Digital Divides

So, right now I'm sat in my Digital Media workshop and we've been told to do some research and publish a blog post on digital divides. So let's see...

According to the little handout we've been given, digital divides refers to the split between those who have access to digital tools and the internet and those who don't. This term has come to be discussed in references to a number of perceived situations of inequality.

Okay, so I guess now I have to find out what it means by inequality...

So, the digital divide can be based on things like gender, income and location. The term itself used to refer to just PC ownership, with those in countries with limited technology or even in areas with just a simple lack of access obviously not having a personal computer at their disposal. Over time, though, it has come to refer to people that are cut off from information. This can mean anything from telephones to the internet.

After some digging around I found this article. It details a National Telecommunications and Information Administration study carried out in 2000 in America that found that "schools, libraries, and other public access points continue to serve those groups that do not have access at home. For example, certain groups are far more likely to use public libraries to access the Internet, such as the unemployed, Blacks, and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders." It goes on to summarise that "Internet access is no longer a luxury item, but a resource used by many. Overall, the findings in this report show that there has been tremendous progress in just 20 months, but much work remains to be done. Computer ownership and Internet access rates are rapidly rising nationwide and for almost all groups. Nonetheless, there are still sectors of Americans that are not digitally connected."

An interesting example is the social divide in the case of the United Arab Emirates. Here they have two internet providers. Whilst most of the UAE is serviced by Etisalat, 70% being dial-up, Dubai is serviced by DIC-NET, which is broadband. Etisalat blocks a range of categories, including websites that contain information on drugs, alcohol, gay & lesbian dating, religion, sex education and pornography, as well as a whole range of others. To see some of these examples click here. Dubai, on the other hand, gives the user total access to anything they might have access to in western countries. As most of us know, Dubai is more advanced technologically than the rest of the UAE and makes a lot of money from tourism. It is a rich country, both in terms of wealth and socially.

There is also what is called the global digital divide between developed and developing countries. The divide is most evident in information and communications technology areas. For example, some places may have fixed-line telephones or broadband. Developing countries are getting there, though, slowly but surely. This is largely due to wireless technology, which can bridge the digital divide between rich and poor countries, avoiding the cost of developing an ICT infrastructure.

The top ten largest markets for mobile phones are mostly Asian and European countries, including the UK, Germany, France and Spain, but mobile phone markets in poorer countries in Asia and Africa are recording the strongest growth, with India being the fastest-growing.

©

This week we were looking at copyright in our workshop. We were set a task last week to get in a group and put together a presentation about it.
Amanda and I were looking at the "technological fix" which involved research on bandwidth and DRM (Digital Rights Management). Unfortunately we couldn't actually remember what we did with our research and on the day of the presentation we had to meet a little bit earlier to research it in the library all over again, but nevermind; these things happen.
We were a group of seven this time round and we all arranged to meet in the Polar Bear a couple hours before the workshop just to get everything sorted. Rather than sit and discuss the topic at hand it was more about having a drink and eating food in the end. Still, I shan't complain as I had a rather pleasant afternoon.
Sadly two of the group had to leave before the workshop for personal reasons, which left us with five instead of the original seven.

Shockingly, I can't remember much about what I actually researched - though this has been due to a stressful week of assignment planning and lots of work. I think we're all familiar with DRM technology. If you put it in the simplest terms you can it is like a digital lock on a file, which can only be opened by those with a 'key'. So how do you get the key? Why, you buy it of course! How ingenious - this way people won't be able to share the file on P2P networks, what a brilliant idea, yes? No, not quite. While the fat cats, big wigs and boffins probably all patted themselves on the back for the invention of this technology they didn't actually look at the downside. No one wants to pay for a product they can't really use to their own leisure and desired extent, so this had the negative effect of actually encouraging people to illegally download files instead. With an illegal file you have unlimited use for free; much better than limited use for a fee, wouldn't you agree? Yes, I'm a poet and I didn't know it. Richard Stallman called DRM a "malicious feature" and I couldn't quite put it better myself.

Remember when iTunes limited all their downloads to about four or five iPods? That was ridiculous too. I mean, I purchased music from the iTunes store and put it on my fifth generation iPod. Last year I had to buy a new iPod Classic as my old one decided to die on me. I managed to transfer all the music from my old iPod to my new one but found that when I wanted to play my iTunes purchases through the iTunes program I had to enter my password and it would tell me I was now using two out of the five iPods I was allowed it on. But it was still only me listening to it; I hadn't sent the file to anyone else. So what would happen if eventually I got to iPod number six? I mean, they're great products but they don't last forever, and are subject to quite a bit of rough handling in their time. Eventually they do give out. My old one lasted a few years before breaking. But still, I'd get to iPod number six and find I have to pay for the product all over again! While this is barely a lot with one or two downloads, when you use the Apple Store for all your purchases this equates to hundreds, if not, thousands of pounds. Not a problem I'd experience with a freebie, I imagine.
It does seem like it's punishing the user for actually buying the product, while the illegal downloaders carry on with their illegal downloads with better, lasting results.

Another example is 'The Grey Album' by DJ Danger Mouse. This album used acapella versions of the songs from Jay-Z's 'The Black Album' and mashed them up with instrumentals from The Beatles' 'The White Album', thus creating The Grey Album. EMI went up in arms over it, trying to halt its distribution. Danger Mouse had not asked permission to use The Beatles' material, whereas Jay-Z's album was intended for remixing and mash-ups. The album went on to be named best album of 2004 by Entertainment Weekly.

I've listened to this album and it's not at all a Beatles album. Yes, it uses some of their material, but it's not something you can imagine your grandad listening to. Surely if people wanted to listen to The Beatles they'd just purchase (or possibly illegally download) a Beatles album anyway? But this is the thing, clearly EMI wanted a cut of the profits - but there weren't any - the album was never for sale, it was free. Now, isn't this putting a barrier in the way of people's creativity? It really is a great album and it would have been a shame if it had never seen the light of day.
So where does this leave the state of copyright? What comes next? I guess we'll have to wait and see what the future holds.
March 2010 also saw the release of the Cut Up Boys latest release, Mash Up Mix 90s and in celebration they have given people the chance to make their own mash-ups on the Ministry of Sound website. Inspired by this, and by the study of remix and mash-up culture, I decided to throw together something myself using Sony Acid Pro 7. Here is the result.

Brb, g2g

So, have you ever been in an online conversation with a friend, whether through MSN or Facebook and you're talking for a few minutes about something you see as incredibly interesting and you're waiting to see their response; what you do get in reply, though, is "hey, anyway, I g2g now, speak soon xx"

And then they don't go.

You then become some kind of weird stalker, watching their online status persistently. Has anyone else ever found themselves staring at that little green dot on Facebook chat? "Surely it should be a grey dot by now if they've gone..."



I know, right? You just become a loser, like "oh, maybe they forgot to sign out or something". And then they post a status and you think "they're online?! How rude!"



MSN is worse. You're chatting away to someone online and they suddenly announce "brb". We all know that after 5 minutes the green box surrounding a display picture should turn orange if they're inactive. But it's still green. They're still online. "Did they just not wanna talk to me?" you find yourself thinking.
There's a group on our treasured Facebook titled 'Brb... I'm not really going anywhere, but neither is this conversation'.
"Oh gosh," I think, "I'm that person". But then, aren't we all guilty of it sometimes? I do occasionally tell people I'm off to do something or "brb" and never actually leave. I just can't be bothered to converse.
What is it about online instant messaging mediums that sets people in this state of mind where you think people should be talking to you just because you're both online at the same time? I mean, in real life just because you find yourself in the same building as someone doesn't mean you need to go and talk to them, so why do we feel that way about instant messaging? People are surely entitled to carry on their daily lives as they want without feeling obliged to start an awkward chat. But that's the thing, though; if they're online you know, or seem to think you do, that they clearly have nothing better to do. They're not out partying or meeting up with friends or working, they're sitting in their bedrooms typing away at their computer. At what moment do they decide to click that little cross in the top right corner of your chat box?
So is this a problem with us or is it a problem with just online messaging? I've always found one of the key issues with instant messaging is that it doesn't carry tone of voice. You could say one thing and mean it in a totally jokey way, but to the other party it might come across as extremely offensive. For example, I could say "so's your mum" in reply to a playful insult, but because they don't hear the way I said it they might actually think I'm being serious! Ouch!
Why don't we just meet more often in person? Why don't we just talk more on the phone? It's because instant messaging allows us to have several conversations with people from different social circles all at the same time. It's convenience, and we put convenience before importance. I do it sometimes when I'm researching something for an assignment. Why walk to the library when I can search Google, I find myself thinking. Does it make us lazy or inconsiderate? Instant messaging is a God-send for most young people. It's another way to keep in touch with various friends and when Facebook came up with its chat feature you couldn't think how the website could get any more perfect. But the more time we spend talking online, the less things we actually have to talk about. Maybe sometimes friends realise that before you do. I know I do when it's the other way round. Maybe they think it better off talking to you when you have something interesting to talk about, rather than have a boring, one-word-answer kind of conversation that usually goes along the lines of "hey, how's you?" - "fine thanks, you?" - "Yeah good. Wubu2?" - "Nothing much, you?" - "same". How many times do we find ourselves in these dire discourses with our loved ones? I find it to be quite often.
Anyway, brb.

Back to reality

So, it's been a while. The workshops pretty much finished just before Christmas so there was nothing really to write about, unless I wanted to make extra work for myself - but having a life prohibits me from doing so.
One of the first projects we had to do when we started the new term was to make a campaign video, inspired by those on battlefront.co.uk. I got into a group with the usual suspects - my darling Kate, Kelly and Amanda. After some thought we decided to make a video about "Real Beauty". How often have we seen the Barbie doll image of a woman in the media with fake breasts, fake nose, fake tan, fake everything? That's right - every day. So shouldn't people, particularly girls, learn to appreciate themselves and the way they look as they are? I think so (for the most part).
We decided to each capture a photo of our friends and ask them a question about what they would change about themselves. This varied from small things like their hair, to completely absurd things like their lips or chins. I mean, why would you want to change your lips? Really?
So, we edited these photos and responses into a video, with the backing track of the Sugababes single "Ugly". What followed those particular photos and responses was a series of rather unattractive photos of women whose plastic surgery operations clearly went terribly wrong. You know the kinds of people who look like balloons with wigs? Or have the facial features of a fish being pushed through a keyhole? Yeah, those kinda women.
The campaign was inspired by a similar one by Dove.
The last few seconds of footage was again of our friends, in their natural care-free element. Simply beautiful as they are.
We put this video together, or rather Kate did, because she is Wonder Woman when it comes to Windows Movie Maker and media projects, in a relatively short amount of time. Our next task was to show it to the class. There were lots of other interesting campaigns made by my fellow students. The one that stood out to me the most was a hilarious parody of chavs and teenage pregnancy. If only I knew where to find that on YouTube.
Anyway, here's what we came up with.
We know internet campaigns to be successful. We witnessed it at Christmas. If the public share an interest in something they will team up together to do something about it. The example I'm talking about is the Christmas number one. Tired of X-Factor winners being the annual top-spot-holder the public gathered together and joined a group on Facebook to get the lesser-known band 'Rage Against the Machine' to number one. I was skeptical at first as I'd seen these kinds of attempts before, but lo and behold it worked! Joe McElderry was number 2 for Christmas (in more ways than one) and Rage Against the Machine reigned champion. This was all down to the mass downloading of their single "Killing in the Name", a song first released in 1992.
Evidently if there's enough interest in something there's no telling what the public can achieve on their own terms.