Is Really Okay to Get a Song For Free?

For years, music has been downloaded illegally.  It’s easy to say that the reason why people continue to do it is because they don’t want to pay the prices for songs and albums, many artists on iTunes and Amazon MP3 have been selling their music for $1.29 per song, which is true.  A more accurate reason would be that it’s convenient to download illegally like how it was more convenient to get a burned CD from a friend or making a mix tape by putting a microphone next a radio.  A question that comes to mind though is, do the people who commit the crime understand what the results of their actions are?

The truth is no.  Many people do not consider the results of their actions.  Immanuel Kant (1700s) came up with an ethical principle known as “categorical imperative.”  It states that people should consider the result of what would happen if everyone were to do what someone else does.  In this case, it is important to consider the danger of downloading music illegally.  The result of doing so causes artists lose money on the content they created. 

Some people refuse to pay for songs because they don’t want to fund record companies, since they gain the majority of money.  Whether that’s the case or not, it is still a crime to steal music.  Though artists do not receive most of the money, downloading illegally reduces the amount of money that they get.  It could possibly be the reason for why ticket prices for concerts are expensive.  Aristotle explained that in order to behave ethically, they must know what they’re doing. 

People also need to have a moral decision to act ethically.  Does that mean what they’re doing is ethically correct?  There’s no right or wrong answer.  Ethics primarily go by a person’s morals and values which vary from person to person.  Overall, is it okay to download music illegally?  It is against the law since stealing is stealing no matter what medium a person gets the content from.  It’s also important to take into consideration the people that are hurt by these actions.  Is it really worth reducing a person’s standard of living just to get a couple for free?  It’s best to consider one’s actions before attempting them.

Swimming in Ads

In today’s society we are surrounded by advertisements.  They’re on television, in magazines, on billboards, and in video games.  I went on a twenty-four hour quest to see what ads I would be subjected to in that period of time. 

Usually within the first couple hours of my day, I avoid ads.  I don’t listen to the radio, watch any television, and when I’m driving in the morning, my focus is on the road due to the traffic.  Even when I went to class, I wasn’t subjected to any ads until I went to my Desktop Publishing class.  Every morning before the start of the class I log on to Facebook.  The moment I logged on I was faced a variety of ads (many advertising anime and video games).  It’s impressive to see the methods that advertisers taking to reach their target audience.  That’s definitely a plus side to the internet (even though it might not seem that way to most people).  After that class, I logged on to Walmart.com to order a new Nintendo 3DS.  There were ads from toys all the way to gardening equipment.  I quickly made my order, used my employee discount card, and logged off. 

Once both of my classes for the day ended, I got in the car and drove to Walmart.  I passed a sign on the side of the road advertising a junk removal service.  It was placed by an intersection so when the light turns red, people are more likely to see the ad.  I continued to drive down route 222 and passed a couple billboard ads.  One of them was advertising a health center that displayed a message with highlighted words that said “We Heal U.”

I finally arrived at Walmart to be greeted by monitors displaying ads for various in-store products.  Even though I’m currently taking care of a house alone, I probably wouldn’t buy any of the products they advertised.  Granted, those products aren’t being advertised to me, they’re most likely being advertised to women who are doing the family shopping. 

I ended my day by going on Xbox Live to view more ads on the dashboard advertising specials on games.  I also viewed many ads on Hulu Plus mainly for the X Factor and the new Fox series, Touch. 

It’s hard to avoid ads since we are around them all day.  I feel that it’s become so ingrained in our culture that some people don’t realize that they’re there.  At the end of the day, all we can do is learn to live with them because they aren’t going away.

PlayStation Vita: First Impression

I recently got my hands on Sony's latest portable entry, PlayStation Vita.  I've been curious about it since it was originally announced almost two years ago as the NGP.  It's an interesting concept: bring console gaming to handheld devices.

I walked into GameStop this past Tuesday planning to buy Tales of the Abyss for the Nintendo 3DS (they sadly didn't have the game in stock) when I noticed that they had the Vita setup.  I approached the system and picked it up.  To my surprise, it's very light; almost as light as the 3DS.  The system is made completely of plastic but it feels sturdy.  I still prefer the feel of the PSP, but this still works.  The system's screen is large and looks great.  On the contrary, the analog sticks, the D-pad, and face buttons are too small.  For someone with large hands, the system may be uncomfortable.  I feel that circle pads would have worked better for Vita, like what Sony did with the PSP, especially since it would fit in pockets a bit easier.

I toyed around with the system for a bit and tried the demo of Gravity Rush.  Sadly, I can't comment on the audio portion of the game because the Vita's sound was disabled, but the gameplay is fantastic.  The ability to control gravity at will is enjoyable and it's not a concept I've run in to before.  I wasn't sold on the touch screen controls mainly because it felt like it took away from the experience.  I'm into innovation but anytime I have to attack in a game, I feel that physical buttons work the best.  The graphics are nice but it doesn't seem like they're in HD.  They're definitely higher in resolution compared to 3DS games, but it's disappointing to not see PS3 quality visuals when Sony advertised them.

The system currently is selling at $249.99 plus $19..99 for a 4GB memory card and $29.99 to $39.99 for a game.  At those prices, I can't see much reason to justify a purchase right now.  The game library is also limited as we'll see more games come out later this year for Vita.  Also, the system is still new so there are bugs in the system that Sony will need time to work out.  Am I saying to not buy Vita? No, I think it's a great handheld but it needs more time out in the market to fix any bugs, or glitches, and it needs time to develop a larger library games.  My advice: wait to buy Vita.  It's great but at it's current price, there's not much content to justify the purchase.

Cosmopolitan: What's the Big Deal?

Cosmopolitan started back in 1886 but did not become a women's magazine until 1965.  Cosmo, for the most part, is appealing toward women.  The magazine has articles about improving one's sex life, upping one's style, and getting in shape.  But who is Cosmo's target audience and what is the demographic behind it?

Many of Cosmo's articles seem to deal with improving sex.  On the front cover of the March 2012 issue, they give a preview as to what readers should expect in the issue.  The two the pieces of text that stand out the most are "Your Orgasm Guaranteed: The New Trick Experts Swear By" and "50 Sex Tips," both are found on the front cover next to a very mature looking Selena Gomez wearing a slightly revealing dress (complete opposite to what she was wearing while she was involved with Disney).  The magazine is filled with advertisements from advertising perfume (there's a delightful sample inside the March issue) to advertising make-up.  Some of the articles are also trying to sell products.  For example, there's a section in the magazine that talks about taking care of one's skin.  It lists all sorts of products available for dry skin, normal skin, and acne (few of the items listed are below $30).  This is being used to sell beauty and make girls feel that they aren't beautiful without these products "fixing" them.

Further in the issue readers begin to find the more sexual content.  There's an article in it to teach girls how to walk in to a room and draw all the attention away from "those bitches."  Near the end are the sex tips which are rather shocking.  Even going onto the Cosmo website, they have a picture near the bottom representing the sex position of the day.

The majority of Cosmo's readers are female between the ages of 18 and 34; the majority is also single.  The magazine also appeals more to an audience that makes $30,000+ a year.  It's not exactly middle class and it makes sense, there aren't any upper class products advertised in the magazine so it's safe to say that the readers are living on a budget.  The total number of people that read Cosmo is about 18 million with 15 million being female.  Men are most likely reading this to figure out what women want.  It would also explain why some of the ads seem rather sexual and seem to be aimed at men even if the product is not meant for them.

Cosmo is a very interesting magazine and it is meant mainly for women.  For men looking to find out more about their female counterparts, it takes patience and courage to work through the magazine since many men may find the content to be shocking.  It's one thing to hear about it from someone but it's another to actually read it.

CNN vs. Al Jazeera: What's the Difference?

Every network has their own way of reporting news.  For example, Fox News reports in a strictly conservative manner while MSNBC is very liberal.  The same spreads to newspapers, magazines, and radio broadcasts in terms of what they choose to report and not to report.  I especially noticed this after watching an Al Jazeera report and a CNN report on President Obama's birth control policy.

President Obama's policy states that religion employers must offer free contraception to female employees.  Representatives of the Catholic church are against the policy because the initial version of it would have forced them to pay for the contraception.  After a decent amount of backlash, the president revised the policy with the government taking on the expenses.

I compared both the Al Jazeera and CNN reports and found them to have some similarities while being largely different.  In the Al Jazeera report, I found that they spent more time talking about the problems with the initial policy rather than talk about the revision.  In fact, the revision wasn't mentioned until the last forty-five seconds of the report.  They also spent a lot of time interviewing Republicans asking them about their views on policy.  Though, the interviews seemed out of place with the rest of the report with one person saying that he doesn't support the policy because he's Christian.  Another person said that she doesn't agree with abortions but I don't see exactly what that has to do with revision.  Bias?  I wouldn't doubt it.

CNN's report stuck more to the revision and why the policy was being changed.  Instead of interviewing someone at CPAC, they interviewed the president of the Catholic League, Bill Donohue, who still opposed the bill but gave reasons as to why he doesn't support it.  They also noted that with the revision, many religious groups support it, since they don't have to pay for it.  Bias?  Hard to say.  I feel that they stayed a little more in the grey area.

From what I say, it seems as though Al Jazeera's reporting is more biased towards conservatives as they didn't represent anyone who supported the original policy or the revision.  Since I'm not conservative, they definitely won't get me to watch anymore of their coverage.

Media + Audience = Distortion

In today's society, people have been influenced the media in many ways.  While the media can credited for various accomplishments, like spreading awareness for illnesses, the media also can be blamed for how people view themselves in society.

Many movies and television shows use the motto "Sex sells" to reach the audience.  These images distort the human mind making some think that they should look like the actors on-screen.  But none of what's shown is real.  Most men don't have massive biceps and most women are not tall, thin as a rail, and blonde; it creates a false image.

The same can be said for a character on a show that smokes and drinks.  While it might not be the greatest influence on a person's mind, it can make someone believe that it's a social norm (whether the person is a kid or an adult).  It's the same concept as a kid going through middle or high school.  I can't say that I haven't been influenced by the media in some way.  I'm a big guy so looking at other images of men I end up believing that I need to look something that to be at least somewhat impressive to the general public.  It may be one the reasons why I've been working out and watching my calorie intake.  I feel I would be happier if I looked like some of the guys in the media but even I realize that these portrayals aren't real.

If I had the choice to emulate what we see in the media in real life, I would reject it.  If we all looked and acted like the people we see in the media, then there wouldn't be any unique people left.  I thought about it over the weekend and really, no one is any better than anyone else.  No one is perfect so how can anything portrayed in movies, television shows, and magazines be perfect?  We're all equal in that we all have some flaws, but it's those flaws that make us who we are.  Is anything in the media real?  Of course.  Not everything is fake but as a society we need to look past what's fake and not accept it as the truth.

Crappy Video Games = Death!

I've recently been watching a lot of James Rolfe's online series, "The Angry Video Game Nerd," and it got me thinking about how many poorly designed games are out there.  These games are on all game devices and it's rather pathetic that so many exist.

Just looking at this game makes me want to thrust forks into my eyes.

The video features foul language and is not appropriate for children.

(video: Angry Video Game Nerd, Lester the Unlikely review)

Many of these games are cheap cash-ins using famous cartoon characters or comic book heroes to promote and sell the games to children.  Since the majority of the market lies with casual gamers, developers and publishers design poor quality titles just to make a quick buck.  This is commonly the case with movie tie-ins.  I had  a bad experience with a movie-based game and it will forever haunt me till the day I die.  That game was Atlantis: The Lost Empire for the GameBoy Advance.

When I was a kid, I felt that just about every video game I played was at least decent.  I never experienced bad game design until this piece of crap hit retail shelves.  I wanted a new game and since I liked the movie it was based on (key word: "based") so I convinced my mom to buy me the game.  We were at Walmart when I got it so the moment my mom purchased it, I went to the front of the store, tore off the packaging, and shoved the game in my GBA.  I only ever made it up to the fourth level but every single level was horrible.  The second level was the worst thing I ever played.  You're given about three minutes to go through the entire level to rescue the crew.  The problem is that there's no way to know where any of these idiots are.  Then to top that, the screen's flashing, steam's killing you, and before you know it you're almost out of time.  I hated the game so much that two weeks later I took it to EB Games (now GameStop) to trade it in.  The guy at the counter told me that my game was worth six cents; we paid $29.99 for the game and I was being offered next to nothing in return.  I took some time to think about it but I quickly realized that no one in their right mind would pay me anything more six cents for that piece of crap.  I accepted the offer, and I probably lost the money they gave me.

Screw this stage and screw this game!

Most movie tie-ins suck but there was an even larger turd that came out last year titled Duke Nukem Forever.  I was not willing to buy the game but I did download the demo.  What I downloaded was a bland, broken mess of a game.  The jokes were stupid and the character models looked like crap.  The controls felt loose and unstable so overall, it sucked.  Gearbox should be ashamed for promoting, let alone releasing, such a broken game.  But what can you expect from a game that was in development for ten years?

This game should have been delayed indefinitely.

There are so many awful games that it almost makes me ashamed to call myself a gamer.  It was the large amount of low quality titles that caused the Great Video Game Crash of 1983, along with the over-saturation of consoles, and that same event could occur again.  People play video games to be immersed in another world, to have an innovative experience, and to have fun, not to be ripped off.

There will always be bad games but the amount of them needs to lower.  Developers need to spend more time making their games functional and for that to happen publishers need to give them that time.  Sonic the Hedgehog '06 was a mess because of time constraints but if Sega would have been given the time they needed, I have no doubt that the title would have done much better.  These games can make or break a company's reputation and can hurt the console it was developed for.  This leads to studio closings which lead to layoffs in the industry.  Take note: consumers would much rather play a quality title over a rushed, unoriginal, broken piece of crap.