IMA 504 – Eirik Bjorno – Social Issues

Social Issues Online

As a parent, have you ever wondered if your child is being bullied? Have you ever wondered why he has less friends coming over to play flag-football on you lawn? Have you ever thought about why he spends so much time on the computer? As the new generation spends more and more time online, we know less about each other’s social skills, and therefor it’s harder to pick up the signals. Since the Internet was created around 40 years ago the ways we communicate has changed gradually as new technology has developed. What started out as a great asset to the educational system, with information available online at all times, has now grown into a major headache for educational institutions that don’t know how to use Internet in an effective way. The new generations social lives, and social interactions are based on online communication. Is the Internet serving its purpose, to connect and inform people, or has it grown out of control?

15-20 years ago professors mostly used Internet to access information and distributing it out to the students. That way Internet had great value for the educational system. They were able to limit and filter out bad information before communicating it to the receivers. Many old scholars claim that this period was the most accurate and effective use of the Internet.

When grew up I used Internet to update my self on news and sports results, and play simple Java games. As I grew up I realized the power of the Internet. In the early 2000’s I realized I could access a lot of educational material online, and I started to use it for my homework. Heading into the new millennium the Norwegian educational system realized the opportunities Internet offered and built large computer labs in almost all schools across the country. According to Bargh and McKenna over 600 million people worldwide had access to the Internet in 2002.

The access to the Internet grew fast, and we quickly surpassed our professors in knowledge. We played games. We studied. We could spend hours in front of the computer; and at that time there was no danger signs. You still had the 3-4 guys who got obsessed with computers and online activities, and isolated themselves from social interactions, but mainly the technology served its purpose. It prepared us for the new era, as we picked up basic technological knowledge. We took it home, and many young students had to teach their parents how to use the new computer when it arrived.

When Internet became a normal addition in homes around the world, the major threat was virus attacks, Trojan horses or different cyber crimes. Now we should be more concerned by our own social behavior patterns online as it reduces our social interactions. The growth of social networking cites and blogs had not only changed the methods of communication, it has also presented a lot of opportunities for people to reject their real social life.

All kids now have instant access to the social networking sites. Cellphones, tablets or laptops has made it hard for parents or other adults to control their kid’s online activities. When parents or other adults are not in a position to monitor kids activities, if often result in bullying. The word “Bully” can be dated all the way back to 1530s (Donegan), and bullying basically contains two parts: an intimidator and a victim. We can find evidence of bullying occurring on all levels in society hundreds of years back. Naturally this social problem carried on online, and has been enhanced the last 15 years. The term cyberbullying was introduced with the creation of the Internet, but the first concrete statistics surrounding the issue from Cyberbullying Research Center dates back to 2004. Is it a coincident that scholars showed interest in the topic the same year as Facebook was founded? Maybe, but you can still draw some interesting lines. In 2011 The Consumer Report published an article stating that One million children were harassed, threatened or subjected to other forms of cyberbullying on Facebook during the past year. We cannot blame Facebook for this, but the consequences can be fatal.

Looking at the numbers from Cyber Bullying Research Center we are moving in the wrong direction.  In 2004 20.1 percent of high school and middle school students reported that they had been cyber bullied at one point in their life. After 2004 the numbers have gone up. In 2010 published a survey from the National Crime Prevention Center, showing that 40 percent of teens with Internet access had been bullied online. The last statistics is from 2012, where the number had increased to 42 percent. (Murray)

Recently The Guardian wrote about Hannah Smith, a 14-year-old girl from Leicestershire, who killed her self after she had been taunted online for years. She even reached out on a public forum to get tips on how to go through with her suicide, and was told to “Drink bleach” from one the members. It is brutal. But unfortunately it is real. Not all stories of cyber bullying goes this far, but the phenomenon can change someone’s life forever. In this case we have two of the major social issues on the Internet. Cyberbullying being one, while you can claim that website should protect children from dangerous information. Filters or restrictions should apply. But as World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology states in one of their online journals:

“ …the blame for teenagers social and ethical misconducts  should not be put on the technology alone. He stresses the importance of other contributing factors to the problem, such as the upbringing and the environment. In addition, Moll questions parents’ “very little or no knowledge” about their children online activities. She also criticizes their lack of responsibilities in protecting their children from the Internet’s harmful possibilities…”

This leaves me to a small survey I did among my diverse group of friends; to get a better understanding of what measures parents takes to be involved in what their kids do online. Among my American friends the tone was similar. The family had one computer in one of the common rooms. This way the parents could control their kid’s activities. My Scandinavian friends on the other hand say this was far from their reality. The only people trying to set any regulations for our online activities were the IT guy working in our elementary schools. He blocked the most popular gaming sites and other inappropriate material. Because of the school system in Scandinavia, we were home alone from around 1 pm until our parents came from work at 4pm. So there was not much supervising when we played with the computer.

Now times have changed though. It is hard for parents to keep up with all the social media, and pay attention to their kid’s activities. For a while parents thought that to be ‘friends’ with your kids on Facebook, Instagram etc. would increase the control, but the new generation knows way more about technology than their parents, so therefor they can easily block them out of parts of their activities via privacy settings.

American Osteopathic Association published in 2011 an article stating that 85 % of parents report that their child has a social networking account. 54% of these parents are afraid that their kids are being bullied via social networking sites, while 16% know their child has been or are a victim of cyber bullying. This proves how real the problem is in nuclear families around the country.  What makes it an even more severe is the anonymity. Internet gives you the opportunity to mask you identity, and therefor impossible to trace the source of the bullying. 81 percent of the youths asked said it is easier to get away with bullying online than in person. (Murray) Neutralmagazine presents a valid point: “Victims are no longer able to pinpoint the source of their pain and as a result, the campaign of abuse becomes all encompassing, taking over the victim’s lives through fear of abuse at any time.” This is the fear that changes people lives for good. This is the fear that can break even the strongest guy.

Not only the anonymity differ from what we know as conventional bullying. The power dynamic can also be drastically changed. The bully is typically a stronger person, either physically or mentally. Through bullying online you can experience young unsecure kids attacking others in the same boat, to boost their self-confident. It’s ruthless and powerful. Gallagher point out what I consider the worst consequence of this form of online interaction: “Cyber bullies can act from the comforts of their own home, and in reverse, their victims are no longer safe in theirs. Messages and photos are able to be sent from morning to night and as they do so, the ways for the victims to escape are become increasingly limited.”

Despite all this serious issue with the Internet, Internet does not make its users any more depressed or lonely, rather the opposite. It offers a variety in communication that can help the user to develop as its social skills. What is important for us as future educators and parents is to try to educate the new generation in correct and safe use of Internet. We have a responsibility to create good habits among the new users.  For parents to be involved in their kid’s use of smartphones and laptops is key to limit the problem with cyberbullying. The main problem is that Internet, and technology is developing so fast that the new generations pick up on the changes faster than professors and parents.

Many organizations are working on raising awareness around cyberbullying. This work important, but even it’s the people you look up to who has the highest impact on you decisions; your brother, your cousin and you uncle. If we can implement a better attitude towards the issue at all level in our society, we will se the numbers go down.


American Osteopathic Association. “Parents Fearful of Cyberbullying.” Parents Fearful of Cyberbullying. American Osteopathic Association, n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2013.

Bargh, John A., and Katelyn Y.A McKenna. “THE INTERNET AND SOCIAL LIFE.” (2004): n. pag. Yale University. Annual Reviews. Web. 3 Oct. 2013.

Consumer Reports. “That Facebook Friend Might Be 10 Years Old, and Other Troubling News.” Consumer Reports June 2011: n. pag. Consumer Reports. Consumer Union of US, June 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.

Donegan, Richard. “Bullying and Cyberbullying: History, Statistics, Law, Prevention and Analysis.” Bullying and Cyberbullying 3.1 (2012): 33-42. Elon University. Elon University, Spring 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. “From Cyber Bullying to Sexting (stats and Videos): What’s on Your Kids’ Cell?” Clarity Digital Group, 29 Jan. 2010. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.

Gallagher, Tom. “The Highs of Social Networking and the Rise of Cyberbullying.” Neutral Magazine. Neutral Magazine, n.d. Web. 4 Oct. 2013.

Murray, Corey. “25 Eye-Opening Statistics About Cyberbullying [Infographic].” EdTech Magazine. CDW, 18 July 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.

Press Association. “Teenager Hannah Smith Killed Herself Because of Online Bullying, Says Father.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 6 Aug. 2013. Web. 2 Nov. 2013.

Ramli, R. “The Internet, Its Social and Ethical Problem to the Young and How Curriculum Can Address the Issue.” World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology59.125 (2011): 645-48. 2011. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.

IMA 504 – Eirik Bjorno – Legal Issues

Online Streaming

The Internet does not only offer us new communication methods, it also has changed the entertainment world. If you miss your favorite TV show it is not a problem anymore, as you can just watch it online when you find the time. Movies, TV-shows and music are all accessible to you on all your portable devices at all times. Spotify, Netflix and YouTube are all companies who deliver entertainment conveniently through the cloud and help you catch up with your favorite shows, but the television is still where it is accessible first, or is it?

The last 5 years we have seen a growth in online video content. Netflix leads the way as they hold 32.3 percent of the market share. YouTube and Hulu follow with 17.1 and 2.4 percent respectively. When Netflix restructured their business and separated their DVD-by-mail service from the online service, they lost about 800.000 subscribers. But only two years later, the number of subscriptions had gone up by over 5 million. It shows that online content is the future. (Kerr)

In addition to these independent companies, most of the major networks have well developed online streaming services.  Here you can either by a subscription, or watch their content with ‘limited’ commercials for free. A move the TV-networks was forced to do, to keep up with the online development.

By having content available online there is a great risk of running in to copyright disputes. Who owns the content? For the TV-Networks this is a non-issue as they own their content and can do as they please with it. For the independent services, deals with major networks and proper compensations are necessary to deliver a solid service. One of the factors in Netflix dominance in this market is their significant deals with Walt Disney and DreamWorks Animation as well as partnerships with smaller networks all across the world. (Tejeda)

Netflix took it to the next level this year, as they launched their first original series: House of Cards. In August, Kevin Spacey, the star of “House of Cards,” gave an enthusiastic speech about the death of the cable television model, the future of content, and the role of Netflix in providing viewers a viewer-centric form of delivery. (Tejeda)

According to Internet research firm Sandvine; The future will see “real-time entertainment applications dominate fixed access networks, accounting for two-thirds of total data usage in 2018, driven largely by ubiquitous integration between devices (e.g. smart TVs, set-tops, game consoles) and streaming services,” (Kerr) These services are on their way into the market will full speed. While Netflix has been able to avoid serious copyright lawsuits, the development of offering real time streams of TV-shows brings in a lot of new and different issues. One of the companies offering these services is Aereo, and they have been under legal scrutiny since 2009.

Aereo is an up and coming broadcasting program that allows subscribers to stream live television on mobile devises or computers. Barry Diller, who founded Fox Broadcasting Company together with Rupert Murdoch, has invested in the company and it charges its users 8 dollars a month to use its services. Aereo is currently available in eight different market areas including New York, Boston, and Miami. Major television networks such as ABC, NBC, and 21st Century Fox feel this new telecommunication option is imposing on their copyrights. Aereo is streaming the video content and gaining revenue from the production of these major media companies without their permission. NBC, ABC and 21st Century Fox decided to take Aereo to court and request that the service was shut down because of copyright infringement.

Copyright can be defined as: “a form of protection provided by the Federal Copyright Act to authors of original works, which includes literary, musical, and dramatic works; pantomimes; choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; motion picture and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; and architectural works”. The author of the work is always the owner of the copyright.

The definition of an infringement, according to Mann and Roberts, is as follows: “Infringement occurs whenever somebody exercises, without authorization, the rights exclusively reserved for the copyright owner. Infringement needs to be intentional. To prove infringement, the plaintiff must simply establish that he owns the copyright and that the defendant violated one or more of the plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the copyright”.

Aereo claims they are not breaking any copyright laws with their methods. Ramachandran explains in her article how Aereo works: “Aereo’s technology works by using racks of dime-sized antennas in its facilities to pick up over-the-air signals from TV broadcasters. Subscribers are assigned individual antennas when they choose to stream a channel. Aereo stores the programming on individual digital video recorders, converts the signal to a digital format and sends it over the web with a few seconds of delay”. In other words Aereo offers all their programming as ‘private performances’. The copyright law only covers public performance. It’s simply any individual’s legal right to receive over-the-air TV and record shows for their personal viewing.

Aereo claims that since each one of their subscribers receives the TV shows on a unique antenna (which is the subscribers account on Aereo) it is therefore not transmitted to the public. TV Networks, on the other hand, claim that it doesn’t matter that each user can only access a unique copy. They say that since the service is available for anyone to use, it transmits copyright material to the public, so-called ‘public performance’. What speaks for Aereo is a legal precedent surrounding a Cablevision case from 2008 involving a cloud-based digital video recorder.

The Cablevision case is probably the reason for why the lower courts have sided with Aereo. In this incident the central question was: does it matter where a hard drive lives? Instead of everyone having a DVR box in their homes, why can’t Cablevision Systems Corp. launch a service in which all of the digital video recorder’s hardware lived in the cable company’s central office? Cablevision Systems claimed that the recording system (or streaming system) only had shifted the location of the hardware into the cloud. The TV shows are not archived but simply picked up live, with a couple of seconds delay, and then transferred to people’s iPads, computers, or iPhones. It therefore follows the rules of private performance rights. The Second Circuit’s Court of Appeals ruled that the 1.2 seconds of buffer material was in fact an “embodiment” of the copyrighted work but that it was only of “transitory duration” and therefore not copyright infringement. In other words, there is no violation of public performance rights. (Anderson)

While the Cablevision case speaks in favor of Aereo NBC, ABC and 21st century Fox look towards another case to find the legal precedent they need to shut down Aereo’s service. FilmOn X is almost identical to Aereo, as their service also offers an array of small antennas that are assigned to a specific, individual user. “These antennas capture local television signals and deliver video and audio to FilmOn X’s users”, Eriq Gardner writes. This case was assigned to the U.S. District judge Rosemary Collyer and she eventually took guidance from the Supreme Court in the case. Regarding the public/private performance rights, she concluded that, “The Transmit Clause, which applies whether ‘members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times,’ also plainly captures FilmOn X’s DVR-like capabilities.” According to Mann et al public performance includes all types of performable works, such as literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works. Sound recordings are not included. The copyright law covers public performance. On the contrary, the copyright law does not cover private performances. It’s simply any individual’s legal right to receive over-the-air TV and record shows for their personal viewing. As earlier mentioned, FilmOn X argues they don’t deliver content to the public because their service facilitates a one-to-one relationship between a single antenna and a viewer. However, the judge in this case finally rules the broadcasters to win the case. She says that even though users have an assigned antenna and hard-drive directory temporarily, all the unique antennas are networked together and provided by one video-streaming company, which allows anyone to become a member. FilmOn X has therefore violated the broadcasters’ rights of public performance. (Gardner)

Although Aereo wont the first rounds of their case; it is still alive and moving up the legal system chain and the networks request the case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Whether the case is taken in by the Supreme Court or not, it will have a direct effect on how television is broadcasted in the future. Are we moving in a direction where private online companies can use TV Networks work and sell it without consent?

Netflix and YouTube and other major streaming networks have worked out deals with the owner of the material, or they pay the copyright holder a fee every time the copyrighted material is streamed out through their channels. The entertainment industry realize they have to agree to these terms, as their content is available illegally online, and by pairing up with streaming websites like Netflix, they can benefit from their copyrighted work. This system works. Why, simply because the networks or the production companies still have the edge when they deliver the content first. When ABC airs the new episode of Scandal they will have numerous paying customers because consumers want to be the first to watch it. If Aereo and similar businesses are allowed to broadcast television live we will run into problems as the major production companies will not be willing to give away the last edge they have to online broadcasting. That we are moving towards an online world is a given, but as for now we still need television in the way we know it and we need the legal system to realize and deal with the threat we are facing. I am a big fan of cheap convenient online entertainment, and hold subscriptions with Netflix, Spotify and three Norwegian TV channels. Still I’m afraid that if we give third party networks access and legal support to show TV live we are moving in a direction where there is no turning back.



Anderson, Nate. Cablevision remote DVR stays legal: Supremes won’t hear case. 06 June 2009. Conde Nast. 06 11 2013.


Gardner, Eriq. Hollywood Reporter. 09 May 2013. Hollywood Reporter. 06 11 2013.


Kerr, Dara. Video streaming is on the rise with Netflix dominating. 14 05 2013. CBS Interactive. 04 11 2013.


Mann, Richard A. and Barry S. Roberts. Essentials of Business Law and the Legla Enviroment. 11th. South-Western College Pub, 2012.


Sharma, Amol and Shalini Ramachandran. “Broadcasters Ask Supreme Court to Intervene Over Aereo.” Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 11 10 2013. B4.


Tejeda, Alejandra. Netflix and the Rise of Online Video Streaming. 24 September 2013. Compete Inc. 02 11 2013.



Ethic & Tourism Online (Di Fan)

Ethic is always hard to define, it is because that value is prevalent, but the universal value does not exist. Ethic is against with Legal, fighting with Society, and Economy today. Tourism, the biggest industry of the country, it is bigger than oil. How can we find the balance between the ethics of tourism and the development of this area?

How powerful is social media of travel? The governments of China and North Korea are using their activities to tell us. How strained the polity is that how powerful social media works for economy. As social media of tourism continues to rise, it’s only natural that statistic correlations will be made about the individuals who use the medium. It’s common to deep-dive into demographic information and behavioral data. The users post their travel experience and publish their travel pictures. It’s not a bad thing; universal truths about social networking usage and user behavior can be valuable. However, personal bias is also published out though the words or images when travelers sharing their experience online. Who could response the ethics of travel online.



“Josephine” & “Simon” were at an expat party, and basically got it together. Josephine published photos of them at the party on her travel blog. Simon’s wife saw it. That summer there was a divorce.



Two years ago, a traveler was in Miami beach; she saw a man that was sleeping on the beach. Then she photographed the man and published it on her blog. Meanwhile unbeknown to her, she backed in the country several months later; the business owner was browsing the image online. The next day the man was fired for sleeping on the job.




In 2008,the riots of Tibet. Several personal bloggers and travelers uploaded their videos to Youtube. Nothing was censored; the faces in the videos were visible. International media have already reported on the rounding up of hundreds of people from those days. Many people have not been seen or heard from again since then, so that some bystanders was arrested as the suspects. Right or wrong, bystander or rioter, they were a sentence to prison to others.



The general consensus is not a big deal for photographing a person, and then unloading it online, no one will see it, just for friends and families. Different area has different laws for publishing the travel information on the Internet, no matter it is legal or not. When you decided to press “post” the social media company will own the information, every word you typed, every photography you did will share with the world in a heartbeat. So it’s important to consider if it will affect others before publishing.

Ethical issues of entertainment -yunlong zhang

Entertainment is a large part of our daily lives. Whether we take our enjoyment from music and the radio, television, movies or video games. But we need to concern Where’s the ethics in all of it? And what ethical issues within today’s entertainment environment affect our community and organizations?


Interactive Entertainment

As we know, the interactive entertainment comes under moral and ethical scrutiny. And they have occasionally lowered itself to the least ethical in order to sell products. Scantily clad, physically impossible men and women, as well as questionable and/or violent subject matter is frequently the focus of many products. However, this has been the case in other forms of art and entertainment as well. Is it a sign of the times, a sign of growing popularity, a sign of a loss of producer ethics, or just part of an inevitable routine that takes over every entertainment industry in our time?

 Of course the effect of us is very bad, this is a typical case about the conflict of commercially and morality. So how do we solve those problems Software filters aren’t a perfect solution; some ads can slip through,however, some website have reacted by imposed a rating system or an age limit on their medium. This is an attempt to allow freedom to those creating the media, while still protecting the more “impressionable” from mature content. We see already, that the interactive entertainment industry follows this formula well. When it came under fire in light of recent events, the ESRB (Entertainment Software Review Board) reacted by launching larger informative campaigns to avoid unnecessary attacks and strengthened it’s pleas to developers to voluntarily rate their products.


But does a rating system allow the creators of entertainment to put whatever they want in their products, or is there some type of moral obligation to society they should follow? Often, almost creators are creating true art (or fine art) within a popular medium are ignored over those that are more controversial. So, the problem is not necessarily those creating the material, but also those viewing the material that makes it destructive to society. Not only do the creators of the media have a moral obligation to society to only create acceptable entertainment, but also society has a moral obligation to the creators to only accept moral entertainment. However, is this a possibility? Each entertainment media so far has followed a tried and true formula to its place as an artistic and expressive medium, and there is no reason for that to change in the future, almost like an evolution. Furthermore, certain attempts to create more artistic works in a popular medium (like attempts by independent film makers and pushes from industry societies like the IGDA) sometimes end up as flops. If an audience is not ready, or does not want more “serious” content in a medium, something that attempts to draw in such content is not going to be met with a warm welcome.

This is not to say, however, that such attempts are unfounded or not required. In order for a medium to gain more respect in the eyes of portions of the public, it must attempt to create these forms of fine art. In actuality, the creators, as we have seen, have an ethical responsibility, or moral obligation, to create such works. However, seeing that the status as a true “fine” art seams almost mutually exclusive with popularity, the possibility that such an endeavor will be popular is very low.

Is there a time when popularity and fine art will not be mutually exclusive? This newest form of interactive entertainment, though off to a rocky start, but the only chance we have is to increase the ethical level of both the audience and the creators to raise the level of entertainment in general.


Click to access TriggerHappy.pdf

Ethical Paper-Pingju

Ethical issues of fashion industry

The issue of ethics is a major concern in society. The fashion industry has complex connections to many other fields, including manufacturing, advertising, production of raw materials, transportation and retailing. The tremendous profits that stand to be made in the fashion industry create the temptation to engage in unethical behavior. When producers, manufacturers, model or consumers are being exploited or treated unfairly, fashion executives have an ethical responsibility to change the situation.


The fashion magazines also have a big problem for the ethical issue I would like to focus the issue of the photographer, editor and model on the following article. For the photographer it is not easy to get the money from their photo, the problem for today is there have no money in magazine and newspaper. Shrinking editorial budgets have translated into fewer assignments where photographers can shoot in-depth essays on issues like the effects of war or famine or disease. While some photographers have sought alternative funding through some foundations, assignments from private aid groups have proven to be more reliable — sometimes providing the only access to stories that might otherwise go untold. But photojournalists’ increase reliance on paid assignments from these group raises troubling questions about the nature of objectivity and the appearance of undue influence. The massage of photo that provided from the photographer should be considerable and responsible. They have to assume that every picture they put out is going to have an effect somewhere. Therefore they need to think very carefully about that in choosing the subject they put and the partner they work with.


Like writers and editors, photojournalists are held to a standard of ethics.  Each publication has a set of rules, sometimes written, sometimes unwritten, that governs what that publication considers to be a truthful and faithful representation of images to the public.  These rules cover a wide range of topics such as how a photographer should act while taking pictures, what he or she can and can’t photograph, and whether and how an image can be altered in the darkroom or on the computer.  This ethical framework evolved over time, influenced by such things as technological capability and community values; and it is continually developing today. But according to the change for the recently society, the ethical for the articles are difficult to be formulate. Kenneth Kobré who is author and photojournalism professor thought ethics is an inherently subjective field. He said ” Photojournalism has no Bible, no rabbinical college, no Pope to define correct choices. There is no sole arbiter of what is or isn’t ethical.” Additionally, photojournalistic ethics might encompass the choices an individual photographer makes while shooting.  For example, should a war photographer put down his cameras in order to help an injured soldier?  If someone asks that his or her photo not be taken, is it ethical to photograph that person anyway?  If ethics in photojournalism is about being “faithful and comprehensive,” is intentionally underexposing or poorly focusing unethical?  Some of these questions sit on the line between journalistic ethics and professionalism.

As a model, simply getting paid can be a major issue, and, of the models that achieve a coveted spot walking in New York fashion week, many, in fact, are never paid at all; instead, working for free or for clothes. Needless to say, a tank top doesn’t pay the rent. For the model, walking on the runway may be the easiest part of the job. In the week leading up to a show, they shuffle between designers’ studios for multiple fittings, where garments are tailored to their bodies. On the day of the event, they sit for two to three hours of on-site prep, getting their hair, nails, and makeup done in addition to run-throughs, or rehearsals, before the 15-minute presentation. Even the work is not easy for them, but 99 percent of the magazines don’t pay. Because some big companies thought the model have the best hair team, the best makeup team, and the best photographer, which will give them beautiful pictures to have in the book when models work for with them. And those good exposures will help them get other paying job. But Sarah Ziff who is a model-rights activist and co-founder of the Model Alliance, not agreed about this point. Ziff is more blunt: “I do think that there is a moral obligation to pay people for their work, even if it were just covering their basic costs. When you are not being paid any money, then you are paying to work, and that is wrong.” It’s hard to discuss which viewpoint is correct because the ethical point can be change by different condition.

But the problem for this may be changed, for the Proenza Schouler 2013 Fall/Winter runway; they paid for those models between $1,000 and $2,500 for a big shows. Although it is not a lot, it is step in the right direction.

Even the ethic standard is hard to be established and change by different personal viewpoint and working environment. We still need to be responsible for that. The social media, legal issue and ethical problem in the fashion industry are be relate. The publisher should be careful and responsible for those three parts.


Legal issues in Entertainment -yunlong

Nowadays the Internet is a wide-open source for information, entertainment, and communication. Many people believe that anything and everything go in the cyberspace; Most of Internet users who sharing music or movies say they do not care about whether the file they have shared is copyrighted.

However with anything new there will be many legal issues related to this new model of doing business. Legal issues in entertainment are certainly nothing new, but we should be alert to the risks.

Download and copyright in social network:

Every day, there are many of computer users share files in social networks. Which includes the music, movies, or games, file sharing can give people access to a wealth of information. You can download special software that connects to your computer to an informal network of other computers running the same software. Millions of users could be connected to each other through this software at one time. The software often is free and easily accessible. So what kind software is doing the downloading and sharing in us? It’s called “Peer-to-Peer Sharing”. It’s based on the cooperative sharing of thousands of individual users. P2P works by having participants voluntarily install special file-sharing software on their machines. Once that P2P software is in place, these users start to trade music MP3 and AVI files of their favorite songs and movies. The sharing works by each user sharing little bits at a time. No charge, no cost…it’s almost as easy as doing a Google search.

However it is illegal to share in-copyright files with other users online. Basically, those songs, movies, or soft wares that can be purchased are considered to be in-copyrights. In other words, a popular song that you’d buy online or at store, a movie that you’d see at a movie theater or buy on dvd, a TV show that could be sold as a dvd, or a software program or game you buy at a store are all good examples of copyrighted or otherwise protected data. This factor has lead to a situation that people’s choice to be limited. Although user can search many files from some well-know providers like Amazon and iTunes, a fact is that user will not have legal permission to read the whole content until they pay for it.

Therefore, When you register for any of social site,Please read the user instructions carefully,

Sharing in Social Networks:

In the digital age, people, particularly younger generations, tend to share more than they should. People share self-created content online like photos, videos, artwork or stories.  For teens, the problem is over sharing; it’s not just the act itself, but the issues it can lead to down the line. Take the 15 years old who posted photos of money in his home, which was later burgled. Then there’s the college student who worked as a waitress and had a couple occupy a table for three hours and leave a $5 tip. She complained about the customers on social network, which was against company policy. She thought her Facebook settings kept her boss from seeing what she posted. She was wrong. Sure, sharing online seems like a natural instinct. On Facebook, for example, it’s easy to go back and enjoy the memories, photos, and important dates you’ve posted. That has its value. Until the sharing leads to problems like those faced by the teens mentioned above. Nobody wants to be in that situation. So we need to avoid over sharing.

The above examples only scratch the surface of the various copyrights and sharing issues you can run into on a daily basis, which leaves the question of “how do I communicate and share online without putting myself at risk?” While there’s currently no clear answer, but maybe you can ask yourself one simple question: “does this feel wrong to me?” While the answer may not always guide you to a fully legal answer, as copyright and sharing law is currently comprised of so many gray areas, your own moral compass is often your most reliable guide.


Legal & Tourism — Di Fan

While tourism is being the number one service industry in the country, there are also some disputes between consumers and travel services.

The Untied Sates Travel law occurred in the 1970s, describing the nexus of federal, state, common law and international law that regulate the day-to-day working of the travel industry. When the federally- mandated deregulation process was finished, tourism found out that it still need a central source of legal guidance where it could turn for the travel issues and the field of travel law was born.

Nowadays tourism could not separate with Internet and technology. They bring too much energy for developing tourism in the country. But also gives the new problems to people. In 2012, there are many lawsuits is about travel legal issues.

Hotel & Travel Website

Last year, The Los Angeles Times reported the biggest case of travel legal issue, there were two men, Nakita Turik from Chicago and Eric Balk from Iowa, they suited the travel websites, hotels involved in price fixing. The complaint alleged that Hilton Hotels, Sheraton Hotels & Resorts, Marriott International and others conspired with Expedia, Travelocity and a subsidiary of Priceline, among others, to fix hotel prices across the country.

The consumer fraud lawsuit claimed that the large online travel sites work with hotel chains, and they have created the illusion that spending time for researching hotel rates online could find good deals. Although many travel websites announced that they passed the lowest hotel rates of unsold rooms to consumers. The suit alleged that the hotels set a minimum room rate so that the travel websites could offer to consumers. Therefore, he reality is that these illegal price-parity agreements mean consumers see nothing but cosmetic differences and the same prices on every site.

There are more than 50% travel website and hotel companies have an agreement to work together in the country. The suite except asked the court to order the hotels and travel sites to pay damages and legal fees, also demanded to impose an injunction, preventing the hotels and websites from further price fixing.

Online Reviews

Online consumer reviews are emerging as a powerful source of information affecting the pre-purchase evaluation of consumers. Online review is a big topic of travel issue area. It is not just about the business also it is the result from free speech on the Internet. Online reviews are protected, however there are so many cases of defamation to show.

In October 2011, the owner of the Grand Resort Hotel & Convention Center in Pigeon Forge, Tenn. sued the review site for defamation and false light invasion of privacy after the site announced that the Grand Resort topped its then-annual list of the dirtiest hotels in America — “a ranking based on users’ online reviews and comments. has millions of online users, even though consumers should be able to freely discuss their experiences without fear that somebody is going to come knocking on the door with a lawsuit. But the social media website also should response that if it is a defamation. As the law of libel tourism required the speech must be not be libelous under American law.

GPS & Google Maps

GPS and Google Maps are very useful for tourists, but one thing becomes quite clear when looking over this list: Blindly following online navigation devices can easily result in disaster.

There are many examples to show that many tourists are a tad too reliant on the maps to guide. Blindly following electronic directions into water, or going the wrong way. On March 2012 there are 9 car accidents caused by Google maps and GPS. In the same year, a woman who filed more than $100,000 lawsuit against Google Maps since the map brought her to a car accident. She claiming Google’s “reckless and negligent providing of unsafe directions” caused her to suffer “severe permanent physical, emotional, and mental injuries.”

It’s important to know that do not trust in GPS devices and Google Maps too much. Maps and sat navigation devices are really great, but they’re also potentially dangerous.

Fashion Magazine-Legal paper-Pingju

Women are often jealous of the incredible good look of model in magazine. Most of the model has perfect skin, tiny waists, and long legs, the clothes on their body look wonderful. Those unreal standards and body images being portrayed in many magazines make people though that is beauty. In fact, every photo has been retouched before it is seen on the pages of these magazines. While everyone in the fashion and magazine industries seems to be aware of it and absolutely no one is even trying to deny it, there are a lot of people out there complaining about how unrealistic it is to show those kinds of altered images at all.

On the company point, they use Photoshop to let product look perfect on the model’s body. But the excessive Photoshop and retouching make it virtually unimaginable for woman to feel beautiful or good about the way they look when they’re comparing themselves to these models. An anonymous photo retoucher, says that every man and woman needs to know last single image you see has been retouched. There are just absolutely no images left that feature the real skin, curve, or hair of a woman that hasn’t been significantly altered. This retoucher wants people to realize that even those “perfect” actresses and models are far from perfect, but the industry has gone so off course that it doesn’t even matter anymore. They just redefine their looks and create the image with their own version of perfection. Actually they not only make those models look thinner in the image, but also move an actresses face and actually paste it on to a thinner body. In some case, very thin models have been altered to look less bony. Some heavier models are adjusted to look thinner. Model with skin problems are simply altered to have a different skin tone. Any problems whatsoever are adjusted before the image hits the streets. How is this even legal? It’s simply lies-all of it! All you need is a computer and paint brush and those retoucher can do whatever you like. The advertisers should come out with acknowledgments that photos have been retouched, saying that every single photo be change to look perfect.


The other issue for the magazine is copyright law in the digital age especially for the image. A wealth of information and images abound on the Internet that can be copied with a keystroke onto a hard drive. From there the use of purloined property is limited only by the imagination. Image manipulation software makes it easy to modify an image obtained from another’s website. And desktop publishing software makes it possible to take the product of another’s research and use it in a newsletter, magazine article or website in a matter of seconds. Much of this “borrowing” may be a matter of ignorance about copyright law. Most people run to the Internet in search of photos and clip art, since those images are free and easily accessed. But a lot of those resources are copyrighted, and using them without permission can easily land you in an embarrassing legal confrontation. In generally we should look for photos and other images which have a Creative Commons license that allow us a to re-use the image in your own work. The artist can choose to allow or prohibit commercial use of their work, allow it to be modified, and they might impose a “share alike” condition. Essentially, that means that anyone who re-modifies the image must also publish that new work under the same Creative Common license. The best pace to find the photo with Creative Common license is “Flickr”, another powerful alternative is the excellent CCFinder. This free program is a Creative Commons-licensed photo search engine that people can use to find any sort of photo by keyword, and then visit the web page it lives on or download the image directly.

For the article, if we want to share someone else’s content with our own audience, just quote a brief excerpt, and provide proper attribution with a link to the source, but don’t republish the entire article without permission. It will save you a lot of trouble down the road. This is a fairly standard practice on popular blogs.”

In this digital age images we use on website will effect people’ s thinking and aesthetic standard. Without those ethics points the copyright law also a big issue we have to notice.


IMA 504 Legal Links

Social Media demographics – All


Copyright issues – All


Liability Issues and Craigslist – All


State usage of the Internet – Tourism


Sharing in Social Networks – All


Teens and Sexting – Education


How Teens Do Research – Education


The Internet Goes to College – FERPA

The Social, Ethical, and Legal Aspects of Online Education by Holly Curtis

Since the Internet was created it has provided plenty of information and opportunities for one to excel. Over the years the use of the Internet has been an essential tool in higher education. For many years, the Internet has been a substitute for libraries all across the nation.  The Internet provides an abundance of information with endless results. The Internet also plays a major role in transforming and connecting America with other parts of the world.

Although, the growth of online education has grown, in the old days most online opportunities were for higher learning but in recent studies that has changed. Since that change, now almost every student from grades K-12 has used the Internet for some type of research.  Research has shown that in the “last 9 years, enrollments online elementary schools have nearly tripled.” This can provide many benefits in the educational landscape as well as improve performances. The classroom dynamic is changing drastically; a recent study has shown teachers have traded in their chalk and chalkboards for digital technologies. In fact these new digital technologies have become a central tool in teaching.

According to Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project “92 percent of teachers say the internet has a “major impact” on their ability to access content, resources, and materials for their teaching”. For most educators the impact of the Internet and digital technologies play a huge roll in their classrooms. This transformation in teaching has changed the way students learn, interact, and excel in the classroom. Most online educational program allows students to work at their own pace, teachers to alter lesson plans, and increase interaction between students, teachers, and parents.  A system like this would only be effective if each school district and homes in the district has access to the Internet and computers.  Although, we are in the 21-century there is still a digital divide between district, community, and households. There are a number of factors for these divides, one does a house have access to a computer, how far is the education level within a household, and can the household afford Internet access.

Is this ethical to offer an online education system in districts that cannot afford digital technologies? The answer is no, because most broadband technologies are funded by private sectors and are based on subscribers.  Subscribers can also divide the digital gap because “studies suggest that the rate of broadband deployment in urban/suburban and high income areas is outpacing deployment in rural and low-income areas.”  Those who earn higher incomes are most likely to have a computer and access to high speed Internet. Studies show 97 percent of households making over $100,000 a year have access to high speed Internet. That’s a huge gap because 30 percent of households earning less than $20,000 do not have access to Internet or any other digital advancements.  With such digital divisions, institutions must take into consideration the ethical factors, economic differences and learning demands.

When dealing with the ethical factors of online education companies must determined what is acceptable and not acceptable.  There are many policies set in place for professors in an institutional setting in terms of ethics but in terms of online education, teaching knows no boundaries. The Internet is a huge contributor of providing an endless amount of information but what rules are set in place for online educators?

Most education online institutions have their own rules and regulation many of these rules deal with privacy, copyright, and licensing to stop unethical issues.  Every online institutions has one thing in common and that is what’s acceptable usage, how will institutions prevent illegal activities while respecting users privacy?  The truth is they really can’t, people have the right to privacy.

According to PEW Internet “works governed by copyright laws worldwide include traditional works of authorship such as books, photographs, video, and music,” each online instructor must aware of these laws. Each digital learning program must have copyrights to use any material that does not belong to them. Licensing agreements also plays a major part in online teaching, before any institution provides any software to students or staff the must have a licensing agreement.  This will allow student and staff to use any resources available to them without any problems.  Many online institutions have all ready put these rules and regulation to use because online learning is growing and it will continue to grow. The solution is not to avoid the change but embrace it and prepare for it.