Copyright Law

Anthony Su- Week 14 Blog Post

First, I would like to discuss the distinction between a society based on raw material and one based on information. A society based on raw material kind of resembles a farm or a society that does not value education highly. On the other hand, a society based on information is highly intellectual, with technology and many ideas that should not be freely distributed. I think that copyright is certainly more applicable to a society based on information. For example, people can replicate music or movies more readily than something that is not intellectual. It is highly unlikely for someone to replicate a potato or a solid, physical material from a market and sell it. It is possible for someone to copy a farming method, but I don't see that as bad as breaking copyright law. The one who tries to copy the farming method does have to put in the work to produce a product. On the other hand, copying intellectual material is way worse because it is so easy to say, copy a song, without putting in much work. The person who initially came up with a song or work put in all the work or human labor already. Copyright is so much more of an issue in societies based on information. That is a reason why copyright isn't a big issue in the past; many societies were not intellectual or based on information.

Secondly, I think that Copyright is very important. People do have a right own their information. I totally agree with the humanitarian origin of copyright. To take someone's new, original idea away from that person is analogous to taking a part of that person's brain away. People do need the credit they deserve for a work. The time and effort someone spends on an intellectual work should be recognized. It is not right to break copyright laws. It is like plagiarism, which is highly not tolerated in many institutions of education these days. In this sense, patents should be supported and it is not wrong for someone to want to get rich off an innovative idea. That being said, the more steps needed in order for a work to be published, the worse the situation becomes. Publishers, or other people who authors/composers need to see before making their work final and out to the public, should not be legitimate working men. I am sure that publishers have to sign agreements before they look at an author's work, but it is still an unnecessary step in the process of making intellectual property and distributing it to the public. The extra step of handing a work to a publisher to have it printed takes extra time, and the author could publish his or her own work. This idea may be radical and against the law, but it is a suggestion I have. It would be nice to simplify society and lower the number of steps required to publish and distribute intellectual work. Without the publishers, the work of an author may be more pure and the probability of breaking Copyright laws can be reduced.

I would also like to discuss sausage factories. I liked comparing this to Upton Sinclair's The Jungle earlier today to show the horrific nature of producing meat. They are disgusting, but I find that there should be one reason why we should take pity on some members of society and respect the work they do. Even though the quality of labor may not be good, as seen by occasional fingers sticking out of meat loaves and hair in dishes, due to the unsanitary conditions of the factory, I feel that the producers are doing the best they can given the conditions of the working place. I feel that overall, our society should give more respect to people like these, even though this situation is less common in the world today. Without them, our world would be much different. It is just like we need material imported from China, our world would be much different without this trading partner we have. We cannot produce some material that China can produce. Even though the quality of some work is not good, we should still respect it for what it is. Same thing goes with copyright, we should respect authors and composers for working hard on their intellectual works.

Finally, I do agree with what's been said earlier about fear deterring certain people from coming up with very innovative ideas.

Animated News --- Now Kids Can Watch How Crimes Happen

*Before I begin, I would like to warn the audience that the subject of my post is not exactly something we’ve talked about in class or read for homework. But, seeing that this subject that I am about to discuss is a very interesting form of new media and that it somewhat relates to the issues we’ve studied, I feel obligated to share it with the class.

Animated News — Now You Can Watch The Crime Happen Like A Movie

I was just watching the news the other day when I came across a very interesting new-media topic— animated news. Recently, a Taiwanese news publication company, the Apple, has introduced animated recreations of crimes into its daily news program. At the company’s headquarter, hundreds of engineers work to turn materials gathered by field journalists into detailed 3-D animated movies. Bloodshed, live actions of robbery, shooting, rapes etc. you name it, “animated news” covers a wide range of social topics from gang violence and street fights to sexual assaults and domestic violence. And while the company allegedly claims that minors under eighteen years of age are not allowed to view the overtly graphic animations, kids can still download the animated news online and watch the clips either on the computer or on their cell phones. (*An example of a less-violent piece of animated news may be viewed on the following website if anyone is interested: http://www.xcar.com.cn/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=11018964 and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEsIkpBSRpc ) Furious parents and educators are concerned that the realistic depictions of violence and inappropriate sexual contents would have negative influence on children. The Tai Pei government too, has imposed a daily fee of 500,000 yuan on the Apple Publication and has ordered the company to stop producing animated news. At the same time, media scholars also resist this “new news movement.” Instead of worrying about kids watching recreations of violent crimes, media scholars are more concerned about the change in the nature of news brought by its latest form(animated news).

“The journalists become scriptwriters and the engineers become directors. All there is to the ‘news’ are just imagined details. So the whole animated news is just fake news in reality,” says Taiwanese media scholar Fengjia Zhuang.

Aside from the concern over the negative impact on the nature of news brought by this animated news movement, there are two fundamental problems that cannot be overseen: violence and sexuality.

Let’s start with sexuality. This past week, we’ve talked about how sexuality is portrayed in video games. In Hot Date, Consalvo argues that the design of characters in video games reflect a traditional social belief that women are vulnerable princess who need to be saved by prince-charmings and that the most influence such video games can have on the player is that the games allow players to explore their identity (sexual-wise) playing as the main character (who is usually a guy). But in animated news, sexuality is a much more dangerous component of the medium. The problem is no longer who is playing prince charming; the problem now is how will guys treat women watching rape or other sexual violence recreations growing up. Similarly, will girls thus assume a weak, victimized image?

Secondly, there is the concern over kids' exposure to violence via new media. Here is something to think about: if we do not want expose kids to violent contents, then why do we produce all sorts of media with violent contents in the first place? In a way, the fault is actually on the adults. According to Baidu's Encyclopedia on animated news, the animated news movement is actually driven by the market for sex and violence. If that sentence does not make sense, think of it this way: since the daily news program is converted to animated news which primarily covers news on violent, sexual crimes and even suicides, the entire news spectrum is then converted to violent and sexual contents. Now you may ask why there is this conversion from traditional news to animated news. More specifically, you should ask why such conversion is necessary or unavoidable. The answer is actually quite simple—because sex and violence sells. Remember that article we read earlier on violent video games and kids? The author of that article argues that adults are more afraid of children mastering technologies better than adults do than they are afraid of kids being exposed to violence via video games. But perhaps what adults should really be afraid of is the consequence of their subconscious (or is it?) preference for sex and violence. The entertainment industry will not stop selling sex and violence unless there is no market for it. And until then, good luck to the parents and educators who strive to keep children safe from media contents inappropriate for the kids’ age.

Huiling P.

No Longer Lessig's "Free Culture"

I went ahead and wrote about Lawrence Lessig's piece on Free Culture for this week's blog post. I hope this is acceptable.

The dramatic shift from a ‘“free culture’” as described by Lawrence Lessig to one dominated by fear, in which everyone is afraid of being sued for accidentally ‘copying’ another’s patented material in their artworks/inventions, reveals a flaw in today’s definition of piracy. Lessig’s initial example of how the ‘who owns what?’ issue (in which the Causby’s argued the Wright brother’s airplanes were trespassing on their airspace, causing their chickens to die) was resolved in favor of the airplane creators. However, it's clear that those who violate some established societal norms with their creativity are increasingly on the receiving end of punishment, which clearly points to the deterioration of our “free culture”.

As mentioned by Lessig in his later chapters, the world-famous character Mickey Mouse was actually copied from the show Steamboat Bill Jr. Walt Disney, fascinated by the success of the film, created a direct parody of it in what was later called ‘Steamboat Willie.’ As this film became a success, Disney reaped profits off of more tales he didn’t create - reinventing the stories from the Brother’s Grimm with happy endings; today’s disney classics. Ironically, the copyright for Mickey Mouse and his friends is still enforced today. Every 20 or so years when the copyright is about to expire, Walt Disney lobbies Congress to lengthen the number of years a character can be copyrighted. Mickey Mouse is now over 80 years old! Corporate greed dominates a culture to the extend that one cannot recreate the world’s most beloved character without facing penalties for copyright infringement.

Other horror stories exist, such as copyrights on songs that are now integral to our culture, including “Happy Birthday to You”. Piracy seems to harm all aspects of creativity- one can not create a song without being sued for ‘copying’ a series of chords (as Coldplay was sued for Viva la Vida), one cannot invent more efficient equipment without being smothered by a dominant company (as Armstrong was nailed by the RCA for inventing FM radio), one cannot create characters in a book without being questioned (J.K. Rowling was sued for Harry Potter). It appears that the idea of ‘piracy’ has been used too much to stifle creativity; it has become a misnomer in todays society.

You've got to be kidding me

I couldn't not post this story...many of you may have already seen or heard about it, but it was news to me.

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged-in/man-marries-a-videogame/1376577

Comments?

Mia Consalvo – Hot Dates and Fairy-Tale Romances

In this chapter, Consalvo talks about The Sims which is a game that allows the user to create an online community. Individuals can be made be certain features and personalities such as criminal or school age kid. From there families can be made and then neighborhoods and so on. The game allows relationships to be made such as friendships, dating relationships, and marriage relationships. Heterosexual couples can choose or plan to have a baby while homosexual couples cannot. This is mostly in part to sexuality issues. The creators of the game may have supported domestic partnerships but been against homosexual marriage. So here heterosexual has become the default setting as that’s what a character will be unless specified.

When creating new characters, there are a variety of features and appearances that are used to put together a new individual. Race is a big factor of a new character as skin tones are only given in so many tones and usually there is a maximum dark skin tone that isn’t really all that dark. The default Sims that first pops up is a light-complexioned, middle-aged male. This relates to the idea that this is the norm in American society and all other skin tones and gender have to initially start from it and kind of see it as its maker or founder. The limited range of body types shows that people are expected to fall under certain umbrella sizes. Until recently, there was only one large Sims that was significantly overweight.

The Sims allows for a neighborhood to be built and from there on, society grows and changes as a real one would. Fairy tales can be created from this game as characters can be controlled and whatever the user wants to happen can happen. Society is lost in having the perfect relationship or the perfect wedding when sometimes complete perfection can be outright scary. Mistakes are part of being human as we learn from our mistakes and grow with experience. “To err is human, to forgive is divine.” –Alexander Pope.


Gagan Kular =]

Sexuality in Video Games

In my blog post I will address character identification and the erotic triangle as mentioned by Mia Consalvo in “Hot Dates and Fairy-Tale Romances: Studying Sexuality in Video Games”.

I agree with Mia and Stephen Poole when they argue that players identify with their characters. Their arguments of player- character identification differ in terms of how the character is drawn and/or portrayed. From Mia’s perspective by having characters such as Zidane drawn with the bare minimum of details, players are presented with a better opportunity to imagine themselves as the character. This identification allows players to imagine the characters personality, actions, and how they relate to other characters. From Poole’s perspective players are more likely to identify with realistic characters than with abstract ones. Based on my limited experience of playing video games, my perspective of player-character identification is similar to Poole’s. When I play Pac-man or any other game where the characters are just shapes with smiley faces, I do not feel bad when they die because I think about the additional lives that they have. Now when I use realistic characters and have been able to grow attached to them, I feel so bad when they die because I think that the characters depended on me and I just let them down. Regardless of how a character is drawn, players will identify with them to varying degrees.

The erotic triangle involves two men who have homosocial feelings towards one another that are displaced onto a woman, who “serves as a placeholder for their heterosexuality”. Examples of the erotic triangle appear in male-buddy action movies such as Superbad, Wedding Crashers, and even Shrek. I have never thought much of the male- buddy relationship as being part of an erotic triangle. In my opinion, the men are really good friends who can identify with the other as a brother. It’s strange that it’s “normal” for girls to be best friends but out of place for guys to be best friends. The latter statement has been recently addressed by the newly created term “bromance”. Society is slowly accepting these intense male friendships.

Hot Dates, etc.

So video games tend to be exactly how "traditional society" thinks about the world. Mia Consalvo brings up a good point about video games and the lack of homosexuality. She uses both The Sims and Final Fantasy 9 as her examples of video games and either their lack of homosexuality or the lack of going all the way. The Sims incorporates gays but it does not allow them to marry. However, this list is not exhaustive. I could probably list all of the video games I have, at least the ones that regard a relationship, and each one has nothing to do with homosexuals. Grand Theft Auto would be another good example. The player can, if he or she so chooses, to go on dates and after the date, the user may be invited into the house for some "Hot Coffee". Either way, all these dates are with women. The user never really has a choice to go out with a guy. (I do know that in GTA IV that there is a dating website and I remember there being gay men on it, but I never experimented with dating them so it is possible you could date other men in GTA IV) However, Consalvo's point remains true, that most video games do not center around a homosexual relationship.

Another point that Consalvo brings up is the love triangle between two men and a woman. I did not think of this in class, but another good movie example of this triangle could be Star Wars. Luke Skywalker, the main character, and Han Solo end up being pretty good friends throughout the series. However, they both inadvertently end up indirectly fighting over Princess Leia. George Lucas relieves this tension by revealing in the end that Princess Leia is, in fact, Luke's sister. There are also many other cases of movies where the main character and his good/best friend end up fighting over a girl between them. These movies usually end with one agreeing to let the other have her or it turning out to be that neither really wants her. They then go back to being good friends and everyone lives happily ever after. The usual story book ending by Hollywood.

So in retrospect, Consalvo brings up the points that show our society is still afraid to admit gays into open media. Apart from Broke Back Mountain, I can not really think of any widely popular movies that featured such a famous gay scene. And in most video games homosexuality is completely avoided, probably for several reasons. One, the game creators may be against homosexuality. Or two, they may be afraid that some people would not buy their game if it was advertised for having homosexuality in it. It is probably a combination of the two, especially considering marketing is what drives most video games to huge sales. In conclusion, I think our society is too afraid to openly address gays and so it will continue to be an unspoken trait for years to come.

High Tech or High Risk: Moral Panics about Girls Online

High Tech or High Risk:Moral Panics about Girls Online

“When your children are at home you think they are safe. But are they? What about the internet? Have you taught them how to protect themselves online?”

To a certain extend I agree with this quote because the internet is not very safe when people do not use the internet wisely. This world is filled with sexual predators however, these predators are not just online. “Teens are also at risk in the mall, walking home from school, and spending a vacation with distant relatives.” Parents need to understand the internet is a very helpful tool that helps enhance their children’s education. There is a common misconception about who the actual sexual perpetrator is. People believe that strangers are the perpetrators of child sexual abuse when in fact family members and friends are still the most frequent perpetrators.

While I was reading, I could not help but think about the little four year old boy from my hometown of Mendota, Ca who was raped and killed by his fourteen year old neighbor. This heartbreaking tragedy took place a day before Halloween. The little boy wondered out into his home’s driveway and the teen lured the little boy into his house by telling little Alex that he had candy for him. Then he raped and killed the helpless child. The mother went looking for her child and after an hour that Alex went missing, the fourteen year old boy had already killed him. Now you might ask yourself, I did she mention this story. I mention this story because parents should be more aware of their children’s surroundings that what they do on the internet. There are bad people everywhere not just online.

On another note, women have been perceived as incompetent in the technological world.

In Wired Love, the women portrayed in these narratives were naïve and incapable in the face of technical advances, and when they made forays into the world of the telegraph they ended up needing to be rescued, to be protected from technology, in sum.

Nowadays, women can do what ever they please whenever they want and however they want. We do not need men to protect us or to rescue us from our mistakes. We learn from our mistakes and we keep moving forward in life with our head held high. There has been too much sexism in our society that now is the time to fight back and show the world what we are made of. May I remind people about the first computers. The first computers were women! Women were the quickest to pick up the technical skills that were needed. Sorry for the tone, but I think that people need to stop thinking that women always need men to help them because we are unable to succeed without help.

Claudia A.

Class Canceled WEDNESDAY 11/18

Please check your email for schedule updates. We will not have class this Wednesday in support of the student and faculty strike; however, we will meet on Friday in part to discuss the current issues facing the university as well as the Cramer and Cassell.

On November 18^th and 19^th, the Regents of the UC will be meeting to vote on another round of student fee increases.

What can you do to show the UC Administration and the State of California that we will not tolerate another increase?

• Visit ucstrike.com

Read the strike call, and sign your name! More than 1,000 members of the UC community—undergraduates, graduate students, staff and faculty—have already signed. You can also learn more about the budget cuts and the protests through the “Links” section of that website.

• Come to campus on November 18^th and join the strike!

Go the rally at Sproul Plaza at noon. Not going to classes is not enough, the strike will only be effective if our numbers are visible. There will also be picket lines on the 18^th and 19^th, join them! Check the ucstrike.com website for more information

• Talk to your friends.

There are thousands of undergraduates at Berkeley, and many people haven’t heard about the strike yet. It’s up to us to spread the word however we can. You can join the “UC Student, Worker, Faculty Strike” and the “System-wide Strike” events on Facebook. You can also become a fan of the “ucstrike.com” page, and invite all your friends to do the same! Set your status to say that you support the strike, this is a great way to get other Berkeley students aware of the strike.

• Talk to your classmates in other classes and talk to your instructors!

If a majority of students in a class support the strike, you can petition your instructor to cancel class. Even instructors who support the strike already will appreciate this show of solidarity. If you talk to an instructor, ask them to sign the “Strike Solidarity Pledge” on ucstrike.com

Identity Cross Dressing

Drawing on Lisa Nakamura’s “Head-Hunting on the Internet: Identity Tourism, Avatars, And Racial Passing in Textual and Graphic Chat Spaces”, I am going to address identity and stereotypes on the internet.

Lisa Nakamura begins the chapter by liking the internet to a theater, an analogy that I agree with. There are many performers on a stage. These actors and actresses, who are of various ethnicities, ages, and heights, are able to portray any character the director requires thanks to make up artists, costumes, and the facial expressions, accents, and behavior of the actors themselves. When you’re watching a play or musical, such as The Lion King, you forget that the animals prancing across the stage are people. Being on the internet is very similar because you can describe yourself in any way and as long as your actions reflect that of your description, people will believe you.

Before images were available online, usernames reflected what a person wanted others to think of them. Just by reading someone’s description, I argue that you can tell whether or not the person you are talking to is what he/she claims they are in terms of race. Using the example mentioned in the chapter about the young Japanese girl who devotes “her life to perfecting the tea ceremony and mastering the art of lovemaking”, it is obvious that the user is definitely not a young Japanese girl. The description draws upon the user’s inner desires and imagination of what a Japanese girl should be in terms of appearance and talents.

Users use stereotypes they have heard from the radio, seen on the television, or heard from others. Like most stereotypes, the descriptions are not all truth and are offensive. For example, a clip from Family Guy has the family going to Chinatown and every Asian person the dad sees, he shouts “Oh, Jackie Chan!”. The clip ends with an Asian man going up to the family and shouting “Oh, Ethan Hawke!”. This reflects the stereotype that people of a certain ethnicity look the same. With many people using stereotypes in their descriptions, others who read the descriptions will believe that it is true. We can become a less ignorant society by getting rid of stereotypes by not using them in our descriptions.

Are Video Games to Blame?

Quetzal's Blog Post:

Video games have undergone serious criticism from many scholars,
politicians, and angry parents for their violence and sometimes graphic
content. The controversy starts when one asks the question: “Who is to
blame for the violence in our youth?”. For some scholars, politicians,
and parents their response is that it is the unregulated and unchecked
violence that is found in video games that is to blame for tragedies such
as the Littleton shootings. However, I feel that video games are not to
blame. In Professor Jenkins Goes to Washington, Professor Jenkins gives
an elaborate and strong defense for why video games are not to blame for
violent incidents such as the Littleton shootings. Rather than pointing
the finger at a video game with graphic violence such as Grand Theft Auto
or Call of Duty, Jenkins claims that it is society and their perceptions
of popular culture by adults and parents that is more at fault for
violence among youth. Though I agree with Jenkins claims, I also feel
that video game companies have done the most they can do to protect
children from playing games that can be too mature for them.
It is no secret that video games contain blood, violence, weapons, and
shooting. Some of the most popular games contain very graphic violence
and brutality. In Grand Theft Auto there is basically no limits to what
the player can do. The player can steal cars, fight pedestrians, and even
pick-up prostitutes. So how can we allow these games fall into the hands
of children? First of all, video games such as Grand Theft Auto have a
ESRB rating of “M”. This “M” stands for “Mature” which means that only
audiences of 18 years of old and above are allowed to purchase this game.
The ESRB stands for the Entertainment Software Rating Board and they are
responsible for rating video games on the basis of their content and what
type of audience should play these games. The ESRB have other ratings
that suggest what age groups the video game is appropriate for. For
example, video games rated “E” are intended for all audiences regardless
of age and video games rated “T” are video games intended for teenagers
of age 12 to 18 years old. I find it ridiculous that politicians and
interest groups against video games can place any kind of blame on video
games. Video games are a form of media and entertainment. Movies, CD’s,
and even pornographic films are all sold openly on the market and all
have content that could be too mature for children and teenagers.
However, all of these forms of media have been regulated with ratings
that clearly indicate to the consumer what kind of audiences should buy
and use them. It is obvious that there are still children and teenagers
playing video games that they should not play but that does not mean
video games are to blame. Parents are responsible for their children. If
a child breaks a window, steals merchandise from a store, or even murders
a person the parents are still responsible. It is the parents duty and
responsibility to raise their children into law-abiding and successful
citizens.
In Professor Jenkins Goes to Washington, Jenkins states that the “moral
panic” of parents towards video games and other forms of media is due to
adult’s fear of adolescents, adult’s fear of technology, and
misunderstanding of the largely visible youth culture itself. All three
of these claims are connected to parents and adults. It is them who I
feel have lacked taking responsibility for violence among youth. One can
argue that if children are surrounded by violence at an early age that
they will grow up with violent behavior. The environment a child is
raised in will obviously affect the way their personality is shaped. It
is the parents and adults duty to create an environment where children
can learn to grow into mentally healthy and valuable members of society.
However, adults have lacked showing understanding for new forms of media
such as video games. Instead of adults and parents making an effort to
learn about video games and talking to their children about the
difference between fantasy and reality they decide to ignore their
children. Parents refuse to take the blame themselves; no parent wants to
admit they are bad parents. But if parents took the time to understand
why their children dress the way they do, eat certain foods, listen to a
certain genre of music, watch particular TV shows, or associate with
their group of friends then maybe they would understand why they play
certain video games. If parents did this they would have confidence that
their child is controlling the video game and not the other way around.
Video games are a new form of media. A new form of entertainment in this
revolutionary generation. Ever generation have their own forms of
entertainment, whether it be playing with marbles or playing a
first-person shooter game such as Call of Duty. It is up to our
generation to express our beliefs about video games and it is up to
adults to listen to us. Like Jenkins stated at the end of his e-mail:
“Listen to our children. Don’t fear them.”

Happy Meals Don't Come In a Black Box

Bogost’s idea of procedural rhetoric, or argumentation through a series of processes, can be twisted to portray the McDonald’s game we were asked to play for homework as either a black or white box. I argue that the game is more of a white box.

The maker of the McDonald’s game clearly created it with the intention of making a social commentary. He deliberately limited the game to a series of processes that force choices that are morally wrong; the player must chop down untamed jungle in a third world country in order to grow crops, must fatten cows using growth hormones, must bribe environmentalists and other lobbyists etc. in order to keep the company afloat. The game lodges a social criticism by disallowing the player any positive alternative when playing the game - one either picks the moral wrong or bankrupts the company and loses. By forcing the unwilling player to twist his or her perspective to support a corrupt corporation, the game in essence uses reverse psychology to firmly entrench a player’s opposition to the McDonald’s corporation’s business practices. Procedural rhetoric here shows the game to be more along the lines of a white box technology, as the player’s options are clearly defined, allowing him or her control over how the game is played, though through a set series of options.

One may argue that with a defined series of options, the game becomes too limited, therefore stifling the player’s creativity or willingness to play the game. As the player cannot physically alter the code to create more positive alternatives, the game would much resemble the ‘user-unfriendly’ black box. However, Bogost argues that though options are predetermined, the player is allowed a certain amount of creativity to express themselves through the options they choose. For example, the first time I played the game, I intentionally ignored the option to bribe the various lobbying agencies. I also ignored the option to use growth hormones on the cows and rewarded rather than punished the employees whose statuses described them as being ‘bored’ with their jobs. As a result, I forced the McDonald’s company into overwhelming debt and lost the game within minutes. By refusing the only options alloted to me in the game, I was able to some degree “express myself”. I later replayed the game using every malicious tool I could find and boosted McDonald’s profits enormously. The game’s underlying message became obvious. To understand the harms of McDonald’s products, I had to identify the approaches to problems that the game presented (i.e. whether or not to supplement the cows’ diets with growth hormones to speed up the butchering process) and come up with a definite conclusion (or decision), making this game the very definition of a white box according to Bogost (62).

Through a series of decisions in which greed is survival, the McDonald’s game reveals the corruption of the fast food industry. The options are limited and strongly negative in this procedure, making a strong anti-fast food argument. Clearly then, as the choices are clearly defined yet can be controlled by the player, the game can be classified as a white box.

So, games aren’t just for fun?!?

As Ian Bogost argues, games are a powerful medium for the expression of ideas, especially with respect to the notion of “procedural rhetoric.” Though he only mentions it briefly in this introductory chapter of Persuasive Games, Bogost is a notable figurehead helping to lead the expressive game revolution, attempting to convey political and philosophical messages through his many games. His expertise in this field is self-evident in his writings, which are swollen with examples and supporting citations (over 160 in one chapter! So many) from new media writings. It is partly for this reason that I find it hard to argue with many of the arguments he makes. In addition, the examples of games he uses to articulate his points seem highly obscure to me (with a couple of notable exceptions), while at the same time they are perfectly appropriate and further his arguments very well. It is writing such as that of this chapter that can have an overwhelming initial impact on readers, based on the depth and breadth he uses in articulating and supporting his theories.

There were still a couple of areas where I took some issue with a few of Bogost’s remarks. Stylistically speaking, I was frustrated by the ways that he would occasionally explain or break down his arguments to the level of very fine historical or otherwise technical details. For example, his account of the ancient history of rhetoric and oratory vis-a-vis Plato and Aristotle is certainly relevant, but I felt that it dragged a bit to the point where it could distract the reader from the larger points. Another example of this was on page 27, where he detailed hypertext and process intensity, and I felt that the level of detail seen here slightly bogged down his argument momentarily. There are also certain portions where he quotes so many authors in such a short period of time that it can be easy to forget who is making each specific point (i.e. page 23).

Bogost covertly describes instances of propaganda (i.e. the LBJ commercial) but I felt a more open investigation of propaganda might have been merited in his discussion of visual rhetoric. Akin to that notion, one might also relate the concept of kitsch, which is essentially “cheapened art” that is usually self evident in meaning and therefore begs little interpretation (think of a garden gnome or a portrait of a 1950s American family happily eating Thanksgiving dinner). And kitsch and propaganda are commonly seen in just about any type of video game in one form or another, be it the music, action, scenery etc.

Regarding the McDonald’s game (makes me want a hamburger!...just not with any of the additives I put in the burgers while playing the game), I looked at the tutorial first (interesting and somewhat appropriate that it is positioned above the “start a new game” button, since the game can be complex to grasp at first) and then started to learn how to be a good capitalist. At first I found the game surprisingly difficult, but then I recalled all of the terrible things I could do in the game to help me increase profits. Hooray! But I still never got very far. Who knew it could be so easy to bankrupt McDonald’s!

Awesomeness

So I came across this interview of Bogost by Stephen Colbert...enjoy!

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/91012/august-07-2007/ian-bogost?videoId=91012

Procedural rhetoric is the most effective way to get a point across. A videogame with an interactive format and engaging game-play that effectively gets your idea to the player, is more effective than sending out a pamphlet with your views, or even a TV add that voices your opinion. Because a video game allows the player to actually get involved in a simulated representation of the situation, the player maintains interest in the situation, and the game designer is able to put a bias in the game so the player is more likely to see the situation how they want. However, it is important for the game designer to make the game as realistic as possible. Even when the game is being used as a tool to get people to think like you, when the only option in the game is to be what the designer considers “evil,” the player realizes this, so acts evil, and thinks that it is the only way to succeed in the situation. Likewise, when a game only allows you to be “good,” the player cannot see the consequences of being bad.

In the online game McDonald’s Videogame, procedural rhetoric is used to show the corruption and problems in the fast food industry. However, in the game, the player starts out as a bad guy. They are forced to farm on foreign soil near rainforest that eventually needs to be cut down to succeed. In order for the player to make it in the corporate world of McDonalds, for any period of time, they have to do things that are construed as bad. If a player tries to not genetically alter the cattle feed, or not use growth hormones on the cattle, problems ensue such as the cattle feed runs out and cows start to die, or not enough hamburgers are being produced so the restaurant cannot sell to customers. All of these lead to the corporation losing money, and firing you. The only way to last for an extended period of time in the game is to do what the videogame producer was trying to show as bad. However, by doing this, their message is weakened. They are showing that the only way to succeed in the fast food industry is to genetically alter food, use growth hormones, corrupt governments, destroy rainforests, and generally use bad business practices. Had the designer given the gamer an option to use better business practice and allowed them to succeed by doing this they would have sent a stronger message. Showing that it is possible to be good in the fast food industry would cause the player to realize that being bad is unnecessary instead of the only option for success. The designer also makes the game very difficult to win. No matter what you do, something bad will happen that will cause you to lose money and eventually go bankrupt and get fired. This makes the game less fun for the gamer, because no matter what they do, they will essentially fail, which causes the game to not receive a huge long term following of people, so the message is eventually lost.

When procedural rhetoric is used properly it is a very strong tool to get support for a cause. However, it is difficult to make procedural rhetoric that properly gets your idea across to the masses. The view of the designer should be the way to succeed in a procedural rhetoric game, because when properly implemented it allows the player to realize that the designer’s view is the right way.

—Daniel Wagman

I just finished playing the McDonald computer game. After being fired multiple times for too many activists or lawsuits or lack of healthy cows and who knows what else, I found that there was a limit to how far I could advance. The laws governing the game continued to add more and more algorithms during the course of the game to gradually (or quickly depending on how fast you advanced) increase the difficulty. This concept of procedurality that Bogost discusses interprets my gaming experience in the fullest extent. The programming controlling the game and determined the consequences or rewards for each action I made. This left me with a new set of choices to make to further make or break the McDonald Corporation. It is not hard to believe that there are also rules in society that encourage certain actions or behavior in the people of that society. Corporations are a perfect example of these rules. Corporations act with the primary motive to increase profits. Certain protocols are made to achieve this goal of achieving maximum profit. There are divisions for customer relation, productivity and marketing that are all under a strict set of regulations. There are return policies and guarantees to keep customer loyalty, quotas that must be filled under threat of a change in management and the constant denials of anything that may put their corporation in a bad light.

There are also the rules that exist for everyday people in our society. Although the rules may not be quite as strict as they are for the corporations or McDonald video game, they definitely do exist. For example, a person can choose what clothes they wear today, but they don not have the choice of going out without any clothes. These are the rules that maintain the coherence and order in society by putting a limit to what is acceptable. Bogost then transitions from procedurality to Rhetoric in regards to the boundaries of both society and games and defines Rhetoric as an expression that is effective and persuasive. However, I think it could be argued that procedurality is also an effective and persuasive expression. People must obey these certain rules in society in order to be part of the community. The idea is that if someone acts in a certain manner for long enough, that they will eventually begin to think in the same manner. This reality has helped spread a good amount of beliefs and ideals through the people that make up our society. Games are like that today as well, acting as an educational tool (Reader Rabbit) for children going to complex social interactions in massive online games influencing the countless people that are part of the “Gamer Generation”.

It may be simplistic to compare the intricate and complex workings of society to a video game like the McDonald Corporation, but they are both based off of rules. Whether it is algorithms or socially acceptable practices, games are created to be a model of reality—determining and establishing the boundaries of what their rules allow them to do. Speaking of boundaries, I think I am going to try to get further in the McDonald Corporation…
Kevin Campbell

News from SLSA

The Society for Literature, Science and the Arts (SLSA) is wrapping up its 2009 conference here in Atlanta, Georgia. The past three days have offered a really exciting range of panels with academics from all over the country and the world. Here are some highlights: "Twittered" subjects, ubiquitous computing, speculative realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_realism), object-oriented philosophy, Alfred North Whitehead, and cosmopolitics (Isabelle Stengers).

I'm looking forward to seeing you all again on Monday and discussing more of the Galloway.

"Productivity" of Video Games

Video games often come under criticism on the grounds that they produce nothing productive and are waste of time to the player. In his book Man, Play and Games, Roger Caillois claims that video games are “Unproductive: creating neither goods, nor wealth, nor new elements of any kind; and, except for the exchange of property among the players, ending in a situation identical to that prevailing at the beginning of the game” (Caillois 10). In essence, Caillois is correct. From the start, it costs money to purchase a medium on which to play the game. After that expense has been had, it costs money to buy the game and often most MMORPG games require the player to pay a fee per month.

The above just states the monetary waste that is spent on video games. However the unproductively continues in a different form, human time consumption. As one who has played WoW for almost four years now, I clearly know how this is true. MMORPG games never actually end, allowing the player endless hours in the game, giving them endless opportunity to improve their character. This tends to become a quest resulting in literally 100’s of real life days played in the game.

People often try and justify this extreme amount of time spent playing by saying it builds strategy, leadership, and socializing skills. The claim that holds the most truth is the strategy and by extension quick decision making skill building, since most of the games require quick action. However, as for the leadership skills, it may be proposed that leading a raid in a game such as WoW constitutes leading a large group of people. Technically it is and as one who has for over a year now lead and scheduled raids for a guild I would agree it is not easy. But in actuality for leadership skills to have been built, actual face to face interactions with the people being lead is necessary. Imagine putting on a resume that you contain certain leadership skills because you led a group of people over the internet in a video game. We have not yet reached that point in society that skills gained over a video game have been recognized as worthwhile, thus keeping video games in the stereotype as just another game people play to pass the time.

The Definition and Importance of Play

The definition of play, with a general focus on video games, is an interesting topic that has started to come up in our most recent readings. As a gamer myself, (though I take the definition of “gamer” very lightly, in this case, just someone who plays video games on occasion) I found it interesting to read what makes playing video games, by definition, a form of “play.” Throughout childhood I always considered play to simply be any instance in which I was doing something that I wanted to do and had fun while doing it. Not being required to do something was possibly the most important aspect of play for me as a child. Playing basketball has always been one of my favorite activities, but once I joined a club basketball team in middle school, I was required to practice and play at certain times, required to do well, and in constant fear of being yelled at by our over-zealous coach. As basketball became more and more of a requirement, it became less and less an idea of fun and play. In Man, Play and Games, author Roger Caillois has several aspects by which he defines play. His first point is presented plain and simple. “1. Free: in which playing is not obligatory; if it were, it would at once lose its attractiveness and joyous quality as diversion.” (Caillois 9) I believe that this point is what defines video games, for the mass majority of people who participate in them, as a strict form of play. People turn to video games as a source of entertainment and play because of the freedom associated with it. The freedom to control a virtual world, the freedom to play and discontinue play whenever the player wants, and the freedom of choice between different video games and different mediums on which to play the video games are just some of these ideas of freedom that constitute video games as a form of play. For the minority that play video games as a profession, whether it be building and selling accounts to other players or making virtual items to sell on such games as Second Life, video games no longer fall under the category of play. At this point, something that was once an enjoyable form of play has now become an obligatory career. These “gamers” now have to find a different form of play for they turned their previous form of play into a profession.

In his novel Gaming: Essays on Algorithmic Culture, Alexander Galloway’s very first sentence is his definition of a game. “A game is an activity defined by rules in which players try to reach some sort of goal.” (Galloway 1) Such a short and simple definition still has the ability to define every video game. To be considered a game and, therefore, a form of play, video games must have set rules and an ultimate objective. Even in a game such as The Sims, where there isn’t a real way to beat the game, there is still the objective to keep your sim alive, to make as much money as possible, to make a family, and to have the coolest house ever. When I attempt to picture a video game with no set rules and no ultimate goal, I can only picture a video game character floating in an empty and void space. Playing a video game in which you control a character that is merely floating in an empty space sounds about as exciting as watching paint dry, which is why I’m guessing Floating Man isn’t an actual video game.

The importance of video games being a form a play, and not a form of “mindless” activity, as some seem to think it is, is extreme for many children and adults alike. As a source of escape from real world troubles and, for some, an only form of fun and entertainment, video games serve as this necessary form of play. “Play is essential to development because it contributes to the cognitive, physical, social, and emotional well-being.” (Ginsburg) Continuing freedom to play video games and allowing it to be a form of play for all wishing to participate is a necessity if we wish for the continual healthy development of the mind.

Response to Prolegomenon "We're Tired of Trees"

(yes, I again have a super long post...sorry!)

-In the Beginning-

The prolegomenon “We’re Tired of Trees” for the book The Exploit by Alexander R. Galloway and Eugene Thacker did not appear to be a very fascinating piece of reading to me when I read it for the first time, partially because some paragraphs left me with a “what is he trying to say?” impression. But as I looked closer, such paragraphs proved to be the most interesting parts of the essay. I have to say that while some parts of the essay had I nodding along and agreeing with it, some other parts made me feel that the authors were making invalid claims, and in the end it made me wanting to read the rest of the book, which could potentially dissolve some of the disagreements between my personal opinions and the authors’ opinions outlined in the chapter.

Since I do not have the rest of the book, however, I can only focus on the prolegomenon. During it, the authors claimed to successfully refute four provisional responses, and that since all four proved to be ultimately unsatisfying, they are all wrong. However, after reading through all four parts, I am not fully convinced that the authors had successfully refuted the four responses. This is not to say that I think any of the four responses is correct, nor is it to say that the authors’ claim that all four responses are incorrect is wrong, but I find that how the authors refute these four responses to be unsatisfactory.

-I-

Let’s start with the first provisional response – political atomism (the Nietzschean argument). The authors claim that the Nietzschean argument is too “local”, that it only goes from node to node. But since the Nietzschean argument is about action and reaction, it seems to me that the authors believe that only local points – nodes – are capable of performing an action or reaction. But why can’t a network be performing an action or reaction? Well, I guess they would say that it is because a network is decentralized so it cannot collectively do something. But since there exist “conflicts between networks” (something the authors brought up themselves when they are trying to give examples of what the Nietzschean argument can’t explain) then each network would at least be somewhat a cohesive, collective entity, otherwise there will not be conflicts between networks. This implies that while a network is decentralized, it is a collective in some way and capable of performing actions and receiving reactions. Then why would the Nietzschean argument be too “local”?
As a matter of fact, why can’t the node of a big network be a smaller network? Why does a network have to be made up of individual points – can’t it be made up of networks? Can’t we think of a smaller network inside another network as both a network and a node? Can’t the Nietzschean argument be applied in all cases?
Also, I find the paragraph on U.N. to be poorly argued within itself. The authors point out the flaw of the U.N., which is that its reality is not as romantic as the ideal behind the concept. While an ideal U.N. will be an exemplar of decentralized networks, in reality it does have centers (namely the big five nations with veto powers). As a result, the U.N. is not the opposite of the United States. All such claims are fine with me, but then the authors go on to say that therefore decentralized networks are not opposite to centralized networks. Not that I think this is a wrong claim (I actually agree with it) but the way the author deduced it is very unsatisfactory for me. They deduced that decentralized is not opposite of centralized by proving that the UN is not opposite of the US. In other words, they equate UN to decentralized network and the US to centralized network. See the problem here? The authors had, merely sentences before, been proving how the U.N. is not a decentralized network because of its flaw! I think the ultimate problem here is the ambiguity that the authors gave to the term UN, perhaps very deliberately. The U.N. in reality is not a decentralized network but the U.N. concept is a decentralized network. So the authors should distinguish between which one they are talking about – the real world U.N. or the one in dreamland. But they did not make the distinction when they are drawing their conclusions; they prove that real world UN is not opposite to the US, but they draw a conclusion that must follow from proving the dreamland UN to be not opposite to the US.
But perhaps the most significant problem I have with the authors’ argument under this provisional response 1 part is – why is the U.N. even relevant here? I fail to see how the fact that the U.N. has flaws would help refute the Nietzschean argument. Of course, I may have a wrong understanding of the Nietzschean argument, since I tried my best but did not find a clear definition for it in the passage. I wonder why would the authors not give a clear definition to a concept they are trying to refute. Really.

-II-

Under the provisional response 2 section, the authors conclude that “to ensure the cohesion of American unilateralism, it must forge links outside its domain”. In other words, for a country to be the world’s superpower, it must be networked with other countries. This is an interesting statement and I do not disagree with it. But it seems to me that the authors are trying to use the US to prove that power is more associated with networks than with a single sovereignty, which I would like to question, and I will make a question of “eggs first or chickens first”. Did the US become a superpower before it branched out or did branching make US a superpower? I am inclined towards the first claim. While I will say that to remain a superpower in this age the US needs to branch out, simply branching out and forming links with other countries will not make a country a superpower. A country needs to be powerful first, then it has the ability to form links with other countries, and other countries will want to form links with it. If a country is very insignificant on the world stage, I doubt it can even successfully establish links. In fact, the authors themselves agree that the network formed by the US is a very centralized network – with US as its center. If US were not a single powerful sovereignty first, would it be able to become the network center?

-III-

Under this provisional response, the authors claim to be arguing against determinism, but as I read through this part, I find what they say they are arguing against in the beginning is very different from what they ended up arguing against in the end. In other words, they tried to switch concepts in order to establish their argument. In the beginning, they gave us a claim (and they say that it is the claim they are going to refute) which states that “media have now become a core component of war and political conflict”. In other words, media plays a significant role in war and conflict. Try as I may, I find it difficult to equate this claim to “technology determines politics”. Because being a core component and determining everything seem to be different ideas, at least to me. And while I will agree that “technology determines everything” is a silly claim, I cannot bring myself to say no to claims such as “without technology, some things will be different” or “without technology some things will be more difficult or even impossible to accomplish”.
Other than the switching of concepts, I find it interesting that one of (if not the only one of) the authors’ arguments here is that technology is not universal, since there is a vast difference between the First World nations and the not-so-first-world nations. I wholeheartedly agree with this claim – because it is a fact – but doesn’t it actually contradict what the authors are trying to say? They are trying to argue against the importance of technology, yet doesn’t such a clear correlation between the development of technology and society suggest technology is at least somewhat significant to the development of a society? Of course many may argue that it’s developed society leading to technology development, not the other way around (which I will disagree, I think the relationship between technology and society development is not a one-way cause and effect, but a looping cycle) but that is not my point here. My point is that I find the authors to be constructing poor arguments, their attacks almost incoherent and their own positions not well established or defended.

-IV-

Provisional response 4 – oh, let’s just say that I am very ashamed of myself, because I tried really, really hard to find where exactly did the authors refute the nominalist argument. Well, I failed to find it.

-On the Authors’ Actual Points instead of their Techniques-

As much trouble as I had with the authors’ arguments, I find myself agreeing with some of their points. As I have stated more than once already in this post, I do not disagree with the authors’ conclusions, I just find the way the arrived at such conclusions to be dubious on some occasions. One important claim the authors made is that the US is not (or at least no longer) a centralized sovereignty but a network, and I find it to be a fresh and agreeable take on the structure of power and control in our current world. The authors also made a claim on the relationship between symmetry and resistance. They claim that asymmetry, and asymmetry only, is going to lead to resistance. And since in the current world the “sovereignties” (such as the U.S.) have become networked, a network is not going to create resistance because it is in symmetry with the existing power, and thus a new topology of resistance must be invented.
I would really like to know what the authors propose as this “new topology” but I personally do not think that there needs to be a “new” one. Why won’t we simply have yet again an asymmetry between a network and a centralized power?
The authors looked at the history of the world from the Cold War to the current day, and said there have been three phases – symmetric centralized, asymmetric, and symmetric networked. But if we look at history beyond the Cold War, we can find other, earlier examples of such power and conflict structures. The Soviet Union and the United States are not the first two centralized powers going at war, the guerilla groups of the past decades are not the first examples of rebellions against ruling powers, and the idea of utilizing networks to help ruling a country is not invented by the current United States. I hereby dare to suggest that the most recent change from centralized to decentralized in terms of power structures in the world is not a permanent change, but only part of an ongoing oscillation. When power is too centralized, it will eventually become decentralized (example: the collapse of empires) but for decentralized networks, there will be those who, from within or outside of the network, bend on collecting power and form a centralized sovereignty (example: the formation of empires or even just nations).
Moreover, I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to draw a clear, definitive line between “centralized sovereignty ” and “decentralized network”. If we say that the Cold War era US and Soviet Union are centralized sovereignties, does that mean they had absolutely no network characteristics? (Did they not have diplomatic ties and links with other parts of the world? Did they not have different agencies networked together to function?) And if we say Al-Qeada is a decentralized network, when it is compared to the entire world – it’s a “global” war on terror, so technically Al-Qeada’s opponent is the world – does Al-Qeada not seem more like a single entity within a network? Isn’t the war on terror more like a war between a global network and a single entity within it?
I think, therefore, that the concepts of centralized sovereignty and decentralized network are only relative, not absolute. Power cannot be simply defined as centralized or decentralized; it is always in a state that is a mixture of the two. And the ratio between the two components (centralization and decentralization) is constantly changing and shifting from one end to another.
Throughout history, the extent to which power is centralized – or decentralized if you prefer a longer word, but really it’s the same thing – oscillates from high to low, then from low back to high, over and over again. So really, what has happened since the Cold War may not be something novel, but merely an ordinary process not unlike others that had already happened in the history.

-In the End-

Of course, I may change my opinion if I have the rest of the book to convince me what the new topology could be, and I guess this shows that the authors did a pretty good job – they successfully made me want to read the rest of their book. They just did not make me agree with some of the things they already said. But then maybe that’s just me.