The Transformative Use of Girl Talk

 

     The above is Gregg Michael Gillis doing his thing under the stage name Girl Talk. So what is his "thing"? By day Gregg is a biomedical engineer, but by night Gregg is a disc jockey that specializes in the mashups the crowd of people behind him in this picture are going crazy for. He has also released several albums under this name.

     But even more than just mashups, Gregg Gillis's "thing" is music sampling. He produces no original melodies on guitars or pianos, but he samples songs from other artists and makes new songs from them. This puts Gregg in a tight spot with Copyright Law. Technically the music that Gregg is sampling is the intellectual property of these other artists, and some would call his sampling stealing.

     So what keeps Gregg from being sued under Copyright Law for stealing intellectual property? It is this idea of making new songs from existing ones. It is Gregg's claim that he has "Fair Use" of the samples because the nature of the use is transformative. Specifically under Section 107 of Copyright Law, something is considered a fair use of intellectual property if it transforms the material enough to change the context and essentially become something completely new. So Girl Talk ultimately steers clear of Copyright infringement by taking already existing songs and transforming them into completely new songs. As long as the purpose of his music sampling is transformative and to generate altogether new content, Gregg can continue to do his thing and be Girl Talk.

Photo:
http://www.sunfest.com/blog/words-girl-talk

Web Interactivity = Customer Service

     

     

   

     

     The article "Importance of Web Interactivity: Tips and Examples" provides a very interesting and tangible way of looking at Web interactivity. It provides the example of two shops that sell the same things that are right beside each other, but one is more successful because of its excellent customer service and the way the shop interacts with the customer to draw them in. In the same way, websites that integrate interaction with users into the website design and engage them with the content are more likely to be successful and draw people to their page. The more interactive a website is, the better customer service it is providing. 

     Additionally, the kind of customer service or interactivity a website provides should depend on the main focus of the site or the product/service it is providing. Having rich media that allows the user to be fully emerged in the subject and receive all the information they want is key. For instance, if you are selling clothing, you want the user to be able to see it on a model, to be able to see it from all different angles, and to be able to zoom in and see the texture and material closely. People are more likely to buy something that they have more information about. 

     The article then gives several helpful examples of websites that have gotten customer service/interactivity right. One example is Starbucks, whose website engages the user with quizzes to find out the best coffee taste suited for them. Interactivity doesn't just have to be websites that offer products. The article also speaks of portfolio websites or blogs that allow you to zoom and engage, or follow a cartoon character through the layout of the website. 

     Overall, this article relates interactivity as a successful tool of this particular media to have a relationship with users/readers. By using this tool, we can measure clicks or likes, how many people take quizzes, and how many comments we receive on a post. Then we can follow up with this interaction by responding to the users in some way. I think the idea of interactivity as customer service is important to bear in mind when designing a website. The more we allow the user to interact and then respond to them, the better the customer service a website provides, the better relationships they will build with their users. That will evolve into loyal website users. 

Nothing but Networking

                                      
     Overtime as advancing technologies have changed and expanded the idea of networking, it has come into discussion what is the value of any given network. By definition, networks allow exchange of communication and information. So what gives a certain network of exchanges more value or leverage over another network? Theorists have been trying to explain and quantify the answer to this question for quite some time, even before what we know today as "social media" networks existed.

     We discussed three laws in class that attempt to answer the question of network value: Sarnoff's Law, Metcalfe's Law, and Reed's Law. Sarnoff's Law simply equates a networks value as directly proportional to it's number of users. Metcalfe's Law determines a networks value by the square of it's users. I agree with Reed's Law most which states that the utility of a network increases exponentially with the size of the network. I believe that this law is the only which fully explains the potential power of social networks and various subgroups to connect at rapid rate. I am not sure where any of the laws get their exact numbers for their formulas, but I believe Reed's Law is the only one that appropriately estimates the rapid growth that occurs in social media networks and the hidden value in potential connections. You may not know someone on Facebook, but think of how the "suggested friends" feature suggests them to you because they are friends with someone you DO know. So there are almost endless possibilities for "suggested friends" and growing your network or connections at an exponential rate. That is why it is called "NETworking": because although you may not know someone, they may know someone that you do know, and thus by this hypothetical NET you are connected to them and may eventually reach out to them through this link. The value is in the exponential growth of connections and potential connections. 

     In five years from now, I see people continuing to retrieve their information at the same rapid rate or even faster than we do today. However, I am sure technology from which people retrieve their information will continue to become more multi-purposed, convenient, and user friendly. Whether that be a holographic screen and keyboard that changes sizes to fit our current needs and surroundings, or maybe we'll just think what we want to know and the answer pops into out head- nothing seems impossible anymore.

Photo:
http://www.teamhuber.com/wp-content/uploads/women-networking-photo.jpg

Who Are You Online?

     After reading several articles on online identity, privacy, and professionally managing your reputation on social media, it is clear that there is currently contrasting notions of online identity on the internet. The article on Online Identity by Aleks Krotoski poses these ideas as authenticity versus anonymity. When using social media websites, they usually require you to use a real name that is linked to a real email and real-world connections. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. perpetuate the idea of authenticity online- that how you present yourself online should be how you present yourself in the real world because everything is interconnected. This reminds me of a topic called "Social Schizophrenia" Eric Qualman talks about in his book Socialnomics. Accodrding to Qualman, because of the ubiquity of social media, the line between "work" and "home" life are further blurred. Because social media allows people to get a fuller picture of our lives, we can no longer maintain split personas of work and play and thus there is a death to the social schizophrenia of the past. This is in accordance with the idea of online authenticity, and an overall more transparent culture. In today's world of social media and "tagging", it would be difficult for someone to maintain a completely alternate identity on social media, although people do embellish their lives on social media all the time. On the other hand, Krotski's article states that Christopher Chan the creator of 4Chan believes that the mainstream idea of authenticity online can be very limiting. He believes that anonymity can actually allow for more freedom and creativity online by giving people the choice to explore topics that they don't necessarily want tied to them or to figure out what exactly they want their identity to be by giving them a clean slate.
     I would like to add that authenticity could also be posed against privacy, because anonymity and privacy are two separate categories. Whether you are online using your real name or a pseudonym, there is always an expectation of a certain amount of privacy and control over your information and online activities. Everyone wants to feel in control over what information about themselves is put out in the open and what websites and companies collect about their habits. However, because of numerous passwords required for almost every website and numerous privacy settings to sift through, it is becoming increasingly difficult to manage all of one's personal information and activity online. Based on the articles about protecting your online identity and managing your professional reputation online, you must constantly keep your social media and security resources updated to make sure that only the information you want to be viewed is only being viewed by the people you want to view it. Obviously, there is a lot of room for things to slip through the cracks.
     All of this being said, I believe that online authenticity is more important than anonymity. I think with the nature of the internet as it is today and it's exponentially increasing capacities to connect society, the future of the internet will not leave much room for anonymity or phonies. I believe that establishing your online identity will become just as important as establishing your identity in real life, because they will be virtually synonymous. I think that people will have to accept that if they want to search something that is not necessarily "them" or explore a new identity, it will always be tied to their actually identity. I think that online anonymity usually leads to people making ignorant and radical statements because they believe no one will ever know it was them. Case and point, all the "anonymous" Youtube video responses and the app "YikYak". I believe that society and future employers will have to accept that people are not one dimensional, and thus are capable of having many different aspects of their personalities besides the one they usually witness. Online authenticity will further connect people in multiple dimensions of their lives, therefore society will have to be more transparent and accepting. An employee for a company will also have to be seen by their employer as all the other roles they play in their life: a mom, a friend, a partier, an artist, a comedian. Ultimately, people will have to be aware that all of the aspects of who they are in person is also who they are online, because all of this information about them is accessible.

Sources:
Socialnomics by Eric Qualman

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/apr/19/online-identity-authenticity-anonymity

http://apcmag.com/protecting-your-online-identity.htm/

http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2013/jun/11/professional-reputation-social-media-tips

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-06-17/news/40027555_1_social-media-linkedin-senior-professionals

Photo:
http://www.allmusic.com/album/who-are-you-mw0000072760