QotW5: What’s the deal about Online Identity?

The Internet is mediating a new form of communication people would never have imagined a mere five decades ago – virtual communication. Interaction amongst people need not be face-to-face. Our physical selves are associated with an identity that people know us for. We cannot hide from it, nor can we change it. However, online identity can be created from scratch. Some people choose to change their identity totally (i.e. those indecent people with too much free time on their hands lurking chat rooms to prey on unsuspecting and innocent girls), but most people’s online identity would normally be close to their own offline identity.

Now, just what is an online identity, and how different is it from our normal offline one? In an offline context, interaction is face to face, and a continual process where we process verbal, and more importantly, non-verbal cues. However, creating an online identity is different. Online, we are beings connected and connecting via our keyboards. Without non-verbal cues to decode, we have to be “attuned to the nuances of email addresses and signature style.” (Donath, 1996).

I participate very frequently in virtual message boards, and often scour the net for forums to search for information. In a very established forum (like Soompi Forums) that I once participated in, there were many people who were establishing an online identity, or already had a very established online identity. It is not that easy to acquire a reputable online identity – it just requires a lot of time, effort and most importantly, trust from other members. Members of such a community interact with each other via message boards, or the chat function. By the time I had joined online communities, there were already a few distinguished elders whose reputation preceded them. Most of these elders had up to thousands of posts to their identity, and most had already gained ‘administrator’ status in the community. They were considered gurus in their area of expertise, and had devoted a lot of their own time contributing information, or ‘gifts’ to the community. Members in the community valued their input, and these reputable figures were held in high regard.

Now, anyone can assume or steal an online identity. “The very term "identity theft" is an oxymoron. Someone's identity is the one thing about a person that cannot be stolen.” (Schneier, 2005). However, it is entirely possible on the Internet. The issue here is that we cannot be seen – what connects us is what we type on the screen, or what we choose to type. Anyone equipped with hacking skills can easily hack into an account and steal that account, and assume your identity (What an irony! Your identity is supposed to be the one thing people can’t take away from you) in an online virtual community. With the chat function present in many forums nowadays, that makes it even easier – someone can just log into the chat room using your username (unless you have prevented anyone else from using that username except you) and everyone will just assume it is you. It is dangerous, but inevitable. Now, with things moving to the web, there is nothing that cannot be stolen anymore.



References

Donath, J.S. (1996). “Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community”. Retrieved February 21, 2007 from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Hassan, M. & Zhang, Y.C. (2004). “Manifesto for the Reputation Society”. Retrieved February 21, 2007 from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue9_7/masum/

Schneier, B. (2005). “Mitigating Identity Theft”. Retrieved February 21, 2007 from http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/04/mitigating_iden.html

Wood, A.F. & Smith, M.J. (2001). Online Communication: Linking Technology, Identity & Culture. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

QotW4: To give and not to receive... Is that even possible?!

Introduction

Does a true gift really exist? When you receive a gift, are there really no strings attached? According to Rheingold (1993), a gift economy is one “in which help and information is offered without the expectation of any direct, immediate quid-pro-quo.” Well, to a certain extent, it can happen in online discussion forums where digital information is freely shared. Despite the fact that the gift economy is a form of transaction where goods and services are given, the giver does stand to gain from this form of transaction as well.

What is a Gift?

A gift is the obligatory transfer of inalienable objects or services between related and mutually obligated transactors (Carrier, 1991). The concept of the gift involves some “element of personal interdependence – the giver of a gift remains an element of the good or service and does not alienate himself from it” (Bell, 1991). In the context of digital files, you would remember what you receive from someone as the file you got from XYZ user, as opposed to a commodity based system, where you just buy the file. However, I do not believe that a gift comes with no strings attached at all. When someone gives something, they are bound to receive something in return, even if it does not come in a tangible form. Moreover, the reciprocal relationship engendered in gift-giving forms the moral basis of society (Zeitlyn, 2003).

My Gift Economy

There is an overabundance of gift economies on the net, but the one I choose would be D-Addicts, a torrent and discussion group site for Asian dramas. From this site, people put up the latest Japanese, Chinese and Korean dramas on the net for sharing and general distribution, via BitTorrent. There is also a forum in the site for people to discuss the recently put up dramas/past drama series.

Just why is it considered a gift economy then? The people who take the effort to upload these shows are doing it for the general benefit of the people who are members of this site, and even the general net-surfing public. This site does not require you to be a member to download files, so there are many people who go there just to leech on the files. And yet, the contributors of this site continue to contribute anyway, knowing full well that these ‘leeches’ are unlikely to reciprocate their generosity.

However, they receive their rewards in other intangible ways. First, I believe it would be a heightened sense of self-worth. When you contribute files at the expense of your own time without expecting any form of immediate reciprocation, people would perceive you as generous, and a favorable impression of you would be formed. When people think of you in a positive way, you would also feel good about yourself. Besides this, participating in a gift economy would also improve your standing in the community, and extend your social networks. When you contribute regularly in a community, more people will recognize you for your efforts, and you would slowly rise the ranks and be an elder in the community. With an increased standing and visibility in the community, you would also be able to befriend more people and widen your social network online with people who share similar interests with you.

Conclusion

I believe that the “gift economy is important, not only because it creates openness, but also because it organizes relationships between people in a certain way.” (Bergquist & Ljungberg, 2001) And the advent of the Internet has made it all possible. However, the gift economy is not totally altruistic in nature, and I have demonstrated how the bearers of gifts online also get to receive their awards. As I have mentioned, the reciprocal relationship, even if it is not explicit in the case of gift economies, forms the moral basis of our society. There is no such thing as a totally altruistic action in the case of an economy.



References

Bell, D. (1991). Mode of Exchange: Gift and Commodity. The Journal of Socio-Economics. 20, 155-167.

Bergquist, M. & Ljungberg, J. (2001). The power of gifts: organizing social relationships in open source communities. Information Systems Journal 11(4): 305–320.

Carrier, J. (1991). Gifts, Commodities, and Social Relations: A Maussian View of Exchange. Sociological Forum 6(1): 119-136.

Kollock, P. (1999). 'The Economies of Online Cooperation; Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace". Retrieved February 9, 2007 from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.htm

Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. New York: Addison-Wesley

Zeitlyn, D. (2003). Gift economies in the development of open source software: anthropological reflections. Research Policy. 32, 1287-1291.

QotW3: Their Good vs. Our Good – Is it possible to strike the perfect balance?

The issue about intellectual property and copyright issues has been debated about to death. On one end, you have the consumers going online to download anything from movies to music. On the other end, you have the conglomerates suing these people for violating intellectual property, and infringing copyright laws. Despite the actions taken against these so-called pirates, it is almost nearly impossible to totally clamp down on copying and piracy. Just why is it so easy for people to copy nowadays? Can there really be a solution that will be able to placate both the consumers and the conglomerates?

With the advent of P2P networks, it is little wonder why piracy is so rampant nowadays. According to Androutsellis and Spinellis (2004), these “architectures and systems are characterized by direct access between peer computers, rather than through a centralized server.” One of the most popular applications includes BitTorrent, which is widely recognized as a second generation P2P network. Like the first generation programs Kazaa and Napster, BitTorrent also works in the same way – in the form of a decentralized network. However, it works like the barter trade – individuals who download files can act simultaneously as the client and the server. Such a system has made it easy for even the computer-illiterate to copy and unwittingly engage in piracy. And, of course, even harder to track them down.

This has, of course, caused the huge record companies to fly into a flurry. According to Von Lohmann (2004), there have been “four thousand two hundred and eighty lawsuits” that have been brought by major record labels to music fans that engage in P2P downloading since 2004, and the number is still increasing. Those found guilty, would have to pay fines for amounts ranging from $3,000 - $11,000. Looking at the number of people sued, and the hefty fines they had to pay, one would think that P2P downloading had huge repercussions on the record label industry. On the contrary, however, research has shown that “file sharing displaced less than 1% of albums per year for the entire music industry.” (Oberholzer & Strumpf, 2005) In other words, P2P downloading has little to no effect on record sales.

What these conglomerates are concerned about, is probably not just about the money lost, but the blatant infringement of their intellectual property. As consumers, we too have to understand their stand. If you painstakingly created something, put it up for sale, and within a few days, find that your work is readily available for free download online, you would not be pleased. It is not just about money anymore – it’s about the ethics.

However, with the Internet growing in influence everyday, who’s really going to put up with the idea of ethics and copyrighted property? Downloading files and leaving a trail of infringed copyright laws in your path is really easy. According to Oberholzer and Strumpf (2005), however, “file sharing is attractive to those who are time-rich but cash-poor, and these individuals would purchase fewer CDs even in the absence of P2P networks.” Think of it this way – if you had plenty of money to spare, would you even bother to download? You would probably walk into the nearest record store and purchase all the CDs you wanted without even batting an eyelid. The conglomerates must understand this – that those people committing these ‘crimes’ do not commit piracy intentionally; they are left with no choice. With a plethora of games, movies and music available online for download, and little money in their wallet, they resort to piracy to get what they want.

The key word to this situation is compromise. Infringing intellectual copyright laws is obviously not right, but the conglomerates too have to understand the mindset of your average P2P downloading consumer. With such a wide range of choices, is it really practical to pay for an album when all you want to sample is just one song? Fining those guilty of sharing and download files only works as a deterrent, but it does not solve the problem. What can work, however, is if these conglomerates lower the prices of their CDs, and recognize the growing potential of the Internet as the powerful medium of this generation. They should put more albums up for free download, and probably, put their better selling albums up for download for a minimal fee. We can never strike the perfect balance – one way or the other, there will still be some individuals among the conglomerates and the consumers who will be unhappy. However, this is just how the compromise works. On both sides, it is impossible to meet all stated conditions. It’s how you tackle and work around those conditions that you are left with that really matter.



References

Androutsellis, T.S. & Spinellis, D. (2004). A Survey of Peer-to-Peer Content Distribution Technologies. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from

Izal, M., Urvoy, K. G., Biersack, W. E., Felber, P.A., Hamra, A. A., Garces, E. L. (2004). Dissecting BitTorrent: Five Months in a Torrent’s Lifetime. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin.

Oberholzer, G.F. & Strumpf, K. (2005). The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis. Retrieved January 30, 2007, from

Pouwelse, J.A., Garbacki, P., Epema, D.H.J. & Sips, A.J. (2004). A Measurement Study of the BitTorrent Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing System. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from

Von Lohmann, F. (2004). Is Suing your Customers a Good Idea? Retrieved February 2, 2007, from