Lessig has decided not to run. Check out his official statement on his blog.
Filed under: News | Tags: Intellectual Property, Internet Law, Lawrence Lessig, The New York Times
The New York Times ran an article stating that Lawrence Lessig may run for Congress. A very smart man once told me that if you’re frustrated with the way things are, don’t complain – either change things or get out. I love that Lessig may make a run for it. May the vote be with you.
Filed under: Google, News, Reflections, Safety, USC Annenberg Program on Online Communities, security | Tags: Google, IP address, Safety, security
In light of our discussion last week with Michael Overing, a piece I read in Ars Technica particularly stood out to me this week (in addition to the fact that I’m starting to notice a trend of me finding and blogging about posts in Ars Technica!). There is a new discussion in the world of the Internet as to whether IP addresses should be considered “personal information.” Google doesn’t think so. In an official statement from the company on their public policy blog, Google is saying that IP addresses aren’t “personal information” as much as “potentially personal information.” This has to do with the fact that while an IP address may in fact identify a machine, it is not identifying the person using that machine at any given moment. And, many people’s IP addresses change frequently (dynamic IP addresses vs. those of the static variety) if they are connecting to multiple networks. For instance, if you’re on a laptop connecting via wifi to various networks you are most likely working the dynamic IP angle.
The fact that this discussion is even occuring is interesting to me on many levels. First, it falls in line with the obsessive idea about protecting our privacy online and keeping people “safe.” While an IP address, I believe, cannot be considered in the same realm as a social security number, in theory the IP address could give away the location of the computer at any given moment it is being used – meaning, if someone were to track a stationary IP to the person holding the account and his/her address or phone number, that IP address has enabled the divulging of personal information. However, one could never use an IP address to identify a person, specifically as the address identifies the computer or the account holder but not the person using the computer at any given moment.
Specifically, though, I wonder why is Google so adamantly and openly opposing the notion that IP addresses are personal? I’m sure this may be common sense to some. However, in a search of the googling kind with the keywords “IP address personal security,” several articles or blog posts about this topic appeared on the first page of results, along with this posting from the Google public policy blog. While this finding could easily be followed with a “duh,” there are other major competitors to Google whose statements I did not find on that page or any of the subsequent pages – is that because they are terrible at SEO or because they haven’t commented on the issue? I’d put my money on the latter.
I absolutely see why this is such a hot topic – security, people’s private information, company’s or hacker’s being able to extract all that secure, private information - but what is in it for Google that they are actively seeking to have their voice heard here? I’m sure part of it has to do with the research they can gather via their cookies. Maybe they are trying to take an early stand against people getting too paranoid about web security – some may argue, of course, there is no such thing as too cautious when it comes to safety on the web, but that’s another discussion.
Personally, I am on the fence about this one. To me, IP addresses should not be held in the same regard as obvious “personal data,” such as a social security number. However, if that IP address could lead someone to gain that type of data about a computer’s account holder, then the line becomes very blurry for me. If someone is trying to use an IP address to track a criminal, I see the value in leading someone to a place – to a specific machine – but how could one legally argue that the person using the machine (unless it is the registered account holder) did any wrong doing on that machine? I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this.
Filed under: News, Reflections, USC Annenberg Program on Online Communities | Tags: Nielsen, VideoCensus, Hulu, Veoh, Heavy.com, user-generated content, television
Nielsen Online officially launched VideoCensus this week, the company’s answer for collecting user data for online videos. The company is of course famously known for tracking user data/ratings for television programming, and now that television is evolving into a cross platform entertainment experience the company, like most others in this current space, have evolved to meet new market demands.
Here is what is fascinating: Ars Technica posted this week about Nielsen’s initial findings from the first month of testing via the VideoCensus product. The data could not be more polar in terms of the online video viewing habits of men vs. those of women. Women were far more likely (twice as likely, in fact) to watch streams of popular network television programs on sites like Hulu or network show sites while men were far more likely to enjoy user-generated content on sites like YouTube or Veoh. iTunes downloads were not taken into account in the Nielsen data as it’s not a web-based service – however, I’d personally imagine that free web-based video is probably giving iTunes a run for its money these days.
Other interesting data unconvered in the Ars Technica post was the hours in which men and women consumed their respective videos of choice. Men logged on to their UGC-heavy sites and consumed the majority of their video between the hours of midnight and 6am, while women tuned in to network show sites between the hours of noon and 2pm. Lunch break, anyone? I can’t even say I am exempt from that piece of data, which is pretty hilarious – I mean, they have Doogie Howser, M.D. on Hulu, people.
Why is this interesting? Well, as the blog post points out it is obviously interesting to advertisers from a “let’s target our audience” perspective. It’s interesting to me on a more sociological level/perspective as I had noticed the exact same trend in my own household and it usually followed a pattern similar to the following: I log online to watch movies and TV shows during the day from work; I then proceed to tell my husband about said movies/shows and suggest he log on to watch; He says, “I’d rather watch Jericho or 30 Rock on TV as they’ve already been DVR’d;” then later that night my husband asks me if I’ve seen the latest episode of Quarterlife where my usual reply is that I’ll wait til it ends up on NBC/MTV and inevitably Hulu.
I think these initial findings are, of course, not deep enough to offer any long term conclusions but interesting as they potentially open the door for larger new media based sociological studies. Other data not revealed was whether men are consuming network-generated marketing clips on the UGC-heavy sites. Several major networks have channels on YouTube where clips of their professionally licensed content is posted online on a daily/weekly basis as well as served across other online video sites such as Veoh, Bebo and Heavy.com. Are men consuming that content on those sites, or do the networks need to go back to the drawing board in terms of syndicating content across the web?
I’m also curious to know how Nielsen will evolve to accomodate “ratings” for original online programming like Quarterlife and if/how these shows will be compared/contrasted to traditional on-air network programming. I’m also excited to see how Nielsen handles web data in terms of online programming with new products like Veoh.tv – the web’s answer to DVR (which is totally awesome, by the way).
Frankly, not only is all this so incredibly interesting to me it’s equally as exciting from an educational standpoint and a personal standpoint. I feel as if I am watching history happen – the real time evolution of media. I also LOVE television - and I am now able to get more of it, in more places, whenever I want without the crap I don’t. How much better can it get?
The New York Times’ Michelle Slatella did a piece about Twitter today. The piece was essentially about how it’s a great tool conceptually for families and groups to stay in touch, but the trend doesn’t seem to be catching on.
Filed under: Uncategorized
I finished this week’s readings earlier today, and I was almost embarassed because of my marketing discussion in my weekly reflection paper. I hadn’t done the readings yet, and…well…it’s basically the equivalent of the guy looking at a green tree saying, “you know, someday this tree is going to be green.”
Ah, it feels good to laugh at oneself! Well, at least I was on to something…hahahahaha.
Filed under: News, Reflections, USC Annenberg Program on Online Communities | Tags: Anneneberg, Apple, Blog, MUVE, News, Reflection, Second Life, USC
As I sit here trying to think about what to write for this week’s blog post, I’m finding it challenging to get out of my Twitter-centric mindset as I’ve been focusing my module paper on the topic of the microblogging service. But, there were some things in the news that were of particular interest to me, and they’re all extensions of things we’ve either discussed in class, things we’ll be discussing in class or things I’ve discussed on this very blog. I figure a little mishmosh isn’t so bad every once in a while.
The big news is that Engadget is reporting that Apple has applied for a trademark on the name APPLE as it relates to gaming devices. Holla! This struck a chord with me because of the Gaming 2.0 post I did last week – There is no argument that gaming is becoming more mainstream. Take the Nintendo DS system – it’s perfectly portable and promotes games for kids AND adults, specifically the Brain Age game. I can’t tell you how many people I saw playing that game on the subways when I still lived in New York – it was just as popular as the crossword or Sudoku. Now imagine the increased popularity if that gaming device was looped in with a phone/iPod. Of course, this is all just speculation since Apple hasn’t announced anything – they’ve only applied for the TM. But, it is wonderful to imagine.
I also encountered an article in the New York Times about job interviews taking place in MUVEs, or multi user virtual experiences – i.e. Second Life. Matt Villano takes us step-by-step through the process of signing up for an SL account and how he felt his in-world interview went. The article was sparse – no question. It basically said nothing that had not been discussed before. He didn’t go deep enough into this concept that other corporations other than Linden may still be using Virtual Experiences to interview potential clients and how they would go about getting a sense of the person solely from an avatar to avatar interaction. I was also confused why this article was coming out now when it can be argued Second Life is already on its way out of the popularity bubble. The concept of holding virtual job interviews is fascinating – if other companies outside of the San Francisco/Silicon Valley Web 2.0 bubble are conducting them.
And lastly, I stumbled upon an article in Ars Technica discussing how music album sales can be directly linked to “blogger buzz” on the web prior to an album’s release. There was a direct correlation between how much bloggers favored an album or how many MySpace friends a band had to how well their album would sell upon its release. What is interesting about this is the study shows that this blogger buzz is sometimes far more effective than traditional marketing tactics, however, it was stated that it still can’t beat a good review in Rolling Stone Magazine. It was a telling article as it relates to the marketing industry, though, and how traditional marketers are being forced to wear new, viral hats in order to achieve their goals. In all, I’m sure it still depends on the audience a marketer is trying to tap – but more and more people are responding to this viral buzz than traditional media marketing. I’m curious to know how this is affecting the industry, if/where there is still a need for “traditional” marketing and how, like in the newspaper industry, marketers are evolving to meet a changing need.
Any thoughts?
I feel as if I have been slacking on my blogging this week … oh wait, I have. When I got Karen’s email this morning I thought to myself, “Self, You’ve COMPLETELY forgotten to blog.” Well, not forgotten, but somehow lost track of time. It feels as if this week has gone on for eeeeeternity. And, as you can see by the timestamp, it’s 7:30ish and I’m here to tell you I’m still at the office…on a Friday night. Hot, right?
In light of this busy week, I feel SUPER behind on my blog readings as well. Which is why I thought I’d give yet another shout out to my fave personal homepage, Netvibes (‘Sup Netvibes, how’s it goin’??). I have allllll my blog feeds from the past week stored up in there ready for me to read later tonight when I get home…and tomorrow morning…and tomorrow afternoon. Yes, there’s a pattern there. Anyway, it was just another reminder of how awesomely useful a tool it is for me, so I thought I’d share.
Ciaozers.
Ugh. Ok, an official apology to my class. I COMPLETELY forgot to upload my reflection paper to the wiki on Sunday night after I finished writing it. My brain totally and completely jitzed out. Sorry, Sorry, Sorry!
Filed under: Games, MMOG, Reflections, Social Networks, USC Annenberg Program on Online Communities | Tags: Annenberg, Games, Gaming, MMOG, Nintendo Wii, Online, USC
I am SO tempted to write about the possible emergence of MicroHoo! … or GooHoo! … But … I feel like fighting the Man and not giving in. Instead, there were several bits of news on the social aspect of gaming, specifically online gaming, and in conjunction with our class readings really got me thinking about how gaming is in the process of evolving.
The New York Times ran an article on the current “sea change” happening in the gaming world. The change in question is the shift away from a single person spending hours by himself in front of a computer geeking out to Alpha Centauri and moving toward a family playing tennis together on their newly purchased Nintendo Wii. Apparently, some of the highest rated games released in 2007 didn’t even come close to cracking the top ten of most purchased games – whereas some of the lowest rated games did. These of course were all social games – Wii Play, Rock Star, Guitar Hero to name a few. (Kotaku ran a story about how an east coast radio station planned a stunt to play Rock Band live on-air via LIVE. That, by the way, is right next to “cross platform” in the dictionary.) And this doesn’t even take the online social gaming world into account. It’s as if the gaming world – online and console – is going through a similar transformation into the nebulous concept of 2.0 that we saw with the Web.
One day after the Times article ran, Kotaku put up a post about a recent entry on Henry Jenkins’ blog. Henry Jenkins is the Director of the MIT Comparative Media Studies Program and his blog was about the concept of social responsibility in gaming in China. I thought to myself, “Self, this is kind of random.” Nevertheless, I found it intriguing and oddly relevant. Jenkins explained how the general concern about gaming in China isn’t violence in games or how it will affect its players. The main concern was about how online gaming can be made to help transform societies. The reality that online gaming is such an outlet for Chinese youth can’t be ignored, so officials are saying that the games themselves should contribute to bring about a renewed sense of pride and understanding about Chinese culture and history. What was particularly interesting to me was that in a society where most families only have one child, those children will retreat into their social lives online more than connecting with their “real life” families and contacts – essentially, the games should be responsible for making sure the games allow for social interaction, particularly within a family. Yes, that sounds like Wii to me, too.
I read both of these articles/posts before this week’s reading about Virtual World Business Brands. Although the article does not specifically address this issue as a whole, it absolutely ties in to the overall picture. Part of the reason those four members brands became as successful as they did in world was because of the community associated with their particular brands. And although Second Life and There don’t have the same “gaming” focus that other MMOGs like World of Warcraft do, there is a very evident tie here for me. Plain and simple: People enjoy participating in activities together whether it’s offline, online, shopping, game play or even watching television (as we’re seeing in the rise of the online viewing party). I know I’m starting to sound like a spokesperson for Scrabulous, but it’s a perfectly pedestrian example of this change – why would I play solitaire when I can participate in a little vocabulary whoop-a*& on Facebook?
