Bonus Mission #2: Second Life? Real Life.

'Second Life' is "a 3-D virtual world entirely built and owned by its residents." (Long, 2006) Hardly anyone would hesitate to call a virtual world where avatars, or "onscreen graphic characters" (Business Week, 2006), can fly without wings a computer game. But Linden Lab, the creating company of 'Second Life', asserts that 'Second Life' is not a game. (Terdiman, 2005) “There is no manufactured conflict, no set objective,” said Linden Lab's spokesperson, Catherine Smith. “It’s an entirely open-ended experience.” (Kalning, 2007) Many users, who call themselves the residents, of 'Second Life' supports this view that 'Second Life' is not merely a game. Being one of them compels me to agree. Aside from the fact that 'Second Life' is a virtual world where teleporting is possible and magic wands are sold, it stands closer to reality than to a realm of imagination and fantasy. While games serve the sole purpose of entertaining, 'Second Life' do a lot more for its residents than games do for players. It involves real relationships and real business opportunities.

'Second Life' involves real relationships; it provides many opportunities and a comfortable environment for residents to befriend one another and widen our social circle in real life. Spending less than a week on 'Second Life' was enough for me to see how easy it is to talk to and bond with strangers, whom I will probably never initiate a talk with in my "first" life, in 'Second Life'. In a place called Orientation Island on 'Second Life', where new residents gather to learn the rules of living in this virtual world, I engaged in a lively conversation with a humourous female French, who kept me laughing in front of my screen throughout the converation. Another time, when I had no idea where to go next on 'Second Life', an American guy very kindly brought me along on a teleporting trip and showed me around, which I was very thankful for. Our avatars are unreal, the setting is unreal, but the bonds created among us residents through this fantasy world is real; 'Second Life' "enables real intimacy." (Hernandez, 2006)

'Second Life' is not a game, also because it provides real business opportunities. Anshe Chung, the avatar created by a Chinese-born language teacher living near Frankfurt, Germany, was the first resident of 'Second Life' to grace the cover of Business Week as she earned her creator big bucks (in real life, mind you) by investing on virtual land in 'Second Life'. In this virtual world, residents are allowed to create and sell their creations to other residents for real money. Mead, the creator of many different animations for couples in 'Second Life', is earning $1,900 every month just by selling these animations to residents to embed into their virtual lands (Business Week, 2006). As Business Week puts it, "participants launch Second Life's software on their personal computers, log in, and then use their mice and keyboards to roam endless landscapes and cityscapes, chat with friends, create virtual homes on plots of imaginary land, and conduct real business." (Business Week, 2006) Making available such lucrative busines opportunities, which provides residents the opportunities to have a good (real) life, it barely justifies to casually lump 'Second Life' in the same category as Tetris and Solitaire.

With real emotions, real currency and the strong human connectedness involve, 'Second Life' is anything but a trivial game. Those who insist on seeing it as one are only foolishly turning away from the abundant opportunities that 'Second Life' can offer them.

References:

Business Week Online. (2006). My Virtual Life. Retrieved 07 April, 2007, from BusinessWeek.com: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_18/b3982001.htm

Hernandez, M. (2006). Virtual Relationships in 'Second Life'. Retrieved 07 April, 2007, from abc7.com: http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=seenon&id=4748360

Kalning, K. (2007). If Second Life isn't a game, what is it? Retrieved 07 April, 2007, from MSNBC.com: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538999/

Levy (2006). "World of Warcraft: Is It a Game?" Retrieved April 3rd 2007 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14757769/site/newsweek/page/3/print/1/displaymode/1098/

Long, K. (2006). Second Life: Not a Game, but a Co-Creative Business. Retrieved 07 April, 2007, from http://www.mpdailyfix.com/2006/06/its_not_a_game_secondlife_the.html

Terdiman, D. (2005). Wells Fargo lauches game inside 'Second Life'. Retrieved 07 April, 2007, from CNET news. com: http://news.com.com/Wells+Fargo+launches+game+inside+Second+Life/2100-1043_3-5868030.html

QotW10: Me, Myself, and Sydnee =P

Meet Sydnee Sands, my virtual double :)

Sydnee Sands, in Orientation Island.

I call her my double, because i created her to be like me.
She has long black hair,
side-parted bangs,
fair skin,
brown eyes,
wears minimal make-up,
and a casual outfit,
just like me.
So let's just take it as she is me.
Well, since I have the power to decide every aspect of how I look online,
i gave myself a smaller nose,
longer lashes,
bigger eyes,
long, slender arms,
a slightly smaller waistline,
and
a boost in height.
Sydnee measures 1.8 meters tall!
So, she is sort of like a combination of me, and who I want to be =)

I named my avatar Sydnee Sands - Sydnee because Sydney is the only name I can think of which begins with my initials (Sy), and Sydney Sands is a name already taken by another user in Second Life =S Thus, i have to be contented with Sydnee ending with a double E. I chose the last name Sands because it is easy to remember; i forget half the usernames that i choose for online games. So there you go, that's me on Second Life. =)

---

My most favourite place (so far) in Second Life is this:

Sydnee in the Tranquility Garden, from dawn to daybreak.

Tranquility Garden.
The name itself is enchanting enough, isn't it?
The place lived up to its beautiful name. =)
In real life, i seek quiet, scenic places to just sit and let time pass.
There is no reason why i should be any diffent in Second Life.
I watched sunrise in Tranquility Garden,

Sydnee, watching the sun rise in Tranquility Garden.

where flowers bloom and butterflies flutter,
listening to the birds chirp and the streams flow.
There are little visitors there;
there was only one other person whom I saw there,
so that adds to the peace you can experience in this virtual garden.
Yes, peace in a virtual garden!
Amazing, isnt it.

So, that's my second life =)

QotW9: STOMP the Big Media!

In the 20th century, publishing and broadcasting were territories of the Big Media - "large, arrogant instituitions" made up of journalists, public relations and marketing people. (Gillmor, 2004) These were the people who decided what was the news, and what was not. They spoke, and others listen. Now, however, with their audience getting techno-savvy, they can no longer claim to be The Newsmakers. Armed with camera phones and blog accounts, we have invaded the province of news making. Now is no longer a time where some speak and others listen. Now, we all speak, and we all listen. We converse. (Gillmor, 2004)

This conversationalistic way of news reporting and production is done through citizen journalism (Gillmor, 2004), which Shayne Bowman and Chris Willis described as the act of citizens "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information." (Citizen Journalism, 2007) The emergence of the Internet has enabled people with no professional training to "create, augment or fact-check media on their own or in collaboration with others." (Citizen Journalism, 2007) Through weblogs, online forums, photo and video hosting websites, anyone can be empowered with a voice to speak to not just one person, nor two, but to the entire world.

In response to the global uprising of citizen journalism, our local paper - The Straits Times - created an online paper named STOMP (Straits Times Online Mobile Print), which "integrates content and activities in the three platforms of print, online and mobile... (and seeks) to interact and engage with Singaporeans in exciting new ways." (STOMP, 2006) Through this online paper, The Straits Times hope to "provide readers with new avenues to express themselves, to enable them to interact with us, and among themselves." (STOMP, 2006)

A quick browse around the webpage is enough to show that STOMP centainly lives up to these promises. The Singapore Seen section allows everybody, as long as they sign up for an account, to publish whatever they deem as news worthy online and post pictures and videos along with the report. Others are allowed to comment on these reports and from there, participate in lively conversations regarding the reported news. Another section of the website named Talk Back provides topical online forums where people with the same interests can gather and discuss about their passion regarding a particular place or activity. Input is possible on almost every section of STOMP. The aim of this online paper to "connect, engage and interact" (STOMP, 2006) with readers is definitely achieved.

Yet, is STOMP really a tool that empowers us with a strong voice to speak up? As much as STOMP seems to be an ideal form of citizen journalism, with its "you're the reporter" slogans and "speak your mind" invites, I think there is more than meets the eye. While the news covered on STOMP, like inconsiderate drivers for example, are certainly matters worth discussing, these reports would appear trivial, at least to me, as compared to what that is covered in Singapore's main paper, The Straits Times. Between a report on bad driving etiquette and one on parliament decisions, it would not exactly be hard to determine which one is of greater importance. With STOMP always covering issues which seems to have less significance, this platform for citizen journalists may backfire and serve, instead, to boost the credibility and the importance of Big Media in Singapore.

Another question i would ask is that, is The Straits Times really interested in listening to us "speak (our) minds" (STOMP, 2006) when it comes to controversial issues? Take politics for example. STOMP has hardly ever, if not never, published news regarding politics. With the amount of input on STOMP by average people like you and I, I would have thought that at least one or two would have reported on touchy political news. Bloggers like Mr.Wang and the Kway Teow Man make it obvious that there are Singaporeans out there who want to discuss political issues. Yet, politics is so rarely discused on STOMP. Are we really the reporters? Can we really speak our minds? Or are the controversial news that we contribute being filtered out by people of the Big Media? Behind the "you're the reporter" claims, we know that STOMP is ultimately an online paper run by The Straits Times, the Big Media of Singapore. It may seemingly be an ideal form of citizen journalism for Singaporeans, but just to be on the safe side, I suggest we stick to blogs.

Having said that, the way to improve STOMP as a form of citizen journalism is of course to encourage newsmakers to contribute news beyond petty complaints for traffic offenders. Illegal parking of vehicals are undoubtedly important social issues but there are more of other important issues which demands attention besides these. Politics is definitely one subject which lacks coverage on STOMP. To earn the title of the ideal form of citizen journalism in Singapore, STOMP has got to encourage and allow citizens to expand their news coverage.

With all things considered, STOMP is definitely a platform for citizen journalists to voice their opinions. However, there are still areas for this online paper to improve in before it can truly be called the ideal form of citizen journalism.

---

References:

Citizen Journalism. (2007, March 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 29, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism/

Gillmor, D. (2004, July). We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People. Retrieved March 28, 2007 from http://download.nowis.com/index.cfm?phile=WeTheMedia.html&tipe=text/html

STOMP (2006) From Singapore Press HoldingsRetrieved March 28, 2007 fromhttp://www.stomp.com.sg/

QotW7: Twittery-Twittery-Talk~!

Would you consider Twitter as an online community?

An online community is “a group of people that may or may not primarily or initially communicate or interact via the Internet.” (Virtual community, 2007) Regardless of whether or not these people communicate solely through the Internet, and whether they first started communicating online or offline, just so as long as they communicate online, they belong to an online community. In essence, an online community is a group of people who communicate through the internet.

Indeed, communication is the root of communities, including virtual ones. “Without communication, there can be no action to organize social relations.” (Fernback & Thompson, 1995) Though it has been argued that computer-mediated communication cannot provide “meaningful contact,” for it inhibits face-to-face communication (Wellman & Guila, 1996), Howard Rheingold noted in his book, The Virtual Community, that “people in virtual communities use words on screens to exchange pleasantries and argue, engage in intellectual discourse, conduct commerce, exchange knowledge, share emotional support, make plans, brainstorm, gossip, feud, fall in love, find friends and lose them, play games, flirt, create a little high art and a lot of idle talk,” which is basically “just about everything people do in real life.” (Rheingold, 2000) Online communities allow people to communicate just as they would in offline settings.

With these discussed, the answer to the question “is Twitter an online community?” is a resounding yes. Wikipedia calls Twitter a “social networking service that allows members to inform each other about what they are doing and what they think.” (Twitter, 2007) Twitter is an online community because it focuses on nothing but communication.
Many social networking websites give their users many to do, which may distract users from actually interacting with one another. Take Friendster for example. It allows users to update their self profiles, upload pictures, post bulletins and many more. I myself, as a Friendster user, spend more time maintaining my own profile page than viewing the profiles of others. Twitter.com, however, are free of all such distractions that undermine interaction, for users can only do one thing, that is, to answer the question “What are you doing now?”

This may make Twitter sound like a bore; A social networking website that allows users to do only one thing cannot be much fun, right? Wrong! The interaction among my fellow classmates on Twitter which I observed was vibrant, active and dynamic – anything but boring! By asking that one simple question, Twitter encourages users to participate in online social networking in an active, conversational manner, unlike Friendster. In addition, Twitter supports real time conversations, as it updates on “what you and your friends are doing… live every two minutes.” Enabling real time conversations allows users to engage in lively conversations with immediate, instead of delayed, response. Twitter does not bore; its focus on interaction is, in fact, what that makes it attractive.

Twitter is undeniably an online community, and a vibrant one at that, because it encourages lively interaction and allows users to share real time conversations, just as we can in offline communities.

References:

Fernback, J. & Thompson, B. (1995). "Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure?" Retrieved March 13, 2007 from http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html

Rheingold, H. (2000). The Virtual Community. Retrieved March 12, 2007 from http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/3.html

Twitter. (2007, March 16). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 09:08, March 16, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twitter&oldid=115504050

Virtual community. (2007, March 15). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:56, March 16, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtual_community&oldid=115277136

Wellman, B. & Gulia, M. (1996). "Net Surfers Don't Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities." Retrieved March 13, 2007 from http://www.acm.org/~ccp/references/wellman/wellman.html

QotW6: Happily Ever Exposed.

It is funny how we can scream at our mothers for taking a peek out of our dairies, and yet, relish giving the world – meaning family, friends, foes, strangers, basically everybody – a blow-by-blow account of our everyday lives through our weblogs. While few would hesitate to articulate their strong desire for privacy, we see Blogger.com, Friendster, Facebook and many other social networking websites gathering more sign-ups each day. (Sullivan, 2006) Our insistence on privacy yells “Leave me alone!” but our indulgence in online self-revelation screams “Listen to me!” So what is it that we really want?

According to Jeffrey Rosen, the answer is contradictorily both. While we would love to maintain our rights to privacy, the nature of “intimate relationships of trust” has undergone drastic changes that pressure us to “expose details of our personal lives to strangers in order to win their trust.” (Rosen, 2004) In the past, such relationships were based on shared experiences. (Rosen, 2004) Friends became friends because they went through certain encounters together. Relationships based on shared experiences fall into “rigidly controlled status hierarchies, which brought with them codes of expected behavior” (Rosen, 2004) - meaning every relationship can be distinctly identified as a distant or an intimate relationship, and such clear boundaries allowed people to know who they can and cannot share personal matters with.

But the emergence of the Internet changed the process of relationship formation. People no longer have to physically go through the same happenings in order to know one another. Through weblogs, instant messaging and other social networking websites like Friendster, one can be familiar with another even without meeting him/her in person. Such online relationships are hard to define. What do you call two individuals who chat everyday online but have never ever met each other in person? What relationship does a blogger and his/her reader share? The blogger may not know the reader but the reader knows every single detail of the blogger’s life. So are they friends? Acquaintances? Strangers? These are tough questions to answer. Today, with relationships resisting clear definitions, “intimacy and trust are increasingly obtained not by shared experiences or fixed social status but by self-revelation.” (Rosen, 2004) We try to prove our trustworthiness by revealing details of our personal lives, so as to show that we have nothing to hide. (Rosen, 2004)

Four years of blogging and the idea that I have been exposing myself voluntarily in exchange for a favorable reputation had never crossed my mind, not until I came across Rosen’s The Naked Crowd. Armed with skepticism and confidence, I went through several of my archived blog entries dated a couple of years back, determined to prove that I have not been unknowingly allowing others to infringe upon my privacy. But of course, as you would have guessed, what I read on those blog entries proved that I have. I told my blog, or rather my blog readers, more than what I have ever told anyone in a face-to-face conversation. Besides accounts of my daily life, my blog also contains photographs and videos of not just me but my friends as well. What I have revealed about myself on my weblog is enough for anyone to know me in depth; I can literally be read like a book. All bloggers in fact, not just I alone, can be easily read through and through.

There is nothing wrong with this of course, except for the fact that we have been raving about our lost of privacy when we are the ones who allowed it to happen in the first place. What I have divulged about myself on my weblog makes me such an easy target for sousveillance. Practicing this “art, science, and technology of personal experience capture, processing, storage, retrieval, and transmission” (Sousveillance, 2007) on me will be a breeze through my blog alone, where anyone can have easy access to my daily happenings, thoughts, photographs and videos. I have been cautious, however, not to disclose online any blatantly important information which I know can be easily manipulated by others. Information such as my home address, telephone number and even my email address, have never appeared on my blog. Yet even so, my privacy goes further and further out the window every time I publish a post on my blog.

We ourselves set the stage for our own online privacy to be infringed upon. We need to be aware of and control how much we reveal of ourselves online if we want to grasp on tight to the little privacy that we still hold in our hands. Whether or not you have privacy – you decide for yourself.

---

References:
Sousveillance. (2007, February 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 03:33, March 10, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sousveillance&oldid=106389703

Rosen, J. (19th July, 2004). "The Naked Crowd". Retrieved on 8th March, 2007 from http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA5FF.htm

Sullivan, B. (17th October, 2006). "Privacy Lost: Does Anyone Care?". Retrieved on 8th March, 2007 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221095/print/1/displaymode/1098/

QotW4: Santa Blogger.

**Note from The Blogger:
Go ahead and read on; it’s free.

My fellow bloggers may not know it, but they are the Santa Clauses of the virtual world. Blog posts are their gifts; The world is the recipient. Every time they update their blogs, they add to the rich pool of information present on the internet. And this they do for free. Unlike most of today’s journalism, which is sold for money, “the weblog comes out of the gift economy.” (Rosen, 2003)

What is the gift economy? It is an economic system where goods and services are “offered without the expectation of any direct, immediate quid-pro-quo.” (Kollock, 1999) Status, in a gift economy, is not accorded to the wealthy, but “to those who give the most to other.” (Pinchot, 1995) The most important thing about gift economies is that the gift must always be passed on, instead of selfishly owned. To many, this may seem like a utopian ideal that cannot be achieved. Robert Cialdini, however, begs to differ. As recorded in his book, Influence: Science and Practice, the rule of reciprocation governs all human societies and makes us “obligated to the future repayment of favors, gifts, invitations, and the like.” (Cialdini, 2001) By this reciprocity rule, gift economies not only exist in our world, they thrive.

Gift economies have come a long way, dating back to the Stone Age, when the Trobriand Islanders participated in Kula exchange. The Kula exchange, also known as the Kula ring, is a “ceremonial exchange system… (where) valuables are… traded purely for purposes of enhancing one’s social status and prestige.” (Kula ring, 2007) Since then, gift economies have been evolving and flourishing. The internet, for example, has evolved from traditional gift economies. It “started humbly as an educational resource based on free personal and organizational sharing” (Veale, 2003) and has now become a host to many prosperous virtual gift economies which transcend time and space limitations.

The blogosphere is one of the gift economies that thrive on the World Wide Web. Although there are some who are paid to blog, majority of the bloggers update their personal sites on their own initiative, without monetary motivation. Academic bloggers, like my fellow classmates and I, analyze other sources to address a certain issue and pass the knowledge that we gain on to our readers as a gift through our academic blogs. We post our research findings on our academic blogs, not for any personal gains, but simply for the purpose of sharing information.

Other non-business blogs that do not offer information support the blogging gift economy by providing recreation as a gift (Pollard, 2005). Being an ardent reader of more than thirty blogs, this is definitely true for me. It has become my daily habit to visit all those blogs to check for updates. A fellow blogger finds himself in a similar situation. On his 16th June 2002 post on his blog - http://radio.weblogs.com/, he stated that “as the net gets more and more commercial and more and more advertising driven, (he) just don't read Salon or MSN or whatever. (He) read blogs instead.” As we can see, blogs pose “a great threat… to television, radio, and other forms of recreation… (like) movies… and even recreational reading.” (Pollard, 2005)

Another gift that blogs provide is the “(creation of) powerful virtual relationships.” (Pollard, 2005) A blog can tell readers so much about the blogger that they can actually ‘know’ the blogger without ever meeting him/her. That is not all that a blog can do to enhance relationships. The commenting function that blogs provide allows communication to go two ways; readers can not only read the blog, but also publish their opinions regarding the blog posts. This enables blog readers to break out of usual passive reading and actively communicate with the blogger. In this way, blogs serve as effective social networking tools which encourage the growth of social circles in depth. Simply put, blogs speed up the formation of close relationships.

All in all, the blogging scene on the internet is no doubt a gift economy that serves good purpose. While some still scoff at blogging being a waste of time, bloggers have already proven weblogs to be worthy of existence through their generous giving to readers. Fret not, fellow Santas, because there are some like Tom Haskins, who believe that “bloggers are going the extra mile and beyond the call of duty” to make “unrewarded contributions” to all web users. (Haskins, 2007) So be encouraged, and keep up the giving!

---

References:

Cialdini, Robert B. (2001). Influence: Science and Practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gift economy. (2007, February 4). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 08:50, February 9, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gift_economy&oldid=105681971

Haskins, Tom. (2007, January 7). “Blogging as a gift economy” Retrieved February 9, 2007 from http://growchangelearn.blogspot.com/2007/01/blogging-as-gift-economy.html

Kollock, Peter. (1999). 'The Economies of Online Cooperation; Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace" Retrieved February 9, 2007 from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.htm

Kula ring. (2007, January 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 10:03, February 9, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kula_ring&oldid=103681571

Pinchot, Gifford (1995). "The Gift Economy" Retrieved February 6, 2007 from http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC41/PinchotG.htm

Pollard, Dave. (2005). "Blogs and the Gift Economy as 'Disruptive Innovations'" Retrieved February 9, 2007 from http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/categories/blogsBlogging/2005/08/24.html#a1253

Rosen, Jay. (2003, October 16). “What’s Radical About the Weblog Form in Journalism?” Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2003/10/16/radical_ten.html

Veale, Kylie J. (2003). “Internet gift economies: Voluntary payment schemes as tangible reciprocity” First Monday, 8(12). Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_12/veale/index.html

QotW3: Signed, Sealed, and Pirated.

“Put an end to piracy.” pleaded Hollywood, through its anti-piracy campaign launched in 2003. (BBC News, 2003) When content piracy reaches a state of rampancy intense enough to worry this billion dollar generating motion picture industry, we know it deserves attention. Figures show that the “total loss of the audio visual industry through copyright theft… is more than £818 million.” (PiracyIsACrime.com) What, exactly, is causing such extensive piracy?

Some might wonder if copyright laws are too ill-defined to protect content creators of their right to their creations. On the contrary, copyright laws seem specific enough to offer the creators adequate protection. Copyright gives creators “exclusive rights to their creations for a limited time,” (Ovalle, 2005) including the right to authorize reproduction and public performance or display of their creations. Copyright also allows creators to “benefit financially from their creations, which should provide an incentive for them to continue creating.” (Ovalle, 2005)

Far from the common misconception that “copyright is a law invented by publishers solely to serve their own financial interests (and)… the convenience of scholars,” (Givler, 2003) copyright exists not only for the creators’ benefit, but also, “for the public good.” (Givler, 2003) Because the copyright laws encourage creators to work for the “progress science and useful arts,” (Ovalle, 2005) and their creations will belong in the public domain once the limited time stated by law is over, we are the ones who stand to gain from these laws in the long run.

In this sense, copyright laws protect the rights of both the content creators as well as the public. It balances the interests of both parties, and is undoubtedly sufficient to ensure the fair use of intellectual property. This brings us back to the old question: what, then, can be causing such extensive piracy? I would think that the problem lies not in the law itself, but in the people under the law. The public in general are lacking in two areas which are essential pillars of support for the copyright laws.

The first would be a clear understanding of what copyright is and why it exists. With Attorney Kevin S. Brady’s list of common copyright myths and misconceptions running as long as 25 items, it is hard not to notice how little the general public knows about copyright. Researches conducted on educators showed that “many educators lack the basic understanding of the copyright law and the actual latitudes it provides (for them)." (Chase) If the educators are unsure of how copyright works, be rest assured that almost everyone else are too. Schools are where people first come to learn of concepts like intellectual property and plagiarism. If the teachers themselves are unsure of these laws, there is no way they can teach their students right regarding this topic. Without knowing exactly what copyright is, it is no wonder that many believe copyright to be a law that protects content creators at the public’s expense. (Givler, 2003) Such misconceptions would only lead to copyright infringements; after all, who would obey rules that undermine their personal rights?

The second which the public lacks is social integrity. When interviewed, a 26-year-old business student in Berlin confessed that he “has burned 700 to 800 CD’s… with downloaded songs,” (Landler, 2003) and still “don’t feel like (he is) infringing on the artists.” (Landler, 2003) “Whether Robbie Williams makes 15 million or 12 million a year doesn’t matter to me, honestly speaking,” he said, referring to the British pop star whose songs are repeatedly downloaded from the net. This student is not the only one who expressed apathy towards content creators. Charles W. Moore provided an unsound justification for piracy in his online article, claiming that piracy is “perceived as a victimless crime… (because) if someone copies a song… the copyright-holder is no worse off materially than he or she was prior to the piracy.” (Moore, 2003) Such indifference towards the plight of the content creators veils the need to reward content creators, and thus of course, causes people to disregard piracy as an act of impertinence. People need to know that the content creators deserve rewards as incentives for future creations, before they would succumb to obeying the copyright laws.

Before the public gains a clear understanding of copyright and uses copyrighted content with integrity, the best defined set of laws will not keep piracy out of our world. Thus, even though the present copyright laws are well-scripted enough to supposedly offer adequate protection for the rights of both the public and the content creators, the public needs to be educated more regarding these laws before piracy can be curbed.

---

References:
BBC News. (2003, July 22). Hollywood Launches Anti-Piracy Campaign. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3085875.stm

Brady, Kevin S. Copyright FAQ: 25 Common Myths and Misconceptions. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://users.goldengate.net/~kbrady/copyright.html

Chase, Mark E. Educators' Attitudes and Related Copyright Issues in Education: A Review of Selected Research 1980-1992. Retrieved February, 2007, from http://www.ifla.org/documents/infopol/copyright/cham.txt

Givler, Peter. (2003, May 9). Copyright: It’s For the Public Good. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://aaupnet.org/aboutup/copyright.html

Landler, Mark. (2003). The New York Times: U.S Is Only the Tip of Pirated Music Iceberg. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/docs/nytimes/2003-09-26_nytimes_global_piracy.pdf

Moore, Charles W. (2003, August 8). Is Music Piracy Stealing? Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://www.applelinks.com/mooresviews/pirate.shtml

Ovalle, Carlos. (2005). Why Copyright? Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://sentra.ischool.utexas.edu/~i312co/2.php

PiracyIsACrime.com. DVD Piracy – The Big Picture. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://www.piracyisacrime.com/bigissue/piracy.php