1 27 10 Apple released the I-Pad, allowing us to “hold the internet in (our) hand”. What affect will this have on print media? Are current media laws adequate for a paperless society?How will the ability to “hold the internet in your hand” affect writers’ protections under current copyright laws?
Apple announced the release of the ½” thick digital reader and internet, the I-Pad, said to be “as transformative to culture…as the printed book” ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#35110330 ) . With wide applications for use in education, business and government, how can content contributors monitor and maintain the ownership and usage rights to their internet published works?
At the start of the computer revolution, a debate raged as to the effect that computers and the internet would have on print media. Although we have not yet seen the “paperless” society foretold by analysts, the publishing industry has changed dramatically, from the cancellation of “evening edition” newspapers to the ability for anyone to self publish both written and audio-visual works for digital download via the internet.
With Steve Jobs’ dream to “hold the internet in your hand” becoming reality with the popularity of I-Phones, Blackberry’s, and other emerging smart phones, the I-Pad, in some version, will no doubt have a great impact on media production and publishing. With touch screen technology the I-Pad will be mostly an information retrieval and storage system, and not an alternative to a fully functioning computer. It also does not use Flash or Adobe applications, which are both entrenched in digital multimedia. David Carr of the New York Times, writes about the unveiling and agrees that the I-Pad is a device for consuming media, not creating it, and asks “are media companies ready to deliver?” Carr points out that although book publishers appear to be on-board, magazine publishers have not yet embraced the I-Pad. Still, Carr believes that the I-Pad may “open up a whole new frontier for developers and publishers”, depending on the success of the business models used to present the content. CNN also notes that the I-Pad may even save “old” media, should newspapers and magazines develop models that will drive both people, advertisers and content to the screen. Primarily, it appears that the media industry is still searching for ways to make money by displaying on the I-Pad.
Price and availability to the device will be a determining factor in the success of the I-Pad, and also how it will change media. As a separate and new application apart from I-phones and computers, it will not replace either, but be an additional method of retrieving media. In addition to the practical issues of transmitting and consuming media digitally, there are also many legal and rights issues surrounding digital media, and with each new application, new regulations to protect content producers must be examined. While print media has the advantage of being permanent, information contained in blogs and other digital sites is often transitory, and while it may be available at one time, unlike printed books, the information can disappear into cyberspace as quickly as it appeared. The success of the I-Pad will depend on this ability of the content producers to profit by presenting media that advertisers will be willing to invest in and that consumers will be willing to pay for.
©Kim Rojas
www.sustainablygreen.blogspot.com
Showing posts with label comments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label comments. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Thursday, July 9, 2009
I Don't Like What You Wrote
Ellen Brandt, Ph.D., talks about her experience with the dark side of social media in this humorous article from June 12, 2009, at (www.elleninteractive.wordpress.com ).
Click here to read Dr. Brandt’s article:
I Don’t Like What You Wrote. You Should Be Poisoned, Garrotted, Stabbed With Stiletto Heels, Thrown Off A Tall Building, and Have Vultures Eat Your Liver June 12, 2009 by Ellen Brandt, Ph.D.
The vast majority of those one meets on the Internet through social networking are sane, well-educated, interesting, and often thoroughly delightful people one would be happy to meet for a hamburger or beer without bodyguards, one’s mother, or the Secret Service present.
But there are notable exceptions.
My response:
Dear Ellen,
Do you feel better? lol...that's quite a rant, luckily you have a gift for this gab, whereas many yahoos on social networking sites are still dragging their knuckles, let alone able to understand the value of your media research, and how lucky your followers were to be able to take the journey with you. And hey -- you won, soooo...you really get the last laugh.
I naively joined Facebook, thinking it would be a good professional networking site, but very quickly found out that the object of Facebook is to get the most "Friends". Not so with Linked In, and to keep it from turning in to "Facebook", I try to keep my contact list small and important. Although there are several contacts that I don't actually have personal contact with, they are (like you), at the top of their field. I, admittedly, am a life-long scholar, and as such want to surround myself with those who can inspire me and teach me. I thank you for offering this to so many. But when something becomes detrimental to my primary focus, it is time to re-examine my tactics.
One of the drawbacks to blogging, and submitting comments on blogs, is that people often feel bolder in expressing how they feel when they do not have to confront you face to face, and when they are "anonymous", while you have maintained full disclosure. They also tend to digress and rant on, when a concise and reasoned debate would be more effective. I try to avoid this by first writing my blog or comment in Word…and on that note, I respectfully close!
Click here to read Dr. Brandt’s article:
I Don’t Like What You Wrote. You Should Be Poisoned, Garrotted, Stabbed With Stiletto Heels, Thrown Off A Tall Building, and Have Vultures Eat Your Liver June 12, 2009 by Ellen Brandt, Ph.D.
The vast majority of those one meets on the Internet through social networking are sane, well-educated, interesting, and often thoroughly delightful people one would be happy to meet for a hamburger or beer without bodyguards, one’s mother, or the Secret Service present.
But there are notable exceptions.
My response:
Dear Ellen,
Do you feel better? lol...that's quite a rant, luckily you have a gift for this gab, whereas many yahoos on social networking sites are still dragging their knuckles, let alone able to understand the value of your media research, and how lucky your followers were to be able to take the journey with you. And hey -- you won, soooo...you really get the last laugh.
I naively joined Facebook, thinking it would be a good professional networking site, but very quickly found out that the object of Facebook is to get the most "Friends". Not so with Linked In, and to keep it from turning in to "Facebook", I try to keep my contact list small and important. Although there are several contacts that I don't actually have personal contact with, they are (like you), at the top of their field. I, admittedly, am a life-long scholar, and as such want to surround myself with those who can inspire me and teach me. I thank you for offering this to so many. But when something becomes detrimental to my primary focus, it is time to re-examine my tactics.
One of the drawbacks to blogging, and submitting comments on blogs, is that people often feel bolder in expressing how they feel when they do not have to confront you face to face, and when they are "anonymous", while you have maintained full disclosure. They also tend to digress and rant on, when a concise and reasoned debate would be more effective. I try to avoid this by first writing my blog or comment in Word…and on that note, I respectfully close!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)