Property

Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture, free-culture.org/get-it pages 85-173

The second part of Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture outlines in detail the changes that have been occurring in copyright laws, the entertainment industry and technology. He uses a very informative visual format to help describe to relationship between the forces that influence interact to support or weaken a particular right or regulation. This model placed a "regulated dot" at the center representing the regulation regarding copyright protection. The four oval areas represented equidistant around this were Law, Market, Architecture and Norms. He then described what each was, in terms of it's relationship to copyright law, and how each was one of "four ways in which the group or individual might be regulated" in regards to copyright protection. The Law and Norms are regulators that constrain by threatening punishment. They are certainly different and can carry much different burdens. The first is imposed by the state, the second by the community. The third constraint, Market, operates simultaneously with the first two, either constraining or enabling, within a free market system. The fourth, Architecture, imposes a constraint or enables based on the conditions of the physical world at that particular place in time. The Architecture to which Mr. Lessig refers is the physical makeup of the copyrighted work and the technology used to format it in the real world. He gives us a historical perspective on how and why copyright law was initiated in England and in our own Constitution. He reiterates his support of this protection of "intellectual property" but voices his concerns over the changes that have taken place over the last two hundred years, most specifically in the last forty years. He uses his model to visually describe the changes that have occurred and the impact they have had on this country's "free culture". He reveals to the reader a regulatory system that has gone completely out of balance. The four ways that interact to provide fairness and balance in regulating copyright by protecting "creative property" rights and ensuring reasonable and unhindered access of the public to it, have "become unbalanced and tilted toward an extreme". There have always been attempts by powerful third parties with a financial interest in intellectual property to control access to it completely. Their attempts to do so have resulted in increasing more restrictive use and application of copyrighted material but the courts have limited these restrictions in order to provide a reasonable balance between use of this material and the rights of copyright owners who control it. This, as Mr Lessig points out, is because intellectual property-free or not- is at the very heart of our culture and is often part of the foundation on which succeeding generations build the future. This "build-on" creativity has always been part of our culture and is in fact what the entertainment industry that exists today was built upon. As with most of the changes initiated by financially interested communities, the issues today arise from the advent of new technology. The Internet has provided an arena where, not only can information in all forms be made available to a worldwide audience, all of this can be shared with the click of a mouse. In addition, the media industry has positioned itself, both legally and financially in a position with almost overwhelming power. They control the "creative property" and usually all rights to it, or so we would be lead to believe. Even the right to "fair use" which is covered by law but not well defined, is infringed upon by imposing immense burdens of proof to those who might attempt to use it. In the end we understand first that the Law has been skewered greatly in favor of a powerful entertainment industry. Second that the Media and this industry is controlled by a very powerful few who will use any means they have to retain control. Thirdly, the Media can and is being used to affect the Norms of a community by providing only those arguments and points of view they support to be presented in a favorable light. This is important because the general population of a community seeks information about the world around them and in general from these sources. Finally, the Architecture, the framework in which "intellectual property" is made available, is now being used in ways never imagined before and against uses often previously been considered "fair use". The power of technology, which could support the fair use and distribution of material copyrighted and not, is being "used to supplement the law's control in ways that are often no less the threatening and invasive for a user of this technology. And worse yet, the overall effect of all of this is to strengthen regulation yet weaken creativity, especially for those who would quite normally build-on the creativity of the past.
As Mr. Lessig very effectively points out, creativity should be independent in a free market. That creativity historically, and quite reasonably, grows on the past."Free cultures, like free markets,are built with property." It is the nature of this property that has been so drastically changed by this unbalanced and extreme vision of copyright law that exists today. We are becoming a culture of creativity but only with permission.
This reading was very long but informative. I often tried to imagine my own examples of how unbalanced this vision of copyright law has become. As I have taken several science classes the past year, I recalled that a copyright has been sought(and probably granted by this time)on human genes. This is so preposterous to me. Genes are the product of normal biological interactions between amino acids, specific sugar molecules and phosphate molecules. These have been around far longer than any humans and in fact combined independent of human assistance to form who we are today. This is certainly a "property" that was not created recently, it was discovered and identified. recently but that is hardly the same thing. Imagine in the early 60's if scientific information was as severely restricted as "creative property " is today. Those who discovered the pieces to the puzzle that was the shape and form of the human genome were unable to put the pieces together. The information was there but it took two men(Crick and Watson), neither of whom had discovered the pieces themselves, to see the bigger picture formed by these parts and discover the shape of DNA. Imagine them having to obtain and possibly pay for permission before using the results of the work that preceded their discovery. Their creative work and subsequent discovery was built on the creative work/property of others. In the real world at that time they were only required to give credit where it was due for the work they based their discovery on(which they unfortunately did not do in at least one case). So today, if a researcher feels that they can provide a product of great benefit to mankind by using the gene that is now copyrighted, would they be required to obtain permission and pay for the use of this gene before they could even experiment with it?

The Google Book Project

Mr. Lessig reminds me of what the editorial page in the newspaper used to be. There were those who only wrote a column once or twice a week including guest and syndicated columnists. Very often these comumns had an obvious point of view, but they kept us informed about issues that were either ignored or buried by the newspapers themselves.
Well Mr. Lessig, you've done this. I never would have known about the trouble Google was having because of it's BookSearch site if I hadn't listened to your video. I didn't see anything on TV or hear anything over the radio. What I understand is that Google has created this site to catalogue all of the books that it can find. In addition they have used three catagories or levels of search to distinguish between those books in print and under copyright, those books in the public domain and finally those books that are copyrighted but not available in print. It seems they have done everything possible to ensure that they do not infringe on any copyright. The only area where there is a problem, however, is also the largest. It is those books that are copyrighted but not available in print. I learned that not only is there no publisher to contact for permission to publish but very often the author is either unknown or not able to be located. As a result this area of the project only gives lmited access to the book in the form of "snippets". What this area also provides is the opportunity for browsers to find these books and further search for them, it creates a market for these unpublished works. Unfortunately, they were unable to obtain "permission" from the copyright owners before including these books in their catalogue as they had for the other copyrighted area. This has resulted in their being sued by organizations representing both authors and publishers. They argue that Google is not covered by "fair use" which is allowed under copyright law. They insist that Google did not ask permission before copying parts of these books and that they are profiting from the use of these books. Now Mr. Lessig argues that in his own book he extensivly quotes other books and authors and that he neither asked permission to do so and he has profited from the sale of his book. He did both under the exception of "fair use " which the copyright laws allow. He also argues on behalf of Google that not only are the plaintifs not losing any money-by their own admission-but also, that due to the inefficienty that is inherent in the copyright system, the authors and/or copyright owners of the group of books not in print but under copyright could not be identified or found to ask for permission to copy these books. Fot this reason, as mentioned previously, Google has only made the titles and very limited sinppets available on its site. Where Google has identified authors and/or publishers, they have sought premission to copy copyrighted books and have done only what was allowed by these individuals.
I hope that Google is able to win this battle. At stake is not only this site but the ability of individuals to easily access an enormous part of our cultural heritage. Google is one of the big corporations and that could easily bother me. but I believe the organizations representing the publishers and authors are also very big and very powerful. As Mr. Lessig pointed out, Google has made a concerted effort to adhere to copyright laws and any limitations individual authors and publishers have insisted on. Those trying to stop Google are, by their own admission not losing any money and the market for these books, far from having their market potential harmed, may in the end actually profit from the exposure.
At stake here is the accessability to our cultural heritage. The copyright laws were written to protect the intellectual property rights of those who wrote these books and contributed to our rich culture. This is a good thing. But when these laws are used as an excuse to manipulate control of these works over an exaggerated time frame that adversly effects the past and future, it becomes the law rewriting itself. I believe the project Google has undertaken will be an enormous benifit to anyone who has access to the internet. They should be required to respect the rights of those who own the rights to these books and I believe they have done that and more.

Piracy

Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture. http://free-culture.org/get-it pages 30-79

Lawrence Lessing has written a very thought provoking book. He challenges us to quit being a "read only" society and understand what will happen to our use of the Internet if we allow a war of words to dull our minds. He recounts the introduction of new technology over the past one hundred years in an attempt to illustrate what is happening with Internet technology now in the name of "intellectual property rights" and copyright ownership. He supports the idea of intellectual property and the creator/innovator's property rights to their work and describes a "Free Culture " as one that does the same but "indirectly limits the reach of those rights so follow-on creators remain as free as possible from control of the past". He believes a Free Culture provides a balance between the rights of creators and the burden those rights impose on others who would create after them. Our culture has always thrived on the ability of creative people to use what has been made by improving, adapting or changing it. The copyright laws are today being used by powerful interests to stifle this follow-on creativity. Their argument uses words that conjure powerful images and ideas. Their argument is generally that if something created has value than the owner of that has a right to profit from the value of the property they have created. Anyone else who profits from it is stealing from them-they are guilty of piracy and are stealing property. This argument has great emotional appeal. All of us value what belongs to us and know how strongly we would react if anyone stole it. It is an argument that is ingenious in it's simplicity. Mr. Lessig, however, asks us to pause and take a closer look not only at the argument but what is at stake.
He provides several real world examples of battles over copyright and property. Each involves a plaintiff trying to recover property they argue was taken wrongly. While the best arguments usually take the day, Mr Lessig feels that often those arguments have become more over who has the most power. This has led to powerful companies and groups stifling creativity on the Internet by using the courts to create a no win situation for individuals ans small businesses who simply cannot compete with them to defend themselves.
Mr. Lessig provides us with a history of recent innovations and how each of them infringed on the creative property of others to create something new and innovative- a creative property in it's own right. The movie industry, radio, records and cable TV have all done this. The irony is that these are the very industries and their offshoots that are the powerful forces trying to control creativity on the Internet.
In a history of court decisions involving copyright suits the courts have demonstrated a consistent stand against unlimited control of intellectual property. Their major decisions have balanced the good to be gained from exclusive rights with the burden this exclusivity creates. This is also consistent with what our culture has always been. We have always been a society that learns from the past, learns from "tinkering" with new ideas and technologies and creating something new from what has been.
Mr. Lessig provides very powerful insights into an argument that the media takes the use of emotionally charged words. The arguments against waiting for congress to enact laws and the use of litigation against those who have done no real wrong but cannot prove their innocence should raise a red flag for everyone. Unfortunately, we all to often just believe whatever we hear without considering the source. What if many years ago when culture was spread only by oral communication, someone was not allowed to repeat the story told by another? After all, it was their story and any attempt to retell it would be stealing. I wonder how far mankind would have gotten and how long it would have taken if we had been as litigious as we are now.

Videos,The Virtual World and Education

This is a paper I wrote a few years ago. The topic remains very relevant today especially as our class is discussing video games and what they may contribute to education. Susan Johnson M.D. provided important reference material for me. Her updated link includes the paper I included in my cited works: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/johnson.html

Technology in Elementary Schools: Use or Misuse?

The age of technology has arrived in the elementary classrooms. Personal computers that have become more the norm than the exception in homes are now a part of the school curriculum for

most elementary students. Software companies are falling over themselves to provide educational programs and schools are actively pursuing Internet access for their students. Parents need to take a step back from this alluring package to see it completely. Technology in elementary classrooms may provide many avenues for enhancing education but comes with at

least as much misuse and potential for abuse.
In all honesty, the potential in computers and software programs seems unbounded. The introduction thirty years ago of Sesame Street certainly heralded the arrival of technology specifically aimed at children. More programs, including the Electric Company, followed. These fast paced, visually mesmerizing programs were aimed at children of all ages. Their purpose was to teach without loosing the audience’s attention. From my personal experience at that time, I can attest to the fact that it worked and worked well. No one ventured to question the wisdom of allowing children to watch, for several hours every day, programs which were specifically designed to educate and enlighten them. In addition to this it kept them quite and entertained. Mothers and caregivers were freed up for a few precious hours to complete necessary tasks without leaving their brood unattended.
Around the mid 70’s into the 80’s there was an increase in elementary school children diagnosed with learning disorders and a concurrent development of programs to deal with these problems. This was, of course, accompanied by an increase in funding for school districts that “identified” these children and adopted prescribed special education programs.
Near the same time frame, the social conscience of society was revisited. Programs and schools that dealt selectively with mental, emotional or physical handicaps were being judged exclusive and “main streaming” became the new catch phrase. It must be realized that these programs did indeed benefit many children, especially those with a physical handicaps. These children were no longer defined by their physical disabilities, but by the person they were.
The influx of these children into the public school setting resulted in funds to establish special education curriculum and resource rooms with personnel to address the special needs these children might have. They also served to help integrating them into a broad classroom setting.
I gathered statistical information regarding the types of disabilities included in federally supported programs over the past twenty-five years (Digest of Educational Statistics 1998 and 1999). In doing so I discovered a very interesting and relevant fact about those children included who have “specific learning disabilities.” Because of what the other categories included, it is reasonable to assume that SLD (Special Learning Disabilities) would exclude mental, emotional and physical disabilities including speech and language impairments. Children in this category were diagnosed with or treated for disorders such as hyperactivity, ADHD, and dyslexia to name a few. In 1976, the number of children in this category was a distant third behind speech or language impairments and mental retardation. By 1984-85 SLD included the largest number of children. In the last statistical data available form 1997-98, children with “specific learning disabilities” outnumbered the next two categories by from two, to over four times. This increase was seen by some as an indicator of improved in diagnostic techniques. Children viewed before as unruly and troubled-makers (even if they were only five) now had a defined problem for which treatment could be sought. In the later 80’s and into the 1990’s this frequently included medicating these children so that they could function in a “normal” classroom setting and not be a distraction themselves. In the past five years, this treatment was been revisited (Kozlowski; Detroit News, 04/17/00). Although there are children who benefit greatly form therapy with drugs such as Ritalin, we are now being told that often children were perhaps too quickly or easily diagnosed. Frequently suggested is that normally active children were being quieted to better control elementary classrooms and facilitate learning by all. I do not necessarily fault those in the educational system for this misguided use. Much can be gained from reviewing actions and learning form mistakes. I believe more is to be gained by studying this increase in “Specific Learning Disabilities” and the parallel growth of technology, which has been specifically aimed at elementary school age and younger children.
Television, the first real technology to directly impact younger children, was initially described by its detractors as a “vast wasteland.” The advent of “Sesame Street” in the 1969-70 televisions seemed to legitimize the cooperative effort between entertainment and childhood education. It fostered a genuine enthusiasm for the educational children’s television programs that followed. The 1980’s marked the introduction and by 1989 the widespread use of computers by students in school. In fact the rate of student usage in 1st to 8th grade rose from 69 percent in 1989 to 79 percent in 1997. This is higher than the usage rate for high school or college students in 1997. A compelling fact noted in this same study, however, is that elementary school students were far less likely than high school or college students to use home computers for schoolwork (Resource and Technology 04/00). It should be noted, on the other hand, that there was a proliferation of computer software games introduced onto the market specifically created to be educational. History, math, geography, spelling, the list was as endless as it was promising. Moreover, it was aimed at early learners from preschool through elementary school. As a parent, I can attest to the fact that the lure was irresistible.
As early as 1979, with Jerry Mander’s Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, this supplemental form of education came under close scrutiny. He pointed out the passive relationship viewers have with a television. The point of his book “was not to argue that there are no good programs on television. It was to point out that the consequences of television’s existence in out society are far more significant that its program content” (Haugsjaa, 04/10/00). One reviewer, in fact, suggested that anyone reading this book then rent the movie Network to understand how Mr. Mander’s book complements the manipulating and dehumanizing themes in this movie
In May 1999 Susan R. Johnson M.D. presented a paper as a senior project at Waldorf School of San Francisco. Her paper addressed effects of technology, television and computer technology specifically, on preschool and elementary age children. She carefully and fully describes the sequential development of a child’s brain from infancy through elementary school age. She emphasizes how important it is for children to have experiences that stimulate and integrate the senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch. We learn that we need to protect them from over stimulation, as they are quite literally sponges and do not, as of yet, have the brain capacity to filter out noxious sense experiences(3).
Dr. Johnson describes the importance of a connection that forms early in childhood between the right hemisphere which is more intellectual and responsive to visual images, and the left hemisphere. The left hemisphere specializes in analytical and sequential thinking and step-by-step logical reasoning(3).
The learning enhancement of computer technology and television with children is closely tied to the visual and auditory stimuli that these programs are meant to generate. Dr. Johnson, however, reminds us of studies on young children which consistently demonstrate that when simultaneously exposed to visual and sound stimuli, they focus on the visual, frequently not absorbing the sound content (Healey 1990)(6).
Her concern becomes clear as we realize that the focus on right hemisphere stimuli results in over stimulation with which a child cannot yet cope. Furthermore, this results in a lack of stimulus for the imagination in the left hemisphere. The child does not create the visual images he or she sees, even if they remember them. Answers are factually based but do not involve the perception or judgment that interaction with other humans and nature is known to foster. We learn that it is difficult to create a picture when we have already been shown the image. How can a child learn to discern the subtle nuances involved in face-to-face interaction from a person viewed on a monitor or screen? Technology can garner emotions, but only as an individual reaction, not as the energy and intelligence found in the “heart” of out brain. This is learned only from a child’s experience interacting face-to-face with another(7).
Dr. Johnson speaks about the importance of a crucial neurological pathway called the corpus callosum. It is a bridge between the right and left hemisphere and one of the latest maturing parts of a child’s brain. “This pathway provides the interplay between the analytic and intuitive thinking, and several neuropsychologists believe the poor development of this pathway affects the right and left hemispheres effective communication with each other and may be a cause of attention and leaning difficulties” (Healey 1990)(4).
And the connection comes around full circle. The content of technology programs is not the issue here. It is of the technology itself and the effect it has on children that must be carefully understood. Even with a closely regulated technology program, the importance of reading and the connection to nature, other people and to our senses cannot be overstated. Technology has a place in the elementary school classroom but it is best kept well regulated and minimal.










Works Cited
“Federally Supported Programs for the Disabled 1976-1998.” Digest of Educational Statistics, 1998; Chapter 2, Enrollments, Table 53, 04/05/00
“Federally Supported Programs for the Disabled 1976-1999.” Digest
of Educational Statistics, 1999; Elementary/Secondary Chapter,
Page 24, table 54, 04/10/00 <http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/majorpub.asp>
Haugsjaa, Erik. ‘Suburbinization of the Mind” online review of Four
Arguments for the Elimination of Television. 04/10/00

Healy, Jane. Endangered Minds: Why Children Don’t Think and
What We Can Do About It. 1990, New York, Simon and
Schuster
Johnson, Susan R. M.D. “Strangers in Our Homes: TV and Our
Children’s Minds”, 04/04/00
Kozlowski, Kim. “Teen Death Attributed To Ritalin”, Detroit News
Page 1A 04/17/00
Mander, Jerry. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television.
1978, New York, William Morrow and Co.
“Resource and Technology/1999”. Digest of Educational Statistics
Chapter 7, 04/05/00

Learning and Identity

Gee, John Paul. Learning and Identity, Chapter 3, "What Does It Mean To Be Half-Elf?" Arcanium: Learning and Identity, pages 51-71.

Mr Gee's chapter provided the same learning curve for me that he describes video games using.
The educational system in this country provides ample groundwork for debate. Those administering it claim that it is getting better and just needs more commitment (usually money) to be fixed. Those whose children are in it look for hopeful signs of improvement. School administrators tout "Blue Ribbon" awards and rising grades, but what do these really mean and do they really indicate that our children are really becoming better, more critical learners? What is behind this "Blue Ribbon" accolade and how difficult is it to earn an "A"? Standardized tests, for all their flaws, do provide some benchmark for improvement and level of accomplishment for individual students and school systems. But I cannot remember a discussion on how to engage children in their education and improve their skills. This chapter by Mr. Gee does that in a very concrete way for me.
I, like many other parents, have always been concerned with how easily and thoroughly children can immerse themselves in video games. John Paul Gee draws some interesting parallels between what motivates children as they learn and excel at these games and how this motivation could be applied to classroom learning. He reminds us that to learn and master something we must be drawn into it, be able to adapt and try this new learning with minimal risks, have input that is amplified at the output and the learner should discover new insights or powers about themselves as a result of the effort. In video games, Mr Gee describes how we take on virtual identities in the virtual world of the game. He contends there are three identities at stake when playing games. The first is the virtual identity, "one's identity as a virtual character in the virtual world". The second is that of the gameplayer, the real world identity. The third he called the "projective identity". This is a combination of the gameplayer's identity with the virtual person as someone he has chosen and is creating within the limits of the game and a projection of what the gameplayer may be and feel. This is the "interface between the real-world person and the virtual character. While the real person must live within their own limitations, they can project onto their virtual character things outside these personal limits but within the limits of the game. What is tried or done in this virtual world does not have serious consequences in the real world. Additionally, good video games draw the player into them, playing becomes just that as the player learns and masters new moves, techniques and knowledge. This learning is part of the game, not extra work and in the end the player is rewarded with accomplishment and a sense of new value while the game encourages him to go farther. The real person participates in this reward through projection into his creation-his virtual character. As John Paul points out, this identification with one's virtual character is not felt for the characters in books. While we may identify with what those characters are or have done we don't feel personal pride in them or personally associate with any loss they may have suffered. In virtual reality, they are characters the player identifies with personally because of this projected complex. The virtual character develops because of choice made by the real person and effects the future choice of that real person by the way this virtual character develops in the world of the game.
Mr. Gee goes on then to parallel this three person personna and role playing into a very useful tool for the classroom. To learn, children must be enticed into actively participating in a classroom and putting in a lot of effort. Any success they have must be meaningful and encourage them to further expand their efforts. As they enter classrooms not as writers or scientists but children, they must be drawn in and create a personna they can operate through and connect with. This interface gives them the opportunity to choose new tasks and ideas without fear of failure. A classroom must provide learning that draws the student into it, give them the opportunity to choose and learn not only about a subject but project this to learn about themselves. Mr. Gee offers six principles found in good video games that he feels should be applied to classroom learning. they include; providing a space where risk-taking can take place with low real world consequences, students must commit to their learning and this requires an educational world they find compelling and are drawn into, the connection between who a student is when he enters a classroom and who he becomes must involve real choices on the part of the student as they strive toward an identity they have earned from their time in a class -who they are capable of being, a little input should give learners a lot of output and at all levels learners should receive intrinsic rewards for their mastery and achievements.
One of the most important ideas reinforced by video games is the basic principle that "learning for humans is, in large part, a practice effort", we learn most by doing. But if what we are doing is boring, we will resist doing it. Certainly we can't expect any more from children. While educators complain that"video games are compelling and school is not", they repeatedly try to enforce learning by practicing skills which gives no meaningful context or goal to learning and is anything but compelling to students. This learning by practice in video games results in mastery but good games don't leave things there. A player is rewarded for mastery but 'disrewarded' if they remain there. The next level is just around the corner and better then the one you're in. Video games give players an opportunity to operate at the outer edge of their skills without making them play beyond them. Schools would do well to practice the same. Students should be given the opportunity to learn to the edge of their potential but not repeatedly asked to operate beyond their competence. This would require much fine tuning on the part of educators but would benefit students in the long run.
I was a little bit skeptical when I first started reading this chapter. Don't we all agree that children should get their homework done before they play? While this may be true, it belies the fact that playing is very often learning that's fun. John Paul Gee is not encouraging us to let our children play video games all the time, he is enlisting some very basic principle that have made these games as successful as they are and recommending the use of these principles in education. I couldn't agree more. While learning can't always be fun, learning needs to be engaging and purposeful. Learning needs to engage students and draw them into a subject. Humans learn by practice, by doing, but when it is simply repetitive motion there is no learning curve. Children should learn at least as much about themselves as the do about a subject when they are engaged in learning. None of this is easily accomplished but teaching is not an easy job. It is perhaps one of the most important jobs and is worth the extra effort.

GAM3R7H30RY

Wark, McKenzie. GAM3R 7H30RY / McKenzie Wark / Version 1.1.
http://www.futureofthebook.org/gamertheory/?cat=1http://www.futureofthebook.org/gamertheory/?cat=1&paged=2

This story is set up in an easily read short, in fact only paragraph long, chapters. We are immediately drawn into common scenes of a neighborhood, then into a neighborhood store. From here the story darkens quite literally. We have moved into a local area network chain, we are gamers and have been since we were children. We have retreated into a darkened room called The Cave and while admitting there is a real world "out there" we are engrossed in this sensory world of network gaming. Facing the real world proves too dazzling even for those willing to return to it. In the end someone must not only pull us out but keep us there. Gradually we can see the real world and begin to realize the image of reality that has kept other gamers immersed in The Cave. So we go back and try to convince those still in The Cave to come back into the real world beyond the game, to live their lives, not play them. But it seems the more you are in this real world, the more it parallels the shadow world of the games. "You find that this other world is in some curious ways rather like The Cave." I seems in the real world, we are wrapped in images and we become easily obsessed with accumulating commodities. Our lives too easily become a battle of us verses them, our games no longer require a place to play them only the opportunity to play them out. In our real lives we become players, selling out to be a team player. In the end even our children are immersed in team play.At a time when they should be playing only for the sheer enjoyment of it, their lives simply shift from one event or sport to another. And what are they learning? To become a team player or pin unrealistic hopes on what should only be a game. So where is reality and where are the shadows?
Interesting. The world of The Cave is dark and shadow like. It draws us in as children but it draws us in as adults too. And it is in the end only games. Or is it? The images created in each succeeding chapter seem to draw worlds more and more parallel. First it ids the "wisdom of Playstation: 'Live in your world, play in ours'." Then the outside becomes too dazzling, we need help getting out. When we try to help fellow gamers reenter the world we "talk or text to other gamers about this outside world." But the world, we find is "in some curious ways rather like The Cave. If there is a difference, it may not be quite what it seems." While McKenzie remembers " the immense, immersive games of The Cave and what passes for wisdom amongst those still stuck there", he seems equally concerned about the dog-eat-dog world our children often have to inhabit as an alternative. But I don't think he feels all is lost, not here or in the gaming world. Mostly, I believe, we need to realize that our concerns about internet games and fantasizing are the concerns we need to have in real life in real life.

The Institute for the Future of the Book and McKenzie Work

Wark, McKenzie. GAM3R 7H30RY / McKenzie Wark / Version 1.1. ; About this project
http://www.futureofthebook.org/gamertheory/?page_id=2

The Institute for the Future of the Book is a web site whose stated mission is to chronicle the passage of the printed page to the network screen and "impact this development in a positive direction". McKenzie Work has joined the effort to develop this networked book in new and innovative patterns and to make writing a book a collaborative work of art. He brings his experience writing on and about the web, in particular web based games. Much of the initial work dealt with how to present the book. Concerns included how to keep the book flowing and generate feedback from the readers. They wanted a format that would encourage "equitable discussion" and place comments with the text, not a click away. A card-shuffle interface that was decided on was the result of inventive collabotation,"some sideways luck" and the adapting some borrowed ideas.
I have always been a little skeptical of online texts. I treasure the image of "curling up with a good book". But a closer look at online "networked books" gives me with optimism. Books and games still need authors but the online books give many writers the opportunity to have a hand in a work in progress. The pooling of talent by the Foundation provides a groundwork that is meant to capture the reader and make it easy for anyone who wishes to contribute.
One result of this joint effort was Agony. The "card-shuffle interface" had exactly the desired effect on me. The short chapters made for easy reading. With each chapter building on the next, a reader is quickly drawn into the storyline. I could find it very easy to contribute. "Placing the book and its discussion on an equal footing" emphasizes the attempt to make all of us authors.
In the end most of my fears were quite handily put to rest. While we "see what happens when authors and readers are brought into conversation over an evolving text...when the book is 'finished,' it will be published in print by a conventional press." The I can still curl up in a chair and read it if I want.

Second Life

Cummons, Neil. Digital Culture: A Second Life to Live. National Public Radio, All Things Considered, February 1,2007. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6375226

NPR offered an interesting look at Second Life, the virtual reality online world sponsored by Linden Labs out of California. Neil Cummon interviewed radio personalities Mark Glaser and John Hassek who both have experience with online worlds. He also had a number of people who called in to voice their opinions and experience with this phenomenon. Second Life is a virtual world. Those who join can become whoever they wish by creating an avatar-a representative. It is an "interactive, internet environment that can be accessed online." Some view it as an avenue for creativity, an opportunity to build everything in your 'world' yourself. This world even has Linden Dollars that can be exchanged for U.S. currency, the virtual banking world. Participants can buy virtual commodities that include real estate, cars clothes and retail goods, all of which can be created to be and do things 'real' goods could not. One concern voiced was this world was created by Linden Lab, this world and all of the tools in it. They control what's in Second Life. They control accounts in this virtual world, they are the Government in Second Life. It's part of this virtual world that the participant can't control and it appears a little like a dark side to me along with the appearance of crime, sex and terrorism in this world. But there is a lot of promise that was voiced; better communication over distance and an opportunity to get diverse input from different backgrounds located all over the world , the ability to present goods and ideas to a worldwide audience and receive immediate feedback.
The very tools used in this virtual world, however give it it's most impressive drawback, connection requires broadband and a high end computer. Even as we speak of the virtual world in the Worldwide Web and it's potential, we must understand that these requirements will often reduce or eliminate participation from many groups. But this is a new but not brand new technology. It is still evolving and will continue to do so over time. There may still come a day that all who want to participate and can benefit from this and new virtual worlds will have access to it.

A View From Second Life

Hockenberry, John, Vega, Suzanne. "A View From Second Life", Second City. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6375226

The virtual interview we listened to this week was a real eyeopener, and that's quite a stretch for a radio program. The program itself was light and entertaining with conversation between John Hockenberry and Suzanne Vega and several songs performed by Suzanne. The difference was that this was a "live taping of a radio show" in a virtual context. We could see everything on this radio show-the audience, the host and his guest, all their props-but we understood that this was not real but virtual. The characters talked and moved about , but their lips never moved. Suzanne had trouble getting her guitar in place, John forgot to put in his wheelchair and at one point disapeared from the screen. Through it all we were provided with genuine entertainment.
The program itself was especially entertaining. The interview was relaxed and engaging and Suzanne Vega is a wonderful entertainer. The presence of a virtual reality not only added to the show but brought the listener into the program in a personal way. Who among us could not relate to the computer glitches that John and Suzanne were confronted with and what about the way each created their own "avatar" and had so much fun with it. Remember John's metaphor about forgetting his wheelchair? He said it made him feel "like a plant unbounded from its roots" and now was free. Suzanne commented that now she could let her avatar deal with stage fright. In the end they reminded us that when things go wrong, and they did, "it's only radio".

Is There a There in Cyberspace?

Barlow, John Perry. Is There A There in Cyberspace? http://www.eff.org/Misc/Publications/John_Perry_Barlow/HTML/utne_community.html

Mr. Barlow takes us along on a journey he has traveled, "from pushing cows around in a remote Wyoming ranch to my present occupation...a Cyberspace Cadet". He described the hardships of trying to maintain a family farm while the economy turned from a rural to an urban one. People followed the jobs and he felt that we lost much of our 'community' way of life in the process. As he struggled to keep afloat, he was able to make a living writing songs for the Grateful Dead and made a name for himself with the band's nomadic followers, the Deadheads. It was during this time that he discovered the online community of the Deadheads and other Grateful Dead followers. He lamented their lack of a physical presence, he celebrated the fact that "they could put down roots which could not be ripped out by forces of economic history". Since that time he has devoted much of his time to these "communities of Cyberspace", but still felt the lack of physical connection a small community gave him. Then the story takes on real texture. Mr Barlow shares what he feels has been the greatest tragedy of his life. He unexpectedly lost the "great love of his life". It was at this time that he felt an overwhelming need for a community that could engulf him and carry him when he could not bear to walk on his own. It was the Cybernet community that was there for him. His eulogy, posted online, was reposted around the world and the unbelievable outpouring of genuine empathy, sharing and goodwill from those he might have otherwise never heard from carried him through him tragedy.
Mr. Barlow engages us in another positive aspect of the online community. It's always hard to accept new things. We tend to see them as 'less than' the 'real thing'. We tend to see the negative about what is new and be suspect of it's real value. The internet has great potential, both for good and bad. But that potential is in everything new. The internet has the ability to reach farther than any community ever has before, and can bring people together in a way and scope that was never possible in the past. As with the proverbial step-child, when it is good it's very, very good but when it is bad, it is very bad. Then again though, "nothing tried, nothing gained".