My overall thoughts...

Overall, I feel new media has had an immense effect on or current society. The constant developments technology has made means that we are now not only able to interact more personally with the media, but also take it everywhere with us. I feel it is an under rated entity which is not given the credit it deserves. Since studying networked media, I have been exposed to just how much influence the media has on our society in terms of innovation, convergence, globalisation and also its impact on my generation and the upcoming ones.

Networked media has enhanced my views on social media and the ways in which it can connect people or form a wedge between them. I feel without social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter which I use daily, society would be at a less progressive place in comparison to now. I have also become more aware of myself and the opportunities of becoming 'prosumers' in which we as a participatory culture can actively create our own forms of media as well as consuming media too.

Through attending workshops I have been able to view the media in an alternative perspective. I am now able to consider both sides of arguments rather than focus solely on my own views. Light has been shed on areas which I may have never noticed before for example it has become clear to me  how one can be so immersed in the media for example Skype conversations, that the medium is broken and you feel as if you are actually next to each other. It has also made me question the future of technology. How far will it go? How advanced can it get?

 The future of technology and new media is unknown. There really are no limits.

Below: A short video clip demonstrating the possible future of technology:

Psycogeography Project

In attempt to demonstrate the way in which we can make the human body more aware of the surroundings, me and Damilola decided we would both take pictures from with the same general guidelines but however from different parts of the world.

As Damilola was leaving for China soon, we ensured she wwas equipped with all the tools needed to take good photos which she would later compare to my own photos.

The categories we chose were:

• Candid
• Landscape
• Artificial Lightining
• Scale
• Small depth of field
• Reflection
• Daylight

The times we chose we:

• 12/02/12 - 11:59am
• 13/02/12 - 14:00pm
• 15/02/12- 12:15am
• 17/02/12- 15:30pm
• 21/02/12- 21:30pm
• 01/03/12- 16:45pm
• 02/03/12- 13:00pm

The aim was to take a certain type of picture at the exact same time, from different parts of the world to see if there was any differences or correlations between them.

We gathered after to discuss what we were doing at the time, where we were and why we chose to take a picture of that specific area or object etc.

I enjoyed conducting this project as it was challenging and I had never done anything like it before.

I have included a slideshow I made, displaying the images Damilola and I took:

Pyscogeography project

What do we have between us? A bridge or a bond? (Social Capital)

"We need to shift away from the notion of technology managing information and toward the idea of technology as a medium of relationships."Michael Schrage, Shared Minds.

I remember doing sociology in Sixth Form. I hated it. It was like learning about the basics of life all over again. What is education? What is religion? What is Social Capital?

Coming to University and studying Networked Media, I was once asked 'what is social capital?' The definition my sociology teacher had embedded in our heads was that social capital was the connections within and between social networks. Although this was correct, I soon learnt that there was more to it than that when applied to networked media. A few definitions I found in class were:

• Networks of relationships among people who live and work in a particular society enabling the society to run effectively.
• Networks and common values that allow members of communities to co-operate and support eachother

When explaining soial capital it is important to establish what bridging and bonding is. Bridging networking may be described as a weak tie between individuals who do not necessarily have an emotional bond with each other. This is quite like my Facebook friends. I have 500 friends and out of them, I probably talk to 40.  (embarrassed face).  In my opinion, with the rise of social networking websites such as Facebook, Myspace and twitter it is easier to build bridges between networks and although they are loose ones, they still help to maintain social capital. New media encourages communication and connection between people all over the globe who you do not necessarily know. Some of my Facebook contacts are from various places such as China, Ghana and also Australia. (The world on one screen? Crazy huh?)

The bonding tie in social capital is often found between tight knit communities and relationships which are emotionally close such as friends or family. I feel the web and social media favours the bridging tie rather than the bonding as individuals are more likely to interact with friends or family in many other ways than the web. For example seeing eachother face to face or living with eachother. The web also helps to maintain social capital as well as strengthen social capital. It provides a more effecient way of communicating and strengthening relationships. It may also build self-esteem through the use of virtual games for example. World of warcraft is a online virtual game which some of my friends have become so engaged in its becoming annoying. Individuals are allowed to create an avatar to look how ever they want it to and participate in an online virtual world as well as meet other people online. (I myself do not play world of warcraft however I love a good game of Sims 3! )

God bless Web 2.0 (The benefits of Web 2.0)

How can you squander even one more day not taking advantage of the greatest shifts of our generation? How dare you settle for less when the world has made it so easy for you to be remarkable?
-Seth Godin

Prior to Uni, I never really made the distinction between the world wide web in terms of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. This is because technological advancements are so frequent that it has become unnoticeable to us to see what and when changes within the Web takes place. In my opinion, there is no actual definition of Web 2.0 although some describe it as simply a marketing definition to promote technological advancements. The Internet is currently a huge source of communication and has become so significant in the majority of peoples lives. It enables us as individuals to access things which were once out if reach, in the comfort of our own homes. An example of this may be the benefits of smart phones. A friend of mine has been able to run her online business solely from her smart phone. The ability to bring different forms of a media onto a single platform may be a form of convergence and also refers to Jenkins innovative, everyday, global and networked traits. Wherever my friends phone goes, her business goes, whereas she would have previously had to go into work physically in order to do anything productive. The rise of technological advancements working hand in hand with social networking sites such as Facebook, means Web 2.0, is now in its prime.

Similarly to life which changes and evolves, traditional forms of media are now in decline. I remember when I used to listen to the radio, through an actual radio whereas now I listen to the radio solely through the app on my iphone. I listen BBC 1xtra, Choice FM, Kiss 100 the list is endless. My point is that there has been such a shift in how we consume media in recent years that I myself have lived to witness. This is quite random, but literally everything is available via apps, The Holy Bible, The app for Asda or even apps that tell you the best way to get drunk. (Weird, I know!) I wonder how long it will before the concept of apps becomes blown out of proportion? Is the existence of apps meaning the world of networking is becoming condensed into a single small asset or gadget? Will we be able to download apps which teach us meaning we wont have to come into lessons or workshops? (I should be so lucky' )

  

The uses of the Internet itself has vastly changed since the development of web 2.0. In the early 90's, people were using the Internet to communicate with people using dial up connections to send emails or do general work. Therefore, the purpose of the Internet 'to connect and communicate' has not changed, rather its how we are going about communicating and using the internet that has. With Web 2.0, we don't just use the internet but we interact with it too. In my opinion, there are also many more differences which distinguish both web 1.0 and web 2.0 from eachother. Web 2.0 is user driven and is in the best interest o us as consumers. Technology is always looking for a way to update software so that is is faster, better and provides a better experience for consumers. An example of this may be the 'play store' app on my phone which alerts me when there are updates my phone needs. In the era of web 1.0, the Internet and its services was used mainly as a tool for business alone in which webmasters are able to create websites as a marketing tool. At this time, communication was mainly between webmasters and clients. The other day, I randomly remembered the search engine 'Ask Jeeves' and began to laugh. No disrespect but Google has clearly taken over.(LOL)  A few years back, one of the few search engines available were Ask Jeeves or Yahoo, whereas now there is not only Google but Bing it, Safari and Firefox. Clearly, in recent years, there has been a development in the service the web has to offer.

One of the main thing that strikes me as an advantage of web 2.0 is its enhancement of individualism and creativity. What am I doing right now? BLOGGINGGGGG!  The web allows us as consumers to also be producers of media.

I once heard a women compare web 1.0 and 2.0 to the transition of the 2D to 3D experience. Web 1.0 may be compared to the 2D experience in which you simply look and enjoy. On the other hand, Web 2.0 is more like a 3D visual experience in which you not only look however you experience things happening around you and you are a part of it.

I often wonder what the future of the web is and if  generations to come, will look back on web 2.0 and analyse the advancements that have since taken place... (Watch this space!)

 References
 http://msjosay.hubpages.com/hub/The-Difference-between-Web-20-and-Web-10

Wills' ACS President Campaign (Vote Wills!)

As part of my campaign, I worked alongside Damilola, Jocelyn, William and Joel. The campaign was based on William who was running to be the next ACS President therefore it made sense to record this as our campaign as it was both convenient for ourselves and also William. Looking back on the campaign, I feel that it could have been better in terms of its visual and sound elements. I feel this is because we edited using finalcut pro and I am used to using Premier to edit. Nevertheless, it is a campaign and it does what it says on the tin. It sells an idea or a topic. Take a look at the campaign below:

The Media is here, there...oh and there! (Jenkins Eight Traits)

Cinema, radio, television, magazines are a school of inattention: people look without seeing, listen in without hearing. -Robert Bresson.

                                             

After reading Jenkins article on 'The Eight traits of the New Media landscape', it was clear to me that each aspect he focused on were intertwined or relative to one another, working hand in hand to further explain Jenkins ideology. When I first began reading the article, it did not make the best sense to me however the penny dropped somewhere between the beginning and end of the article. (And after Mel had broken it down for me).

Prior to reading the article, I felt that new media was indeed the greatest thing which had ever been invented which benefited everyone in society. One of the traits which interested me deeply was the trait of 'Everyday' and the concept of the media being around us daily. Media has become a part of everyday life rather than just a technology. With an immense amount of media constantly around us it is becoming difficult for me to distinguish a distinct medium between when I am consuming or using new media and when I'm not. This led me to question whether we, as a society are becoming too familiar with new media.

Jenkins introduces the concept of 'technolisation of the home' to describe the way in which our very own homes are now bombarded with products of new media. In my living room alone I have a Sky+ HD box, a DVD player, a widescreen TV, a computer, a sound system and also a games console which my whole family uses (draws for breath). However this is only a sector of new media products consisted in my home, my bedroom also includes a tv, games console, laptop, and sound system not to mention my much-loved gadgets such as my iphone 4 and my PSP. Funny enough, in light of Jenkins ideas, my kitchen also contains a small tv which is constantly on throughout the day regardless of the fact that the living room and bedroom tv's are also on with nobody really watching them. Not only is this a waste of electricity (hangs head in shame) but it also suggests that the media has now become so so embedded in our current lifestyles that we are now dependent on it as a source of normality in our daily lives. (How many times have you had your tv on whilst on your laptop with regular texting intervals on your phone?)

I totally agree with Jenkins ideology in relation to the bombardment and our consumption and interaction with new media everyday. However, after reflecting on the article I found myself critising elemnts of the 'Everyday' trait. Jenkins claims that due to the technolisation of the home and the media's integration into our lives, it may bring about negative effects such as creaing a wedge between family members. Personally, I disagree and feel this is simply a generalisation which should not be applied to society. Last year, as a Christmas gift from my 'gadget-mad' brother, my little sister and I recieved a nintendo wii. Ironically, it is not just played with by meself and my sister, but my whole family! The console allows us to create a 'Mii character', an avatar which you can create and adapt to match your own appearance; and take part in individual or team games involving every 'Mii'. All 5 people in my family have a 'Mii' character and we usually enjoy Saturday evenings trying to beat our previous high scores as a family. This contradicts Jenkins argument as it is an example of new medias ability to bring together familys and friends rather than create a wedge between them. Another example of how new media may be beneficial in terms of bringing people together may be the fact that the same types of media being available on diferent platforms. I have Skype on my iphone and also on my laptop, allowing me to connect with family and friends abroad whether I am in my home or out and about, thus agreeing with Jenkins to a certain degree in terms of our ability to take the media with us wherever we go. Finally, I feel it is important to acknowledge the indivduals whom new media is not as avaialble to them as it is to myself. People living deprived countries for example may not be able to grasp the advantages of new media at all due to their position in society. If this approach is considered, then Jenkins ideology is fundementally flawed as it is a generalisation and does not consider all individuals.

References
Jenkins, H. (2006) Eight Traits of The New Media Landscape[WWW] Avaliable from: http://henryjenkins.org/2006/11/eight_traits_of_the_new_media.html

Pecha Kucha Cloud Computing (Software as a Service SaaS)

In the pecha kucha presentation we are asked to conduct in our workshop, my group consisted of four people other than myself. When I first heard of 'Pecha Kucha' I was quite confused as it wasnt like any other presentation I had done before. It was waaaaaaaaaaaay longer, and included a lot more verbal talking and detailed explanations.

The topic which my group cvered was Cloud Computing and I specifically focused on Software and Infrastructure as a service. A few points I raised were:

Infrastructre as a service (IaaS)

• Cloud Computing has 3 layers, Infrastructure as a service platform as a service and software as a service
• Infrastructure as a service- A.K.A IaaS
• Also referred to as Hardware as a Service
• The hardware or software used to produce a service
• Example= Amazon web services.  Launched in 2006
• Offers IaaS to businesses in form of web services and allows you to access resources and amazon expertise.

Software as a service (SaaS)

• Software as a service is also known as SaaS
• Distribution model where apps are hosted by  a vendor or service provider
• It’s made available to customers via networks  such as the internet
• Becoming an increasing model that supports web services and also SOA which is service orientated architecture
• Broadband service for example is becoming increasingly available in terms of people gaining access from all over the world.
• Benefits of Software as a Service include- easy to administrate
• Automatic updates
• Compatibility (everyone having the same version of the software)
• Globally accessible

I have included the pecha kucha slide below which we made using Prezi:

Copy of Cloud Computing on Prezi

As far as the law is concerned, I should've done several prison sentences. (The Copyright Debate)

"Earlier generations of technology have presented challenges to existing copyright law, but none have posed the same threat as the digital age." -John V. Pavlik, New Media Technology, 1996

In a recent debate led by Bill Rosenblatt, president of GiantSteps Media Technology and consisting of Dean Marks, Joe Kraus and Tim O'reilly, Kraus stated "Sixty million users have downloaded music P2P-downloading software. We've created a virtual Library of Alexandria with music. More people have downloaded music than voted for the president." Although this may seem comical, the copyright debate is an issue which has consistently affected the media industry especially since the development of new media. The copyright debate emphasises both the importance of piracy and protection over property verses creativity and freedom of the Web.

I feel the copyright debate is like questioning whether the USA and its allies should have invaded Afghanistan? It is an ongoing argument in which there will always be two parties who feel strongly about the views. Although the general consensus about copyright seems to be that it is a negative thing, I sometimes wonder whether it can be turned on it's head. Could copyright be a thing of the future enhancing new media as a platform?

Before I go any further, Yes I do download illegally, (holds hands up in guilt) however as far as the copyright law is concerned, the majority of you reading have also broke the law and should be punished! I regularly download music off P2P websites and torrents. However as a avid consumer of music it would simply be too expensive for me to pay for every single song my ipod consists of. This is one of the major arguments in which consumers often use. Money in our current economy is probably the most valued it has ever been and unfortunately for artists and media conglomerates, I like many others was born into a generation which lives for the benefits of new media and money saving resulting in the flourishment of illegal downloading and copyright laws being ignored.

Prior to the debate we had in our class, my argument was, why should I pay for something that is available online for free? You wouldn't throw a wad of money at a rich person would you? The world wide web and its services cannot be controlled and therefore there will always be people who feel they can exploit it for the benefit of themselves. However in my opinion copyright may also be a good thing. For example independent artists may use YouTube as a way of self-advertisement by singing covers of artists who are already famous. I feel it is more likely for an individual to listen to a youtube cover of a Beyonce or Rihanna song rather than an artist they have never heard of. If this was not possible, artists such as Justin Beiber and Jasmine Sullivan who were discovered through their Youtube videos of themselves would not exist. From singing in his bathroom, to selling out stadiums, Justin Beiber has become a phenomenon, and he owes it all to YouTube. Below I have included a video of Justin Beiber singing a song by the well known artist Brian McKnight named 'Back at one'. This further develops my argument that using songs that other artists have created may benefit the independent artist. The video has been viewd by over 12 million people!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFF2VrHOa8&feature=plcp&context=C4d82f99VDvjVQa1PpcFOAKrjXCvPIPbUp4liCVb9f7cY_qPmf3_U%3D

Indeed in aiming to advertise themselves, the original artists of the music also reap from this. The independent artists are not getting paid for doing free covers on the Internet however for every one person who hears the cover and decides to legally download the original artists track, the artist is benefitting from it due to the consumer or independent artist using digital content to create new forms of media, from multiple content resources. Therefore the misuse of the Internet may lead to beneficial outcomes for both parties.

After the debate in class, I began to consider the opposing side of this argument which suggests that the breech of copyright laws is only beneficial for consumers and in fact may damage business models. I started to think about how I would feel if later on in my media career, I began producing content which members of the public freely used and re-created without any acknowledgement of myself the original creator. Although during the debate in class I was arguing in favour of the consumers who freely use and download content on the Internet, I must admit I couldn't help but agree with some of the opposing sides arguments. People like me do present quite a loss of money for artists and conglomerates which may not have had an immense impact on the current media industry, but leads me to question the long-term effect. What if everyone decides to freely download illegally? This may present a serious threat to the future of traditional forms of media consumption.

Many may argue that illegally downloading music onto your ipod or phone is just not the same quality as owning the original product. For example, some feel having a CD, Vinyl or DVD will be of better quality than illegal copies. (I've never had a problem with this though I must say) Illegal downloading and consumption of products on the world wide web however may not be as bad as it seems. Infact its influence may not be as significant as we think. DVD sales with copyright protection has skyrocketed, meaning society may not be filled with illegal-downloading fiends such as myself.

Prior to the debate in class, I would have never considered downloading anything for a price and if I am being totally honest with you I still don't think I will pay for downloading and the use of content. In my opinion, it is simply too hard to make the transition from the consumer world of "I want" to a new consumer world of "I want it and will pay for it." However, the debate we participated in during the workshop has allowed me to consider the effects of illegal downloading on producers. I feel with the emergence of new technologies and business models does not mean laws should be thrown out of the window. Although I take advantage of its current benefits, I do not feel illegal content downloading and usage should be left to flourish but should instead be altered to satisfy both parties. This could be done by possibly finding the right price point for the right content.

KenRG demonstrates a good online version raising key points on the copyright debate. Take a look below!



References http://www.infotoday.com/it/oct03/dykstra.shtml
www.youtube.com