I have to agree that the way they went about shutting down Megaupload wasn't good. The reaction of frequent visitors was incredibly negative and that could've probably been avoided by a little forewarning before the site's subsequent closing. It also didn't help that this was in the wake of SOPA, something many internet users, whether they pirated videos or not, were dreading.
Oftentimes, shows that aren't available immediately in some countries when they air in their production country cause more people to want to enjoy shows at the same time as those who are able to watch things immediately. Being a part of an online community that surrounds a show that doesn't air in your country until months or even years after the original air date can be frustrating and alienating and people sometimes feel like pirating is the only way to keep up with the conversation. If networks would take a more active role in making content available online, it would be much more profitable. With the arrival of Hulu and other such sites that stream TV and movies, people no longer have to wait to watch something on TV and I think we've gotten used to that. There is a certain laziness that goes with pirating, particularly movies that aren't hard to obtain legally, whether it's in theatres or available to rent and/or buy on iTunes or Amazon.
While I don't condone piracy, I can see why some people feel the need to do it. And, as the article says, the Megaupload site's demise had a negative effect in some cases since people weren't sharing their experiences by word of mouth anymore. Only those with immediate access to new releases can talk about them, and that puts a stopper in what could be a prosperous market.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Comm203: Rhode Island sues
I think it's ridiculous that that amount of money would be given out without some sort of guarantee of its repayment. A background check should certainly have been in place as well as some sort of credit check to be sure that the company this huge amount of money was going to would be good for paying it back. The article doesn't say why everyone in 38 Studios was fired, but I imagine it had to do with money and to think they took this loan with apparently full knowledge of their imminent decent into bankruptcy is simply evil.
Helping out a failing company is an altruistic idea but oftentimes others (in this case the taxpayers in Rhode Island) end up being the people who pay for it. Regardless, I think the way the state and the lawyers involved are handling it is sufficient, even though it should not have been an issue in the first place. It also seems like the Governor himself in the video in the article did not understand how this could have happened and is only dealing with the repercussions of the deal. It is amazing to me that someone who is supposed to be fully involved and in charge of the situation could know so little. Much of that video seemed to be a political campaign, too. It felt like he was preaching so that the people, when the time came, wouldn't vote him out of office.
In firing all of its employees at once, 38 Studios left 379 people without jobs and without income. The idea that any company would go into business not knowing whether it was safe to invest in or whether it could provide safety for its employees is not a functioning company and its ridiculous that it's allowed to happen.
Helping out a failing company is an altruistic idea but oftentimes others (in this case the taxpayers in Rhode Island) end up being the people who pay for it. Regardless, I think the way the state and the lawyers involved are handling it is sufficient, even though it should not have been an issue in the first place. It also seems like the Governor himself in the video in the article did not understand how this could have happened and is only dealing with the repercussions of the deal. It is amazing to me that someone who is supposed to be fully involved and in charge of the situation could know so little. Much of that video seemed to be a political campaign, too. It felt like he was preaching so that the people, when the time came, wouldn't vote him out of office.
In firing all of its employees at once, 38 Studios left 379 people without jobs and without income. The idea that any company would go into business not knowing whether it was safe to invest in or whether it could provide safety for its employees is not a functioning company and its ridiculous that it's allowed to happen.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Comm203: gaming
While I understand the desire to have the best of the best as far as employees go, especially in such a competitive environment like the gaming industry, oftentimes the way these corporations go about letting people go is downright dispicable. Honestly, it sounds like something that might happen in an episode of Arrested Development, firing a whole team at an amusement park. And the gaming industry isn't the only place where sketchy hirings and firings occur. I have a friend who spent months drawing up pages worth of art for a comic book only to be denied payment for her work after the book was published. Artists are being swindled every day and it's an incredible shame that it happens not just on the small scale, but on the big scale too.
I really want to know the reasoning behind the firings. Were they simply not profiting anymore? Could they not afford to pay their employees? Certainly, no matter the case, there are better, more efficient, less dickish ways to go about firing so many people at once. I also feel like, if it is not about quality and instead about financial issues, there should be some sort of contract in place that keeps artists and other programmers on the job for a set amount of time. I feel like a lot of this inhumane firing stems from big corporations' inability to understand that these are real people trying to make a living.
No matter what, there need to be some drastic changes made before the environment changes in the game producing community.
I really want to know the reasoning behind the firings. Were they simply not profiting anymore? Could they not afford to pay their employees? Certainly, no matter the case, there are better, more efficient, less dickish ways to go about firing so many people at once. I also feel like, if it is not about quality and instead about financial issues, there should be some sort of contract in place that keeps artists and other programmers on the job for a set amount of time. I feel like a lot of this inhumane firing stems from big corporations' inability to understand that these are real people trying to make a living.
No matter what, there need to be some drastic changes made before the environment changes in the game producing community.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Comm203: Argo
It is certainly an interesting concept to think about - whether the government should be involved in movie production and if so, how. In the Wired magazine article, the government used a fake Science fiction flick to assist in a real life situation. Of course, the government has had a hand in the entertainment business for quite a long time before this, with propaganda films and even before that with the newspaper industry and yellow journalism. Nowadays you see ads on TV that depict the Marines as hardcore servicemen being courageous in times of despair, which may be true but it's still one shot of a much bigger picture that isn't shown on TV.
The governments in other countries play a huge role in what is allowed on screen and what isn't and I'm grateful that, for the most part, American cinema can do and say whatever it wants. There is a certain stigma that comes with government censorship that says it has to censor certain things because its people are too stupid to understand that whatever is being censored is bad. I think the rating system that the U.S. has is a great way to keep the camera rolling while still laying out some guidelines for people. While some rules are more stupid than others, the rating system allows people to judge if they want to see a movie based on a standardized set of policies.
The governments in other countries play a huge role in what is allowed on screen and what isn't and I'm grateful that, for the most part, American cinema can do and say whatever it wants. There is a certain stigma that comes with government censorship that says it has to censor certain things because its people are too stupid to understand that whatever is being censored is bad. I think the rating system that the U.S. has is a great way to keep the camera rolling while still laying out some guidelines for people. While some rules are more stupid than others, the rating system allows people to judge if they want to see a movie based on a standardized set of policies.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Comm 203: Wikileaks
Wikileaks certainly has been in the news quite a lot and not for necessarily good reasons. On the surface, I think Wikileaks comes off as the people's news - giving Joe Plumber the information he deserves to have as a citizen of the United States of America. And I think to a certain extent that holds some truth to it. Still, private documents are private for a reason and I'm not cynical enough to believe it's because the government wants to trick the common peon into making poor decisions. If a government weren't at least a little secretive, it wouldn't be able to function very efficiently. It is incredible suspicious, as this article denotes, that the U.S. might be so determined to remove one man from the public eye. And given the sensitivity of some of the information released, it's hard to blame them. I believe it's less about what the public should see and more about what potential threats would use this information against us. On the other hand, Wikileaks has released information that has shamed the U.S.A. on several different accounts, something that this egotistical nation might have been in sore need of.
Whether or not Wikileak's founder's personal life is relevant to the site's mission is another question. It's a question often posed in government and politics where affairs and other scandals run rampant. In this case, I believe it is only just a little more relevant than the affairs of your basic politician: not really relevant at all. For better or worse, who people are and what they do can often be two different things.
Whether or not Wikileak's founder's personal life is relevant to the site's mission is another question. It's a question often posed in government and politics where affairs and other scandals run rampant. In this case, I believe it is only just a little more relevant than the affairs of your basic politician: not really relevant at all. For better or worse, who people are and what they do can often be two different things.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Comm 203: Book Covers
For better of for worse, book covers are a dying art. As more and more authors are publishing solely online for those with access to eReaders to read, book covers are becoming superfluous. And I'm not convinced that that's entirely a bad thing. True, an entire section of people with a specialized job will be out of work and that's never a good thing in today's economy, but the idea of the book cover is something I've never quite been fond of for a number of reasons. The biggest reason of all is that the author often has little to no say on what the cover looks like, which accounts for the thousands of young adult novels with pretty white girls on the cover who play no apparent part in the actual plot. Book covers are, more often than not, a way to sell the book. The Newbery-worth novel with the plain brown book cover won't sell as many copies as the glorified pornography book with a minimalistic rose on the front with a sexy satin ribbon tied around its stem.
Still, there is something to be said about the art of book cover making that makes it worth crying over, and that is reintroducing old classics to a new, easily distracted audience. The covers for Shakespeare's Hamlet or Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels, when donning an updated book cover might attract the attention of a young adult who is so easily taken in by aesthetics.
Book covers aren't only for young adult and children's novels, of course. The adult romance novel section would contain naught but bad writing and worse plots without Fabio strutting with some bodacious damsel on the cover.
Still, the completely electronic book world is a while off and we're stuck with book covers, so I'd like to just appreciate the ones that make even a little bit of sense for now.
Still, there is something to be said about the art of book cover making that makes it worth crying over, and that is reintroducing old classics to a new, easily distracted audience. The covers for Shakespeare's Hamlet or Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels, when donning an updated book cover might attract the attention of a young adult who is so easily taken in by aesthetics.
Book covers aren't only for young adult and children's novels, of course. The adult romance novel section would contain naught but bad writing and worse plots without Fabio strutting with some bodacious damsel on the cover.
Still, the completely electronic book world is a while off and we're stuck with book covers, so I'd like to just appreciate the ones that make even a little bit of sense for now.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Comm 203: Video Games
Anyone who believes today's video games are just for kids needs to get a reality check. I don't know any decent parent who would let their five or six-year-old sit and play Gears of War or Call of Duty or any number of first-person shooter games. In fact, I doubt a five or six-year-old would have the dexterity to play a game; just looking at an Xbox controller might make them give up. Not to mention, the ratings on a lot of games today are rated M for mature. Even games that were originally aimed towards young kids, like the Super Mario Bros. franchise, has evolved to encompass all sorts of genres. You can now beat your friends to a pulp on that friendly-looking Wii system on Super Smash Bros. Although Nintendo has for a very long time been more geared towards a younger audience, I'm not sure how many eight-year-olds could work through the entirety of The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess without help from an online guide. (I remember playing LoZ: Ocarina of Time when I was about that age and not having any idea what to do.) With the exception of some really gifted kids, I'd say the majority of games being produced for gaming consoles today are aimed for audiences 15 and older. Of course, there are also games on the phone, as this article discusses, and with the increase in iPhone and other Smart Phone sales, online games are becoming more and more accessible (and addictive).
I believe the video game industry does have a certain sway over the media. What we play shapes how we view the world and what we're more inclined to believe about it. That being said, I don't think violent video games create violent players in real life. Parents should certainly be active in choosing which games his or her child is playing, but after a certain age, most people are able to distinguish reality from media.
Video games might not be an art form in the purest sense, as this article argues, but you have to admit that it takes some serious skill and creative talent to build a CGI ancient Rome like in Assassin's Creed, or entirely new life-like worlds as in Portal or Legend of Zelda or any number of other games. Video games and the art of creating them have evolved from their 2-D Pac-man days into virtual realities. They might not be comparable, as the author of article says, to sculptures by Michelangelo, but given the platform on which their created, I doubt anyone can deny just how much work and talent goes into creating these environments.
I believe the video game industry does have a certain sway over the media. What we play shapes how we view the world and what we're more inclined to believe about it. That being said, I don't think violent video games create violent players in real life. Parents should certainly be active in choosing which games his or her child is playing, but after a certain age, most people are able to distinguish reality from media.
Video games might not be an art form in the purest sense, as this article argues, but you have to admit that it takes some serious skill and creative talent to build a CGI ancient Rome like in Assassin's Creed, or entirely new life-like worlds as in Portal or Legend of Zelda or any number of other games. Video games and the art of creating them have evolved from their 2-D Pac-man days into virtual realities. They might not be comparable, as the author of article says, to sculptures by Michelangelo, but given the platform on which their created, I doubt anyone can deny just how much work and talent goes into creating these environments.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Comm 203
While the article is clearly one-sided, I can't help but agree with most of the points in it. I think most of the focus should be on taking down the sites who host exclusively illegal or copyright infringed material instead of going after the individuals who use the sites. It'd be far more efficient and easier to do overall. Looking at a site, like youtube, that is fairly particular about what gets posted and whether any material in a given video is copyrighted, shows just how the internet might be should something like this pass. Information might not be entirely accurate since certain aspects of it can't be discussed without permission from the original source and it might inhibit how fast news can spread. While I agree that overuse of material can occur (downloading full discographies or TV shows, for example), much of the time this so-called "copyrighted" material is being presented for criticism or discussion, and very rarely is something being used for monetary gain.
That being said, I understand where the opposition is coming from. When looking at any number of struggling bands or TV shows, it's easy to see how they're predicament might become permanent if the majority of their fanbase is consuming their work via illegal downloads. I think the attitude of a lot of people who use illegal means to watch TV or download music is that they are one of few; certainly the rest of the fandom is buying and supporting said band or TV show. But if that's not the truth, then their favorite TV show might get cancelled. Better awareness of why a person should purchase something is crucial to the success of any given medium.
I am admittedly guilty of perusing watchseries.eu for easy-to-watch episodes when they can't be found for free on Hulu or Netflix. It's simple and seemingly harmless, but I justify my actions by pointing out that if I really enjoy a show, nine times out of ten I will end up buying the DVDs just so I can have them for rainy days and TV marathons with friends. Streaming also becomes a temptation when shows, like BBC's Sherlock, don't air in the U.S. until months after they air in Britain. Making TV more accessible might curb people's incessant desire to have TV here and now.
That being said, I understand where the opposition is coming from. When looking at any number of struggling bands or TV shows, it's easy to see how they're predicament might become permanent if the majority of their fanbase is consuming their work via illegal downloads. I think the attitude of a lot of people who use illegal means to watch TV or download music is that they are one of few; certainly the rest of the fandom is buying and supporting said band or TV show. But if that's not the truth, then their favorite TV show might get cancelled. Better awareness of why a person should purchase something is crucial to the success of any given medium.
I am admittedly guilty of perusing watchseries.eu for easy-to-watch episodes when they can't be found for free on Hulu or Netflix. It's simple and seemingly harmless, but I justify my actions by pointing out that if I really enjoy a show, nine times out of ten I will end up buying the DVDs just so I can have them for rainy days and TV marathons with friends. Streaming also becomes a temptation when shows, like BBC's Sherlock, don't air in the U.S. until months after they air in Britain. Making TV more accessible might curb people's incessant desire to have TV here and now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)