As we are about to begin our foray into Second Life, the concept of virtual property has been on my mind. Second Life attempts to make virtual property a reality both in terms of real estate locations on Second Life and in terms of the art, clothing, scripts, architecture, and furniture available in Second Life from other users. But this can raise the question of who really owns the materials created online or materials purchased online. This problem also occurs in Massive Multiplayer Role-Playing Games like World of Warcraft (WoW).
One example, http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/news/2006/05/70909, from Second Life concerns an individual that figured out a way to bid on auctions that were still hidden from the general public. After he had purchased a large quantity of virtual real estate and resold the real estate, Linden Labs (the owners of Second Life) attempted to free his accounts and cut-off his access.
In games like WoW, individual players build their characters over a very long time. Because of the time and effort required to obtain a high level character, many people are willing to pay for better characters. Items to make your character more powerful also cost in game gold, so it is possible to buy gold from outside businesses. However, the Terms of Service explicitly ban such practices. Attempting to sell anything in game for money in the real world can result in your account being suspended or frozen.
Currently, businesses have largely answered the question of "who owns online content?" by simply saying that they own everything. But, is this right? Should you be required to sign away virtual property rights to engage in online games like WoW? Or, should virtual property fall under rights to private property from the Constitution?
Monday, April 18, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Addiction and acceptance
When we consider behavioral types of addiction, an already fuzzy line between addiction and use becomes even fuzzier. Drug addiction is perhaps the most clear-cut case of addiction because physical withdrawal and tolerance symptoms can be clearly understood on the basis of the physiological properties of the body. However, even with drug addiction the line between use and addiction can be unclear. Someone that feels socially awkward might use alcohol to feel more comfortable while out with other people without creating conflict. But if the physical drug use leads to withdrawal symptoms, tolerance, and perhaps using more than intended of the drug--three criteria for drug addiction in the DSM-IV--it still fits the primary criteria for addiction.
Behavioral addiction can be even more problematic to define because its physical effects are tied to a state of mind. If say a teenage boy that plays World of Warcraft for 4 hours a day with one friend and 20 guild members was made to cutback on his playtime, would any ill effects be from addiction or something else? Perhaps not playing 4 hours a day makes the boy upset because he missed the community of the guild or spending 4 hours a day with his friend. He might also be on for an hour, but then meet his friend or guild members about to do something really important. He could control his time and sign-off, or he could join his community in some group activity. According to addiction criteria, staying online longer than intended is indicative of addiction. But the boy doesn't necessarily seem to be staying on the internet for the sake of being on the internet. Rather, the boy is staying on the internet because he wants to help out his community or spend time with his community.
Ultimately, the boy could be considered either an addict or a non-addict based upon the person labeling. Like Dr. Bob said in class, many people could be considered addicts to a variety of things based on theirs actions, but if those things are socially acceptable, they typically aren't labeled. One of the reasons the above example is powerful is that it juxtaposes a socially acceptable activity, creating and participating in community, with a less acceptable activity, spending a massive amount of time online. As the internet becomes more common, perhaps nearly all internet "addiction" will become accepted.
Behavioral addiction can be even more problematic to define because its physical effects are tied to a state of mind. If say a teenage boy that plays World of Warcraft for 4 hours a day with one friend and 20 guild members was made to cutback on his playtime, would any ill effects be from addiction or something else? Perhaps not playing 4 hours a day makes the boy upset because he missed the community of the guild or spending 4 hours a day with his friend. He might also be on for an hour, but then meet his friend or guild members about to do something really important. He could control his time and sign-off, or he could join his community in some group activity. According to addiction criteria, staying online longer than intended is indicative of addiction. But the boy doesn't necessarily seem to be staying on the internet for the sake of being on the internet. Rather, the boy is staying on the internet because he wants to help out his community or spend time with his community.
Ultimately, the boy could be considered either an addict or a non-addict based upon the person labeling. Like Dr. Bob said in class, many people could be considered addicts to a variety of things based on theirs actions, but if those things are socially acceptable, they typically aren't labeled. One of the reasons the above example is powerful is that it juxtaposes a socially acceptable activity, creating and participating in community, with a less acceptable activity, spending a massive amount of time online. As the internet becomes more common, perhaps nearly all internet "addiction" will become accepted.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Privacy and Piracy: What is reasonable?
When we talk about a right to privacy in regard to the internet, we often think about informational privacy. This is essentially a right to control what data about us is available to others. There are a variety of data types that we might wish to keep private.
A major type of privacy is medical privacy, or our right to keep data about our medical records from others--specifically employers and insurance agencies in many cases. This could also be extended to our DNA because it is, to some degree, biologically predictive of our medical futures.
Another major type of privacy applies to our financial data. Clearly, financial privacy is important to protect oneself from different forms of identity theft where people can use financial information to either steal money or establish themselves under an alternate identity. However financial privacy can also be applied to purchases such as cigarettes or medication that might indicate to insurers the state of someone's health.
A third type of privacy could be called internet privacy. Internet privacy is defined by Wikipedia as "... the ability to control what information one reveals about oneself over the Internet, and to control who can access that information." This type of privacy is connected to the other types of privacy. If you're sending information over the internet regarding finances or health, you would want that information protected. Likewise, you might not want other people to know what medical sites you were visiting on the internet.
Internet privacy could also be seen as protecting the types of content that you access online and what activities you engage in online. If you access pirated content or if you engage in piracy online, internet privacy could be seen as protecting you from others that would seek to limit your privacy. Currently in the US, many ISPs require a court-order/warrant before revealing the identity of individuals engaged in piracy on the internet. Here, the rights of a content owner and the right of the individual are in opposition, so a court can step in to define where the rights of the individual end. An individual's right to anonymity or privacy is very limited in this case.
While it seems given that a right to privacy is not necessarily a right to commit a crime, how are we to judge in other situations? Under the 4th Amendment (the source of much of this law) there is "... the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." If the person is committing crime, it is usually considered "reasonable" to search there records, financial, medical, or on the internet. But, what if they have not necessarily committed a crime. What if someone is seeking civil damages against them? Or what if an insurance company thinks that someone lied about knowledge of a pre-existing condition? Should the insurance company be able to present as evidence that this person was researching information about MS on Google 3 months before they got insurance and 6 months before they were diagnosed?
A major type of privacy is medical privacy, or our right to keep data about our medical records from others--specifically employers and insurance agencies in many cases. This could also be extended to our DNA because it is, to some degree, biologically predictive of our medical futures.
Another major type of privacy applies to our financial data. Clearly, financial privacy is important to protect oneself from different forms of identity theft where people can use financial information to either steal money or establish themselves under an alternate identity. However financial privacy can also be applied to purchases such as cigarettes or medication that might indicate to insurers the state of someone's health.
A third type of privacy could be called internet privacy. Internet privacy is defined by Wikipedia as "... the ability to control what information one reveals about oneself over the Internet, and to control who can access that information." This type of privacy is connected to the other types of privacy. If you're sending information over the internet regarding finances or health, you would want that information protected. Likewise, you might not want other people to know what medical sites you were visiting on the internet.
Internet privacy could also be seen as protecting the types of content that you access online and what activities you engage in online. If you access pirated content or if you engage in piracy online, internet privacy could be seen as protecting you from others that would seek to limit your privacy. Currently in the US, many ISPs require a court-order/warrant before revealing the identity of individuals engaged in piracy on the internet. Here, the rights of a content owner and the right of the individual are in opposition, so a court can step in to define where the rights of the individual end. An individual's right to anonymity or privacy is very limited in this case.
While it seems given that a right to privacy is not necessarily a right to commit a crime, how are we to judge in other situations? Under the 4th Amendment (the source of much of this law) there is "... the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." If the person is committing crime, it is usually considered "reasonable" to search there records, financial, medical, or on the internet. But, what if they have not necessarily committed a crime. What if someone is seeking civil damages against them? Or what if an insurance company thinks that someone lied about knowledge of a pre-existing condition? Should the insurance company be able to present as evidence that this person was researching information about MS on Google 3 months before they got insurance and 6 months before they were diagnosed?
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Physical vs. Mental
What is addiction?
A classic definition could be that an addiction is when an individual physically needs a substance, or they suffer withdrawal symptoms. This definition can be expanded to differentiate people that are abusing a drug with people that addicted to a drug by requiring an "addiction" to also result in extremely negative life consequences. The expanded definition partially shows the physical/mental dichotomy present in thinking about addiction. If addiction is a physical disease, withdrawal represents its symptoms. However, if addiction is a mental disease its symptoms are that it causes negative life consequences. I would suggest that addiction is both.
We've discussed a number of times in this class how the online world can have a physical effect upon people. In the example of LambdaMOO the online assault of individuals in a chat environment mostly just led to hurt feelings. However, in other contexts cyberbullying has led to suicide, and it has almost certainly led to depression in a number of cases. Positing a defining line between a purely online "mental" experience and a "physical" experience is a stretch.
In addition to the possibility of these negative interactions, the internet gives us the opportunity for many positive or pleasurable interactions. Just to name two examples, people can find community interaction, and people can find games that offer incentivizing achievements (think Farmville). Both of these can have a physical effect on an individual even though they exist in a cyber realm.
By this standard, I think that internet addiction can exist because any mental action has some physical reaction even if the withdrawal symptoms are not as physiological as a drug addiction.
A classic definition could be that an addiction is when an individual physically needs a substance, or they suffer withdrawal symptoms. This definition can be expanded to differentiate people that are abusing a drug with people that addicted to a drug by requiring an "addiction" to also result in extremely negative life consequences. The expanded definition partially shows the physical/mental dichotomy present in thinking about addiction. If addiction is a physical disease, withdrawal represents its symptoms. However, if addiction is a mental disease its symptoms are that it causes negative life consequences. I would suggest that addiction is both.
We've discussed a number of times in this class how the online world can have a physical effect upon people. In the example of LambdaMOO the online assault of individuals in a chat environment mostly just led to hurt feelings. However, in other contexts cyberbullying has led to suicide, and it has almost certainly led to depression in a number of cases. Positing a defining line between a purely online "mental" experience and a "physical" experience is a stretch.
In addition to the possibility of these negative interactions, the internet gives us the opportunity for many positive or pleasurable interactions. Just to name two examples, people can find community interaction, and people can find games that offer incentivizing achievements (think Farmville). Both of these can have a physical effect on an individual even though they exist in a cyber realm.
By this standard, I think that internet addiction can exist because any mental action has some physical reaction even if the withdrawal symptoms are not as physiological as a drug addiction.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
The Future of Privacy
I read a really cool short story a few years ago, and, searching for it's name, I found it's available free online now. It's called The Right's Tough by Robert J. Sawyer. http://www.webscription.net/chapters/0743488385/0743488385___2.htm. It provides a glimpse into a hypothetical future where nothing is private, and individuals essentially crowd-source rating each other. While in many ways, the future it portrays is utopian, it also shows a rather staggering dark side.
To a large extent, even with Facebook and the internet, when people publicly do stupid things or make mistakes it is widely known for a while, but then leaves the public eye. As a positive, this means that people can be forgiven or at least forgotten, and then continue with their lives. The same happens with private matters, but there is always the fear that something might escape. The Right's Tough represents a world where everyone can automatically filter people based on their past deeds--regardless of how long ago they happened. It's filling in for what our memory often (and perhaps to our benefit) falls to do. While a part of me thinks that a world like the one in The Right's Tough would probably be very pleasant, I think it may also be very stressful. One stupid mistake and you could be excommunicated.
Just as one closing thought, does anyone else see the combined use of Facebook/Twitter/Foursquare as heading this direction?
To a large extent, even with Facebook and the internet, when people publicly do stupid things or make mistakes it is widely known for a while, but then leaves the public eye. As a positive, this means that people can be forgiven or at least forgotten, and then continue with their lives. The same happens with private matters, but there is always the fear that something might escape. The Right's Tough represents a world where everyone can automatically filter people based on their past deeds--regardless of how long ago they happened. It's filling in for what our memory often (and perhaps to our benefit) falls to do. While a part of me thinks that a world like the one in The Right's Tough would probably be very pleasant, I think it may also be very stressful. One stupid mistake and you could be excommunicated.
Just as one closing thought, does anyone else see the combined use of Facebook/Twitter/Foursquare as heading this direction?
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Infriging?
Guitar Hero, its sequels, and its clones represent an interesting aspect of the copyright issue. While all of the Guitar Hero type games have attempted to obtain at least partial licensing for their content, there have been some interesting issues. The Guitar Hero games began using songs that were played by cover bands rather than the real bands to reduce licensing fees. They obtained the license for the lyrics and melodies, just not the recordings done by the bands.
The covers were made to sound nearly identical to the real bands, so some of the real bands began to complain that even though their song content wasn't being stolen, other rights were being infringed upon. There was an article about it in the USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/2007-11-22-romanticssue_N.htm While there is some merit to the Romantics' case, it does raise the usual question of where should the line be drawn between what is a copy and what isn't a copy. Should a band be allowed to copy the look and sound of another band? Should a band be able to license its look and sound?
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Being free
One common fear mentioned in the discussion boards on privacy, the various blogs on privacy, and the articles on privacy is that a possible employer will find your information and use it to decide against hiring you. While this does happen, I would like to suggest that it is not a negative thing.
Everyone’s online presence says a lot about them. People often feel freer to be themselves because they feel less like others might judge them. In online groups, people tend to associate with others that share their feelings creating even more incentive to open up and be oneself. On Facebook, you can share about your experiences with friends and acquaintances remembering the possibly wild things that you have done together.
By opening up, you do become more vulnerable, but you also gain a freedom to be yourself. If an aspect of your personality or something that you do would not be acceptable at a work place, maybe it is better not to be employed at that workplace? While nearly any advantage could be worthwhile when attempting to find employment, it might be worth asking yourself if getting a job would be worth being someone else. In a way, it’s like trying to find a profession that you enjoy, but, instead of finding a profession that fits you, you’re trying to find a work environment that fits you.
Privacy can be important, and I’m not advocating sharing details that could lead to identity theft, but maybe we really don’t have to worry about employers peeking into our personal lives?
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
The price of being someone real
Privacy and identity are intertwined throughout our lives. They exist largely at opposite sides of a spectrum. As you share more about yourself you begin to establish an identity, and to maintain your privacy you must hide parts of your identity. This is especially true on the internet, where everyone has a chance to establish whatever identity they wish based upon what they choose to share. Some sites allow you create an anonymous identity which can only be known by the posts that you make, but others like Facebook require you to use your real name.
The requirement to use a real name, while not consistently enforced, makes Facebook different from many other networking sites. Facebook is grounded in reality. If John Q. Public is on a network like the Lehigh network, John had to use his jqp123@lehigh.edu mailing address. People can be relatively safe in assuming that John is a real person, and they can feel safe in adding John as a friend. Here the entire community has begun trading an important piece of their privacy, their real name, to help establish an identity within the community. Within the United States, where people live in relative safety, sharing your name with others that have also given up their names helps establish the community of Facebook.
Unfortunately, this trade makes less sense in countries where free speech is not protected. In a recent New York Time’s article, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/business/media/28social.html, Jennifer Preston points out that in oppressive countries, using your real name may allow oppressive regimes to discover your views and activities. While Facebook can serve as a valuable tool in organizing popular support and spreading information about the actions of a country, it explicitly requires users to trade on their names in exchange for an online identity.
Is there any easy way around this problem? You can still use Facebook while breaking its Terms of Service, but you could be kicked off at any time. Users could also lobby Facebook to consider changing their ToS for countries where freedom of speech is not as accepted as it is in the US.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)