Opening Ourselves to New Thinking

Open Code and Open Societies really gave me a completely new perspective on the world of online intellectual property. I guess I've always sort of accepted the logic of the closed system, even though it has frustrated me on many occasions when I've wanted free music or free TV shows or free movies on the Internet. That said, I do "get it." The creators of these pieces of intellectual property deserve to receive their dues, to get credit and money for their works of art. Still, is this portioning of credit preventing us from moving forward? From having the kind of freedom of property that is encoded in our old laws?

That is why the idea of LIMITED copyright is so important. The idea of copyright is

“beneficial … to authors and inventors, … [and beneficial] to the public, as it

 

will promote the progress of science and the useful arts, and admit the people at

large, after a short interval, to the full possession and enjoyment of

all writings and inventions without restraint" (Lessig 5).
This means that all can benefit from the ideas of a few. Yet, limited copyright, as explained in the article, has become less limited through the Internet (Lessig 11). The commons, the idea of public domain, has been forgotten as a way of spreading and expanding knowledge (Lessig 5). Corporations, such as Hollywood, are so concerned with holding on to their own property that they don't think about the ways that this property could be expanded or improved. Of course, there is certainly the problem of people taking credit for others' inventions and creations. But, if we remember learning about the Scientific Revolution in junior high and high school, recall that the commons is important for innovation -- only through studying the notes and observations of previous scientists were new scientists able to build off of old theories and improve them. In Wu's book also, we saw how copyright laws prevented the evolution of all sorts of technologies. Copyright allows one group to hold onto its success, but it detracts from the formation of ideas for the future.

Do I agree with Lessig's assessment of our future? I'm not sure -- do you? I guess it seems fair to ask permission to use someone else's media, but is Internet control going too far in this direction? I'm not sure that I agree that the Internet should be an open space, but at the same time I don't want to see it become fully closed off. It is hard to find a balance between what is "fair" to one and what is "fair" to all. I'm definitely still figuring this all out.

Free Speech in a Free World

Lawrence Lessig takes an interesting approach to open source software. He utilizes various support from Thomas Jefferson quote to the explanation of how copyrights on Hollywood movies work. One of his more interesting examples is that of iCraveTV. The Canadian vehicle to free TV was taken advantage of by Americans, so the US government asked them to take this down. Lessig points out that the US has no problem violating other nations' freedom of speech. However, whenever freedom of speech in the US is threatened by other nations, America becomes defensive. This sort of double standard points out a potential problem with cyberspace. Lessig contends that it will lead to zoning on the Web where local rules will make it a closed space. Given the push behind SOPA and PIPA in 2011, Lessig's claim may not be too far away.

While I was not a proponent of SOPA or PIPA, I think the government has some legitimacy to their surveillance of the Internet. And yes, I realize that it is not just for our "national security" like the government claims it to be. Here's one way to look at it: given the CIA's past, whether the government officially recognizes that they are monitoring the Internet or not, it would come as no surprise if the CIA was monitoring it anyway. At least in the model that exists now, we are well aware that our cyberspace actions are being monitored. While it may feel a bit Big Brother, part of the surveillance is for security, which I find comfort in. 

Now in regards to Lessig's claims about zoning and local rules on cyberspace, it has already occurred in China. The US could easily be the next nation to do so. Before we all panic, is this really a problem? While it may limit the free flow of information, if the government does what it did in the case against iCraveTV, its actions will be done in order to prevent illegal activity (watching TV for free in this case).  Zoning and rules do not necessarily mean that we will be limited in our search results on Google or any other radical ideas behind SOPA and PIPA. I believe that any rules set up will be more moderate and palatable to how we use the Internet currently. 

Rules are a bad thing. While some rules can come from ignorance, I believe that most rules are necessary. We need structure in order to shape our lives. Plus, given the alternative of anarchy, I think I'll stick to the law.

Why Wade is a Total Freak

     My post may have been a generalization. However as was stated in class, the sociability of an individual is an extremely subjective description. My feelings on Wade are based on if Wade were to exist in current American society. Wade spends a majority of the novel locked up in a blacked out room hooked up to the OASIS. He is completely devoid of human connection. His only "friendly" social interactions occur with Aech, Art3mis, Daito, and Shoto. However Wade eventually manages to alienate Aech and Art3mis his two "best friends" leaving him more alone than ever. Wade makes some changes throughout the course of the novel that may lead to him being a more social person. However, I feel the novel ended too abruptly for readers to be sure that this change is really permanent. Wade spent a grand total of about ten minutes talking to Art3mis in person. Although he may state that he has no desire to log on again, the addictive nature of the OASIS and the countless hours of his life that he has dedicated there will make it extremely difficult for him to pull away. For Wade, I see the OASIS as an addiction, an addiction that feeds into his antisocial behaviors and allows him to be a shut-in. Perhaps if the ending gave a brief description of Wade years later completely off the OASIS still with no desire to log-on I'd be more convinced that he'd really become a different person.

       Through the lens of my place and time I see Wade as a freak. Freak is also a subjective word. Therefore I feel that I have the ability to use it at my disposal. I feel that Wade is a freak, others may not. It would be similar to saying that I think that Mila Kunis is pretty while others may not (jokes everyone thinks Mila is pretty). Perhaps the way I posted my comment was slightly rant-like but I have little sympathy for those who hide from reality. Wade lives in a world of immersed humans so perhaps if everyone is a freak no one is? Yet the few examples that we have been given of other non-gunter characters are not as extremely distant as Wade. IOI employees come to work and then go home, it can be assumed they have some sort of real personal connection whether it be with a spouse or children. That being said, Cline barely even describes non-gunters so I have nothing to compare Wade's behavior with other than my current surroundings, in which, he would be a freak.

Rayna's Post: Technical Difficulties

 

Image source: Blatantly stolen by your prof from a defunct role-playing game of the early 90s, complete with flying car from Blade Runner and a neo-Neo with high-tech eyes and armed girlfriend. In other words, nerd-candy!

Prof's Note: I'll post this for Rayna, who is having technical difficulties. Maybe the Sixers got her!

Rayna left this for us to consider:

In Ready Player One, Cline presets many negative and positive aspects of cyberspace and online relationships. Clearly the OASIS seems better that the real world for kids like Wade who live in abusive homes and are social outcast.

The OASIS does offer some benefits, Wade is able to have a safe and engaging experience at school which he was unable to get in the real world. He also meets Aech who turns out to be a true friend even though the friendship is purely online. Despite highlighting these positives, Cline also makes it clear that living in the OASIS may not be completely healthy.

Although Wade meets his best friends and love in the OASIS, meeting them in person proves to lead to much deeper/more fulfilling relationships. Wade goes through a personal transformation throughout the novel, which is demonstrated both in and out of the game. Within the OASIS we see him act with honor and show morality. Outside of the OASIS, Wade actually begins to take care of himself. Ultimately, the true sign of his transformation comes at the very end of the book when Wade no longer has an interest in reentering the game.

Despite spending most of his life searching for Halliday's Easter eggs, when he finally wins the biggest prize of all, it no longer matters in comparison to the prize of real life and real friendship. Although set in a dystopian, cyber-punk setting, the themes throughout are relatively optimistic which I though made Cline's novel both entertaining and enjoyable.

Alone, Together. Again?

                                      The new kind of social interaction.

Is Wade antisocial?

                Now, for some of you the answer to that is a resounding yes. However, I believe the situation is more complex than that.

                                While towards the end of the book we can see that Cline is developing Wade into a more social person, we sort of get Turkle’s “Alone, Together” concept. For example, when all of the players get together at Ogden Morrow’s house, they all log on to the OASIS in separate, neighboring pods. When Wade logs in, he is suddenly highly secluded on his asteroid stronghold. What’s happening is sort of the reverse of Turkle’s idea. They are together, but alone. Only to be together again online.  When you think about it, you notice that these last scenes are the first time since the beginning of the novel Wade is physically with others, besides the times when he ventures out but does not speak with anyone.  In the beginning of the novel, we only see Wade interact with his aunt and his neighbor.  We can see that in reality, Wade isn’t actually interacting socially.

                In the beginning of the book Wade admits that he only has one friend, and at the end he finds he wants to spend more time with real people. He is not pretending to be very social, and there’s no denying his advancement.  However, I believe that as the narrator, Wade is painting a picture of himself as slightly more social than he really is.  In the opening scenes of the novel he says he is close with his neighbor, but there is only really “telling,” and very little “showing.” When the explosion occurs, Wade is only moderately upset over her death. Overall, the relationship isn’t convincing. Wade calls Aech his friend that he tells everything to. In the beginning before the two have met, Wade has no doubts about the closeness of their relationship. However, even if they are emotionally close, he still doesn’t know crucial details of her personal life.  Wade additionally often says that Artemis, Daito, and Shoto are his friends.  He hardly knows Daito and Shoto, the latter especially. He only met Shoto about twice, both times on OASIS.  In the case of Artemis, the two have undoubtedly gotten close, but their romantic feelings get in the way of them having a real friendship. I believe Wade feels a kinship with these people for being in a similar situation to him, but I think he is confusing this with a real friendship. Overall, while Wade is becoming more social, he seems to hype his relationships to more than they are.

                Cline also creates a strange dilemma in “Ready Player One.” He is making Wade find his way back to social interaction by putting him in an individual competition where in many cases it is best to isolate oneself.  Maybe Cline is trying to draw attention to the necessity of social interaction?

                So, give me your opinions.  Do you think Wade is antisocial? Why or why not?

cyber OASIS vs the Oasis of Reality

-->

            The ending of the novel Ready Player One was shocking, but also predictable at the same time. I was glad to see that near the end Parzival finally ventured outside, and got a decent taste of the real world. It’s alarming that during the majority of this book, he hadn’t left his room. Its reassuring that Cline alludes to the idea that the real world has some perks over the simulated, and that in the end, Parzival wants to remain in reality. This may be a sweeping generalization, but I feel that the real world has a certain "je ne sais quoi" that the virtual can never quite capture, no matter how much the simulation feels real, there is always a part of it that will never fulfill all the sensation that can be felt in the real world. Similar to the uncanny valley, it’s hard to be fully immersed or to fully believe the simulation is real. Like wade and the others, they sunk into the simulation and let themselves get lost in it, but they always come back. This makes me question: is there a way to become fully immersed? And fully integrated within a machine? Or will reality prevail as the medium people use to communicate with one another? This OASIS like reality is potentially possible. Would we potentially see users login to their visor units and log into their jobs and school, or will reality remain the most popular medium for people to engage with one another?

Escape to the OASIS

In the novel Ready Player One, the year is 2045 and there exists an alternate, virtual universe known as the OASIS. People choose to spend their time connected into this world while they maintain their real identities anonymous. It seems to be so much easier to live in the OASIS than in real life; you can be whoever you want to be and you have endless possibilities as to what you can do, from "traveling" around the world to creating and accomplishing things that you could not accomplish in the real world. The OASIS gives people the opportunity to live their lives as they wish, and to reach their true potential... virtually.

In the novel, people, including Wade, seen to prefer to live in a game rather than face the "real world", which seems to be a horrible place in 2045. How realistic is this depiction of the future? In my opinion, not very. I do not think it is very likely that in the future, people will succumb to technology to the point of spending most of their time immersed in it, living a fantasy life. I know that many people today are addicted to video games, online virtual worlds, social media and/or other technology-based ways of communication. However, I do not think humanity will reach a point where the virtual is ultimately preferred over the real. Sure, technology has its many advantages, but it can never truly replace the actual touchable, tangible, emotional, real human interactions.

As I mentioned in my paper for Project 1, there is something personal and intimate about face-to-face interaction that cannot be replaced by other methods of communication. Avatars only mimic human expressions and emotions, the lack of human presence makes communication a fake interaction. Feelings and emotions are what essentially make us human. In the book, Wade knows his best friend Aech through OASIS, and only interacts with him in the virtual world. How real is this friendship? Who lies behind Aech's game controller? Wade has befriended Aech's avatar, but in the end he is just a character created and controlled by a person whose personality might go beyond what his character is actually portraying. A world consisting of fake relationships does not sound like a very happy one, and I think human's need for real interaction will prevent the world from reaching a time like the one in the book, where humans escape into the virtual and avoid reality.