Technology Overload

When talking about our generation's inability to slow down and our lack of attention span, I think it is a fair argument but you must remember that we are only responding to the changing society and culture. IF we slow down we felt left behind, that simple. Sure it would be nice to spend all day walking around asking questions and enjoying nature but it is an unattainable goal in this society because we always have to stay ahead and always have to be informed about technology in order to achieve greatness and succeed.

The one aspect of technology taking over our lives that bothers me is the constant presence of ear buds and iPods everywhere. Don't get me wrong, I love music more than anybody. My ultimate dream is to be a touring musician but I do feel that we block out the world and we block out chances to experience beauty when we spend all our in our own world. The very limited time I get to walk between classes is time I like to enjoy nature and relax because I realistically won't get that time anywhere else. We have to realize that staying with technology and widening our understanding is essential but we should also make it out own priority to expand our minds with other stimuli.

Technology is not to blame for everything!

After reading about the "Incredible Shrinking Attention Span," I was really frustrated. I am so tired of all of these articles being so alarmist! Yes there is now more technology than in the past. Yes, your attention can easily be all over the place. Does that mean that it is impossible to NOT have that problem? No. You can choose whether or not you are bombarded by technology. You have the choice whether or not you need to have the TV on while you're writing a paper, checking Twitter while trying to study for a test, or checking email while sending a text message. I don't think that just because these technologies exist means that it is completely impossible for us to concentrate.

I was especially bothered by the part mentioning road rage, and our generation not being able to slow down. While sometimes I agree that some of us are way too on the go go go all the time, I don't think we have issues such as road rage simply because we are lucky enough to be living in an increasingly technological age. I will admit, I definitely suffer from a serious case of road rage. But I get annoyed with slow drivers in the fast lane, people who don't use their blinkers, and people who cut me off not because I don't have time for it or that I'm too rushed. I get annoyed with them because it's ANNOYING. Most of the time it's common courtesy. Or common sense. It's the same reasons I get annoyed with loud talkers in a quiet lecture hall while I'm trying to listen or waiters being obviously rude while I'm out to dinner. It just isn't right. But I do not for one second think it's okay to blame almost every problem on the ubiquity of technology.

Like so many issues we have discussed in this class, each and every person has a choice to do what they want to do, use technology the way they want to (or don't want to). It's up to you.

My Own "Incredible Shrinking Attention Span"

As I sit writing this blog, I am surrounded by way too much technology. My concentration is all over the place. One of my roommates is straightening her hair, "Something About Mary" is on TV, my phone is signaling a text message, and I am on Facebook. Now how in the world am I supposed to concentrate when all of that is going on? I basically don't. I believe this is why it takes me two times if not three times as long to finish a specific task. Yes, it is true in my mind that women can multitask and men really can't, but I think I am succumbing to "The Incredible Shrinking Attention Span," as each day goes by.

I fit into a lot of the categories described in the article. I think it helped me understand where I sometimes get my road rage from. Now, I am not proud of this side of me that appears when I am either frustrated with bicyclists or people who drive too slow. I think people, including myself, should not be in such a rush all of the time. We need to take it slow and enjoy what we are doing for what it actually is.

With that being said, technology is constantly in the fast lane. It is hard to avoid it and most of the time inevitable. But, I believe that if we try our hardest to concentrate on a specific task at hand attention spans will grow.

The Digital Age

I used to be an avid gamer before grad school. Now, I intend to go back to my roots. Not wanting to waste any time, I started my hunt for the ultimate gaming PC. I've been eying this Alienware desktop for the past two years and realized that there's nothing in the market that can beat it. And much as I hate to admit it, I don't need it. Why? Because it is almost good enough to send something into orbit! In fact, there is STILL no game that requires such high computing power. So in effect, most times, it is a shame to be gaming on this masterpiece. Sigh.

The point I'm trying to make here is: in this consumer driven market, why are some companies making products we have no use for at the moment?

In our quest to possess the best our money can buy, are deals and other promotions so important that we buy something we have no need for? In that way, I subscribe to Degrandpre's opinion that "faster computers and better graphics will never be enough to satisfy our technological urges."

And when it comes to this technology, there is always a dichotomy when it comes to people reaping its benefits, yet saying that there is an inherent evil in it all. With increased technological urges, I do agree that there are a lot more distractions now than ever before, but saying that it is the root cause of psychological problems, stress, etc is a little far fetched, in my opinion. Anything in moderation, surely is not a bad thing!

If you ask me, I don’t think that the shortened attention span is completely a digital phenomenon. Magazines and other visual media have long used infographics and pretty pictures to take the focus away from, than complement the text. And need I start talking about television?

Man has evolved with time and so has his responsibilities. So PDAs, mobile phones and other such devices are crammed with as much technology as possible because there is a demand for it. The very fact that devices such as the iPhones exist, is a testimony to the fact that people want to do a lot more in as limited time as possible. And since technology allows people to get as much work done in as little time as possible, I don’t see why there is such an argument as shrinking attention span and digital media.

In his book Digitopia, Richard Degrandpre, talks about a generation that is allowing the digital media to completely take over their lives. So much so that it is hard for them to do anything for a long period. I personally take offense to the generalization that we are a generation who won’t be content to sit through a three-hour epic or read an 800-page book. All this technology has only helped, if not increase our productivity. And since there is an inherent human need for hobbies and other interests, time gained can surely be invested in sleep, if not be put to use for productive work.

Linda Stone’s podcast podcast explores the last two decades of information technology and our ability to deal with and manage our daily lives together with new breakthroughs.

Are More Girl Gamers the Answer?

I first began playing video games on the original Nintendo. My partially deaf Uncle Joe, who lived out of a room in my Grandma's house jam-packed with taped videos and Joe Cooool figurines, had a console and sometimes allowed us to play. He had Super Mario Bros, Duck Hunt, some car racing game, Galaga, and a few others. My cousin Stephanie and I preferred Super Mario Bros over the others, but we never had enough time to beat the game because he never let us stay in his room for very long. So in order to suffice our gaming cravings, when Uncle Joe would lock his door and leave the house to run some errands, Stephanie and I would RUN to the kitchen for a butterknife and jimmy his door open to proceed in our princess-saving tactics.

Soon after, my Dad bought me a Super Nintendo and I played Zelda, Mario Kart, and one of my favorites: Mortal Kombat. When I was in middle school transitioning into high school, I bought myself an orange Nintendo64 and shortly after a PlayStation 2. I don't consider myself a gamer, but I was definitely exposed to some computer games. There is this notion in the articles that the more exposed you are to gaming, the more likely you are to become interested and involved in computer science.

However, I don't think I have ever been curious enough to tear apart my computers or gaming consoles and figure out how to program things. Honestly, to my knowledge I don't think I've ever truly been interested in figuring out how electronic things work. What I'm suggesting is that there are some people innately interested in the composition or engineering of things and there are those who simply like to use technology. This, however, does not help explain why women aren't enrolling in computer science programs-- I will get there.

In reference to the NYTimes article that said there need to be more games for girls, I don't know if I fully agree that the ones out there aren't for girls. When I was younger my cousin had one Barbie game where you had to drive and rollerskate through obstacles, but it wasn't the greatest. Most of the time we favored games like Mortal Kombat, Max Payne, Goldeneye, games that might be considered games targeted to boys. But those were the ones we enjoyed and we played them all the time without thinking twice.

I'm not saying that violence, gore, male heros etc. are completely irrelevant to the fact that girls don't play as much video games, which in turn affects computer science enrollment (supposedly.) I just think there are bigger factors at play. I see it as any other social phenomenon where history plays a large part as well as learned gender roles. When there are no female role models in a field, women tend to not feel as comfortable to pursue them. And for so long engineering, computer science, math and science have been dominated by males. The way our parents and community shape our likes and dislikes according to gender roles also has a large part in what career we choose. It's a complicated issue and one thing can't be named the culprit, but I think actively seeking a female contribution to computer science and attempting to interest girls in technology composition etc. through our school systems will help close the gender divide.

More options, increasingly male-oriented games to blame for gender gap

After reading "What Has Driven Women Out of Computer Science?" I though several of the points made in the article were some of the very ones I think cause(d) the gender gap.

1) Although it may sound trivial, there is something to be said about girls/women not wanting to have the stigma of being nerdy or dorky for working in the computer field. We want to to think we have come a long way for women's self-esteem. But with the field of computer science and games becoming increasingly male-oriented, it seems difficult for there to be a space for women.

2) The games these days are so much more aimed at the teenage boy, the entrepreneur 20-something, the mid-life crisis dad. I remember when I used to play Mario brothers on Super Nintendo with my brother. Or Duck hunting, remember that? Those games were incredibly simple. There wasn't a lot of shoot-em up violence, war strategy, car theft themes coming from every corner like there is today. I do think that has a lot to do with the capabilities for games back then--we just didn't have what we do today, duh. But I think just like a genre of movies, books, types of musician or artists, games are just naturally geared toward men. And if in the time of their peak they are being designed by me, mostly consumed and played by men, then why would there be a large number of women trying to get in that market? You don't see a lot of romantic comedies being written by men do you?

3)I think another reason for the lack of women in this field could be that there are so many more career options for women in dominantly women fields and also fields where it is more balanced for men and women. Now more than ever women are going after jobs that they maybe didn't used to in the past. Journalism, news anchors, directors, scientists, doctors, politicians, etc. These fields are much more balanced. With so many (seemingly more fair) options, why would we try to get into a career of computer science and perhaps not do as well?

The Digital Divide

Honestly I have never heard of this concept and I had to Google the term to fully understand its meaning. I think that the digital divide is inevitably shrinking with each day because technology is becoming a way of life and those who do not adapt or evolve will be left behind economically, politically and socially.

This last presidential election saw the first time users and candidates used youtube as a platform and as a means of campaigning and I think it was awesome. Anytime you can bring important information to the common Internet user you get a great response in education and development. This use of technology proves that even politicians and advisory staff that usually is stuck in their ways is closing the digital divide and I believe that it will continue. With the economy, I believe that you have to technology savvy and you have to have an understanding to survive because you make yourself more marketable and better equipped for a wide variety of jobs.

My personal reflection and story with technology takes a long journey. My family did not get the Internet till I was 12 and I never really got into the instant messaging fad. My first cell phone was when I started driving and I admit that I viewed technology as something I would not have to face and could get around. Now, I feel that my own personal digital divide has closed and it feels good to understand technology and use it to be more efficient.

I believe that in order for America to continue to thrive in a world market and to continue its climb out of the recession, we must make technology education a priority to close the digital divide. The more you know the better.

games to be blamed

Even before I read the New York Times article, What Has Driven Women Out of Computer Science?, I have always had a hypothesis regarding gender divide in computer science: the computer games are the culprit of the gender divide in this field.

When I was in an elementary school, I used to play hours of computer games with friends. The games created common ground between me and my friends. We would always talk about it such as how to defeat the boss, how to get to the highest score, what kinds of games came out and so on. As a result of this male-bonding process, we’ve accidentally picked up various computer skills that women of our age couldn’t learn. Girls seldom played computer games. Rather, they would chat, play with toys, draw, and read books. At least this was how it was for my generation.


The New York Times article discusses an attempt to engage more women by introducing computer games to them. It says the attempt to create computer games that would appeal to girls have failed. To quote the director of Northwestern University’s Center for Techonlogy & Social Behavior, “The girls game movement failed to dislodge the sense among both boys and girls that computers were ‘boys’ toys’ and that true girls didn’t play with computers.”

I am somewhat surprised by this notion. Is this still the case today? I thought a lot more young girls (elementary or middle school kids) started to play computer games with their friends. There are lots of girly games available. Then why do these young girls still view games as ‘boys’ toys’? Maybe parents' influence?

The GREAT Digital Divide

I thought a little help from Wikipedia was in order to understand a more simplistic definition of digital divide.

The term digital divide refers to the gap between people with effective access to digital and information technology and those with very limited or no access at all. It includes the imbalances in physical access to technology as well as the imbalances in resources and skills needed to effectively participate as a digital citizen. In other words, it is the unequal access by some members of society to information and communications technology, and the unequal acquisition of related skills. The digital divide may be classified based on gender, income, and race groups, and by locations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide

Information and knowledge is all around us. It can be found in the person sitting next to us at lunch, a movie on a lazy Saturday afternoon, or on the screen right in front of our faces. The computer and it's respective technological associations is just one, single way to educate our minds. It's versatility and extent of knowledge compared to any other piece of technology is overwhelmingly exhaustive.

I do believe in the existence of the digital divide. However, I can't necessarily say it will be shrinking in the near future. There will always be those who cannot afford a computer or have the unlimited access to its educational features as some do. And there will be those who can afford it and choose not to be involved.

I feel as though there will always be a divide in society no matter the most recent technology. There is going to be lag time between those who have it and those who don't...it's part of the natural cycle. In my mind, the most important thing about the digital divide is providing educational opportunities to those who desperately seek them!

Shrinking Digital Divide

I think the digital divide is in fact shrinking. I say this from the perspective of someone who recently has been moving from a technology hater to a technology lover. The main reason for this, I believe, is became I have learned how technology can help me save time, and also how to properly use it.

I believe as schools and businesses start requiring more "tech knowledge", more people will start to come around. Not only because they have to, but they will see how new technological advances benefit their school work/normal work and begin to use them in their own lives.

I think by noticing that the widespread use of email over recent year, we can see how other new gadgets will also be accepted as long as they are intuitive, and not requiring a "how to" class. Many of these new/popular websites; Digg, Delicious, Twitter, Blogger, Google Reader, iGoogle, ect. aren't necessarily appealing to people until they are taught how to use it.

More than just website tough, take the actual gadgets. The internet phone. At first it seems just a toy, but then when e-mails can really be answered, orders can be purchased, and people can be contacted on the go, we see how the work world is really benefiting from technological developments, and therefore people in the work place and coming around and learning more. Because of this, it is required (somewhat) in school to be taught this in order to be prepared, and that is why I think the digital divide is in fact shrinking.

Canada, China, Europe, and the United States have all seen a decrease in the digital divide. But what about in more developing countries? Though we may experience certain advantages with technology in out society, but are they just a luxury? There is a website that deals with socioeconomic development and this issue.

UT (and Google...) restrict MY info

After reading this week's text on, well.... basically the end of privacy due to Google, it reminded me of UT's campaign to get students to restrict their information.

On the UT Web site, it reads:

"The university keeps data about you that can be shown to the public, by federal law, without your permission. We call this 'directory information'. (The public includes your parents, friends, employers, insurers, and people checking on your degrees.)"

Personal phone numbers and home addresses submitted to UT upon acceptance are available automatically online. The proactive and pro-privacy Longhorn must actively go online to change their information to private.

The article states that "Google has quietly but unmistakably changed our expectations about what we can know about one another" and I agree. I don't remember when it started happening, but suddenly everyone is googling each other (and not eye googling...), potential employers are Facebook-ing applicants and privacy seems almost forgotten and even parents are seeing pictures through Facebook, myspace and Flikr.... that maybe they wouldn't have been shown otherwise.

Privacy Invasion

Last semester I was a victim of identity theft. I never thought it would happen to me.

I was shopping before leaving for Texas v. OU weekend in Dallas. When I went to the counter to make my purchases, I was told that my debit card was not working. Of course I freaked out, because I had just checked my account hours before and knew I had sufficient funds to cover what I was buying. After getting on the phone with my bank I was told my account had been frozen due to a purchase that was attempted in Atlanta, Georgia that day. Luckily my bank red flagged it, because there would have been no way for me to get there physically between the time of my previous purchase and that moment. The woman on the telephone was very nice, and told me that the person had an actual card swipped that ran as my account. I have no idea how they got my debit card number.

What is even stranger is that both of my roommates and other people I know had the exact same thing happen to them, and the purchases were all made in Atlanta, Georgia! Unfortunately, there fund were actually withdrawn. I was able to order a new card with a new number and have no further worries except wondering how it all happened. Of course I had to go the entire weekend with out my card, which was very difficult to manage.

I agree with the definition of privacy given in the reading."Privacy isn't just about hiding things. It's about self-possession, autonomy and integrity." Not everything of our lives should be kept behind closed doors, but we should have the choice what is and is not made public. Therefore, it really scares me how easily our lives can be invaded, even if we do everything right and cover our tracks. It becomes harder and harder to trust the human mind and what it is immorally capable of.

Should the public's right to access information surpass news stories subjects' right to privacy?

As I read "A Nation of Voyeurs," I remembered of an issue I had recently seen in the Spanish newspaper El País. I will try to explain it to the best of my ability (my sources are in Spanish).

El País' reader's advocate (that's right, it's an actual position that the newspaper has) Milagros Pérez Oliva discusses in an article the Internet's role in exposing the subjects cited in the daily's news stories.

"If you do a name search using my name on Google, you will see that the second result is a story about me, from twenty years ago, which is not nice and which I don't want my grandchildren to see. (...) I kindly aske you [El País] to remove it." This is a section of a letter written by a Buenos Aires pharmacist that was sent to El País and reproduced by Oliva in her article. In 1998, El País published a story about the Argentine man, who had been arrested for alleged connections with the separatist group ETA.

According to Oliva, El País receives on average three removal requests per week -- all urging the newspaper to remove unpleasant stories from its digital files. "The concern is understandable," she writes. "But it's not as simple as that."

Consulted by the reader's advocate, the legal department of El País said the newspaper cannot change its past. "That would distort history. The files are untouchable. The problem is the ease with which Google or any other search engine makes these stories accessible," writes Oliva, quoting the daily's legal department.

In response, Google's director of institutional relations said it is not the search engine's task to block information. "We just crawl and index Web pages for public access. When someone asks us to withdraw any sort of information, we address the person to the owner of the page, the only one that can modify it," writes Oliva.

In a recent resolution of a lawsuit brought against Google and El País, the Spanish Agency for Data Protection concluded that the ability to freely access a certain news story "directly affects the personal situation of the victim in a justified and legitimate way." The agency ordered that Google removed the information about the lawsuit author from its search index and blocked any access to it. In the name of freedom of expression, the agency rejected the complaint against El País, but noted that the need to publish the identity of story subjects must be better balanced.

What do you think about this? How can we, as (future) reporters, better balance the identity of the subjects in our stories? Is that possible at all?

Should the public's right to access information surpass news stories subjects' right to privacy? I guess most of us would say yes: after all, the information is true and accurate, it did happen, and it's not our fault that those people did what they did (the pharmacist was arrested for alleged connections with ETA; Michael was arrested for DUI). Therefore, all news stories ever published should be open and accessible to the public. But... what if WE were one of those subjects?

Maybe, invading privacy is an essential part of social networks

As a Korean, I especially enjoyed the posting by Eun Sook below. I want to share my experience about Cyworld too. Cyworld is basically a Facebook for Koreans. Social networks like Cyworld have become essential communication/leisure tool for most Koreans as well.

Several years ago, this privacy issue became a major discussion topic for Cyworld users. Cyworld, after hearing the suggestions from users, introduced several new features to protect more privacy. For example, now only those who are authorized by the person can see his pictures, postings and profile. And the users can even divide their friend list into several groups. I personally made four groups and only the first group of people whom I named as “VIP” can see my every pictures, videos and so on. Of course my friends can’t know which group they are in. Another feature is this feature called “secret guestbook”. The types of messages left as “secret” can only be seen by the person who left the message and the person who is supposed to be the receiver of this message.

Ironically, after introducing these kinds of privacy protection features, Cyworld became less popular. People probably hated that they could no longer stalk people or see what was going on with others. So maybe, invading privacy is an essential part of social networking sites. Without it, social networks might not maintain its popularity as it is with the openness.

I don’t have a Facebook account so I am not familiar with Facebook at all. Does Facebook have unique functions to protect users’ privacy? If it does, has this affected popularity of Facebook? If it doesn’t, will introducing many protection of privacy features affect popularity of Facebook?

We're all creepers sometimes--I'm definitely guilty as charged.

After Googling myself, one page came up that was actually me. It was the second page (surprisingly) where it was me, listing me as photographer for the Cactus Yearbook. When I type in "Brandi McCormick texas" that same result comes up on page one. Needless to say, a lot of results came up that weren't me, obviously. I have to say that I am all for free and public information available online. Our society has been headed in that direction for a while now, and I don't see it stopping anytime soon. That being said, I wanted to say a few random things:

1) Last year, one of my friends from high school turned me on to whitepages.com. If you haven't used it and are feeling in the mood to be uber-creepy, check it out. I was able to find the home phone numbers and addresses of lots of people I know, with directions to their house, alternative phone numbers, and sometimes email addresses. Even creepier, lots of times it will list all of the residents of that household or who are in some way related to that family/household. To embarrass myself for the sake of the class, I will tell you this: After reading up on bios and personal information of a favorite famous actor of mine, I knew what his hometown was and that his dad was a doctor. With this information, I was able to go to whitepages.com, and find his parents house, address and phone numbers, by means of deduction. Now I have that so I can send them my screenplay in hopes of giving it to said famous actor in hopes of him reading it and me subsequently becoming famous. All thanks to the convenience and big-brotherism of Google search!

2) "it's looking a lot more like an all-things-to-everyone portal and less like simply the world's best search engine"...yes yes yes! This pretty much sums up my thoughts about how Google will eventually just take over the world: search, Google docs, the G1 phone, etc.

3) I have never Googled anyone I was interested in, dating, or anything. Although I guess I can see where it might feel like you are protecting yourself by checking up on them, I think it's a little too hardcore for my liking to do my own personal background check of someone on Google, when I probably don't know enough about that person to weed out the real information about them with the irrelevant information.

SPAM...

I have never had any real problems with spam on my email account so this section kind of surprised me. Sure I get the On campus events and parking information regularly (actually I get them twice because I work for the school as well) and they are annoying but I avoid giving my email address out to just anybody or anything I sign up for on the Internet. Needless to say this reading was eye-opening and I think we are on the right track to stopping it.

First off, people need to be smart and careful with who they give their address too. I know that spammers can do searches and hack in and find email addresses but the same concept can be taken to bank accounts. People can steal our identity and you wouldn't just throw your pin number around right? If spam bothers you, take action. I have a separate junk email account that I have created when I sign up for things online and they want an email address. Things like ebay alerts and youtube emails that I do not care about go to my account separate from school and important stuff.

Also we shouldn't get caught up in the hype of "spammers controlling the Internet" and surf the Internet afraid. Sure its a problem, but lets not get carried away with front page story headlines. People love doomsday stories so I do not think we should worry too much. One remedy is to fight back and possibly spam the spammers. Who knows if this is possible but like anything, sometimes people only understand retaliation.

Just don't open anything you don't recognize like "you just won a million dollars."

Somehow, you can always get it for free

I was definitely a Kazaa user back in the day. I remember thinking how amazingly brilliant this new technology was. A way to circumvent the system and get music for free and the ability to share it with your friends? Um, sign me up!

I won't lie--when it comes to certain artists, there is no doubt in my mind that I will go buy the album so I can have it for myself. But, that isn't just an issue with paying for music, that's my own personal thirst for a material album in my hands. But no matter....I must say that even if these record labels and musicians want to seek people out and sue them because they have been "illegally" downloading their songs, GET OVER IT. Eventually, I am going to get it for free if I really want it. My friend could buy it and burn me a copy. My friend could buy it in iTunes and put it on a burned CD with other songs they bought on iTunes. I'm still getting it for free. It's not like they don't probably give all their friends and family free CDs. How is that different? And they are given to talk show audiences for free all the time. It's all over the place, all around us whether they like it or not.

The fact that these artists are being so incredibly stingy about losing a little money when they are making millions of dollars a year kind of makes me sick. Really? Come on.

I think Kazaa, (I personally use Limewire) like the programs before it will be here for a while. At least as long as people want some music for free. And that seems like a while, right?

Kazaa

In my true and honest opinion, I think the idea behind Kazaa is brilliant. People sharing their love for music with one another is one way to view it, yet another could be the exploitation of artists and their music.

After reading about the way Kazaa was set up among the different countries and extremely decentralized, I thought to myself how smart these people are. They know what a majority of listeners want and how to get it to them...free music that is easily downloaded.

Throughout the reading, I did get confused with a lot of the technical aspects. However, one major question that was proposed was does the "power to kill Kazaa ultimately rests solely in the hands of the service's users?" In my opinion, I believe that it really does. As hard as the article led me to believe about tracking down the right people for a lawsuit, it really does come down to the users themselves. I agree that until something better comes along, Kazaa will hold its power. That principle lies within so many aspects of life. People are like lemmings at times - they will stay on one train until someone discovers something bigger and better and then they will jump to another. It is more or less a humanistic quality.

P2P and a mixed cd

I am one of those people that does think it's important to support artist say most of my itunes is paid for...which is depressing when I look at how many songs I have.

I do love it though, when i get a fun mixed CD from a friend, but how is that not the same as downloading music I have not paid for? I almost always download a copy onto my personal library, and therefore get a copy of the music for free. I do, however, have a friend who is very strict about this, and won't take CD's from people unless he had the music himself, I'm not this strict about it.

With Kazza, the music of our middle school years, it was just so easy to download the music, I would find myself downloading songs I had never even heard before. Now with iTunes and the feature to sample 30 seconds of the song before buying, and it just as easy to find what you are looking for.

I do however, agree with Tori that music is expensive, and that more people would cut back from illegally if music was cheaper.

Me want music

Both my parents have been musicians for most of their adult lives and freaked out when they found me downloading free music from Napster in seventh grade. 

"You should always pay for music. Think of the starving artists!!!" 

I'm not sure if I actually responded with this, but I would now: "What about the overwhelming percentage of profits that go to big, corporate record labels?" Plus, there are ways to get around the piracy issue, at least if you're Radiohead. 

After its EMI/Capitol contract expired with the release of its last album in 2003, Radiohead, the most infamous of infamous bands, ditched the label and made its latest album In Rainbows available for however much users were willing to pay for it (as little as 45 pence, the shipping and handling fee). 

The article linked above points out many advantages to this business model, even if users choose to download the album for free. For example, Prince distributed copies of his latest albums in a newspaper and subsequently sold out 21 shows.   

And while it's easy to say, as in the Wired article, 'Fuck the Industry,' I also have the concern my parents instilled in me about trying to find a business model that drives as much of the profit towards the artist as possible. Radiohead's business model appears to be the most effective, seeing as how even users who don't choose to pay for the album are required to register their information and can therefore be targeted for later marketing campaigns or ads. 

I think this quote from the above linked article says it all:

"Radiohead are clearly trying to build an independent business model that suits their needs. Unless record company giants wake up and find a model that delivers real value to artists, technology will continue to bypass the record companies, and in comparison piracy will seem a relatively small problem."