Foreign aid

I thought it would be worth mentioning, before going into Lessig's stance on the pharma industry, that they have been moments--however few and far in between--in which drug companies have distributed medicine at drastically reduced costs in order to accommodate developing countries. Heller was one of the first to point this out during his guest lecture.

That being said, it's a nice break and an interesting aberration from the standard capitalist critique (although it is usually true) to hear that pharma is not to blame in the case of Africa's lack of access to AIDS medication. "The corruption is our own politicians' failure of integrity. For the drug companies would love...to sell their drugs as cheaply as they can to countries in Africa and elsewhere." In light of the fact that US financial aid abroad is staggeringly low in comparison to that of most European countries, a reversal of such policy could be an excellent way to compensate for such a disparity and perhaps could prove itself more effective than monetary assistance.

Thanksgiving and the Networked Community

This Thanksgiving I went to Connecticut with my boyfriend to celebrate the holiday with his best friends. Upon arriving at the house we would be celebrating in, I was greeted by a group of 14 very close, tightly connected friends that had clearly been sharing the bond of friendship for many years, through many experiences, in many different cities. Currently, the majority of them live in Boston, are in there late 20's/early 30's and are artists in some respect. There is a fashion designer, film directors, singers, composers, graphic designers, architects, actors, producers, and manager. Every one of them is a talented musician, and several bands exist in the circle as well. What was unique about this group of friends was the fact that they had decided to pool their creativity and distribute it in a number of different ways and into a number of different things. The graphic designers were designing the cover art for the bands and the bands were providing soundtracks for movies while the directors were shooting music videos for the bands, etc. etc. It was a beautiful synergy of talent, passion, and innovation that created new, interesting products and materials. This reminded me of a concept David Bollier presented in this week's reading. Bollier states that the issue with copyright today is that, "... it does not take account of the inherently social collaborative nature of creativity..." Additionally, he states that, "It is increasingly obvious that value-added creativity does not emerge solely through individual authors as copyright law presumes... It is becoming clear that originality does not reside solely in the individual but in the networked community." It was interesting to see this sort of small, enclosed, networked community in action. More and more I feel that society's notion of where originality comes from will shift and evolve, and hopefully copyright law will adapt to a new standard.

Wu

I'll admit that I hadn't quite read Wu going into class last week...but after catching up, I can actually say that his perspective was quite refreshing. He was one of the few scholars we have covered who seemed to vest some confidence in our government's ability to adequately address copyright-related issues. I personally tend to empathize with the precariousness in which the state finds itself. The stewardship view is well-taken: "To argue that the state should allow an exemption to the enforcement of property rights to promote the functioning of the market is a logical contradiction." Further, it is indeed a leap of faith (but a logical one) to assume that "the demands of the market will necessarily recreate authorial incentives from somewhere, even if it is hard to specify where right now." As I mentioned in class, it appears that the copyright battle might have more to do with the American notion of democracy, which seems to have run amok and lost most of its intended value. 

Africa vs. US

Lessig concludes his “Free Culture” by explaining the problems with patent laws within the United States. He explains that although he backs up the system of patent holding over pharmaceutical drugs, he believes that there are existent faults in the American system that refrains the final product from reaching those in need. Firstly he points out The U.S.' opposition to the South African bill that allowed "parallel importation", allowing the flow of HIV medicine from other countries to be used within the country. Lessig argues that what the U.S. considers a flow of property or material substance is really a flow of knowledge that does not have negative effects on anybody, instead "turn those chemicals into drugs that would save 15 to 30 million lives."
Again I return to the point that everyone has been ignoring: the United States copyright system puts money before people and untill that changes nothing is going to be changed, regardless of how many genius solutions experts come up with.

The trouble with Africa..

Lessig’s Free Culture ends on a very powerful note, revealing the international need for reform and demonstrating how the fight over protecting intellectual property is costing human lives. This latter argument in particular had struck a chord with me. The logic is simple: pharmaceutical companies are essentially selling an AIDS treatment that costs a dollar to produce at outrageous prices such as $1500. While some people in the westernized nations may be able to afford this, it is completely unaffordable in countries that need in most-- sub-Saharan Africa. This pricing power stems from a monopoly standing that drug companies earn from a patented drug. Therefore, there is no incentive to sell the drug at $1 in Africa (and the rest of the world), if a higher price and net profit can be achieved.

But what really troubles me is that the problem doesn’t end here. To keep things simple, I will isolate this discussion to the troubles plaguing Africa. This continent, which has not witnessed an increase in living standards in the last hundred years, could greatly benefit from a relaxing of international IP law. An economy cannot take off without a stable infrastructure, starting at the grassroots. Countless textbooks, software, and digital media that fall in the realm of IP are likely being withheld from those in poverty because it is impossible for most to afford, say, a $150 university textbook. These products could greatly impact the long-run stability of the African continent by helping to increase the average education levels; but instead, these companies are more focused on retaining a large profit margin. Similarly, there are many vital technologies such as computers or cars that don’t stand a chance to gain a footing in these markets because of their current, overly exorbitant prices. Perhaps if we could loosen the IP laws to allow knock offs or copy-cats, the living standards in Africa may start to see a rise.

Wu's article brought up some interesting points about the motives behind intellectual property legislation. In his analysis of modern approaches to IP law, he brings up the notion that "owned assets will gravitate towards their most valuable use". In other words, content that is valueless is largely considered worthless and therefore things that are kept out of the public domain retain their cultural and commercial potential. I personally still disagree with notion because I think that it is more based in fear than fact. However, his wording made more sense of this justification than ever before. This whole idea that intellectual creations have an inherent monetary value is based in the tradition of capitalism that dictates that every piece of hard work will result financial gain. With this in mind, it would make sense that so many people justify strong IP laws with the 'incentive for creation' line. I can understand how a business-focused mind would assume this. However, I argue that there doesn't necessarily need to be a financial incentive present for authors to create. I agree that financial gain creates a living situation that is conducive to creation. But most authors are not measuring their creative conceptions for their economic worth. This argument is purely in the interest of distributors.

briana berry

Maybe It's All Just a Case Like Africa

Lessig presented the example of HIV-medication being prevented from reaching Africa because of the extra-fees placed by patenting costs. Lessig lauds the patent system as a means of encouraging scientific innovation though he also recognizes the ways it can be mis-used. What is more shocking is the presentation of its effects on the global scale- India could not import the drugs to Africa because America's invocation of the patent prevented it. This stood out to me because of the international aspects of IP regulation it brings to mind. Ultimately the world is becoming more and more interconnected and now more than ever international legal systems are coming into contact with each other. Consider also that President-Elect Obama wants to combat piracy in China but if it's not illegal or at the least if it's not policed there do we have the right to enforce our laws there? This all really brings to mind the murkiness of IP in that as much as IP legislation needs to modernize here so too must it modernize on a global scale. Reconsider our discussions of configurable culture... if one can sample music from around the globe how do we police that or license it? More than anything I think that IP can not b e looked at as property. I've realized more than ever that concrete property and intellectual property are hardly the same thing. They can not be treated that way because I can't really share my house with AIDS victims in Africa-that statement might sound silly but it's a simple iteration of this idea. We're holding onto things that don't really benefit from this level of security. There's a difference between innovation and fencing-in. I realize now more than ever this distinction... IP legislation should allow for innovation but not for over-propertization... there is no reason to draw up borderlines.

IP: A human created issue...

One of the most important points Heller has made in The Gridlock Economy is the fact that Gridlock is a human creation and not something intrinsic to business practices and creative development. While his text discusses gridlock in several contexts, the the most compelling example that truly concerns me is the patent gridlock. Upon signing up for this course, I did not expect to have gained such insight on the patent gridlock that exists due to American law and business regulations. The patent gridlock actually scares me because medicines that could make a difference are not out on shelves. Both Heller and Lessig discuss the importance of IP and gridlock awareness and the need to change our American legal system so that it is more accommodating, or at least specific enough to protect rights to products while encouraging innovation.

I do agree with Heller when he says that addressing gridlock and fixing our gridlock economy could jump-start innovation, save lives and release trillions of dollars lost in productivity. It is appalling to me how much money is lost because of gridlock and how much average consumers have to pay for such.

gridlock

Ever since I began reading Michael Heller's Gridlock Economy I'm been completely intrigued at how gridlock has become so ingrained in our society. Heller suggests that "quick isolation of gridlock can reduce the harm it imposes while giving legislators time to craft other solutions.(192)" I have a problem with this statement: How will legislators ( who create most of the legislative problems in IP due to their lack of knowledge on the issues) change or craft solutions so even if quick isolation can happen, will legislators be up to the challenge?
Also, in the realm of philanthropy I think that what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for the malaria vaccine is amazing yet I still cant understand how other foundations who emphasize fundraising for the development for a cure such as cancer do not do the same thing. The cure can't be created if the patents are blocked so why does more money not go towards paying for patents (which im not sure is the real answer in the first place-although I do realize it is not economically feasible for the companies to have people not pay for patents) so that they can make more leeway in the creation of a drug.

Configurable No More?

Aram Sinnreich chronicles the importance and weightiness of music in "Configurable Culture." From the inception of "state-mandated diagrams of permitted melodic and harmonic codes...in ancient Egypt" (19) to Confucius's laudation of music as a means of reforming culture, to the suppression of African tribal music during the Civil War in the South, to the insubordination of cabaret music in the midst of Prohibition, countless examples exist to underscore the importance of music (20).

Regardless of the example, it is clear that music presents at once a challenge to authority and an authoritative device, designed to hold individual behaviors in check. Music, then, has been regulated in a variety of ways across cultures and time. Regulation permits control over constituents; something highly valued by the persistent minority of the wealthy and the powerful.

Recent legislative measures have sought to impede musical liberties; particularly with regard to the dissemination and transfer of music. These legislative measure, however, go even further. Acts such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and efforts spearheaded by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) serve industry motives and have attempted to further anti-piracy and "theft" efforts (26).

These legislative measures are grossly inappropriate, however, considering the current contextual elements of the status quo. Our culture has increasingly experienced a shift away from a centralization of musical actors (e.g. select few musical afficionados that become world-renowned) to a musical culture that focuses on the amalgamation of a number of different actors at different phases of the musical configuration. Therefore, outdated legislative intents are no longer applicable to 21st century technological developments and trends. We must adapt our legal system to embody and espouse the principles of a fragmented culture, contingent upon a variety of actors in a variety of manifestations. Otherwise, we will be doomed to remain a culture lost in the past.

Unlocking the Grid

Heller's final chapter in Gridlock Economy provides his strategies for recognizing gridlock and ultimately "unlocking" it.  But more important than any of his solutions, I believe, are his ways of noticing gridlock in the first place.  I remember way back in the beginning of the semester when we first started reading this book, I was floored at how Heller even noticed these things.  Obviously we know they exist, and they're completely apparent as underuse/anti-commons tragedies once brought to the forefront, but I had no idea how anyone would notice them initially, especially since so many "tragedies of the anti-commons" seem intrinsic to our culture and everyday life.  We think it's normal to have crappy cell phone reception, as Heller points out, but it's completely our fault due to gridlock.  Overseas, Japan's cell phone service is awesome.  From my own experience in Europe, cell phone service is WAY better there.  If we just "look next door" as he recommends, and see something's working better somewhere else, there may be gridlock hidden at home.  Since this book is so new, I'm really interested to see where his theory and solutions go in terms of law-making.  Will people solve excessive privatization and underuse on their own (as Heller describes in his "alternative" methods)?  Or will the government have to lean on property owners for the gridlock to stop?

Lessig is More: the staying-power of his musical predictions

"There is no other policy issue that better teaches the lessons of this book than the battles around the sharing of music," states Lessig plainly in the Afterword of his Free Culture manifesto/book hybrid, but how well are his 2004 theories holding up four years later? Not only have some of his predictions come to fruition (keyboard-less Internet access and a profiliferation of wifi), but his advice on dealing the coming future is nearly as sound today as it was when his book was written. Piracy has changed a little bit, as BitTorrent and Rapidshare-style content storage websites have become the most common theft venues. On the other hand, many artists are allowing free usage of their music, either through free downloads, myspace streams, creative commons liscences, pay-what-you-want schemes, or other comparable techniques. What's interesting, is that music sharing seems to be slowing down as things like vinyl record sales are begginning to re-emerge from the annals of time. If a couple new ideas arise, and the general public realizes that outright theft isn't the end-all-be-all solution, we may see some progress in the recorded music industry. Compared to the pre-Napster era, worldwide music interest and dependancy has surely increased at least tenfold, so if these files can be properly commoditized, an impending seismic boom should re-establish one of America's greaest industries. In the coming years, music will be sold and distributed like water, but, unfortunately, that isn't as comforting a thought as it once was.

Diction & IP

One of Michael Heller's solutions in his "solutions tool kid" is to re-define the vocabulary that we use to speak about intellectual property. By adding the words of underuse and anticommons to our daily vocabulary, we will begin to notice all the gridlock surrounding us. He later argues that we need to "get the labels right" such as re-terming the word "antitrust" which, according to Heller, "misleads regulators and harms consumers." These snippets of Heller's suggests for changing the way IP works in today's society revolve solely around how we refer to things, because the vocabulary we use to talk around IP, or any other issue for that matter, has a profound way of affecting how we think of something. While we'd all like to be able to think about things using the strict dennotative definition of everything, we can't help but also associate certain words with certain things. Connotations are just as powerful, if not more so, than dennotations and by changing the our diction, we might find that we're tackling the ideas of IP from a completely different perspective. In the realm of IP, we're only limited by the way our mind chooses to think about something.

The Public Domain

I agree with Lessig's idea that "building a public domain is the first step to showing people how important that domain is to creativity and innovation." It seems like the public often has difficulty in understanding the value of something until they actually possess it. When I first read Lessig's comment, I was reminded of a scene in Michael Moore's film, Sicko. Some British academic is talking about the existence of universal healthcare in England, and that if the government ever did away with the system, there would be a massive revolt. Right now, we're debating the issue of healthcare in the US, and there seems to be mostly support for adopting a universal healthcare system. Even so, there remains considerable opposition. I would bet that if we ever end up adopting a government financed system, the opposition would mostly disappear, and the possibility of going back to the old healthcare system would not even be considered. 

Configurable Music: The Next Step?

Here's an anecdote about myself that I hope will shed some light on my views on configurable music and culture as a whole: I am an oboist. As a musician who plays an instrument that is hundreds of years old I am fortunate enough to bave access to a large catalogue of diverse music to play, a catalogue including music from the Baroque era. Taking place during the 17th century it is safe to say that now Baroque performance is one in which musicians must interpret what they assume the composer wanted. Key to Baroque performance is the insertion of ornamentation in which a musician essentially ad-libs the written music (yes it's like R&B with white-powdered wigs). Ornamentation however at least to me is similar to configurable culture because it in a way allows musicians (even oboists) to remix the piece. In a lesson when my teacher said ornament this way and I ornament in a different way, we are each offering up our own interpretation of what the piece is. Here's an extreme exampel. Arcangelo Corelli composed a concerto for the oboe that is now printed as the Corelli-Barbirolli Concerto, John Barbirolli was a conductor and composer who rearaanged the piece (mostly by placing specific ornaments) for wife, an oboist. Is this is not cofigurable culture? Maybe Barbirolli didn't use a computer to do it but even to sit at a piano and take Corelli's original themes and crafts is to me a form of remix. Remix is not an antagonistic art-form and it is not something that is "unartistic". As several remix artists point out in Aram's dissertation, popular culture as a whole took a long time become something people could respect or appreciate. Take the film for example. That medium took a while to become recognized as a form of art and it also took a long time to become organized and regulated. Perhaps this is the missing piece to the puzzle? Remix culture needs to regulated. Culture used to be held as something for the elite and pop culture destroyed that ideology providing culture to the masses. Remix culture stands to say that culture exists outside of institution (or at least certain remix artists espouse that idea)- perhaps this artform is ushering a major development in the way we understand the word culture? I don't think it should be stifled and ironically though I say remix culture is about taking culture out of instiutionalization I still think it should be institutionalized to assist with it becoming legitamized in mainstream society. Imagine a remix board that kept files of all remixes, what was sampled- perhaps this organization is a government one that acts as an advocate for configurable artists helping them obtain samples in a speedy manner, and perhaps paying for licensing fees with a government budget. What I've just suggested might sound ludicrous but hey the government has spent money on far more foolish things in the past. To reiterate my point, more and more people are obtaining culture from places like Youtube- places that are practically shrines to configurable culture. These artform can't be buried away anymore, regardless of legal action or no legal action.

Marx vs. Moglen

Eben Moglen's The dotCommunist Manifesto is an interesting play off of Karl Marx's (in)famous Communist Manifesto. In Moglen's article, he argues that the time has come for a new revolution of the new proletariat of the digital age, in which free information would reign and private (intellecutual) property would be abolished. Moglen calls it, "the revolution that liberates the human mind" (9).

Now, while Moglen's argument, like Marx's original Communist Manifesto, seems great in concept, he, like Marx, is arguing for a very extreme change in the realm of IP. (Although, Moglen probably did this on purpose to better emulate Marx). But the problem for both Marx and Moglen that keeps such drastic revolutions from happening (or at least, succeeding) is the dominant pervailing ideologies on IP & how it should be treated. For most, Moglen's points are too extreme for enough people to adopt whole-heartedly to incite this "revolution." So while Moglen presents his thoughts in an interesting and creative way, like the original Communist Manifesto, the current reigning ideology will probably keep such a drastic revolution from ever happening--although it may cause some minor changes.

Music Evolution

In Configurable Culture, Aram's discusses how music regulation, new technology, etc. can lead to innovation. Although I agree with this argument, I believe that not enough emphasis is placed on an important component of the process--artists themselves. The issue really boils down to a question of whether musical evolution is demand based (change in consumer tastes) or supply based (change in new music produced). I am more on the side of the supply argument for two reasons. First, I don't believe that all consumers can change their tastes at the same time in the same direction, for artists to then respond and supply to. Second, I think people don't know what they are looking for, they merely react to whats available to them. For instance, I have found that I can like almost any genre of music that I am exposed to; the old adage of "let it grow on you".

But my main reason for this belief is based in historical examples. Consumers didn't all of a sudden decide that hip hop lyrics sound better through a voice synthesizer, instead T-pain started the trend and other artists like Snoop, Kanye, and Lil Wayne followed suit. Likewise, music fans weren't aware that they were in love with boy bands until the backstreet boys came out, and in an attempt to ride the wave, N'sync, 98 degrees, O-town followed suit. Again, I am in full agreement with Aram's analysis of changes in music over the decades. However, I believe every change requires a push and a pull, and the main pull stems from the precedents of major artists.

Aram's writing on the ways that society and government uses music as a tool of control made me realize that this is happening more than ever right now. Personally, I think that the way music is ideologically regulated is the most significant in terms of persuading not only consumer behavior but the investments of the industry. These ideological priorities can be seen in the topical consistency of Top 40 music. These chart-toppers are overwhelmingly preaching commercial ideals that are supportive of capitalism. Songs that are covetous and materialistic in nature cause listeners to adopt these ideals, even if subconsciously at the least. And because it seems to be the least risky for music investors, it encourages musicians to make this kind of music in order to gain their favor. This is a form of ideological control in the sense that it prevents the masses from listening to potentially persuasive music that discourages the ideals that keep our society stable.

One interesting example that Aram brought up was the practice of the African colonialists placing certain bans on indigenous music that had potentially subversive meanings. While the regulation did seek to suppress, it was not entirely successful because the secondary meanings were already such a big part of their culture. I wonder if the methods of control would be more powerful in societies where secondary meaning is inherent rather than purposeful and universally recognized. Looking more at topical oppression, the mainstream market will not resist because consumers don't realize the nature of the control.

briana berry

Rickrolling

During our discussion about rickrolling last week, someone suggested that the purpose of rickrolling was for the "lulz." Although this might be true to some extent, I would argue that rickrolling has deeper social implications. The spread of this Internet meme is not only important for what it spreads, but how it is spread. The rapid and far reaching evolution of rickrolling helps to create a new language about how we share, spread, send, receive and communicate especially over the Internet. Moreover, this new form of social critique helps to create a new language in terms of how we understand IP and its effect on culture. In a way, the evolution of rickrolling demands an evolution of IP laws and practices. It creates new ideas, new way of thinking, and new ways of thinking about old ideas/concepts. Yeah, we lol when Obama gets rickrolled, but we also talk about it. 

Under the Influence

I found myself having a little debate in my head as I read parts of Configurable Culture. I agree on a fundamental level that music influences, reflects, and amplifies the human psyche. Who can argue that music doesn't have a profound effect on us--emotionally, spiritually, socially, or otherwise?
But then I think about how well this would support the conservative censors who claim that Marilyn Manson is the reason why Columbine happened, and about how strongly I disagree with that.
Honestly, I don't really know how to reconcile this. Could it be that I like to think of music as an instrument for positive rather than negative influence? Or do I just reject the use of music as a scapegoat to avoid personal responsibility?

Configurable Culture

First of all, I think its incredibly interesting that at the time this was written last year, Wal-Mart was the largest retailer and how quickly how this has changed. It is also interesting the change in percent of people who thought that online file sharing of music was wrong "climbed from 22 percent in 2003 (the first year in which they asked the question) to 28 percent in 2004 (the last year in which they asked). The climb among young adults (18-24 year-olds) was even steeper, from 8 percent in 2003 to 14 percent in 2004. In the meantime, an increasing number of respondents reported cutting back on file-sharing because they were “afraid of legal consequences” – from 17 percent of online adults and 21 percent of young adults in 2003 to 25 percent and 34 percent, respectively, in 2005." What calls for this change in belief? Were the rules and regulations more harsh? How could that be the only deterrent for such a steep increase. Yet, at the same time, that means that a large majority of people did not believe it was wrong. Why did they believe it was ok? "As modern capitalism and industrialization emerged, music’s role in society, and its relationship to capital, changed with the times." Then, why do the laws not change as the relationship changes? Finally, I think one of the most interesting pars is the history of the application of copyright and how technology has impacted copyright so much and how the notion of copyright has changed because of this.

What is art?

In the Sinnreich reading, I found myself asking how do you define art? while people weighed in on their opinion of configurable music as art. Their answers all depended on individual interpretations of what art is. I really liked Marc Geiger's quote, "if the audience thinks it's art, then it's art." I don't believe there's is a tangible definition of art, and whether a piece of work exists as art depends entirely upon audience perception. A really good example is Andy Warhol's work. Most people look at a campbell's soup can and see it as a commodity, but by taking the image, and passing it off as art, Warhol's reproduction is considered by many to be among the most important artwork of the  20th century. I remember reading about Warhol and asking myself, "why his work was so highly regarded." I googled his name, looking for an explaination, and there was no consistent answer. 

Elvis, Eat Your Heart Out

In the Sinnreich reading, I found the exploration of race in relation to mash-up culture to be particularly intriguing. A book called Other People's Property came out last year exploring the relationship between whiteness and hip-hop culture, which lends a very interesting counterpoint to the pure co-opting argument. Race and ethnicity are jumbled in our world today, so I think to say that the configurable music community is primarily white could be an oversight (especially because of the implicitly problematic black/white binary). The subject deserves a full exploration, but I think one example could shed light on apparent racial discrepancies: the turntablist community, as we saw in Scratch, is comprised primarily of Asians. Even Jay-Z, the world's biggest rap star, has an Asian DJ (Neil Armstrong). Why is this? I don't know. DJing began in the South Bronx (via the Carribean), in which you'll have trouble finding many people of Asian descent. I don't have a good explanation for any of this, and can't really posit any theories, but I think it is too easy to attribute the observed phenomena as Black > White culture co-opting.

complication

If you weren't completely baffled by the injustices of copyright legislation untill now, I believe Sinnreich's dissertation may guide you in that direction. He introduces his dissertation by explaining the basic facts of copyright legislation such as DMA and DRM, but continues by saying that you haven't seen nothing yet! It just gets more and more complicated.
The RIAA and IFPI have taken full advantage of the words "piracy" and "theft" and the bad connotations they invoke, in order to win over injust cases and in order to protect their image from the reality: RIAA as the thief themselves. Or as Sinnreich puts it himself "these pejoratives have been aggressively promoted as the terms of choice by pro-industry organizations like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). "
RIAA has charged infringement penalties on people that have no means of defending themselves. Covering their bad image by attacking the opposing party, which is usually quite unable to afford refutable arguments.
The ambiguity within legislations have allowed large companies to meddle it and exploit it and music is a clear example of its consequences.

DRM and Business (Make-up from last week 11/4)

As I read the conflicting arguments and engaged debates about how the entertainment industry should treat its content-- as a product or marketing tool-- I realized that the very definition of music, and film, and art, is changing. DRM is the outcome of decades of conceiving of music as a tangible product. How was music conceived of, and talked about before there was any recording technology? 

It's a little disturbing that the interests of "business" and "society" are so drastically pitted against each other. This can't last for long, if one wins the other looses-- and then the winner will consequently  loose. It seems to me that society and business could never really be that separate. Maybe we have out-sourced, vertically integrated and expanded markets to the point where business benefits from the collective loss of society, but this seems like a huge mistake in the larger scheme of things, and evolutionary fatality. Using music and film content as a marketing tool seems to placate this severely unhealthy conceptual divide between society and business interests. But I'm wondering how deep this tactic can really go at this point; we need to build business around the health of society and I'm not sure this concept will ever catch on.

A shift in law to match culture...?

An argument in Eben Moglen’s “dotCommunist Manifesto” holds that universal education is a means of enlisting people into the habits of consumption. The rise of literacy and skilled proficiency in the use of technology have both led to shortcut ways of consuming culture and products. I would like to expand on this notion and relate back to our second midterm assignment. The two current California Senators, our president elect, his opposing candidate and most lawmaking officials are Pro-IP. Law makers are supposed to create legislation in the best interest of the public majority. It wasn’t originally surprising to me that the two California State Senators were cosponsors for bill S.3325, a bill later signed into law that would increase protection and oversight of intellectual property. Afterall, California is home to Hollywood and Silicon Valley, two thriving economies spurred by innovation and creativity. But Hollywood and Silicon Valley hardly represent the majority of America. This leads to my next point—file sharing, illegal downloading and all that deemed “copyright infringement” by law has become such a normal part of our culture, of our everyday life and of our nation’s majority. If that is the case, then will we ever see IP law change so that it becomes less punitive and legally consequential? Could we expect to see a shift away from copyright maximization toward copyright minimization? Or are our law makers more concerned with protecting the big companies like those coming out of Hollywood and Silicon Valley?

.Communist

I really enjoyed this week's reading by Eben Moglen. His "dotCommunist Manifesto" brought up several interesting ideas about how technology tectonics are affecting our social order. The most important point Moglen raises is that the oppressive process Fordist production has been replaced by a similarly oppressive process of consumption. So whereas Marx was looking at the way creators are inherently disconnected from the things they make, in the technology age, we are similarly disconnected from the products we consume. The things we buy still define us to some extent, but because the machinery of consumption is so impersonal and obligatory, we don't genuinely connect to it. Moglen's idea that universal education serves as a tool to enlist people in the consumption craze is particularly interesting. By giving the working class a taste of bourgeoisie through increased media literacy, they are encouraged to keep reaching for it.

However, I agree with Moglen that the technology the bourgeoisie has created is backfiring. As he notes, "the bourgeois system of ownership demands that knowledge and culture be rationed by the ability to pay". But to a great extent, this system is falling apart. Aside from the initial purchase of the hardware required for access (ie computer, radio, TV), culture is becoming free. Information is becoming free. So while the working class is becoming media literate and therefore bigger spenders, they are also being given the opportunity to participate in the flow of culture in a way that the bourgeoisie can't necessarily control. In fact, the bourgeoisie is coming to depend on the proletariat to create culture in order for them to sell it back to them. The bourgeois class has become so disconnected from the masses that they don't know what to sell them. Now I wonder, who has more control in this relationship?

I foresee the roles reversing, but the qualities of the classes remaining the same. Every revolution brings new challenges and forms of oppression. Therefore it's possible that the working class may rise up and gain more control over the machine of consumption to the exclusion of yet another class.

briana berry

“Too often the debate over creative control tends to the extremes. At one pole is a vision of total control — a world in which every last use of a work is regulated and in which “all rights reserved” (and then some) is the norm. At the other end is a vision of anarchy — a world in which creators enjoy a wide range of freedom but are left vulnerable to exploitation. Balance, compromise, and moderation — once the driving forces of a copyright system that valued innovation and protection equally — have become endangered species.”

This opening paragraph to the Creative Commons expresses one of my main concerns with intellectual property laws today in the United States. Like the people at the CC, I feel that copyright is all about the two extremes, either you own everything & then some or nothing at all, which is just highly impractical, I think. There’s no way a copyright holder can crack down on every possible “infringer,” nor is it practical for the courts to have to deal with such trivial litigation. And at the same time, having no rights at all to one’s work can be demoralizing & unrewarding. There has to be a middle road—which CC has created.

Marx and copyright

After reading Moglen's "The dotCommunist Manifesto" I was reminded why such regulations are both annoying and boring to me. It is hard to try to spend a whole semester learning about laws and legislations that aren't respected or enforced by anyone. It reminded me of Marx's problem with commodities. The problem is the creation of a system where commodities have power over people and where people and what they stand for, no long mean anything. IP legislation in the United States has become a commodity. It becomes the end that justifies the means, no matter how unfair the means may be. In this case, it is somewhat ironic, as unjust and unlawful cases have taken place they have all been justified as means to "increase innovation". It has become a system that that argument alone can win the most ridiculous of cases. And we are all indiferent. We are in a state of mass hibernation, where we accept all that is being done to us as it justifies the end.
So I like to believe that one day we will wake up as Marx predicted that the workers would wake up and realize what was being done to them and rise in rebellion. I can't wait.

EMI/Apple Deal and its Consequences

Aram Sinnreich presents an interesting analysis of the EMI/Apple deal established to allow for the exercise of "fair use" rights of their own libraries. Digital rights management (DRM) seems to have contributed to the monopoly Apple holds over any potential competitors. The positive externalities of the iPod guarantees it a place not held by any other MP3 or music playing device on the market; by obtaining a slice of the market early on, and by utilizing stylish and slick marketing ploys and designs, the iPod has easily surpassed its competition in terms of desirability.

This effect is even further enhanced when more and more people are eager for the iPod. Since it has staked its terrain as the dominant device in its field, it automatically has become the preeminent device; few bother to investigate alternatives to the iPod, and as its popularity increases exponentially, the likelihood of salient alternatives drops exponentially.

Since Sinnreich's article was released on April 17, 2007, the iPhone has been released. It has certainly revolutionized cell phones; possessing the hybrid functions of cell phone utility, equipped with myriad cool internal gadgets, and perfectly amalgamating the insatiable appetite for music craved by the American public. AT&T/Cingular is the only service provider to have the exclusive rights to selling the iPhone, and it seems that rival companies (e.g. Verizon), are simply left in the dust. Sure, companies like Verizon may offer better service, but without comparable technogadgets, it seems likely that they will lose out on a huge audience of individuals who are keen to sample the "latest trend" and "newest thing."

These technophiles are the same kinds of individuals who will continue to purchase the iPhone in each of its newly revised (albeit only minimally altered) editions. They will presumably disregard the fact that the quality of service (and after all, isn't that what a cell phone is supposed to do? Provide service to its users?) is inferior, and instead opt for the ostentatious appeal and variety of techno-tricks the iPhone guarantees.

EMI likely recognized the depth of power wielded by Apple via its new technologies, and in its new deal sought to quell some of the monopoly power of Apple, and instead promote a more healthy competition among companies and providers. Hopefully EMI's innovations at limiting DRM-distribution will influence other companies to adopt similar policies.

It seems that in the 21st century, most technologies are easily duplicable (unless blockaded by such disadvantages as lacking the legal foundations for drafting contracts, as was the case with the iPhone/AT&T) and that one new technology spurs an onslaught of similar technologies. We can only hope this trend will be the case with regard to a rejection of DRM and a promotion of healthy corporate competition.

Adaptation

Barlow's article in Wired gave a really fascinating analogy for copyright in the modern age: "Intellectual property law cannot be patched, retrofitted, or expanded to contain digitized expression any more than real estate law might be revised to cover the allocation of broadcasting spectrum (which, in fact, rather resembles what is being attempted here)."

Over the course of the semester, we've read a lot of articles concerning the problematic course IP law has taken. I don't know about anyone else, but as much as I understand intuitively, I find it hard to explain it in simple terms to anyone else without going into lots of detail that just confuses them more. Heller's concept of the gridlock economy has been one example that I fall back on, but I think that Barlow's analogy works best for the specific problems in copyright. When I read that, everything kind of clicked--it boils it down to the bare essentials of what this whole issue is about. The digital age doesn't fit into the neat little boundaries of old laws--those who try to confine the new within the old will inevitably die out. Those who adapt with survive.

APPLE <3 DRM

(q) = a question mark. the key doesn't work.

Sinnreich's article "Right Move, Wrong Reasons: Inside the EMI|Apple Deal" is one of the more for-the-people article's we've read in class, and for that reason I really enjoyed it. I thought it was an article that most people can relate to, especially because most people, or basically--everyone has an ipod and used the itunes application. The article gives a brief overview of the digital music business, of DRMs', and of why Apple has been able to retain such tight control over it in the last decade.

Almost everyone hates DRM, except for maybe Steve Jobbs. It restrains so many of the liberties that digital music consumers should be able to have.. and is one of the reasons so many of them turn to illegal downloading which gives them songs in the simple MP3 format. It's not only about getting it for free, but it's also about the amount of liberty they have with it once the song is in their hands. It's easier, and better. Why pay for less rights(q) And even having access to them is so easy, since every single hit makes it onto a peer to peer network, where over one billion songs are traded each month.

So, not only is DRM difficult, but it has also shifted the market power and control from the record labels to the retailers.. which is mainly to Apple, the digital music monopoly. And its all basically because of the iPOD, which, through it's simplicity and incredible marketing has made it into almost EVERYONE'S pocket. I can't even name one person who I know that doesn't own an iPOD. The problem with Apple's itunes songs is that they are DRM protected, but only play on Apple's device. And Apple has not wanted to share this license with other companies and has therefore remained as a monopoly while not allowing the digital music business to succeed and grow: 90% of all digital music purchases spent by American's goes to Apple. 

Anyway, although this is the way Apple has worked in the past, Jobbs announced that he was ready to embrace an end to DRM, but this has raised many questions. Why would he want to do that when he's getting so much out of DRM technology(q). Apparently it's because of the iPHONE... and finally Apple is opening up a little more. So it's being done, but not really for the consumers, but for their own business reasons. Well, in the end, Jobbs announced that by the end of 2007 half of the songs on the iTunes music service would be available DRM free, for $1.29. And from what I've seen, they are. Finally, Apple's monopoly might be a bit reduced and the market will be open to competition. Maybe this way, slowly, we'll find a way out of this mess with the music business...

The Land of the Free

I thoroughly enjoyed Karl Fogel's presentation (also his suspenders) and thought that the parallels between the free software movement and all intellectual property were extremely relevant and exciting. After learning that open source software like Apache is at the heart of almost all servers in the world - specifically the servers that host millions of pages on the web - it became quite clear that innovation in computers and the internet happened because of the amazing contributions that open source and the "free software" movement provided. Open source and free software have a unique mindset in comparison to many other areas of IP however. People like Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman created amazing pieces of software and, rather than make them proprietary and squeezing their creations for every dollar, they laid it out for others to add and develop. In the end, while this may not have directly made them the richest men, they were able to create along with the help of other contributers something that has changed the way we live our lives.

I was very interested in this unique movement and found a small documentary, Revolution OS. It recounts how things used to be in the computer world and how the environment changed. Copyright and licensing played a very large part in how this technology was shaped. In Bill Gates' "Open Letter to Hobbyists" he basically goes on a tirade regarding the current state of computer programing and how everything was being shared without compensation and such practices would lead to discouraging developers from investing time in money in something that they would never see a return on, as such no good software could be made if the author was not being paid. This is the exact opposite of what the free software and GNU manifesto proposed. It also was a sign of things to come from Bill Gates and microsoft.

One of our readings was a talk from Cory Doctorow given to Microsoft's Research Group. He very effectively proposes reasons why Microsoft should abandon DRM and create a DRM-free player. After understanding how Bill Gates envisioned Microsoft and proprietary ownership and control over creations, this talk, while very concisely presented, probably fell on deaf ears.

It's all on you...

"Rights holders have been quick to point the finger, but slow to take a stand. Thus far, efforts to counter online piracy have largely centered on rights enforcement, in the realm of legal action, rather than protection. This isn't due to a lack of DRM solutions, but to the perception by rights holders that DRM is prohibitively expensive and largely ineffectual."

Regardless of one's copyright convictions, its stands to reason that rights holders should be more proactive in protecting their material. As the analysis reveals, the cease-and-desist provision has been implemented to the extreme. If the content in question is indeed as valuable as its rights holder(s) wish to suggest, then all available preventive measures must be observed. How can such individuals legitimately claim a breach of copyright when they have failed to establish that their content is worth protecting in the first place?

CRIPPLED by DRM or just bruised and battered?

The Truthdig article by our own Professor Sinnreich is quite informative as a document, and does a great job simplifying a potentially cloudy situation.  I do take issue, however, with his repeated use of the term "crippling" to describe the effect of DRM on music files.  Having this erroneous file protection is irritating to some degree, but that is primarily because I like doing illegal things on my computer.  Obviously it prevents me from doing some legal things as well, but DRM isn't threatening anyone's life or wellbeing (unless you make a musical therapy argument that I don't have time to explore at this juncture).  Furthermore, DRM is a poor business choice from all angles, and, since the publication of this article, has begun to evaporate.  Additionally, a positive byproduct has arisen, in that independent online music retailers (shout out othermusic.com) can tout 'DRM-free' tracks as though they are giving something away that they shouldn't be.  All in all, the exaggerated prose in only fair for the hopeless fight against copyright bigwigs and lobbyists, but 'crippling' is kind of pushing it.

Information or Art?

Last week, I found Karl Fogel's discussion about free software and the open source movement fascinating--especially when he talked about what software and computer codes mean to a community/culture/world at large. Computer codes, unlike numbers in a phone book or the human genome, are not information but artfully crafted configurations arranged by clever, brilliant "nerds." Fogel posed the question: Is software a cultural artifact? According to Fogel, he can more often than not look at a code and be able to recognize the mastermind behind it. In the realm of copyright, there is often a fine line between what is considered to be information and what is deemed a cultural artifact. Fogel made me realize that it's not about "1s and 0s" but the tedious, meticulous, and pre-meditated craftsmanship involved in assembling the ones and zeros into a piece of art. 

10 years later...

Sinnreich's article on "Creating New Business Models with Digitial Rights Management" shows that copyright holders are quick to punish pirates but do little to find a solution to that piracy. He uses data and quantifiable evidence to prove that these rights holders would benefit from protective measures such as watermarks and encryption since, at the time, these holders had little success in shutting down sites or collecting damages. Furthermore, the rapid growth of digital media has provided pirates with greater ease and accessibility for infringement.
What I find interesting is that although Sinnreich's article was written in 1999, we still stand a lot to gain from reading it. This is because even though a decade is more like an eon in the online media world, the problems of today are essentially the same. We still witness a propensity for studios and labels to punish pirates retroactively through lawsuits and injunctions rather than find a prospective solution to the problem. I'll admit that the numbers in Sinnreich's article would be a bit different today--there is probably a greater amount of DRM protection from the copyright holders--yet the fundamental problem still remains. If pirates have grown more sophisticated in their methods of infringement, the solution should not be to impose punishments but to find an alternative method and new business model to confront these obstacles.

The Unintelligible Language

I can't lie. Chris Kelty's essay on the Free Software movement completely boggled my mind. No matter how fluidly computer science is written about, I can't seem to grasp on to the fundamentals of this language that has had such a profound effect in intellectual property. EMACS, GNUS, RMS. What?

However, Kelty the way explained the conceptual argument underlying Stallman's community made me find a few similarities with my own community of musicians. Record companies and other industry investors may fear file sharing because it is significant revenue loss. On the creative side of things, one grave fear of musicians is that the files being shared are frequently of considerably inferior quality. Many of the files available on LimeWire are third or fourth generation copies which gives the sound a dull, lifeless quality. Not to mention that special uses of the recordings by third parties that have been modified are often the ones that get leaked on file sharing networks. For example, AOL music has a program called "AOL Listen First". During the introduction to all the songs featured on the program, AOL overdubs a plug over the original recording. Undoubtedly, this compromises the artistic integrity of the music.

Kelty notes that it is necessary for these softwares to be available freely because that way they are assured to be copied perfectly, thereby preserving the integrity of the program. Whether it is free or not, hackers are going to get at it. With our increased media literacy, we are all becoming hackers and pirates. From a creative standpoint, the quality of the recordings that consumers are likely to hear would be far better if they were available for free.

briana berry

YouTube an Art Form?

Artistic innovation has taken a new shape in the 21st century; long gone are the days of sprawling frescoes, chiseled sculptures, and intricately detailed paintings. Art has evolved from its traditional forms; and has arisen, like a phoenix, in revitalized form.

It is no longer clear where to draw the distinction between art and non-art. As myriad new media have sprung from the internet, the boundaries between art and non-art grow increasingly blurred. To witness this phenomenon, we need look no further than the YouTube phenomenon. Aufderheide and Jaszi's article, "Recut, Reframe, Recycle" discusses the types of media to be found within the media source, YouTube.

The article interestingly presents the types of videos, dealing with each type as a legitimate art form, and avoiding condescending judgments. Interestingly, the value of satire and parody was emphasized. It is hard to escape the number of parodic and satirical videos that saturate channels such as YouTube. But all too often, they are simply disregarded; their message left astray, with viewers extracting little value from what is being posited. Reading this article has enabled me to approach viewing videos from a more critical and analytical lens; possibly searching for meaning, regardless of whether or not meaning is blatantly apparent.

What was disappointing, however, was the realization that Aufderheide and Jaszi do not contend with the shrinking force of fair use, despite devoting a fair amount of analysis to fair use. Sure, they recognize that fair use can at times be ambiguous---they can be quoted as, "In the attempt to address unauthorized copying, content providers and online video platform providers have established guidelines that articulate how platform providers can accommodate content providers' piracy concerns through filtering of content. These provisions acknowledge but leave vague how to address or assess fair use" (4).

Yes, there is a great deal of ambiguity with regard to fair use. However, the greatest tension that is manifested in fair use is the deliberate and calculated suppression of fair use. Fair use has been so consistently been condemned---even by legal authorities---that it can barely strive to hold its own. In fact, it can scarcely be considered a viable legal argument. While some of the demise of fair use may be attributed to an uneducated legal populace that prefers to side with copyright owners because they lack awareness, much of the problems of fair use diminishment can be solved by exposure to the issue. Sadly, when articles and publications do not emphasize and underscore the importance of fair use, and the detriment of its disintegration, little can be done to remedy the issue of metastasizing ownership in the face of waning civil liberties.

"The provisions of the Copyright Act codifying fair use were intentionally made nonspecific,an acknowledgment of the constantly changing state of cultural production. " (CSM Recut...)


After writing several times about my opinions on the concept of fair use, I came across this quote which made me rethink everything I have said, but I have concluded that my previous opinions still stand. Ok, so the copyright act clearly does not have a sufficient section on fair use. This has been made clear over and over again but to say that it was intentionally made nonspecific to go along with the changing state of cultural productions (in my opinion) is ridiculous. First of all technology and media is all always in a constantly changing state so then all laws would have to be nonspecific and if this were to be so then why have laws at all? Seriously! Why not make a very specific law so that there is no confusion (because there is undoubtedly a great amount today) and add/ adjust the law as new technology arises?

Also, I thought that "FLOSS Is Not Just Good for Your Teeth" was really concise, well written, and funny. It took problems brought up by the Inventing Copyleft document by Kelty such as "free" not actually being free or in the public domain but free for use, and clarifies the problems posed.

"So you’re saying that free software actually evolves at a faster pace than closed
software?It’s impossible to make a sweeping statement that all free software, by virtue of its free character, evolves faster than all closed software. Having said that, it’s certainly true that many examples of free software exist – from word processors to operating systems, to the infrastructure on which substantial portions of the internet run – which prove that a free software development model can result in software evolving at a blinding pace that can match and even outstrip, in quality and in pace of evolution, the best efforts of the closed software development model."

I thought this was a good point brought up because it can not only be applied to free software but also many other copyrighted works. This could especially apply to mediums such as music and would go along with the movie that we watched and how the music evolved at a faster pace and to a larger extent then that of music that has all these copyright restrictions on it.

In the NY Times “Bits Debate: Is Copy Protection Needed or Futile?” Rick Cotton states, “There may not be a single answer to this question. It may vary by medium, by technological environment an by groups of creators,” which, in my opinion, nails the problem concerning IP laws. If there’s anything all judges, lawyers, law professors and students would agree on is the fact that the law is difficult to interpret, and incredibly vague. And while in the ideal world, we’d all love it the law as clear as glass, we realize that the law cannot anticipate every situation that may arise around issues of IP. Nor can laws predict the future so that they can evolve on their own to suite the changing IP climate. As a result, laws are purposely written to be very broad. Because of the breath of the laws and of technology itself, IP law must be adapted to different mediums and technologies differently. However, the law cannot be cover every individual piece of technology that’s introduced, so we’re left with a problem of trying to adapt these very long, involved & tedious to different IP issues and technologies with no regards to the different needs and wants of each piece of development or “creator.”

probable solution

Sinnreich's article "Copyright and Intellectual Property" takes a different look at IP analysis, not only pointing out the problem, but providing the solutions for the problem for both the consumer and copyright holder. As Sinnreich proves it, most copyright holders have enforced penalties for copyright infringement but have ceased to create preliminary cautions to prevent infringement. He proves that copyright holders are quicker to use "cease and desist" policies than preventing infringement with the proper use of watermarks or encryption technologies.
Since the beginning of the internet, there has been an increase in fear over piracy and IP infringement. Since then, most copyright holders have chosen to take defensive positions in the form of quick penalization hurting their customers more and failing to prevent piracy infringement. In other words, nothing is really being done about piracy when copyright holders enforce penalties on their customers. By enforcing prevention policies such as watermark or encryption, the copyright holder prevents piracy infringement and the mishandling of copyrighted material. Sinnreich proves that positive change will only come with careful analysis of the malfunctioning system and the provision of probable solutions.

DRM =/= a good business model

The NYT Bits debate, "Is Copyright Protection Needed or Futile?" nicely gathered up the main arguments on either side of the DRM debate.  Most of NBC's General Counsel's arguments were more of the same: creators need incentive, creators have a right to protect their work, creators make huge monetary investments, most people on the internet are illegally stealing content, etc. etc.  Unsurprising.  He did, however, address that there are fair use concerns, but he didn't really present us with options to protect fair use right while simultaneously protecting creators' rights.

But I found Tim Wu's rebuttals to be interesting, not just because I agree with him but also because he has some ideas that I hadn't run across before.  He makes a great point here:

"I believe that the content industry tends to grossly overestimate its own interest in digital locks, let alone our collective interest. It is natural to want to secure and protect things that are yours. But decisions in this area are often driven by a sense of panic that displaces careful thinking about the true costs and benefits of digital locks. In short: digital locks are no substitute for a good business model."

It's the truth, too.  We've learned that this kind of over-protection has actually hurt companies in the past.  While protection is needed, it's important for content producers to find a new business model that embraces a happy medium.  It'll work for their revenues and it'll make consumers hate them less.

encoding woes

In Doctorow's article, it amazed me to see the kind of measures certain companies will go to to prevent anything that may possibly be considered making a copy of something for any purpose whatsoever.  If I buy an album, or a DVD, I should be able to make copies for my own personal enjoyment, so that I can, for instance, have a copy at home and a copy at work, or atleast so I can have a backup copy.  Reading some of these examples, I'm surprised I'm allowed to rip cds to my computer at all.  As far as encoding software etc. though, he has one quote about how people get so blindsided in building encoding software that they are incapable of seeing the flaws in it.  Recently I was writing someting for another class about the Enigma machine, and the general principle was the same, the Nazis had so much faith in this device that they couldn't see how their code could possibly get cracked.  Of course, it was, and this was a huge turning point in the war.  Am I comparing digital IP encoders to Nazis? of course not, but for every extremely smart person who can build these crazy encryptions there is someone else who can hack them, and of course, this isn't helpful to the encryptors so that they can take these flaws into consideration, it's illegal.  And such is the stupidity of the whole cat and mouse game.  

Before You Look Elsewhere, Look at Yourself

Aram Sinnreich and Jupiter Communication's research regarding DRM was interetsing because it highlights the fact that though media corporations are quick to levy infractions against people they view as infingers of their IP online, they do very little to protect their IP. If a mother allowed her child to run into the street and her child was hit by a car, we'd consider her negligence of her child to cause her to have to carry some of the blame in the situation yet do we every ask, why aren't more corporations water-marking their IP? Labels are angry that music is downloaded illegally yet they do very little to stop it from leaking. The tables from the study even showed that corporations were more likely to coerce people than actually do anything to prevent the infringing they are going after. It's certainly a frustrating situation! One thing that came to mind while thinking about all of this was ITunes and its m4p files. M4p's give users a license that provides a set number of transfers of the file. In this way everyone is on the same page about what is legal and what isn't with the downloaded file in question. I think if this type of order were more present, perhaps IP would be less murky territory.

DRM

It seems like DRM is pretty useless. From past experience, the idea that "every lock can be picked" in describing digital properties, appears to be totally accurate. I consider myself an average ability computer user, and in the several years i've been using file sharing technologies, I can't think of any instance in which I attempted to illegally obtain software and was unable as a result of protections. The only people that really suffer from DRM are the casual computer users who legally obtain the protected software and end up with a product they have limited control over. Companies should think about providing incentives to buy digital property, instead of the DRM disincentives that go along with owning legitimate copies. 

Private and Noncommercial

"Recut, Reframe, Recycle," discusses the proliferation of user-generated content, more specifically, short-form, streaming videos. The report discusses the several different methods popularized by creators to get their point or story across by altering original content into a separate creation. Some examples are protected by fair use; others are not; some straddle the line ambiguously. My biggest question perhaps is, why does it all matter? Who cares if people are creating video montages by splicing in copyrighted content if these productions are not for sale? Was the intent of copyright not to protect private property which is an economic issue? The majority of user-generated content is a creative practice intended for entertainment and participation amongst a community. Not for financial gain. The report explains, "On the other hand, extensive quotation that does little or nothing to reframe quoted material is certainly vulnerable to copyright infringement claims—unless it can be justified on the grounds that it is strictly private and noncommercial." Privacy is impossible. Internet technology has made it incredibly difficult to prohibit sharing amongst other members of society, so the Fair Use statutes will inevitably have to adapt to our changing culture.