Benkler (reader)
Q. Throughout the article Benkler often relates the structure of mass media and it's several levels to the First Amendment. What can be considered as individual freedom of speech and when is the government allowed to interfere in order to maintain the most important goals of the Amendment. Perhaps I did not really understand what Benkler was trying to bring across, but to me it wasn't clear why, in the first place, the government should be so concerned with this (among several other similar questions)
A. To me, one of the most important aspects of the internet is the accessibility of it. ANYONE can become a participant (as active as one wishes), and by becoming one, you have multiple opportunities to express yourself. This does not have to be with words, you can join other groups, send in drawings, anything. This however is on an individual level. To gain access to the internet, at all, the individual is dependend on the providers. Here. Benkler brings up the First Amendment again. One of the aims of the government in order to protect civilians and try to offer what they call 'robust debate, diversity of viewpoints and individual expressive freedom' they tend to interfere whenever the mass media market becomes too monipolistic.
By giving the example of the Washington Post and LA Times against the users of a political website, it does become a bit more clear. Still, fact remains that the government has the difficult task to decide at which point they will intervene. But given the conservative background of the US government, another question comes to mind: will it ever be fair for everyone. To me, it's all or nothing. What can be considered as damaging to one, can be seen as a fair expression to the other. However, cases in which copyright laws etc are being broken, it's a matter of looking at the facts. Here comes the low-context legal system again! But is this applyable to the individual and their First Amendment?
Lessig (reader)
A. To me, one of the most important aspects of the internet is the accessibility of it. ANYONE can become a participant (as active as one wishes), and by becoming one, you have multiple opportunities to express yourself. This does not have to be with words, you can join other groups, send in drawings, anything. This however is on an individual level. To gain access to the internet, at all, the individual is dependend on the providers. Here. Benkler brings up the First Amendment again. One of the aims of the government in order to protect civilians and try to offer what they call 'robust debate, diversity of viewpoints and individual expressive freedom' they tend to interfere whenever the mass media market becomes too monipolistic.
By giving the example of the Washington Post and LA Times against the users of a political website, it does become a bit more clear. Still, fact remains that the government has the difficult task to decide at which point they will intervene. But given the conservative background of the US government, another question comes to mind: will it ever be fair for everyone. To me, it's all or nothing. What can be considered as damaging to one, can be seen as a fair expression to the other. However, cases in which copyright laws etc are being broken, it's a matter of looking at the facts. Here comes the low-context legal system again! But is this applyable to the individual and their First Amendment?
Lessig (reader)
Q. This chapter from Lessig's book is not really open for critical questions (and answers), because it's more een overview of recent developments that were entering the world wibe web. Lessig explains each innovation and comments on them.
Still, after having read the described innovations, I was wondering how the 'real physical world' as Lessig mentioned in the beginning of this chapter undergoes major effects. The tone in which Lessing talks about he new services on the internet directs us more to the 'and it shall conquer the worlllllld!... or something like that). How can the recent developments/innovations/resources be related to the 'real world' and its market practices?
A. Whatever the innovations may be...the real world seems to deal with them in every way they can. For example, the music business: by stuufing the p2p sites with music, home users are more likely to download everything they want. (different outcomes were made public about whether people actually stopped buying cd's or not, so I'm not gonna get into that) But just looking at the facts that are given: Mp3 groes big, stores start selling more and more computers, Mp3 players etc. The 'new' is the cause, the real world comes up with the effect. But there's another option: look at artists like David Bowie or Prince (or the Symbol, tafkap, The Prince...oh no wait that was The Donald) who start 'offering' there music on their own websites. The whole productselling doesn't begin or end on the internet or anywhere else. One thing leads to another and the market is for the most part a self-regulating place (of course, in the hands of man but still) If it means that cd's must be sold at a lower cost: so be it... but looking at the different prices across the globe, it does not really look like the Internet has taken over.
Harries (reader)
Still, after having read the described innovations, I was wondering how the 'real physical world' as Lessig mentioned in the beginning of this chapter undergoes major effects. The tone in which Lessing talks about he new services on the internet directs us more to the 'and it shall conquer the worlllllld!... or something like that). How can the recent developments/innovations/resources be related to the 'real world' and its market practices?
A. Whatever the innovations may be...the real world seems to deal with them in every way they can. For example, the music business: by stuufing the p2p sites with music, home users are more likely to download everything they want. (different outcomes were made public about whether people actually stopped buying cd's or not, so I'm not gonna get into that) But just looking at the facts that are given: Mp3 groes big, stores start selling more and more computers, Mp3 players etc. The 'new' is the cause, the real world comes up with the effect. But there's another option: look at artists like David Bowie or Prince (or the Symbol, tafkap, The Prince...oh no wait that was The Donald) who start 'offering' there music on their own websites. The whole productselling doesn't begin or end on the internet or anywhere else. One thing leads to another and the market is for the most part a self-regulating place (of course, in the hands of man but still) If it means that cd's must be sold at a lower cost: so be it... but looking at the different prices across the globe, it does not really look like the Internet has taken over.
Harries (reader)
Q. Harries is very elaborate about the fact that there are three emerging modes of spectatorship: viewing, using and (give it up for Harries!) 'viewsing' My question here would be: why does Harries insist on these three different and separate modes as being so different from each other?
A. You cannot compare apples and oranges Mr. Harries. To be more elaborate (yes Shenja:).. Woth the internet and all that comes with it, you've got a whole new type of media in your hands. Just because you can watch a movie on your computer does not mean that now your computer is like a television. For instance, when I watch an episode of a series I regularly download, I'm watching it differently from an episode I watch on television. If I want to see something again I just go to the little device thingy on my mediaplayer and scroll back. Or I watch two things at the same time...you name it. I consider myself not a viewer when on the internet therefore. (I almost wanted to write 'not a viewer while using the internet... that would give away some content of my argument)
A. You cannot compare apples and oranges Mr. Harries. To be more elaborate (yes Shenja:).. Woth the internet and all that comes with it, you've got a whole new type of media in your hands. Just because you can watch a movie on your computer does not mean that now your computer is like a television. For instance, when I watch an episode of a series I regularly download, I'm watching it differently from an episode I watch on television. If I want to see something again I just go to the little device thingy on my mediaplayer and scroll back. Or I watch two things at the same time...you name it. I consider myself not a viewer when on the internet therefore. (I almost wanted to write 'not a viewer while using the internet... that would give away some content of my argument)
I also thought that (if I paid enough attention in Gesch. vh Medialandschap) that when the first newspapers arrived, people should've stopped comparing them to the telegraph. Just because (and I'm going back to the fruit again) an apple and an orange are both fruit, doesn't mean they taste, look the same. Same goes with internet and film or tv: just because they both contain moving images doesn't mean that you're more of a viewer or user with any three of them.
A new media needs new definitions.
It's a new game, so new rules... "Yhatzee! Game On!" **
** I 'borrowed' this from Toni, our ever so friendly and non-aggressive member of the (so loved by me!) Paradise Hotel television series ;) Thank you Toni...for making my Thursday nights as memorable as can be.............(rrright: back to business)
A new media needs new definitions.
It's a new game, so new rules... "Yhatzee! Game On!" **
** I 'borrowed' this from Toni, our ever so friendly and non-aggressive member of the (so loved by me!) Paradise Hotel television series ;) Thank you Toni...for making my Thursday nights as memorable as can be.............(rrright: back to business)
Keith Negus, Identities and Industries (Cultural Economy)
Here, I would just like to comment on certain aspects Negusspeaks of in his article. He talks about the music industry in America, especially the black music section, about the social segregation as being oart of American life, commercial segmentation etc. I couldn't help but think what this industry looks like to me. Watching MTV is already enough to see how these rappers emerge as if they've come straight out of jail, one even more bad*ss than the other (and believing it themselves). It was a very amusing part to read when Negus interviewed Davitt Sigerson who wanted to 'retool'EMI but failed. Sigerson sai EMI 'needed a culture'. As if you can just go to www. getmeoneofthosecultures.org and whoopa..there you have it. But indeed, it looks like the industry works like this. Who in the world believes, for instance, the image our P. Diddy (...Daddy...Piffy...Puffy...Duffy??) tries to bring across. The man is bad! Yeah right... he grew up in a white suburban neighboorhood, a straight A student etc. But does that sell? No, so just give him the image you need and you've got yourself a bad*ss rapper.
Negus argues in the beginning of his article about the reasons behind the decisions at record companies and they are seldom based on who's talented or not, but that they are even more so based on gendered and radicalized class divisions within record companies. It all comes down to economics: you might pick talent over money making plastic popgroups...fact remains you need to earn your income in order to maintain your position in business. There's more than enough evidence on MTV as I speak that it's all one big marketing game. People might tink of Britney Spears as a fake product (bless Britney by the way!) but refuse to put her in the same box as . let's say... Avril Lavigne. The fact that Avril comes across more natural doesn't make her any more natural. Avril Lavigne perhaps has as much styling and marketing hooplah as Britney Spears, but because the record company wanted something different for the teenage girls (and boys) they PICKED Avril Lavigne to be their alternative 'I hate school man!' tough girl.
In ny case, if it sells, it sells. Like Beverly McKnight was quoted in Negus' article: America only sees one color and that is green. "They don't give a sh*t Jay-Z is a black guy from the hood or that Mary J. Blige came from Yonkers. Mary J. Blige sells" (122-123)
Negus uses the R&B industry to prove it, but as I mentioned above...perhaps these basics are universal.
Here, I would just like to comment on certain aspects Negusspeaks of in his article. He talks about the music industry in America, especially the black music section, about the social segregation as being oart of American life, commercial segmentation etc. I couldn't help but think what this industry looks like to me. Watching MTV is already enough to see how these rappers emerge as if they've come straight out of jail, one even more bad*ss than the other (and believing it themselves). It was a very amusing part to read when Negus interviewed Davitt Sigerson who wanted to 'retool'EMI but failed. Sigerson sai EMI 'needed a culture'. As if you can just go to www. getmeoneofthosecultures.org and whoopa..there you have it. But indeed, it looks like the industry works like this. Who in the world believes, for instance, the image our P. Diddy (...Daddy...Piffy...Puffy...Duffy??) tries to bring across. The man is bad! Yeah right... he grew up in a white suburban neighboorhood, a straight A student etc. But does that sell? No, so just give him the image you need and you've got yourself a bad*ss rapper.
Negus argues in the beginning of his article about the reasons behind the decisions at record companies and they are seldom based on who's talented or not, but that they are even more so based on gendered and radicalized class divisions within record companies. It all comes down to economics: you might pick talent over money making plastic popgroups...fact remains you need to earn your income in order to maintain your position in business. There's more than enough evidence on MTV as I speak that it's all one big marketing game. People might tink of Britney Spears as a fake product (bless Britney by the way!) but refuse to put her in the same box as . let's say... Avril Lavigne. The fact that Avril comes across more natural doesn't make her any more natural. Avril Lavigne perhaps has as much styling and marketing hooplah as Britney Spears, but because the record company wanted something different for the teenage girls (and boys) they PICKED Avril Lavigne to be their alternative 'I hate school man!' tough girl.
In ny case, if it sells, it sells. Like Beverly McKnight was quoted in Negus' article: America only sees one color and that is green. "They don't give a sh*t Jay-Z is a black guy from the hood or that Mary J. Blige came from Yonkers. Mary J. Blige sells" (122-123)
Negus uses the R&B industry to prove it, but as I mentioned above...perhaps these basics are universal.
