Debate 4/Affirmative: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
See below some preliminary research. I've attempted to categorize these resources in the context of the debate: | See below some preliminary research. I've attempted to categorize these resources in the context of the debate: | ||
*'''Digital IP and Digital History''' | *'''Digital IP and Digital History''' | ||
Not only does the future of the Internet depend on the outcome of the IP debate, so does its past. If history, how it is recorded, and who has access to it are issues vital to a thriving democracy, then digital IP and its impact on archiving Internet material is important to the future of democracy. | |||
-[http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5267 Internet archivists face heavy litigation as they struggle to document digital history] | |||
*'''Threats to the Read-Write Web''' | *'''Threats to the Read-Write Web''' | ||
If Web 2.0, enhanced 2-way communications technologies, and citizen engagement with media and technology are good things for democracy, then fuzzy digital IP laws surely are not. Antiquated IP laws also have a chilling effect on citizen engagement. | |||
-[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9213673 Killer of Sheep] An American classic that almost no American has ever seen. This is foundational to the argument because it is a sign of what could happen to citizen media produced with Web 2.0 technologies (Killer of Sheep was made pre-Internet but the analogy should be apparent). -NPR | |||
-Citizen podcasting is great for democracy - [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Podcasting_Legal_Guide yeah, good luck with that]. Can we measure the chilling effect that an over litigious permissions process will have on the Internet's (and more broadly, Web 2.0 media's) impact on democracy? -Creative Commons | |||
-Lawrence Lessig: [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d55dfe52-77d2-11da-9670-0000779e2340.html "We are well on our way to producing a read only Internet."] -Financial Times. | |||
Revision as of 14:42, 14 April 2007
In Support of the Resolution
See below some preliminary research. I've attempted to categorize these resources in the context of the debate:
- Digital IP and Digital History
Not only does the future of the Internet depend on the outcome of the IP debate, so does its past. If history, how it is recorded, and who has access to it are issues vital to a thriving democracy, then digital IP and its impact on archiving Internet material is important to the future of democracy.
-Internet archivists face heavy litigation as they struggle to document digital history
- Threats to the Read-Write Web
If Web 2.0, enhanced 2-way communications technologies, and citizen engagement with media and technology are good things for democracy, then fuzzy digital IP laws surely are not. Antiquated IP laws also have a chilling effect on citizen engagement.
-Killer of Sheep An American classic that almost no American has ever seen. This is foundational to the argument because it is a sign of what could happen to citizen media produced with Web 2.0 technologies (Killer of Sheep was made pre-Internet but the analogy should be apparent). -NPR
-Citizen podcasting is great for democracy - yeah, good luck with that. Can we measure the chilling effect that an over litigious permissions process will have on the Internet's (and more broadly, Web 2.0 media's) impact on democracy? -Creative Commons
-Lawrence Lessig: "We are well on our way to producing a read only Internet." -Financial Times.