Recut, Reframe, Recycle

In their report, "Recut, Reframe, Recycle," Aufderheide and Jaszi discuss the boundaries of Intellectual Property. They begin by exmaning the idea of fair use and encouraging and promoting creativity, in using pertinent cultural examples, such as mash up videos and user redone video clips. But, they also examine the grey areas that often find users of "fair use content" in hot water, as a result of ambiguous guidelines. Fair use, is ment to protect the creativity and progress of culture of the community at large, so it is frustrating to hear that copyright laws are beginning to creep into this territory, as websites like Youtube make it harder to regulate the sorts of content, and their legality. As the lines between audience and creator become less defined, the element of control--and who has it--becomes a serious concern for the "original" creators. Aufderheide and Jaszi speak a lot about mash ups, which I find to be empirically different then if the creator had taken one element of a mash up and claimed it as their own. That being said, a mash up should always fall into fair use, but it seems that Aufderheide and Jaszi address concerns over the content within these mash ups. I think what is most alarming is that the audience, which is now creating, is losing control over their own creations because their is ambiguity within the idea of fair use. Aufderheide and Jaszi conclude with this idea which I thought was significant, "The culture that is emerging can be channeled, encouraged, even deformed, but it cannot be cut off. The people formerly known as the audience are not returning to their previous state. Tomorrow’s makers will continue to use the popular culture they interact with as raw material for their own work." The borderline issues that they discuss will be responsible for how fair use continues to play a role in user generated content, like mash ups but also audience creativity.

Extinguishing the Subculture

"Recut, Reframe, Recycle" was helpful in many ways: on one hand, it was an incredible timeline of YouTube videos that allowed me to retrace my steps and watch some greats that I had missed over the years. More pertinent to our class, however, I found it especially helpful in approaching the fair-use methods through a lens that made sense to most twenty-somethings. Of course, we have discussed many fair-use instances in class, yet by applying the different examples to specific YouTube videos, the picture was much more clear and engaging.
My favorite part of the article, however, was not the ways in which online videos are fair, but the ways in which online video shape a newfound popular culture. The author writes, "Online video making is part of a much larger process in which the people formerly known as audiences of mass media or consumers of popular culture are asserting themselves as participants in culture-making." This is a thought I've had for a while now, as artists like P. Diddy release video blogs direct to YouTube, or producers show "how they made the beat" on their respective MySpace. More now than ever, it seems the line between consumer and creator has blurred to the point where the consumer is the creator. By writing comments, responding with videos or simply applying a link to another video, the consumer plays an active role in popular culture rather than simply consuming.
In reading the article, however, I noticed a slight undertone that bothered me. This, of course, can be my own anxiety, but by focusing popular culture around internet videos and global interaction, pop culture becomes limitless - it becomes almost too accessible. For example, in the video we watched during class, Girl Talk has access to a Brazilian dance and music culture in moments. He then has the ability to remix the music and play it for an audience out of context. On one hand , this is a brilliant testament to the internet's ability to promote creativity. On the other hand, it is an exploitation of a subculture that Girl Talk knows nothing about. This, of course, is how culture becomes popular culture, yet it seems to do so at a price - I can watch and hear and wikipedia everything about a Brazilian subculture but I will never once actually know it.

Online Culture is Here to Stay

There is something that was said in the conclusion of the "Recut, Reframe, Recycle" report that really made me think about the whole state of affairs of new technologies: 

"The culture that is emerging can be channeled, encouraged, even deformed, but it cannot be cut off.  The people formerly known as the audience are not returning to their previous state.  Tomorrow's makers will continue to use the popular culture they interact with as raw material for their own work."

We as an 'audience' have always been seen solely as such, especially by media corporations.  THe problem that we face today, stems from their reluctance to see us as something else.  With all the technology available to consumers today, we 'normal people' are now able to produce new works and share them with everyone.  Whether they be derivative, transformative, or even just contain clips from other works, these are ours.  There should definitely be some type of fair use available to consumers to create, as it's absurd that these comments on ourselves and our culture should be considered copyright infringement, especially if due credit is given, and the new works are noncommercial.  And that's just the issue, most (if not all) of these types of works are noncommercial, and therefore are not competition for the media corporations.  The works are simply the people of our society commenting on it, and sharing it with others, and since when is that illegal?

This week's article on what the author calls the "Harry Potter wars" raised some very interesting questions about how the learning process and creative development is changing rapidly with the growing importance of media literacy. The phenomenon of high levels of emotional investment in media products is nothing new, especially in terms of younger audiences. The concept of kids' immersion into the fictional world of Harry Potter isn't too different than the same practice done with Pokemon, Power Rangers, Sesame Street or Barbie. Every generation has been presented with its own detailed fictional world in the form of a media product and the point has always been for kids to become obsessed. The only difference now is that technology has opened up a space for kids to offer highly visible feedback that goes beyond the control and expectations of the producers.

It is very interesting to see media producers become antsy about fan cultures participating 'too much' in the fiction because it portrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the importance of media literacy in being an active consumer. The kids that create fan websites or write fan fiction are really just validating the product. Media technology now suggests that we create and fully identifying with a product nearly necessitates that you participate in it through interactive media. Media producers should be grateful for this kind of unpaid validation. It is backwards for media producers that couldn't possibly fathom the innocence of such fan culture that is as global and powerful as harrypotterguide.co.uk because of a rigid age gap to try and oppress the movement.

Beyond validating the product itself, fan culture through interactive medias has substantial benefits for childhood development. The fact is, a lot of kids are spending more time on the computer than they are outside playing Red Rover. So the transcendence of fantasy and playtime into the new millennium is crucial to kids holding on to their creative minds. I do recognize the concern that such emotional investment in an already formulated and detailed world may hinder original thought. While there are a bunch of kids who bring a good deal of originality and personal identity to their fantasy realizations online, more kids are probably taking a more passive role and thereby just playing by the rules of the product. While this is a valid concern, I think that this problem can be abated by the balance with 'autonomous learning' that kids receive in school.

briana berry

Information ethics

"Another element of contemporary debate over cultural and intellectual property is the claim that indigenous knowledge currently available in the public domain was obtained under circumstances so inherently coercive that it should either be sequestered or returned to its source community" (Brown 199). While I can surely appreciate the concern for marginalized or exploited cultures, it would be ridiculous to go so far as to efface any hitherto studies from the ethnographic canon. The Nazi example that Brown references, which is extreme, to be sure, is an extremely pointed one. Following World War II, Europe has expressed its condemnation of the Holocaust by "quarantining" potentially valuable information regarding its very existence. This is no way to pledge solidarity with/respect for the victims of such atrocities. It seems obvious enough, but information must be preserved and accessible if we are to ever progress in any way.

One Size Fits...Most

"There cannot be a "one size fits all" approach to fair use analysis of videos." 

- Recut, Reframe, Recycle: Quoting Copyrighted Material in User-Generated Video. 

In their article "Recut, Reframe, Recycle," Aufderheide and Jaszi discuss the fair use applications and relevancy regarding the use of copyrighted material in a user-generated videos. Although the doctrine of fair use is often criticized for being vague and ambiguous, Aufderheide and Jaszi argue that its unrestrictive nature is actually beneficial and encourages experimentation in user-generated video. They see a promising future for the application of fair use to online video making, noting that the decisions made today with create a blueprint for the future. They argue, "Since fair use doctrine evolves with creative practice, these borderline cases provide important areas for future research and analysis. 

In the "Next Steps" section of their article, they give advice on what can be done to clarify the application of fair use in this new medium in order to "continue contributing to our collective social and cultural life." They promote discussion (via blogs etc.), education, a survey of social scientific and participant-observation research of online user practices to inform next steps, and an articulated code of best practices around fair use in online video. This code would help establish an more cohesive online user-generated video community. At the same time, however, Aufderheide and Jaszi recognize the difficulty in doing so. On the one hand, "Legislative intervention to re-tailor the delicate fabric of fair use could do more harm than good." On the other hand, guidance on fair use encourages expression within law. There will never be one right answer. Every case will ultimately be tried on a case-by-case basis, however it is important to increase awareness and education to the makers/creators of these videos. 

harry potter, amateur expression, fair use

It's so funny to see big companies repeatedly go after innocent victims who have no intention on gaining money or putting a bad name on a product-just to see these companies turn around after a big fuss has been made all over the media and say that it was all a misunderstanding. No, clearly if a media circus was not created then the big company would have no problem silently reprimanding people with no intention to harm, and in the case of Media Literacy and the Harry Potter Wars, the kids and teenagers who use the idea of Harry Potter are being punished for learning, exploring, and creating."Currently copyright law simply doesn't have a category for dealing with amateur creative expression" Well, that's just what it is armature expression so how do you punish a kid just learning to express themselves the same way you punish an adult author? You cant, just showing that this is just another problem the copyright law is lacking in. At the same time you would have to define what amateur expression is. Is it that of a child, teenager, non-published adult?How do you define who gets to follow the rules and who does not. At the same time, "Many adults worry that these kids are 'copying' preexisting media content rather then creating their own original words." Well, where would Walt Disney be if he did not take his stories from somewhere else and make them his own?

Rowlings & Company

Chapter 5 of Jenkin’s Convergence Culture focuses on the realm of fan fiction. While I personally have never written nor read any fan fiction of the Henry Potter genre or of any other genre, I can clearly understand that fan fiction, adds value to the Harry Potter series as a whole. Although one might argue that the people reading and writing fan fiction websites for Harry Potter are already die-hard fans, its important to remember that JK Rowling, Warner Brothers and the publishing companies probably make a majority of their profits from this small, specialized niche population of fans. So when Rowling and company decide to turn around and tell their most loyal fans that they must “cease and desist” all actions because if violates copyright, Rowlings is seemingly stabbing herself in the back. Sure, its likely the people who frequent, contribute and run the website, will continue to purchase the books and movies, they might hesitate to snatch up the latest Harry Potter figurine, where the real money is made.

Also, copyright is supposed to reward the creative minds behind the product and to encourage creativity. However, whether the fan sites continued to run or not (none of which earn a profit), JK Rowling & Warner Brothers and her publisher were going to continuing to publish the Harry Potter series already. IN this case, its not so much encouraging the creativity of JK Rowling, the publishers or the movie producers, as it is protecting their wallets.

Lastly, how is copyright supposed to encourage creativity, while at the same time inhibiting it?

YouTube Should Be a Fair Use Haven...

We live in the time of WEB 2.0, a world in which the internet is a platform and people across the world are documenting their experiences online. This current digital age in which we live is in many ways a move back to oral  culture, a time when there was no copyright law. In the times of Homer, humans shared culture with each other. Culture was disseminated from person to person and in that way like a game of telephone, reflecting some internal bias of the sender. Though Homer's Odyssey may have had place-markers to keep some level of coherence between bards, everyone's voice is different as is their movement and in that way the message and meaning of the peace is changed. In "Recut, Reframe, and Reuse...", Sieling presents the argument that user-generated video content using copyrighted material is fair use. I agree that it is. The Web 2.0 age is the age of commentary and critique. We live in a world in which people comment on material and use it as a grounds for generating content. The example of "Box in a Box" is presented and though it does indeed play of "Dick in a Box", it is A) a parody and B) a source of free PR for its parent video. Parodies increase cultural wealth and PR is beneficial to SNL, so really what's not to like? Yet as we've learned throughout this course, corporations like to tie up intellectual property, it is in many ways an asset for them that they shield and protect. Honestly though this is foolish like any good asset intellectual property should be allowed to grow and flourish... to collect interest so to speak. I suggest this example: Youtube.com presents examples of related videos so when "Box in a Box" appears as a related video to "Dick in a Box", in a relation not unlike the one described in Sinnreich and Gluck's fashion  article, the user-generated content is linked to the parent video. Ultimately user-generated video is a positive thing, it is sometimes though-provoking, it is a source of PR for corporations and it is indicative of the narrative tradition of our current culture: like the Bards of Ancient Greece it allows people to tell the narratives that shape their lives in their own words. The internet allows for world-wide distribution and world-wide critique and we should cherish both of those uses.

Let Heather write.

The article, "Why Heather Can Write" proposed some valid arguments as to why a child should not be able to utilize the creative products of the Harry Potter series and brand, but I still cannot help to believe that the legal ramifications for considering such as copyright infringement are unnecessary and not called for. Firstly, Harry Potter was pushed into the public domain the day it was published. The children who read any one of the novels most likely read and gained this particular imaginary experience from a copy of the book which they, or their parents, paid for, rented from the library or borrowed from a friend. [Sidenote: if child lends a book to his friend, is that considered illegal circulation with the same sort of negative connotation as file sharing? The argument thus follows that if record labels can go after kids downloading music from the Internet via file sharing portals, then publishers should be able to go after little kids lending their books to one another...that's ridiculous.] Now back to the original point; children absorb creative content from reading and imagining. Culture needs to be understood as something collective and children, of all people, should be given the freedom to fully participate, after all, the future is in their hands. Participation should include the ability to share and compare values, share experiences, to express "interpretations and feelings toward popular fictions." Kids will be kids, and I do not believe that Heather and her staff intend to rip off Rowling. They are simply collaborating and exercising their freedom to express their imagination collectively held together by the common interest in this pop fictional product--Harry Potter. Jenkins discusses this idea of role playing as a way to explore the fictional realm and as a way of understanding the culture that surrounds you. Not only do I strongly agree with this statement, but I also believe that readers, young and old alike, hold the crucial role being the very market authors are making money in. Without the participation of consumers, authors' works would be much less valuable, and I find it a bit ironic that these authors are crying, "copyright infringement!"

To Heather and those who contribute to the online periodical based on Harry Potter, their product is not purposefully stealing profits from Harry Potter. The very idea of an online periodical based on Harry Potter is in itself a unique idea.

Wait wait... what is fair use?

With so many people being sued and pressured by media giants, it seems that Fair Use has lost its potency. Fair use was included in copyright laws for exactly the same reasons that authors were given control of their creations; to promote creativity and to encourage the production of culture. The balance of these two equally important parts of the law has gotten severely out of whack. The corporations that own the copyrights to a big chunk of our culture have been taking advantage of the murkiness that the internet and digital age has presented the world with. Pop culture has never before been so participatory. I wrote in my paper about how mix tapes were an iconic part of the youth culture in the 80s, which was one of the first times people were able to use technology in a way that made artifacts of their culture tools for expression and criticism. In the 21st century this level of involvement has grown exponentially, opening up gateways for millions of users to experience the home-brewed digital creations made by anyone with a computer and an idea. Prior to this explosion, fair use had mainly been invoked by documentary film makers who are constantly mashing up and critiquing culture, and the collective of documentary filmakers werea ble to define the circumstances for fair use more accurately by designing a code of practice, the "Documentary Filmakers' Statement of Best Practice in Fair Use." The article Recut, Reframe, Recycle outlines the bigger trends in online media creation and shows that the majority of works being uploaded to the web could be protected under fair use. Now is the time for the authors and viewers of these works to stand together in the name of fair use to fight back against the heavy handed and sweeping claims the bigger corporations are making about the extent of their rights reagarding their copyrights. We cannot stand by idly during this time of transformation. Like the documentary film makers did, the internet video creators should create a code of practice outlining the terms of fair use in online media content. If these rules are adhered to, we can increase the amount of protection the fair use provides by showing that an author followed the code. Perhaps if an author has paid particular attention to the code they can "approve" their content to show that they believe their work is protected by fair use. Obviously it would be impossible to monitor and judge each creation on its own merit, but it may prevent corporations like Viacom from using the DMCA to order sweeping take down notices on works that are culturally valuable.

A Wikipedian Meritocracy and Anonimity on the Internet

One of the most interesting parts of Schiff's article Know It All was the editor's note at the bottom of the page. Essjay, it turns out, is no tenured theology professor but instead a 24-year-old with no advanced degrees. But this fact does nothing to discredit him in his role on Wikipedia. Regardless of biography, he has earned respect and recognition regardless of the accuracy of his user profile. This calls into question our own expectations about what people are capable of. An advanced degree does not make someone better at resolving disputes. The anonymity on the internet creates a space where meritocracy can actually function. Regardless of race, gender, class, education, nationality, or even age, you can gain recognition for your work through anonimity or pseudonyms.

zomg fan fiction!!1!

I was surprised to find that one of our readings this week discussed Harry Potter fan fiction in depth, and the issues it raises regarding intellectual property -- specifically, fair use. Years ago, when I was in middle school, my best friend and I (who were/are huge Harry Potter fans) stumbled across this thing called "fan fiction" for the first time and thought it was pretty lame. But after parsing through the seemingly hundreds of websites on the topic, we found a few pretty funny stories, and would actually check out The Daily Prophet and The Sugar Quill (both mentioned in the article). Eventually my interest in fan fiction waned, mainly because there was SO much out there, but even then I thought the idea was pretty valuable, since it allowed young people (and old) to write, discuss, and comment on a shared interest, all the while honing their writing and editing skills. Obviously back then I didn't think about copyright, nor did I know what fair use was...which demonstrates in itself one of the problems that arises when young people interact with fan-generated works that stem from copyrighted content.

After discussing different Harry Potter fan websites and the benefits of fan fiction, Jenkins really hits on the crux of this whole issue: "Nobody is sure whether fan fiction falls under current fair-use protections. Current copyright law simply doesn't have a category for dealing with amateur creative expression...Our current notion of fair use is an artifact of an era when few people had access to the marketplace of ideas, and those who did fell into certain professional classes" (Jenkins 189). While this idea isn't new after what we've already learned in this class, this article's examples and argument further solidify how badly the courts need to re-address fair use and intellectual property in our modern convergence culture.

What about the negatives of user generated content?

In all the readings I've read about the trend towards user-generated content, they all seem to take an overwhelmingly positive stance regarding its impact on society. They never discuss it in terms of negative. In particular, I see a very negative side to video-sharing that's never discussed. Previous to its existence, people already spent way too much time entertaining themselves with video, spending hours of each day watching television. It seems like the majority of people on sites like youtube are not using them to be informed of valuable information, but to supplement their television watching with even more mindless content. If you look at the most viewed videos of all time on you tube, they're all music videos and babies. Though there is valuable content, i feel like academics over emphasize its significance as only a small portion of users are contributing and watching such content. 

The Future of Media is Now

As I was reading PIJIP's "Recut, Reframe, Recycle", I came to somewhat of a conclusion on the whole IP issue on user-generated video. YouTube proved society that our generation and the upcoming generations are highly influenced by the new visual media. As there were the TV Generations, the film generation, the tele-communications generation, we are the youtube generation or the information generation, a generation used to having enormous amounts of information and technology at our fingertips. Consequently we are both the influence but mostly the effect of an information technology, as we learn much of what we know from computers and television. Therefore, just like older generations were "unconsciously" affected by books we too are "unconsciouslly" affected by visual media.
Consequently, we create based on what we know, unless somebody is getting information from somewhere else and not telling anyone. We either create based on personal experience or on what we learn, observe and experience from secondary sources. If one is to limit our freedom of creative expression to our personal experiences, nobody would really care so much, again, unless you are Woody Allen or Santa Claus in the hiding. Again, I continue to believe that with more limitations the less we grow, eventually leading to a point of mass "Writer's block", where we are simply concerned in not breaking the rules instead of contributing to human kind.

Know it All

Stacy Schiff's article "Know It All", questioned the validity of Wikipedia, considering its user generated content, and not necessarily experts. I certainly understand Schiff's concerns, and it seems almost implausible that the site would not only function, but be considerably accurate in its content. Yet, it does seem to function, and although my professors are often hesitent to let me cite the source, it is undeniably a fantastic source as a starting point, a great place to begin research. I recently had to read an excerpts from a book by James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, which discusses collective wisdom and the impact of such wisdom on communities at large. Arguably Surowiecki's article is an exploration of the idea that, two head are better than one. But he makes an interesting point about, diversity of opinion, and therefore the overall influence of crowds, in terms of factual content, and he finds that the old saying is true. So while its possible that user genrated content could be generated by ignorant users, that does't seem to be the case with Wikipedia. So while Schiff presents important concerns, Wikipedia users understand where the content is coming from--or at least they should--and it is not the end all be all for information, its a starting off point, that leads users to new information and curiousity.

The Wikipedia Development Model

Reading this week's article on Wikipedia, I thought to myself how amazing it is that so many people from around the world, of completely different backgrounds can come together for the furthering of human knowledge.  I had already written about Wikipedia in my paper, as a defense of collaboration in development industries, but this article expanded my knowledge of the phenomenon almost entirely.  It's interesting that while as an academic source, Wikipedia is still overlooked, in many people's personal lives, it is the first, and for some only, source of information that is used.  I love Wikipedia, and believe in it wholeheartedly, and can't believe that while there are major disagreements in highly debated topics, the articles, for the most part, remain neutral.  Furthermore, even in an academic setting, it is a great source to get started on any assignment, to get a general idea of what one should be looking for in more accepted sources, as well as getting links to these sources.  Besides all of this though, it is a clear testament tot he power of human will when allowed the freedom to collaborate on projects of development.  Who knows, maybe if we were all allowed, we'd be able to overcome some of our major issues right now.  Maybe global warming would best be handled by tinkerers in their garages, not corporate scientists in labs.  And so on...

wikipedia, the know it all?

I really enjoyed Stacy Schiff's article "Know It All" article about Wikipedia. I always use Wikipedia to find out about all sorts of stuff, but never find out about Wikipedia itself. It amazes me that it has only been around for a mere 7 years and has been such a success. Basically any search you perform on Google will have a Wikipedia site as the first relevant link. And it really has never disappointed me.. as long as you take it for what it is. You have to know that its articles can be completely wrong, that people mess around with it, that it can be somewhat inaccurate... but I can't remember the last time I wrote an essay and didn't use it for some type of background research. From there it takes me in a thousand different directions, which I can then validate through other perhaps more accurate sources.
I couldn't imagine going back to a world where Wikipedia wasn't around. Like google images, it allows for instant knowledge in almost an instant. You hardly have to do any work for it.
But one thing I've always found hard to understand is why people dedicate so much time into writing articles. It really amazes me. I have a Wikipedia account, but have NEVER written an article.. actually, I think I once wrote an article on a friend of mine, and it got deleted within 10 minutes. I just can't imagine people sitting down and actually writing an entry on The Civil War... but I guess that's just not my thing. And Schiff's article really digs into the users who make Wikipedia happen, about how they have formed a community and have really made posting a part of their lives. I couldn't believe the facts included in the article: 14,000 clicks per second in 2006? that after the one millionth entry was posted, it was edited over 400 times in the next 24 hours??? it's really such an incredible tool.
And as it talks about in the article, I cannot believe it's been able to survive, and "has not led to chaos." Of course there are people who are fascinated by the ability to post on the web something that millions of people could read, so they play around with it, change dates, add their name under "French Military Generals," but then there are the other people who really care about making the encyclopedia work, about dedicated time to removing those petty acts of vandalism and about correcting slight mistakes. It amazes me that its democratic nature has worked out so well. That because ANYONE can post, there are posts about ANYTHING. The internet has always been about democratization and Wikipedia has made that radically more possible.
And on this note... I remember an article I once read about the "WTF World of Wikipedia" a while back, which talked about the democratic world of Wikipedia. That because anyone can become a user and post (You. Your friends and family. Your classmates and coworkers). "The nerdy kid next door has just as much influence as a high school teacher; the dorky dude at the comic book shop has just as much voice as a college professor."
What the article emphasizes on is that the nerds and dorks tend to have a lot more free time and passion than the teachers and professors. "The end result? A hilariously skewed, terrifyingly twisted view of the world in which all the wrong things are deemed "important" and worthy of serious academic discussion." And then it goes on with some examples:

-There are 5,721 words on Pokemon cards and 1,857 words on Poker
-There are 6,818 words on "Metal Gear Solid 4" and 5,041 on Tolstoy's "War and Peace"
-There are 4,429 words on Electronic Gaming Monthly and 2,274 on Time Magazine
-There are 8,058 words on the Final Fantasy Compilation Albums and 3,911 on Rock And Roll
-There are 22,463 words on Star Wars Minor Characters and 3,046 on the Founding Fathers

Anyway.. i just thought that was kind of interesting.

How young is Wikipedia?

"Wikipedia, though, is only five years old. One day, it may grow up." 

- Stacy Schiff

In her article "Know it All," Stacy Schiff criticizes Wikipedia for its immaturity, noting that Wikipedians often use the "But Johnny jumped off the bridge first" excuse when confronted with evidence of errors or bias. As a source, Wikipedia is not always the most credible or the most accurate. Many professors discourage/reject the use of Wikipedia as a valid source of information. In this class, we cannot use Wikipedia as a source, but merely as a starting point--a place to dig up the truth. Because of its boundless, unrestricted nature issues of truth arise. Many of the editors and posters are criticized for not being experts or capable of providing accurate, true information to the online community.

However, Wikipedia may not be as youthful and immature as Schiff suggests. Wikipedia does, often times successfully, provide a system of checks and balances. It is an open forum where people can pool, edit, enhance, and communicate facts and information. It blocks abusers of the system and encourages people to check the accuracy of the information on the web. 

Wikipedia may be young in the sense that it is in a constant state of flux and evolution, with room for growth and expansion, but it is ancient in its philosophy of discussion and the exchange of information. 

Wicked cool Wikipedia

The concept and development of Wikipedia is rather utopian. It became a nonprofit organization in 2003, surviving on a menial budget via $20 donations. Unlike most media vehicles, there is no advertising and essentially no gatekeeping. It was created because Wales wanted to distribute a free encyclopedia. Although Stacy Shiff makes some does raise some arguments in the Wikipedia debate, there are no serious legal issues circulating this idea of editing already written content. Wikipedia is a collective construction of common knowledge and understanding.

I don't see any serious copyright issues surrounding wikipedia's existence. Not one writer attempts to take full credit. It's content is easily accessible by anyone with a browser. If this isn't an issue of copyright infringement, and if copyright law and understanding is mainly case law because statutes continue to be too vague to identity appropriate parameters, then the collective sharing of music and other forms of content through open sources should also have little to no legal concerns circulating their existence and use.

Sometimes things are best left to the experts

It's interesting to acknowledge the strange tug-of-war that Wikipedia presents us with, as discussed in Schiff's article. It sits between being a great example of public, collaborative knowledge and arguable "knowledge" that doesn't favor - and sometimes outright rejects - the experts. I understand that sometimes the idea of an "expert" can be misleading, since a pile of degrees does not necessarily indicate full and accurate knowledge on a topic. I also think that Wikipedia's a great resource when one needs/wants to know something in a pinch but not for any academic purposes. The availability of even the most random of topics is astounding. But I think one should note the global warming entry example that Schiff provides, and how William Connelly, an expert on climate change was booted from the Wikipedia entry/discussion because some users are just "louder" than others. He's of the mind that "Wikipedia 'gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about,' a view that is echoed by many academics and former contributors, including Larry Sanger, who argues that too many Wikipedians are fundamentally suspicious of experts and unjustly confident of their own opinions." This is extremely important, I think, to pay attention to in this culture where online, EVERYONE has a voice, and plenty of people's opinions are given attention to that probably should not.

copyright...keeping up with technology?

So, after reading the Wikipedia article by Stacy Schiff, I literally sat down and had to think about how this article related to the class and how it related to copyright. Stupid, I know...but until now, (especially after reading the Lemley & Reese article), I never actually thought about wikipedia as anything other then a source that teachers never want you to cite. Schiff brings up the point about the guidelines of the site saying, "Two of the others [guidelines] have become central tenets: articles must reflect a neutral point of view (N.P.O.V in Wikipedia lingo) and their content must be both verifiable and previously published." First of all most users are going to take previously published material straight from the source and cite it which would definitely be an infringement of copyright. Is wikipedia like youtube, the text version of a mass provider of information, most of which is copyrighted?

Also, Lemley & Reese in their work also make a point very clear:
-"So far, the courts have been willing to go along, shutting down a number of innovative services in the digital music realm."
-"Going after makers of technology for the uses to which their technologies may be put threatens to stifle innovation." - Lemley & Reese
Are they making the point that copyright in their view stifles innovation & the services that is provides, therefore copyright in a way is bad because it does this?

Another side note in Lemley & Reese...
-" It is not currently cost-effective for copyright owners to sue individual infringers, because there are tens of millions of them, because lawsuits are expensive, and because each infringer would be liable only for minimal damages. They are happy to sue facilitators instead, because there are fewer of them and both damages and the benefits of injunctive relief are substantial."
First of all, yes in relation to suing major corporations the damages are minimal, but they are in no way minimal to individuals. Secondly, they do go after the individual....but why are we not seeing them go after major facilitators such as YouTube or Wikipedia who would apparently yield better lawsuit damages?

There's No Ownership In Collectivs... And People Know That Coming In

Ok well maybe that's heresay, I can't cite something to prove it but from what I know from bloggers, wiki'ers, etc., is that people who post information online do so to avoid the gate-keeping process in traditional media. Wikimedia is a non-profit that is working very hard to work around the limitations of gate-keeping and I see nothing wrong with that. What we see in a site like wikipedia is a place where people are freely editing and creating encyclopedia entries that are perhaps in some ways freer of bias because so many biases are imposed upon them. Though I do favor fairly defined IP regulation in most contexts I must admit that I think the less Wikimedia does to affect the ability of other's alter other's entries, the better. The question raised is, can one copyright a wikipedia entry? I think we need to consider the nature of the medium. A blog is an individual creation but a wikipedia entry exists under the socially constructed notion that everyone's hand is in the cookie jar that is wikipedia. Schiff's final words allude to a concept of information itself barreling down a highway; they hint at a fear of Wikimedia's mostly laissez-faire attitude regarding information yet in some ways she undermines her own assertion given her interviews with Wikipedia posters who work to correct posts. She also presents some heated disputes regarding information and to that I say: "Cool it." The disputes on Wikipedia might be the best thing yet, at least they show people are thinking. I say lets not start trying to levy any IP regulation in the world of Wikipedia. There ought to be some place where information can exist outside of the corporate realm.

Reducing Digital Infridgement

After reading Lemley's and Reese's paper, I didn't feel like they provided any workable solution to solving illegal file sharing. They seem to suggest that there are two possible solutions: more efficient means of punishment for uploaders and a levy system. In regards to the first solution, though it may succeed in keeping American's from illegally uploading files, there will still be billions of people around the world capable of filling their void. 

In regards to the second solution, in which they suggest imposing a levy system by making creators of p2p services pay a fee, I see a similar issue. If American p2p sites are forced to pay a fee, this cost will eventually be passed on to the filesharer. But how can you force a China based p2p site to pay such a fee? and given the choice between using a free, foreign based p2p program, and a national, not free one, i feel it's pretty obvious which one filesharers will use. 

Two Heads Really Are Better Than One

Wikipedia presents the paradigmatic antithesis of privatization. It is the neo-encyclopedia, manifested in the newest (albeit arguably one of the most valuable types of media ever to arise) medium; the internet.

Gone are the days of stagnant, uniform information, supplied solely through erudite scholars poised atop their Ivory Towers. Enter the 21st century, where any "Joe Six Pack" can contribute to one of the fastest growing, most voraciously popular websites on the internet: Wikipedia.

Stacy Schiff's article, "Know It All" casts an interesting light on the growing phenomenon that is Wikipedia. Sure, we all have used it, and some of us may have actively contributed to sculpting definitions on the site itself, but Wikipedia has yet to acquire the status and legitimacy of Encyclopedia Brittanica. Humorously enough, while Encyclopedia Brittanica has"for more than two centuries has been considered the gold standard for reference works" it "has only a hundred and twenty thousand entries in its most comprehensive edition" (1). Wikipedia, on the other hand, boasts more than a million entries; all developed within a 7-year span of time.

Why the vast discrepancy in entries, particularly when we consider that Encyclopedia Brittanica has been around centuries longer than Wikipedia?

First, we have to recognize that the nature of the Encyclopedia Brittanica is such that only facilitates expert opinion. It is intended to be more "scholarly" and gives rise to only "academic concepts". Wikipedia, on the other hand, proudly outlines information ranging from "Sudoku or... prostitution in China. Or, for that matter, about Capgras delucsion" (1). When more information is deemed acceptable, more information will be available.

Second, anyone and everyone who has access to the internet is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, whereas the underlying processes behind Encyclopedia are far more complex---and far more exclusionary. Fewer authors=fewer texts.

In a sense, we can witness traditional Encyclopaedic texts (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica) as inherently pitted against Wikipedia; with the traditional texts serving as a metaphor for "enclosure" or "privatization" of knowledge and Wikipedia functioning as a neo-commons; an open, vast array of knowledge. The tragedy of the commons, however, does not seem to ensue.

In fact, having a variety of opinions, perspectives, ideologies, concepts, and geographic influences (to name only a few of myriad factors that distinguish Wikipedia's contributors from other Encyclopaedic texts) may result in a richer, more full-bodied text. Schiff quotes Brittanica editor Charles Van Doren as upholding the concept of Wikipedia as a legitimate (and in fact, arguably the MOST legitimate) resource. He stated, "Because the world is radically new, the ideal encyclopedia should be radical, too...[i]t should stop being safe---in politics, in philosophy, in science" (3).

Sure, there is the occasional politician attempting to obfuscate the truth behind his voting record, and the sporadic prankster who seeks to alter the occasional politician's age, but overall, the vast array and diversity of contributors to Wikipedia helps safeguard it from inaccuracies.

Sure, Wikipedia is new---it's nascence was a mere 7 years ago---and it may have its share of flaws. But it can and should be touted as the new way to go. Quite, simply, no one group of uppity scholastics can ever really hope to compete with the knowledge spectrum of the seething mass of an enthusiastic (and in some ways---enlightened) public.

What's A Wiki?

I am still an avid supporter of Wikipedia, but Stacy Schiff's article, "Know It All" certainly complicated the issue for me. Aside from the shock of descovering that the company is a non-profit with only five employees, I was really interested in the concept of differentiating the value of Web-based vs. book-based academia. Schiff actually cites the largely Web-based research that appears on Wikipedia as a problem. However, I completely disagree because the nature of Web-based research that includes sources from blogs to the New York Times is the multiplicity of ideas and interpretations. Even the most absurd blogs have value in the public sphere because we are living in an age where everyone thinks they know what they're talking about. The fact that Wikipedia includes a great deal of Web-based research means accounts for the value of all sources.

If Schiff is questioning the validity of Web-based academia, she should consider that certain topics are more suited for this approach. For example, fast paced topics such as the Lebanon conflict that was edited on Wikipedia thousands of times could only be properly documented in books in the past tense because the facts are constantly changing and being updated. This is the advantage of sites like Wikipedia, things are constantly being refreshed. In terms of timing, Wikipedia is the encyclopeidic equivalent of CNN.

Obviously, there are certain topics that are more suited for the library, but that doesn't dicredit the value of Wiki.

briana berry

What's A Wiki?

Audio Recognition as Market Research

The Wired interview with Gracenote's Steve Scherf briefly alluded to "the ability to identify a song over a cell phone."  I personally utilize this technology today with a free iPhone application called Shazam, though I've had a good deal of trouble finding informative articles describing, analyzing, or critiquing the company.  In the Scherf interview, he noted that the aforementioned software has been used to retroactively award royalties to unpaid TV and Film musicians.  The practice is valiant on their part, but I wonder what other commercial uses for the program will arise.  For example, I could see a Soundscan-type company compiling and selling the data gathered on these phones to gather evidence for song proliferation and listener discernment.  Furthermore, I wonder if user generated data from products like Shazam or even iTunes could be commercialized to illuminate the exact abundance of illegal downloads.  Smells like things are going to get even murkier in the IP world with these new technological advancements and their recombinant widespread uses.

Wikipedia

In Stacy Schiff’s New Yorker article “Know It All: Can WIkipedia conquer expertise?,” Schiff examines the cultural phenomenon that is Wikipedia. While I admit I use Wikipedia to look up numerous things from Copernicus to zebras, I take everything I read on Wikipedia with a grain of salt. Wikipedia is a great source of information, particularly if you’re looking for information that pertains more to pop culture. However, just because something’s “common knowledge” doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true. So to answer Schiff’s question, while I rely on Wikipedia on all sorts of information, when I’m looking for real hard facts, I still go to “experts” to give me the information I’m looking for.

Wikipedia as the new history

I enjoyed the New Yorker piece on Wikipedia. I believe it grasps the essence of Wikipedia is meant provide to its visitors: an idea or big picture of a subject matter and not a detailed analysis of a subject matter. Or as William Connolley stated Wikipedia “gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about". Therefore Wikipedia is not meant to be a detailed precise encyclopedia of subject matters or actual facts. It is meant to portray a big picture idea of a subject matter, informing a person of an idea of what they are looking for. For example, if I was a student in the middle of a class in which they were speaking about Lumiere and I had no idea who he was I would log into Wikipedia to have an idea and understand his persona and his achievements. However, if i was to write a detailed analysis or biography of Lumiere, I would most probably rely on more credulous sources such as books or actual encyclopedias.
Wikipedia allows people to have a range of information at their fingertip, allowing the fast access of solutions and answers to millions of people. This article also reminds me of all NYU's professors beef with Wikipedia as a source to site on papers or analysis. I believe the problem for them is accepting the big picture or idea of Wikipedia's goals and functions. Although it opens its doors for editing and meddling with the data, it emphasizes intelectual debate between people from all across the world, creating a POV representing of millions of people. The problem with historical facts in the past has been that they have been created by the hands of the powerful and of the rich, maybe with Wikipedia, history will become a more collectably agreed and shared understanding rather than someone's facts.

confused...

Last week, after reading Tehranian's Infringement Nation: Copyright Reform and the Law/Norm Gap, I found myself a bit confused. Tehranian traces Professor John, a fictional character, around for the day, noting every time he is guilty of copyright infringement. At the end of the day, Tehranian reported that John "has committed at least eight-three acts of infringement and faces liability in the amount of 12.45 million." However, I thought that some of these infringements fell under fair use. For example, when he distributes copies of the articles in his Constitutional Law class, it is an educational setting, which falls under fair use. Also, his public performance of  i sing of Olaf glad isn't really a public performance because its inside the confinements of his Law and Literature class, right? Am I confused, or was Tehranian just trying to prove a point? If he was, I got the point. I would love to know how much money I technically owe for copyright infringement!

Living in a Biased Society

In Free Culture, Lessig does an extraordinary job drawing analogies between historical acts of file sharing and modern copyright law. For example, he explains that there is really no functional difference between a speech that shows the inconsistencies in a politician's career versus a series of clips that show the same inconsistencies. However the latter of the two would be considered illegal by today's copyright law, and Lessig points out that this is due to a duality that exists in modern times. Technology has enabled both sides of the argument (The RIAA vs. P2P networks) to be right, or both wrong. However so far, the law has been favoring the RIAA in decided who's right.
This is the point that I wanted to underscore from the Lessig reading. Technology should exist to improve on current standards and practices by creating efficiencies, opening products to new markets, etc. For hundreds of years, the music industry has seen a gradual evolution of these practices, but nothing that would dramatically alter the balance of power or creativity. This is not the case today. Modern copyright law is more of a stark punctuation, rather than a continued evolution, of historical practices. The power balance for property ownership has completely fallen in the hands of the copyright holder, the quest for creativity and innovation is being squashed under the new law, and consumers and competitors are driven into fear by unreasonable penalties. I think something is obviously wrong with current legislation when these never before seen fears are being introduced. Finally, it can be argued that the initial reason for copyright was to foster innovation and competition by protecting original ideas, thereby encouraging others to develop new ideas. Copyright law today is simply counterintuitive if we give the holders the power to deny all competition and innovation.

Postmodernism Confusion

David Bollier's "Brand Name Bullies" describes the interplay between postmodernism, society, and the notion of creation and ownership. As human beings living in the wake of postmodernism, we are faced with the notion that everything we see, hear, and touch is merely a representation or symbol of actual reality, and therefore is not the object itself. The fact that meaning today is found not within the object but outside of it as expressed through appropriation, symbols, and perceptions, makes it difficult to establish the public's role in shaping its own culture and the access it deserves. In "Brand Name Bullies," David Bollier states, "Members of the public are cast as passive consumers who have nothing creative of their own to contribute." Today, when content is created it does not possess any significance until it is given one by society. You can't have one without the other. Content would not be produced if it wasn't for the consumers. Bollier also explains that the public is not credited for their contributions to cultural symbols. Instead, the "law presumes that the 'secondary meanings' associated with a trademark were caused only by the owner's marketing investment." How fair is it to be denied the right to utilize something to which one has contributed? And more importantly, is it possible to measure society's impact on a cultural trademark? And, how?

It’s all been said and seen and heard before; nothing is new, just a recreation of what existed in the past, a false rearrangement constructed into the appearance of novelty and truth. If all is comprised of perception or conception that escapes verification, can we find a societal truth or morality that is said to be the cement of a culture?

In Bollier’s Brand Name Bullies, Bollier points out that certain corporations have gone as far as sue over the use of just 1 or 2 letters as copyright infringement. Case in Point, McDonald’s has tried to sue a number of other food establishments that use the prefix “Mc-“ somewhere in its name, i.e. a Danish sausage stand named McAllan’s, a McCoffee in Half Moon Bay (outside of San Francisco), CA, among others. According to the McDonald’s corporation, words beginning with “Mc” are proprietary terms that belong to them. While may seem to make sense when taking into account McDonald’s McMuffin, does it really make sense that it should hold a monopoly over any & everything with the pre-fix Mc?

The prefix Mc, I believe, has been around long before the McDonalds fast food chain and if I’m not mistaken, many Scottish clans have held a longer claim to the prefix Mc than McDonald’s. So really, who is McDonald’s to say they own the rights to anything “Mc” related?

And on a side note, did the producers of Grey’s Anatomy have to clear the use of “McDreamy” & “McSteamy” as monikers for fictional characters, Dr. Derek Shepard & Dr. Mark Sloane?

fault at large

Lessig's Free culture develops an interesting argument on anti-circumvention laws of the DMCA. It features Paul Conrad's 1981 cartoon on the juxtaposition of a gun and a VCR within the American legal system. It shows one of the many contradictions of the American legal system in which it is legal to own and share guns but it is illegal to own a device that makes copies of videos. Although this was 1981, Paul Conrad and many others were way ahead of their times, foreshadowing a greater existence of contradictions with the introduction of the internet.
"The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world where guns are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs are illegal"- lessig
Today, the internet has allowed the government and large corporations to keep a tight control over the activities of each individual citizen, while it continues to pretend its support over free speech and the right of expression.
The United States is a funny country that is full of contradictions. Although the legal system determines that in a federal court a person commited of criminal felonies cannot be sent to jail if there exists reasonable doubt. However an old lady who doesn't even own a computer is charged guilty of file sharing online during a case based on ridiculousness and 100% reasonable doubt. The American people find faults in the presidents who offer a hope of change and choose to elect the one who is most likely to afford a good time in a bar. The fault is not in the legal system, it is within American society as a whole.

Bollier Brings Out the Bull

While David Bollier's "Brand Name Bullies" is decidedly chock-full o' heinous tales of corporate antics and massive-scale manipulation, few stories prove as shockingly absurd as one man trumping the authority of several centuries' worth of sporting tradition.

The man?

Ralph Lauren.

The sport?

Polo. A sport that had existed among the upper echelon of England's athletes for centuries. And yet, according to a 1984 federal judge, "Lauren was entitled to the trademarks and logos that the U.S. Polo Association (USPA) argued were generic to the sport. The court held that Ralph Lauren had the exclusiveright to use the word 'polo' in its clothing and fragrance product lines, while the USPA could only use the word in connection with its name" (117).

And, considering the highly ambiguous and amorphous nature of trademark law in the status quo, decisions such as the 1984 federal court ruling serve as the only lamposts in the darkened abyss of uncertainty that is intellectual property.

And the effects of judicial decisions such as the aforementioned Ralph Lauren federal decision span beyond the mere ramifications of the case in and of itself. Decisions that advocate the agenda of huge-scale corporations serve as a platform to exacerbating their propensity toward intimidation. When intimidation and "chilling" are allow to roam unbridled, we encounter much more detrimental issues. We witness the very degradation of our constitutional rights, as enforced by ludicrous judicial decisions.

Furthermore, the court's approach to dealing with trademark law is arbitrary at best. Bollier mentions the legal wrestling of Victoria's Secret and Victor's Secret, with the courts eventually deciding in favor of Victoria's Secret. Given the nature of trademark law---to protect consumers as well as the integrity and reputation of companies, and given the nature of Victoria's Secret---as manifested in the form of emaciated, scantily clad, disproportionately buxom models sporting clothes that are closely resemble the amount of fabric of a dinner napkin---it seems without warrant that the courts would have decided in favor of the corporation. At the end of the day, much of the legal consequences seem to arise from who has more money, more lawyers, and more scare tactics. The little guy simply can't compete.

And when the "little guy" does win out, he is not usually typified by the ideals of an average American. Ralph Nader, e.g., possesses extensive legal know-how, a vast array of monetary resources, and the ready availablity of contacts that an average American could never hope to be privy to. That MasterCard's suit against him was successful can largely be attributed to a wealth of resources, and cannot be considered in context with most instances of corporate "bullying."

The question we must posit now is, "When will ENOUGH be ENOUGH?". The answer to this question will rely heavily upon whether people are aware of the major deficiencies in our current copyright, trademark and intellectual property systems. It will also require that people stand up for their civil liberties and loudly proclaim (in the words of New Mouse Liberation Front's Mickey Mouse), "Fuck you" (109).

a little too far..

Bollier, in "Brand Name Bullies" has just kept finding more and more examples of how over the top laws dealing with intellectual property have gotten. I really enjoyed his "Over the top" chapter where he found some of the most ridiculous examples of times copyright laws and trademarks have prevailed. He even added the cartoon of a man singing in the shower, being tracked down for copyright infringement-- an example we constantly use in class wondering how far this is going to go..

I think one of the great things Bollier does it that he makes the book relatable, he addresses people who really don't know anything about copyright laws-- which is just about the average person. It seems he's really trying to tell people to realize that lobbyists and large corporations are the ones making these laws, and no one is fighting back. They're fighting for their interests, and hurting the publics. But the majority of people aren't fighting for anything. He does this, for example, by writing about the Sony Bono Company Term Extension Act that added 20 years to copyright laws. Thousands of works that were about to enter the public domain, are remaining locked up until after 2018... And of course, this was no one else's doing but the Disney Company itself-- aiming to protect one of its cartoons that would make several of its characters free to roam in the public domain.

What about the ridiculous amount of copyright laws on sports games? Photographs of NBA  games can only be used for news coverage of the actual game. Permission to transmit anything MLB related has to be granted beforehand. The Times being sued for selling photographs taken during an NBA game. The fact that Motorola almost got sued for selling pagers that transmitted live information about the games. Bollier really tries to draw from court cases that demonstrate exactly how over the top it all is. Examples that may provide information to the common person, in hopes that this problem doesn't just keep getting worse....

No matter how many examples he uses, however, I think we've gotten the point. Nothing seems to faze me anymore when it comes to copyright..

salience?

I suppose what I find most fascinating about the various cases Bollier compiles is how little any are addressed by the media. We touched upon this briefly with Heller, but what might explain this lack of salience in American society? The stories certainly possess an entertainment value and make for great conversational nuggets (who doesn't love folk quilts?). Is their absence attributed to the cunning of public relations or are we simply not interested?  

Infringement Nation as Paranoia Puff Piece

John Tehranian's "Infringement Nation" piece is, as I've now come to expect, a well written, researched, and arranged piece that shines a frightening light on the potential disasters implicit to copyright law.  In fact, Tehranian goes so far as to go step-by-step through the day of a Joe Sixpack-esque character and explain each copyright he unknowingly infringes, as well as how much theoretical money he is liable to lose.  What is assumed by the reader is that the necessary lawsuits the extract this money from this theoretical infringer don't take place, but also that they could and they will if we don't reform some IP laws.  Only citing a few examples like a dying father who got sued because his son used a P2P program to steal music, this piece is situated primarily as a forewarning to stymie the imminent dystopia.  The problem is that people like Tehranian should be acting offensively, not protectively.  Case law is the only means to copyright reform, and that can't occur unless people get sued.

Girl Talk has never been sued.  This boggles my mind.  Why not have an IP scholar sue him, and let another IP activist like Ray Beckerman defend him.  This would allow the dissemination of knowledge to occur in a legal setting and resonate in the minds of unbiased judges and juries, so the good guys can right the law instead of whining about getting the short end of it.

Voter Fraud

One of the craziest stories to me from Bollier's book was the one about Diebold and the voting machines.  It seems insane to me, that in a so-called democracy, we can have electronic voting machines, that when there is evidence they may have been tampered with, the government's first reaction is not to investigate, but to tell everyone who's pissed about it to put their evidence away, it's copyright infringement.  Have we no rights?  Reminds me of that not very good film, 'Man of the Year' where voting machines are rigged to make one of the candidates win.  And of course no one believes it when the info gets out.  We have such faith in our technology and our current system of laws, that we seem to be completely willing to be blindsided by these kinds of things and have our rights and our democracy taken away.

the monster under the bed

Bollier's concept of "the theft of public domain" really resonated with me (and scared the sh--t out of me). I feel as though I have experienced the diffuse, elusive effects of the "race to commodify the intangibles that the mass media consider raw material" but have only been able to see small parts of the monster. Being able to talk about production and consumption in terms of copyright law has been extremely helpful. I now connect concepts like post-modernism and neoliberalism in a full-circle view of modern artistic creation, market economies, power and capital. And the full picture is grizzly. Since the foundation of this country, private property and capital gain have been the holy grail of American life. These values and definitions have only grown stronger since land-grabs and gold-rushes, but now extend to aspects of human life not previously defined as property or capital. How do these ways of thinking about property and capital affect the way we see ourselves, our identity, our relationship to our body? How does this system of thought define human interaction? Bollier quotes Elizabeth Taylor saying "I am my own commodity. I am my own industry." How does this expansion of the scope of commodification impact gendered roles and definitions? How do we viscerally experience the commodification of our bodies, cultures and language?

DMCA is giving me nightmares.

In part three, chapter 9 of this week's readings in Brand Name Bullies, Bollier describes the real world consequences of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and what affect it has had on our day to day life in America. Why was something this powerful passed by our congress without even the slightest hiccup? Aren't our law makers the ones that should understand what the terms of an act like this imply and mean for the future? Surely, our elected congressmen and women are smart enough to forecast these dire repercussions, so are they turning a blind eye or are they simply being bribed by the big corporations who gain so much power from laws like these? Aram discussed in class about how the DMCA prevents actively trying to crack any sort of encryption and how this is a grave detriment to our security because encryption only improves through testing it, i.e. trying to break it. Bollier talks specifically about the Diebold Election Systems and how they used the DMCA to swing into legal action when information about their faulty encryption systems leaked t the internet. Cease-and-desist letters in conjunction with unilaterally demanding -without due process- the withdrawal of the materials from internet were the new powers that Diebold was able to wield because of the DMCA. I noticed that when i try to explain a lot of the issues we are uncovering in class and in our readings about copyright people, they seem to roll their eyes, as if it doesn't apply to them, or that it doesn't matter. Diebold preventing people from uncovering the flaws in their voting systems directly applies to all of us in a serious way. If you believe in freedom and a fair election this should be grounds for taking up arms and fighting back.

Tehranian's article on our Infringement Nation points out very simply that copyright law on a practical level, if enforced to the fullest extent of the law, would immediately create a dystopia. When any average american can incur $4.5 billion in infringements each year, we see that copyright is fundamentally designed wrong: targeted at the wrong people, and giving the big corporations an unthinkable amount of power. It is important to note that the big corporations are really only the entities who can take advantage of these laws because they have the budgets and lawyers to bring the cases to court. This is exactly what Ray Beckerman and Bennett Lincoff were talking about. We need to be able to push back against the power grabbers... our system of law depends on that push.

Its time to fight. Just like its time to vote. We have to wake up from these nightmares, if we don't the reality we deserve will slowly slip away from us.

what is FAIR in "fair use?"

Trademark Owners Whine, "No Making Fun of Me!"

-Bollier

When the term "fair use" was first spelled out to me in the beginning of this semester, I naively thought it was one redeeming, objective quality to the often hazy, unclear laws of copyright and trademarks. However, as the semester has progressed and I have read more and more, particularly the examples illustrated in Brand Named Bullies, I have come to realize that no exceptions are set in stone. "Fair use" is a loose, subjective principle with many inadequacies that leave judges to ultimately determine what they consider to be fair and what they consider to not be fair. Take parody, for example. According to Bollier, "Parody is a classic genre of human societies and one of the most effective forms of political expression." Therefore, parody falls under the fair use category as it is considered something that benefits society. However, Bollier asks, "But can it survive copyright and trademark law of the twenty-first century?"

Through a series of telling examples, including Mattel's control over his trademarked and copyrighted Barbie, Bollier shows the inconsistencies in which parody is awarded (and many times not awarded) as fair use. Bollier points out, "Add in the variable cultural tastes of judges, and it is no surprise that courts apply highly inconsistent standards for parodies. Each case is something of a crapshoot for the defendant jokester." This puts "jokesters," who often have something very expressive and very important to say in a dangerous position. The term "parody" is not black or white and is determined by the "conjuring up" test, which according to Bollier involves, "Does the parody conjure up enough--but only enough-- of the original work to achieve its comedic effects? Any superfluous uses are prohibited." As noted by Bollier, there is a fine line between what is enough and what is not enough. Although fair use does theoretically provide protection, it does not always in reality. 

Overall, I am very frustrated and very confused. How can the law be changed/re-written to make the laws clearer, easier to understood, and fair . Is that even possible? 

Growing problems for record labels

I was hoping to come up with a more elaborate post here, but for some reason the Infringement Nation document isn't opening for me and I was absent for Thursday's lecture with Lincoff. Either way, I would like to pose a few comments and questions in response to some previous posts. In particular, I agree with R. Cohen's revelation that all the commotion in the music industry is more about control than monetary gains. However, I have to say that I think that its just lose-lose for this industry. Not only is the industry facing a loss in revenues, but I would argue that the fair being created is not working. From my experiences and observations, I am not seeing any decline in illegal downloads or re-distribution. Therefore, it seems that RIAA is fighting a losing battle.

I just took a midterm in a class called economics of global business so the material is still running through my head. A lot of the class is focused on protectionist measures for domestic industries and whether or not these measures are truly beneficial. What we see in almost all cases is that protectionism is economically inefficient, and the music industry is no exception. If domestic markets are trying to adjust to new and efficient technologies that make large record labels obsolete, than why not let these companies go under? At the current moment this won't happen because large labels want protection, and to some extent they are successful because those that are being worse off are few in number and have a lot to lose. while those being made better off are large in number and gain relatively little each. Therefore record labels will organize, be more vocal, and lobby the government for protectionist policy. However the fact of the matter is that protecting large record labels is an economic waste of resources and a drain on spending. I believe that eventually, with or without protectionism, markets will adjust and large record labels will be a thing of the past.

Subconscious and Subversive Sampling

In David Bollier’s discussion of sampling, he introduces a highly contentious area of copyright infringement. “Subconscious sampling” represents a grey area that can be so unforeseeable at the time of infringement that holders and infringers alike have to rely on the courts to determine their validity. An artist may be held accountable for ripping off another work without even being aware of it. This seems to counter the fundamentals of artistic creation, which so frequently depends on environmental influence. Particularly now that art so saturates our media, it is impossible to measure or pinpoint the effect of a given work on our collective subconscious.
Taking music as Bollier’s example, the irony in the fact that copyright holders can sue musicians for subconscious infringement is that record labels seek to penetrate the public’s subconscious with a song for commercial gain in the first place. So when they have succeeded at this and the song appears subliminally in another artist’s song, they cry foul? And to further the paradox, the consequential damages in a lawsuit like that are even greater if the infringing song has been a commercial success. The whole notion of pursuing legal action for subliminal infringement is purely a corporate game of chasing revenues wherever they may be found.
The people that seem to care little about this nit-picky legal attack are the authors themselves. In a case involving EMI publishing and DJ Danger Mouse over the release of the Gray Album, the artists themselves had nothing to say. Neither Jay-Z nor any of the former Beatles made public statements admonishing the unique remixing and mash-ups of their music. So once again, these are suits fighting for a piece of a pie they didn’t bake.

BRIANA BERRY

I Support Corporations' Protection of Their Trademark

I consider myself liberal for the most part. I do believe in freeing up the commons to an extent at least in regard to music and art (I asked of Mr. Lincoff Thursday if record labels were aware of the PR boon inherent in Peer to Peer file sharing especially given their habit of "leaking albums" and I believe that taking a photo of a painting is fair use considering the act of creativity here is the creation of the photo not the painting) yet reading Bollier's "Brand Name Bullies" I couldn't help but disagree with him in the all the cases he mentioned regarding corporations pursuing individuals who threatened their trademarks. I use the word "threatened" because that's the way I see it. Corporate symbols are indicative of their public images. Mickey Mouse can not be portrayed sexually because it threatens the Disney Corporation. I know that stifles creativity but that creativity also threatens jobs (I can't believe I'm saying this!). I even agree that the makers of Everquest were right to remove a fanfic detailing the rape of a character. That  breeds negative PR for the game. There is a concerned parent out there somewhere that will cancel his/her child's account because of this. Trademark is inevitably tied to PR and I believe that companies have the right to manage their images, not the public. Yes this falls into propaganda and mass society baggage but I believe in it. When I was at Playboy we had to combat the hard-core pornographic fan culture and social stigma the brand carried though it was soft-core adult entertainment. Barbie is a little girl's doll... she shouldn't be wrapped up like an enchilada though I won't deny that doing so is art. However, it is art that jeopardizes a company's brand image and I believe if artist's are willing  to commit to their intention and vision by creating works such as these they should be willing to defend them in court and let the law decide. I don't like that the law teeters to the side of big business and its powerful legal teams but I do believe these artists are fair game to be sued. I understand that there is fair use and there are parody right guaranteed to artists but nonetheless if sales are denied to corporations because of an artist's behavior I believe they have the right to seek damages (I guess saying that does undermine fair use but it's how I feel).  Harry Potter slash fan-fiction for example (Borderline pornographic Harry Potter fanfics detailing imagined homosexual love affairs between male characters i.e. Harry/Ron) damage this child-friendly brand. I am shocked I am saying this because when I was a student in Tisch my work assaulted, mocked, mutilated and scoffed at mass society. However I am surprised to say that believe it or not, my attitudes have changed. Sorry Mr. Bollier but I don't agree with you, Disney has every right to police the use of Mickey Mouse, because Disney is Mickey Mouse, where his image goes so goes the brand's. Oh God! I have no soul...

T.G.F.L.B

I really enjoyed Mr. Lincoff's presentation, and the insight he provided into the world of copyright. I felt like he established a base point for the issue of copyright, a point I had been missing, or overlooking throughout the past few weeks. A point which is further explicated in Brand Name Bullies. The issue is control, it doesn't seem to be a monetary thing. I think my confusion stemmed from an overall respect for the magnitude that is the music industry, respect is maybe the wrong word, but what I mean to say is that I would expect the music industry to be resourceful enough to find another way to make money. They are GIANTS and they are attacking individuals, helpless ones at that, as Bollier discusses, they are a major business, cant they figure out another way to rake in the cash? That was my confusion, copyright seems to undermine the authority and presence of the music industry, going after individuals seems beneath them. As Lincoff discussed, they're putting all of their eggs in one basket,it seems so silly. So I guess my frustration over this topic is a frustration with the music industry, I would expect more from them...silly me. Bollier's book was even more frustrating, not in its confusion but copyright seems like an epic waste of time for the music industry. Establish your control elsewhere, save copyright for the people who need it. I'm not sure that I am making sense, but I will say that Lincoff and Bollier provided clarity. I was confused about why a major industry was seeking monetary compensation from older ladies in the midwest, when in reality the issue is establishing control by establishing fear. So Thank God for Lincoff and Bollier i suppose, for providing much needed clarity for a much confused student.

your 12.45 million dollar day...

In Tehranian's Infringement Nation, the author puts us in a day of the life of a fictional man named John who goes about his normal day like everyone else, except his normal day consists of infringing copyright facing liability to a tune of 12.45 million dollars for that day alone. Reading Tehranian's example of how easy it is to infringe copyright on a daily basis REALLY scared me and I thought back in my mind about how many possible copyright infringements I committed that day. One of the things that came to my attention in the author's example that I would have never even thought of or been aware of is that in the example of John, "Following common practice, he has set his mail browser to automatically reproduce the text to which he is responding in any email he drafts. Each unauthorized reproduction of someone else's copyright text-their email represents a separate act of brazen infringement, as does each instance of email forwarding." To me that concept which now makes a lot of sense seems so bizarre to me. My e-mail browsers for example automatically does this (even though it says that it is an infringement) and I would have to manually delete the text to not have this happen. What I thought was a convince in communication was really and infringement of copyright. The technological advances of the e-mailing program have thus enabled me to infringe on a copyright without warning me that I am doing so. How is that allowed? How are products created and used on a daily basis with the knowledge that they are helping people commit a crime? (I understand the whole idea of Napster or Limewire doing this and it being illegal but they have disclaimers as well as the fact that it is widely publicized the ramifications but an e-mail program, really?) Tattoo's were another thing that made me laugh and his description that "the copyright act allows for the 'impounding' and 'destruction or other reasonable disposition' of any infringing work....At best, therefore, he will have to undergo court-mandated laser tattoo removal. At worst, he faces imminent 'destruction'" The was that it was phrased makes me laugh because this is a body part we are talking about not a piece of paper, so what really would happen if this law were to be implemented?

Celebrity Images

In Bollier’s Brand Name Bullies, Bollier talks about the use of images of public figures. The use of the image of a public figure to endorse a product/company without their approval is considered illegal under the Lanham Act, but, as Bollier points out, does this extend to images of the public figure that the figure deems objectionable? Many celebrities/estates of celebrities seem to think so, which I think is ridiculous.

By suing the company/person that used the figure’s image without your “consent,” the public figure doesn’t realize how the “unauthorized” images are probably adding to his/her fame. Even if it is in a negative way, does the celebrity really care—it is publicity after all and for many celebrities, publicity is all they want. Only the very top of the celebrities can really afford to be picky about what publicity they’re receiving.

comfort zone

While finishing the book Brand Name Bullies, one specific phrase jumped out at me. Law Scholar Peter Jaszi called the extension of copyright acts "perpetual copyright on the installement plan". This quote affected me in a strange way. It made me said and angry to realize how indifference has become an unacceptable state of mind in the United States since the 1970's. How did a country of people who had marched against prejudice and injustice in the 1960's become a country that allows the perpetuality of copyright acts. How did a country built on the ideals of freedom of speech and expression become a country of restriction. How did a country that stood up to the major studios in the Paramount Decrees act become a country governed by these studios themselves?
This country has reached its present state of mind because of its indiference to the growing power of corporations and monopolies. It has accepted this as the means of reaching imperial domination over other countries. It has reached a feeling of comfortability in owning monopoly over global information. However it has not stopped to recognize its declining present state. It has not stopped to realize its declining presence in the global market as it has been fixed in a state of comfortability while other countries continue to grow in all areas of arts and sciences. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 is a perfect example of the way in which this country has chosen to turn its other cheek to major issues in order to remain within their comfort zones. They do not realize, however, that this comfort zone is the bacteria that is slowly eating this country away.

Remix Culture

Remix. Mashup. Version. Sample. Cut. Bootleg. Rip. Edit. The recent profusion of musical creation and manipulation has spawned a "remix culture" of material constantly torn down and reconstructed into a mismatched collage... much to the dismay of copyright holders. Music has recently experienced an evolutionary crisis in which society finds nothing to be new and thus rips apart the old, rearranges its contents, and then glues it back together into a "new" transformation  the remake. This derivative culture where musical constructions have now become overprocessed bits and pieces, reassembled into a miscellaneous amalgamation, is due largely in part to the massive influence of technology and commodity. Digital technology has revolutionized the accessibility of material, fashioning a society of user/creators, stranded in the middle of two defined concepts, creating their own culture by simultaneously consuming and constructing through the readaptation of tracks to establish their own cultural identity. Lawrence Lessig in "Free Culture" discusses the shift in today's culture from an exclusive read only ("Passive recipients of culture produced elsewhere. Couch potatoes. Consumers") paradigm to a more interactive community of inventor/consumers. As a DJ and aspiring music producer the notion of the remix and its legitimacy is one that is quite concerning, as this "remix culture" has evolved into one full of creative invention that slowly has begun to erase the notion of "authorship." Yet how important is authorship? When it comes down to it is expression and communication more important than getting credit where credit is due, be it full or partial depending on the work? As Lessig states, "The twenty first century could be different. This is the crucial point. It could be both read and write." We have reached a point in the history of our society where there exists little or no original material; where we have utilized, uncovered, exposed, and reproduced almost every bit of authentic matter within our physical and technological reach, and every image, sound, and feeling experienced is a rearrangement of a previous one. The best way to escape this unbearable fact, in my mind, is encapsulated in this notion of a "remix culture" where citizens are able to participate in the molding of culture by remixing it themselves. Not only does it permit the greatest amount of creative potential, but it also ties each user/creator to their contribution and work which is strung tightly to the cultural structure embedded within us all, inextricably weaving each participant into a global web of collaboration.

Copyright Tattoo (Applied Blog-still doesn't work for me)

The other day I was talking with someone when I noticed that he had the copyright symbol tattooed onto his body. I complemented his tattoo and out of curiosity (and a topic for this weeks blog), I asked him what inspired it. He told me that he considers himself to be incredibly narcissistic and thought the tattoo humorously reflected this quality. After reading Brand Name Bullies this week, I was immediately reminded of the tattoo when Bollier discussed the copyright of DNA. According to Bollier, DNA copyrighting is becoming a more popular topic of conversation especially among people who are considered to have "good genes" (celebrities and such). I suppose, that like the tattoo, one would have to be incredibly narcissistic to want to have their DNA copyrighted. However, the more important question is, what exactly are the copyrighting? Did this guy copyright his body as a one of a kind expression of his thoughts and ideas? Where do we draw the line with copyright?

Another week of copyright induced frustration....oy.

The Lessig reading, while interesting, only further confused me. I seem to only understand one thing about copyright law, its a mess. I don't understand how it works, or what the guidelines are, I only understand that its convoluted law which favors the big companies, or people who can afford lawyers. Frankly, I'm tired of it, never have I encountered such poorly handled or outlined law. Yes, politics and law is confusing, and it requires vast amounts of time and energy to see change, but I literally do not see one benefit to the current copyright law--am I missing something? There are no guidelines, I get that, individuals are being bullied by larger companies, I get that, artists feel hopeless against these same larger companies, I get that too, so I have to wonder...whats the point at all? What is beneficial about this system, what positive influence stems from these laws, and what sort of case law exemplifies this law helping rather than hurting the public at large. I thought that Ray Beckerman's presentation was really insightful, but it presented the same problems all over again. Seriously, this seems like the most poorly developed aspect of the American legal system, yes there are injustices in the legal system all the time, and not to discount the severity of having a lifetime of work stolen, but why are we spending so much time on this...it seems like a self fulfilling law when rather, laws should act in favor of the community at large, copyright law should exist but not in the way it does now, or at least how I understand it. Nevertheless, I have enough faith in my ignorance about the topic to know that this can't be right, I know I am missing something, the problem is I just don't know what.