Lessig, L. (2007). Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity [Streaming Video]. TED. Retreived March 22 2011 from: http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html

The Lessig video covered some of the issues covered in the Collins readings and formed a strong argument through the use of different historical contexts and examples of the creation and development of media materials.

Lessig uses an example by Susas (? Forgive me if spelling is incorrect) that historically we have had a Read/Write culture (RW), a participatory culture, where songs and stories of the day had been passed down and adapted through generations and that it was with the advent of machines that could now tell these stories and sing these songs to us that we became consumers as we could not talk back or interact with them – thus we became a Read Only culture (RO) which has become indicative of most of the 20th century.

It’s these technological developments which make us address the laws of the day and that we need to sue common sense to ensure these laws are applicable and fair to all parties within a culture thus ensuring no monopolies on culture. Today’s media laws are designed to control and regulate content creations and distribution but are tilted too far in favour of copyright owners and thus produce an uncompetitive marketplace which doesn’t not encourage a culture of development and change. RW culture has been revived recently via digital technologies which enable user driven content which is produced for love and not money; and is indicative of the remix culture of today’s youth who taking existing media and change it into something new.

Lessig shows three examples of what remix culture can do when you allow consumers to use material to produce new meanings out of the material - (Re)Creativity. The remix culture is a product of the reduced barriers of entry financially and technologically and has meant that it is now a societal norm which is accepted amongst their culture even if the law does not agree with their assessment.

Lessig does at this point balance his view point to stress that he is not taking sides with the extremes of media piracy, and nor does he support the extremes of current copyright law which was an excellent point to make as the video could easily be taken out of context at times as being an anti-establishment rant rather than the balanced analysis of the media landscape which I think it is.

He goes on to note that user generated content is new competition for copyrighted material and that in the end the audience will decided what it wants and what it needs, going on to present the idea of new licensing structures to allow the production of this competitive content that would mean it was free for use in a remix culture, and that businesses behind the framework of this free RW culture need to embrace it to enable its growth so more and more quality free content is available to compete with paid content.

He concludes his talk with a couple of key points:

·         Artist choice is the key for new technologies to have the opportunity to develop and grow

·         Generational Changes – RO vs. RW older generation watch TV and new generations make TV; highlighting that new technologies make generations different just as the generation before TV would have thought differently.

·         Finally and importantly Lessig highlights that old media laws applied to an online culture makes new generations live a life where they are constantly living against the laws and seen as folk devils and subject to moral panics.

Lessig like the Collins reading raises some important points in relation to the restrictions being placed on a culture that is subject to the hegemonies of an incumbent media paradigm which is used to creating media and pushing it out to the audience. The problem is that in today’s digitized era this pushed content is easily transformable by technologies now accessible to large sections of society, a society that has been creatively stifled through unfair copyright restrictions that were designed to regulate and centralize distribution of the media content. However online this distribution has been decentralized through many web2.0 platforms and also the mobility of the internet which has meant consumers are now free of time and space but not of the current laws.

I guess if you are breaking one law, you might as well break them all. I guess we are all pirates.

Lessig, L. (2007). Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity [Streaming Video]. TED. Retrieved March 22 2011 from: http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html 

Within the scope of what I understand the MED104 remediation to be  I think possible issues will be the ability for me not to just re-create the original in a different format but to add value to the original work and by providing a new understanding of the original.

This needs to be done in order to argue fair dealing if the value of this content is questioned by the creators of the original and thus is seen as a breach of copyright content. It is thus important for me to assess:

[1] What copyright material I will use in my projects creation

[2] On what grounds I will be able to use this content for my project (i.e. parody or education).

[3] Under what license will I place the remediation project. Will I use copyright or creative commons.

[4] How to effectively acknowledge any copyrighted material used in the creation of the process.

The Collins readings looks at several subjects we have touched on over the preceding weeks of MED104 and starts to bring them together to paint a picture of the current media production and distribution landscape in relation to copyright and fair use.

Collins begins by highlighting that in the current cultural context people for the first time have accesses to media production hardware and software at prices which allow for people who were strictly consumers to become producers, and terms it “prosumerism”. And that is prosumerism which a form of creativity where participants are able to create ‘new’ works which are then easily distributable online through web 2.0 platforms such as  YouTube. I think it is this combination of lower barriers of media production and a relatively free distribution platform for many forms of different media that has thrust copyright into question in the digital age where it is steadily becoming the societal norm to participate and that perhaps that this highlights the generational differences present in society today’s and its attitudes towards media and that perhaps there are two generations at the moment – the push generation (Read Only) and the pull generations (Read Write).

Thus we currently have a situation where most professional content is being created by the Push generation which is using laws relating to media in the offline world and trying to apply them in an online environment as they see this use of copyright to a challenge to their media hegemony as Collins notes “despite a lack of demonsratable economic harm in many cases” and thus use their power in the media to create moral panics thus exacerbating issues and negatively labeling “prosumers” as thieves and pirates to protect their power position and suppress new business models and technologies that pose a threat to their position.

Fair use is supposed to provide balance between these private and public/cultural interests however with old media laws treating digital media still as a real property and that any use breaks intellectual property laws. I agreed with Collins that this should not be the case and that digital media should be treated differently by the law as they are being created within a different cultural context of an increasingly participatory culture.

Collins noted that copyright was originally created to ensure that culturally important works were not subject to monopolies, something that I see having broken down now to protect monopolies with the ever extending period of copyright and was surprised to see that fair use issues extended back on to the 1840s and thus is not a new issue, but seems to be an issue born out of consumerism and commoditization which seem to develop around this time (Bowlby, 1985).

Collins noted that fair use is an essential social utility of copyright and uses a quote from Patry to support this where he notes that fair use encourages “learned men to compose useful books”. This highlighted a key point in Collin’s argument in the support of fair use in that it promotes new thinking on existing ideas and concepts to produce new materials to assist in cultural and societal development, and also highlights that this is not a new phenomenon and has been going on in the media landscape for a long time. The freedom to develop new ideas and concepts has only recently been restricted due to the ever extending lengths of copyright designed to appease economic concerns in a capitalist society where infinite economic growth is required - appeasements which are at logger head with the participatory culture of today and show to me that economic concerns are currently emphasized over cultural ones and that many “infringements” could well be argued to be fair sue but due to the perceived economic and political power of copyright holders they are not challenged for fear of losing.

Whilst I do not believe having no copyright laws and blatantly stealing content is right I think the need to allow a culture to develop using the communicative and creative means of the day is extremely important. Some kind of licensing is required to supply authenticity to the reader which is important when considering that anyone can post anything on the web whether it is correct or incorrect.

References:

Collins, S. (2008). Recovering fair use.  M/C Media Culture 11 (6). Retrieved from http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/105

Bowlby, R. (1985). Introduction in Just Looking: Consumer Culture in Dreiser, Gissing and Zola , Bowlby, Rachel , 1985 , 1-17. Retrieved from http://www.library.mq.edu.au/reserve/index.php?command=searchCourse&coursenotes=0&exams=0&ereadings=0&course=sgy120

The interactive text I have chosen is StarWars.com

I have chosen it as it lets users and fans of the site interact and create content, allowing them to engage with the star wars fan community.

It allows for content to be consumed and produced by the users of the site.

The features I have listed are as follows:

·         Forums

·         Encourages fan created content

·         Blogs

·         Social Networking

·         Online Games

·         Video

·         Links to secondary and remediated materials (Overfloe from films ie clone wars cartoons)

·         Simple video creation app

·         Latest news updates and exclusive online content

·         Subscriptions

·         New media release previews (Books, Tv shows etc)

I have investigated culture jamming this week and was trying to put it into my own words but I was just rewriting wikipedias explanation so I will just share that instead here:

Culture jamming, coined in 1984,denotes a tactic used by many consumer social movements to disrupt or subvert mainstream cultural institutions, including corporate advertising. Culture jamming is often seen as a form of subvertising. Many culture jams are intended to expose apparently questionable political assumptions behind commercial culture. Common tactics include re-figuring logos, fashion statements, and product images as a means to challenge the idea of "what's cool" along with assumptions about the personal freedoms of consumption.

Culture jamming sometimes entails transforming mass media to produce ironic or satirical commentary about itself, using the original medium's communication method. Culture jamming is usually employed in opposition to a perceived appropriation of public space, or as a reaction against social conformity. Prominent examples of culture jamming include the adulteration of billboard advertising by the BLF and Ron English and the street parties and protests organised by Reclaim the Streets. While most culture jamming focuses on subverting or critiquing political or advertising messages, some practitioners focus on a more positive, musically inspired form of jamming that brings together artists, scholars and activists to create new forms of cultural production that transcend rather than merely criticize or negate the status quo.

LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_jamming 

This video on Google Videos also help be understand the ideas behind culture jamming:
LINK: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1777885894535257561#

Culture jamming to me is a form of vidding as discussed this week except they are using video and music to use pre-existing corporate identities and the connotation that goes with them to produce a disruptive, sometimes shocking, message which makes the viewer reassess their thoughts on a particular person, corporation or issue. These vidders are I think "anti-fans" in that they usually wish to highlight the problems with something rather than the positives of something. And do so for different moral, ethical, political reasons.

I have chosen an online magazine of Cosmos Magazine, whilst I also purchase the monthly print version I more commonly access the online version and it is my favorite magazine as I have always been fascinated by science and technology and find its articles and images very though provoking.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/   

Why?

·         I was a longtime reader of the print version and found the online version as an excellent companion as I am online much more thus don’t have easy access to the print version as I do the online version.

·         I am very interested in science and this magazine covers such a wide range of scientific discoveries and advancements and analysis but also allows for scope of societal debates on topics such as politics, the environment, history, computing, healthcare, space, farming, society & culture the list goes on.

·         Allows for social networking such as Twitter, facebook and article comments

·         The articles have rich images that enhance the written text

·         It is kept update with the latest science news even covering ongoing developments such as looking at a scientific analysis of the Japan quakes and tsunami and what it might mean in the future.

·         It presents new fresh information and theories

·         It also has a fiction section where young fiction writers can get there pieces published which is quite an entertaining read

·         Links to supporting articles and media so the reader can further investigate topics easily

·         Has topics and issues from around the globe

Who?

The online version of Cosmos has the following people involved in it production and delivery

Editorial team

·         Chairman and Executive Publisher - Dr Alan Finkel

·         Chief Executive Officer and Publisher - Kylie Ahern

·         Editorial Director and Editor-in-Chief  - Wilson da Silva

·         Contributing Editor, London - Robin McKie

·         Contributing Editor, Melbourne - Elizabeth Finkel

·         Contributing Editor, Ottawa - Peter Calamai

·         Contributing Editor, Sydney - Emma Young

·         Deputy Editor - Jacqui Hayes

·         Assistant Editor - Fiona MacDonald

·         Editorial Assistant - Becky Crew

·         Publishing assistant - Tara Francis

·         Interns - Kiri Beilby

·         Interns - Gareth Barton

·         Art Director - Lucy Glover

·         Fiction Editor - Cat Sparks

·         Fiction Editor - Damien Broderick

·         Teachers Notes - Kate Anderson

·         Teachers Notes - Sally Parker

·         National Advertising manager - Karen Taylor

·         Legal counsel - Douglas Linnette

·         Print Distributors - Gordon & Gotch

·         Editorial advisory board - Alan Finkel, Buzz Aldrin, Bryan Gaensler , Paul Davies, Robyn Williams

·         Plus the monthly article contributors which change each month and are too numerous to mention

·         And the individuals whom work beneath each of these Editors and Chiefs

·         Not listed are some people who I would expect would also be involved would be IT managers, web content managers, office mangers, financial managers, multimedia managers

COSMOS is produced by Luna Media Pty Ltd, a boutique publishing house in Sydney that has twice been named Best Publisher at the Bell Awards

The text is magazine with global reach with different contributors each month that must take a great deal of organization to get together. What is listed here I imagine being the tip of the iceberg when you look at the whole.

Do consumers participate in the production of the text?

The general consumer can participate though social networking tools such as facebook and twitter. Readers can also leave comments on articles to generate discussion that would not be possible with the old media print version.

Consumers can submit fiction pieces that maybe published both online and in print

And as a certain percentage of the readers may well be qualified to write pieces for COSMOS I assume that the editors would consider contributions if you had valid background in the field you are discussing.



Is the text likely to exclude or offend particular groups of people?

The text may offend strict religious people as there has always been some great debate between science and religion.

Outside of that the content is very inclusive and I think would interest people from any cultural background.

The fanfiction reading I found difficult to read at first as I read it as a printed text and thus was not able to read it effectively, however reading it online and using the supporting hyperlinks made it much more understandable as the information which is linked gives the crucial meanings and contexts of much of the language used in the reading. Fanfiction is defined as a work of fiction written by fans for other fans which takes a source text or a famous person as a point of departure.

It seems that the fanfiction reading to me is a kind of remediation of the Vidding videos as they cover many of the same issues but in a different media format.

It again first took an historical look at fanfiction and how it’s a continuation of the remediation of tales and stories that has been pasted down from generations to generations throughout history, and how this has been sued to generate narrative structures used across many different cultures to tell the same story within the context of their particular culture.

Fanfiction I think strives to discuss and understand the original text more deeply and intimately than the average consumer would. I was interested in how sometimes it builds the back-story to some original texts and is something I have experience through wookiepedia where fans have created much information related to the star wars universe. Thus with something of this size a large co-operative community must be built.

As fanfiction often responds to other fanfiction it is here where the participatory nature of this culture becomes clear as people actively engage with one another and learns the customs and language within a culture as they would in the real world. I for instance would have not known what “gen” “het” “femslash” or “slash” fanfiction was before this reading and thus displays to me a specific sub-culture whose rules, language and customs need to be learnt.

LINK: http://fanlore.org/wiki/Fanfiction

The Vidding clips were, well, to be honest an eye opener. I was beginning to think I was a genuine nerd and then Vidding comes along and makes me realize I’m actually not that big a nerd after all and that nerd worlds exist out there that I have actually no knowledge of.

Vidding I learnt was taking a video media such as your favorite TV show, mix it with a song you like in a way that communicates a message to the viewer, a message different from the original content in some way that is made by fans for fans.

The videos look at how medias have evolved from home slides and projectors, to VCRS, to personal computers today and how today’s media allows for a much more user driven creative network to form.

It was good to hear from people who are obviously dedicated to this past time to know what they think makes up good or bad vids, and that these opinions are just that, but are still a good guide to new comes trying to understand the genre.

DO’s and DON’T’s of Vidding:

·         Bad vids are not planned

·         Good vids are produced with an intent (well planned)

·         They don’t mix the music and images effectively to purvey a message to the viewer

·         Vid should have a song with lyrics which are easy to relate to and understand

·         Music and the video should relate to each other in some way

·         The vids message should make the watcher feel something

As a form of media vids allow viewers to watch them free of the constraints of time and space

Vidders form communities that allow them to learn from one another and be inspired by ideas from other member of the community with a participatory culture. And that these online participatory cultures can create new ‘real world’ cultures where people get together and discuss Vidding. It is this community building, and strengthening of social ties which stood out the most to me from this video series as it is an active example of online practices affecting the offline world and that these online practices may not always be positive ones as seen with vidding.

When they discussed the production and editing process if the Vid clips I noted down the following in regards to the process:

·         Multiple production roles when being a produser and creating these vids

·         Editor, Director, Audience, Producer, Critic, Researcher

·         The participants in these communities are fanatical which I think may be due to the strong social ties they have formed though Vidding

·         Vidding allows users to express their creativity even though it may be illegal in most cases to produce these vids due to copyright laws

·         Vidding allows participants to reflect upon what their favorite shows and songs mean to them, which may express a different meaning to other in the community thus enriching their own fan communities.

·         Freedom of self-expression allows for investigation of the self

The Cucco reading relating the theories and strategies of Hollywood blockbuster films was very interesting and made me reflect upon where the film industry has come from, where it is now and where it may be headed in the future – and the role that remediation has played in the systematic production of blockbuster films in the post WWII era. This systematic production looks like having to change in the not to distant future as we rapidly move in to a digitized, globalized society where global niche markets will be able to form large economic groups with their own particular norms and customs meaning that the need to engage with audiences will move the focus away from the culturally generic blockbusters. The role of secondary (overflow) media will also become of great importance as popular media forms such as games can create just as large economic returns as the original media itself.

These are some points and reflection made though out the reading:

·         The birth of today’s “new media” is not the first time change has been experienced in the media industry as post WWII there was great change in TV, radio and film.

·         In the 70s Jaws used a strategy of saturation advertising on TV for the first time, using a different media technology to promote film. This I related to similar moves today to saturate advertising online through social networks, tailored Google adverts, pop-ups and other online materials. Old media using new media.

·         Cucco also notes that in the 70s new competitive medias emerged such as payTV and home video. New media that allowed for secondary revenue streams for other media that would extended the reach of a film beyond the average 20 week in a theaters cycle.

·         The blockbuster film is an economic investment on a global scale which means it is produced to be culturally generic; relating to primal human senses and emotions. I hadn’t considered this before but I think whilst it is largely correct there are some exceptions. Blockbuster films are produced as pieces of pop culture and thus are actually specific to that culture, and thus with pop culture possibly becoming more splintered through access to many more niche markets online as per Andersons long-tail then the need to develop blockbusters may need to alter.

·         Blockbusters are formed around familiar and repetitive narrative structures using different settings and characters within the same social frameworks. Thus it is a process of the remediation of narrative structure to create new pieces of media. (I.e. Stars Wars classic damsel in distress narrative.)

·         Blockbusters usually make use of the latest technologies and cultural trends when producing films when re-telling stories. Many blockbusters are re-told stories. This is why consumers of the original commonly claim the original is far better than the remake as the remake is no longer specifically targeted as their social category, but the original was. For example I find the new true grit far more entertaining than the original as it is presented in a more realistic way then the Technicolor traits of the original I find off putting. My father totally disagrees and finds the re-make to be untrue to the original.

·         Consumers can often see the blockbuster thus as a commercial product rather than an artistic one a they are quite often seen as unoriginal pieces of work. I do agree with this viewpoint as most blockbusters seem to be a remediated text of some sort. For example DC Comics and marvel comics Batman, Spiderman, superman, iron man are remediated from popular comics; books such as the da vinci code, twilight, harry potter and lord of the rings have all been remediated to film recently. Even games such as silent hill and resident evil. And thing that is popular, or was popular in previous generations, is seemingly remediated into film.

·         The Money earn from merchandising is now an important factor in financing the film industry. Thus a film must be able to be easily remediated into toys, books, games, music etc. These overflow materials have now extended online to additional materials such as websites, podcast, vidcasts. And with the gaming industry now exceeding the film industry in revenues the relationship between blockbuster films and computer games, and vice versa will become a large market. It is also important as games seem to have the much more original narrative content than that seen in film.

·         I had never heard of “high concept” prior to this reading. In relation to blockbusters it is interesting that creating a singular summary of a film via the use of a single phrase and semiotics can be used to connote the entire premise and set of expectancies of a film to audiences and thus can use remediated  of iconic images to connote a message.

·         The success of sequels. Sequels can be pre-sold on the existing identity of the original. Whilst this was to me an obvious point of agreeance I would also have attached this to other forms of pop culture such as books, TV series, games which have become pieces of pop culture that audiences are highly aware of and thus also have pre-existing identities.

·         The saturation strategies presented are ones which I think may have to change to in the future as film makers look to global niche markets rather than generic markets. This would enable for target product placement within films and other such targeted promotional opportunities and reduced the marketing costs of the films. Film producers will be able to more actively engage with more easily identifiable market groups and thus engage with them to hold their attention.

·         The film industry by looking at the statistics and evidence provided by Cucco has increasing been moving towards a model of economic rationalism in order to maximize the economic returns of a film. This is why perhaps so many blockbusters seem to be remakes, Sequels of popular texts as the marketing costs of these films is reduced due to pre-existing identities of the media.  I think blockbusters thus could almost be classed as pre=packaged films where the consumers know what to expect before watching the film which thus leads to the idea that the film industry is undergoing a process of mcdonaldization.

·         The desire for the film industry to avoid qualitative debate is one in which they are going to have great issues within an online world. The film industry will try to different release strategies to regulate this online such as global release dates etc but with the explosion in online media, especially unbounded social networks such as twitter the word of mouth through these networks will become unstoppable if a film is poor thus affecting ticket sales in cinemas. Bounded networks will also play a role as they will generally be stronger social ties then those found in unbounded. It is in these social networks where the wisdom of crowds will assess the value of a piece of media and act as recommendation systems.

·         However this could also work min reverse for smaller release films with smaller budgets that generate positive word of mouth through these same networks leading to a wider film releases.

·         In the future current high cost of marketing could thus be largely negated by online engagement strategies as seen in recent years by the viral promotion of Cloverfield.

·         Remediation of actors (stars) to use their pre-existing identity to attract viewers.

·         Cucco identified that the current model lends blockbuster movies to be released in the non-rating period for TV to maximize the exposure and viewership and maximize the attention on these pieces of media. However as TV is now more subject to time shifting via the sue of TIVO, PVRs and Internet TV the coming years will mean that the audience will increasingly want “pull media” rather than tradition al “push media” so they can watch what they want, where they want, when they want. Thus I think the 6 month gaps Cucco discusses between cinematic and DVD release may well drop as the battle for attention increases and the need for physical media such as DVD decreases and the demand for online pull media increase. This may work if for example a cinema limits a film cinematic release to 6 weeks, creating more scarcity of the product in the audience as they may have missed it at cinemas and thus drive a greater want for the secondary materials and drive revenues from these higher.

Lessigs reading present four hypothetical’s which are based around his genuine concerns and trends in a world where offline rules, customs and laws are struggling g to keep up with the rapid changes of online life. He identifies the four trends as regulability, ability to encode regulability, latent ambiguity and competing Sovereigns.

Some of the key points I took in and reflected upon in this reading are as follows:

·         There is a lack of offline consequences for anonymous online actions

·         The web allows what would have been deemed as deviant offline and so isolated and regulated to easily form communities online for these deviances to gain validation

·         Anonymous online personas allow for the post modern exploration of many different aspects of the self

·         Remediation of offline reality into online play and interaction

·         Online life is limited by how each environment is coded – which can result in both freedoms and restrictions

·         These freedoms have been seen if the effects of P2P networks etc and sharing music, films etc

·         The environments can be modified without participant knowledge – which normally would not happen in the offline world without some community discussion and analysis (i.e. facebook changes constantly on its users)

·         Online worlds allow for a wide range of different communication and interaction methods that to the user mimic offline life but actually are missing some key parts of offline communication such as context. These changes may inadvertently spill over and change rules and customs in offline life. Thus a lack of online consequences can spill out and create a real world affect.

·         Break down the restrictions of time and space placed by old media and communication forms.

·         Decentralization of media distribution due to the low barriers to entry. These have distabalised business models of old media

·         Deviant behavior such as piracy seems to be only an online issue which is separate from offline norms and rules of society. Probably related to the high level of anonymity online?

·         Lack of content gatekeepers online, and the low barriers to entry meaning and one can publish, is a great change from old media where publishing houses controlled the content that would get to society.

·         Does audience created content, free of gate keeping mechanisms, expose previously unrecognized realities in society that were previously controlled by publisher regulation?

·         Who should these gatekeepers be in an online world? Government? Enterprise? Community? Whatever it is it needs to be transparent  to ensure that valid community groups aren’t undeservedly discriminated against

·         Old laws from the offline world are often inadequate for application in the online world to police online activities in cyberspace

·         Concerns over big brother are here already I think as companies like Google and facebook build online user profiles. It is the price the user has paid for so much free content, free content distribution and creation tools. We have now become out IP address as the economies of information and attention build.

·         Web filtering by the state or corporation is a concern as it can filter out information that challenges the dominant paradigm thus limiting cultural growth.

·         Lessigs regulation online “regulation by code” is a very complex issue. It is a regulation that needs involvement from all parties government, corporations and audience in order to use Surowieki’s “wisdom of crowds” to build an effective gate keeping solution for online society. This process also would need to be under constant review as culture in cyberspace is subject to sudden change – just by changing some code.

·         All of these concerns are no longer limited by sovereign borders. They are global concerns which need global solutions for future cultures and societies which is why finding a one size fits all solution is almost impossible but will become easier as culture is globalized over time. Is this is the period of transition into a global society.

Anonymity online is the largest issue in my assessment of Lessigs reading as online consequences are usually unseen and hidden in real life as with his example of Jake.  If this anonymity was removed then the online experience would greatly change as a user would be responsible for a single identity linked both online and offline meaning the remediation off offline to online life would be far more accurate. They would still be able to investigate aspects of themselves with the wealth of online information but just not free of their identity making the regulation of cyberspace easier.