The Internet: Issues at the Frontier (course wiki) - User contributions [en]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2008-12-26T00:20:12Z

PeterH: /* Possible Guests */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
How should the Internet do what it does? And what is it that the Internet does? Who should be responsible for the Internet?

These are the questions behind the idea of "Internet governance," to which the different Internet stakeholders have conflicting answers - ranging from a strict regulatory scheme, like those applied to traditional communications media (like television and cell phones), to vehement opposition to any kind of formal control structures. Part of this disagreement stems from the Internet's technical nature. which suggests two ways of thinking about Internet governance: (1) control of the mechanisms comprising the technical structure and standards, and (2) regulating the substantive use of the Internet. (Under Yochai Benkler's framework, these would be the "physical infrastructure" and "logical" layers, and the "content" layer, respectively.) The Net's origins as a US Department of Defense-funded research network, and the continued heavy influence on its maintenance and development by US actors, meanwhile, have given rise to conflicting national and international dimensions to these questions. For example, even after ICANN's [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7475986.stm expansion] of the top-level domains, the Department of Commerce has [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_080730.html reiterated] that its management of changes to the authoritative [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_root_zone root zone] file (including its contracts with VeriSign and ICANN) will remain intact. This topic seeks to explore through select cast studies the viewpoints of the major Internet stakeholders today (including the US government, ICANN, the UN Internet Governance Forum, businesses, and other private actors), to provide a clearer picture of where Internet governance is headed in the near future, and to establish why (or even whether) it matters.

====Regulation and Control of Technical Structures and Standards====
=====Case study: a look at the Comcast BitTorrent controversy=====
By now, everyone is most likely familiar with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast#Network_Neutrality controversy] that arose after Comcast was alleged to have throttled BitTorrent traffic. The FCC decided [http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080108-fcc-to-investigate-comcast-bittorrent-blocking.html to get involved], ultimately deciding that Comcast violated the FCC's [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf Internet Policy Statement] and ordered it to [http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/FccComcastOrder.pdf. stop].

''Issues to Discuss:''
*The FCC claims jurisdiction, though it is unclear. Regardless, should the FCC have jurisdiction?
*If not the FCC, who would be the proper governing authority? Should there be one at all?
*What issues should we consider when determining how/if to regulate technical standards?
**What does the net neutrality debate illustrate that could help us reach an answer?

=====Case Study: ICANN's top-level domain name ("TLD") expansion=====

This summer, ICANN [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7475986.stm voted] to expand the possible TLDs such that individuals, businesses, governments, and other entities can register TLDs composed of any combination of letters in any script, so long as they can show a "business plan and technical capacity" to back up their desired domain. The new TLDs will cost in the six figures to register, and will likely start going online in 2009. While there will be an arbitration process for disputed domains (particularly in cases of trademark infringement and geographic domains), most domains will end up going to the highest bidder in an auction process.

''Issues to discuss:''
*Should we be concerned about control of generic domains, like ".news" or ".shop," by a few wealthy individuals or groups?
*Many corporations are [http://www.pcworld.com/article/155542/domain_sale_dangerous.html?tk=rss_news opposed] to this expansion because they already have established .com domains for their purposes and are worried about a potentially huge number of infringing domains, including in foreign languages, which may require them to spend millions to register additional domains. Is this a valid concern?
*How should disputes involving geographic domains be resolved if both parties are government entities? If one party is a private actor (an individual or business) and the other a government entity?
*On a larger scale, should we worry that ICANN is the sole body setting the standards for TLDs and resolving disputes?
*Although the US has supported worldwide participation in the management of country-specific TLDs, it is [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_080730.html not willing] to give up oversight of the authoritative [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_root_zone root zone] file. Who should control the root zone file, and why?

====Regulation and Control of Substance====
=====Case Study: Congressional, judicial, and private attempts to regulate content on the Internet through laws (like COPPA) and private action=====

There has long been a recognition that there is a legitimate need to regulate content on the Internet, however many attempts to do so have met with resistance. Often, legislative attempts to regulate meet with criticism and challenges from Free Speech activists and organizations.

Beyond direct regulation, another possibility would be the creation of standards to allow private entities to provide effective content control. But would mandating certain technologies lead to effects similar to the V-Chip had on TV? i.e. would it just stifle innovation and limit the introduction of better and more useful technology?

A final possibility would be to allow the market to regulate itself. The government has at times encouraged this option through incentives to help resolve certain issues. For example, the ''Internet Tax Freedom Act'', [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000151----000-notes.html 47 USC 151 note], places a moratorium on taxation of Internet access provided that protections are put in place to protect minors. Perhaps as a result, perhaps due to market forces, ISPs offer filtering technology to those who want it. Like many ISPs, [http://www.comcast.com/Shop/Buyflow/default.ashx?Popup=true&RenderedBy=Products&FormName=ProductDetails&ProductID=20951 Comcast] offers McAfee parental controls as standard in its Internet packages.

''Issues to Discuss''
*How should the Internet be ''shaped''?
*What is the best way to achieve the stated goals?
*What areas, if any, should be encouraged? What areas should be discouraged? how?

=====Case Study: The Internet Governance Forum=====

The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) was set up during the first phase of the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003 in order "to investigate and make proposals for action, as appropriate, on the governance of the Internet by 2005." In its final report, the WGIG provided the following [http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/html/off5/index3.html working definition] of Internet governance:

:''Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.''

Based on the report, the UN Secretary-General established the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in 2006 with multiple stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, and civil society. The [http://www.intgovforum.org/mandate.htm mandate] of the IGF declares that the forum's purpose is to discuss Internet governance-related public policy issues and advise stakeholders on such issues, but it does not have any real decision-making authority. The IGF held its third meeting during Dec. 3-6, 2008 in Hyderabad, India, in which panels explored topics such as expanding Internet access to the next billion people, promoting cyber-security, and global arrangements for managing critical internet resources.

''Issues to discuss:''
*Should the IGF have direct decision-making authority? If so, what substantive areas should this authority cover, how far should it go, and should it be binding? If not, what good does the IGF really do?
*A review of the organizations moderating [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops_08/wrkshplist.php the many workshops] that took place at the most recent IGF meeting shows a mix of government groups, corporations, and civil groups. Should we expect all these groups to have an equal say in setting the agenda for the IGF? If not, how do we ensure proper representation of all interested groups, regardless of power and influence?
*Is global governance of Internet use a good idea in any respect? If so, is the IGF the best form of this governance?

==Concrete Question of the Week==
With both structure and content, what issues does the Internet raise that require governance and what are the best ways to do so, nationally and internationally?

==Possible Guests==
Out first choice for a guest speaker would be [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Crawford_(professor) Susan Crawford], who could provide insight into both the national and international aspects of regulation, from the government/public interest perspective. It might also be good to have Alan Davidson, [http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2005/tc20051010_0156_tc024.htm Google's man in Washington, D.C.] to provide the private sector angle.

In case she is not available, some other options:
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html|Internet Governance Project].
*Someone from the United Nations [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ Internet Governance Forum]'s [http://www.intgovforum.org/ADG_members.htm Advisory Board].

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

==Possible Readings==
*Speta, J., FCC Authority to Regulate the Internet: Creating It and Limiting It, 35 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 15 (2004). [http://heinonline.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/luclj35&men_hide=false&men_tab=citnav&collection=journals&page=15 HeinOnline]
*Lessig, L., Law Regulating Code Regulating Law, 35 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 1 (2004). [http://heinonline.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/luclj35&men_hide=false&men_tab=citnav&collection=journals&page=1 HeinOnline]
*[http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.
*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Milton Mueller at the Institute for Research and Debate on Governance
*Mueller and JZ discussing ICANN and top-level domains (TLDs) on the Internet Governance Porject blog: [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/6/3142881.html One], [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/7/3145104.html Two].
*ICANN's [http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-23oct08-en.htm process] for applying for a new TLD, including the full [http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-24oct08-en.pdf draft applicant guidebook] (warning: PDF).
*[http://www.wgig.org/WGIG-Report.html The 2005 WGIG Report] (PDF/MS Word links on page)
*[http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/hyderabadprogramme Panel discussion transcripts] - from the IGF's latest meeting during Dec. 3-6, 2008 in Hyderabad.
**[http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops_08/wrkshplist.php List of Workshops] from the 2008 IGF meeting.

----
----

==Brainstorming==

Much like open-source software,

:'''You'll want to be clear about using "free" vs "open-source," depending on what you mean and who your audience is! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

the Internet can be considered a collection of servers, pipes, and users spread all over the world.

:'''How is this much like open source sw? (Not disagreeing, just trying to understand.) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How does it keep working? One easy answer is that the United States (through actors public and private) just sort of gets its way.

:'''Unpack. What does it mean for US to get its way? Gov't, culture, people? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really a satisfying answer descriptively or normatively, though.

:'''What was the question? "How does the Internet keep working?" Are there those who say the answer is "Because the US controls it?" [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

With the rest of the world contributing more and more to the Internet as a whole, is it time for a change?

:'''Do you mean Internet protocols and infrastructure, or apps, or content, or ... ? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Guests: Susan Crawford?

:'''She can certainly speak to the cluster of issues commonly called "Internet governance"! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Some questions:
:What are the options for internet governance? An ad-hoc system, or something more formalized? What should the regulations cover - everything or only the vital areas, such as cybercrime and technical standards? Should it be local or international in scope? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::'''An upstream question would be: What are the specific problems that Internent governance proposals are meaning to solve? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== International Regulation ===
*The UN's [http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html World Summit On the Information Society] has come up with the [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/aboutigf Internet Governance Forum] to help tackle some of these issues - is this a good idea?

:Possible reading: [http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.

:Possible speakers: staff members of the IGF? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 18:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

::'''Sure, might be interesting to get to the bottom of the IGF. Milton Mueller at Syracuse could be a good guest for this. He has [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/6/3142881.html strongly criticized] (though I might say not fully grasped) my own views on Internet governance and the IGF. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Local/national Regulation ===
*Efforts by the FCC - in conjunction with and separate from the UN efforts.

:Possible speakers: Kevin Martin --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::'''It will be helpful to differentiate between governing the Internet -- controlling its infrastructure, protocols, or evolution -- and governing use of the Internet. You could pick a hot topic from the FCC's docket, though, and some there are about Internet deployment, such as the free wireless proposal just abandoned. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Rights of Minors ===

Minors have long been recognized to not have free speech rights that are co-extensive with adults. But with the Internet, how do we define those rights? And what, if any, regulation should the government enact to protect minors on the Internet, while also respecting their rights?

There are two traditional categories where minors' free speech rights have been restricted. The first is with respect to pornography, the second with respect to the school environment. These two areas raise different concerns.

'''[[User:Jgruensp|Jgruensp]]''' (fun topics, all: we could invite [http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_progj/task,view/id,1117/ the CSIS commission] which has been grappling with all these issues and is desperate for legal guidance)

:'''Sure; you could take this topic a step further by looking at existing scholarship on the topic and/or the just-about-to-be-released report from the Palfrey Commission, chartered by 49 state Attorneys General to discuss protection of minors online. Given its Berkman Center connections, we'd have a good chance of getting the main players in that process to discuss. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===

We have come to rely on the Internet for almost every aspect of our lives. If the Internet somehow suddenly went "down" (through either a cyberattack or physical attack on key backbone pieces of infrastructure), the result would likely be calamity, as well as hordes of people who wouldn't know what to do with themselves. Can we even imagine what the world would look like the morning after such an attack if it was successful? Are we wrong to rely so heavily on a single tool whose detailed technical inner workings so few people truly understand? Are we setting ourselves up to be ruined when someone compromises this tool? What about the tradeoffs between keeping the Net free+open vs. regulation to ensure that it retains its functional integrity in the face of attack?

We can invite Dan Kaminsky, who recently discovered a flaw in the inner-workings of the Net that could have caused some serious damage. See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/technology/09flaw.html?hp
(or we could invite will smith, who defeated the aliens in independence day with the help of cyber-attack).

* I vote Will Smith. Unless everyone wants to get into the desirability of a DNS nonce of sufficient bitlength, in which case... no, still Will Smith. That guy's an elliptic curve cryptography fiend. However, if we do want to talk about design issues in the internet, and the failure of the marketplace to handle externalities created by poor software design, leading to the perpetual crisis of bugginess, we could do worse than to invite [http://cr.yp.to/djb.html Daniel Bernstein]. Plus, as an added bonus, he saw the issues that gave rise to the Kaminsky bug coming down the pike [http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html a long] [http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/forgery.html time ago]. --[[User:Jgruensp|Jgruensp]]

:'''It might be interesting to see if there are contingency plans by various parties -- business, gov't, etc. -- to weather and respond to an Internet outage. We could ask the cybersecurity team from the DoD joint staff to present their most difficult problem here -- they're still in the early stages of thinking this through -- or perhaps cue to the new cybersecurity czar that is rumored to be brought on by the new Administration. (Then again, it might be too soon for that person to want to spend time interacting with a class.) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Internet as International Conflict Zone ===

In light of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberattacks_on_Estonia_2007 recent events in Estonia], have we finally reached the long-predicted era of cyberwarfare? Is cyber-espionage a counterintelligence problem or something more? ([http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20080531_6948.php This article from the National Journal] talks bluntly about perceived threats, although is perhaps a little too willing to attribute causation of certain events to Chinese actors on dubious evidence)

:'''There is much sound and fury about "cyberwarfare"; I could see a class designed to see if there's a there there on the topic, and whether any of the theory applied to traditional warfare can be deployed to help us understand the phenomenon. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Internet as an Extension of National Infrastructure ===

It is easy to define the borders of the nation in realspace (ports, airports, land crossings), and the tradeoffs between private propertyholders' rights and national security interests (making those tradeoffs? Not always so easy). But what are the national borders in cyberspace? Given the dangers described in the two topics above, what kind of role, if any, should national government play in monitoring and regulating major backbone communications links? What about the networks of semi-public industries such as utilities? Private corporations that store government secrets? Financial systems? Other types of privately owned networks?

--[[User:Jgruensp|Jgruensp]] 23:54, 30 November 2008 (EST)

:'''There's a lot of interesting stuff to be mined about interexchange policies among Tier 1 internet service providers, and some fun/confusing economics about such interconnections which would be good for the economist types among us. Ramesh Johari at Stanford is doing good work here, and David Clark down the street at MIT would be a natural for this. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The Future of News

2008-12-26T00:18:55Z

PeterH: /* Possible contributors */

'''Topic owners:''' ''Dharmishta Rood, Jon Fildes''

back to [[syllabus]]

{{TOCright}}

==Precis==

The traditional media industry is in turmoil. Circulation of newspapers is [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/business/media/28circ.html?_r=1 falling]. Some, such as the Tribune group, are saddled with huge debts and have filed for [http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-081208tribune-bankruptcy,0,3718621.story bankruptcy]. Staff are being laid off, costs are being cut and foreign bureaus are being shut. Audiences are fragmenting, advertising spending is plummeting and the valuations of companies are [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/business/media/21times.html?ref=business dropping]. TV and radio are experiencing similar problems. Some [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30dowd.html?hp papers] have even begun outsourcing local news reporting to India.

Most of these changes have been blamed on the arrival of the web, which has changed how information is produced and consumed. Now, anyone can be a news gatherer, publisher and distributor. The balance of power has changed.
Yet at the same time there is a paradox; the web offers organisations a huge opportunity to reach out to audiences and connect with them in new ways.

This class will seek to explore at least two of the challenges currently facing the media industry:

* What will the business model of the future look like? As Richard Sambrook , Director of the BBC's Global News division, [http://sambrook.typepad.com/sacredfacts/2008/11/future-of-news.html says]: “Newspapers and broadcasters have lived for decades by selling audiences to advertisers. Now the number of eyeballs per page or per programme is falling - but we have much greater detail and granularity about where they are going and what they are doing online. Media organisations have to find a way to extract the commercial value from that”. Already, groups such as [http://spot.us/ spot.us] and [http://www.propublica.org/ Pro Publica] are experimenting with new business models. Others, such as the Christian Science Monitor, [http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1029/p25s01-usgn.html have ditched] the old way of doing things and have gone entirely online. Other seem to be following a [http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/18/2450624.htm similar strategy]. Will these work? Are these the right approach?

* What will the newspapers or media outlets of the future look like? The New York Times is using its website in [http://vizlab.nytimes.com/ new and innovative] ways. Other [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-wiki-splash,0,1349109.htmlstory experiments] have been less successful. So, how should papers engage with their audience? Is news reporting now a collaborative process? How should they respond to citizen journalism? Are they competing or should they - and can they - work together?

This class will explore some of the issues facing the future of the news industry. Could they disappear? Does it matter if they do? What values are at stake beyond what the markets appear to be able to sustain? Should governments intervene to save them in the same way as they have decided to prop up the ailing car manufacturing industry? Is this an appropriate intervention? Should it be left to market forces? Ultimately, what is the future for “old media”?

==Concrete question of the week==

What values are at stake in the newspaper industry and what could - or should - be done to maintain them?

==Possible contributors==

Our two main ideas are:

*Someone from the NYT behind sites, such as the [http://vizlab.nytimes.com/ Visualisation Lab] or [http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/timesextra/ Times Extra]
* someone else from a failing local paper?

And some other ideas:

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Gillmor Dan Gilmour]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Jarvis Jeff Jarvis]
*[http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/15/business/fi-timesbiobox15 Russ Stanton] at the LA Times.
* someone from the [http://civic.mit.edu/ MIT Center for Future Civic Media]?

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

==Possible readings==

* [http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=428819dc-f4bf-4db3-a6e8-1b601c8fe273 Write Now]. Mark Pinsky of the New Republic on why Barack Obama should resurrect the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Writers%27_Project Federal Writers Project] and bail out laid-off journalists.
* [http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/20/can-the-la-times-turn-off-its-presses/ Jeff Jarvis] on whether the LA Times should switch off its printing presses
* Boing Boing post by Clay Shirky: [http://www.boingboing.net/2008/12/08/the-newspaper-indust.html The Newspaper Industry and the Arrival of the Glaciers]
* A view from the other side: a newspaper journalist [http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20081211_Beyond_the_Spin__Rethinking_journalism_spiel.html ignores the potential of the web]
* Columbia Journalism Review article: [http://www.cjr.org/feature/overload_1.php Overload!]- Journalism’s battle for relevance in an age of too much information
* The [http://www.ap.org/newmodel.pdf AP report (PDF)] mentioned in Overload!
* [http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/11/no-freaks/ A short introduction to the newspaper crisis on the Daily Show]
* [http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/12/entrepreneurial-journalism-is-not-an-oxymoron/ Hey let's write some Journalistic Innovation grants... it works for Jeff Jarvis' class...]
* [http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2008/12/updating-the-pulitzer-prizes.html Online Pulitzers anyone?]
* "It was - and the Times pegs this more recently - a bubble, a false economy. If there was a golden age of newspapers, I say it was probably two to four decades before that, when cities had many papers, many voices, many views, and papers still spoke for and with the people." Sound familiar? That’s where we’re headed again with the internet: many voices, many views, and now it’s the people talking." From [http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/10/poor-chicago/ Poor Chicago] by Jeff Jarvis"
*[http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/timesextra/ Times Extra!] and some [http://www.mondaynote.com/2008/12/07/light-at-the-end-of-the-pure-player-tunnel-it%E2%80%99s-not-a-locomotive/ thoughts about it and other things]
*[http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/12/twitter-gold-mine.html An ad-model based off of twitter?] How could this be applied to news?
* For those of you who have never read online news: [http://www.twistimage.com/blog/archives/10-things-every-newspaper-and-magazine-website-must-do/ 10 things every newspaper and magazine website must do]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30dowd.html?_r=1&emc=eta1 Newspapers outsource newsgathering]

==Possible tools==

Could we have a discussion before, during and after the event using tools such as:

* [http://seesmic.com/ Seesmic]: allows video conversations.
* [http://phreadz.com/ Phreadz]: allows threaded multimedia conversations using video, images, text, audio or links. (Currently in closed Beta but we can ask for accounts)

:'''Looks fantastic. Perhaps of most interest would be to bring in someone from a paper who is currently struggling with this and talk it through, along with a policy proposal or two. I think someone from the New Republic just proposed a new "federal writers" program to save journalists (!), harkening back to a similar program during the 30's that encouraged people (some of whom would later become famous writers) to collect oral histories of various regions and subcultures of the US. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Open Networks, Closed Regimes

2008-12-26T00:17:51Z

PeterH: /* Guest wish list (if any) */

'''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]]''', '''[[User:CKennedy|Conor]]''', '''[[User:Jgruensp|Joshua]]'''

=== Title ===

OpenId and Internet Governance
:: '''One of the other groups has a fun title (all together now for great justice dot org). Can we have one too? --Dan'''
:: '''Once exams end. --Joshua'''

=== Precis ===

* Internet Regulation (as it relates specifically to online safety and security)
* Privacy and anonymity as they relate to structures of control on the Internet
: JZ: I like the idea of a case study, because the topic is too big otherwise. Would not mind someone from openID or even 2 competing groups talk about what they offer, and identify a problem that gives one of them a headache. My guesses on headaches:
:: At what layer of the internet is appropriate for identity?
:: How do you achieve critical mass, do you need the help of government or the help of something that's more than just the market?
: Groups to look at, potentially:
:: OpenID
:: Higgins project
:: Trustfuse (Auren Hoffman)
: And then see which group is most interesting and bring them in. The problem ID architecture is meant to solve - what is it? What are the new problems it creates? What are the barriers to implementing this solution?

=== Guest wish list (if any) ===
* As an academic, you couldn't do better than Daniel Solove. If we do hone in on a very specific topic, though, we could go for someone with more specialized experience. [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] 22:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
* Although government is subject to all sorts of special legal provisos that the private sector doesn't have to manage, the privacy counsel at DHS, [http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/bio_1166549785058.shtm Hugo Teufel], is pretty [http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_einstein2.pdf on top of his game]. If we're looking for practitioners, [http://www.arnoldporter.com/attorneys.cfm?action=view&id=380 Ron Lee] of Arnold & Porter does work with private industry.
* If we do OpenID, options for guests might include [http://www.crunchbase.com/person/bill-washburn Bill Washburn] of the OpenID Foundation and [http://blog.unto.net/ DeWitt Clinton] of Google.
* Also, since Passport has foundered, Facebook Connect looks like the hot new thing on the proprietary side. Whoever runs that for Facebook would be a natural invite as well. (see Dan's links below (?))
* And I still think the potential for the mobile phone to become the heretofore mythical convergence device and thus to become a necessary adjunct to personal identity is worth talking over.

Perhaps a bloggingheads.tv-style video conference call between someone from an electronic privacy nonprofit and a representative from Microsoft or Facebook?

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. we can also help with video teleconferencing etc. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Readings ===
[http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann, Facebook and The Social Dyanmics of Privacy]

[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 Solove, Daniel J. "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy"]

=== Links & Articles ===
http://vizedu.com/2008/12/lifestreaming-what-why-and-how/

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/125/how-to-fix-the-web.html

http://developers.facebook.com/connect.php

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_connect_vs_open_id.php

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_connect_readies.php

http://chrissaad.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/facebook-connect-aka-hailstorm-20/

http://wiki.openid.net/Lobbying

http://planet.openid.net/

http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/11/30/facebook-google-myspace-data/

http://blog.socialmedia.com/slowly-reprogramming-the-web-for-social-networks/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/technology/internet/01facebook.html?_r=1&ref=technology&pagewanted=print

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XLfbos9cVocebook-connect-is-the-future-of-digg/&feature=player_embedded

http://gigaom.com/2008/11/30/social-webs-big-question-federate-or-aggregate/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10110382-2.html

http://www.oecd.org/LongAbstract/0,3425,en_2649_34223_40204774_119684_1_1_1,00.html

=== Concrete question(s) of the week ===

What specific privacy expectations should be articulated to the groups who control the future of OpenID?

=== Anything else material towards planning your topic ===

* Facebook + google people?
* another way to look at it is as a matter of cybercrime and such - new surveillence methods (also relevant in regards to child pornography, for example). i wander if these are too different topics or not. '''[[User:Ayelet|Ayelet]]'''
* I'd like to see a segment on what "privacy" actually means in law and in culture. This would probably attach well to any other, more applied segment. [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] 16:38, 3 December 2008 (EST)
*Creating a series of Privacy Certification Marks

Prediction Markets

2008-12-26T00:15:58Z

PeterH:

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Mwansley|Matthew]]''', '''[[User:EST|Elisabeth]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]

'''Precis'''

The most high-profile examples of prediction marketsthe Iowa Electronic Markets and Intradestarted by focusing primarily on predicting election outcomes and related political and financial events. Now they have expanded to cultural (Oscars) and technological (X Prize) events as well. The status of the commercial prediction markets is uncertain; for example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TradeSports Tradesports] announced recently that it [http://www.tradesports.com/ is closing]. And questions remain about the [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1134563_code183716.pdf?abstractid=1134563&mirid=1 legal status] of prediction markets, whether the CTFC will [http://www.cftc.gov/lawandregulation/federalregister/proposedrules/2008/e8-9981.html regulate] them, and whether they will be [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6716/is_4_27/ai_n29450615/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1 taxed].

Rather than focusing on the traditional markets, however, we want to focus on future applications of prediction markets, particularly their possible use by government or by government-industry collaboration. We'd like to explore in particular applications that are likely to be controversial.

The focus will be three cases that we think raise interesting legal and ethical questions.

* Crime rate predictions, a la [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1118931 this proposal]

* Google's flu-tracking application (where, as Professor Zittrain noted, the predictors aren't even aware that their knowledge is being harvested)

* the failed DARPA [http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/terror.market/index.html terrorist futures] market

'''Possible Guests'''

We propose a panel (if possible) to discuss these ideas:

Justin Wolfers, Economist: Crime Rate Predictions

Bo Cowgill/Hal Varian, Google: The Epidemiology of the Flu

Guest TBD, DARPA: The Past and Future Possibility of an Intelligence Futures Market

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

'''Concrete Questions'''

* Which of these applications are most likely and desirable?

* Should the government be involved in administering prediction markets at all? Should it regulate them?

* What ethical concerns do we have about prediction markets of the future, and how might we address them? Can design of the markets help mitigate concerns? Are some more fundamental?

'''Possible Experiment'''

Mostly just for fun, and to give the class a sense of how prediction markets work, we'd like to see whether we could get Google to let us participate in one of their internal prediction markets (e.g., when's the next iPhone coming out). Perhaps they'd never agree, but it could be interesting to see how our results match up to their internal results. This isn't necessarily tied to the focus of the class, which will be prediction markets of the future, but it could be cool.

'''Possible Readings (Still Needs to be Narrowed Down)'''

* [http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Papers/Predictionmarkets.pdf General academic literature] on prediction markets

* Papers on specific applications of prediction markets, like [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1118931 crime]

* some of the discussion and congressional hearings related to the DARPA terrorism futures market

* news coverage of the Google flu prediction program

* relevant chapters from Professor Sunstein's Infotopia

* Michael Abramowicz's book [http://www.amazon.com/Predictocracy-Market-Mechanisms-Private-Decision/dp/0300115997 Predictocracy]

* Robin Hanson's [http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.pdf Futarchy] proposal. The idea in brief:

"Democracies often fail to aggregate information, while speculative markets excel at this task. We consider a new form of governance, wherein voters would say what we want, but speculators would say how to get it. Elected representatives would oversee the after-the-fact measurement of national welfare, while market speculators would say which policies they expect to raise national welfare. Those who recommend policies that regressions suggest will raise GDP should be willing to endorse similar market advice."

* Our very own Prof. Sunstein gives his comments on prediction markets and [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID621128_code249436.pdf?abstractid=604641&mirid=1 group deliberation].

* Other potential applications of prediction markets, like [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=928896 corporate governance]

'''Other ideas'''

One obvious thought is to see whether the class can play around with using prediction markets, though more thought needed on what we'd want to predict. Incentives for accurate predictions like t-shirts?

Will Harvard give us some small amount of money to invest for the semester? We could have an auction to determine whose investment ideas we use. The incentives would work so that you would only bid more to control the investment if you actually thought your investment idea would generate more net return to you (minus what you spent on the auction), despite it being divided up among the class.

:'''Looks great. Harvard will not give us money to gamble (!), but some form of experiment would be fun, and maybe we can design one that draws in audiences outside the class. Might be good to think about prediction markets of the future -- perhaps ones where the ants making the predictions aren't even aware that they're doing so. (Consider Google's recent cooperation with the US Centers for Disease Control to associate a spike in searches for flu medicine with a prediction that a particular region will experience a health emergency.) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org

2008-12-26T00:14:16Z

PeterH: /* Contributors */

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Hoellra|Rainer]]''' + [[User:Elanaberkowitz|'''Elana''']] + '''[[User:Mchua|Mchua]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]

{{TOCright}}

== Precis ==
Outline:
1. The success of online campagning during the Obama campaign has been unprecedented. But the web is also used for mobilizing people for other kinds of causes. New tools are emerging.
2. However, nobody really knows what the real success factors of these tools are.
3. gatekeeper/digital divide problem Eg: Should Obama listen to the questions posted on change.gov, knowing that they cannot be representative of the population?

Questions to be integrated:
* What makes online campaigning successful? What makes online fundraising successful? What makes online activism/mobilization successful? What makes online collaboration for good causes successful?
* What actually spurs people up the ladder of engagement or into offline activism and waht does not? Which online structures, tools, networks get people how high up the ladder? Which one's should you use for which "height"? What are their individual costs?
* Is there a generalizable model here? If yes, has this model different success factors from the business world?
* What are cutting-edge examples of successful campaigning/fundraising/mobilization/collaboration? How do they harness different channels and media (www, email, SMS, etc.)?

Are online participation ventures idiosyncratic to a time/place/group/circumstance?

How to effectively design an online drive/event/project to get participation in your cause

== Concrete question(s) of the week ==
* What makes online mobilization for a cause successful?
* Is there a generalizable model here? If yes, has this model different success factors from the business world?
* Are there currently new gatekeepers and digital divides emerging that restrict the use of respective tools?

== Contributors ==
It would be good to have both a practiotioner and a theoretician

Theoreticians:
* Prof. Yochai Benkler
* Clay Shirky (Here Comes Everybody)

Practitioners:
* someone from MoveOn (happy to ask them) and Clay Shirky (Here Comes Everybody)
* Tom Steinberg
* Sean Parker and Joe Green, founders of Project Agape, the start-up that created Facebook Causes
* Joe Rospars, New Media Director, Obama for America (Elana)
* Ken Banks, FrontlineSMS (Elana)
* Sebastian Benthall, [http://topp.openplans.org/ TOPP]
* Joshua Gay, FSF
* Kathy Paur, [http://actblue.com ActBlue]

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

== Session design ==
Our current idea for session design is structured as a workshop (and discussion afterwards). Each participant will spend the week working on a cause that they are personally interested in, applying the techniques from readings and class to their own project. Key components of this week:

* 2-3 '''readings''' will be sent out beforehand, selected from the above.
* A '''questionnaire''' will be sent out beforehand to all class participants so they can frame the most important aspects of their cause. (For instance: What are the aims of your cause? What technologies do you prefer to use while working on activism for your cause, and why? How many people do you want to mobilize? How deep should their involvement be?) Participants will use the questionnaire to write a very rough draft of a non-profit online participation project for their cause.
* The '''role of our guest experts''' will be to come in as workshop aides; it will be interesting to hear from them what they thinks the most important rules for success are. They'll get to give a short (<10min) intro speech.
* The session will kick off with a '''workshop''' where the students will work on their project. It should be an online project designed to raise and deepen involvement and/or awareness for their cause. For instance, they might contribute to the planning of a conference, create an email-blast marketing campaign, host a party that is heavily advertised online, create or spread viral media, compile statistics on online membership for their cause, etc.
* We will follow that with a '''debriefing''' to discuss how things went and the theories and best practices that apply.

== Readings ==
We have three types of readings for this session:

'''Historical''' resources that come directly from our guests and their experiences.

Guests will be asked to email the class beforehand with a short version of the kinds of things they'd say in a speech to the class, so people know who they'd want to ask for advice during the workshop portion. (Rationale: The time we're together should be spent interacting, there's always plenty of time outside of class for reading.) Guests will also be asked to send the class a link to their favorite resource/article on their project, or something that has informed their own work on their project. Some sample types of resources that might come from this:
* http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2008/12/10/open-for-questions-participation-from-campaigning-to-governing/
* http://publius.cc/2008/12/09/internet-and-politics-2008-moving-people-moving-ideas/

'''Techniques and tools''' resources, mainly business books that focus on corporate use of the social web, online communities and marketing, etc. This will be pages and chapters from books like this (used as examples, not a final list):

* [http://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Social-Web-Customer-Communities/dp/0470124172 Marketing to the Social Web: How Digital Customer Communities Build Your Business]
* [http://www.amazon.com/Groundswell-Winning-Transformed-Social-Technologies/dp/1422125009 Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies]
* [http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Start-Ups-Entrepreneurs-Corporations-Communities/dp/0470107421 Smart Start-Ups: How Entrepreneurs and Corporations Can Profit by Starting Online Communities]

'''Theory''' on activism, focusing on cyberactivism. This will consist mainly of scholarly books and papers like the following (used as examples, not a final list):

* (Paper) ''Technologies of Protest: Insurgent Social Movements and the First Amendment in the Era of the Internet,'' by the law professor Seth Kreimer. It has some pretty interesting bits -- and some funny moments -- like refrences to John McCain's staff using digital activism in 2001 during his campaign around campaign finance reform. Elana has the PDF.
* (Selection from) ''A Review of Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice,'' edited by Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayers.
* [http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/philanthropy_on_the_commons Philanthropy on the Commons]
* [http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-copyrightlaw/benkler_3487.jsp Mining the wealth of networks with Yochai Benkler]
* [http://www.comnetwork.org/resources/brotherton_new_media_091608.pdf Foundations and New Media]
* [http://www.netsquared.org Netsquared]
* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdf Benkler: The Wealth of Networks]

== Examples and Tools ==
* Pledgebank
* Facebook Causes
* www.zoosa.org
* [http://citizenbase.org/approach Citizenbase]

The three finalists for the [http://mashable.com/2008/12/03/openwebawards2-final-voting-round/ Open Web Awards] in the category "Non Profit Causes" are:
* [http://discoverscholars.org/ DiscoverScholars]
* [http://www.socialvibe.com/ SocialVibe]
* [http://stoppoliticalcalls.org/ Stop Political Calls]

== Old discussion ==
Of course there are a lot of custom-built tools for mobilizing people online to get things done in the real world. On the other hand, what about more general tools? We've all been invited, via Facebook, to join groups and attend events (the Obama campaign certainly made good use of this); is there a generalizable model here?

Facebook groups dedicated to particular causes remind me of the online petitions that began circulating widely via email about ten years ago: their effectiveness in accomplishing real world change--and even their visibility to individuals capable of affecting the desired changes--are dubious. Is the real purpose of these movements simply to make participants ''feel'' like they are being active and involved? What percentage of those who signed email petitions in the 1990s were aware that their signatures were unverifiable and that the widely-distributed emails were unlikely to be collated and submitted to an official authority? What expectations do participants in facebook group causes have for their involvement and its consequences? The facebook group causes are certainly more centralized and visible than the old email petitions, and they provide a better tool for identifying and communicating with supporters in order to mobilize them in an organized fashion. How often is such mobilization attempted, and with what degree of success? As a tool of online activism, is facebook a step forward from chain emails, is it a step in a different direction, or does it just serve the same old functions but in newer packaging? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 08:26, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Maybe we can invite some of the leaders of the various social networking sites or Jascha Franklin-Hodge, who was an architect of the Obama campaign's use of social technology.

Might also be worth considering SMS applications that interface with the internet in this context especially since cell phones will presumably be the nexus of tech activism in the developing world. See FrontlineSMS or Ushahidi, a web crisis mapping project that let any user with a cell phone text in reports of violence in post-election Kenya as a way to geographically report real-time citizen reporting. (ELANA)

Free and Open Source Software

2008-12-26T00:13:32Z

PeterH: /* Guest wish list */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:dulles|dulles]]''','''[[User:Ayelet|Ayelet]]'''

Back to [[syllabus]]

=Precis=
=Guest wish list=
* [http://mako.c Mako]
* [http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/index.html Eric von Hippel]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Hyde Lewis Hyde]
* Eric Raymond/OSI ?
* PJ/Groklaw

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

=Readings=

* An extract of [http://freeasinspeechandbeer.com/drupal/ free, as in speech and beer] by Darren Wershler-Henry?
* An extract about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy gift economies], such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_(book) The Gift] by Mauss, or [http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Imagination-Erotic-Life-Property/dp/0394715195 The Gift] by Hyde.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar The Cathedral and the Bazaar]
* [http://echo.gmu.edu/freeandopen/ a list of resources on F/OSS]

=Introduction=

There are a number of different motivations and interests surrounding the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open_source_software F/OSS]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman Richard Stallman] assets that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software software (libre)] is important, and that this value is paramount. Meanwhile, companies like [http://www.redhat.com/ RedHat] appear to be trying desperately hard to turn a profit on a free (gratis) product with a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_open-source new business model]. When somebody says, "I use free software", do they mean software libre or software gratis, and why? Clearly, a discussion of the F/OSS movement absolutely must explore the division between "free as in speech" and "free as in beer".

The libre/gratis distinction seems to relate to a sort of war between [http://www.free-culture.cc/ Free Culture] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permission_culture Permission Culture], which might be recast as a clash between the drive of economic development and the drive of cultural development. Of course, the law still respects copyright and patents, so Free Culture is a long way from a meaningful victory. But software libre has managed to turn the tools of copyright upon themselves with the invention of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft copyleft] licensing system. Given the usefulness of such licenses, and their [http://creativecommons.org/ availability], maybe the law of copyrights doesn't need to adjust at all in order to account for free culture.

Maybe casting the division as one between economics and culture is just a divisive technique. Perhaps theories of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy gift economies] can help us come to understand software libre as attempting to create a separate software economy?

=Essential Question=

Given the philosophical and economic drives that support the F/OSS movement, to what extent does the law properly account for each? Is the "free as in speech" / "free as in beer" distinction with us forever? Will there always be some deep seated friction between the two, based in a culture war? To help us think about these exceptionally broad questions, we propose to discuss the libre/gratis dichotomy along with several others, and encourage students to question the usefulness, even the existence of these dichotomies.

=Dichotomy?=

* Free as in Beer v. Free as in Speech
* Copyright v. Copyleft
* Copyleft v. Free Culture - is there a difference?
* The Economic Drive v. The Cultural Drive
* Gifts v. Reputations - why contribute to F/OSS? ([[User:Ayelet|Ayelet]] - can you elaborate?)
* Insiders v. Outsiders - are there deep disconnects between the business, software, and legal worlds that make common ground hard to find?

The Google Book Search Settlement

2008-12-26T00:12:53Z

PeterH: /* (Possible) Guests */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]

= Concrete Questions of the Week =

How will the Google book digitization project affect various interests, including those who were parties to the settlement between Google and the Authors' guild and those who were not? In particular, what changes will libraries (public, private, and university), publishers, and readers face going forward, and how should they respond?

= Precis =

What does the [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "the long dreamed of universal library"] and for avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But is this settlement optimal for all interested groups? The Google book digitization project will bring with it many changes, and not just for the Google corporation and the authors' representatives who signed the deal. Readers, publishers, and libraries will all be affected by this settlement, and each group will likely face a different set of benefits and problems. With a focus on publishers (both private and academic) and libraries (public, private, and academic), we aim to identify the main challenges that the Google digitization project will entail for non-parties and to suggest creative solutions for adapting to these changes.

= (Possible) Guests =

* Google Book Search settlement
** Google - Alex MacGillivray (chief in-house counsel for IP)
** Authors
*** [http://www.bonizack.com/ Michael Boni or Joanne Zack] (primary negotiators of the settlement for authors (including the Authors' Guild))
** Publishing groups - Jeffrey Cunard (Debevoise, Berkman, one of the primary negotiators of the settlement for publishers (including the AAP))
** Libraries
*** ALA - Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations)
*** ARL - Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director)
*** Harvard Libraries - Robert Darnton (director), John Palfrey
** Other Commentators
*** Lessig? (he is probably more useful for a different topic)

* Amazon Kindle people
* People from publishing companies doing offering innovative services, products, or editing processes involving the internet. (Does anybody know of such companies?)
* Someone who has studied self publication on the internet (names?)
* Someone who has studied reading habits in conjunction with the shift away from printed media (names?)

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

= (Possible) Readings =

* I just remembered a potentially relevant book I read as an undergrad, called Scrolling Forward. I'll peruse it over break looking for useful excerpts. [[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 22:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

* The Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association have released a neutral [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the settlement that highlights the most relevant parts for libraries. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf Here] is an interesting statement from some of the public university libraries about their support for the agreement and what they view as its benefits. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 20:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

= Discussion =

The internet has completely changed the meaning of publication, and the relationship between print and digital media is continually evolving. The advent of the personal computer and the internet have changed the way information is assembled, distributed, managed, and digested in ways at least as dramatic and consequential as the advent of the printing press. How are traditional publishers coping with these changes? What new forms of publishing are made possible by the internet, and what challenges do they entail? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:34, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Might be worth coordinating with the people doing media/press day -- could make them back to back and have them relate in some way. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the "Future of News" group is focusing on news providers and how they are adapting to the disruption caused by the internet (and, hopefully, harnessing the advantages the internet provides), we could extend that discussion by looking at how other groups are handling that transition (ie. the open access publishing, effects on non-news-providing publishers). Alternatively, it would be a nice parallel if we focused on self-publishing - that is, part of the disruptive process that is causing the collapse of the traditional newspaper business model (depending on how much the other group covers this, and whether we'll have enough info on that topic to make a session out of it...I guess the question here would be how to commercialize/monetize it - or are there other ideas for good questions?).

In general, I think our first step is to decide whether we want to focus more on the open access/self-publishing aspect, or the Google Book Search/"death of paper" aspect. Which topic seems most promising/interesting/etc. to you guys? (directed at Gwen and Jon) [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that decision makes sense as a first step (unless we can split the session into two parts, perhaps with two different virtual visitors? but that would definitely risk sacrificing quality for quantity in trying to cover too much). Personally, I think I am a bit more interested in the Google Book Search / death of paper topic. I kind of like that that goes in a different direction from the news people, because it would add more variety to the class as a whole and carry less risk of redundancy. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

== The Relationship Between Print and Digital Media ==

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/index.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "the long dreamed of universal library"] and for avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be troubling aspects of having access to such a large and unique collection of content controlled by a single for-profit company (the agreement is non-exclusive to Google, but it may be difficult for a legitimate competitor to emerge, given Google's sizable first mover advantage).

Is this settlement optimal for all interested groups? Presumably it is for Google and the Authors Guild/AAP, but what about externalities for non-parties, such as the reading public? Is some sort of government intervention appropriate to ensure access to this "universal library"? What difference does it make, if any, that this "universal library" is operated by a private company reliant on many [http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html public university libraries?]

We could also look at the costs/difficulties libraries (and hosts for the Research Corpus) would face under the deal, including the provided punishments, and the feasibility of implementation/problems libraries might have implementing them. To me, one part that seems particularly problematic is how Research Corpus would implement a means to restrict researchers to "non-consumptive research". [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Once again Berkman Center alums and affiliates are all over this -- Alex MacGillivray for Google and Jeff Cunard for the publishers. We could pull together a great session on the deal, although it takes some time to absorb its parameters -- before getting to a place where we can have a cutting-edge discussion about it. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== The Shifting Role of Publishing Companies ===

As noted above under "Self Publication," the internet makes it very easy for individuals to make their work widely available. However, actually garnering a sizable audience or realizing a profit from one's work remains a greater challenge; it appears to be with respect to this step that the services of traditional publishers appear to retain some value. After all, publishing companies offer marketing channels and name recognition in addition to simply machines that print a books. Are traditional publishing companies threatened by the new forms of publishing that the internet makes possible? Are publishers better off battling the internet (for example, by emphasizing the superiority and reliability of their traditional services) or embracing it (for example, by offering digital and internet-based publication services)? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:16, 1 December 2008 (EST) Should the latter services and items -- such as ebooks, audiobooks in mp3 format, and Amazon Kindle -- be replacements for or compliments to printed books? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 07:32, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== The Fate of Printed Materials ===

Will the internet cause the use of printed materials to decline to the point that printed materials become obsolete? Obsolescence is reality in my own experience with The ''Harvard Journal of Law and Technology'' (''JOLT''). ''JOLT'' publishes its articles online on its [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/ website], and it also publishes shorter and more timely posts online in its companion, the [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/ JOLT Digest]. In addition to being available directly to any internet user, all ''JOLT'' articles are made available through legal research databases, including Westlaw and Lexis. Each semester, we order from our publisher (Hein) enormous boxes of the new issue in print, but we have no idea what to do with them. Even after giving away copies to our parents, there are still stacks and stacks of unwanted and unneeded paper copies, and a lighthearted dialogue about what to do with them has steadily taken over the dry erase board in our office. These printed copies of our journal are literally useless. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:32, 1 December 2008 (EST)

The way that readers encounter and digest information is vastly different in the context of printed materials and in the context of digital and online materials. These differences have consequences for both academic researchers and regular citizens in terms of both the kind of information an individual is exposed to and the way that the individual approaches those sources. If a dramatic shift away from printed media is happening, what other shifts does that entail for the way that people learn, synthesize, and evaluate information? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

We talked about an [http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google interesting article] relating to the topic of how digital media and the internet are affecting the way in which people read in JZ's 1L reading group. The article relates more to how the presentation of written material on the 'net (short and skimmable, links galore, etc.) is affecting the way we process information and our ability to read "long" pieces (ie. more than a page or so) without becoming distracted. It is a bit tangential to the specific discussion of the movement of print media onto digital form (since it mostly discusses the ''differences'' between the format of media in each of the forms), but is interesting regardless. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 08:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== Distribution Channels ===

How is the internet changing the way printed materials are distributed? [http://www.amazon.com Amazon.com] appears to be taking over the role of brick-and-mortar bookstores by offering a cheaper and more convenient way to purchase new printed books; their "look inside" feature makes the online shopping experience even more similar to being in a live bookstore. Similarly, [http://www.abebooks.com Abebooks.com] and similar websites have made it possible for individuals to locate and purchase used, out-of-print, and rare books from one another without requiring the research services of specialized booksellers. Even if hard copy printed materials remain in demand, might bookstores become obsolete? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)

== The Publication Process ==

=== Open Access Publishing ===

Addressing whether there actually seems to be a movement toward this model, and away from traditional science/tech publishing. What effects movement toward this model might have on quality, oversight, etc. of published articles. Also, discussion of business models/funding, problems with open access models, etc. And any copyright issues (to tie things back to law).

This can relate both to open access of full articles (as with [http://www.plos.org/ PLoS]) or single experiments/results (including [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and like projects to both make the data available, and, perhaps more importantly, the technologies to make it available in usable form)

Would "open review" (instead of "peer review") work? Are there any models around? What about a Slashdot-style system of moderation and meta-moderation?

Yes, there is at least one example that I can think of. Lawrence Lessig published the first edition of his book Code in 1999. It came out in paper and ink. Several years later, in order to "translate" (his word) the book into a second edition, Lessig persuaded the publisher (Basic Books) to allow him to post the entire text of the first edition of the book on a wiki hosted by Jotspot. (The Wiki text was licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.) Lessig explains, "a team of 'chapter captains' helped facilitate a conversation about the text. There were some edits to the text itself, and many more valuable comments and criticisms. I then took that text as of the end of 2005 and added my own edits to produce this book." (Preface to ''Code version 2.0'', x.) ''Code version 2.0'' is the result of this collaborative editing process. It is available for purchase in paper and ink, for free as a [http://pdf.codev2.cc/Lessig-Codev2.pdf PDF download], and also on a [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi wiki] hosted by Socialtext. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

[http://openaccess.eprints.org/ Stevan Harnad] put a suitable question on the [http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/ ePrints] site:

:"Why did 34,000 researchers sign a threat in 2000 to boycott their journals unless those journals agreed to provide open access to their articles - when the researchers themselves could provide open access (OA) to their own articles by self-archiving them on their own institutional websites?"

More specifically, we can look at the pros/cons of open access journals (or open access controlled/granted via publishing companies) vs. self-archiving (ie. open access by academics themselves) if this is still a hot/open debate. Also, as the first commenter pointed out on [http://pubfrontier.com/2007/12/11/putting-science-into-science-publishing/ this] blog post, "open access doesn’t mean easy access." So perhaps we could also address the question of how to make open access publications as accessible as non-OA forms.

A further thought - does ownership/copyright of published articles pass to the journal in most cases? (I think this was the case for the Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, the only journal I've had direct experience with). If so, does that give the journal the power to determine where and to what degree the article could be published? That is, is this a (potential or real) barrier to self-archiving, and, if so, what can be done about it? Academics likely could not change this part of the publishing agreement unless they reach critical mass, especially for the better-known journals.

ePrints is apparently the leading software for academic self-archiving (according to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eprints Wikipedia] page), and Stevan Harnad (''long'' interview [http://poynder.blogspot.com/2007/07/oa-interviews-stevan-harnad.html here]) is apparently one of the academics who has been leading the charge in open access to (scientific) academic journals/publications.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Suber Peter Suber] writes what is apparently "the most authoritative [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html blog]...on open access".
[[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Harvard has been taking a leadership role on open access. We could definitely do a session on this -- Stuart Shieber, Terry Fisher, and John Palfrey would be natural guests or people to talk to to narrow down the questions. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Collaborative and Customized Textbooks ===

Maybe also Harvard's new open access policy for academic work?
(note that the Harvard Free Culture group is working on the matter - see [http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Campaign The Wheeler Declaration])

JZ described an innovative publication option with which Foundation Press seems willing to experiment: essentially, individual chapters are available independently from one another, giving instructors the freedom to custom build a text book that contains exactly their desired materials (no more, and no less), in the desired sequence. Assuming this model is technologically, legally, and financially feasible, what benefits and drawbacks does it entail? Possible risks might include a lack of completeness and/or organization in the materials ultimately acquired by students as well as the possibility that pedagogical emphasis is dictated by sociologically driven group trends rather than deliberately thoughtful decision making. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Stumbled across a fledgling project that seems to be similar (in some respects) to this issue [http://w.cali.org/eLangdell here]. Doesn't look like it's actually operational at the moment, though. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 20:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Self Publication ===

One of the biggest and most obvious changes wrought by the advent of the internet and PCs the ability of individuals to self-publish; it is now cheap, quick, and easy to reach a mass audience with one's own text, images, and sounds. The rise of blogging, Youtube, and other developments have further increased the ease of self-publication. I know that several scholars have studied the rise and impact of self publication opportunities, but I'm not sure what conclusions they've drawn or which of them might be interesting to bring in as a guest. Suggestions? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:09, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Interested to hear what people might find. :) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''An embarrassment of riches -- great ideas here. Now to home in on one! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Future of Copyright and Entertainment

2008-12-26T00:11:39Z

PeterH:

''Topic owners:'' ''[[User:Jfishman|Joe]], [[User:Miriam|Miriam]]''

back to [[syllabus]]

{{TOCright}}

=== Changing trends in Consumption & Creation of Music and other Performance Art ===

Because IÂ´m out of the country and have limited access to the Internet, this section wonÂ´t be in final form until around Jan 1.--[[User:JFishman|JFishman]] 00:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We are beginning to see more and more choices for where and how to get copyrighted music. Gone are the days when it was either download illegally on programs such as Limewire or pay for them on iTunes. In some instances, copyright is even receding as a battleground issue altogether. In this session, we would be exploring how these new avenues of music consumption & creation might affect the way we experience music in our day to day lives--and just what exactly copyright has to do with any of it.

===The Rise of Alternative Marketplaces===

There have been attempts at creating new marketplaces from scratch such as at [http://amiestreet.com Aimee Street], which lowers the cost of discovering new music by setting price according to download popularity. Then there has been [http://grooveshark.com Grooveshark], which charges for downloads from its user-uploaded library but actually gives a cut to the original uploader. And then we find the advertisement-driven revenue model creeping in, such as at [http://www.imeem.com Imeem], the third-most popular social networking site on the Internet as of August (behind only facebook and MySpace). We also find Radiohead using a tip jar for their latest release, where customers pay as little or as much as they deem appropriate.

Surveying the growing options for where to get oneÂ´s music fix, we will first be asking where the traditional channels of distribution--the record companies--fit into any of this. Is their cooperation truly necessary for success? Or, as many in the industry fear, are big-box record companies becoming obsolete?

===Peer Recommendation Services===

With the rise of peer-recommendation services and internet-radio stations that are driven by a listener's past interests, it's worth asking just where & how we'll be discovering new music in the future. When we are downloading individual songs rather than albums, and discovering those songs through automated services, are we likely to discover new artists to follow? Or does "the artist" as a predictor of our aesthetic taste begin to recede in importance?

:'''Of course, connects to Cass's Daily Me / Republic 2.0 worries. You might see if Cass wants to present something related to that this week. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 05:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

===Collateral Effects===

This is going to need the most fleshing out.--[[User:JFishman|JFishman]] 00:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It has been said that iTunes is changing our musical culture from an "concept based" one to a "song based" one. The transition means that the album becomes less and less of a meaningful unit of creativity; consumers are more likely to think of the tracks as individual songs than as parts of a coherent whole. Music critics might follow suit. It's worth asking whether this trend will continue--does the move to digital media necessarily produce this result? The potential demise of the album provides a useful case study of how means of consumption and distribution affects how we conceptualize the music we experience.

:'''I've heard this complaint since the rise of the CD player and shuffle play! Interesting, but has it developed in the past 20 years? And how to move from crystal ball future-prediction questions towards issues with a policy dimension? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 05:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

''Some possible questions of the week:''

* In 5 years, where are we likely to be getting our music from?
* Are any of the models described above likely to succeed commercially?
* Are our methods of music consumption likely to have an impact on our methods of music production? Is this likely to have an affect on the sort of music available to us?
* How closely will we be following particular artist's careers? Is the rise of peer-recommendation services likely to decrease the importance of brand loyalty to an artist? With alternative indicators of whether we're likely to enjoy something, will we see fewer listeners buying the latest album? Does anyone even care about albums anymore?
* What affect will all of this have on our inclination and capacity to branch out in our tastes? For those that worry about internet echo chambers, should we be just as worried about an echo chamber for the arts?
* Just where does the recording industry fit in to all of this?
* How much does copyright have to do with the new strategies being developed for distributing music online? Where would changes in copyright law make the most difference? The least difference?

'''Possible Readings'''

* James Boyle on [http://yupnet.org/boyle/archives/130 mashups]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/arts/music/04radi.html Radiohead Fans, Guided by Conscience (and Budget), N.Y. Times, Oct. 4, 2007].
* Diane Zimmerman, ''Living Without Copyright in a Digital World'', 70 Alb. L. Rev. 1375 (2007).
* Michael W. Carroll, ''Whose Music Is It Anyway? How We Came to View Music as a Form of Property'', 72 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1405 (2004).

'''Possible Guests'''

* Radiohead (worth a shot, right?)
* Brian Burton, aka DJ Danger Mouse
* Girl Talk
* Jan Jannink (co-founder of imeem, formerly of Napster)
* James Boyle (Duke Law School & chair of Creative Commons)
* Terry Fisher (HLS & Noank Media)
* John Buckman (Magnatune Records)
* Downhill Battle

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

=== The Proliferation of Imagery Online ===

This topic is expansive, but there are three areas that are particularly interesting:

* Mainstream media and fan culture
* Changing expectations about privacy
* Sharing media internationally

Web 2.0 allows people to create and share audio visual works that borrow from mainstream media. The proliferation of images online presents new challenges to the copyright regime. Music and video is taken from digital sources and manipulated to create new works. These "Fanvids" are easy to distribute because they are digital media. Their creators thrive in online communities with email listservs and blogs. Or you can visit www.fanfiction.net for a massive library of fictional works the build on well established story lines from books, movies and tv shows. "As of the week ending Aug. 25, 2007, the site ranked in the 159th position of over 1 million websites, putting Fanfiction.net ahead of sites such as Apple.com" (quote from Time Magazine)

Although many of these works potentially infringe upon the original works, industry figures are looking to harness the free marketing...
* Marvel Studios head quoted saying “ I now consider [fans] filmmaking partners”
* CBS has promised to allow fans to post clips of shows and even “mashups” or simple fanvids on the internet
* Bravo has Video Mashups on its Project Runway website
The internet encourages semiotic democracy, but to what extent should we allow shared cultural references to be deconstruct by copyright infringers?

Social networking sites such as myspace.com, facebook.com and flickr.com feature many photographs that push the limits of people's privacy expectations. Lawsuits may proliferate, like Chang v. Virgin Mobile (complaint available here http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/texas/txndce/3:2007cv01767/171558/)
Given the speed and ease with which we can communicate with each other on the internet using words, images and sounds, how does our consumption of media change?

International art forms are now enjoyed almost instantaneously across borders, as unauthorized copies are posted on the internet. We all know about American cultural products exported abroad, but the internet also allows many interesting forms to be brought in, such as Japanese anime, subtitled by amateurs ("fansubbing" is explained further http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fansub)

''' Possible Readings'''

* Sarah Trombley, Visions and Revisions: Fanvids and Fair Use 25 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 647 (2007)

* Sean Leonard, Celebrating Two Decades of Unlawful Progress: Fan Distribution, Proselytization Commons, and the Explosive Growth of Japanese Anime 12 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 189 (2005)

* IN THE FACE OF DANGER: FACIAL RECOGNITION AND THE LIMITS OF PRIVACY LAW (Harvard Law Review article, uploaded to site, but I cannot figure out how to link to it.)

'''Possible Guests'''

* Rebecca Tushnet
* reps from Mainstream Media to comment on ways to collaborate with/crush fan culture.
* Terry Fisher
* will think of more as soon as exams are over. :)

:'''You might check out some of Terry's and others' work on "semiotic democracy," with an eye towards seeing (1) whether we buy the basic theory and (2) if so, what policy prescriptions or other action items might emerge from it. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 05:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Future of Copyright and Entertainment

2008-12-26T00:03:52Z

PeterH:

''Topic owners:'' ''[[User:Jfishman|Joe]], [[User:Miriam|Miriam]]''

back to [[syllabus]]

{{TOCright}}

=== Changing trends in Consumption & Creation of Music and other Performance Art ===

Because IÂ´m out of the country and have limited access to the Internet, this section wonÂ´t be in final form until around Jan 1.--[[User:JFishman|JFishman]] 00:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We are beginning to see more and more choices for where and how to get copyrighted music. Gone are the days when it was either download illegally on programs such as Limewire or pay for them on iTunes. In some instances, copyright is even receding as a battleground issue altogether. In this session, we would be exploring how these new avenues of music consumption & creation might affect the way we experience music in our day to day lives--and just what exactly copyright has to do with any of it.

===The Rise of Alternative Marketplaces===

There have been attempts at creating new marketplaces from scratch such as at [http://amiestreet.com Aimee Street], which lowers the cost of discovering new music by setting price according to download popularity. Then there has been [http://grooveshark.com Grooveshark], which charges for downloads from its user-uploaded library but actually gives a cut to the original uploader. And then we find the advertisement-driven revenue model creeping in, such as at [http://www.imeem.com Imeem], the third-most popular social networking site on the Internet as of August (behind only facebook and MySpace). We also find Radiohead using a tip jar for their latest release, where customers pay as little or as much as they deem appropriate.

Surveying the growing options for where to get oneÂ´s music fix, we will first be asking where the traditional channels of distribution--the record companies--fit into any of this. Is their cooperation truly necessary for success? Or, as many in the industry fear, are big-box record companies becoming obsolete?

===Peer Recommendation Services===

With the rise of peer-recommendation services and internet-radio stations that are driven by a listener's past interests, it's worth asking just where & how we'll be discovering new music in the future. When we are downloading individual songs rather than albums, and discovering those songs through automated services, are we likely to discover new artists to follow? Or does "the artist" as a predictor of our aesthetic taste begin to recede in importance?

:'''Of course, connects to Cass's Daily Me / Republic 2.0 worries. You might see if Cass wants to present something related to that this week. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 05:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

===Collateral Effects===

This is going to need the most fleshing out.--[[User:JFishman|JFishman]] 00:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It has been said that iTunes is changing our musical culture from an "concept based" one to a "song based" one. The transition means that the album becomes less and less of a meaningful unit of creativity; consumers are more likely to think of the tracks as individual songs than as parts of a coherent whole. Music critics might follow suit. It's worth asking whether this trend will continue--does the move to digital media necessarily produce this result? The potential demise of the album provides a useful case study of how means of consumption and distribution affects how we conceptualize the music we experience.

:'''I've heard this complaint since the rise of the CD player and shuffle play! Interesting, but has it developed in the past 20 years? And how to move from crystal ball future-prediction questions towards issues with a policy dimension? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 05:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

''Some possible questions of the week:''

* In 5 years, where are we likely to be getting our music from?
* Are any of the models described above likely to succeed commercially?
* Are our methods of music consumption likely to have an impact on our methods of music production? Is this likely to have an affect on the sort of music available to us?
* How closely will we be following particular artist's careers? Is the rise of peer-recommendation services likely to decrease the importance of brand loyalty to an artist? With alternative indicators of whether we're likely to enjoy something, will we see fewer listeners buying the latest album? Does anyone even care about albums anymore?
* What affect will all of this have on our inclination and capacity to branch out in our tastes? For those that worry about internet echo chambers, should we be just as worried about an echo chamber for the arts?
* Just where does the recording industry fit in to all of this?
* How much does copyright have to do with the new strategies being developed for distributing music online? Where would changes in copyright law make the most difference? The least difference?

'''Possible Readings'''

* James Boyle on [http://yupnet.org/boyle/archives/130 mashups]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/arts/music/04radi.html Radiohead Fans, Guided by Conscience (and Budget), N.Y. Times, Oct. 4, 2007].
* Diane Zimmerman, ''Living Without Copyright in a Digital World'', 70 Alb. L. Rev. 1375 (2007).
* Michael W. Carroll, ''Whose Music Is It Anyway? How We Came to View Music as a Form of Property'', 72 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1405 (2004).

'''Possible Guests'''

* Radiohead (worth a shot, right?)
* Brian Burton, aka DJ Danger Mouse
* Girl Talk
* Jan Jannink (co-founder of imeem, formerly of Napster)
* James Boyle (Duke Law School & chair of Creative Commons)
* Terry Fisher (HLS & Noank Media)
* John Buckman (Magnatune Records)
* Downhill Battle

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact.

=== The Proliferation of Imagery Online ===

This topic is expansive, but there are three areas that are particularly interesting:

* Mainstream media and fan culture
* Changing expectations about privacy
* Sharing media internationally

Web 2.0 allows people to create and share audio visual works that borrow from mainstream media. The proliferation of images online presents new challenges to the copyright regime. Music and video is taken from digital sources and manipulated to create new works. These "Fanvids" are easy to distribute because they are digital media. Their creators thrive in online communities with email listservs and blogs. Or you can visit www.fanfiction.net for a massive library of fictional works the build on well established story lines from books, movies and tv shows. "As of the week ending Aug. 25, 2007, the site ranked in the 159th position of over 1 million websites, putting Fanfiction.net ahead of sites such as Apple.com" (quote from Time Magazine)

Although many of these works potentially infringe upon the original works, industry figures are looking to harness the free marketing...
* Marvel Studios head quoted saying “ I now consider [fans] filmmaking partners”
* CBS has promised to allow fans to post clips of shows and even “mashups” or simple fanvids on the internet
* Bravo has Video Mashups on its Project Runway website
The internet encourages semiotic democracy, but to what extent should we allow shared cultural references to be deconstruct by copyright infringers?

Social networking sites such as myspace.com, facebook.com and flickr.com feature many photographs that push the limits of people's privacy expectations. Lawsuits may proliferate, like Chang v. Virgin Mobile (complaint available here http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/texas/txndce/3:2007cv01767/171558/)
Given the speed and ease with which we can communicate with each other on the internet using words, images and sounds, how does our consumption of media change?

International art forms are now enjoyed almost instantaneously across borders, as unauthorized copies are posted on the internet. We all know about American cultural products exported abroad, but the internet also allows many interesting forms to be brought in, such as Japanese anime, subtitled by amateurs ("fansubbing" is explained further http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fansub)

''' Possible Readings'''

* Sarah Trombley, Visions and Revisions: Fanvids and Fair Use 25 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 647 (2007)

* Sean Leonard, Celebrating Two Decades of Unlawful Progress: Fan Distribution, Proselytization Commons, and the Explosive Growth of Japanese Anime 12 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 189 (2005)

* IN THE FACE OF DANGER: FACIAL RECOGNITION AND THE LIMITS OF PRIVACY LAW (Harvard Law Review article, uploaded to site, but I cannot figure out how to link to it.)

'''Possible Guests'''

* Rebecca Tushnet
* reps from Mainstream Media to comment on ways to collaborate with/crush fan culture.
* Terry Fisher
* will think of more as soon as exams are over. :)

:'''You might check out some of Terry's and others' work on "semiotic democracy," with an eye towards seeing (1) whether we buy the basic theory and (2) if so, what policy prescriptions or other action items might emerge from it. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 05:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)