Pre-class Discussion for Jan 14

Lessig, Free Culture, Introduction (pp. 1-13)

• Does widespread generativity offset attempts to assert increased levels of cultural ownership to any significant degree? Can those attempts keep pace with the constant and diffuse creation of new cultural content enabled by the internet (at least absent substantial technological changes actually as opposed to legally constraining the creation itself)? Jhliss 07:34, 13 January 2008 (EST)

• From a value-based perspective, Lessig argues that generativity does indeed offset widespread assertions of ownership. Lessig views generativity as, more broadly, a "culture of values that have been integral to our tradition from the start" (Lessig, 10). Connecting this seemingly fundamental notion with evidence that culture is more "owned" than it has ever been (in a sense, more "pwned" by large, oft-corporate interests), Lessig's argument is quite forceful. savith 15:50, 13 January 2008 (EST)

• Turning to whether legal constraints can keep pace, one wonders whether a Justice Douglas-esque approach will be embraced. Was it was easier for J. Douglas to make his argument since "common sense" was aligned with the interests of the burgeoning airline industry? savith 15:50, 13 January 2008 (EST)

• Although Lessig believes that the shift away from free culture is due to the political system's capture by special interests, is there any weight to his suggested (but dismissed) counter-argument that it is simply a correction for a mistake in the past? Keen touches on some points in his critique of amateurism (which I see as a subset of free culture), but I can't think of any others -- certainly nothing that compares to the examples of societal correction that Lessig points out -- slavery and inequality. Amehra 16:36, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Amateurism

Andrew Keen, Cult of the Amateur, Ch. 2

• So many questions. I'll try to just pick a few . . . Jhliss 15:07, 13 January 2008 (EST)
  • Keen uses the words "we" and "us" a lot. To whom is he referring?
  • A doctor's not exactly like a journalist, right? Isn't the distinction important?
  • I don't think Keen and I read the same blogs. Even leaving aside the Britney/Paris criticism, doesn't Keen paint traditional media (and other cultural outlets) with a rather uncritical brush? Do I remain a "professional journalist" simply by virtue of my college education and employment by a traditional media outlet if I fabricate stories or act as court stenographer for those in power? Conversely, if I make my living producing original reporting and informed commentary while offering my readers both accuracy and transparency am I still not a "professional journalist" just because I don't have a journalism degree and my work happens not to appear in print? Does the ever-growing number of bloggers receiving press passes, for example, or paid serious attention by major corporations, suggest far more substance than Keen contemplates?
  • "Can the cult of the noble amateur really expect to bypass all this and do a better job?" Is the amateur entitled to create only if the product will be better than that of the non-amateur? If the reverse were true, would there by any major-label music released?
  • Was the $331,000 that Frito-Lay didn't pay for a professional Super Bowl ad really "sucked out of the economy"?

• I have a few questions to add to the strong ones outlined above.

• What does Keen mean by "Wikipedia's editors embrace and revel in the commonness of their knowledge"? Can we generalize contributors as jacks of all trades and masters of none?
• This question segues to Keen's point about Dr. William Connolley. Why do you think Connolley was unable to use his expertise to sway Wikipedia arbitrators? Is it possible that he based his changes on personal qualifications rather than using his expertise to cite compelling sources? (Personally, I think Keen defeats his own point here. That one's contributions should be weighted by assurances of personal expertise is prehaps weakened by his later focus on the 23-year-old contributer masquerading as an accomplished professor.)

savith 16:14, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Terry Fisher, Speech on Amateurism, (from OECD Digital Content Conference)

• I was surprised to read that the number of performers has declined over the past century (until the past few years). Terry Fisher certainly knows what he's talking about to a far greater degree than I do, but can that be right? Jhliss 15:43, 13 January 2008 (EST)

• Prof. Fisher mentions Yochai Benkler's study of "machinima." Here's an example, complete with cheesy musical soundtrack. After viewing, you may want to return to reality by addressing copyright concerns. I believe that studio films (as well as non-profit producers like NPR and WGBH - when it comes to online availability) have to obtain permission before including any musical composition in their work. Could this song's distributor request and obtain the film's removal from YouTube? Or would you rather ignore this inquiry and watch another clip? savith 16:40, 13 January 2008 (EST)

David Weinberger, Andrew Keen's Best Case (Huffington Post)

I guess the first question is: Are we satisfied with Weinberger's analysis of and response to Keen's piece? savith 16:49, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Open Access

Peter Suber, Publishers launch an anti-OA lobbying organization

• Mildly interesting tidbit: Peter Suber wrote The Case of the Speluncean Explorers: Nine New Opinions. Jhliss 15:19, 13 January 2008 (EST)