym (like almost any online community)
Uploading an image as an avatar to represent you and customizing your own profile (like online forums)
Adding other users as friends to your social circle (like MySpace)
Sending private messages to friends (like Friendster)
Receiving updates from users you choose (like RSS feeds)
Using your mobile phone or IM to post updates (like moblogging)
Having privacy control over it, for instance, showing updates only to friends (like LiveJournal)

Unique features

Posting anything you want in 140 words or less (like a tag-board but a tag-board isn't really an online community)
Selecting messages as "favorites" (like marking some e-mails as important but e-mail isn't really considered an online community either)

As we can see, there are many common features shared by Twitter and other popular online communities. Is it now safe to conclude that Twitter is indeed an online community? Probably, but let's examine more to be sure.

"Experientially, community within cyberspace emphasizes a community of interests, usually bounded by the topic under discussion, that can lead to a communal spirit and apparent social bonding." (Fernback & Thompson, 1995). Do Twitter users have common interests? Not necessarily. However, don't forget that users of MySpace and Friendster may not have common interests or character too and yet they are still frequently considered as online communities (Chaffin, 2004).

Fernback & Thompson (1995) also proposed another definition of online communities, referring to them as "social relationships forged in cyberspace through repeated contact within a specified boundary or place (e.g., a conference or chat line) that is symbolically delineated by topic of interest." Someone who uses Twitter will regularly post and check back on the website. This is where the "repeated contact within a specified boundary or place" comes into play.

Like what Wellman & Gulia (1996) mentioned, virtual communities provide possibilities for reversing the trend to less contact with community members because it is so easy to connect on-line with large numbers of people. Twitter allows you to do that. Twitter is an online community since the trends of communities are dynamic (Fernback & Thompson, 1995). In the past, perhaps only forums were commonly known as an online community. Then Facebook and blogs appeared and became online communities in their own right. And, there was the wildly successful Youtube. Maybe given time, Twitter might gain more popularity and be known one as the new generation of online communities. Who knows?

References

Chaffin, L. (2004). The Online Community Phenomena Sites like MySpace and Friendster make up the cyberfriend scene. Rampway Online. Retrieved March 16, 2007, from http://www.rampway.org/article.php?id=310

Fernback, J. & Thompson, B. (1995). Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure? Retrieved March 16, 2007, from http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html

Twitter. (2006). Twitter FAQ. Retrieved March 16, 2007, from http://help.twitter.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=26

Twitter. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved March 16, 2007, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/twitter

Wellman, B. & Gulia, M. (1996). Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone. Retrieved March 16, 2007, from http://www.acm.org/~ccp/references/wellman/wellman.html
title=Reputation_management&diff=113442073&oldid=111797891

QotW6: Hi, may I eavesdrop?

2007-03-10T16:11:00.000+08:00

The definition of privacy invasion may differ for every individual. For me, I may consider the websites with tracking cookies a huge intrusion to my online privacy. For some, it may not be a big deal at all (Schwartz, 2001). Now, what about offline privacy?

How do people negotiate their privacy in public where everyone can see and hear one another? When you take public transport, be it the bus or MRT, or even the taxi, there is always someone near you. So when you talk on the mobile phone, chances are, the people near you can hear your conversations. How do you communicate effectively and yet, negotiate your privacy at the same time? Possibly via text messaging. At least for me, I realized that is very often the reason why I SMS. Be it in the bus or MRT filled with people, I tend to be more comfortable texting than calling when I need to discuss personal matters. Maybe it's because I'm a very private person by nature. Or it could be the bad experience I had with one over-enthusiastic taxi driver.

I remembered being in a cab, discussing with a friend about the grades I've gotten that semester, lamenting that it was horrible and that I must buck up the next semester. Upon hanging up, the taxi uncle started a conversation by mentioning that youngsters in Singapore tend to take the opportunities to study for granted (which I agree). That was fine, but he went on further to ask me about my academic background. That includes the secondary school and JC I went to, the university I'm in now, my "O" level and "A" level results, whether my parents paid for my education now and the like. Then he asked me why didn't I do well this semester. And that I should try not to disappoint my parents. Not wanting to rude, I answered his questions, albeit in a vague manner. I don't recall being really mad, but what I do recall is being glad when I finally reached my destination. I realized that a taxi may not be the best place for private phone conversations. "One way of understanding privacy is not whether we choose to expose personal information in public - we all do at different times and places - but the ease with which we can return to being private" (Rosen, 2004). I was having difficulties returning "to being private" in the taxi.

I understand that it could be that he was merely just trying to strike a conversation but ended up striking the wrong chord. Or it could be due to an emotional personal experience of his. But something else struck me. It is one of the reasons why text messaging works. Text messaging can give you the privacy telephone conversations cannot. Of course, on the other hand, we see people talking loudly on their mobile phones in public as well. Some complain. Some boast. Some divulge personal incidents. Others, I guess, are probably just loud by nature. Rosen (2004) explains this well. "Today, by contrast, intimacy and trust are increasingly obtained not by shared experiences or fixed social status but by self-revelation: people try to prove their trustworthiness by revealing details of their personal lives to prove that they have nothing to hide before a crowd whose gaze is turned increasingly on all the individuals that compose it"

According to a survey by the Ponemon Institute, only seven percent of Americans said that they will change any behaviors in an effort to preserve their privacy (Sullivan, 2006). I speculate that the percentage will be much higher if a similar survey was conducted in Singapore. I may be wrong, but I'm certain I belong to the seven percent.

(Cartoon by Chris Slane, http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/PrivacyCartoons2/main.asp)

References

Rosen, J. (2004, July 19). The Naked Crowd. Retrieved March 9, 2007, from http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA5FF.htm

Schwartz, J. (2001, September 4). Giving the Web a Memory Cost Its Users Privacy. NYTimes.com. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://www.law.upenn.edu/fac/pwagner/law619/f2001/week12/nytimes_cookies_series.pdf

Sullivan, B. (2006, October 17). Privacy Lost: Does anybody care?. MSNBC Interactive. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221095/print/1/displaymode/1098/

QotW5: Online or Offline - Similar Rules of the Game?

2007-02-23T03:29:00.000+08:00

"Identity is the total conception that people have of who they are" (Keneally, 2004). Everyone possess their own identity in real life, but what about an online identity? You may not realize it, but a lot of us own at least one or more online identity and that we actually care about them. Also, an online identity works very similarly to an offline identity in more ways than one.

An online community I used to be really active in was Final Fantasy XI, a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG). In the game, the virtual world is known as Vana'diel. Players establish online relationships with one another. I had my own character and I was careful with this virtual identity of mine. I tried to make sure that my in-game identity was known as a good and respectable one. Just like reality, in the game, there are famous players, notorious players and regular players. One's reputation determines the category of player one is known for.

According to Masum and Zhang (2004), reputation is a surrogate - a partial reflection representing our "best educated guess" of the underlying true state of affairs. In the real world, people establish reputation for the actions they do, things they say, the outstanding skills they have, amount of wealth or authority they have. Not surprisingly, it is similar in the Vana'diel. There are no official rankings or points you can accumulate for being a helpful or nice player. Reputation is mostly established via word of mouth, or the various in-game media. Players can either gain recognition or disdain for the actions they do, the things they say, their outstanding techniques, in-game wealth or authority. Players also have to be responsible for their own identity in the sense that if they break the regulations of the game, their account may be suspended or even banned. It basically works the same way as real life, where one has to be jailed or fined after being caught breaking the law. It is rather comprehensive because in this aspect, it is quite similar to how things work in real life as well.

In Vana'diel, reputation can be vital for a couple of reasons. In order to progress in the game where you need to gain levels for one's character, it is more feasible to form a party of about six players. MMORPGs are highly interactive. With a rotten reputation, one may be rejected by other players, one may be unable to receive the help needed or one may be snubbed by other players for no good reason.

Phishing, according to Ian Loe's presentation, is the act of sending a message to a user falsely claiming to be an established legitimate enterprise in an attempt to scam the user into surrendering private information that will be used for identity theft (Loe, 2007). Attempts to assume identities in Vana'diel are not uncommon too. One of the main reasons why people phish in the FFXI world is because the items and virtual currency in game can be sold online for real, hard cash. One other way people try to assume other players' identities could be simply creating a new character that combines an underscore with the original player's online handle. Motivations for committing such acts can range from hoping to attain some gains to attempting to ruin reputations. Wrecking a virtual reputation tends to be easier since there are relatively lesser identity cues compared to the real life (Donath, 1996).

Despite the fact that online identities are more malleable than real life identities, it is not exaggerated to say that reputation online and offline works in a very similar way ("Online Identity", 2007). Some people take pains to build up a solid reputation online for reasons not very different to people establishing a good reputation in real life. Perhaps, whether it comes to online or offline identities, the rules of the game may be still the same.

References

Donath, J. S. (1996, November 12). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Keneally, L. (2004, October 29). Virtual Identity - Development - M/Cyclopedia of New Media. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from http://wiki.media-culture.org.au/index.php/The_Development_of_Online_Identity

Loe, I. (2007, February 14). Phishing, Pharming, and the latest potholes on the Information Highway. Retrieved February 16, 2007, from http://com125.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/it-community-latest-potholes_v7.ppt

Masum, H., & Zhang, Y. (2004, July). Manifesto for the Reputation Society. First Monday, 9 (7). Retrieved February 22, 2007, from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue9_7/masum/

Online identity. (2007, February 15). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_identity&oldid=108207999

QotW4: Give or Take or Give AND Take?

2007-02-10T05:07:00.000+08:00

Introduction

A gift is something acquired without compensation. An economy can be defined as the efficient use of resources ("WordNet", 2006). Put them together and you get something acquired without compensation by the efficient use of resources. Therefore, on the Internet, a gift economy is something digitally acquired without compensation by the efficient use of online resources. Sounds too good to be true? Not really, since the Internet itself is considered as a gift economy (Phillips, 1997).

How Can It Be Free?

When one participates in a gift economy, you contribute, receive or engage in both. However, is the gift really free, with no strings attached? According to sociologists and anthropologists, one of the most widespread and basic norms of human culture is embodied in the rule for reciprocation. The rule requires that one person try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided (Cialdini, 2001). If this rule applies, broadly speaking, people who participate in a gift economy will feel the need to reciprocate when they receive something from others. Conversely, it is also possible that one contributes something in hope that someone else will reciprocate and contribute something back in return.

Another motivation for contributing to a gift economy includes the effect on one's reputation. According to Lewis Hyde, status is accorded to those who give the most to others (as cited in Pinchot, 1995). "High quality information, impressive technical details in one's answers, a willingness to help others, and elegant writing can all work to increase one's prestige in the community" (Kollock, 1999).

Also, according to Kollock (1999), having a sense of efficacy, is a third possible motivation for contributing valuable information. Hoping to have an effect or make an impact on one's environment can be powerful for quality contributions, especially when one is aware of that the contributions may reach a larger audience.

My Gift Economy

The gift economy I'm choosing to represent my answer is GameFAQs. GameFAQs is a website that hosts FAQs and walkthroughs for video games. The site has a large database of video game information and has been called a site where readers "can get almost any information" regarding game strategies ("GameFAQs", 2007). In a nutshell, GameFAQs has a huge library of user-submitted walkthroughs, which are documents that attempt to teach players how to beat or solve a particular game ("Walkthrough", 2007), mission guides, specific strategies and maps. Some video game enthusiasts even contribute walkthroughs that are so detailed, they can amount to more 100 pages.

Observations & Analysis

How is GameFAQs regarded as a gift economy? Let's compare it with my observations on the common characteristics of online gift economies. First of all, since it is a gift, it must be free of any repayments. There should not be any obvious obligation to reciprocate, unless of course, the receiver volunteers to. This checks in with GameFAQs, since it is free even if one downloads a thousand copies of walkthroughs. Also, one will never need to contribute a post in order to read the message boards.

Second, the bulk of contribution is from Internet users. Usually, the information is not provided by any authorized experts but is submitted by people who believe they have the knowledge - most of the times. As mentioned above, the game strategies provided by GameFAQs are user-submitted. Anyone and everyone can submit a game guide.

A third characteristic is the interactive nature. Since "gifts" are shared among people online, people will communicate to clear their doubts, express their gratitude, and build relationships ignited by a common interest. This is also evident in GameFAQs, where there is a message board for every game for users to discuss game strategies. Furthermore, in game walkthroughs, writers often include contact information like e-mail address for people who use their guide. This frequently results in users notifying writers the errors they detected after reading the guide. Sometimes, users may even provide writers with extra information about the game. In return, writers usually thank the users who contributed when they update their guide.

Lastly, a common interest in the information shared. This is an obvious trait for contributors and users of GameFAQs alike. In order to write a walkthrough, a gamer typically has to complete the game at least once. It is not uncommon for a walkthrough author to complete a game several times before writing a walkthrough. Similarly, the reason users accessed the walkthroughs is because they are currently playing the game and is interested to discover more strategies.

Conclusion

As the common characteristics of a gift economy were illustrated, it is apparent that GameFAQs belongs to a gift economy. GameFAQs, Wikipedia, SourceForge, IMDb, DeviantART, MyCarForum and many other online gift economies are wildly popular and thriving, owing mainly to the nature of how the system works and the motivations to share. Whether you only give, or only take or give and take, online gift economies will be here to stay.

References

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). 3. Influence: Science and Practice (4th ed., pp. 50). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Cnet Networks, Inc. (2007). GameFAQs Contributor Central. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://www.gamefaqs.com/contribute/

Economy. WordNet 3.0. (2006). Princeton University. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=economy

GameFAQS. (2006, January 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GameFAQS&oldid=34188321

Gift. WordNet 3.0. (2006). Princeton University. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=gift

Gift economy. (2007, February 4). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gift_economy&oldid=105681971

Kollock, P. (1999). The economies of online cooperation: Gifts and public goods in cyberspace. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.htm

Phillips, E. (1997, June 2). Gift Economy. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://www.rewired.com/97/0602.html

Pinchot, G. (1995). The Gift Economy. In Context, pp. 49. Context Institute. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC41/PinchotG.htm

Walkthrough. (2007, February 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walkthrough&oldid=106414852

QotW3: Pay to Share

2007-02-02T23:07:00.000+08:00

Introduction

It is human nature that we want to protect the things we create, and it is only reasonable that we want to make sure the things we created remain ours and receive credit for sharing them. This is why the copyright law exists. Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the

United States

(title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works (“Copyright Office Basics,” 2006). However, one of major unresolved problems copyright faces is file sharing. File sharing is the practice of making files available for other users to download over the Internet and smaller networks (“File Sharing,” 2007, para. 1).

The Conflict

File sharing is now an extremely common online activity. More than 60 million Americans have downloaded music and the number of file sharers continues to grow rapidly (Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf, 2005, p. 2). Usually file sharing follows the peer-to-peer (P2P) model, where the files are stored on and served by personal computers of the users (“File Sharing,” 2007, para. 1). In 2004, there were more than nine million simultaneous users on the major peer-to-peer (P2P) networks. Because physical distance is largely irrelevant in file sharing, individuals from virtually every country in the world participate (Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf, 2005, p. 2).

Yet, sharing copyrighted materials is an infringement to the copyright law. "As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner" (U.S. Copyright Office, n.d.). Obviously, this has caused an outrage among copyright owners against the various file sharing technologies available to the public. Copyright owners are furious so they started suing P2P network companies, websites and even individuals who are distributing huge number of copyrighted files. They advertise and use campaigns to educate the public that they are breaking the law if they share or download copyrighted materials. Copyright owners also resort to psychological tactics such as associating illegal downloading to stealing, in attempts to persuade the public to boycott piracy (Motion Picture Association of America, 2005).

In light of the conflict between the people who believe that copyright infringement is acceptable and copyright owners who boycott file sharing, whose side should we take? Or should we even take sides?

A Solution

Instead of taking sides, could there be a solution that can accommodate both the content creators and the public? The answer may be negative in the minds of many, but there are actually many ideas being developed with respect to this question.

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to defending freedom in the digital world for the general public. Online distribution lowers costs and increases exposure; all that is needed are new ways for music lovers to support and pay the artists they love. (Electronic Frontier Foundation, n.d.) File sharing does not necessarily mean that content creators are always on the losing end. Most people understand that downloading copyrighted materials is illegal, but because the practice of file sharing has been around for some time, internet users who download on a regular basis are used to getting copyrighted materials at no cost.

Furthermore, many P2P applications are readily available to the public free of charge. These free P2P applications tempt people into downloading illegally. A solution proposed by EFF suggests P2P software vendors to start charging for their service. P2P software vendors start a subscription service and P2P users pay a flat fee for a monthly subscription. This way, the funds collected can be used to pay for legal licenses to copyright holders. In fact, Napster announced a subscription service in 2001 (Evers, 2001). Nevertheless, it was unsuccessful due to the lawsuits it was involved in and the lack of support by music record labels (“Napster,” 2007).

For this solution to work, both parties have to take a step backward and compromise. Copyright holders can try to see the bigger picture and consider the interests of the public. The public can be then be further educated that original creations have to be paid for, and that the subscription fees made to the P2P software vendors are used for that very purpose. In another words, copyright owners and P2P vendors need to put aside their disputes and lawsuits, and work together. In this digital age, copyright owners must accept that the content they own will be distributed on the Internet, whether they like it or not. The mindset that they must destroy all channels of file sharing should be abolished. Likewise, if the public has no ways to download copyrighted materials at no cost, they will have no choice but to either purchase a copy of the music or movie or to pay for a P2P subscription.

Conclusion

The existence of copyright laws is necessary to protect the interests of the content creators just like EFF is founded to protect the digital freedom of the public. Profiting from copyrighted materials that do not belong to you is unethical, but non-profit P2P file sharing should not be condemned by similar standards. Since the technologies of P2P networks are here to stay, content creators should put aside the grudges and look at other alternatives available for them to coexist with file sharing community.

References

Electronic Frontier Foundation. (n.d.) In Making P2P Pay Artists. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://www.eff.org/share/?f=compensation.html

Evers, J. (2001, January 29). Napster to launch fee-based service. Cable News Network. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/computing/01/29/fee.based.napster.idg/ index.html

File sharing. (2007, February 2). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_sharing&oldid=105156182

Motion Picture Association of America. (2005). In Who are Movie Pirates? Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://www.mpaa.org/piracy_whoAre.asp

Napster. (2007, January 31). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Napster&oldid=104501348

Oberholzer-Gee, F., & Strumpf, K. (2005). The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_June2005_final.pdf

U.S Copyright Office. (2006, July). In Copyright Office Basics. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

U.S Copyright Office. (n.d.). In Definitions. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html#infringement

COM125 Week 2: Online Shopping

2007-01-27T16:13:00.000+08:00

In 1994, shopping malls arrive on the Internet. Pizza Hut started the service of ordering pizzas online. The first cyberbank, First Virtual opened for business. There were also attempts to offer flower delivery and magazine subscriptions online. (Hobbes' Internet Timeline, 2007) 1994 can probably be considered the year that the online shopping technology had a major head start.

Online shopping is a form of electronic commerce (e-commerce), which is known as "the buying and selling of goods and services, and the transfer of funds, through digital communications." (Wikipedia, 2007) Online shopping is the process consumers go through to purchase products and services over the Internet. It mostly represents business-to-consumer electronic commerce (B2C). (Wikipedia, 2007)

Today, 13 years later, online shopping has grown massively on the Internet. Many Internet users have shopped online at least once. Some are regular online shoppers. It is obvious that online shopping works, albeit not for all online retailers. There are a few reasons why online shopping works. One of the main reasons is because of the many advantages to both consumers and retailers. First, operating an online business is relatively low cost compared to operating a physical store. With lower operating cost, some retailers are able to lower the prices of their products and services, giving consumers a better selling price.

Second, consumers can shop in the comfort of their homes, usually at any time of the day. There is the ease of use, convenience and speed when it comes to shopping online. In addition, consumers can compare prices easily and read product reviews to enable better decision making. Consumers also have the choice of getting their products delivered straight to their homes, which is an attractive plus to busy consumers with no time to collect their purchases personally.

Third, consumers can purchase products which are unavailable to them in their own countries. This can be very appealing to consumers who want to buy a particular product in another country. They will only need to pay the extra shipping cost for the product to be shipped over to them, without the need of any traveling. This is advantageous to the retailer as well, as retailers can reach consumers worldwide with their products.

Of course, there are also certain disadvantages to online shopping. One of its main concerns is the security issue. Despite the many improvements to credit card security issues made in the recent years, many users are still apprehensive about giving out their credit card information online due to fear of fraud case. Non-technological disadvantages are also impeding the growth of online shopping. Traditional consumers still prefer to browse products in its physical state instead of just viewing them online, via a computer screen. There is also the issue of discrepancies in color and size when viewing a product online compared to seeing it in its physical state.

However, despite the disadvantages, online shopping has grown tremendously in these 13 years. From 1994 where Pizza Hut started offering the service of ordering pizzas online. Now, countless of pizza chains have already made their delivery service available online. In 1994, where the first online bank, First Virtual opened for business to now, 2007, when online banking are used by almost every major bank in the world. In 1994, where shopping malls first arrive online and now where online shopping are seen virtually everywhere.

The Internet of today is filled with the advertisements, of both online and offline shopping. Mailboxes are filled with junk mails of advertisements, special offers and discounts. The possibilities of consumers spending money on the Internet has grown from an innovation to a norm. As the number of internet users increase, products and services can potentially reach more people. The Internet became an extremely marketable channel for retailers. Consumers themselves saw the lucrative market. They started setting up their own websites to sell their products and services or selling them in auction sites like eBay.com.

The modes of payment online have also increased. Typically, the most common mode of payment online shoppers use is still the credit cards. Some online retailers now provide other options like Paypal, various types of electronic money, checks, cash on delivery and other various methods.

Online shopping is constantly improving its services and efficiency, while also reassuring internet users of the security and convenience of internet shopping. Online shops are so common now we sometimes don’t even bother taking a second look at them. With online shops having a stronger web presence than ever, the bigwigs like Amazon.com and eBay.com are likely to survive and do even better online than ever. Especially with their strong reputation and large variety of products available to the consumers.

References

E-commerce (October 29, 2005). M/Cyclopedia of New Media. Retrieved January 27, 2007, from http://wiki.media-culture.org.au/index.php/E-Commerce

Hobbes' Internet Timeline v8.2 (November 1, 2006). Retrieved January 27, 2007, from http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/

Online shop (2007). Wikipedia.org. Retrieved January 27, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shop

Virtual Shopping (2007). Wikipedia.org. Retrieved January 27, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_shopping

the many sides to her

2007-01-18T21:47:00.000+08:00

Never in my wildest dreams would I have ever imagined that I will be doing mandatory blogging for a course in school. Frankly, I'm having mixed feelings towards this. Before I forget, my name's Shelwyn, or u can call me Shel.

Unlike many of my classmates, blogging is no stranger to me. I first came into contact with blogging in 2002, when blogging wasn't even widely known in Singapore yet. I had a couple of domains but I was never a serious or professional blogger. I only blogged about random thoughts and updates of my life. I still blog sometimes, but I don't think of myself as a blogger anymore.

Most friends don't know this, but I actually have quite a diverse range of interests. I'm one of the few girls who is into guys stuff, and yet has a soft spot for girly stuff. Hmm, let's see. I like technology like gadgets, computers and the Net. I'm a very online person. My lappie is usually on the moment I reach home till before I go to bed. I shop quite abit online too, but mostly for girly products like accessories, skincare, nail polishes, etc. I simply adore accessories especially earrings. I consider myself a collector because I update my earrings collection quite regularly. I make my own jewelry too but less often now. The photo below is part of my lovely collection.

I loved gaming. It started with the Sega Genesis when I was really young, then PS, and finally the PS2. No intentions of getting PS3 since I no longer spend much time gaming. I'm officially retired after Final Fantasy XI (MMORPG). In my opinion, MMORPGs can be really dangerous if you don't exercise self-control coz they are so addictive. I once felt that I was almost losing grasp of reality. Here's a screenshot of FFXI I took when I was still very much into the game.

I'm also crazy about Stitch from Disney's Lilo & Stitch. I think he's so adorable I don't mind having him as a pet! The reason why I like him isn't just because of how cute he is, but also because of his personality. He's such an unique Disney character who started out as an anti-hero. He is arrogant, rude, charming, funny, cute, intelligent and powerful, all rolled into one! Here's my first medium-sized stitch plush that I bought online!

What else.. Right, I am a hopeless tv and movie junkie. I love superheroes blockbusters as well as corny romantic comedies. I try to watch some tv even when I'm really busy. When I watch tv or movies, I get so engrossed, it takes me away from the real world for a while. I think that keeps me sane. Music is another huge part of my life. I listen to pop, rock, R&B, jazz, and more recently, bossa nova. I play the piano but I don't think I'm really good at it. I guess I just don't practice enough. And I hope to learn the violin one day.

Ok, enough of my interests. I'm majoring in communication because I'm fascinated with the media. I think it's amazing how influential the media can be. PR is also a field I'm interested in. I heard its tough and I'm unsure if the PR industry is really suitable for me, but I figured I'll never know until I give it a try.

Gosh, this is like the first time I revealed that many details about myself at one shot. Haha. Oh well. And one last thing, I hope to get lots of As this semester! Wish me luck!