Web 2.0 Lab

1)The first site I found was called Winery Bound and lets the user search wineries and events in a specific area. The site use google maps to locate the winery, as well as gives information on the winery. I think this site would be a great tool to plan a weekend in the wine country in and is perfect for wine lovers.

2) The second site I used was called I Love Music Video. The user simply types in an artist name and the site gives you a list of video with links to youtube and lastfm. This site mashes youtube and lastfm. I really liked this site because I was able to find an Alice Cooper video I've been looking for. It makes it really easy to see all of an artists videos.

3) The last site I found was called Bunker Shot. This site uses google maps to locate golf courses in the users area. I like this site because it gives me directions and a visual to all my local golf courses. It would also be nice if I was going on vacation somewhere, I could do a search on golf courses before I left.

File Sharing

File sharing is a tricky topic to pin as right or wrong, simply because there are so many different types of file sharing. According to the RIAA file sharing simply means stealing, but is it really that clear cut? Does that mean that when a dance school, who has spent hundreds of dollars buying pieces of classical music on CD, compile their master CD for a performance that they are stealing? It is for that reason that I do not believe that file sharing is a clear cut good or bad. By the RIAA's standards, I am a dirty pirate because I have taken music off CD's I have bought and compile them onto one CD for a roadtrip.

I believe that once a person has bought a CD they have the right to do whatever they want with it, as long as they gain no profits from it. A consumer should be allowed to make an extra copy of the CD, in case the original gets scratched or they want a copy for their car. They should be allowed to rip tracks and make mixed CD's. And why shouldn't they? They have spent the money on that CD and I don't think an artist should expect to profit twice on one CD per one consumer. I'm pretty sure that music artists don't go out and buy two copies of every CD they want. These actions are all ethical and I don't think any artist is going to lose profit from these examples.

The other side to this coin is illegally downloading music. Though I will admit to having done it on occasion, I do believe that this is wrong. My experiences with downloading music consist of music that is not available in America, had the tracks or CD's been available in America I would have gladly purchased them. In this particular instance, I don't think I have committed any great crime. It is not me who is causing these artists to lose profit, but rather record distributors. My downloading has taken nothing from them because I couldn't buy their album anyways. So if these artists want their rightful cut, they need to insist that their albums are available world wide. If that was the case, I would have no problem supporting them by buying their music.

The wrong part of file sharing is ripping off albums that are clearly available to us in stores or on online sites such as itunes. By downloading these files, we are taking money away from many aspects of the industry. Even though I believe this type of file sharing is wrong, I do understand why people do it. Music has gotten extremely expensive in the last few years. An album used to cost between 10 and 12 dollars, but now its closer to 18 or 20. I believe that if the industry kept albums at a reasonable price, there would be less file sharing and more purchasing.

Net Neutrality

The fundamental issue behind net neutrality is, whether companies like Comcast and ATT should have the power to determine which websites you use. If this law passed, these companies would have the ability to force you into using their sites. They would do this by making other, smaller sites that offer the same services, harder to access and by taking away their quality. This would severely limit your choices on the internet and could completely wipe out start up sites like Youtube. Right now all sites are treated equally, but if this law passed this would no longer be the case.

Both Yahoo and eBay are pro net neutrality. eBay has even gone so far as to send out emails to its customers, encouraging them to support net neutrality. Both companies believe that each site should be treated equally, and that there shouldn't be an extra charge for one site using more bandwidth than another.

On the opposite side of the debate is Verizon and ATT. Both of these companies that sites that use more bandwidth should be charged. These companies would also be able to influence what sites people use, by making their sites superior to another.

I am pro net neutrality. One of the best things about the internet is its lack of restrictions. It's not like when I turn on my tv and I flip through the channels and half of them are not available to me. I think the internet would lose a lot of this became the case. I love being able to use youtube, rather than the video player ATT DSL provides me with. The whole principle of the internet is to be able to have free choice. If they take that away from us, then we have lost the internet as we know it.