In 1996, when the use of the internet became a norm for teenagers, a death threat was e-mailed to 59 Asian students by Richard Machado at the University of California at Irvine. This threat, even though Machado’s lawyer claimed it to be a practical joke, was taken extremely seriously as a hate crime by officials. In the letter, Machado writes, “I personally will make it my life career to find and kill every one of you personally.” The e-mail was then sent to his handpicked victims from a campus computer, ending this lovely letter by signing “Asian Hater.”

The jury didn’t know how to approach this case, since this was the first known hate mail via internet. This means that there were also no written laws quite yet on what you can and cannot say, post, and send on the internet. Since the jury was so baffled on this how to go about judging this crime through a new medium, there were two trials, since the first ended in mistrial after the jury deadlocked. The second trial his charges lessened from ten counts of civil rights law violations to two counts. His charges lessened most likely because there was no solid ground and written law that dealt specifically with online crimes. In the second trial, the jury decided that a line must be drawn in cyberspace, and that making an offense online will be treated with the same criminal penalties as threats of the telephone or post mail.

This case was crucial in paving the road for how online crimes would be treated. Some people mistakenly think that they are safe from getting in trouble when they are behind a computer screen as an anonymous commenter. Machado was one of these people. He thought that since these threats were done online and anonymously, or so he thought, that he would be safe from getting in trouble. But this Asian Hater was really just making himself a model to other people who think they could get away with online crimes.

Julie Brennan

Apparently Marvel Enterprise was  extremely upset with publisher NCsoft and developer Cryptic Studios for allowing consumers of the video game, “City of Heroes” having the ability to create characters that looked  just like those of The Hulk, Wolverine and other Marvel characters. Marvel intended to sue both NCsoft and Cryptic for copyright infringement. NCsoft said they can not be accountable for their consumers actions. Along side infringement charges, MArvel was also trying to stop Skindex from selling Marvel skins themes for their games. I stand on a neutral side in terms of the argument Marvel has with NCsoft, but completely believe Marvel has every reason and then some to be furious with Skindex and demand for them to stop.

I feel as though Marvel has a right to be upset for the fact that “City of Heroes” is a competitor in the field of video games and my potentially receiving extra profit by allowing simulations to duplicate those of Marvel. What if that was NCsoft’s indirect blow at Marvel but cutting into Marvel profit by creating a game where gamers have the ability to create the same awesome characters of a Marvel video game without evan having to buy it. tHowever on the other had,what if NCsoft had no knowledge of this factor, or what not a main priority of the development of the game, and gamers themselves  stumbles upon the phenpnenan. Is it still ok for Marvel to potentially sew a company that had no recollection or intention of mimicking another company’s product. I partially don’t feel that NCsoft should be held accountable for the consumers action. NCsoft didn’t tell consumers to create Marvel characters, the individuals chose to do so on their own accord.

On the other hand I do believe Marvel has every right to be upset Skindex. In that case I feel as though Skindex was doing the same thing that Marvel was accusing  NCsoft of doing, accept the only difference is Skindex knew exactly what they were doing and knew they were barricading Marvel’s profits. If that be the case I feel Marvel should take advantage of a bad situation and get every single penny out Skindex as possible. Skindex had every intention on making a profit off of Marvel’s creations with no intention of allowing them in on any of the revenue.

Jamilla Schuster

As a kid I never really thought about what exactly goes on behind the scenes of a political campaign. I always thought it was just a lot of boring old men talk about politics and the crazy people who ran around yelling at people to support them. Sure I knew about campaign managers and such but I didn’t realize the extent to which the average supporter actually saw in terms of everything that goes one behind the scenes. When you’re seeing a thousand and a half campaigns coming at you during campaign seeing you just sort of plow through them and not even consider that hard that goes into every single ad and annoying email.

Back in 2008 when it was Obama and that other old guy (whose name I feel really bad for all of the sudden forgetting…), Obama definitely seemed to have upper hand when it came to getting younger voters and knowing how to catch their attention in this new digital age of campaigning. He knew to hire all the right people to manage his website, his entire internet fund raising tactics and he got the right strategists for his email campaigning. And there were a lot other things revealed by this article that I had no clue was happening at the time.

Obama’s campaign really knew exactly how to reach it’s audience and show the nation that Obama truly was going to be a good president. The people of his campaign knew how to take full advantage of the internet and Obama website, interacting with voters in ways that have never seen before or was ever even possible until this day and age. Other than actual live appearances and news reports many of the Obama supporters knew about his process through the campaign emails they received. They also didn’t feel as though they were receiving robot generated emails. They received actual “hand written” emails from Michelle Obama. No wonder they were able to generate $500 millions in campaign funds from online web users alone. How much did the other candidate make? I have no clue but it probably wasn’t anywhere near that much. It would have been nice had the article provided that information in order to show just how much more successful Obama’s digital campaign was than McCain’s was.

His campaign people also knew how to just be normal. They didn’t claim copyright or anything when the rural farmers asked to use the Obama logo, nope they said go for it and have a blast creating even more publicity by simply being nice and letting the people do what they wanted with it. I believe the sense that people could control the outcome of the campaign really helped. Its the sense of control but the not the actual control.

-Vivian Rae Leonard

When Lori Drew, age 49, learned her son was interacting with thirteen year old Megan Meirer, she hacked her son’s online account to get to know the younger girl. She created a false identity of the teenage boy and courted Meier, and when her curiosity was satisfied, she sent Meier a final email:

“The world is a better place without you.”

Megan replied: “You’re the kind of boy a girl would kill herself over.” That afternoon, she hung herself in her bedroom.

This startling and tragic case is just one of many that show just how much our world has changed. It seems that today it’s not just information and text we post online, but our actual souls and feelings, trusting blindly whoever is on the “other side” of the screen. But as this case shows, the consequences of taking such actions are foggy for both the victim and the perpetrator.

Lori Drew convinced a lonely girl to kill herself, but her punishment was reduced to misdemeanors. MySpace, not knowing how to handle such a strange case, didn’t even know what exactly it was that Drew did wrong.

Instead, a jury of 12 members charged Drew with counts of conspiracy and gaining access to a computer without authorization.

For me, this is a fascinating case because while we do not use MySpace today, I remember using this in middle school. For a sensitive, over-trusting child at that age, it can be easy to be manipulated over seemingly meaningless things as crushes on boys, but it’s disturbing to realize we’ve become so numb to this type of interaction.

Many times, all we see are words and frozen images. The internet can seem so dehumanized that it’s all just a game or something to amuse oneself with on a boring afternoon. It truly numbs us to reality. Cases like this show that there are very real consequences to our actions online, and even if the phrases are typed into a keyboard, the message is still received, loud and clear. Still, our legal system is lagging a bit behind the crazy and complex system of the internet. We are practically running wild in the internet world, but it’s strange to see how regulation is slowly, but surely, affecting this part of our lives.

The emotional response is, of course, very strong in people. Megan can remind us of sisters and little cousins, but underneath that emotional trigger is the sticky legal situation. Drew is, to my moral standard, despicable, especially after such meticulous lying and manipulating, and yet, when we look past the very strong emotional response, she technically broke no rules. The only charges she faces are misdemeanors. This is a bizarre case that exists in the gray of things. It’s a “recent” case, an “anomaly,” but this is a case to learn from. Today, we linger in those grey areas. Sooner or later, we may even have a Supreme Court ruling on how far internet users can be held responsible, despite how harmless, even silly, the internet seems today.

As Thomas O’Brien, United States attorney at Los Angeles, puts it, “If you are going to attempt to annoy or go after a little girl and you’re going to use the Internet to do so…this office and others across the country will hold you responsible.”

These days, it’s very bizarre how deeply connected we are in a digital world when we sit alone in our rooms. This has its advantages and dangers, and cases like Lori Drew’s keep us critical of that often overlooked connection.

– Brianna Lee

Section 40

This essay describes the emergence of technology in the 1920’s. Radio dominated the 20’s and was used to entertain people or inform people of news events. During the roaring 20’s, media was focused on entertainment rather than important news stories. Anyone who appeared in the press became an instant celebrity. Many journalists sensationalized stories, which is prevalent in society today as well. Journalists may twist the facts in order to get a more “juicy” story. Although journalists today don’t sensationalize and twist facts as much as they did in the 20’s, it still exists and we should be aware of it. After the emergence of sound to film, radio mostly aired news events or newspaper readings. Many politicians knew that people at home were listening to them, so they had to learn public speaking skills. It then expanded to stock market and weather reports, comedy and major sporting events.

Radio was perceived as a more effective communications tool compared to print, because it reached a larger audience and people who couldn’t read could listen to the radio. Radio attracted advertisers because of the large audience, and these advertisers helped pay for many radio broadcasts. This is still true today. Advertising continues to be the most important economic support for many media forms.  Popular culture took over the 1920’s and established media as a powerful tool for influencing the ideas, opinions and buying habits of the public. Today, popular culture uses media to influence ideas and buying habits as well. Although the 1920′ s seems like such a long time ago, media’s influence on society is almost exactly how it was back then. New technologies attract large audiences, journalists continue to  exaggerate stories, politicians study public speaking skills in order to appeal to audiences watching them on television or listening to them on the radio, and pop culture continues to influence media while media continues to influence pop culture.

-Jeanne Franco

Pirate Bay is a search engine that most computer users use to find and download torrents of the things they want. Some of those torrents include, movies (especially those still in theaters), music (especially of unreleased music or leaks), software and other things you could imagine to download that may costs you tons of money. These days it is very expensive to continuously buy products that way out of our budget range. It seems like it is easier for users to risk getting a virus on their computer than to go out and buy the physical product. It is the generation of technology and we find that doing things online is much easier than the physical aspect.

This article speaks about the lawsuit that the Pirate Bay faced against the entertainment industry. They lost the lawsuit and owed the entertainment industry over 3 million dollars. They are accused of using their website to pirate many different types of entertainment resources (music, movies, games, etc). The article raises the question if whether or not this search engine should be blamed for the content within its premises. It also raised the point that the entertainment industry, by continuously  wining these same kind of law suits, may be hurting themselves in the long run. Author Paulo Coehlo, says that the pirate bay was very beneficial to his book, gave him plenty of attention and a fan base. He doesn’t feel that even he, as an author, could be hurt by such a thing. No matter how much you try to restrict things, people will find a loophole around the system.

The issue of piracy has been a huge one for the entertainment industry since the internet became immensely popular, around the AOL times. It all started off with programs like ‘Napstar’ that allowed you to search and find music of all kinds for free. The only way you were able to access these files was by a user uploading it themselves to the database. But of course Napstar and all of the other programs that followed soon became illegal because ‘it hurt the entertainment’ industry. That didn’t stop users from finding a new way to download. They set up free websites, torrents and many other ways to help users download the content they desired, but could we really blame the base of all this content? Or should we be blaming the people for finding away to leak and upload these contents for free for all to use. Is the real threat is that the entertainment industry is actually hurting from piracy or is the issue that they are upset they didn’t think of doing this before.

In all honesty I believe that the industry will benefit from leaking their material for free. It was said that the majority of the money these entertainers receive are not from sales of the actual merchandise (since they only receive a portion). You can only sell but so much $8.99 CDS in order to get $1,000. Below is a list of the reasons why I think that for the industry, piracy, is not so bad, based on my own experiences:

1. It helps users want to actually go out and buy the product to keep.
– I’m pretty sure I am not the only one who has bought a cd, only to like 2 or 3 songs. If we calculate all the songs we have running through our phones and iPods I’m pretty sure we will be $1,000s in debt. Why would I go and waste 15 dollars on a CD only to like, at max of 5 songs. The rest of the songs go to waste. People don’t listen to CD players anymore so the physical item also goes to waste. I know once I got my iPod all of the physical CDS I had got burned onto my computer then to my iPod, I discard the CDS after. That brings me to my second point, by previewing the material before hand, it will pursued me to want to go out and buy the product, with the exception of my favorites. This can apply to books, games, dvds etc. There has been many times that I have previewed things and then went out and bought the actual material. Its like I want to keep it forever and we all know technology is unreliable.

2. It helps build the fanbase.
– A lot of the times the reason why I fell in love with something or become a fan of it is because I was introduced to it by someone else. For example when I got introduced to the British Sci-Fi show Doctor Who, I instantly fell in love with the show. It prompted me to want to own all things Doctor Who. I wanted the screwdriver pens, the Monopoly version of the show and even a blanket. I constantly watched episodes of the leaked show on my computer before it even premiered here in the US (it comes on in London first). I watched all 7 seasons for free on my computer. By me becoming such a big fan, it just made me want it more, in turn making me want to buy more. You can apply this thought for everything, especially books, movies and music.

3. If they dont do it someone else will.
–  Face it, if the industry doesn’t pick up, catch up and try new thing, someone else will. Leave it to a bored hacker to make everything easier for the budget friendly user. I mean come on who doesn’t love, free.99? You want to be able to say, we did it first. At least if the industry itself leak the content, they are able to control whats actually out there. After all the better the hacker the more that will become leaked. By controlling what gets leaked and how much of it does, it makes the users crave more. Release the leak for a day, the more people love it the more people would want to go and see the movie, or buy the book, or get the merchandise.

4. Everything’s digital anyway. Technology trumps the physical.
– With the Kindles, Nooks, Simulators, Internet, iPods and others sorts of technology, people are finding it way easier just to have their things in one place and go. How many people actually still walk around with the 3-4 books they’re currently reading, unless they love walking around with many bags with all their content separated, the majority of people find a way to keep everything compact. All their music? On an ipod. Their books? On an Kindle. The advances of technology has trumped the physical on just about any and everything. The only thing I believe people still get up for is a movie in the theaters, and even then people settle for the leak on the laptop screen. Setting up preview booths or subscriptions may help this little issue along. For example: Rhapsody, $10 a month and you get all the music you want to download.

5. The content is limited.
– The systems of the world work differently. There are many times where I can’t even access the content from the UK or many other countries. If I cant access I’m pretty sure they can’t either. By leaking material, you are sending your product all around the world where everyone can find a common ground to access said materials. The internet is a very vital place for overseas communication. If they get access to the things over here, I’m pretty sure #2 will be for certain.

All in all no matter what does the industry does, someone out there will find a way around the firewall and this article agrees. They article says and I quote “The ultimate problem, of course, is that the entertainment industry still (amazingly) thinks this is a legal issue, not a business model one.” It doesnt matter how many times the industry wins, if they don’t change the way things are done its going to be harder to suck the consumers in. While they are sitting and fighting over lawsuits, people are just looking for new ways to get things for free. Attacking the surface wont do much…the problem is at the root.

The article also states in the closing “Peter “brokep” Sunde, was informed about the verdict early, and joked that: ‘It used to be only movies, now even verdicts are out before the official release.” So… does that mean whoever leaked the verdict is guilty of piracy’.” Who is really to blame for the situation of the industry’s decline in money? The people who actual leak, the people who hosts websites where you can find the leaks, or the industry itself? The fingers will continue to be pointed but if things the change consumers will continue to click away at computer screen, finding and downloading more content. Doesnt matter how much illegal it gets, where theres a will theres a way.

By Abigail Torres

One of the significant factors that made the hoax believable was the approach of World War II.  More importantly was the decision by CBS to send reporters to Europe to report on the impending crisis in Europe.  This would lead CBS to make a decision that was never done before; they began to frequently interrupt programs in order to broadcast news bulletins with live reports and eyewitnesses. By the time of the hoax, most, if not all, viewers would be used to these interruptions.

Another factor that made the hoax believable was the broadcast of the eyewitness account of the Hindenburg disaster which happened the previous year. This would make any eyewitness report of a particular disaster not seem out of the ordinary. This disaster was also used to the actors’ benefit as they studied and replayed the broadcast to themselves over and over again in order to deliver a realistic broadcast of a disaster.

In the end, learning the details of the War of the Worlds hoax does not make me feel differently about factual news reports. If a person knows were to get his or her news he or she would get it from a reputable source. A person can be sure that the articles have gone through quite the process in order to be verified. Also, if any details are incorrect they are generally corrected pretty quickly.

Moreover, I feel the RadioLab show did an excellent job in presenting the story. They really put a person into the atmosphere of it all. This was done with the use of spot-on sound which would include voice and sound effects. But what may have helped with the immersion the most was the specific placement of it all. They play snippets of the broadcast non-linearly . Starting the story in media res as opposed to its natural beginning makes a person see it from the point of view of the majority of the audience before eventually playing the opening snippet.

In retrospect, I believe a media hoax like this could certainly happen today. Though, much like the War of the Worlds broadcast, the people who do believe it would be minimal. If it happens and when it has happened, it usually happens on the newest media technology. At the 1930s it was the radio and in our current times it would be the internet.  In order for a hoax like this to be believable it would have to be something that would elicit a huge emotional response quickly. This would typically be reports of a fake celebrity death which would elicit a lamenting or sad response as opposed to a deductive response. Another way a hoax can be believable is if something is discovered that a group of people want to believe which can also count largely as an emotional response. Examples of this can be the publication of a fake scientific study that proves that conservatives have lower IQs which liberals will revel in or conversely, one that proves liberals have lower IQs which conservatives would take equal pleasure in seeing. A good believable hoax will have a mix of the two.

-Edward Peralta

What historical factors made this hoax believable?

The War of the Worlds broadcast was made so believable, I think, mostly because of the previous live broadcast of the crash of Hindenburg. People were obviously beginning to trust what the radio had to put out since this broadcast was played during the radio’s golden age. This was made especially believable because this radio station wasn’t very popular, and people who were just scrolling through the stations and didn’t hear that the broadcast was fake.

How did the actors prepare?

The actors prepared by listening to the radio broadcast of the crash of Hindenburg. Since the actors were basing their performance on this live fatal event, it’s no wonder why people who were casually scrolling through the dial who heard the hysteria on the radio believed this broadcast to be true.

Do you think this kind of media hoax could happen today? If so, what format would you suppose it might take? What story could be believable? If you were creating this hoax, what would it be?

I believe that a hoax like this could happen today, especially with the media of the internet and television. If someone was flipping through the channels and happen to come across a fake news report that looked legitimate about an alien invasion, people would use their cell phones to text their friends, tweet, post Facebook status’, spreading this information to a wider audience, thus causing mass hysteria. I don’t believe that it would go as far as the World of the Wars broadcast hysteria went, because the more media outlets, the easier it is to get to the truth. People solely relied on the radio to get immediate information in 1938, because a newspaper report wouldn’t be out until the next day.

Does learning the details of the War of the Worlds hoax make you feel differently about factual news reports? Why?

Learning the details of the War of the Worlds hoax doesn’t make me feel much different about factual news reports, because factual news reports aren’t plays imitating real tragic events.

Do you think the RadioLab show did a good job in presenting this story? What tools did they use? What sounds are used on the show other than voice?

I believe RadioLab did a good job in presenting this story, because it gave details on how people were most likely acting at home listening to this report.  The sounds of the invasion in the broadcast made it especially believable.

-Julie Brennan

Credibility:  

The most significant historical circumstance that made this media hoax believable was World War II. There were constant news reports on the radio concerning the war and the actions of Hitler at this time. Additionally, the breaking news reports were a fairly new thing at this time, where regular programs were frequently interrupted for news reports. So when most people thought that a typical evening radio show was “interrupted” it seemed like another report.

Preparation: 

In order to prepare for the role, the actors listened to radio tapes from the Hindenburg crash that happened just one year earlier. This is the event that made the phrase,”Oh, the humanity!” famous. The tapes were live reports of a disaster that would not be unlike the one broadcasted on October 30th, 1938. Actors were able to listen to real-life panic that would influenced their performance.

Contemporary Hoaxes: 

We see hoaxes in the media all the time, although they are not as drastic as the War or the Worlds broadcast. It is more common to hear that a beloved actor has died, just to find out later that it was all just a hoax. Because there are so many ways that any given person can access the media, for a hoax this widespread to work today, it would have to go far beyond just the news. There would need to be reports on various websites, television channels and social media sites as well as some physical evidence. If the report stated that an alien spaceship landed in Grover’s Mill, New Jersey, there would have to be some sort of fake spaceship put there discretely because residents could easily go on twitter or facebook and let everyone know that nothing is going on. If a large-scale hoax were to happen today, and be believable, it would have to be very elaborate and would require a lot of preparation.

Factual New Reports: 

Learning about the War or the Worlds broadcast does not change my opinion of factual news reports. There are always sources that claim to report the news but it is necessary to be able to differentiate between which sources are actually reliable. It is important to keep in mind that before the broadcast, it was announced that the report was a fictional story. As long as you are getting all the details, you can form your own opinions. 

RadioLab:  

RadioLab did a very good job presenting the story to their listeners. In addition to both summarizing and analyzing the event, they also provided actual tapes of the broadcast and the broadcast of the Hindenburg crash as well as other historical context to make us experience the radio show with the same kind of mindset that listeners would have had in 1938. RadioLab was able to make their listeners understand the broadcast from the actual listeners perspectives and that is what made their show a good one.

-Emily DiPaola

       This episode of Radiolab comes to show how persuasive radio was and how reliable the people were in it. The hoax of War of the Worlds seemed reliable because of the arising war in Germany also known as World War 2 and Hitler’s invasions. Since it was normal for the radio to be interrupted for ” breaking news” and important news around the world this broadcast wasn’t a surprise therefore it seemed much more believable.
                To convince the audience the characters were very well prepared they repeatedly listen to ” oh humanity” and clips of previous news stories from the days before when actors reported they tried to sound exactly like these Recordings. What made them great actors was the way they reported it they reported with such emotion like of the people of the hindleBerg crash panicked and distressed tones made them great actors and convincing for the audience. 
        Even though this hoax was successful back then today a hoax like this wouldn’t.  Unless every single news report channel journalists bloggers newspapers radios play online with out even then it wouldn’t be able to work because nowadays people are more media literate. When I doubt a news report I’ll look it up on the internet or change the channel since they use the repeat news on every news channel I would configure if the news is true.  A hoax like this would usually be revealed and criticized by news and scandal shows. If I were to pull a hoax I would do it as if a tsunami were coming my way and they were flooding my village and it was coming their way,  I hope you like this would be really cool but it would be fun to watch because people would panic they would run they would hide and some people wouldn’t know what to do. 
            Details of this case haven’t changed my mind about factual news reports because there’s always a way to confirm if a news report is true. But it did show me   that people were gullible because they were too reliable on the radio but I wouldn’t blame them since people have limited resources of medium,  the radio and newspapers were the only source of media so they were basically vulnerable to radio. 
          I like the way that Radiolab analyze the hoax for example I would have never figured that the hoax had anything to do with World War 2. Radiolab also analyzed how effective this hoax was because radio was one of the very few medium sources people had back in the 19 forties and had no way to confirm.

                         -Wilson cabrera