3D Movies: I missed the development

November 17, 2009 at 12:05 pm (Uncategorized)
Tags: , ,

The first time I ever watched a 3D movie was in 1997, when I was visiting Disneyland Paris. Captain EO was a 17 minutes short movie starring Michael Jackson, directed by Francis Coppola. At that time I was ten years old and not really aware of what pearl among movies I had seen. Captain EO was the most expensive film ever produced on a per-minute basis at that time, averaging out at $1.76 million per minute. It was exclusively presented in Disney Parks.

The movie tells the story of Captain EO, played by Michael Jackson, and his spaceship crew who are set out on a mission to deliver a gift to an alien queen ruling over a dark world. When captured and sentenced to torture, Captain EO responds with a demonstration of the power of rock music. He stages a concert that turns the evil aliens into beautiful, peace-loving humanoids.

Effects like lasers seemed to shoot me, star fields expanded over the whole movie theater or people jumped right in front of me. I still remember that the effects were really impressing – laser, smoke, whatever. But also it made me feel dizzy. 17 minutes were just enough of it. Watching with these old cardboard glasses with one red lens and a green one was not really comfortable. Moreover the story was lacking any depths; it was more about the effects. So my first (and so far last) 3D experience was nice – but I did not feel the urge to see a 3D movie again in the last ten years.

I remember my parents saying that in ten years, all films will be like that and also that we will be able to smell and feel what happens on screen. Well, 10 years later now I can say: No, this did not happen! I kind of forgot the whole debate about 3D movies in the last couple of years with HD television and flat screens emerging.

When I listened to the podcast, I learned that technique has developed and many studios are still working on 3D. Honestly, I was not aware of it. When I scrolled through the list of movies that were produced in 3D in the last couple of years (like Toy Story, Shrek or Polar Express) I was impressed. How could I ignore the whole development? I do not know.

However, I am going to watch Disney’s “A Christmas Carol” and am much looking forward to, especially since I know now so much about the new 3D technique.

Interested in Captain Eo? Here comes the youtube link to the short movie. Well it is not 3D, but at least you can get the story: Part 1 – Part 2

Leave a Comment

Facebook policy

November 9, 2009 at 11:23 pm (Uncategorized)
Tags: , , , ,

When I clicked through “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities” or “Privacy Policy” of Facebook, I was impressed how long the list of declarations is. Everybody has to agree with the Principles, when they sign in for a Facebook account. Yet I think nobody ever read them thoroughly. Most of the things are common knowledge (like do not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory) or very similar to Youtube Principals (like you should own the rights of whatever you upload).

I think every user should be aware that Facebook is not a private place to communicate with friends, but a public place. Of course, you can modify your settings so that only your friends can visit your page, but there is always the danger of data abuse. Facebook even admits in its Statement of Rights and Responsibility: “We do our best to keep Facebook safe, but we cannot guarantee it.”

facebookscreenshot

There are people who try to collect users’ information, people who spread spam, people who upload viruses, etc. As long as you are aware of the risks and take precautions such as only add people you really know or only upload appropriate material, I think you are fine. Of course there is still a rest-risk that hackers target Facebook and steal private data.

I personally use Facebook and think this is a wonderful thing to keep in touch with friends, to share information and pictures. I am very aware of the risks. But I see it this way: This is the price you pay for convenience, just as everywhere. If you take the car, of course you can have an accident and die. But nevertheless I use the car. If I do online banking, someone might get my data and money. But nevertheless I do online banking.

But there is one thing about Facebook that I have just learned that makes me really angry and scares me somehow. Facebook shares all kind of information with third party application developer. A lot of apps are created by companies and once I have allowed an application to connect with my Facebook account they get access to all my personal data.

Facebook says: “If you allow an application or website to connect with your Facebook account, that application or website can access information on Facebook related to you and your friends and generate and publish stories about actions you take on that application or website without any additional permission. Unless you change your privacy settings, an application or website that you connect with can generally access the same information that you can see about yourself and your friends, and an application or website that your friend connects with can access the same information about you that the friend can see.”

And Facebook clearly states that it is not responsible for anything companies do with your data.

Morevoer I found a really good article about this whole issue with application developer and how they get access to your data.

Leave a Comment

How to fool the German press: Wikipedia and the Guttenberg case

November 9, 2009 at 10:26 pm (Uncategorized)
Tags: , , , ,

wikiguttenberg

 

Wikipedia is a big success story of web 2.0. Wikipedia did not only contributed to web 2.0, but sets an example on how internet works in today’s world.

I think the most important thing is that readers become writers. That internet can make use of the unlimited collective knowledge of its users rather than the limited knowledge of some experts. Also Wikipedia is a good example that there are websites online that require a certain amount of trust in what you read. Readers must trust each other and must trust the information.

I mean, of course you can follow the last changes in the article and can judge whether or not you consider the information as right or wrong. But honestly, do you do this when you just look something up on Wikipedia? Well, I don’t. And most people don’t, even people whose job it is to prove sources, I am talking about journalists.

There was a very insightful incident happening in February in Germany. Chancellor Merkel announced a new Commerce Secretary Guttenberg, who was most widely unknown. Mr. Guttenberg is descended from an old and noble lineage, so his official name is very long (nine prenames!): “Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jakob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg“. When first there were rumors that he would be appointed to the post, someone changed his Wikipedia entry and added the name ‘Wilhelm,’ so Wikipedia stated his full name as: “Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Wilhelm Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg” (ten prenames – Wilhelm added somewhere in the middle).

Well, what happened? Nearly all German publications picked up Guttenberg’s name from Wikipedia, introducing the new Commerce Secretary with ten prenames, including the wrong Wilhelm.

In the meantime a Wikipedia user called the prenames in question , reverted the article and requested proof of the name. The proof was found quickly. On a German newssite an article cites Mr. Guttenberg using his full name; however, while the quote might have been real, the full name seems to have been looked up on Wikipedia while the false edit was in place. So the circle was closed: Wikipedia states a false fact, a reputable media outlet copies the false fact, and this outlet is then used as the source to prove the false fact to Wikipedia.

Obviously was not very hard to jerk the whole German press around. Every journalist (and every other person) could have been able to see that there had been a recent change to Guttenberg’s name on Wikipedia the day before. But nobody checked this. Even journalists trusted Wikipedia blindly.

 

I think the safety arrangements on Wikipedia, like the three-changes-a-day –rule or the possibility to block vandals, are sufficient. But people must make use of them and not trust blindly in whatever they read.

Leave a Comment

Burkina Faso: Murder of a prominent journalist

October 18, 2009 at 8:47 pm (Uncategorized)

I have chosen the country Burkina Faso, just because I have never ever heard about this country before, in fact I did not even know where this country lies. Okay, so if you also do not have any clue about this country, here are the basic facts before I start with what I found out. Burkina Faso is a West-African country and is one of the world’s poorest countries.

norbert-zongo-petitionThe news I found about Burkina Faso on globalvoicesonline is a very good example of how blogs and web communities can be used shed light on a big injustice, especially in countries where freedom of speech is not guaranteed.

The online article tells us about the death of Norbert Zongo, a popular journalist in this country, ten years ago. Zongo was shot, when he investigated about a murder at the presidential palace and criminal allegations against the President’s brother. The murder remains unpunished, the killers are still at large.

So far, so terrible – yet not really unusual. Murder has been used as an ultimate form of censorship before. (Just to mention Anna Politkovskaya in Russia.) But whereas in former times people could protest against injustice and nobody heard them, nowadays critics that demand justice have the possibility to reach a broad audience over the internet.

So it is in this case. Zongo’s widow, his colleges, friends and human right activists opened websites where they keep reminding people about this murder and demand for justice. Moreover they call on their readers to sign an online petition for reopening this case. Blogger in Burkina Faso wrote about the petition and appealed on their reader to sign. The news spread all over the internet, musicians like reggae singer Tiken Jah Fakoly rendered musical homage to Zango. All this publicity puts pressure on the government.

I hope for the internet activists that they will be successful with their demand to reopen the case. (Yet I do not think so.) But even if they are not, they did a fantastic job in showing those responsible that they can not do as they please, but are watched carefully. And with internet, the acitivest can find a broad audience that supports them.

Leave a Comment

Social Networking in Crisis

October 8, 2009 at 8:44 pm (Uncategorized)
Tags: , , , , , ,

In january 2009, a Airbus with 150 passengers on board crashed into the Hudson river. You remember?

The very first information about the accident appeared on Twitter. Janis Krums, no journalist but just some random person who happened to be on a ferry in New York, saw the airplane crashing, took a photo with his mobile phone, uploaded it on Twitter and wrote: “There’s a plane in the Hudson. I’m on the ferry going to pick up the people. Crazy.“ This was the very first news that reached the world about the crash. It was no TV or radio station, nor any newspaper (of course) that spread the news, but internet. More comments came in on Twitter, more photos were uploaded on Flickr, sooner than any TV station was on site.

I think that this is a really huge advantage of new media and internet. As (nearly) everybody has a mobile phone with web access nowadays, it is possible for every person to publish information instantly. This means that every person can become a reporter, if he is at the right time at the right place. This also means that we, as an audience, can get information faster than ever before.

Some people think that this kind of citizen journalism might be a threat to professional journalism. I don’t think so. Twitter is no news board but just another source of information. People who twitter are not journalists. They are just eye witnesses that report about what they see. I mean for example, though Janis Krums was on site, we did not get any further news about the accident from him. Nothing about the rescue, no interviews with survivors, nothing about the cause of the accident.

Therefore I think Twitter is a great opportunity in cases like this to get news through as fast as possible, but it can never replace proper media coverage.

Leave a Comment

Youtube censorship guidelines

October 1, 2009 at 10:10 pm (Uncategorized)

Youtube is such a big thing that it is not controllable in a way like government enforces its laws.  Meaning: Somebody sets a rule, keeps control and punishes if necessary. Internet and youtube is too big keep under control with anybody around the world being able to contribute and with the sheer amount of 13 hours of video being uploaded every minute. Youtube calls on its user to be fair, to respect the rules. This whole system bases on trust.

Prohibited content on youtube is animal abuse, drug abuse, under-age drinking and smoking, bomb making, pornography or sexually explicit content, violence, gross-out videos, and hate speech. Also copyrights are an issue. Users are only allowed to upload their own material or material they are authorized to use. So what can you post there? Basically anything else. Youtube wants you to participate, watch videos, and give feedback, comment on and rate videos.

On my opinion, the guidelines are pretty fair. All the stuff that is forbidden is more or less common sense and forbidden by law anyway (like animal or drug abuse). When I browsed through youtube searching for inappropriate content, I was surprised how little I found. I actually thought youtube is a reservoir of videos with illegal content, but either I just did not find it or there is not so much. Therefore, I also assume the system also works rather effective. Of course it will never work 100%. There are always people who try to abuse youtube for purposes it was not created for and do not stick to the rules. But altogether I think the trust based and community controlled system works pretty well and can be a role model for the new web environment.

Leave a Comment

Death of newspapers?

September 29, 2009 at 7:07 am (Uncategorized)
Tags: , , ,

Most young people do not read newspapers, but use their laptops and Iphones to get the latest news. But does this necessarily mean newspaper has to die? I personally do not think newspaper will die, but if it wants to have any significance in the future media world, it has to change dramatically.

Publishers still fear the internet

Alexander Franke / www.jugendfotos.de, CC-License(by-nc)

Alexander Franke / www.jugendfotos.de, CC-License(by-nc)

Publishers missed the online trend at the beginning of this century. But instead of catching up, some of them still seem to fear the internet, keep watching its development bewilderedly without participating. Other publishers simply transfer paper content online ignoring the unique features of the internet. And many journalists still consider online content inferior to printed words.

If publisher and journalists go on like this, I agree: Newspaper will die. But I still believe that publishers understand the signs of the time and begin to consider themselves as content producers and the newspaper as an information channel. Publishers deal with information and have look for the best channels to provide their content. This may be online as well as newspaper – depending on the kind of content.

Newspaper has to change dramatically

Newspaper must not try to compete for immediacy against internet. It will lose. Internet is the medium for the latest information in quickly digestible chunks. Whereas newspaper must offer excellently written stories that explain the news and analyze the background. Newspapers must provide highest quality so that people consider her as trustworthy. This is a unique characteristic of the newspaper compared to the internet, where anybody around the world can publish news and nobody proves whether it is true or not.

A newspaper produced that way will never die, yet it will lose lots of readership. It will lose this part of the readership that is satisfied with online news and does not feel the urge to dig deeper into a story. Newspaper will not be a mass medium anymore, it will become a niche medium – yet it won’t die. I think there is a chance for both: Internet AND newspaper.

Vision of future media system in 10-minutes short film

This is my personal believe and hope as a journalist who used to write for newspapers and a big fan of coffee-and-newspaper-breakfast. Yet, I have to admit, that I personally get most of my news online and I perfectly understand the point others make when they say internet may be the end of the newspaper.

I found a 10-minutes movie Robin Sloan made for the “Museum of Media History”, a vision of how the media world might look like in 2015. How blogs, podcasts and the worldwide network changes the traditional media system we still have. I think it is really visionary short film and worth looking at.

Leave a Comment

The future of the music industry

September 29, 2009 at 7:04 am (Uncategorized)
Tags: , , , ,

The following article comments on Courtney Love’s speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference

Nathalie Rüther / www.jugendfotos.de, CC-License(by-nc)

Nathalie Rüther / www.jugendfotos.de, CC-License(by-nc)

in 2000. Very wisely, she has kind of forseen the development of the music industry. But the record labels are still changing. What will the future of the music industry look like?

When I read the article, my first thought was: Wow, Courtney Love is really angry with the record companies. And if her accusations and calculations are true, I can understand her anger. The speech casts a different light on the music business. Someone like me, who never really got in touch with the music business, just sees the surface, the glam and the stars. But I never thought about how the whole machinery works.

What is Courtney’s problem with the recording industry?
Firstly, Courtney accuses the recording industry of stealing the copyrights with contracts that force the artists to give up their rights on their own songs. Secondly, record labels do not to pay a decent price for the copyrights. Whereas music companies make millions, some artists are broke. Thirdly, music labels are exclusive distributors controlling the artist’s access to the public. This system keeps artists from finding an audience because of scarcities like limited radio promotion and limited space in record stores.

The digital world has no scarcities

Therefore Courtney likes the advantage internet offers. “The digital world has no scarcities.” There are new ways of distribution and how to market music. Unlimited bin space and intelligent search engines make it possible for every person to find the music they like and for artists to be found. In the digital world music is available to more people and artist can communicate directly with their audience. Furthermore, internet makes artists independent from recording companies. Courtney says: “Now the artists have options.” Record companies lose some of their control and do no longer function as “gatekeepers”.

Do it yourself: Bradsuck

One example of an alternative way of distributing music is the website bradsucks. The owner of the website, a Canadian guy called Brad, was among the first musicians to release his music under the creative commons license in 2002. He gives his music to his fans for free and encourages them to remix his songs. He gained a lot of popularity, probably also because he was one of the first who used internet for music distribution. Bradsucks proves that internet does not make artists poor, he even earns good money from licensing and fans buying (!! ) his CDs. (Though they could have it for free.)

I think in ten years the big companies will have recognized the advantages of internet and will make use of new technologies. In the last few years, they definitely missed the digital trend, but I am sure they will catch up. And I am sorry for that, but I do not think internet will be a gold mine for most musicians.

Leave a Comment

Prince vs. Youtube

September 29, 2009 at 6:58 am (Uncategorized)
Tags: , , ,

This article deals with copyright law and the internet. It comments on the issue of Prince and youtube and shows that internet is partially still a legal black hole. Lawgivers are not able to keep up with the rapid developments of the internet, such as uploading videos. What would have happened, if Prince sued youtube? Maybe he would have won, maybe not. Nobody can say that for sure. This was probably one of the reasons why the lawsuit was never filed and Prince is still arguing with youtube about his copyrights. Though on one of Prince’s fan sites rumor has it the singer finally eases off.

Can you upload a video of yourself singing a Prince song on youtube?

Honestly, I do not know what the law says about whether or not I am allowed to upload a video of myself singing a Prince song on youtube. But my personal opinion on that topic is that it should be. Youtube is a transformation of real life into web. I can sing a Prince song at home, nobody will sue me for singing Prince in the shower. But as soon as I make money with singing Prince songs I have to ask him and pay fees. Which is just fair, I think. As far as I have figured out, nobody makes money with uploading videos of himself singing Prince songs. Therefore I think it should be allowed.

Moral issue: How can you sue your fans?

Other than that, let us not take the legal issues into account, I think, it is still morally wrong to sue people who admire you and who actually made Prince what he is nowadays: a famous pop star. What makes a musician become a pop star? It is his fans. A musician can make good music, but he will never become a pop star, as long as he does not have fans supporting him, buying every single CD, going to the concerts, buying the merchandising stuff and demanding radio stations to play Prince’s songs.

The former internet innovator now afraid of its development?
Most of all I wonder how this could happen to someone like Prince, who was formaly considered as an “Internet innovator and a freind to the culture of free file sharing”. He was one of the first artists who distributed their music online. He also added 2 million free copies of his album Planet Earth to a newspaper promotion in the UK.

Moreover in 2006, Prince received the Webby Lifetime Achivement Award for his visionary use of the Internet. “Besides being a musical genius, Prince is a visionary who recognized early on that the web would completely change how we experience music,” said Tiffany Shlain, founder of The Webby Awards. “For more than a decade, he has tapped the power of the Web to forge a deeper connection with his fans and push the boundaries of technology and art.”

How could he have changed his heart so dramatically?

Leave a Comment

About this blog

September 27, 2009 at 7:38 pm (Uncategorized)

This blog is a project of my course “Communication Futures” at the Hawaii Pacific University.

The blog reflects on the effects of technology on communication, including mass media, telecommunication, the information superhigh and other emerging trends. I will also examine the role of society and government in shaping future systems.

Hopefully, you have fun reading it.

Leave a Comment