QotW5: A paradox of identity

An online identity is an identity one uses as a mean in which people in the network would be able to recognize him. Some may use their real names, however, individuals may sometimes prefer to use nicknames for others to know them by. In some online contexts, they may also engage in the usage of avatars to act as their character.
In today’s society, due to the heavy usage of the internet, as others interact as an established online identity, it acquires a reputation which enables them to decide whether an identity is worthy of trust. (Online Identity, 2007)

So what are the benefits of having an online identity? One can argue that even in modern day’s society, people are constantly judged by the color of their skin, age, gender and sometimes even their educational achievements. “Part of the attraction of CMC is that it allows participants to separate their physical selves from their writing and actions online. In an idealistic sense, this can be viewed as a true “marketplace of ideas”, where ideas are measured by their own merits.” (Lackaff,2003)They may sometimes be unable to escape the stereotypical views which society might have on them. However, with an online identity, these may be modified. An individual may conceal their true identity and thus earn a reputation for who they really are rather than what they are. An example of this could be seen in a video depicting a chat room. A man poses as a woman in an effort to establish a relationship with someone of the same gender. Because of society’s traditional views on homosexuality, he may have resorted to the internet to express his true self.

An online identity which I would be most familiar with would be in the world of gaming. As a player of Counterstrike; an online shooting game, many a times, I have come crossed players who have earned reputations of being good in their skills. This could be seen during gaming matches, also known as Klan matches when prior to one, members of one Klan would be warned of the skills of their opponents, very much similar to that of a regular sporting match. Unlike other sporting arrangements, the intriguing part of such reputations, is physical appearance is not necessary. As mentioned earlier, in the online world, race, age and gender holds no boundaries.

One example which I can recall, would be in a “match” which I took part in, my team had been told of a particular opponent called “Kyosho” who was an extremely talented player who was skillful for his extremely fast reflexes. Now, it would be easy to imagine that such a player would probably be an older teen or an adult who has had years of experience in the game, hence his skill. Besides this, judging from the language he displayed online, it seemed obvious that he would be older. To my surprise, “Kyosho” was only a kid around the age of 12- 13 years.

“Kyosho” was not the only of such a player who did not fit the category I expected. In many of such gaming worlds, a player may not seem to be who he/she really is. Henceforth, the maintenance of an individual’s reputation is of the extreme importance as this is what makes others recognize them. Unlike many other online games, Counterstrike lacks an identity-protection system which we can see in many online games. Thus the only mean of identifying a particular individual would be through their nicknames and other forms of identification in the game such as “spray paints”.

As the maintenance of reputation is crucial in the gaming world where others know you as the way you play and not for whom you are, it is important that one’s identity is limited to solely him/her. However, like all other online contexts, identity theft is still sometimes common in games such as Counterstrike. Speaking from experience, jealous opponents may sometimes hijack nicknames simply so as to tarnish another player’s reputation. According to (Dorath, 1996), compared to the physical world, it is relatively easy to pass as someone else online since there are relatively few identity cues.

To combat this, different groups or klans use special computer symbols to make known their authenticity. They may sometimes incorporate numbers to replace alphabets in a nickname to make identity theft harder. For example, when I used to play Counterstrike on such Klan basis, my particular nickname was =`[KM]’=M@cH1n3GuN. The first few alphabets and symbols were used to depict the Klan’s name, while the rest of it was to identify myself. Although one may think it isn’t too hard to steal a nickname, as mentioned before, other methods to identify authenticity such as “spray paints” were used within the game itself. As all spray paints were usually the same and could also be used by a hijacker, minor markings would be made to it. For example, bullet marks in certain parts of the spray would serve as an extra mark of authenticity.

Online identities serves as a paradox of a person’s self. Although it may be a reflection of the person’s inner being, it can also be used as a mask to foster criminal activities such as sexual crimes. It is thus important that an identity in the virtual community be treated with as much caution as that of the real world. Besides serving a positive purpose of removing societal norms and boundaries, it like all other technological developments has its’ cons which if not in check could prove devastating for society.


References:

Donath, J (1996,11,12). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. Retrieved 02,20,2007, from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Online Identity. (2007). Online Identity. In Wikipedia [Web]. Retrieved 02,19,2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_identity

Lackaff, D (2003). Norm maintenance in online communities: A review of moderation regimes . Retrieved 02,20,2007, from http://lackaff.net/node/20

Other References:

Youtube Video from Com125 Wordpress site. http://com125.wordpress.com/

QotW4: An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

“A gift economy is an economic system in which the prevalent mode of exchange is for goods and services to be given without explicit agreement upon a quid pro quo (the Latin term for the concept of "a favor for a favor")” (“Gift Economy,” 2007).

I am sure all of us have, at one point or the other, in our lives, both received and given gifts. As a matter of fact, it is probably one of the most carried out activities in one’s life. We do it all the time; we receive and give gifts on Valentine’s Day, Christmas and during birthdays. Although some of us may not even celebrate those special occasions except the latter, we still do it anyway. Why? Simple explanation for this would be because we probably anticipated that since we would be receiving gifts, it would only be right to give gifts. Alas, the rule of reciprocation states that we should try to repay another person what he/she has provided us. However, it is an unwritten law. As such, a cycle of giving and receiving becomes part of us during these times.

So, does this transaction of gifts only occur for occasions mentioned above? The answer is no. Besides the reciprocation of gifts in return for actual physical gifts, societies indulge in the giving of gifts for the return of favors. As a Roman Catholic, another kind of reciprocation I have seen quite often involves prayers. Like many other religions alike, offerings are regarded as a mean of which we give in return for certain prayers to be answered. Aside from this, a darker form of gift reciprocation could be seen in politics. Corrupt officials may sometimes receive goods and favors such as votes or money from undesirable characters in return for leniency to crimes committed by the latter.

However, a gift economy does not only occur in those mentioned above. With the dawn of technology, people now participate in such gift transactions online. Many may join online clubs which cater to an individual’s hobby. In these online forums or clubs, it is inevitable that communication between various parties occur. A good example of this would be found in students’ discussion boards. Students may sometimes feel unsure about a certain topic. Instead of consulting a teacher, they may engage in online discussion forums to seek answers from their peers. As a fellow student may have more knowledge about that certain topic, he may share what he knows with everyone in the forum. This is known as a public good which is a good that anyone can benefit from, regardless of whether they have contributed to its production (Kollock, 1999).


Although it is not necessary to return the favor in the future, it may sometimes be deemed as only right. During my previous communication module, social proof was seen as one of the tools most often used by individuals to determine how they should behave. According to Robert B. Cialdini, author of Influence: science and practice, the principle of social proof states that we determine what is correct by finding out what other people think is correct. In other words, the point put across here is that people may return the favors not because they want to but because they see others doing it and thus feel obligated to follow suit, in an effort to not be labeled as “freeloaders” or “moochers.”

As a guitarist, I find it important to expand my knowledge on different genres of music through learning and discussing it with other musicians similar to myself. With the advancement of the Internet technology, I have learned to embrace it by seeking musicians of similar interests through an online forum called Ultimate Guitar (www.ultimate-guitar.com).

In this forum, musicians interpret different songs and create their own versions of how the song should be played. As such, just one song alone could have over 100 different versions depending on how popular the song is. Besides trading the guitar tabs for various songs, members of this online forum may sometimes use it as a platform to introduce themselves and promote their bands to other online users. In this way, a vast sharing of song demos or lyrics could be circulated between members and non-members alike thus benefiting anyone alike.

As mentioned above, in a gift economy, “gifts” may be traded without the expectation of something to be returned. Members submit their personal versions of the tablature of songs not hoping that somebody else would submit something to repay them directly but because they know that they have referred to other members’ works before, which in this context, is the act of receiving “gifts.” Thus, after receiving these “gifts,” it motivates members to post works/information of their own as a form of repaying (recall: the principle of reciprocation). This creates a cycle which then keeps the forum running.

Another characteristic of a gift economy that Ultimate Guitar bears is the gaining of intangible rewards such as recognition and self-esteem. If a member contributes a good piece of tablature, it will be rated five-stars by other supporting members and thus gain recognition in the forum.

After drawing parallels between Ultimate Guitar and a gift economy, I can conclude that it is indeed an online gift economy. I strongly encourage other guitarists to join and contribute to this forum. Embrace your talents and give some “gifts” today!


References:

1) Cialdini, R. (2001). Influence: science and practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

2) Gift Economy. (2007). In: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gift_economy&oldid=105681971

3) Kollock, P. (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

QotW3:The Flaws of Laws in copyright

In the 1700s, the seas off the coast of major trading ports were terrorized by what we know as pirates who ruthlessly robbed merchant’s ships and unsuspecting towns. The concept of stealing trade goods from its rightful owners and later selling it off for profit is not just a thing of the past. Besides, experiencing such acts in the form of movies and books, a new kind of piracy has emerged over the years. Although not as violent as the robbery mentioned above, the piracies of intellectual property, rob individuals of their sense of achievement. It is because of such acts, that laws on piracy have been passed.

Before I proceed as to what could be done to accommodate the content creators and public good, it is important to look at some of the different kinds of trespasses that play a major role in exploiting the copyright laws. A major debatable issue which has erupted over the past few years would be the usage of music sharing capabilities such as “Limewire” and “Napster”. According to Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf in their empirical analysis of “The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales” mentions that more then 60 million Americans have downloaded music and the number of file sharers are growing. Similar to this large numbers, I too have done my own fair share of downloading, but sometimes, it does make me think, is it right to receive free music over the internet and deprive musical artistes of earning for their hard work?

To look into this, copyright laws implemented, ensures creators of intellectual property exclusive rights to their own work. According to the US constitution article 1 section 8, clause 8, the law states “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries”. As seen from this constitutional law, not only are creative writings and arts protected by this, but also scientific discoveries and theories. Besides the exclusive rights to their own works, the copyright law serves as a platform to benefit the public indirectly. Why is this so? The answer is simple. Because creators benefit financially from owning the exclusive rights, it provides incentives to them to carry on creating, thus benefiting the public in the long run.

It is with this, that I shall discuss the main issue involved. How can we accommodate both content creators and the public? As mentioned before, many internet users have or would at one point of time use the internet to download pirated software. To some it serves as the best way to save money, for example if they want just a few songs, downloading it would be more cost effective rather than to purchase the CD itself. However, although this would benefit them, it would not benefit the creator as millions of dollars may be lost. So what technical structure can be implemented to stop the act of piracy? Copy protection also known as copy restriction has been enforced to serve as a measure to prevent the duplication of information. (Wikipedia, 07) However, software companies have been known to produce and provide a newer technology which enables individuals to avoid copy protection software. However a social structure which rebutted this was the implementation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which made it illegal for companies to provide such technologies. (Wikipedia,07).

Although many laws have come into effect, a frequent argument which many software companies make is that the way their programs are used by their users is of no problem of theirs. However, this should not be the case. As seen from the Grokster incident, it is essential that companies do not encourage users to break the copyright law. Also companies may be expected to implement features which could inhibit infringing uses according to Kevin S Brady.

With all this said, the question still lies on what measures can be taken to accommodate both parties. As mentioned above, until this point of time, it is impossible for any steps to be taken without either party feeling the brunt of it. If stricter laws were imposed on those who infringe copyright laws, the public would definitely not benefit. However, if laws were slackened, the content creators would “lose” out and in a worst case scenario as mentioned before, lose their motivation to continue creating for the public thus causing a domino effect which would not benefit anybody. It is with this inevitable circumstance that the best way which would benefit both parties would be, reduce the aim of profit making. As understood by some, aside from the profits made by the creator ie: songwriters, bands, etc. Large corporations in charge of these creators for example aim to maximize their profits further by raising prices of CDs. This as mentioned, forces individuals to turn to illegal downloading as a way to cut cost. If prices of such items were lowered, people would most likely find it reasonable to “pay to support” their favorite bands rather then pay so that corporation owners can get richer. This would also apply to other piracy acts such as illegal DVDs and VCDs.

To apply this to the practical world, a friend of mine whose band recently released a CD once said, the cost of producing a CD is probably not even half of what it is sold for. The majority of the money goes to the record label and to the shops to make profits. Besides this, I have heard numerous people mention that it is cheaper to buy two to three pirated movies, than to go to the cinemas and watch one.

In conclusion, it is impossible to make everyone happy in a rapidly growing industry where profit making is a priority. However, I feel that as a consumer it is also a necessity to understand the reasons as to why people carry on to flaunt copyright laws although strict punishments have been implemented. I believe that there is only a certain amount of technical preventions which can be created. As seen, no matter what software is created, a loophole has always been found in it. Thus it is of importance that the only real solution to this would be for both content creators and the public to understand the issues and reasons behind such piracy acts and to work on it.

References:

Brady, K.S (2004,0215). Kevin S, Brady, Attorney of the law-Copyright Myths and Misconceptions. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from Copyright FAQ: 25 Common Myths and Misconceptions Web site: http://users.goldengate.net/%7Ekbrady/copyright.html

Oberholzer-Gee, F, & Strumpf, K (2005). The Effect Of File Sharing On Record Sales. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from http://www.unc.edu/%7Ecigar/papers/FileSharing_June2005_final.pdf.

Ovalle, C (2005). An introduction to copyright. Retrieved 01,1,007, from http://sentra.ischool.utexas.edu/~i312co/1.php

(2007). Digital Millenium Copyright Act. In Wikipedia [Web]. Retrieved 01312007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

(2007). Copyright. In Wikipedia [Web]. Retrieved 02012007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright