|
|
 |
|
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Since blogging seems to be my cup o' tea, I made a blog all about me! Joy! This new blog will not be concerned with the course, so see it NOW: http://flog.blogdrive.com
Posted at 06:50 pm by Cline
I have to say...I read the assigned articles, but my head hurts really really baaaad. So, first of all, I really can't think of questions, since the articles are more explanatory than critical theory. Second my head can't do anything more than listen to eighties music...the worst kind (think Jimmy Sommerville, Depeche Mode and Soft Cell).
So, I'll fill in the gaps later.
Tybout, A. and Carpenter G. “Creating and Managing Brands” in Iacobucci, D. (ed.) Kellogg on Marketing New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2001.
Q.
This extensive piece on brands is very informative and well documented with loads of examples. Tybout and Carpenter make a distinction between functional brands, image brands and experiential brands. While Coca Cola is clearly an image brand, how can we integrate the cokemusic site as an experiential brand?
A.
The cokemusic site is mostly concerned with branding the company’s name. Next to that it is an excellent way to monitor target groups. But this we already know.
Tybout and Carpenter state that that experiential brands “products, environments, and services are combined to create temporary multisensory encounters with the brand” (90). In my opinion, by creating an environment that is aimed to put people together and talk about interests such as music and dating, Coke has turned itself into a digitalized experiential brand.
Dafermos, G. “Blogging the Market: How Weblogs are Turning Corporate Machines into Conversations”(2003). http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/dafermos3.pdf
Q.
I for one, do not know anything about company related weblogs maintained by company’s associates. But when one employee states that “the blogs are the human face of macromedia – managing to be both part of the corporation and separate from it” (48), one can only agree. Still, I wonder how much freedom these employee bloggers have.
A. Tom Hale, Macromedia’s Vice President states that “They’re free to disuss any aspect of the software”. But I’m sure that the bloggers can’t say that their new software is crappy, and you’d be better off using something else. This way, it seems that the Macromedia blogs are an online helpdesk since you can read their personal remarks, but also can ask questions about the software. Looks like a really good way to interact with your customers, though. Possibly a good idea for large corporations that want to add a ‘human face’ and social interaction to their PR.
Posted at 04:36 pm by Cline
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Today I have done some of my left-over reading for this course, and tonight I will work on the Q&A's I haven't done yet. I don't know if I will make it tonight. Luckily I have all day tomorrow. So bear with me, Shenja. And William and David...I will make a better paper proposal tomorrow as well, hoping I have a better idea about what I want to do.
For now, this is my post on last weeks H2O-assignment. I thought it was a really hard assignment that would have needed a paper to make an attempt to answer the question correctly. Also, I think us students do not have enough technical knowledge to really grasp the idea of P2P and the future it has in store. Nevertheless, it took me quite some hours to finish the answer, and I wanted it to be shared with the world.
Where is P2P heading?
The last few years there is some concern noticeable on the internet on the use of peer-to-peer sharing. This concern was fuelled by the increasing popularity of software like Kazaa and Napster, that made sharing of music possible. The music industry saw this as illegal, since it invaded copyrights of the industry. Court cases couldn’t stop the use of these programs, and P2P seems to be getting stronger.
----Technicalities----
Technically speaking, by connecting to the net through ip instead of domain names, increases possibilities: the accessibility of the internet would grow enormously. This is because not every computer is reachable through a domain name, but every computer is reachable through an ip. This is not a strict technical problem; just not a lot of computers have domain names.
The use of P2P would implicate the expansion of the net: there is a total avoidance of DNS by using a ip-based system. The unstable connectivity that exists due to changing ip-adresses that are not always fixed, make the possibilities only bigger.
----User Participation----
P2P makes internet users more active: the user is not only a client or user of internet facilities, but also is a server in its own right. This opens up a whole new field of participatory culture. It also pulls into question if the use of DNS and central servers is old-fashioned and maybe even bureaucratic. Is the system that makes it easy for internet users to find sites actually another way to limit access?
----Companies----
With the use of central servers control is exercised over userdata. Next to that, the client/server system limits users in their possibilities. P2P is decentralized in nature which means companies can’t have control over it in the way that it exists now.
The most likely perspective is that if companies get their hands on P2P-software, they would exercise control over it by constantly renewing that software. If you would be a user of that software, you’d be dependent on the software the company provides (just like Kazaa renews its software, called ‘versions’).
----Future Assessments----
To imagine where a protocol that has no singular definition is going, is looking into the fortune-tellers crystal ball. The future for P2P is uncertain. In my opinion, P2P only works in terms of ‘shared interests’: a connection that is established between an array of users that have similar interests in a specific field is best used by P2P since a central server couldn’t handle the demand. The best example is that of music-download software like Kazaa: the users are clients and servers and interchange audio, video and software files.
P2P isn’t useful enough to take over each and every central server and website.
Imagine companies that switch to P2P: to update people on the company’s latest products or services would be very difficult at best if computers rely on neighbouring computers to download the latest updates. Though perhaps initially more costly, providing a centralized service that all users can access (such as a website) is easier, faster, more reliable and easier to maintain.
This doesn't render P2P useless though. We have already seen several P2P programs get immensely popular among the internet public. With the advent of wideband internet connections P2P usage has exploded.
To sketch an internet environment for coming years, one can think of a combination of central servers and P2P. This because P2P will increase in popularity as more people have access to the internet and wideband internet connections will become the standard. To encompass this demand, P2P protocols will develop to enhance its user capacities. Next to this, though, central server services will not totally disappear because of reasons mentioned earlier. Above all, a large part of the users that download information and software make use of central news servers and ftp servers.
Free software is also increasing in popularity as more people get to know the possibilities of the net. (see for instance sourceforge). The net has sprouted and will sprout an array of users that make their own sites, adept software and games and will try to gain control over their internet usage in general.
----Research----
How are you going to back up arguments like this? It seems that research in this field is either a simplistic explanation, or made public on the net itself with an utopian cry for change. Looking for future assessments on P2P on the net is difficult since most writers focus on the difficulty of defining P2P. It seems that making a schematic plan for the development of P2P is not even possible until a definition is found.
The legal battles that have been fought over P2P and copyright will only become more frequent as P2P is expanding its capabilities and user network. Yet, when a correct definition will rise up, legal issues can probably be avoided and P2P will become less of an alternative and more of a standard way to use certain features on the net.
Posted at 08:16 pm by Cline
Friday, May 28, 2004
Paper Proposal - The Sequal
Subject
For my paper I want to discuss the website and game Nationstates and the way writer Max Barry has tried to advertise his book Jennifer Government by making this game.
Phenomenon
First of all, I want to discuss the book and the way Barry has tried to promote his book along casual ways: book signings and tours and how the book is advertised in shops and magazines. This way, I will try to lay out the conventional means of book promotion and advertising. After these conventional means I will look at the different ways to promote a book via the internet.
In a next chapter I will discuss the game Nationstates and how the users participate. Since a player in the game is essentially not very interactive with other gamers, I will try to explain which possibilities there are to interact (e.g. forum).
My main goal is to understand the way Barry has used his site to promote his book. But of crucial importance is the way games like this can make extended use of their possibilities to promote other media (like books), because Barry has not been very successful in his attempt. In my opinion, there are some other ways Barry could have assessed his book to bring it under the attention of the gamers. The larger part of the paper will be about this.
By analyzing the participatory possibilities of the game I want to explain that Barry could have made extensive use of, for instance, the forum to integrate his book (and the main ideas laid out in his book) into the game.
Theory and Literature
I haven’t really looked into literature yet. The first thing I’m going to do is contact Max Barry through mail. I will of course make extensive use of the sites he created and sites about the book. To understand better how book promotions work, I will try to contact some publishers. Also, I want to look into some literature about books and advertising and books and internet. I will probably find more on the internet about these subjects than in the library.
For the larger part this paper will contain my own research into the game and the way the book is integrated into the game. I hope this will not lead to any angry UU scholars, since they’re very keen on notes and literature.
Motivation and relevance For now, it seems to me that Barry could have used his site more effectively to promote his book, just like he could have integrated the book better into his game. Nevertheless, the promotion of a book through the internet is a relatively new phenomenon, and I think it is interesting to look into some of the possibilities in order to understand how this could be better put into use in the future, especially since it is increasing in popularity. See for instance: Da Vinci Code Posted at 12:39 am by Cline
Monday, May 24, 2004
Session 6 - 5/24/2004 - Q&A
Shirky, C. "What is P2P...and what isn't?" (2001) See: http://www.openp2p.com/lpt/a/472
Q.
It took me some time to figure out this article, since Shirky is writing for an audience that is into internet sharing on a wholly different level than me. Thank god for my boyfriend who could explain it all to me (visit his sites NOW, see sidebar: tekst en uitleg and explainer). To make it very basic: Domain Name Servers have been enabled so that you wouldn't have to fill in the ip address every time you wanted to visit a site. A site's domain name is really just an easy way to remember a web site's location for human beings. Computers on the internet don't talk that way, they use ip addresses. On the internet each computer (or computer network) is identified by a unique ip. When you type your favorite sites' URL in the adres bar and hit enter, your request will be sent to a DNS server. The DNS server will retrieve the corresponding IP of the webserver where the web page is served. Big companies use DNS because otherwise no one would visit their site. This is ofcourse a very basic explanation…but nothing’s wrong with non-geekiness.
To make an exact definition of P2P is quite hard, since in Shirky's opinion it should not be taken literally, that is "servers talking to one another." He tries to define it by stating that:
"P2P is a class of applications that takes advantage of resources -- storage, cycles, content, human presence -- available at the edges of the Internet. Because accessing these decentralized resources means operating in an environment of unstable connectivity and unpredictable ip addresses, P2P nodes must operate outside the DNS system and have significant or total autonomy from central servers."
Shirky makes P2P sound like something really radical and alternative. Like servers are bad and all good will come from users that take control of the internet by using P2P. I was wondering where this attitude comes from. Can P2P be seen as an alternative way of using internet?
A.
Technically speaking, by connecting to the internet through ip instead of using domain names, the possibilities are a lot bigger. This is because not every computer is reachable through a domain name, but every computer is reachable through an ip. This is not a strict technical problem; just not a lot of computers have domain names.
A P2P program connects directly to the nearest node and from there to an ip. There is no use for domain names. This is what Shirky means with “P2P nodes must operate outside the DNS system and have significant or total autonomy from central servers.” Thus P2P works in a broader field first of all because there is a total avoidance of DNS by directly making use of a ip-based system and secondly because, in Shirly’s opinion, it functions in “an environment of unstable connectivity and unpredictable ip addresses.”
More importantly, and in respect to this course, P2P makes internet users not only ‘viewsing surfers’ but also makes them servers in their own right. For instance: when you’re a user of Kazaa and you enable people to tap into your files and download them, you do not only search for your favorite songs, you also are a server to people that are searching for that exact same song.
This opens up a whole new participatory field of course, but also pulls into question if the use of DNS is old-fashioned or bureaucratic. Is the system that makes it easy for internet users to find sites actually another way to limit access?
Seems a bit far-fetched, but I wonder how P2P-fanatics like Shirky approach this.
Rutherford, E. “The P2P report.” (2000) See: http://www.cio.com/research/knowledge/edit/p2p_content.html
Q.
Rutherford’s most interesting remark is that next to the fact that “computers that act as terminals are cheaper than those with their own memory, processing power and applications”, CIO’s can exercise control of networks through the client/server system that the internet has.
P2P is decentralized in nature and that means companies can’t have control over it in the way that it exists now. Therefore I ask, what could be the implications of companies taking over P2P?
A.
The most likely perspective is that if companies get their hands on P2P-software, they would exercise control over it by constantly renewing that software. If you would be a user of that software, you’d be dependent on the software the company provides (just like Kazaa renews its software, called ‘versions’). If this would be so, Shirky’s ideological standpoint of an enhanced participatory internet-use would be lost.
Wellman, B. and Boase, J. “A Plague of Viruses: Biological, Computer and Marketing.” (2001)
Q.
In this article, Wellman and Boase compare biological, computer and marketing viruses. The comparisons are really not that hard to find and it surprises me that someone would write an article on it annum 2001. Seems more in place in the early nineties when large groups of people were introduced to the internet and computer viruses were a new phenomena.
Nevertheless (a term I use often, I know), he concludes: “Thus the structure of contact allows a commonality in the life and death of viruses that must be taken into account in understanding how they – and all sorts of networks – operate”.
To eradicate viruses then, it is crucial to eradicate social contact. But since social contact is important and almost unavoidable in real life and via the internet, is there actually a way to eradicate viruses?
A.
It seems that the only way to eradicate a virus then, is to get to the root of the problem: the maker. But how can you prevent the search for virus-makers to become a haunting of hackers? Quite impossible, one might think. You can’t prosecute someone purely on the basis of having a computer and superb technological knowledge.
For now, the only way of eradicating viruses is locating them very quickly and making sure it doesn’t spread.
Posted at 11:44 pm by Cline
Sunday, May 23, 2004
So, today I made some G&A's that were missing (still working on some though) and edited them in older entries. Also posted a response on h2o. All in all a productive afternoon.
So, around five-ish I decided to kick back and watch a movie that I rented last week and really had to go back to the video rental store. Okay, I only rented it because I was sick and really needed some numbing entertainment, so I watched...'Chigago'. Man, that was a waste of precious time.
Let's start with the actors. Who is Renee Zellweger kidding with her big ol' head and skinny legs? She's as sexy as a peanut (without the salt). I must confess I liked her in 'Bridget Jones' because she did the innocent girl-look good (because of her big ol' head) and she had a real body instead of bones with white skin wrapped around it. Catherina Zeta-Jones was okay, but oh god, don't get me started on Richard Gere. I don't really believe that he actually sang in this movie, his dancing is crap (especially the fake tapdancing scene) and in his over-acting in the musical numbers made me shake my head in disgust. The only people that could actually act and sing were Queen Latifah (gotta love her) and John C. Reilly (always playing the not-so desirable hubby).
Next to that the camerawork was hectic and awful. Just too much. It was like they wanted to make sort of a 'Moulin Rouge' and even that movie made me nauseous sometimes, but I guess Baz Luhrmann can get away with it.
Above all, I don't like stage musicals. I like old Hollywood musicals starring Gene Kelly or Fred Astaire; I like campy musicals like 'Rocky Horror Picture Show' and 'Hedwig and the Angry Inch' but I don't like big production numbers with 'jazz hands' or cats that sing.
It is really a shame that Danny Elfman contributed to the soundtrack, beacuse I love his work with Tim Burton. In this movie I can't even hear his trademark fairytale-style piano because those awful Fosse-songs are blurting into my ears. The only song that I liked was in the deleted scene. Figures...
The whole problem with this movie is that now all night that terrible, terrible song is repeating in my head over and over again: And all that jaaaaazz!
Fosse wouldn't know jazz if it did 'jazz hands' up his ass.
Posted at 08:42 pm by Cline
Though I am not a frequent player of multiplayerfirstpersonshootersthingies, it seemed to me all the games were still kinda...squarish. While in the movie business they have evaluated form cubic forms and walls that are thin as a piece of paper into animation that is integrated into the real-life action, computer games tend to focus more on action than on aeshetics. And ofcourse, who really gives a flying monkey's ass? When you're a "novice" the only thing you focus on is not getting killed and screaming your head off when they come after you with their 6 feet rocket launchers. You do not have time to stop and ponder on the beautiful anisotrophic bump mapping or the newest vertex pixel shader.
But hooray for the Unreal developers!!! They have managed to make 3d engine that is...stunning to say the least.
Check this link out. http://red2.axg.net/downloads/movies/unreal3_0002.wmv
I like the crreepy crawly things :)
Thanks to Ruben, the most geeky (and cheeky) boyfriend in the world.
Posted at 01:35 am by Cline
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Posted at 08:29 pm by Cline
Summertime, and the living is easy
I'm really really sorry...I had to post a paper proposal today, but darn it...the weather was just too good. I spent the day rowing with two friends through Leiden, occassionally stopping to have a drink. After getting a great tan, I sat down, stared at the screen and thought: "Who am I kidding?"
I did post my H2O assignment already, and in my opinion that's really important not to miss (with the whole rotisserie-thingie). I have given my proposal a lot of thought anyway, and I'm actually looking forward to write about the site (see a previous posting).
Anywho...tomorrow I'll be away, and Saturday I have to work, so Sunday will be spent in front of the computer!!!
Posted at 08:03 pm by Cline
Monday, May 17, 2004
Session 5 - 5/18/2004 - Q&A
Benkler, Yochai. “From Consumers to Users: Shifting the Deeper Structures of Regulation Toward Sustainable Commons and User Access”. (2000)
Benkler’s main point is that the internet is not as decentralized and democratized as a lot of theorists have claimed in the last few years. Copyright laws and media conglomerates like AOL-Time-Warner restrain this so-called media-freedom. One can therefore question: How democratized is the internet?
A.
This is of course a very extensive question, which can not easily be answered, either in a Q&A section or a larger research. The internet has been seen as a new, more democratized medium by many media-researchers and by the users themselves. There is a certain freedom in surfing the sites and being able to make your own site and join a large community of active users. Nevertheless, the fact that you online actions are being monitored and not all sites are freely and non-obligatory accessible, limits the possibilities of the user. The question how democratized the internet actually is, thus results in an endless pro’s and con’s list. One could wonder if the term 'democratic' actually applies at all to the internet. Who makes decisions on the internet and what are they about? Since the internet is not a governing institute we will first have to dig into the semantics of the word democratic in relation to the internet. Actually, to answer this, one should look at the nations that the net is used in: how is the term ‘democratic’ applied in that particular nation, and how does it apply to the media available in that nation? Isn’t it so that one’s nation is defined by its media?
(My questions on the articles only seem to result in even more questions…)
In the strict sense of democracy, this site comes close…
Lessig, L. “Innovation from the Internet.” In The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World New York: Random House, 2001.
Q.
In this article, Lessig makes an overview of technologies that would not have been possible without the internet, like HTML books, MP3, lyric servers and p2p. Most of all, Lessig makes clear that these innovations mainly make things easier, more usable and more fun. This is the case with all innovations. An invention makes older inventions close to obsolete. The internet has integrated in Western society, but has it already made older media obsolete?
A.
First of all, ‘obsolete’ is not quite the right term, but what I’m trying to point out is the diminishing use of older media and the increasing popularity of the internet. Telephones for instance are still the main way to get into touch with people, whether via mobile phone or a phone that you have at home. The telephone has speeded up the way people get in touch with each other and therefore it has replaced letters as the main medium for contact. Letters and postcards are still written, but do not fulfil the role they had anymore (instead of people that don’t have phones, but I will not take these ‘weirdos’ in account right now J ). The internet is increasingly taking over the role of the (mobile) phone through messenger services like MSN Messenger by Microsoft. A lot of young people make appointments through messenger, or have discussions they normally would have had on the phone. In my case, for instance, if I have something sensitive to discuss, I’d rather do it via messenger than via phone (if actual real-live contact is not possible). My boyfriend and I even have better conversations via messenger than via phone. IRL even better of course, but when we talk via phone we seem to loose track of our topics quite quickly.
The transformation of contact via phone towards messenger is a relatively new phenomenon, but is very interesting to research. The question if internet makes other, older media obsolete can also be attributed to streaming audio and video, digital books instead of books of paper and for instance music books. Right now, it seems to answer this question would make up an entire paper (at least), so I’ll leave it at this.
Harries, D. “Watching the Internet.” In The New Media Book London: BFI, 2002.
Q.
Theories on the internet are mostly concerned with the interactivity of the people that have access to the net and how to place this interactivity. The transformation of a passive audience to an active user has been the focus of critique. Harries suggests a new term in this field. Not the viewing or using of internet, but viewsing: “spectators can learn more about film and television shows, ‘view’ narratives over the internet, ‘use’ interactive games and eventually take part in integrated media experiences as ‘viewsers’. By integrating the illusory ‘realness’ of cinema, the ‘liveness’ of television and the ‘connectedness’ of the internet, true viewsing experiences can now be created and accessed by a global audience” (181).
Although I agree with Harries for the larger part, I can’t wonder why there is a need for a new definition.
A.
In my opinion, the internet is a combination of media and is therefore in that sense not entirely unique. The technologies that are created solely through the possibilities of the net, as Lessig has described in his article, are not fundamentally different, but combine aspects of media in terms of text and image, but also in spectatorship. I don’t really see the use of a new definition for the ‘spectatorship’ of the internet, since it is clear to all that it relies on this ‘interdisciplinariness’. Nevertheless, the combination of the terms ‘viewing’ and ‘using’ into ‘viewsing’ plays into this very basic assumption of media combination. Albeit in a very simple and non-scientific way…
Negus, Keith. “Identities and Industries: the Cultural Formation of Aesthetic Economies.” In In Gay, Paul du, and Michael Pryke Cultural Economy London: Sage Publications, 2003. 115 – 131.
Q.
In this very interesting article, Negus talks about the music industry and the way cultural economy is implemented in this field. One of his focus points is the attraction of new bands and singers. Since the music industry is not doing that well, it is remarkable that there still is a place for yet another rapper, another big-bootied R&B star, another gothic band. It all just depends on a lot of luck, or so it seems (or is it still the case that it’s not who you know, but…). This made me think about the role the internet could play in the attraction of new bands/singers. In the future, will singers no longer be discovered waiting tables in a sleazy highway diner, but by setting up their own website?
A.
A lot of people have an utopian idea when it comes to new bands and P2P: “Kazaa enables new bands to distribute their songs”. That really looks promising, but personally, I’m not interested in listening to lofi demo’s made in a garage. In my opinion, Kazaa is used to find songs that you already know. Setting up your own band-website though, is much more interesting. When you first set up the site, it will only be known by a few people that are either you’re parents or internet-fanatics. In my opinion, word-of-mouth then counts: people pass it on, and before you know it, it’s not who you know, but…who you send your links to.
Then there are the bands that do have some albums already (and a contract) but are not all that popular yet. Having a website makes information about themselves and their music more accessible and therefore is an excellent (and cheap) way of promotion. See for instance:
- Danko Jones – already popular on festivals, but still playing in small clubs
- Ivar – recently fired by Universal, because they thought a new cd couldn’t be profitable in the deplorable state of the music industry
Established bands know this already and sometimes make extensive websites with discographies, lyrics, biographies, merchandise and tour dates. See for instance, George Michael and David Bowie.
In my opinion, making a website for your beginning band is an excellent way to put yourself out there. It is of course not the only way to gain popularity and a contract. Interestingly enough, there are also a lot of sites concerned with these beginning bands, making a database with little information about the band and a link to their site.
I do not think highway diners will not sprout any more artists, but the increasing popularity of the net for music lovers is making namedropping a lot easier.
Posted at 11:37 pm by Cline
|
|
|
