IP Readings Blog

L.A. Day/L.A. Night: Slideshow: Places: Design Observer

2011-04-12T16:46:00.000-07:00

L.A. Day/L.A. Night: Slideshow: Places: Design Observer

Photographer and pilot Michael Light sores over the coastal west, snapping shots for a series of eight books. "In his photos of Los Angeles, he focused on its extremes, contrasting the land of perpetual sunlight with its deep, expansive darkness. Now Light (a fantastic name for a photographer) has collected the photos in L.A. Day/L.A. Night, a beautiful 72-page book featuring 30 images of the city captured from above."

Check it.

purse 'n boots: malibooty

2011-02-10T16:41:00.000-08:00

purse 'n boots: malibooty: Great photography, great works of art in clothes.

Greg Laswell - Comes and Goes

2011-01-26T14:49:00.000-08:00

A very good tune.

2011 Showcasing Acts | SXSW.com

2011-01-04T15:01:00.000-08:00

2011 Showcasing Acts | SXSW.com

I shall satisfy my musical appetite. And other appetite.

The Head and the Heart - Down in the Valley (Live on KEXP)

2010-12-03T12:23:00.000-08:00

Thanks Michael for passing this along! I've fallen in love with the voice and violin. Catching The Head and the Heart December 13th at the Troubadour in Los Angeles, CA. Stoked!

"Lord have mercy on my rough and rowdy days."

Sinnreich

2008-12-21T09:33:00.001-08:00

I found Sinnreich’s argument that “the audience was born at the same time as music became a commodity” (128) to be interesting and really on-point. In a consumer society, no longer are cultural participants producing and listening to music for reasons of social identity (as in pre-industrial societies), but instead acquiring music in order to be considered cultural participants. This is incredibly true, especially when one thinks of how, in Facebook and MySpace profiles, music we “like” is linked up to others who enjoy the same music. By placing that music there, and signifying that you “have” this music, play it, and listen to it, you communicate your “group affiliations and cultural attitudes.” It’s an important musical/cultural phenomenon that I personally have not read much about, and Sinnreich’s description of this was particularly striking to me.

Barlow

2008-12-21T09:32:00.002-08:00

In his Wired article, John Perry Barlow provides a fantastic comparison between understanding light in more than one way and understanding information in such a manner. Just as light is understood as both a wave and a particle, information must be understood as an activity, a life form, and a relationship – and only by understanding this can one understand why information should not be chained down through burdensome intellectual property rights. Throughout his description, I really found Barlow’s statement of, “Information is a verb, not a noun,” to be the most powerful, since that in itself could shoot down any argument that it deserves any ounce of intellectual property rights. He writes, “Information is an action which occupies time rather than a state of being which occupies physical space, as is the case with hard goods. It is the pitch, not the baseball, the dance, not the dancer.” For me, it’s a novel way of perceiving information, yet it makes more sense than seeing it as a “thing.”

Lessig (2)

2008-12-21T09:32:00.001-08:00

First of all, I have to note that when I started reading this second part of Lessig’s book and he discussed the phenomena of the “chimera” (one person with two sets of DNA, or one animal), my mind immediately went to that creature by the same name in mythology…kind of interesting how genetics and mythological names here combine (unrelated © note!).

Anyway, when Lessig discussed “Balances” around page 211, the analogy he used to describe how “we’re focusing on the wrong thing” in the copyright debate was probably the best I’ve seen yet (adding gasoline to a burning fire instead of letting the fire burn itself out). Policy makers are only making the “problem” of new technologies worse by trying to stop them, but these technologies are not even the real problem. We’ve become blindsided by these various technologies and their ability to “violate” copyright, and are not paying attention to real cultural threats that have been set in place by policy makers and lobbyists…and frankly it’s scary.

Tehranian

2008-12-21T09:31:00.000-08:00

Tehranian’s article demonstrated in the clearest (and yet most mind-boggling) terms how everyone “infringes” copyright, and how very often this occurs. Beyond that, he confronts the issue that with our improving technology and eroding privacy, not only will we continue to “infringe” as we always have (and in greater numbers), but copyright violation enforcement will become all the more possible. And we’ve already seen this happen with the large number of RIAA cases, which Tehranian also discusses. This is a prime example of expanded enforcement of copyright laws, and while certain creators might herald this as a good thing, does it make sense in our current society? The law/norm gap here certainly needs to be reevaluated.

Wu

2008-12-05T12:23:00.000-08:00

After reading Wu, and considering the work of Lessig, I can say that Wu makes a fair and valid argument. He makes it easier to understand the state of the American government. The problem seems to be, as Wu argues, that the government is rightfully stuck on the ideology of democracy. Yet that makes it difficult to separate the actual issue from the ideology of how one feels it should be dealt with. I liked Wu because he clarified a side of the IP argument that is often criticized, cutting the "bad guys" some slack. In terms of the value of a product, I think this is interesting to consider when one thinks about incentive to create. I may utilize Wu's argument as a point of reference when considering whether incentive to create is necessary, and perhaps having sites like Creative Commons, shows a circumstance where the incentive is to share, and that copyright laws have not completed stifled creativity.

Lessig on AIDS

2008-12-05T10:40:00.000-08:00

Lessig's Free Culture wraps up with an important and significant argument about the need for reform. It is incredibly frustrating to hear about the need of big businesses to keep tight restraints on Copyright laws, when these same laws are killing people. It is ludicrous, and unimaginable that lifesaving medication is selling for $1500 when it costs $1, it values cost of living over the cost of a life. Everything we've read in terms of maintaining the integrity of art and the artist has been important, and I do not mean to discount the needs of artists, but that seems like such an insignificant and petty argument when you consider the patent restrictions and subsequent lack of needed medication to AIDS patients. These politicians need to get a grip, and examine the situation at hand which is drastic and preventable--they need to take PRO-active steps, instead of running in circles to save money and relationships with drug companies. When Heller came to speak he certainly did not sound optimistic about the future of such reform, but hopefully some change will come soon.

Ethics v. Economy

2008-12-01T20:38:00.000-08:00

"The people who have been led to believe that file sharing can be stopped with minimal intrusion are basically smoking crack."

In Pirate leader Falkvinge: "Our enemy has no intellectual capital to bring to the battle" Rick Falkvinge, the founder and leader of the Swedish Pirate Party, compares two different sides of the intellectual property debate. On one side, there is an economic component and a financial incentive when considering laws and policies regarding IP. On the other hand, IP related issues stir up debate from a moral/ethical standpoint. Falkvinge notes, "Early on in the debate, we dropped the economic arguments altogether and focused entirely on civil liberties and the right to privacy. This has proven to be a winning strategy with my keynote "Copyright Regime. vs. Civil Liberties" being praised as groundbreaking." The economic reports, according to Falkvinge, are debatable, contradictory, abundant, and ultimately it becomes a matter of credibility. The civil liberties and moral argument, is often not debatable.

As we enter an increasingly surveillanced, "Big Brother" society, the issues of civil liberties and privacy have become more heated/readily discussed and debated issues. However, just as the Internet brings up new issues concerning privacy and surveillance, it also changes the business of media and the economic institutions/practices we are accustomed to. Is it okay/moral/ethical/justifiable/intelligent to consider and debate IP related issues on solely a moral and ethical platform based on the idea of civil liberties, or do we need to look more closely into the economic/financial side?

I would argue, that yes, there more certainly is an ethical and moral aspect of IP that is difficult to debate, but the economic argument is often overlooked.

Foreign aid

2008-11-30T10:23:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-28T23:41:00.001-08:00

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

2008-11-25T09:33:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-25T09:27:00.000-08:00

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..

2008-11-24T23:13:00.001-08:00

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.

2008-11-24T21:40:00.001-08:00

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

2008-11-24T20:41:00.000-08:00

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...

2008-11-24T19:09:00.001-08:00

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

2008-11-24T18:53:00.001-08:00

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?

2008-11-24T18:19:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-24T17:35:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-24T13:32:00.000-08:00

"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

2008-11-23T19:43:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-23T09:30:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-11-18T11:25:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-18T06:45:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-17T21:27:00.000-08:00

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.

2008-11-17T21:03:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-17T20:18:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-17T18:18:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-17T14:09:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-11-17T13:04:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-17T11:45:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-16T20:13:00.000-08:00

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)

2008-11-13T12:13:00.000-08:00

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...?

2008-11-12T10:06:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-11T07:28:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-10T21:37:00.001-08:00

“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

2008-11-10T20:43:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-10T19:38:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-10T17:08:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-04T13:26:00.001-08:00

(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

2008-11-04T10:05:00.000-08:00

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...

2008-11-04T10:01:00.000-08:00

"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?

2008-11-03T20:52:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-11-03T20:41:00.001-08:00

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...

2008-11-03T20:32:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-03T20:29:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-11-03T20:28:00.001-08:00

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.

2008-11-03T20:13:00.000-08:00

"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.

2008-11-03T18:31:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-03T17:43:00.001-08:00

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

2008-11-03T16:39:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-03T15:58:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-03T15:49:00.001-08:00

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

2008-11-02T12:56:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-01T22:41:00.000-07:00

"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.

Recut, Reframe, Recycle

2008-10-31T12:14:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-28T11:25:00.000-07:00

"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

2008-10-28T11:06:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-10-28T10:59:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-28T10:23:00.000-07:00

"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

2008-10-28T09:58:00.000-07:00

"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

2008-10-27T21:23:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-27T19:44:00.001-07:00

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...

2008-10-27T19:35:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-10-27T18:38:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-10-27T17:33:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-27T16:20:00.000-07:00

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!

2008-10-27T13:38:00.001-07:00

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?

2008-10-26T13:05:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-25T15:44:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-22T06:57:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-21T11:26:00.001-07:00

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?

2008-10-21T08:34:00.001-07:00

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?

2008-10-20T21:59:00.000-07:00

"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

2008-10-20T20:07:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-20T19:32:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-10-20T19:15:00.001-07:00

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

2008-10-20T19:14:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-20T17:30:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-20T15:31:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-10-20T12:55:00.002-07:00

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?

2008-10-20T12:55:00.001-07:00

Audio Recognition as Market Research

2008-10-20T12:07:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-19T17:54:00.001-07:00

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

2008-10-19T13:51:00.000-07:00

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...

2008-10-13T22:19:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-13T20:42:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-13T00:17:00.001-07:00

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?

2008-10-12T15:28:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-12T12:58:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-08T18:18:00.000-07:00

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..

2008-10-07T11:51:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-10-07T11:19:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-07T10:24:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-07T09:00:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-06T23:12:00.000-07:00

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?