DrKimDavies

Art by Durocher

We all don't live in a yellow submarine. We all don't live in Hobbitdom. We all apparently don't live collectively in neighbourhoods either. According to Marcus Foth, we all live in community networks where modern technology fascilitates our linkages to other people. These are not so much global networks either because most of our friends that we are communicating with regularly are local to us. We can jump in a car and visit them. We are living in a glocal community (Wellman) where physical place really matters.

I was physically at QUT discussing the development of our group website about amature short films. This virtual space is where amature film makers can upload their movies for others to download and enjoy for free. We had just wrapped up our proposal to the government about the benefits of this project to Queensland's creative capital. Our webcommunity was to be a flourishing source of free entertainment and free expression for creative participants and viewers alike. I was filled with the spirit of the creative commons as I walked along to my car. And then it happened...

'Twas not a singular epiphany but more like a multiple state of arousal. Firstly two Asian girls were crossing the street arm in arm. One was dressed in a loose collared shirt untucked with a fat neck tie, kind of like a swarve Afro American cat. We made eye contact and smiled. I am not sure if she was the male in their lesbian affair or simply a funky chick. It mattered not. As I continued, I passed another couple discussing the tempo of some sheet music. My smile broadened even further as I felt the creativity around me swelling out from unexpected corners. How wonderful to be in this creative University environment where youth are brimming with excitement and innovation. I asked in my mind for the universe to show me something else. How could I have missed it? The sun was right there warming my face in its afternoon glow. I smiled even further at this simple warming apparician. Nearby loud voices yelled out in unison from their flat, and then giggled at their outburst. It was another sign of synergistic energy creating fun in the afternoon.

At this point I was almost ready to float the rest of the way to my car, for my feet were barely engaged in any laborious work. My chest was full and my heart was high. It could have been interpreted as just any other day, but my awareness told me that this was special. Any day could be this special. It is just a matter of tuning into the world around you. How very, very Zen.

Compared to a paper journal, weblogs are fantastico! Here's why:

• You can edit text as you write, or after, leaving a cleaner page.
• Touch typing is quicker for me than hand writing.
• Photos are easily and vibrantly presented, rather than the cumbersome printing process.
• Everything is stored compactly in cyberspace, instead of books.
• Books, paper and photo prints all age and deteriorate with time. Ejournal software might upgrade with time, but the text ought to always be transferable.
• Weblogs usually include links to other journals or websites. These links are the currency of the internet.
• People can access and share their thoughts with yours. Conversations can be documented online.
• You never know who might be reading your work. It might be your idol!
• You can access your weblog from many locations, as it exists in cyberspace rather than on your harddrive.

The bummer of weblogs is:

• Expressive handwriting is lost.
• You have to sit at the computer to muse rather than tucked up in bed with a book.
• The lack of traffic to my blog makes me feel like I'm boring.
• You never know who might be reading your work. Feeling somewhat anonymous behind the screen, I tend to speak more openly. To think my friends or family my see what I have writen makes me nervous.
• Ejournal's existance in cyberspace leaves me feeling like one day the Blogger executives might decide to start charging every-one to access their work. They may block writers from their work. They might even start claiming the content as owned by Blogger!
• People can copy illegally your text and pictures.
• Your blog leaves you wide open to scrutiny. You have to think before you publish.

Morocco Rocks the Casbah - 2002

At 30 years old I thought I was a bit too late to join in all this internet entreprenuerialship. The dot com boom has come and gone. Today there seems to be no topic left untouched within the world wide web. How would I ever build something that isn't already represented? The overwhelming sense of "too late" left me thinking I would simply use the internet to keep my own little memoirs, and artworks for my friends and future family to see.

Enter Tanya Notley to QUT to talk to our class about the Youth Internet Radio Network - YIRN. Her groups's research involved travelling all over Queensland to remote locations in order to expose and educate youth about the intenet, and how they could participate in its formation. The kids learnt about radio broadcasting and making short digital movies about themselves. The website developed by the youth, for the youth is www.sticky.net.au. That hit a resonate note with me because here I was making my own little world about me too.

I took 3 things from this experience. One is that producing your own content about yourself is not neccessarily looked at as boring by other people. I guess the fact that every-one ran away whenever I brought out my holiday snaps of Europe (see pic) had something to do with my misinterpretation that I was boring. Now I know, it was my "friends" who were way off track in terms of what is hot right now. That is - the personal IS interesting. Especially when it's mine. Get down DJ Fatima!

Secondly I found viewing these digital movies from far and wide really interesting. There are many other cultures out there that we are not exposed to in the mass media. The internet allows any-one to access this interesting stuff, made by everyday people with no extraordinary skill. "Any-one" that is, who has access and the skills to use the internet. That's why YIRN is such an inspirational group. The researchers recognised that the digital divide is preventing remote school kids from connecting and sharing with other online kids. YIRN made the connections and educated the kids on some simple skills to give them a sense of belonging.

Thirdly it made me realise that no matter how far behind I feel relating to internet technology, there are way, way more people further behind than me. In the city I am a small fry. But if I were to move to a remote area, I would possibly be considered an internet expert! I could be a leader, and make a whole project out of a willing community to develop something by themselves for themselves. This may not be the most profitable way to make a buck out of the net, but it would certainly be a rich experience. And in the end, experience is what really matters, to me.

How exciting is it to be involved with the internet at the dawn of the creative commons?! This has huge repercussions for the creative industries of the future. Imagine a place where people can create whatever they want and then offer it in a database for every-one else to use. As I have stated earlier in the "26 April 2005" entry, I believe that every-one wants to have their voice heard. Everone wants to feel like they have participated in some way to the collective good of the world. Fundamentally, every-one wants to be loved for their unique qualities. By allowing every-one to have a voice, the internet provides a spawning ground for free expression. When these expressive gestures, whether they be written, photographic, artistic or musical, become integrated into a network of creativity, they become elevated into a higher structure of meaning.

Perhaps I am alone in my emphatic enthusiasm for this concept. Members of my tutorial group today were more concerned about whether they would be paid for their creations or not. I think they fail to see things from my perspective, and that this is a revolutionary moment in history. It is like communism is returning with avengance. What better way to undermine the major corporations than to give creative content away freely? Imagine if this collaborative, creative content grows exponentially, to become more fantastic than any paid project. Who would pay to have access to copyrighted goods when their quality is inferior to communally created masterpieces?

I realise there still is a place for capitalism and that every-one needs to put food on their table somehow. Capitalism is a very successful system, and these communal commons may not neccessarily overthrow an entire system of economics. But where the arts are concerned, this communitarian approach could see entirely new forms of education and creativity unfolding. People would be driven by their hearts rather than their need for money. Our day jobs would still prevail, but our spare time could be spent passionately helping grow communal projects. Knowing that our own work could be reused by others would give us a sence of pride and achievement that money could possibly not emulate. Knowing that our work has improved the world in some way gives tremendous satisfaction.

The trouble for me in the past has always been - How to get my work out there? Money is no issue for me and I would gladly paricipate in projects where others could build upon my concepts, or I could build upon theirs. I guess there is no way of owning concepts because once the idea is out then it's free for all. But why not offer your ideas for free? Science has always offered new information freely with peer review and inner satisfaction being the soul rewards. (Does money reward the soul?) Only recently have scientists got on the capitalist bandwagon and started patenting their own discoveries and owning living things! Do people really think buying up rights to knowledge is going to improve the world? Benjamin Franklin obviously knew it wouldn't because he refused to patent many of his ideas stating, "We shoud be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we shoud do freely and generously." (cited in Meikle, 2002).

Creative commons are fantastic. They allow unhindered growth and sharing of information by allowing creative content to be used, reworked, improved and reused. I truely hope that this is a sneek preview of a changing world where motivations are changing away from capital aquisition towards communal prosperity.

There has been some concerns expressed within MMOG environments about players losing their civil rights whilst inside the game environment. Sal Humphreys lecture on the 28th of April at QUT Australia, addressed issues concerning players' rights within these emergent game environments. Sal states that "Rights as a citizen become compramized in the virtual world."

Game producers who have made such environments as Everquest were only too aware that they would have this sort of omnipotent power, when they created the game. Hence the slogan "You're in our world now." It is hoped that people in such positions of power use their power wisely and justly. However in times where there have been confrontations with game producers (ie when the producers of Everquest reclaimed blackmarket items off players who unknowingly had purchased items off other players), the players were left with no-where to turn for compensation. Players held protests but to little avail.

It is unfortuante that big companies can pull heavy muscle inside the game environment and virtually steal from the players. It is not considered theft however because Sony's EULA states that everything within the game is their property anyway. It is understandable why players who have invested much time and effort into this community feel betrayed and at a loss as to where to turn. To leave the game afterall, would be to leave an entire community of friends as well as losing all the time spent on learning skills and collecting goods. Without a fair governing body, where are the players to turn to?

The simple answer, to avoid disappointment, players may be better off avoiding corperate run MMOGs such as Everquest. Players need to band together with other gamers and create environments that are multigoverned by separate entities. In these nonprofitable organizations there would be a world of support coming from other gamers who could actually make real changes by putting pressure on the "board of directors". Open source communities seem like a more fair and just way of participation. Could this be the new communism?

All positions of authority are subject to the forces of corruption, and the open source network is not exempt. But the communal spirit seems more prevalent in these open source worlds, such as Beyond 2. Perhaps players need to be told this sort of infromation before they invest too much of their lives in corporate run worlds like Everquest.

Sometimes I feel so overwhelmed by life, the universe, and everything. I just saw the movie "What the bleep do we know!?" and it makes me wonder why I did not pursue my interests in quantum mechanics. I guess being a dentist was more important to me back then. I feel like I might be too late in deciding what it is I want to do with my life. I have always wanted to learn more, but there has to come a point where I start projecting energy outwards rather than sucking everything inwards.

If I join the monastry at chenrezig then I don't have to worry about putting out, literally. I can meditate and study and not be harrassed by society for wasting my life away being a full time student. But then what does society matter anyway?

I am going to take some time out at the end of this year. I am 30 now and have to set my coarse for the next 30 years. The baby thing can work itself in there somewhere.

I thought I might feel better if I vented my concerns about being overwhelmed. But I do not. It seems everywhere I look there are whole gamets of life teeming, and I will never get to know them all. When will someone just hook me up to the internet electronicly through my brain so that I will feel better? Perhaps this can be my new project.

Over the past decade the distinction between game producer and game player has blurred. Fans who actively play games regularly often find they are wanting to contribute to the content of the game. These creative urges result in new characters, new objects or new environments emerging into the game. This freedom of expression gives players a chance to taylor their indiviual identity into the game. Players receive a greater sence of presence which keeps players coming back to their personalised space. Players are therefor becomming producers. Sometimes the fans provide even more accurate information about the game than the game companies know. John Banks' articles on the Trainz - Auran experience exemplify this (Banks J. 2002). So if the fans are spending more time creating better game content than the graphic designers, shouldn't they be paid for their creations? Some fans donate their work for free in exchange for notoriety, and others sell their designs for cash. Problems arise when companies are profiting from freely donated fan content. Should the fans collect some of this profit?

A fair and just society would think that $credit should be given to where it is due. I personally believe payments ought to be given to those who have worked on your project, when the project is profitable. How the income is divided up is up to management. It is only hoped that the management is fair and just. Some companies will not allow you sell your own creations, if you have used theirsoftware to make it. Electronic Arts' EULA declares that any machinima created using the Sims characters is owned by them. It is difficult to define who owns what where creative content is concerned. If one were to create a character from blocks using 3D studio Max, then this would be accepted to be user owned. Yet if you were to make your image in the form of Mickey Mouse, then it would be an infringement of copyright. I wonder what would happen if you could create a Mickey Mouse character inside the Sims or in Everquest. Who would own that character then? Yet if Mickey is distorted enough, then suddenly it bypasses all the copyright laws and is considered unique.

The legalities on who owns creative content are set in old fashion laws made for producers of traditional media, like film and TV. With the relationships between producer and consumer changing, new dynamic ways of thinking are required to allow for creative projects to unfold. Legal blocks will only plunder such creative collaborations. Perhaps this is a turning point in the new 3rd generation of the internet. We perhaps need to embrace 1st generation ideals on free access to communal content, democracy and free speech. Ownership is a huge aspect of our capitalistic world. Perhaps it is capitalism that holds us back from collaborating - or interrelating - or sharing our knowledge. Is it that we feel that to give something away is to lose some power? Or lose some profit?I am not sure how easy it will be to change capitalism. The geeks who write open source code for everyone to use are certainly giving it a go. The problem is that the greedy corporations take free code and profit from it. Where is their moral conscience? (See Ian Bertram's Blog)

What we need is a new social order - a new religion - and a new way of sharing everything so that everyone prospers and everything is fair and just. I do not have this answer. But it is what we need. I will just go and sit in a cave for a bit and come back with the answers...

Perhaps society needs to get degenerate further with an increase in the divide between the rich and the poor, until the poor have had a gutful and fight back with a revolution. This revolution might be made over the waves of the internet, rather than with physical force. Much like the activist sites (www.indymedia.org) that make political statements and call for change. Free access to knowledge is manditory for development. Keep everything free. Invest time to create improvements. The old saying - Time is money - says it all.