According to the freedictionary.com, the word ‘Celebrity’ means to be a ‘widely known person’, and while the status of celebrity was once reserved for those of –only great importance and popularity, the definition has now been stretched to encompass all forms of media, and anyone who has a significant following.

We now live in a society in which people actively seek their ’15 minutes of fame’, and then look to elongate it by any means necessary. It doesn’t matter if this mean subjecting yourself to humiliating gameshows, in which you wear tight spandex body suits and convolute your body into weird shapes to fit through a hole in a wall.

One place that has seen the rise of a new breed of celebrity, is YouTube. A platform that was initially a dating site, that quickly adapted to let anyone post a video- about anything that pleased them. Forget traditional blogging, why write in an age in which the masses can’t be bothered to read? In fact, according to YouTube, every minute, 24 hours of video are uploaded to the site.

Ruling by the majority- change

“Celebrity: the advantage of being known by those who don’t know you” [Chamfort Maximes et pensées]

Chamfort describes the status of celebrity as an advantage, however, with the turn of the internet age, I’d beg to differ. As I have mentioned on more than one occasion on this blog, the internet has given the inhabitants of the 21st century, a veil of anonomanity. Normally we alter our behaviour to fit into the norms of society, due to the fear of being alienated. However, on the web, we are represented by merely a username, and therefore we can act as we please.

Not only has the internet changed how people act, but also the role of the audience. Rather than having an audience of faces to look back at, YouTube celebrities stare back into the dark abyss of a camera lens. The audience is represented by merely a username. Rather than a round of applause, the audience’s approval, or disapproval, is distilled down to merely a ‘thumbs up’ or ‘thumbs down.’ For me, this conjures up images of a Roman Emperor overseeing a bloody gladiator battle, only for them to giving an approving nod once they were satisfied.

Furthermore, people now have the power to express their opinion, which all to often ends up with people making slurs about the sexual promiscuous of your mother. This notable shift in power, in which the audience are in a position of power, is partly due to the visible popularity of shows on the internet. On YouTube, the popularity of the content is clearly displayed, and therefore audience members can decide whether or not to watch it, before they even press the play button.

Voyeuristic society

As a member of a western society, we all participate in the act of watching. We are voyeurs, and like a school boy peeping through a hole in the changing rooms, we love to peek into other’s lives, while remaining anonymous. The result of this, is not only the rise of shows such as Big Brother, but also the creation of a society based around the watching. At the very centre of this, lies the notion of the panopticon, as we are constantly under surveillance from a relatively unknown quantity. The fear of being seen, combined with the fact that we don’t actually know when we’re been watched, ensures that the majority of us conform to the norms of society.

The internet, is yet another node, from which we can spy on others. Rather than peeping through the curtains to see which man Mrs Smith has brought back this week, people of the 21st century merely log onto the internet. Furthermore, thanks to the rise of social sites, like Facebook, you can find out a person’s age, gender and whether they prefer the Godfather 2 or 3, all without ever meeting them. Moreover, with an increasing amount of people making a living on the internet, the notion of one’s privacy has almost become a prized commodity.

One way people have begun to make a living of the internet is through YouTube. Get enough subscribers and Google will give you a share of the profits made from adverts. One such prominent YouTuber that I am going to focus upon, is Dan Brown, and there is a good reason why I’ve picked this young chap over many others.

Dan 3.0

In a bid to gain internet stardom, Dan Brown created a project called Dan 3.0, in which he has allowed he audience control of his life. Audience members submit ideas into the ‘decision engine’ at the revision3 website, and then they are voted upon. Once an idea gains enough traction, it is then formally accepted by Dan, and he completes the task.

So far, the show has been slowing picking up momentum since it’s inception back in August. However, I think the far more interesting aspect of the show is the creation of, perhaps intentionally by Dan, a unique social experiment. The Dan 3.0 show highlights not only the effects of allowing the majority to rule, but also, it highlights the importance of privacy. After all, he is handing over control of nearly every aspect of his life to his audience, and therefore, they are going to want to see, hear and experience everything that Dan does.

So, my point was nicely illustrated when, back in September, when Dan dropped off the face of the planet. Videos, tweets – all stopped. As a result, the rumour mill began to turn at full force. People were decrypting his girlfriends tweets, with some coming the conclusion that she was pregnant, while others thought she had left Dan. One user took upon himself to personally interrogate Dan’s brother via his Youtube account, in a futile attempt to squeeze a morsel of information out of him. Fortunately, the brother proved not to be a weak link. The speculation reaching fever pitch when some claimed that the internet host was dead.

The reality was, Dan wasn’t strung up from a tree, nor was he working his way through a box of kleanx tissues after a painful break up,  he was merely stressed out. When you publicly hand over control of your life and record it for a global audience, there will be very little privacy. Rather than being an interactive show, Dan 3.0 is a social experiment that highlights the need for privacy in today’s modern world.

Online Services

The transition began along time ago, we just haven’t released yet, since it’s pretty likely that you are using many cloud services right now. One great example is, YouTube, which in it’s early days was a video dating site- a stark difference from the all encompassing video sharing site and broadcaster that it is today. Owners, Google, plan to continue the expansion of the site with the introduction of Google TV, in which YouTube will be at the epicentre. The service, that is set for release later this year, will provide users with a new layer of interface on top of their existing setup, with universal search for shows across the TV programs and YouTube.

Staying in the realm of television and video, our American cousins will be all too familiar with the great service that Hulu provides. The service is now expanding from just computer to the Playstation, iPad and other media centre services. No longer is the viewing experience constricted to the single screen, the television, people’s viewing experience can be moved from device to device, and all this is made possible with an online account- a simple username and password.

Online services aren’t just restricted to video, other such examples can be seen with Flickr, the photo sharing site from Yahoo!, and online streaming services such as Spotify and Grooveshark. The most starkly different function- from that of media and content providing services- is how people are increasingly moving and backing up all their data online, whether that be document, emails, photos- their entire digital identity and life. Service such as Dropbox and Windows Skydrive, allow people to upload anything to the web, and then access it anywhere they can get an internet connection and a web browser.

The rise of Apps

In terms of the iOS platform and the emergence of the app culture one could argue that this is signalling the future of computing and is part of cloud computing. Rather than our devices having fully blown programs, users are opting for bite sized experiences that are contained within a closed environment, which has been developed to fulfil a certain number of functions. As Steve Jobs said, people aren’t searching on their mobile devices; their opening an App instead. So rather than search for online food recipes, users are more likely to open up Epicurious.

Furthermore, the rise of apps has positioned the iPhone and iPad as more than a iPhone- bordering on the functionality of a computer but with less processing power and defiened user experiences. Apple has noticed this and responded accordingly with the timely release of the iMovie App and the iWork App on the iPad, and soon on the iPhone, if the rumours circulating the internet are to be believed.

Chrome OS

This is one of biggest and most obvious steps towards a cloud computing future, from the company that lives and breathes the internet, Google. The traditional notion of the desktop with the standard icons is done away with and in it’s place, the operating system centers around the browser. As a result, local file storage and interaction is replaced with interacting with files from external sources. One such example of this would be, to edit a document in Google Docs and then save it online, rather than create it and save it on the computers hard drive. A similar stance is taken to other file types, in which the operating system gives the user the tools to view the file and edit it, through the use of an online services, but it doesn’t encourage the user to then save the file locally. As a result, the Chrome OS, while be mainly marketed towards netbook manufactures, since there is less emphasis on the overall specs of the machine, since the standard desktop is replaced with a browser, and the creation and consumption of media and files are handled on the internet, rather than on the machine.

Conclusion

It will be interesting to see how the big companies in the computing space, Apple, Microsoft and Google, adapt to meet this challenge, because right now, I don’t see any of them as set to dominate the area.

Microsoft have the most work to do, since they are a company that has always been based around  a users sitting down in front of a computer. Cloud computing, moves the user away from this classic depiction, and replaces it with a much more mobile lifestyle. In the mobile area Microsoft has struggled and as a result the windows mobile platform has struggled. They are pinning their hopes on the reboot of the operating system with the introduction of Windows Phone 7.

While Apple may have nailed it in the mobile space, with the brilliant iOS format,they are struggling with online services, such as mobile me, which needs a lot of work. The implementation of the rumoured upcoming streaming iTunes service will play a big part in how success the company is in this area.

Google does have a great array of online services, however they lack the usability and user experience that Apple is famed for. How well the Chrome OS is spread and accepted by users will play a big part for them.

What do you think? Which company is set for cloud computing? Is cloud computing even the future? Let me know in the comments below.

While the social site quickly denied the existence of such a phone, many people were left unconvinced. After all, many companies claim one thing, and then go do the opposite. A prime example of this being Google, who also denied working on a phone, only to release the Nexus One a few months later. So, if Zuckerberg has any sense, he’ll have a number of minions slaving away to create the product, and let me tell you why.

Facebook’s Prime time

As with all things, especially in the fast paced world of the internet, things will rise to prominence and enjoy a steady ‘golden age’, only to be later usurped by the new kid on the block, and suffer a slow decline a la Myspace. Facebook is no exception to this rule, and the site is currently reaching it’s peak, with over 500 million active users across the globe, all of whom are hooked on the service…some even addicted. So, if there ever was a time to release a Facebook related product, now is.

Facebook already knows you

Into Facebook we pour, rather foolishly perhaps, all our personal details. The service knows how old we are, our gender, where we are, our friends, our likes and dislikes- all this information could be harvested by a Facebook phone, to provide a unique experience. Imagine, turning on the phone, and after entering your login credentials, the phone populates the phone book with your friends, the calander with upcoming events, a map with friend’s locations and relevant photos that you’ve been tagged in. Alongside this, the Phone could recommend music, films, apps, sites and TV shows, based on content that you’ve ‘Liked’.

Facebook could make £££

In essence, Facebook already has it’s target market; the 500 million active users. Like Google, they could just advertise the device on their site, due to the sheer amount of people who use the service. The only difference being, Facebook would allow carriers to sell the phone in stores, rather than solely selling it online, like Google did with the Nexus One.

If they can create a fairly cheap smartphone, with deep Facebook integration, and by this I mean beyond what the iPhone/Android Facebook App offers now,then they will sell the device by the truck load. Furthermore, the rumoured device will also be running a version of Android, which means that the Facebook phone would have a stable and useable operating system, while also giving access to App Marketplace.

End Notes

As always, I would love to hear your thoughts. I think the idea behind a phone created by Facebook is interesting, however the success of such a product would depend heavily on how well the service is integrated. If it was able to populate the phone in the manner that I described, then I could see the phone appealing to a lot of people. As for me, I’m a happy iPhone 3GS user, and having only had the device for a year, I don’t plan to upgrade for awhile. But, would you buy a Facebook phone? Or does the thought of giving money to Zuckerberg, turn your stomach?

Advertising

The biggest revolution that the iPad represents is in terms of advertising, especially with the introduction of Apple’s iAd. The importance of advertising on this platform was conveyed by Steve Jobs back in the April keynote, in which he quoted that ‘the average user spends about 30 minutes in apps everyday’, and if 10 ads were shown a day, across the 100 million iPod Touchs, iPhones and iPads, worldwide, then there were be a billion ads served up a day. Furthermore, Apple’s business strategy has reflected this as well, with the ban of Admob, Google’s advertising platform, from the iPhone OS and Appstore. Developers will be encouraged to incorporate iAd’s into their apps, since adverts will be easy to add in and the developer will receive 60 percent of the revenue.

For the consumer, the iPad will become an extension of the 360 degree world of advertising that we inhabit- you go out, see billboards, log onto the internet- see ‘tasteful’ pop ups and banners, turn on the TV, etc etc. In the case of the Television, it brings advertising into our sanctuary from the world, the home. However as soon as you leave the room, the advertising ceases to be effective and this is the key difference. The iPad not only brings advertising into the home, but into the kitchen, the bedroom, the bathroom- where ever you carry the device. Furthermore, iAd is going to allow advertisers to create content rich experience based partly on the information that it gains from your iPad, such as your location. An example used in the keynote was a Toy Story 3 advert, in which the user can watch trailers, purchase movie merchandise, download wallpapers and ringtones, and, using GPS, find out which cinemas in their area will be screening the film.

User Experience

With regard to user experience and usability, the iPad is definitely a revolution, in a market in which so many other companies have failed. The key to Apple’s success is that other tablets have been based around converting a fully blown operating system to work with hand and stylus input. As a result, the operating system becomes the main hindrance for users since the U.I is based around the point and click interface. A fully blown Windows OS does not take into consideration the unique situations that the touchscreen creates. Such as, when the user interacts with the interface, his/her hands will cover parts of the screen. Small icons and taskbars, while fine for the normal user, compounds everything that is wrong with adapting a fully blown operating system for the touchscreen platform- adding minor modifications and an onscreen keyboard is not enough. Meanwhile, Apple has upscaled their touchscreen orientated Smartphone operating system, the iPhone OS, to the tablet form factor.

As a result, the user experience is perfectly suited for the device, and if anything, the iPhone OS works better on the bigger format, however, Apple’s choice of the iPhone OS has large ramifications that just the user experience- it has defined the device. Like the iPhone and iPod Touch, the iPad is about consuming media, rather than creating- a key difference between the iPad and your computer. As Steve Jobs mentioned in his January Keynote, Apple was creating a new, ‘third’ category, between that of the Smartphone and the Computer and for that category to exist, the iPad would have to be better than the Smartphone and the Computer in key areas- such as consuming media- gaming, reading an ebook, viewing photos and videos, but also tasks such as browsing the web.

The computer is capable of both, consuming and creating media, but it lacks the extreme portability ( very few laptops can boast the 10 hour battery life of the iPad, while still being relatively thin and light) Furthermore, in terms of consuming media, the iPad has been specifically designed for this, after all- what better way is there to interact with content, than to touch it ? The iPhone and the iPod touch proved this and now people can experience the same thing on a grander scale. However, the iPad differs from the iPhone and Touch in a number of key ways.

The saviour of printed media?

First of all, the iPad has been touted as the saviour to printed media, by providing comicbook, magazine and newspaper editors the ability to create a rich and interactive experience for their target audience,  something that is not possible with print media. While, many of the content providers have produced stunning applications for their audience, they have yet to grasp the concept of a fair price point for their product. Apple should of imposed a pricing structure similar to that of the Appstore, because at the moment many of the ‘emagazines’ etc are not a viable option for consumers because they are overpriced or the same price of their printed sibling. Until the content providers begin pricing their products more competitively, the ‘emagazine’ format is unlikely to take off.

The tablet format

While the device shares many of the characteristics of the Touch, the bigger format of the iPad, in terms of size and processing power, means that app developers can create some truly unique and separate experiences, from that of apps created for the iPhone and iPod Touch platform. One great example of this is the iWork package that Apple created for the iPad, something that was not viable on the smaller format of the Touch and iPhone, works well on the iPad. The quality of apps that developers create, and how they take advantage of the larger screen, will help define not only, how successful the product is, but also in terms of the iPad being perceived as a separate device to the iPod Touch and iPhone

The larger screen format, immediately encourages people to share their content by passing or gathering around the iPad to show friends and family the latest viral YouTube video of a cat playing the drums or the latest holiday photos. The screen encourages people to consume media on the device, and more and more people are using a second screen while watching TV, and the iPad will be perfect in this role. The small screen of the iPod Touch and iPhone means people will glance at the device, rather than actually engage with content.

The future of computing

The iPad is signalling towards the future of computing in which computers will be less based around processing power and more focused around media consumption and cloud computing. The iPad also does away with the mouse and keyboard input, proving that it is possible to have an operating system without these two proprietary components. I expect that in a few years, the iPhone and iPad will merge as one product, with greater processing power, incorporating a form of resizeable touchscreen, or perhaps making use of projectors.

Would I recommend buying one?

No, not yet. The iPad is in it’s infancy and a first generation Apple product is never the finished article, and as such, the users are essentially beta testers for the second gen iPad. If anything, the new iPhone has told us more about where the new iPad is heading in terms of features. Next year, or possibly sooner (this is Apple after all), we can expect a thinner, lighter iPad with camera(s) for ‘facetime’ and the improved retina display. However, for those who are really itching for the latest slab of Appley goodness, or those with fat wallet, at least wait until October, to see how iOS 4 changes the experience on the iPad. As the months go by, the platform will mature, as the developers have longer with the device, and better apps start to get released. If you are still determined (Steve would be proud), you then of course have to consider whether to get a WiFi version or the 3G. If you plan on staying in the home- get the WiFi, but if you plan to roam away from the safety of your wireless router, pony up the extra cash and get the 3G iPad.

End Notes

I’ve had my thoughts on the iPad and now I want to hear yours. Is there room for a ‘third device’?, does the iPad represent the future of computing?, is the iPad revolutionary at all? Leave your thoughts in the comments section below

Since then, 3D has fallen out of the technological limelight, having been overshadowed by the development of C.G.I and the slow introduction of high definition images. However, recently 3D has returned, with the technology not just being limited to the film industry. Cameras, PCs, game consoles and TV manufactures are all starting to incorporate 3D technology into their flagship products. Some believe that it’s nothing more than a gimmick, in an attempt to revive declining cinema audiences and to get consumers to shell out for a new 3D enabled product. However, it would seem that 3D is here to stay. So, just how much does the technology have to offer?

The slow uptake

3D has burst back on to the scene and re-entered into mainstream media, however the general acceptance of the technology has been slow so far. One of the primary issues holding back the wide dissemination of 3D content is the adaptation that viewers have to make to their consumption habits to view the content; wearing polarising glasses is not the norm. The inconvenience of having to wear glasses is likely to deter the average consumer, and although the 3D specs have progressed and look relatively like something out the 21st century, they still conjure up images of the cardboard red and blue specs that came with comics. Until audiences can enjoy the full 3D experience without the need for glasses, the adoption rate of the technology will be tepid.

Another factor holding back 3D implementation, is price. As with all new technologies, those who wish to reap the benefits of it, will have to shell out, and 3D is no exception. Films shot in 3D are always more expensive to see than their 2D counterparts. While early adopters of the technology, will have to purchase a new 3D compatible Bluray player, as well as a 3D ready TV, additional 3D glasses, and 3D content to watch. As a result, viewing 3D content will remain an expensive indulgence, for the time being.

Time to mature

At the moment, the implementation of 3D effects and technology into content, in particular, films, are getting mixed results. While some films are taking advantage of it, other don’t portray the technology in a good light, such as Tim Burton’s take on Alice in Wonderland. The film had all the gothic hallmarks of the director, as well as a number of shots and sequences that were designed to exaggerate the 3D effect. Despite this, the overall effect was underwhelming and rather than add to the cinematic experience, the 3D effects detracted from the film itself.

On the other side of the spectrum, Resident Evil : Afterlife, trades a poor plot and weak characters for gripping actions scenes with effective use of 3D effects. Many of the shots, like in Alice in Wonderland, are tailored made to visually appeal to the audience, but, the difference being, the quality of the effects. Resident Evil’s epicentre and main selling point is the 3D effects, and it tells. Impressive 3D effects make visually expansive shots, such as one of the plane skimming over glaciers, look amazing, with a real sense of depth.

So, even in the film industry, the verdict is currently out on whether 3D can effectively add another element to the film making process. At the moment, the technology is yielding mixed results, as the industry as a whole is getting to grips with it. I believe that it will take time and paitence before we see the technology mature into a well established convention of film making, and furthermore, I think that both audiences, and directors, need to understand that not all films would benefit from the 3D treatment.

“There are certain limitations of shooting in 3D. You have to shoot on video, which I’m not a fan of.”

Director Christopher Nolan opted not to have the summer blockbuster, Inception, shot in 3D as well as 2D. Nolan prefers to shoot onto film, rather than being forced to use video, which is required for 3D. The film’s complex, but ultimately rewarding narrative, combined with the great action sequences, were more than enough to ensure that Inception was a hit. Adding 3D on top of this, would of been overkill. While it could be argued that some of the film’s iconic shots, that of buildings folding upon one another, would of looked spectacular in 3D, it would of ultimately distracted the audience from the film’s core; the plot, leaving audience members overwhelmed.

The light at the end of the tunnel

Despite the current drawbacks of 3D technology, I believe that it’s here to stay and, more importantly, I believe that 3D has an important role to play in the development of new technologies and concepts. At the moment technology constrains us to developing content that is graphical rich, and has a 3D element, by giving the audience a sense of depth. However by fully exploiting the technology, eventually the two can be fully integrated together, to create fully immersive 3D environment.Rather than sitting in front of a screen and playing a game, we could soon be donning a pair of glasses and be surrounded by a virtual reality environment.

On the most basic level, this would represent a massive step forward in terms of technological development, however, more importantly, it would be the cataylst for changing the role of the audience. At the moment, we are passive audience members- in other words, the screen separates the audience from the content and the two very rarely overlap. As a result, there is a degree of ‘safety’ about this for the audience, because they can distinguish between their own reality, and that of the content. By allowing the two to cross over, producers would be able to blur the lines between reality, and the experience being created by the content. Ultimately, this would shift the audience’s role from that of the passive bystander, to one of interaction.

While that is looking far into the future, I believe in it’s current form, that when the 3D effect is used sparingly and correctly, it can create a unique experience for audience members. Furthermore, services such as Sky, are progressing with interesting applications of the 3D technology, such as introducing it to a select amount of content, in particular football matches. While Nintendo are incorporating the technology into their latest iteration of the DS, which allows gamers to enjoy 3D effects without the need for glasses.

End Notes

3D technology has been around for a while, fluctuating in and out of mainstream culture. It’s return in the 21st century has herald a new slew of products, as well as the return of 3D films, and I believe that the technology does have a role to play. Although at the moment the results are mixed, eventually as the technology is developed, the final product will become more refined and, more importantly, it will aid in the development of other visual technologies.

So, what do you think? Does 3D add to the film experience? Would you purchase a 3D enabled TV? Or do you think the technology is merely a cash cow for TV manufactures and film makers to bleed the consumers dry? Let’s hear about it in the comments below.

The Dark Passenger

“Tonight’s the night. And it’s going to happen again and again. Has to happen.”

We are inside the head of a killer, and the ugly truth regarding Dexter Morgan is about to be revealed. An unsuspecting priest brings a choir practise to an end and returns to his car. Unbeknown to him, a serial killer is lying in wait in the back. The audience witnesses the kill. The priest moans, squirms and begs. It’s isn’t pretty. Although we find out that the priest was raping and killing young children, the audience is not adhered to Dexter. However, the opening scene plays an important role in desensitising the audience to the ‘ritual’, something that is going to become a regular occurrence in the show; the next kill.

Inside the mind of a killer

In order to better understand what drives and motives Dexter, the audience is given  full access to his thoughts, through the narration of Michael C Hall. The commentary from Hall, not only adds some much needed dark comedy to the show, but also acts as a viewpoint from which the audience can see the inner turmoil that Dexter faces. We see the balancing act that Dexter has to perform, as he attempts to quell the urges of his dark passenger, while attempting to convey the illusion of a normal work and social life. Alongside this, Dexter’s concious and moral compass manifests it’s self in the shape of Harry Morgan, Dexter’s deceased foster father. Almost like a guardian angel, Harry is still playing the role of father and teacher, from beyond the grave, as he continually questions the actions and motives of his son.

The Code

There were so many lessons in the vaunted Code of Harry. Twisted commandments handed down from the only God I’ve ever worshiped. 1 through 10: Don’t get caught.

To prevent Dexter from becoming a wanton killer, he adheres to a meticulous code, instilled in him, by Harry Morgan. In effect, the code not only prevents him from getting caught, but has him serve as Judge, Jury and Executioner, as he collects damming evidence on his victims before dispatching them. He murders only those who deserve it: a wife beater, a human trafficker, a gangster. Each target is portrayed in a suitably bad light, such as the husband and wife traffickers, who extort and drown immigrants. As a result, Dexter believes that he is serving justice and cleaning up the streets of Miami, and as the season progress, the audience comes to agree with this viewpoint.

Filling out the hollow inside

Juxtaposed to the murders and violence, is Dexter’s relationships with others. As a serial killer, Dexter is a social recluse and we see him bumble his way around everyday human interactions. In many ways, he is humanised by those who surround him. Dexter is a flawed character, to begin with, as we are presented with a protagonist who claims that he has no capacity for human emotions. He is merely an actor; a fake. Yet, over the course of the seasons, he progresses from a hollow shell, to a fleshed out human, with the capacity for feelings. One of the ways the development of his character is expressed, is though his relationship with other characters, in particular that of Debra, his foster sister and, his girlfriend’s son, Cody. However, the relationship that Dexter shares with Rita, helps catalyse the notion of Dexter as a character who is under going an evolution, towards becoming a ‘real person.’ To begin with, they are awkward boyfriend and girlfriend. To Dexter, she is nothing more than cover, allowing him to seemingly blend in with society. However, we see this relationship blossom as they become husband and wife, and eventually, father and mother. By the end, Dexter has developed feelings and appreciation for Rita.

End notes

In this post I have briefly covered the main ingrediants that make Dexter the succesful series that it is today. However, do you feel I’ve neglected an area?, or, do you simply agree?, or do you just want to rant and rave about the Doakes head butt? Well, let’s hear about it in the comments section. For those who have yet to feast upon the delights of Showtime’s flagship show- where have you been? Dexter is now entering it’s final season, starting on September 26th 2010. I recommend that newcomers start on season 1 and work their way from there.

You wouldn’t steal a car, you wouldn’t leave Pizza Hut without paying and definitely wouldn’t beat up your own Grandmother, so why download Rush Hour 3 ?, the video claims. Well to be honest, looking at the car in the video, I think I would rather endure two hours of Chris Tucker, than be the laughing stock of the criminal underworld. And while my criminal career is fairly short- actually non existent, I would at least go out with a bang, doing doughnuts on a Tesco carpark in a stolen Aston Martin. But that’s besides the point, in this electronic age, the material that we produce is becoming less and less tangible, after all, you can’t hide that XXX Aunt Betty torrent under the table. The result of this, is the blurration of what is morally right and wrong.  Most people wouldn’t dream of taking a T-Shirt from their local Oxfam shop without paying, yet downloading Dexter Season 2 in the comfort of your darkened squalor is far easier. Either way, it’s stealing. Yet people continue.

What do we want?,Pleasure! When do we want it?, Now!

So, why do people feel so comfortable stealing ?, I hear you ask. Well, the society that we inhabit plays a massive a role. We live in a hedonistic culture, in which, self pleasure rules all- whether that be killing Nazi Zombies on Call of Duty or sobbing your heart out to Bambi.Once you’ve finished one pleasure- you are then looking for your next. As you can probably imagine, at the very epicentre of our hedonistic society, lies the internet, since it speeds up the pleasure seeking process.

Ever since it’s inception the internet has been an instant source of information that we can add, search or share. The latter being the most popular, with the rise of sites and services such as the Pirate Bay and Limewire. As such, it was only a matter of time before this sort of sharing power corrupted us mere mortals, and incidentally, this leads me onto my next point..

The lawless cyber state

The biggest problem with providing the masses with a vast cyber landscape is that it’s impossible to police. The internet provides us with a veil of anonymity, from which we can operate. You can argue that people’s identity on the net lies on facebook, but the reality is that, the only identification we carry round as we ‘surf’ the metaphorical electronical wave is our IP address. Even then, it reveals only basic information such as location and whether you’re running a PC on Windows Millennium Edition or enjoying the luxuries of a Mac.

The gatekeeper to these rudimentary IDs, are the Internet service providers. However they aren’t keen on giving up their torrent loving customers, since, it’s simply bad business for them. However, times are ‘a changing’, with the slow introduction of a ‘three strikes’ law. Just like in baseball, get three strikes, and you’re out…well, rather than sit on a bench, you lead an awful and desolate life under a rock, because your internet connection has been cut. France was one of the first to pass the law, with good old Britain following closely behind.

Three strikes

The adoption of three strikes law gives the illusion that the power is shifting in favour of the content owners. Have the pirates had their last plunder of torrents on Limewire ? Or, are we merely at the dawn of a new age in which the power balance is considerable shifting in the favour of the media consumers ? I’m more inclined to agree with the latter. The internet may have gifted us such gems as ‘The greatest cry ever‘ and keyboard cat , but the greatest thing that the internet has gifted us, is instantaneous sharing. As such, we share everything on the internet, whether that be a tweet about how great Inception was, or uploading those drunken stag night photos onto Flickr. While these are examples of legitimate sharing, there is a darker side, as mentioned before, with people sharing programs, movies and albums, rather than their cute poodle pictures over MSN.

As a result, licensing needs to change, and this has already begun, with the shift towards streaming services such as Spotify and Grooveshark. Rather than being forced into owning a single copy of a piece of content, people can pay a small fee to access lots of content anywhere they can access the internet. These are small steps towards a better solution, however content providers need to embrace the new sharing age, rather than constrict consumers, in order to prevent the continued rise of piracy. The three strikes law acts as a form of deterrent, but a solution is required, rather than merely punishment for the existing problem.

End notes

So, you’ve read my first post, and hopefully clicked on some of the links…, but now, it’s your turn. Most of us download copyrighted materials, knowing full well that what we do is not morally right. Can piracy be justified? Are the content providers as much to blame as those who download pirated content? Is there a solution to piracy? Have your say in the comments section below.