|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Monday, 02 October 2006 |
Background
One of the Ball State Student Government Association's biggest accomplishments last year was arranging for the implementation, in the fall semester of this year, of an on-campus free Ruckus music server for students.
A few weeks out from launch, students are wising up to the Windows Media DRM restrictions and finding ways around it so they may play the files on their Mac, move them to a portable music player, or even just burn them to CD.
On Friday - September 29, 2006 the Ball State Daily News ran an article exposing the illicit use of Ruckus by students with quotes from SGA president Asher Lisec admonishing students for their abuse of the service.
A Perception of Abuse
Are students really abusing Ruckus? The RIAA, SGA, and Ruckus say there are many people currently abusing the service, and that it may affect the availability of future such services on campus.
The problem I have with Friday’s shocking exposé about this is that the abuse is so loosely defined as to include nearly every person who wants to actually use the service in a meaningful way. To compound this, there is absolutely no way of measuring to what extent the services are being abused. It’s all about perception.
Unreasonable Expectations
Ruckus “abuse” is one of the many examples, in the new digital era, of companies setting unreasonable limits on their customers. The campus computing agreement functions similarly. Ever seen the SNL: Lazy Sunday video on YouTube over a campus internet connection? Congratulations! You’ve abused Ball State’s electronic resources. SNL: Lazy Sunday is copyrighted by NBC, and what you did was illegal. Using the campus connection to acquire illegal materials is against the agreement.
It doesn’t matter that the material was initially part of a widely distributed free broadcast. It doesn’t matter that you are in the majority. It doesn’t even matter that you didn’t have malice in your heart when you did it. You are a criminal. Get in your cell. Kindly attach your shackles and chains to the wall.
This kind of situation is what happens in an era where companies are afraid of technology. They make bad decisions, which only hurt their paying customers, based on perceived threats to their livelihood.
The Reality of DRM and Piracy
Pirates don’t care at all about copyright or DRM protection. They download whatever they like, from whomever they like, without digital restrictions on how it may be used. They don’t use services like Ruckus in the first place because the digital black market delivers what they want so spectacularly. In the case of music, it should also be noted that the digital black market delivers what they want usually months before legitimate release.
If students were really as disrespectful of property as is being purported there would not be a single soul on Ruckus. Everybody on campus would simply be sailing to the internet pirate harbor du jour for all their music needs. Any use of Ruckus at all, by any group of students, shows at least a passing interest in staying on the legal side of things. Because this is the case, the DRM measures employed by Ruckus serve only to harm the people trying to use the service in a legitimate way.
Standing Up for Yourself as a Student and Consumer
As students, we need to stand up and say that we are not doing anything untoward or harmful. We are respectful of the property of other people, and we will not stand for this ‘guilty until proven otherwise’ treatment that is so popular now in the age of digital media. We need to defend our position that we are trying to use Ruckus, but Ruckus and the RIAA are being unreasonable.
As customers, we have all the power. We can take our business elsewhere if we don’t like the way things are going. If Ruckus has a problem with the way the service is being used on campus then maybe Ruckus can take a hike.
The SGA, instead of admonishing students for “abusing” Ruckus, should be working with students and backing the things students want. That’s what the SGA was doing in the first place by fighting for such a service. Why are they turning their backs on the students, whom they are representing, now that what they fought for is here?
|
|
|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Friday, 29 September 2006 |
Fewer Hobbies
I've realized recently that I have fewer and fewer hobbies as I get older. When I was in high school I had a ton of hobbies. School was boring and horrible, and so I needed to make sure I really enjoyed my time off.
I played role playing games at a local store. I listened to talk radio. I watched and discussed countless movies with friends, and read books. I devoted too many hours to video games, and I had a passing interest in the Japanese language.
Now that I am attending university I find that I'm doing the same things I've always done, but fewer and fewer of them are hobbies. I am a Telecommunications (Production Option) and Japanese language double major. I discuss movies, listen to talk radio, watch television, look at Japanese stuff, etc.
The difference is that now I am doing these things within the context of my future. They are no longer worthless. School is fulfilling now because it is geared toward what used to be my hobbies, and this is why the only real hobby I retain is playing video games. And since I've been at school there's been a sharp decrease in the amount of time I spend doing that
Hobbies / Day-to-Day Fulfillment
There is an inverse relationship between hobbies and how fulfilling day to day activities are. There is a balance to be struck. The people who devote as many hours to World of Warcraft each week as they do their job seem to be the unhappiest with their station in life.
The people who are happiest with their station in life, or living their dream, are never too interested in having hobbies. They feel no need to escape. Real success, by this logic, can be defined as the absence of hobbies.
It should be noted that most people fall into a very moderate category. They like what they do in the career for the most part. They enjoy a few things outside of that. It's a very healthy attitude of moderation. But, shouldn't changing hobbies into careers be everyone's goal? This seems to be what successful people do. They chase their dreams. They go full speed ahead on their hobbies and manage to carve themselves a living while loving what they do.
If Applicable
It has been my goal to do exactly this. I came to university and could not make a decision between Japanese or Telecommunications. I took both as majors, but I also wanted to be a writer. Triple majoring is out of the question, and so I started a creative writing minor only to drop it when I later realized the creative writing program at Ball State left a little bit to be desired. At that point I started this website.
The only real hobby I have left is video games, which may remain a hobby unless I land a job on a video game radio show in Japan that also had an online element. I wouldn't have an aversion to that, but it's kind of specific.
|
|
|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Monday, 25 September 2006 |
Indignancy
Voting is how we decide as a society what we feel should be done, and you’ll never hear more about it than around election season. Those who didn’t seem to care too much about exercising their rights before, suddenly become indignant about their feeling that absolutely everyone should vote. P. Diddy’s Vote or Die campaign comes to mind.
54%* Don't Vote
However, an interesting fact is that the majority of this country doesn’t vote. Losing the right to not vote (enforced compulsory voting) would affect more people than losing the right to vote. According to population figures from the 2000 US Census and the 2004 Presidential Election Results, about 42% of the country didn’t vote; 87 million people over the age of 18. In the 2002 Mid-Term Election this number shot to 65%; 135 million people over the age of 18. If there were to be a very ironic vote taken concerning compulsory voting, approximately 54% of this country would probably vote against the idea.
Protecting the Right to Not Vote
We talk proudly, and at length, about how great it is that we can vote in this country, but I’m more proud to live in a country where we have the right to not vote. Other people in other countries, such as Australia, do not have this right. That’s garbage. A right is not a right unless the inverse of that right is also a right. More simply, it’s not a right if you’re being forced to do it.
Nobody needs to fight for the right to do popular things. They’re just givens. Nobody needed to fight for the right to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. Historically, nobody needed to fight for the right to discuss how great they thought the current king was.
People only need to fight for the right to do stupid, offensive, or unpopular things. In this country, I don’t think we need to continue talking about fighting for the right to vote with every election. Voting is popular. Those who do not vote are publicly admonished or insulted. We’re told that if we don’t vote then we’re not patriotic, or not American. We’re told we shouldn’t complain because we didn’t do anything to change it.
Why I've Not Voted
I say “we,” because I’m one of the Americans that haven’t voted in the past 4 years. I’m not unpatriotic. I’m proud to live here, and not elsewhere. I’m not ignorant. I listen to hours upon hours of talk radio each week. I try not to miss watching The Daily Show and The Colbert Report every night. If anyone should be voting, it’s me.
But I’ve not voted in the past few elections because I’ve not seen a candidate compelling enough for me to bother going to the poll. We can talk at length about what we think other people should be doing, voting, but we’re missing the important question. What does it say about our political system when the majority of the populace chooses not to have a voice in it?
Why Other People Don't Vote
To me, it says that maybe there just might be a problem with our political system. It’s either that or the people in our country just suck. But remember, even if the majority of the populace sucks, they are still the majority. Their viewpoint is relevant, for better or for worse, simply because they make up the majority (more conservatively, something very close to the majority) of what we call our country.
* - A Special Note About Numbers:
The numbers I use in this article are fairly rough, and I wouldn't be comfortable putting them up for scientific scrutiny. However, they do seem to reflect the overall trends. We can quibble over the specific percentage of people, but the fact still remains that a ridiculous percentage of the United States doesn't vote.
|
|
|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Monday, 25 September 2006 |
Cult Following
Best in Show is a movie that has a crazy following of really dedicated people. I guess it's a cult following, but it's a real cult following. It's not like one of the more recent mainstream cult followings where talk show hosts are telling you something has a cult following.
I question how cult these followings really are if you can flip on the television and hear about it. You won't hear too many people mention this movie, and so Best in Show has a real cult following.
Defending Po-Mo
But if it is ever brought to the surface, you'll see a few people in the group perk up to defend this movie. There doesn't seem to be any outspoken opposition, but nonetheless the tone they take is that of defense. "Best in Show? Yeah, I actually really like that movie."
Best in Show is kind of a postmodern situation comedy about a dog show. You have to be a cynical sort of person to understand why two people, who are fans of L.L. Bean catalogs, playing tag between Starbucks that are across the street from each other is funny. That's probably the reason people take such a defensive tone during discussions of it.
I shudder to imagine trying to explain it to my mother:
Me: "See, it's funny because it's making fun of the suburban American lifestyle."
Mom: "But we don't have two Starbucks that are across the street from each other."
Me: "We don't have a Starbucks at all."
Mom: "So why is it funny then?"
Me: *sigh*
Mom: "And I actually find L.L. Bean to be quite dapper, by the way."
Pedantickery
As I said before, Best in Show takes a kind of person with a cynical sort of mind to enjoy it. I feel like Best in Show should easily become a banner movie for me because cynical people are my people. I respect people who like this movie. But alas, Best in Show has an annoying issue. The bulk of the film is essentially B-movie calibre.
The movie at times employs a very entertaining documentary style that's similar in feeling to the movie Drop Dead Gorgeous. It's a fun style that lets the characters breathe a little bit. The script is able to be delivered in a more natural off the cuff fashion. It pulls you in because the characters talk to the camera, to you. It lends an honesty to the film that's important when absurd things are happening, but it is also the root of film's problems.
Unfortunately, unlike Drop Dead Gorgeous, Best in Show jettisons the documentary format after the first 15 minutes only to pick it back up again for the final few minutes. The funniest parts of the movie are in the scenes done in this fashion, but unfortunately those scenes only amount to 20 minutes of a 90 minute movie. What you would be left with if you took those scenes out is a standard B-movie.
It's bait and switch. The documentary style scenes the viewer is teased with are abandoned in favor of this unpolished very base comedy that I am not a fan of. The insightful lampooning of suburbia gets replaced with gay jokes and lisp humor. I guess it depends on the person, but I think that if someone dislikes Best in Show it will be for this reason.
Verdictery
Best in Show is a good movie that's most definitely worth it to watch once. It's smart and funny for the most part, but I just can't imagine myself popping it in the DVD player more than once every 2-3 years or so. The bait and switch in the comedic stylings prevent it from attaining the offical designation of Truly Bitchin'.
|
|
|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Saturday, 23 September 2006 |
Unpopular and Philosophically Defensible
I'm glad to see the number of entries is picking up as this thing gains more momentum. This week has some awesome entries that I really enjoyed reading. I usually don't like to travel out into the rest of the blogosphere too much, but the posts I highlight here are ones that I have been pleasantly surprised by. Keep them coming, everyone! Let's keep length and logic up while keeping filler down.
As always, this carnival is not about whether or not the things are right or wrong. Those are value judgements based on a person's own character.
For example, I choose not to drink for reasons of my own. I feel it is wrong for me, but even though that is the case I cannot come out and say that it is wrong for anybody else. It is not good policy to say that what is good for me must be good for everyone else. That's called solipsism.
This carnival is about things that are defensible philosophically, but unpopular on the whole.
Entries
The U.N. and Beyond: United Democratic Nations is a collection of content derived from a symposium concerning UN reform posted at Kesher Talk.
Performance Appraisal Anxiety at Evil HR Lady illuminates reasons that peformance appraisals by management are actually a good thing.
Why you make money in real estate at Lording the Land examines what money is and why companies make their money.
$10 an hour Federally Mandated Minimum Wage residing at Libby carefully examines the repercussions of increasing the federal minimum wage.
The Quest for the Holy Grail: Which instructional materials will raise student achievement? at Textbook Evaluator discusses the differing viewpoints concerning one of the most important questions in education. On which does effective teaching hinge, the teachers or the source material?
A Treatise on Treaties at Fearless Philosophy For Free Minds illuminates the unpopular fact that the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions only applies to countries which have signed the treaty.
Is This My America? at Wa Salaam is a reasoned inquiry into the United States' attitude toward Israel.
In Closing
If you had submitted a post for this edition of the Carnival of Correct, but Unpopular Ideas but did not see it here, it could have been for one of a few reasons.
- Submitting more than one post is fine, but please note I will only post the one I think is best supported and best represents the aim of this carnival.
- If posts have assumptions made without research to back them up they will not be included.
I think that about covers it. Thank you to whomever submitted a post to this edition of the carnival, and a special thanks must be extended to all of the readers this carnival was prepared for. Without you, there would be no reason to have a carnival.
Please use our carnival submission form if you would like to submit your blog article to the next edition.
[tags]carnival of correct but unpopular ideas, blog carnival[/tags]
|
|
|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Wednesday, 20 September 2006 |
Promoting Discussion
Ball State University has a program called Freshman Connections that chooses a common reader for the incoming freshman. The books are usually of the type that promote significant discussion and critical thinking. Interestingly, part of this discussion is that Ball State books the author for a presentation at about the 4th week of the fall semester. One of those presentations is the subject of this article.
This is the third, and I would say best, such function I have attended. Fast Food Nation was the common reader for my incoming class, and so we got to enjoy the fun excitement of a reactionary organization called BSYou.net believing Ball State was trying to indoctrinate us into some sort of godless leftist commie way of thinking. Less controversial was last year's Malcolm Gladwell, the author of Blink, who spoke academically about how social trends happen.
A Loung Speech
This year's speaker was Loung Ung; a 36 year old survivor of the Cambodian Khmer Rouge regime. She was 9 at the time her brother was forced to make a decision as to which sibling he would liberate from that hell and bring to the United States. He chose Loung, and since that time she has assimilated well into American culture. However, not well enough to shake off the traumatic past she detailed in her first memoir; First They Killed My Father: A Daughter of Cambodia Remembers.
Loung was an excellent speaker for incoming freshman. She's got attitude, sincerity, and compassion on her side. She seems to understand her audience and her purpose. She is there for her wisdom. To give perspective to students that for the most part have not known such devastating hardships as herself. She knows which important points they want her to hit, and she also knows what she wants to say. She balances both expertly.
Her Truth
You get the feeling while listening that this is her territory, her life. She feels comfortable speaking about it. She sprinkles the tragedy with humor, but she doesn't sugar coat things. There is nothing anyone could ever say that would make her wrong. There is no debate. She has lived it. Any sentence she begins with, "And I saw..." cannot be questioned or judged. It is her experience.
After having heard her speak, I feel I must defend her. Her detractors say that her memory is not credible, and that she's injecting excitement at the expense of truth. However, the most telling example of her honesty is that she chose to write her memoir in the voice of a child. I feel it would have been dishonest of her to write it in the voice of an analytical adult.
The only experience of the events that she knows is the one from her childhood, and so she cannot help but convey exactly how she felt at those times; as a child. To say that she is lying outright is improbable. She was clear as to her motives for writing the book. She wanted attention for her cause; landmines. As a writer I appreciated her honesty.
This is what I was speaking of before when I said she balanced what she wanted to say with the sorts of things the university wanted her to say. The university wanted her to elaborate on the things she wrote about in her memoir. She wanted to talk about landmines. And if she were to fabricate for the purposes of furthering her own motives, wouldn't she then make sure that she had written that her whole family was taken out by landmines while on an outing?
I have trouble believing that a person that honest about her intentions would fabricate parts of her story; especially pieces of the story that don't further her cause as much.
Conclusion
I want to thank Loung Ung for her wisdom and candor. I felt empowered by the things she said as a writer and as a person. I do not know if others in the audience were touched in similar ways by her speech, but I know that what she said affected me deeply.
She has lived through extreme hardship, and it would be foolish for people, especially young persons, to not pay attention to her. Life experience is what makes humans into people. To not better yourself by listening to the experience of others would be a mistake.
|
|
|
