Sunday, May 11, 2008

Open vs Closed Sourced Software

The rise of open sourced software has become a crucial part of the collaborative element to produsage. Open sourced software is a software package that is openly available to collaborate by a greater community of produsers working together to aid others in the creation, testing and the development of these softwares. The software is a continual process that is constantly updated and upgraded by members of the community. The alternative is closed sourced software which is created by companies by a selected few developers rather than the open community. The software packages are released in hard copy form in close ended versions. The critical differences between the two softwares favours open-sourced as it has a significantly larger number of producers working together (essentially everybody online) as well as the on-going process eliminated the need for selling hard copies of the software as new versions will become regularly updated. (Bruns, 04) states that “any one software package prodused by the open source community, or any one creative work developed by a distributed group of co-creators within a creative commons licensing framework, should be seen as nothing more than a temporary artefact of an ongoing process of produsage”. With the rise in open-sourced software came complications in which blurred the lines in regards to licensing and ownership. To rectify these issues the following was established “such rules (as enshrined in a variety of moral and legal documents including the GNU General Public License and Free Documentation License, the Open Source License, and the Creative Commons license framework) commonly stipulate, for example, that community-held content must remain freely available, that modifications of such content must be made available once again under similar conditions, and that the contributions of individual produsers to the shared project must be recognised and (where appropriate) rewarded” (Snurb, 2007). With the evolution of online communities and the introduction of produsage as a way of defining our behaviour online we see traditional methods becoming less favourable and inefficient to satisfy the needs of society. As explained in Old vs New Media how the traditions of television, radio, video outlets and even cinema are all easily accessible through the internet. The same is happening in a variety of other areas such as software. Traditionally to acquire software one world need to purchase it at a bricks and mortar store, load many discs for every one program to find that a newer version will be available in a months time. Those days are quickly coming to a close where simply download straight to your computer saves the hassle with constant updated software available regularly. Whether the need for the traditional method of acquiring software will become outdated completely is debatable however it is evident that the rise in community collaboration and demand for open-sourced software will increase exponentially.

References

Bruns, A. 2008. Produsage: Towards a Broader Framework for User-Led Content Creation. Queensland University of technology, Course Materials Database https://qutvirtual.qut.edu.au/portal/pls/portal/olt_material_search_p?p_unit_code=KCB201 (accessed April 20, 2008)

Produsage.org. 2007. Produsage: Key Principles. http://produsage.org/node/11 (accessed April 20, 2008)

Web 2.0 vs Web 1.0: The Rise of the Produser

“Web 2.0 describes the technological framework for a notable shift from static to dynamic content, from hierarchically managed to collaboratively and continuously developed material, and from user-as-consumer to user-as-contributor (Bruns 2008, 01)”. O’Reilly (2007) describes with great detail that “Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an architecture of participation, and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences”. It is rather a misleading title to this blog entry as Web 2.0 was theoretically never created, it evolved from the traditional structure to satisfy the growing needs of the community. It started as a demand for an increase in interactivity from the masses to what is now termed ‘produsage’. Produsage can be defined by four key characteristics(Bruns 2008, 3-4):

· Community Based

· Fluid Roles

· Unfinished Artefacts

· Common Property, Individual Merit

Community Based states that instead of a traditionally hierarchical system where information is dictated by few, produsage and the evolution of web 2.0 has re-invented how communities can interact with one another to provide a wider and more diligent user base. This heterachical structure allows the ability of equal participation in a wide variety of areas. Fluid roles denotes how in this heterachical structure the necessity of fluid movement between different roles in the community depending on different topics and the different levels of expertise in the community. Unfinished artefacts implies that with each project being collaborated on, there is essentially no finished product. An example would be the Wikipedia and its millions of webpages each with the ability to be actively updated or changed at any point in time. It is essential to leave these projects open ended as it eliminates further collaboration from a possible more knowledgeable produser. Finally Common Property, Individual Merit explains the core principle to produsage; that no one person can claim ownership to a collaborative project even if he or she was the original creator. It is critical to see that although the original catalyst or topic was proposed by an individual produser, without the creative collaboration from a community based body it would not be as important. Along with collaboration comes new information, contradictory ideas, forked projects, peer acknowledgment, comments etc. It is therefore that no one produsage project can be owned by one individual rather it is owned by the community and individual merit is awarded for the level of involvement by each person. Bruns (2008, 02) describes the two key elements of produsage are web 2.0 and social software. Web 2.0 provides the environment in which is necessary for produsage to thrive where as social software (see Social Networking vs Social Gathering for more) is the catalyst which engulfs the creative body for collaboration. It is therefore that the internet as we know it today and the dramatic change in the way we as produsers utilise it embodies not only the direct need for it as societies needs changed but the transition from the more tradition and static Web 1.0 as a gradual process to satisfy these needs. So as the web evolves to 2.0 so do we… to produser 2.0.

References

Bruns, A. 2008. The Future Is User-Led: The Path towards Widespread Produsage. Queensland University of Technology. Course Materials Database https://qutvirtual.qut.edu.au/portal/pls/portal/olt_material_search_p?p_unit_code=KCB201 (accessed April 20, 2008)


Bruns, A. 2008. Chapter One. Blogsm Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: Fron Production to Produsage. Queensland University of Technology. Course Materials Database. https://qutvirtual.qut.edu.au/portal/pls/portal/olt_material_search_p?p_
unit_code=KCB201 (accessed April 20, 2008)


O’Reilly, T. 2007. What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005
/09/30/what-is-web-20.html (Accessed May 1, 2008)

Social Networking vs Social Gathering. The Rise of CMC

William Davies (cited in Flew 2004, 78), the underlying principle of social software is "to break down the distinction between our online computer-mediated experiences and our offline face-to-face experiences. It is software that pays heed to the lessons of social capitol, and seeks to integrate the internet further into out everyday lives and our everyday lives further into the internet”.

In this on-going round for round bout in which this blog aims to in the end clearly identify the significant changes in which was brought about by the conception and mass utilisation of the internet. The way in which communication has developed to aid us in our every day lives can be seen in the way we do business as well as the way we do people. Computer mediated communication (CMC) can be defined by three inter-relative attributes; the building of socialnetworks and social capital; the sharing of knowledge and information; and the enabling of new modes of democratic participation in public life (Flew 2004, 01). The key to CMC is social networks, as without the basis in which congregates individuals with common interest there would be no such thing as CMC. Social networks has the ability to collaboratively collect like minded users who actively seek out one another to engage in CMC in which is of interest to them. The popularity of social networks has attributed to the breaking down of barriers such as geography to allow worldwide connectivity. .”Life will be happier for the online individual because the people with whom one interacts most strongly will be selected more by commonality of interest and goals than by accidents of proximity” Licklider and Taylor (cited in Flew 2004, 63). The sizes of these social networks vary whether it be as enormous as the networking giants Facebook, MySpace, Flickr etc; or as small as the loyal viewers to a celebrity blog such as wwtdd.com where viewers interact through the comments page to share views about such topics. The internet through social networking gives each user the ability to locate and collaborate like minded users whilst cutting down the physical barriers that existed before such tools. These barriers are elements of traditional face-to-face (F2F) communication in which social networking is making obsolete. The concept of F2F communication becoming obsolete is a dramatic overstatement however in the areas in which F2F fail, CMC reigns supreme. Social networking eliminates geographic limitation with the ability to connect peer to peer (P2P) no matter where they are located. It also eliminates the humanistic restraints of inherent shyness and the inability for humans to connect on a F2F value. Social networking also acts as a filter as it allows humans to interact solely on like-minded and similar character traits. Flew (2004, 68) states that “early studies of CMC suggested that people were cooler towards one another, more task-oriented and more prone to disagreement in CMC that they were in face-to-face groups; this was attributed to the absence of casual an verbal cues in online communication”. It is obvious that the rise of social networking and social networking tools aided by collaborative software in which attracts users with the potential for a large number of possible virtual companions has allowed for a greater and more interactive online community. Although CMC can not satisfy the human emotions of physical touch embodied in F2F communication, it allows the ability for two or more individual a chance in which they would not normally be exposed to the ability to connect with each other.

References

Davies, W. quoted in T. Flew 2004. New Media: An Introduction. Melbourne. Vic: QUP.


J.R. Licklider. and Taylor. quoted in T. Flew 2004. New Media: An Introduction. Melbourne. Vic: QUP.


Flew, T. 2004. New Media: An Introduction. Melbourne. Vic: QUP.

Torrents. What they are and how do they work?

Essentially a torrent is a website which connects users throughout the globe who partake in file sharing in the form of peer to peer (P2P) for free. Izal (et al. 2004, 01) indicate that ‘BitTorrent is a realistic and inexpensive alternative to the classical server-based content distribution”. Downloading through the use of torrents in 99.9% of the time is illegal as downloading most of the content directly infringes their copyright laws. The downloading of files through torrent clients (such as ABC, BitCommet, BitFlu etc) utilised the BitTorrent protocol to download off BitTorrent directories (Isohunt, Mininova etc). Pouwelse (et al. 2005, 208) explains that “of the many P2P file-sharing issues prototypes in existence, BitTorrent is one of the few that has managed to attract millions of users”. The use of BitTorrent software to download content have become largely popular as a result of many downfalls in other downloading software such as Limewire and Kazaa. These problems include file corruption, broken files, embedded viruses and commonly misnamed files. Qui and Srikant (2004, 376) outline the several ways in BitTorrents have overcome many of the encumbering issues of P2P file sharing networks:

-Peer Evolution: the number of participating peers

-Scalability: stable ratio of increasing performance to increasing peers

-File Sharing Efficiency: the bandwidth of each peer is fully utilised

-Incentives to prevent free riding: negative contribution

One of the main set backs comes in the lack of structural social networking within the utilising community. Each BitTorrent client is unique however most enable the ability for online peer-to-peer communication as well as the ability to leave comments and suggestions as well as online help for fellow users. This allows for a more streamlined process with peers flagging errors located in individual files to save others from potential threats or wasted time. Each user has his or her online identity that is displayed through each BitTorrent website and can build character points for increased participation through commenting, recommending uploading and downloading. This merit system builds the credibility of the different users and alternatively those who aim at disrupting the community through malicious behaviour receive negative merit which warns other users of the potential threats involved. Users can also create what is essentially a brand name through the use of BitTorrents as they label the content they uploaded with their own digital signature. Once the user builds a high reputation and becomes recognised for his positive participation he or she will have a loyal fan base waiting for content to be uploaded with their signature on it. Users will then begin to build relationships with one another through common content interests. One may leave a comment on the quality of an item in which stems a conversation including those users whom are interested in similar content. Also upon downloading a file, the BitTorrent client will allow you to contact the person in which you are downloading from in aim to converse about the file or other things of interest that may be common to both users. The final product is a community in which aims to interact in order to solve common issues, discuss common interests and seek out like-minded individuals in aim to build their own horizons with new and exciting content.

References


Izal, M., G.U.Keller, E.W. Biersack, P.A. Felber, A. Al Hamra, and L. Garces-Enrice. 2004. Passive and Active Network Measurement. Session 1: P2P Overlay, 12 (5): 1-11.

Pouwelse, J., P. Garbacki, D. Epema, and H. Sips. 2005. System: Measurements and Analysis. Empirical Studies, 36490 (0302-9243): 205-216.

Qiu. D,. & Srikant, R. 2004. Modeling and performance analysis of BitTorrent-like peer-to-peer networks. Session: Distributed information systems, 34 (4): 367-378.

Old vs New Media

Out with the old and in with the new. Another example of how the creation of the internet and new forms of media have change they way we live our lives is evident in media. The traditional methods of accessing information has adapted to new platforms in order to satisfy our need for immediacy. Newspapers have seen dramatic decline in their loyal readerships as more and more people are sourcing elsewhere (online) for their news and information. Ticket sales in cinemas and DVD rentals are also decreasing as sites such as Quickflix.com as well as illegal piracy (watch-movies.net) are more efficient, cost effective and streamlined. Podcasts allow for radio to be streamed directly off the web and as well as the ability to connect buyers to sellers immediately through companies such as Apple iTunes and Amazon makes business tougher on traditional bricks and mortar stores. The rise of video directories such as Google Video and YouTube have also revolutionised the ways in which produsers express themselves. Often videos uploaded containing users own music videos, short films, viral marketing all seek out their own niche audiences. For the rising music star it allows and outlet to express themselves and find fans and other like-minded musicians. It also allows the possibility that somebody higher up can view and endorse their talents. For the cutting edge advertisers, they can upload viral advertisement in a cost effective way that will target a mass audience in an inexpensive manor. In the structures of old media, a select few dictate the content in which are seen by the public. The rise of TiVo in America and Foxtel Digital in Australia allow users to store shows for later viewing whilst eliminating the negatives of advertising which is inherent in free to air (FTA) TV. Further revolutionising this method as stated previously is internet users downloading whole seasons of their favourite series through torrents at a click of a mouse. A shift in the way that society has transitioned from passive viewers to active participants (as produsers) whom demand what they want, when they want. We as produsers and participants are actively controlling how society to suit our needs. Aligning itself with Chris Andersons Longtail theory is the process by which when society demands a change in the process currently delivered by the market leader or other company, another more niche program, software or company will arise to fulfill this requirement. Either for the greater good of the community or for their own self interest, if a high demand for a service or even a more streamlined version than the current model exists, then a high chance exists that that need will become fulfilled. Rather than passive, online audiences are now active and socially connected and have shown declining loyalties to other media forms (Jenkins 2004, 38)

References

Jenkins, H. 2004. The cultural logic of media convergence. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7 (1), 33-43

The New Economy vs The Old Economy

Hello and welcome to Super Cool Fun Happy Blog. Although a relatively unrelated title to content in which we will be discussing it serves a purpose to ‘attract eyeballs’. Eric Raymonds (cited in Bruns 2008, 02) theory of the power of eyeballs describes essentially that the power driven to create an economy in which essentially eyeballs are the currency of the new economy. That is, the principle in which the quality of software (or website) is directly related to the number of participants able to engage in the development process. Although I am not insinuating that eyeballs can be used as a cash exchange rather that within our digital society cluttered with eager and intelligent Gen C users we see an interest or popularity to engage, to read and to interact in an online environment. Therefore the more eyeballs directed to any particular site the more interest it will begin to generate and a higher potential for digital dollars. Now it is entirely speculative as to what digital dollars can mean. I use the term loosely to describe as a digital intangible currency. Now like our dramatically changing ways from and industrial society to a digital society we must also realise a shift in what we class as value. In old terms an editor at a large newspaper with many writers working under him ruling with an iron fist to meet deadline after deadline would conceive the notion of the industrial model. To be in such a position would include power, money and one would think a large tangible network of associates. The ‘New Economy’ answer to this is citizen journalism where (Bruns 2008, 80) defines, “online participatory journalism is fueled by people who fanatically follow and passionately discuss their favourite subjects. Their weblogs and online communities, while perhaps not as professionally produced, are chock full of style, voice and attitude. Passion makes the experience not only compelling and memorable but also credible”. I suggest that a citizen journalist who has a horde of loyal readers to her daily blog about celebrities and fashion would indeed have the same parallel power as the withering role of the former. Society is beginning to realise that the ways in which value can be defined. The social networking giant Facebook declined an offer of around $1 billion claiming that the net worth of the site was around $8 billion (Wikipedia, 2008). This makes one wonder the power derived essentially from the reach of these social networking tools. Is it therefore not possible to assume that the digital dollars in this case the vast number of people (eyeballs) involved in social networking is directly related to the monetary cash value of $8 billion. I could say that by simple calculation of Facebook’s worth ($8 billion) divided by their user base (69 million users) with equal the net worth of an individuals interest (around $115US). The simple ability of digital participation is therefore worth money. Is therefore the citizen journalist with her ability to attract the interest of the public the answer to the industrial version in the form of a newspaper? Focus has lead investors to procure and investigate into other avenues to increase their user base. It is evident that these alternative forms of communication such as social networking and citizen journalism are in fact the answer and often the preferred means.


References

Bruns, A. 2008. Produsage: Towards a Broader Framework for User-Led Content Creation. Queensland University of technology, Course Materials Database https://qutvirtual.qut.edu.au/portal/pls/portal/olt_material_search_p?p_unit_code=KCB201 (accessed April 20, 2008)


Bruns, A. 12008. News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: Perpetual Collaboratio in Evaluating the News. In A. Bruns (Ed.), Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, ed. A. Bruns, 69-100. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Queensland University of Technology: Course Materials Databasehttps://qutvirtual.qut.edu.au/portal/pls/portal/
olt_material_search_p?p_unit_code=KCB201 (accessed April 25, 2008)

Raymond, E. quoted in A.Bruns. 2008. Produsage: Towards a Broader Framework for User-Led Content Creation. Queensland University of technology, Course Materials Database https://qutvirtual.qut.edu.au/portal/pls/portal/olt_material_search_p?p_unit_code
=KCB201 (accessed April 20, 2008)

Wikipedia. 2008. Facebook. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook (accessed March 29, 2008)