Bullying and thoughts

Hey everyone!

This weeks module I created a podcast based on the article called “Anti-bullying campaigns get higher profile but few funds”. I found this article on CBC and talk its relations towards bullying and the need for funding in efforts to support those that are being bullied. I hope you like it!



Summative: Media Content & Piracy

Thanks to all those who commented on my previous post, “media content and privacy”. There seems to be a consensus about the rights of a consumer on whether they have the right to do what they want if they have purchased a music CD

If we only look at music, we find that many communities and groups gather because of favourite artists and bands. Taking away this cultural common through legislation and privacy laws because music companies cannot profit off downloading is not worth what brings people together. As Condry points out that because water is free, the sales of water bottles haven’t been affected (2004). It’s just greedy music companies wanting to make the most profit off of consumers. What I don’t understand is that music companies are doing the same when they sample music from previous artists and sell it as something new to the consumers. They can’t deny amateur users to do the same if they can’t follow the rules they apply themselves. These cultural commons should be available for everyone to create something new and innovative out of.

Music companies really don’t have a choice when it comes to file-sharing because those who do purchase a CD shouldn’t be penalized for sharing something they bought. That’s what brings communities together, a bond is created over sharing music. In the end, this will only bring profit to the music company because of file-sharing, they have received another fan of their product they’re selling. Music companies filing lawsuits against consumers need to step back and realize that consumers will file-share their material because of many reasons; however, copyright laws and legislation isn’t the problem solver. Many users will still manage to surpass these laws even with other outlets such as Netflix and iTunes. These companies should realize that and think of alternative methods of compensation for losing money on file-sharing sites.

Media content & piracy


           When recording companies ask the question “can the industry association teach (or enforce) ‘respect for property’ while building a healthy music market in the digital age? ”(344, Condry), No I don’t think so because users have become so used to peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing that it’s hard to go back to the ways of purchasing music when it can be found for free.  Some of the motivators for file-sharing as mentioned by Steinmetz & Tunnell are something they call sharing is caring a code they follow for others for content that they believe should be free (2013). Steinmetz & Tunnell also mention that there are users that upload samples before others commit to purchasing say a video game or CD (2013).

            There are some methods of halting illegal file sharing; teaching that downloading media and uploading media for sharing uninviting for users, if instilled from an early age, it can prevent them from uploading media for file-sharing through teaching them in classrooms (Condry, 2007). It could change the way in which younger users access music and will more likely commit to purchasing music then downloading it free. However this method is not the greatest idea because many of these people being educated have no steady source of income, many will still be downloading free media because it works better for them having access all the time. Another answer could be sites such as iTunes and Netflix where these websites allow users to purchase/subscribe to music and movies. However, these fees can add up and it can be limited and frankly not attractive for every consumer that can’t afford for paying for different sites.

            What recording industries need to realize is that file-sharing may not be the only factor affecting sales for them. As Condry mentions, “they conclude that it would take 5000 downloads to displace one sale” (349). They need to realize that in a new era, digital copies of music are one of the ways most consumers listen to music and CD sales will drop since everyone is purchasing MP3 players or using their smart phones to play music. I feel that recording companies don’t really have a choice with file-sharing in this era. They will come up with another method to solve the issue of piracy in similar ways to how Netflix and iTunes work.


Condry, Ian. (2004). Cultures of Music Piracy: An Ethnographic Comparison of the US and JapanInternational Journal of Cultural Studies. 7 (3), pg. 343-363  
Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013). Under the Pixelated Jolly Roger: A Study of On-Line PiratesDeviant Behavior. 34 (1), pg. 53-67 

Stories of bullying

Hello fellow bloggers,

I have created my first ever video, (its not the best) but you have to start somewhere. I created this video using Mozilla Popcorn, that was a lot of fun and a lot of difficulty. So i used wikipedia links to define Bullying and Amanda Todd, one video found on youtube by Shane koyczan- To this day project and a newspaper article by the huffingtonpost.com called Rehtaeh Parsons Suicide: Bullying victims in Canada are Mounting. Is anyone Listening?This is also where I found the pictures of all the victims of bullying. I created a whole bunch of texts throughout the video which I found the most difficult to do just with timing and such.

Well I hope you enjoy the video


ps. I couldn’t get the video to embed into my post for some reason but the link should work fine.



Molcho M., Craig W., Due P., Pickett W., Harel-fisch Y., Overpeck, M., and HBSC Bullying Writing Group. Cross-national time trends in bullying behaviour 1994-2006: findings from Europe and North America. International Journal of Public Health. 2009, 54 (S2): 225-234

Cotroneo, C. (2013). Rehtaeh Parsons Suicide: Bullying Victims In Canada Are Mounting. Is Anyone Listening? Huffpost Impact Canada. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/11/rehtaeh-parsons-bullying-victims-canada_n_3060384.html#slide=2327174


Summative: Producing and Consuming Online Content

First I’d like to thank all my readers for their comments on my previous post. I found that a majority of the comments agree that current copyright laws are restrictive and overbearing for producers. They minimize the creativity of users wanting to obtain access to produce new content. This is because professional producers want to gain profit through copyright laws before enabling users to create something of their own. The idea like many before, was out for public use, creators would recycle the idea creating something innovative out on the internet. The problem was that professional producers would enable copyright laws to prevent an economic downfall from their product.

This has been a repeated process throughout history as Ferguson mentioned that many professional producers once used content through public domains in order to create a new product in which many users do. The whole process of obtaining, modifying and creating content was available through equal access to them. Taking that away from users today through these laws inhibits creativity and can slow down producing innovative ideas that can change the world.              

As mentioned through comments from the previous post, I also believe that corporations control so much of the content that those with similar ideas won’t have the rights to it because of these laws. As Ferguson mentioned that many times more than one person had similar ideas throughout history, however one had gotten a patent before the other getting all the credit for the same idea. I think these laws are overbearing and prevent people from producing content online. That can be reason to why there are so little producers and so many more consumers because of these restrictive laws. Once restrictive copyright laws and patents lessen, users will be able to produce content more freely and be able to engage with online media.

Producing and Consuming Online Content

The internet has an ever impacting role on those who consume and produce content on the web. There are two vague content producers including everyone in the user-generated  group and those big corporation media-generators. However, the lines that separated the two groups are fading and both seem to be producing material that can’t be differentiated. Both content producers are generating culture among the same sites (ie. Youtube) making it harder to differentiate between the two. According to Ferguson his documentary “Everything is a remix”  generally states corporate companies are “remixing” old content through recycling ideas/content through technological convergence and call it their own through copyright laws. User-generated content relies on media convergence as well however; corporations are becoming strict through media ownership. Jenkins mentions that we as “consumers are learning how to use these different media technologies to bring the flow of media more fully under their control and to interact with other users” (37).  I believe that media convergence is not only for big corporations to own but also for everyone to consume and recycle in order for a technological shift.

                I am more of a consumer than a producer of content. Being an internet junkie, I am on it for many hours in a day consuming everything from mostly user-generated content such as social media websites (Facebook, twitter), emails, YouTube and forums (reddit). I generally do not produce any content forego the random tweets and posts on social media websites; I generally take advantage of the peer-to-peer content that is already distributed. This is due to a robust amount of other users taking advantage of producing content because “social media platforms give users unlimited space for storage and plenty of tools to organize, promote and broadcast their thoughts, opinions, behaviours and media to others” (Manovich, 8). Corporations are encouraging user-generated content to be produced even though the enforcement of copyright laws. Many users use the space that is available on the internet and try to create an original thought to distribute content on the internet. However, this can be proved by Manovich that only “between 0.5 % – 1.5 % users of most popular social media sites (Flickr, YouTube, Wikipedia) contributed their own content” (2). I think that corporations shouldn’t enforce ownership of media with all the available space among websites were we can produce content on because big corporations are generally doing the same thing as user generated content is being produced.


Jenkins, H. (2004) The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence  International Journal of Cultural Studies March 2004 7: 33-43

Manovich, l. (2008) The Practice of Everyday (Media) Life: From Mass Consumption to Mass Cultural Production?

Ferguson, K. (2011). Everything is a remix. Vimeo


I can cite Wikipedia?


WhatAboutWikipedia 300x214 What about Wikipedia

          Controversy among Wikipedia has always been an issue for most scholars. The use of Wikipedia has been prohibited by academic standards. This is due to Wikipedia allowing anyone to edit their articles. As Giles mentions, “critics have raised concerns about the site’s increasing influence, questioning whether multiple, unpaid editors can match paid professionals for accuracy” (900). I believe that they can and will since it’s one of the top 40 most visited sites of the world (Jensen, 2012) with over thousands of articles on a variety of information available for anyone and everyone to see for free.        

            The lack of professional writers doesn’t mean Wikipedia isn’t credible. Royal and Kapila mention that a bias is created when some entries that are typically interests that youth follow have more information regarding them the other articles per say (2005). It can be considered biased however, those articles preferred more by youth would be more credible meaning many users will perfect and edit the articles to capture the most accurate, objective information available.

            A point by Royal and Kapila mentioned that the “assumption that more writers and editors are better than fewer and that the community will develop and monitor content in a manner that is improved over that of traditional information publishing” (139, 2005). I agree with this, and this manner is an improved way of informing the public in a variety of topics available. This usually may not be the best because of increasing vandalism by anonymous users. In some cases, some articles on Wikipedia are semi-protected. The article I looked at on bullying was semi-protected because it’s probably seen a vast amount of vandalism making the articles foundation unchangeable without a user ID to Wikipedia. This just ensures that any content entered through Wikipedia is now monitored making it more credible and free of vandalism.

            The formation of the article begins with a whole community of users “talking” about the article in order to improve its foundation. One section that caught my eye while reading about bullying was a section on “characteristics of targets” and eventually moving into characteristics of bullies, bystanders etc. Numerous contributions to the conversation are input through re-defining bullying. Some suggestions included that bullying is closely related to narcissistic behaviour and many others believe that it is a social construct of society. The users sorted out the different views coming up with the correct point in which I also believe that it was a social construct of society. The way the users

            The users talk about the topic of characteristics in a democratic way. Every user behaves in an equal manner meaning they don’t assert their academic standing to each other while in the forums. Every point made is discussed in a reasonable manner with the intent to make the information a better resource for everyone to use. When others agree with one users point, it is asked that references are provided in order to verify the point.

            The information users were stating was relatively objective as Jenson mentions that editors “pride themselves in adhering to Wikipedia’s NPOV rule” (1169). In which I found they did enforce that rule even though one user stated a personal opinion however he acknowledged that personal opinion was not allowed therefore keeping Wikipedia’s NPOV rule.

            When following to see whether the information was sourced appropriately, I found that some had links going directly to the site or cited appropriately. There were however other sites that were questionable as to whether the information was there because links were broken. This questions the credibility of the information provided on the article. I believe that these sites may have re-arranged  information because looking at the dates that some articles have been written are over 2 years old and websites can go through maintenances changing information. I recommend that editors need to just go through articles to update sources that are broken to ensure credibility of the article.

            Providing a fast source of information for a robust variety of topics, Wikipedia tries to reference, validate and certify credibility in the information written on. A collaborated, unified community is created and gathers to ensure unbiased information, thanks to Wikipedia’s NPOV rule, provides credibility and valid information for everyone to use. I believe that the article I chose on bullying has an interest through the many users that edit it, making it more credible as opposed to other articles. I feel that one should still be wary when using Wikipedia. It is an excellent source for valid information however mistakes will be made and that one should still verify with the links that are provided to any statement made on Wikipedia.


Jensen, R. (2012). Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812Journal of Military History. 76, 1. pp 1165-1182

Giles. J. (2005). Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to headNature. 438, pp 900-901.

Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What’s on Wikipedia, and What’s Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27, 1. pp 1

Links to other Blogs