I am not sure if we need to make a blog entry for this week or not but I am going to do one anyway.
I thought that I could go without ever talking about these virtual avatar sites, but I guess not. There is a scary digital world out there and we are all getting caught up in it. More and more people are spending more time and money on-line and virtual websites such as second-life are all making this happen. We live in such a complex world today, and digital images of ourselves on-line are the next step forward. The most interesting part about the virtual sites that our class logged into was that there is a whole on-line community that holds discussions of legal topics and people can interact in all of them. This is creating a different type of learning environment for everyone and could potentially generate on-line classes for universities. As the professor said, "There might not be any more excuses for sick days anymore with classes that can be held strictly on-line" where you must be logged on in order to show proof that you were "there". These websites are gaining more interest from the younger generations and I can only wonder what this will mean for the future.
A downside that is among us everywhere and in this case there is no way for people to monitor who people really are in a digital form. They may say that they are twelve years old, when in fact they could be forty. This creates legal questions of privacy and identity theft problems as well as a whole slew of parental concerns for their children. I can only hope that this will somehow be weeded out of the systems or that the sites do not gain enough popularity to maintain a digital second-life.
This may be my last entry for the semester but I must say that the whole blogging experience has been very enlightening and I may maintain this blog for further conversations. I have never had a blog before and this has been a lot of fun taking about and learning about on-line worlds.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Sunday, May 6, 2007
No Confusion
Just so there is no confusion with the amount of entries for my blog, I missed one week in February which was my freebie. I missed another week in March which I made two postings that week for. Lastly, I did not do an entry during the week of spring break. I'm not sure if we needed to that week but I will do another posting if I have to. I just wanted to clear that up.
College and Congress
I guess the saying goes, "Kids will be kids." Colleges are now threatened by Congress over copyright infringement if they do not provide information or "acceptable answers" for measures that they have taken to prevent students from illegal downloading and file sharing. Umass being one of the schools on the list of 20 that Congress has posted does not have me worried because I have not downloaded anything music or video related over the Internet. It's not that I would not like to download songs for free like so many other students do, it's just that I don't have an mp3 player and putting things into a digital format for me is not important so I don't need to download any music.
It would make sense for Umass to make Napster available for students to use if they are a current member of the student body to download legally the music and making it available to students to play songs from their lists but only if they are a member of the university and enrolled. Other colleges use Napster for their students, free of charge, making access to all of the songs available on the server available for play. Songs can be played in their entirety but can not be downloaded. This seems like a sensible solution to at least cut back on the number of students that are downloading illegally from the campus, and it could make the university less likely to be a threat from the illegal downloading scene. With such a large student body, it is difficult to control so many students, but this could be a step in the right direction.
The penalties for the downloading crime should be severe because I don't see the importance of listening to music all of the time when the industry is constantly coming out with new songs all the time and the songs live out their existence usually over a two month span. The solution that I have suggested may not fix the entire problem, but they didn't build the Great Wall of China in one night either.
It would make sense for Umass to make Napster available for students to use if they are a current member of the student body to download legally the music and making it available to students to play songs from their lists but only if they are a member of the university and enrolled. Other colleges use Napster for their students, free of charge, making access to all of the songs available on the server available for play. Songs can be played in their entirety but can not be downloaded. This seems like a sensible solution to at least cut back on the number of students that are downloading illegally from the campus, and it could make the university less likely to be a threat from the illegal downloading scene. With such a large student body, it is difficult to control so many students, but this could be a step in the right direction.
The penalties for the downloading crime should be severe because I don't see the importance of listening to music all of the time when the industry is constantly coming out with new songs all the time and the songs live out their existence usually over a two month span. The solution that I have suggested may not fix the entire problem, but they didn't build the Great Wall of China in one night either.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Online law schools
This posting is going to be more of an opinion based on the idea of online law schools.
I believe that online law schools are a good idea and they are more price conscious, but I do not think that ones that are not associated with an accredited school should be credible or be allowed. The concept of moving everything online is becoming more of a our everyday lives and school should be no exception. I have taken about four online classes and had very positive responses for three out of four of them. Everyone has different schedules and the idea about making things available for people on their time is very convenient. But the online law schools that offer a degree from a bogus name website aren't really teaching the material the way that out legal profession is constructed in this country. Courts are set up in the United States for a prosecution and a defense. Both sides must argue the case physically in front a jury and the fate lies in their hands to deliberate about. This whole process is completed in person. How can one experience how to perform legal responsibilities online, when people will be responsible for the real life experience? Can this be taught online? I guess we will have to see
Also, there was a topic of practicing for prosecution and defense, mock trials, in law schools and someone raised the point that law school students are not required to participate in them except through moot court. This is wrong. My friend had to perform a series of practice situations in front of other classmates and the professor, for a grade, to gain knowledge on how to approach a court and the judges, as well as how to present cases to the jury defending or supporting their positions. I just wanted to clear that up.
I believe that online law schools are a good idea and they are more price conscious, but I do not think that ones that are not associated with an accredited school should be credible or be allowed. The concept of moving everything online is becoming more of a our everyday lives and school should be no exception. I have taken about four online classes and had very positive responses for three out of four of them. Everyone has different schedules and the idea about making things available for people on their time is very convenient. But the online law schools that offer a degree from a bogus name website aren't really teaching the material the way that out legal profession is constructed in this country. Courts are set up in the United States for a prosecution and a defense. Both sides must argue the case physically in front a jury and the fate lies in their hands to deliberate about. This whole process is completed in person. How can one experience how to perform legal responsibilities online, when people will be responsible for the real life experience? Can this be taught online? I guess we will have to see
Also, there was a topic of practicing for prosecution and defense, mock trials, in law schools and someone raised the point that law school students are not required to participate in them except through moot court. This is wrong. My friend had to perform a series of practice situations in front of other classmates and the professor, for a grade, to gain knowledge on how to approach a court and the judges, as well as how to present cases to the jury defending or supporting their positions. I just wanted to clear that up.
Disturbing
Since I was away last weekend I did not get back to Massachusetts until after midnight so I was unable to make a blog entry. I will make two postings this week to substitute for that.
After reading the suggested articles for this week, the Nirenberg files website controversy has me very confused and disturbed. I discussed this case with a friend of mine who is a practicing lawyer. She told me that the legal aspect of what they are doing on the website is considered legal. I agree, but I feel that the site should be forced to be shut down much like the YouTube website postings. The site is making the names of doctors who perform abortions public and also publishing their home address names and numbers for which they live and practice. This is a form of harassment and despite my personal feelings on the abortion issue, no one should have to be displayed like this across the world for performing a job with which they get paid for. Would people who are tree lovers and feel that trees are depleting faster than they are being replenished make a list of all the carpenters who work to make a living, post their names on a website and try to perform horrible acts of violence on them? I think not. They are just trying to make a living just like everyone else.
Yes there is a certain human element connected to this case but if the saying goes "it's just business" then why not let is be.
After reading the suggested articles for this week, the Nirenberg files website controversy has me very confused and disturbed. I discussed this case with a friend of mine who is a practicing lawyer. She told me that the legal aspect of what they are doing on the website is considered legal. I agree, but I feel that the site should be forced to be shut down much like the YouTube website postings. The site is making the names of doctors who perform abortions public and also publishing their home address names and numbers for which they live and practice. This is a form of harassment and despite my personal feelings on the abortion issue, no one should have to be displayed like this across the world for performing a job with which they get paid for. Would people who are tree lovers and feel that trees are depleting faster than they are being replenished make a list of all the carpenters who work to make a living, post their names on a website and try to perform horrible acts of violence on them? I think not. They are just trying to make a living just like everyone else.
Yes there is a certain human element connected to this case but if the saying goes "it's just business" then why not let is be.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
labels for adult websites
A bold move this week by members of the Senate in an effort to make access to adult websites more difficult for users is causing a lot of controversy. The proposed movement by the some members of the Senate have suggested that the adult explicit material websites should be forced to change their sites to a registered adult web site tag or they could face serious fines from the government. Some members in favor of this policy agree that this is an attempt to clean up the Internet for children.
There are many violated constitutional rights that would limit the proposal to pass in the Senate. If every company engaged in the industry would go along with the proposal willingly, there would be much less tension converting everything in the industry over. The largest problem that causes much controversy seems to be the volunteer part of the actions. If there is a mandated government requirement many people suggest that there is a violation of the freedom of speech right.
Other ideas have surfaced to come to terms with this racy subject such as labeling websites material, much like the rating that television shows that appear on TV. However, there has not been much success with this idea because the large time burden this would place on web providers as well as the issue of who would mandate it.
I believe that this is a troublesome issue and I am not sure of a solid solution to it. The Internet was created for communication between computers. Users of the computers should be given the right to access any material that they feel they want. However, when it comes to many people in the United States, they are very conscious of what they believe that their children should be allowed to view. This society has been a very controlling one since its inception and this is another example of how the government would like to control what the web can offer to people. Many countries in Europe do not feel that it is too racy for naked women to be broadcast their bodies on late night television. America has always felt a need to censor everything. If the country were to take more of an open minded approach then maybe a better outcome could arise. I am not saying that it should be alright for eleven year old children to be downloading porn, but I am saying that if they really what to, they will figure out a way to anyway.
There are many violated constitutional rights that would limit the proposal to pass in the Senate. If every company engaged in the industry would go along with the proposal willingly, there would be much less tension converting everything in the industry over. The largest problem that causes much controversy seems to be the volunteer part of the actions. If there is a mandated government requirement many people suggest that there is a violation of the freedom of speech right.
Other ideas have surfaced to come to terms with this racy subject such as labeling websites material, much like the rating that television shows that appear on TV. However, there has not been much success with this idea because the large time burden this would place on web providers as well as the issue of who would mandate it.
I believe that this is a troublesome issue and I am not sure of a solid solution to it. The Internet was created for communication between computers. Users of the computers should be given the right to access any material that they feel they want. However, when it comes to many people in the United States, they are very conscious of what they believe that their children should be allowed to view. This society has been a very controlling one since its inception and this is another example of how the government would like to control what the web can offer to people. Many countries in Europe do not feel that it is too racy for naked women to be broadcast their bodies on late night television. America has always felt a need to censor everything. If the country were to take more of an open minded approach then maybe a better outcome could arise. I am not saying that it should be alright for eleven year old children to be downloading porn, but I am saying that if they really what to, they will figure out a way to anyway.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Thailand
A few of the class discussions have included the YouTube website and the case of Thailand and the Google owned site is no different regarding inappropriate videos.
Thailand's government announced that the YouTube site contained multiple postings of insulting pictures and videos about the Thai king. Google has taken down many videos per request from its website and this case should be no different. However, Google has refused to take the offensive postings down as per the country's request. Thailand has decided to block access to the YouTube website.
This brings up many political and legal issues about this situation. Should a government be given the right to block certain websites in a country? I guess that depends on the country. However, there is no written law in Thailand, or the United States, that limits the use surrounding the Internet. I believe that this sort of censoring in the US can never occur because of the founding principles the country lives by. Censoring could be deemed a violation of our freedom of speech right given to US citizens. Also, there are many disrespectful things discussed publicly about our president every day. Should all of these comments be censored? I think not.
Thailand's government announced that the YouTube site contained multiple postings of insulting pictures and videos about the Thai king. Google has taken down many videos per request from its website and this case should be no different. However, Google has refused to take the offensive postings down as per the country's request. Thailand has decided to block access to the YouTube website.
This brings up many political and legal issues about this situation. Should a government be given the right to block certain websites in a country? I guess that depends on the country. However, there is no written law in Thailand, or the United States, that limits the use surrounding the Internet. I believe that this sort of censoring in the US can never occur because of the founding principles the country lives by. Censoring could be deemed a violation of our freedom of speech right given to US citizens. Also, there are many disrespectful things discussed publicly about our president every day. Should all of these comments be censored? I think not.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)