Surveillance and the Snowden case

While the constitutionality of the surveillance is at stake, everyone is challenging the government’s surveillance program on the understanding that the surveillance program seems to be infringing on their personal privacy. However, this seems to be one of the cases of double standards as the law is applied differently considering the fact that this is the era of freedom of press where everyone is free to say anything as long as it does not violates anyone’s freedom. For example, when the government violates one’s privacy, it is protecting the Americans, but when its programs are exposed, one becomes a fugitive. Is it a case of realism or paranoia because after the wiki leaks, the government is still to learn that there is not secrecy in public? Perhaps the government should reconsider its stand on surveillance or offer a plausible explanation for the same. I consider Edwards Snowden a patriot, and a hero for doing what is right.

                                        image :Edward Snowden has been granted temporary asylum in Russia

Currently, we are in the age of user generated content where the social media users can generate any content and share with the general public and Snowden’s case is  one of those contents. I am a prosumer, and so are Snowden. I consider myself a prosumer in the context of the social media because I can create, my won content, edit other peoples content, and share to others who will consider me a producer. Snowden is just a prosumer (produce and consumers) of the contents and is free to share his content. Perhaps it is important to redefine the term freedom and constitutionality of actions or programs. However, information on the unauthorized collection of data on Americans or eavesdropping on foreign intelligence targets that entered the United States is not illegal; neither is sharing the same information. Never the less, it seems that the current system does not follow the traditional production- consumption paradigm (Ritzer, &, Jurgenson, 2010, p. 25).Controlling information is the beginning of the downfall of man, and so is the prosecution of the society members who work hard to make information accessible. The Snowden case, is not supposed to be a case worth much hullabaloo if the government was not doing anything illegal.

It is real because the government has admitted to some degree about its NSA surveillance programs. While the government has admitted collecting unauthorized data through their NSA surveillance program, it is not clear why the government fails to explain who watches the watchers because even the American community is in need of forthright complete information that the NSA is not providing. Using the position of power to infringe on the privacy of Americans, and the world community at large is not right especially when there is not adequate explanation. When freedom of expression would be realized even in the most ideologically developed country like America. Considering the case of wiki leaks, it is becoming clear that the American government does have the best interest of the Americans when they violate their privacy an break the same rules that were designed to protect them.

The NSA overreach is the worst example of surveillance because it seems the surveillance program does more than collect intelligence, as the people who work to protect the country are the same-labeled traitors and not patriot. I think the Snowden case will have many externalities and many relations will be strained by the time the case is over (Wood, & Wood, 2013).

Reference:

Wood, A., & Wood., T. O. (2013, August 01). Snowden case: What’s in it for Russia? CNN. Retrieved August 26, 2013, from http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/01/opinion/opinion-snowden-wood

George Ritzer and Nathan Jurgenson, (2010). Production,Consumption, Prosumption:The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital 'prosumer. Journal of Consumer Culture 2010 10: 13

 

Official channels versus mobilization tactic

When a strong perpetrator attacks a weak target, many people feel this is unfair. Their anger can be decreased when they think fairness is being guaranteed by bodies such as watchdogs, courts as well as expert panels. In spite of this, these procedures often favor those with more money and power.

 In addition, they move matters from the public stage to narrow arenas where experts such as lawyers take centerstage. Formal processes usually are slow; therefore public anger dies down while the matter is being considered. For all these reasons, influential perpetrators time and again wish that targets refer matters to official channels.

The use of official channels does not seem clear in the fight over file sharing. The court is the main official channel involved since the music industry prosecutes peer to peer users and Web sites such as Bit Torrent indexing. But the courts are not only being used to reduce outrage, they are a major means of attack.

In January 2008 for example, criminal and civil charges were filed in Swedish courts against the Pirate Bay by IFPI (International Federation of the Pornographic Industry). The Pirate Bay was considered to be the number one source of illegal music, after victorious court actions against two formerunlicensed services namely Grosser and Kazak. The judgment of The Pirate Bay was the latest episode in aggressive legal actions against persons and groups involved in file sharing.

As much as the victims of attack time and again turn to official channels for compensation this is often a blunder.

Whistle blowers, for example, when they suffer retaliations for speaking out, usually take their concerns to an appeal body such as watchdog, anticorruption agencies and auditor general. According to Martin (2003), these seldom provide an effective response. Therefore, it is far more effective to take the matter to public audiences. Similarly, for file sharers who come under attack, it is far more effective to seek publicity than to defend in the courts.But as much as defending in a court is necessitous, it should not be the only response.

Court cases can be also used as a creative means of publicity, though the efficacy of such an approach is questionable at best. For instance, during the Pirate Bay Trial, the suspects tweeted from the courtroom, seeking to increase awareness of the trial through the viral spread of information through the use of the hash tag (#).

In conclusion, the industry has been most successful when using tactics such as devaluation and reinterpretation but other tactics such as cover–up or official channels has not been used in ways to reduce anger, and its use of tactics such as bullying has fueled opinion against it. Legal actions have at times succeeded in the short term, but with the longer term outcome of hurting industry’s reputation, in particular by placing industry as the agent of injustice.

In relation to answer the question that ‘Are all remixes innovators or thieves? Should you pay for every sample used in a recording or piece of video art?’  

In my view, all remixes are thieves since it is considered to be music piracy. Music piracy is the copying and distribution of copies from a piece of music for which the copyright holding company, composer and recording artist did not agree. Therefore, it vital that one pays for every sample used in a recording.

Reference

Demers, J, (2006). Steal this music: How intellectual property law affects musical creativity. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

Alderman, J(2001). Sonic boom: Napster, MP3, and the new pioneers of music. Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus.

Hinduja, S (2006). Music piracy and crime theory. LFB scholarly Publications.

Goth subculture and globalization

                                   image by http://gothclothes.com.au/shop/World-Wide-Gothic.html

Just as globalization, Goth subculture is amorphously defined as a literary style of the 18th and 19th century. The Goth culture is a postmodern because it is now an international style of art, literature, and fashion. Goth subculture is per se, a radicalization of the primary conceits of modernism (Pieterse, 2004, pp. 7-21).

The fact that Goth is a subculture that originated in England and has spread to be found in many countries make it one of the most important global phenomena. Goth has become a global culture appreciated in many countries worldwide for tastes in music, aesthetics, and fashion. While the spread of Goth subculture may be associated with the globalization, the fundamental factors for the spread of Goth subculture is technological advancement as such globalization and Goth culture was enabled by technological advancement (Ren, 2005). Perhaps the best question to ask is how globalization has contributed to the spread of Goth subculture. Globalization has attracted a lot of controversies and this is not only in the business context but also in the social cultural context. Apart from controversies surrounding the concept formation and definition of globalization, it is important t note that globalization is both a subjective process and objective, empirical process

Goth subculture is a trend fostered may the mystery of the Goth. It is also an ongoing discourse as none seems to properly understand and define the Goth subculture. The Goth trend is international and has never changed as such it is not a process. Both Goth subculture and postmodernism do not exist outside of being a discursive artifact by many readers and in retrospect most historians. Goth subculture confirms the trend of neoliberal capitalism as it creates a sense of agency, and involves the accumulation of knowledge. For example, the gothic discourses tend to intersect with vary many contemporary commodities as well as neo-liberal capitalism. It also intertwines with theoretical and social cultural frameworks. Therefore, it is healthy to argue that gothic culture contributes to the development of the neoliberal capitalism (Reyes, 2011). Thus,goth subculture highly represent the complexity of global trends as various cultures have personalized their Gothic representations and interacted differently with the Goth culture creating their region specific Goth subculture

References

Xavier Aldana Reyes, X. (2011, June 7). Lucie Armitt, Twentieth-Century Gothic. The Gothic Imagination. Retrieved August 1, 2013, from http://www.gothic.stir.ac.uk/blog/lucie-armitt-twentieth-century-gothic/

Ren, H. (2005, June 10). Subculture as a Neo-Liberal Conduct of Life in Leisure and Consumption. Rhizomes. Retrieved August 1, 2013, from http://www.rhizomes.net/issue10/ren.htm

Nederveen Pieterse, J 2004,'Globalization: consensus and controversies', Globalization and culture:global mélange, Rowan & Littlefield, Lanham, Md., pp. 7-21.