When it pertains to a digital item such as facebook, which is used as an example in the movie clip, if the filters don’t work, which in this particular case is the private settings, who knows what kind of harm that is doing.  In the example Shirky tells the story of a woman is a very experianced user of face book, who correctly changes her privacy settings, but due to the lack of the filters working correctly the information she wanted private was still made public.  If the filters were set up properly this would’ve never happened.  Because of the lack of quality on the websites end this womans private life was still on display for everyone to see.  If the filters were correctly in place in first place non of her problems would’ve happened.

          My issue isn’t so much with books or other products that require some sort of filter, because lets face it, people have been writing crappy books since the first book was written, but the issue is more of a problem when it comes to the digital age.  In this digital age it is a neccessity to have functional products that are reliable, and are easy to use.  If one of the world’s most popular websites and easiest to use has a problem changing privacy settings, whose to say that these same filter problems don’t occur when you buy something online.  Who’s to say that Amazon’s filter doesn’t work properly and your credit card information becomes public.

           In todays age of digital media where your whole life can be on display if you so wish, there needs to be some sort of quality assurance.  There needs to be some sort of trust between the user and the supplier.  If these filters continue to fail and users continue have their life up and on display, whos going to continue to trust these products.  To compare it to a tangible thing, if your tires fell off your car everytime you drove over twenty five miles per hour, would you continue to drive the car. No probably not.

          In this video Jonathan talks about how people are doing good things on the internet, and not getting paid or even asking for payment for their deeds.  One such example is the website wikipedia, and how there are people willing to monitor it’s administrator’s notice board.  Now maybe to them they are doing a nobel act by monitoring this website for problems and helping to solve them, like some sort of digital super hero, but why not get out of the house and actually go help people that are really in need?

          Maybe thats the point.  Maybe people are nicer on the internet because they don’t actually have to have communication with a real person.  Maybe they are afraid that if they are nice in real life they will be taken adventage of.  But thats the point.  The thought of doing an act of kindness for some faceless screen name somewhere in the world isn’t satisfying.  Why not go to the local homeless shelter and pass out soup and do a real good deed?  The problem is that its easier to sit at home and say,” I just fixed some ones typo on wikipedia, another good job done by me.” Thats easier than going into the real world and seeing the pain and suffering on someones face that truly needs the help, whatever that help maybe.

          I know up until this point it sounds like I’m up on my high horse saying shame on these people, and that what they do is insignificant.  The truth is I don’t help people online or people that could really use my help.  I guess what I’m saying is that it is a good thing that people are out there helping others, even if it’s with trivial matters on the web, but to hail them, and say that it gives you hope that because of some niceness on the web, it will spill over into the real world is crazy.  By nature people are self centered, and can be cruel, and maybe it’s easier to help the faceless screen names so you don’t have to deal with all the problems of everyday life, but if your afraid to go out and possibly face rejection, or be ridiculed, get rejected, or even get accepted by the rest of the world, then whats the point?

          The first step iwould take to marketing my brand would be to register a domain name and set up my own personal website.  This website could host all of my work, such as sketches, short films, 2D and 3D drawings or animations.  I would preferabley try to register my name as a domain, but if it is taken i would use something easily recognizable such as my last name or whatever isn’t taken.  This website could also be used to show future employers all of my work.

          Another thing i could do to set up my brand would be to seperate my 2D and my 3D works by setting up possibly a website for each of them.  This would be helpful because if I decide to get a job creating strictly 3D animation for instance, I could not only have my portfolio animations but if the employer desired I could send them to my site where they could see all of my animations.  This would be helpful because i may not want employers to see my sketches or other works they may not like, so by having a website dedicated to whatever feild I am applying to will help me to be able to show off more of my work without sifting through all of it.

          Another step I could take is by posting my work on a site such as youtube.  When posting a clip of my work on youtube I could post a small section of a short cartoon i have made , and when somebody is interested in seeing more of it, I can direct them to whichever website is hosting that video.  Another good thing about putting your video on a site like this you never know who is looking at your videos.  A prospective employer may see your video, and when directed to the appropiate website may watch more of your works and offer you a job.

          The Last step i would take is to set a picture blog on a site like Filckr or another appropriate site like this.  This site would allow me to post my work done in a manner where  I could recieve critiques from other people, and at the same time it would allow me to post characters i have created.The good thing about this kind of site is that i could post still pictures of 3D, 2D, or sketched out characters and get feedback from real people.

          Kevin Kelly posted on his blog, The Technium, an article about the upside of one thousand true fans.  He wrote that as long as an artist can create at least one hundred dollars worth of merchandise a year, and then sell that merchandise to one thousand die hard fans it will equal one hundred thousand dollars of income for the artist.  Once again that is great in theory, but is it really that simple?  The thought that no matter what you produce and call art, one thousand people will buy it just cause you made is a little hard to swallow.  In his blog Kelly also mentions the idea that an artist can survive off of true fans, but at the same time the artist will accrue “lesser fans.”  The main objective is to keep your “true fans” while gaining a following of  “lesser fans” that will buy your goods, but may also not buy everything you create.

          The issue with “true” and “lesser” fans is when they start to become one in the same.  What i mean is at what point do the true fans put down the cool-aid and realize that maybe they like this band,writer,artist anymore? It is almost immpossible to keep people happy, especially when it comes to entertainment.  The thought that people will stay loyal to a product blindly is crazy.  How many bands, writers, or artists works have you bought everything they’ve created no matter what?  What if the artist changes thier style such as, if you listened to Megadeth and they went from metal to pop-punk do you think that they would have all one thousand true fans? Probably not, but sure they may gain new true fans, but not as over night as Kelly implies.

          People change.  Thats how we are.  Whether it’s the fan’s taste in music, books,etc., growing and changing, or it’s the artist changing their style, or medium they use, people change.  Kelly’s article claims that if you gain one fan a day, you can obtain one thousand fans in three years.  As  Atomicboy Software states in his blog, you have to be extremely talented to gain a fan a day.  If an artist say puts a new song on his website to hopefully gain that one fan a day, what happens when that fan has to wait for the musician to release his next track, and what if the next song won’t be released for one month? I don’t expect that fan to sit as computer and wait for the song, especially when it’s a new artist just coming into the scene.  Most likely that fan will move on and find other music.  Whos to say that the fan won’t revisit that musician in a few months or a year when the catalog is a little bigger.

          The thought that people will will become rabid fans of something and never waiver is a little crazy.  People aren’t that loyal, and people change their minds all the time.  I’m not saying that it’s immpossible to survive off of one thousand true fans, but what i am sasying is that don’t expect these fans to just appear over night either.

        The largest case of DRM’s problems for consumers comes from Amazon and books purchased for the Kindle.  Many people had bought the novel “1984″ written by George Orwell for their Kindle, the only problem was that Amazon received the digital copies for a company that did not own the rights to the novel.  Once Amazon was notified of the mistake, they proceeded to remotely delete all copies bought.  The largest problem with this is, Does Amazon have the right to do this?  In the terms of agreement  page for the Kindle there is no section saying they may delete content already purchased. 

          A set back that consumers face when dealing with DRM is how it locks your purchases to one particular machine, or a certain amount of machines depending on the program used.  In the case of the Kindle, a person can purchase as many e-books as they want from Amazon, but they must use a device that is capable of reading Kindle DRM.  The same goes for Itunes.  As long as products have these restrictions a consumer is locked into buying one product.  Instead of being able to buy the best quality music player, then downloading the best quality song a person can find, whether it’s Itunes or not, and enjoying it, most consumers are locked to one product or the other.

          So what is the solution?  Some consumers have gone to piracy by using sites pirate bay, or kazaa, but the group APIG out of the U.K. suggested nine solutions to the perils of using DRM.  One such solution is the labeling of all DRM content warning the consumer what can, and cannot be done with the purchase they are about to make.  This suggestion makes so much sense that it will probably never be put into effect.  If I were in the market to buy the album “Pyromania” by Def Leopard, which i would never buy in real life, and began to read that if I buy this digital copy, I may, or may not be able to listen to it on certain devices, or simply what the risks are if the service is discontinued would probably make much more aware of what i am buying.  Much more so than just buying it and never figuring out why it doesn’t work.

          With all this said, there needs to be some sort of resolution.  Forcing consumers to be locked into your product alone causes too many problems, not just for the consumer but also other businesses.  The fact that someone can buy a digital copy of a book, song, movie, etc., and then have that same piece of digital entertainment ripped out of there hands like it wasn’t theirs in the first place needs to change.  Companies need to realize that if they continue with the trend of terrible DRM rules and regulations people will eventually get tired of it and just circumnavigate the problem.

           With the constant production of “blockbuster” movies and “hit” music tracks, people have been told what it is that we should be buying.  Everybody wants to watch, listen, and purchase what’s popular, but people also want to develop their own personal taste.  That is where the ”long tail” comes in.  With companies, such as itunes and netflix, having an almost endless list of songs and movies, consumers can find rare tracks that they didn’t even know existed, but to think that people will be so mesmerized by all of the new choices, and stray away from the more popular items and go towards the rare items is bit farfetched.   

          Another obstacle that this theory faces is the 80-20 rule, or Pareto’s principle. This rule states that in the case of the “long tail” the hit products remain dominant.  What this means is that even though many new niches are being carved out and set aside from the norm, the “blockbusters” and “hit singles” will remain dominant and reap the most profit.  Not to say that these niches aren’t creating a steady flow of profit, but they won’t compare to the profits pulled in by the popular hits.  A contributing factor to this is the fact that these rare songs, movies, books, or anything else in entertainment don’t have the marketing power of the popular items. 

         One problem that seemed to fall to waste side in the debate of the long tail, is the mind of the consumer.  Even though there are people who just purchase what everyone  is buying to fit in, there are people will venture out and try new things.   As sociologist William McPhee stated there are two groups of consumers .  While all of the rare items will sell slower and not as often, the “hits” will continue to sell in large quantities.  People want what is popular.  Even if a person is willing to venture out and find new music, books, movies, etc., the psychology states that they want what everyone else has so they won’t be left out. 

          After all is said and done, “the long tail” theory is good, but is just that, a theory.  Wheter Anderson was thinking that this model for business would succeed in a perfect environment, or if he thought that this was reaaly how things would play out i’m not sure.  The fact remains that although his numbers and his time table may not be the most accurate, the theory and idea bahind it is a good thing for consumers. 

       In recent months many musicians have come forward to either combat free downloading or defend the new trend.  One such musician is Lily Allen.  Lily wrote on her myspace blog her feelings about how hard it is for upcoming artists to make a decent paycheck due to the fact that digital copies are as good as the real thing.  but in a recent survey called “Artists, Musicians and the Internet” only twenty eight percent of her fellow entertainers agree with this point, and think that this trend will hurt the  entertainment business, while forty three percent agreed that file sharing doesn’t hurt business but helps promote and distribute their work to a broader audience. 

         Along with the debates of, is file sharing bad or not, or what should be done about pirating, people also have to think about the business side of things.  A new study claims that the United States loses 8.7 billion dollars annually from illegal file sharing.  If this is the case, then you would think that the government would try at all costs to stop pirating.  The only question i have is, does the government really lose this much money annually, or do they see the profit they can make if they can successfully place a tax on downloadable music? 

     regardless of which of these questions is true the goverment does take pirating very seriously.  Such is the case of  blogger Kevin Cogill.  The goverment claimed that he was responsible for a 2.2 million dollar loss based on the fact that the whole sale value of the tracks on his website was six dollars and thirty nine cents.  A better breakdown of the figures can be found on David Kravets’ article of this subject.

     The facts are that nobody really knows how much pirating, file sharing , or taxing the consumer has hurt, or helped the entertainment industry.  The question remains that if nobody was doing this, would half of the artists making these products ever be heard of? The other question is, do the artists that claim their career has been hurt by the illegal activity, even make anything worth watching/ listening to?  The problem with questions like these is nobody knows the answer.  On one hand an artist can claim that because of piracy, he will never make the amount of money he/she should, but on the other hand, they can’t complain when someone in the middle of nowhere has heard a song they wrote by file sharing, or pirating it, because that gives them exposure to a broad audience.

    The best way to fix the problem just doesn’t exist yet.  For right now it seems that pirating isn’t going away, and it seems that the government will continue to try to stop this whether it’s with the threat of jail,fines, or both.  Either way eventually there needs to be some sort of middle ground that both parties can work with.  Until that day I don’t think pirating and file sharing is going to go away.