Rich media is a new phenomenon within society that is ever so slowly leaving the perceptually hedonistic realms of the gaming world, and beginning to take on a new commercial viability. The rich media that are coined by the terms of virtuality-( Jaron Lanier), augmented reality and telepresence are but a few of the exciting concepts behind the emerging multisensory super mediums. This blog will address the different aspects of the said terms and their positive and potentially negative aspects with association to the creation of online gambling within the mediums.
The definition of virtual reality is based on concepts of “presence” and “telepresence,” which refer to the sense of being in an environment, generated by natural or mediated means, respectively (Steuer, J. 1993). One such example of virtuality is the popular programmes second life and world of warcraft, in these online worlds end users experience the journey of their avatar, and online expression of themselves. These worlds exist in real time, and involve the convergence of numerous communication models- users are able to converse with other users through their avatars, and see and hear other avatars and the world they are surrounded by. This conglomeration of technologies which interacts with entire “human sensorium” (Brand, J 2009) this is why these media are referred to as rich media, media that immerses the user. “ In a virtual environment our senses, as vision, hearing, haptics, smell, etc., are controlled by a computer while our actions influence the produced stimuli” (Bimber O, Raskar R. 2005).
This quote highlights of all the aspects of the world which engage a higher order of psychological processing for the user, the user feels as though the world is operating in the “present”, because perceptively it is. This makes the boundaries between fantasy and reality blurred for users, the impacts of this later can show the negatives of this in reference specifically to the online gaming industry. The reason there are these impacts on users is because virtual reality can encompass numerous technologies at one time, as stated before. Physical tools such as data gloves, data suits, speech and eye recognition, coupled with simulation that is providing the user with immediately stimulating images that provide suspense and constantly challenge the mind, give the end user a sense of “telepresence”. Telepresence refers to the human experience within the virtual world, the vividness (breadth & Depth) plus interactivity (speed, range, mapping) of the technology affecting the users perceptions.
Another form of rich media is Augmented reality. “In Augmented Reality (AR) systems, real and virtual objects are merged and aligned in relation to a real environment, and presented in the field of view of a end user” (Nillson, S . et al 2009). Examples of augmented reality are present in movies, where goggles of a character bring up information about the surroundings they are viewing. Interestingly augmented reality has entered the commercial world already through an app on the ever innovative I-phone, example below shows the outcome:
Because of the rich hardware of the I-phone, situated simulation is able to converge numerous media- broadband with smart phone, substantial graphics capabilities and GPS positioning features to provide a unique service of rich media (G. Liestøl, 2009.). Whilst augmented reality combines technology to enhance viewing the real world it is far less immersive than virtuality. Virtuality essentially provides the user with a sense of presence and realism which results in the immersion, augmented reality adds to reality creating a new realism for the user.
Whilst there are many positives to these rich media, there are negative possibilities for users who become too immersed in the simulation and suffer from detrimental effects. Such effects include; simulation sickness, time use- more time in virtual world than real world. These effects can affect users emotions, jobs, long term memory processing and motivation in the real world, not to mention the negative physical effects such as weight gain or loss from unhealthy exercise habits.
Within the industry of online or virtual gambling the side effects increase in negativity and quantity. Users can suffer from the general negativities of becoming detached from the real world, and incur additionally, debt which can go unchecked by themselves and others. This of course depends on the types of gambling, virtual pokies and card games would certainly prove detrimental. Additionally those involved in providing the service, could also suffer similar end user effects, having their working environment online, decreasing the personal involvement in real life employment may prove detrimental to social skills. Communication of both sides is consistently virtual and comes with all the negative attributes that extended immersion in virtuality provides.
References
1. Brand, J. 2009. Media Richness & Immersion.
2. Jonathan Steuer , 1993. Dimensions Determining Telepresence, pg 1- 25.
3. Liestøl, G. 2009. Situated Simulations: A Prototyped Augmented Reality Genre for Learning on the iPhone Volume 3, Special Issue 1: "IMCL2009", July 2009
4. Nillson, Susanna. Et al 2009. Hands Free Interaction with Virtual Information in a Real Environment: Eye Gaze as an Interaction Tool in an Augmented Reality System. PsychNology Journal, 2009 Volume 7, Number 2, 175 – 196
5. Oliver Bimber, Ramesh Raskar. 2005. Spatial Augmented Reality Merging Real and Virtual Worlds. Pg 1- 10.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Who's Music Is It Anyway?
Information is a term that broadly encompasses raw data, facts, figures and cognitive expression in a physical or tangible form. A public good is a thing of value shared by all people, however within that categorisation there exists restrictions imposed by law in using some information. In this submission I will be addressing the issue of copyright on information and its effect on music as a public good.
Essentially information is the physical expression of knowledge. Once information enters the creative commons- “A commons of knowledge- a free exchange of ideas and information about how the net, and code that runs on the net, runs.” (Flew T. 2008) it becomes commercially valuable and therefore a public good and copyrightable.
Copyright is a restriction placed upon a public good. The copyright ensures exclusive ownership of the information to the creator, and stops others from using the information unless certain things occur. One alternative is the author is credited for their work , or some form of reimbursement for the use of the information, and example of this is royalties paid in the music industry. Within in the music industry “Copyright protection is free and applies automatically when material is created.” (Australian Copyright Council 2009). Quite interestingly copyright within the music industry can belong to two parties, as the music can be represented in both literary work or the musical work itself, E.g. Songwriter and music artist. The music as a whole once it enters the creative commons becomes a public good. Due to the copyright, the music must either be paid for or referenced to the creator, as previously stated.
Within the music industry, the major watchdog which ensures that individuals within Australia comply with copyright law is the Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA). APRA and other regulatory bodies like it monitor the use of music within the creative commons, ensuring that music is paid for by end users. This issue has become quite a controversial issue in modern a time due to the general public perception that music is a public good which isn’t often paid for, with most users ripping or burning music for friends. This essentially taps into one of the central debates surrounding copyright and the creative commons.
It is argued that without reward how can those who create things of public value survive without wealth generation. The opposing argument to this argues that by restricting information within the creative commons, we are inhibiting further creativeness itself, “We as a society should favour the disruptive, they will produce movement toward a more efficient, prosperous economy” (Flew T. 2008). The current precedent is to prosecute offenders, however increasingly this is proving ineffective, as the music has already become a public good and very clearly shared by many people.
Not all creative artists who publish work within the digital commons are adverse to sharing their work. In 2001 the Creative Commons was established created by Lawrence Lessig. Previously there was no avenue for creative people to let people know what work they were willing to share. This not for profit organisation, allows members to exchange information under a few licenses that apply, these licenses are listed below;
Attribution: Whenever a work is copied or redistributed under a Creative Commons licence, credit must always be given to the creator. (Creative Commons 2009)
Non-commercial: Let people use work, but not for commercial purposes. (Creative Commons 2009)
No Derivative Works: Lets others use work but only verbatim copies, not derivative works based upon it. (Creative Commons 2009)
Share Alike: Allows others to distribute derivative works only under a licensee identical to the licensee that governs your work. (Creative Commons 2009)
The creative commons allows for creativity to grow in many industries. An example of this is in the music industry, an individual is able to sample a certain percentage of another person’s work, and remix over the top of it or use it for some purpose for their own purposes. This use of a free public good promotes creativity for the small cost of giving attribution or following one of the other licenses.
Ultimately any form of music recorded and released into the wider community is a public good, copyright has limited influence on the accessibility of this information within the digital commons. This public perception of music as a free public good, may result in the death of the music industry as it is known today.
References
1. Flew, Terry. 2008. New Media an introduction; pg 66-68
2. Australian Copyright Council, www.copyright.org.au (Accessed 11 Nov 2009)
3. Australasian Performing Right Association , www.apra-amcos.com.au (Accessed 11 Nov 2009)
4. Creative Commons, www.creativecommons.org.au (Accessed 11 Nov 2009)
Essentially information is the physical expression of knowledge. Once information enters the creative commons- “A commons of knowledge- a free exchange of ideas and information about how the net, and code that runs on the net, runs.” (Flew T. 2008) it becomes commercially valuable and therefore a public good and copyrightable.
Copyright is a restriction placed upon a public good. The copyright ensures exclusive ownership of the information to the creator, and stops others from using the information unless certain things occur. One alternative is the author is credited for their work , or some form of reimbursement for the use of the information, and example of this is royalties paid in the music industry. Within in the music industry “Copyright protection is free and applies automatically when material is created.” (Australian Copyright Council 2009). Quite interestingly copyright within the music industry can belong to two parties, as the music can be represented in both literary work or the musical work itself, E.g. Songwriter and music artist. The music as a whole once it enters the creative commons becomes a public good. Due to the copyright, the music must either be paid for or referenced to the creator, as previously stated.
Within the music industry, the major watchdog which ensures that individuals within Australia comply with copyright law is the Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA). APRA and other regulatory bodies like it monitor the use of music within the creative commons, ensuring that music is paid for by end users. This issue has become quite a controversial issue in modern a time due to the general public perception that music is a public good which isn’t often paid for, with most users ripping or burning music for friends. This essentially taps into one of the central debates surrounding copyright and the creative commons.
It is argued that without reward how can those who create things of public value survive without wealth generation. The opposing argument to this argues that by restricting information within the creative commons, we are inhibiting further creativeness itself, “We as a society should favour the disruptive, they will produce movement toward a more efficient, prosperous economy” (Flew T. 2008). The current precedent is to prosecute offenders, however increasingly this is proving ineffective, as the music has already become a public good and very clearly shared by many people.
Not all creative artists who publish work within the digital commons are adverse to sharing their work. In 2001 the Creative Commons was established created by Lawrence Lessig. Previously there was no avenue for creative people to let people know what work they were willing to share. This not for profit organisation, allows members to exchange information under a few licenses that apply, these licenses are listed below;
Attribution: Whenever a work is copied or redistributed under a Creative Commons licence, credit must always be given to the creator. (Creative Commons 2009)
Non-commercial: Let people use work, but not for commercial purposes. (Creative Commons 2009)
No Derivative Works: Lets others use work but only verbatim copies, not derivative works based upon it. (Creative Commons 2009)
Share Alike: Allows others to distribute derivative works only under a licensee identical to the licensee that governs your work. (Creative Commons 2009)
The creative commons allows for creativity to grow in many industries. An example of this is in the music industry, an individual is able to sample a certain percentage of another person’s work, and remix over the top of it or use it for some purpose for their own purposes. This use of a free public good promotes creativity for the small cost of giving attribution or following one of the other licenses.
Ultimately any form of music recorded and released into the wider community is a public good, copyright has limited influence on the accessibility of this information within the digital commons. This public perception of music as a free public good, may result in the death of the music industry as it is known today.
References
1. Flew, Terry. 2008. New Media an introduction; pg 66-68
2. Australian Copyright Council, www.copyright.org.au (Accessed 11 Nov 2009)
3. Australasian Performing Right Association , www.apra-amcos.com.au (Accessed 11 Nov 2009)
4. Creative Commons, www.creativecommons.org.au (Accessed 11 Nov 2009)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
