Major Assignment 4 Revised Post

I chose to upload my video to YouTube.  The audience that I was trying to reach with my project was not only my classmates, but also others in the public who have or had struggled with “tough times” in their life.  I wanted to reach a mass number of people and YouTube was the only outside source that I was familiar with enough to upload a video onto. 

Trying to get the word out about any project is a challenge.  To reach the masses these days it seems that the only way is to get an insane number of views (on YouTube) or by a light speed word of mouth.  To advertise my video I decided to start with the people closest to me.  These people were the people that I have added on Facebook.  I linked my video from YouTube to my wall.  My hope was that the people who could view it through Facebook might like it enough to link it to their friends who might link it to theirs and so on.  The sort of advertising I was hoping to achieve was word of mouth.  Except now in a Web 2.0 era it could almost be changed to word of keyboard.

In an excerpt by Henry Jenkins titled, Why Participatory Web Culture is Not Web 2.0: Some Basic Distinctions, Henry Jenkins states, “…Participatory cultures, which may or may not be engaged with commercial portals, and Web 2.0 which refers specifically to a set of commercial practices that seek to capture and harness creative energies and collective intelligences of their users…Web 2.0 is a business model…”  The previous is Henry Jenkins’ definition of Web 2.0.  Tim O’Reilly defines Web 2.0 as such in a web article titled What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software as a concept that harnesses collective intelligence and includes a rich user experience by user interaction.  He includes a diagram of Web 2.0 and on the diagram there are lined connecting to sites such as Flickr, Gmail, and Wikipedia.  

YouTube has millions upon millions of videos on the site.  Some of these videos generate money and some YouTube stars become partners of the site.  Under the Terms of Use section, there is a blurb about addressing payment and refund.  It states:

YouTube accepts payment by credit card, Google Wallet account, and any other form of payment that we make available to you. You agree to (i) pay for any Pay Content that you order through the Service and that YouTube may charge your credit card or other form of payment that you indicate for any Pay Content ordered, along with any additional amounts (including any taxes), and (ii) abide by any relevant Terms of Service or other legal agreement…

Henry Jenkins’ stated that Web 2.0 is a business plan and it is apparent from the terms of use on the site that YouTube is a business plan that is generating income from the creative intelligence of others.

While Henry Jenkins believes that Web 2.0 and the term participatory culture should not go together, every Google search result includes both Web 2.0 and participatory culture in the titles of the links.  Web 2.0 is participatory culture.  In a slideshow presentation by Martha Hardy and Nicole Theis-Mahon from the University of Minnesota reiterate that Web 2.0 is a collaboration among users.  They also include O’Reilly’s fact that Web 2.0 includes rich user experiences. 

 Participation is defined by Dictionary.com as,

 — vb  (often foll by in ) to take part, be or become actively involved, or share (in)

Collaborations are the work of at least two or more people and user experiences mean that others have become involved with a site.  Web 2.0 is participation.  Under the YouTube Community Guidelines page one of the heading titles is YouTube is a Community.  A community means that a group of people interact with each other and their surroundings.  They participate.  YouTube allows users to participate by allowing comments and video responses. By calling the site a community, they are implying user participation.

YouTube may have an motive to generate an income, but they also have millions of users and videos.  For this reason alone I decided to upload my video onto their site.  I felt that it was the best platform to reach a large public audience and I believe that YouTube is a helpful site that is an easy example of Web 2.0 and a participatory culture.  I hope my audience enjoys my video.

Major Assignment Three Link

"Dream Machines" by Will Wright

First off, yay! A reading assignment from a person who I actually know of.  Will Wright created The Sims which is my favorite game of all time.  I think that everyone has that one game that they will always enjoy playing and for me it's The Sims.  I've been playing it since the very first edition came out so about ten years.  Sadly I haven't had the money to buy the third edition and my computer is breaking down, so when I get a new computer I can't wait to buy the third edition.  It's a fantastic time waster.

Now on to Mr. Wrights article.  To me he is arguing in favor of video games by using simple logic.  He says that video games are not just mind sucking time voids, but rather they inspire creativity and imagination.  I completely agree with him.  For example, playing The Sims allowed me to become more creative in how I build my houses.  I started off just using the pre-designed houses that are available, and then I moved on to changing those models, until finally I started messing around with landscape and different structures to create my own designs.  A video game allowed me to think of new ways to change something.  My creativity was tested and improved because I would get tired of the same decor or style so I would have to create new designs and think of new places to lay out furniture.

I believe that the reason why society only sees the negative effects of video games is because there is a big focus on our youth.  Almost every child from a young age knows how to use some digital device because we are living in a thickly populated digital age.  Video games have a way of taking up something called free time.  When a child has free time and they start to play a game that they are enjoying the world fades away.  I used to play The Sims right when I got up and then finally at midnight I would be turning it off to go to sleep in the same clothes that I slept in the night before.  When interest is entertained, time does not matter, especially to younger people. 

Our world is becoming obsessed with controlling health and the youth.  Some see video games as nothing but crap that needs to be destroyed.  Those people are so focused on control that they lose their creativity and imagination because they only see a square box instead of a square box that is actually a house with pillars and fire places and a fantastic kitchen.

"Art Form for the Digital Age" by Henry Jenkins

Video games are art.  So says Henry Jenkins.  Just how the cinema is art for the old eras.  Jenkins states that some people do not consider video games to be artwork.  I say psh.  Do they have any idea how much time and dedication have to go in to create a video game?  Would they consider a Disney-Pixar film (such as Finding Nemo) to not be art?  Look at all of the contrast and lighting and shading that had to be done to create that masterpiece.

I can honestly say however that I am guilty of looking at video games as just video games.  I never did think to see them as a piece of artwork even though they should be. Truly.  A point that Jenkins makes is that video games are starting to become the new thing for this generation.  Cinema was the fad back when it was starting out.  And while video games have been around for a while, they have only recently (in the 2000's) started getting better.  Jenkins states that video games help contribute to the demand of faster computers and better graphics cards.  I think that everyone should be appreciative of video games and try to not only see them as games, but art like the Point Jenkins is stating. 

Besides, what else is everyone hearing about that is true art.

The Oatmeal Is Taking on FunnyJunk and Copyright

**The below statements are reiterated from other sources.  The opinions are all my own.  All external information is linked below.  I choose not to list the link to FunnyJunk because I do not support them in anyway.  If you want to learn about them more then type their name in a search browser.**

After having a segment on copyright and fair use, I've become more interested in copyright policies.  Yesterday I was watching a sxephil video on YouTube about an update on a lawsuit that is trying to get filed against The Oatmeal from FunnyJunk.

From what I gathered, FunnyJunk is a website where users can upload pictures from other websites and then they can edit over and create almost memes. There original artists of the pictures are not credited. FunnyJunk makes money off of adds.  So The Oatmeal asked for them to take down his comics that are on their sites because they are making money off of his comics.  He created a comic that called out FunnyJunk on their copyright problem.  However FunnyJunk stated that they do follow DMCA rules so if they hear a report about copyright infringement, then they will take down the picture and block the user.  However there were a good number of The Oatmeal comics and others (including Hyperbole & a Half and Cyanide and Happiness) that were/are still up on FunnyJunk's site.

FunnyJunk filed a lawsuit against The Oatmeal stating that he created slanderous comments that harassed the site and they requested $20,000 from him for the harassment and money that they lost from having to take down his comics which were never credited to him.

The Oatmeal's reaction was perfect.  He created a comic addressed to FunnyJunk and their lawyer that he will not pay them $20,000 but instead he decided that he was going to raise $20,000 and give half to The American Cancer Society and the other half to The World Wildlife Federation.  The Oatmeal raised the money in an hour and now he has raised over $100,000.  And now, the lawyer is filing a suit against The Oatmeal saying that the money he raised for CHARITY goes against some law.

To me the whole thing is ridiculous.  I agree with The Oatmeal and his actions.  FunnyJunk's request of money from him is just insanely stupid.  They want money from an artist who was not credited, and they made money from his comics (and also other comics).  I lawyer who took the case is getting a lot of flack including emails and phone calls from people who support The Oatmeal.  However, The Oatmeal never stated anywhere to his followers to call and harrass anyone.  He stated in a comic that he just wants to create regular comics and not comics that are addressed to the whole possible lawsuit.

Overall, when I heard this I was blown away by the reactions and actions of FunnyJunk as well as their users and their lawyer.  I hope that this whole ordeal brings light to misinformed people on what copyright is and how it works.

Here is the link to The Oatmeal's page.  He includes links to other comics of his that address the ordeal as well as the letters from FunnyJunk's lawyer Charles Carreon.

Also, donations can still be made to Operation BearLove Good, Cancer Bad.

Web 2.0 by Tim O'Reilly

Web 2.0 is a term that is completely unknown to me.  In the beginning of the web page Tim O'Reilly gives examples of what past digital media or Web 1.0 would be present with Web 2.0.  Personal websites are now called blogs.  Okay that makes sense...blogging seems to have become more popular lately than in the past.  There are other examples such as double click which is Web 1.0 but now the Web 2.0 term is called Google Adsense.  The other examples that the author included to try and clear up what Web 2.0 is, are completely foreign to me still.  

After the first page...I'm still thinking, "What the heck is Web 2.0?"

Tim O'Reilly includes a diagram with a box in the middle that states how the web is our (audience or public) platform.  Above he includes boxes with blogs, Wikipedia, and some other modern terms such as Flickr.  So now I am starting to wonder...is Web 2.0 a way to categorize modern websites and modern digital terms that the new generation (like people my age) are saying and using?

The author says that Web 2.0 is a new era...an era...so I'm starting to believe that Web 2.0 is not a term for with one definition.  It is a term that is an umbrella for modern digital terms and web sites.  It is a categorical term.  Web 2.0 also includes participation from the audience that is participating.  From what I gathered, Web 2.0 must include trust from the creators of sites as well as a collective team effort from users.

Participatory Culture and Web as Told By Henry Jenkins

How is the phrase "Do It Yourself" a reflection of self expression?  You are not creating an idea yourself, instead you are simply following someone other person's ideas.  I disagree with Henry Jenkins on his belief that the phrase allows people to fall back into a void of self expression.

Just a side note, how can Henry Jenkins call himself a true scholar on female-centered science fiction in the 1990's?  From his picture he seems to be a male so how can he consider himself truly knowledgeable on such a topic when he could not have a true experience that only a female can have.  Going along with his whole idea of participatory culture, it seems that he may believe that he is an extremely knowledgeable source because of his academic work and the participation that he may have experienced from the presence of other females.  Maybe he gained some knowledge of the culture of female-centered science fiction through the participation of other females since he is so obviously male.

After reading his blog entry I still do not understand the difference between participatory web culture and Web 2.0  I'm hoping that this reading can be cleared up in class.

"Streams of Content" by Danah Boyd

Danah Boyd stated in her draft of "Streams by Content" that the flow of information is not about perfect attention, but being aligned with the information given to us.  We have to cut through the obscene amount of bull crap (my words, not hers) information that is given to us so that we can get to the information that matters.

She stated that in the 1950's everyone received their news from one news source.  This meant that not only was everyone receiving the same news but they were learning about new information at the same time as the rest of the population.  She says that broadcast media is a centralized source that controls the means of distribution.  I took this to mean that the nightly newscast was the distribution of media and by having only one, then it assured that that station received the most attention.  I believe that centralized sources also control what information is given out to the public.  If there are only a few centralized sources of information, then it is more assured that only certain information is reported.

Blogs are a non-centralized source of information.  Danah Boyd has a line which states, "There were always folks willing to share their story but the Internet gave them a pulpit on which to stand."  I believe that it is not a past tense, but a present tense situation.  Blogs are the platform for the common folk.  It allows anyone who has a two sense and wants to advocate it to get their information out to the public.

She states that there are four core issues with streamlined content information.  Under the core issue of democratization, she states that a person might think that people will give their attention to what is best.  She states after that this is not true and then proceeds to use language as a counter example.  I believe (again with the believes.  It's starting to sound like a Journey song in here) that people will first give their attention to what is most interesting to them, and then they will give their attention to what is best or whatever the point was that Danah Boyd was trying to make with the language example.