Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

Assignment 4 Peer Review

2011-05-09T01:06:07Z

Sjennings:

If you'd like to receive or give feedback from/to other students on your rough drafts, please submit them here.

----

Brandon A. Ceranowicz
Draft 2.2:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:A_Comparative_Study_of_Open_Source_Licenses_v2.2.doc
Slightly more professional than the last draft... would appreciate any feedback! Theoretical framework and conclusions still to go - these will be in draft 3.0.
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 16:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Brandon A. Ceranowicz
Draft 2.5:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:A_Comparative_Study_of_Open_Source_Licenses_v2.5.doc
Conclusion is live! Take a look. Theoretical framework still to come.
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 23:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In this paper, Brandon skillfully guides a detailed tour of open source licenses. The composition's robust structure ably contains the fine points of the subject matter. There is enough information here for several projects. One possible new work would be a more generalized overview of open source licenses for the layman. Even in the paper's current format, a summary table comparing the basic aspects of the individual licenses would be useful. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 18:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent advice! I have incorporated a visual representation of license content into the next draft.[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 01:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Brandon A. Ceranowicz
Draft 3.0:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:A_Comparative_Study_of_Open_Source_Licenses_v3.0.doc
Theoretical framework is up; barring any major errors, this should be the final draft of the long form version - now I have to condense it into 10 pages... suggestions very much appreciated!

Brandon A. Cernaowicz
Final Draft (long version)
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:A_Comparative_Study_of_Open_Source_Licenses.doc
This is the completed long version. Abridged version to follow shortly.

Brandon A. Ceranowicz
Draft 1.0 (short version)
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:A_Comparative_Study_of_Open_Source_Licenses_%28short%29_v1.0.doc
This is a rough draft of the abridged version. The sourcing needs to be completely redone. (Also still a little long...)[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 18:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Brandon A. Ceranowicz
Draft 1.1 (short)
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:A_Comparative_Study_of_Open_Source_Licenses_%28short%29_v1.1.doc
Sourcing fixed. This should be the final product, barring any feedback.
- [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 23:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Onyema Ajuogu: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_infiltration_to_Nigeria_burden_of_cybercrime_to_ecommerce_assign-4.pdf Internet infiltration to Nigeria: burden of cyber-crime to e-commerce]

Onyema, this is a very interesting topic, but I would suggest for an academic paper you need to footnote in your paper information you have found from third party sources. Although you have original ideas, it gives your paper credibility to cite third party information you have used to develop the conclusions in your paper. [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 16:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)]]

Onyema , All in all very interesting paper. May I suggest that you elaborate about the problems you refer to when you say, “SAT3 submarine cable system that is connecting Africa to India( of which both have had a significant problems).” Do you mean technology, social, political …? I suggest you be more explicit which will help as you lay out your arguments later in the paper.

Also, I saw a typo in your title, “The role National Law is plying.” I think you want “Playing.”

Thanks for the early preview. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 20:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Name: Guy
Title: The Transition to Next Generation 9-1-1 in North America
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/The_Transition_to_Next_Generation_9-1-1_in_North_America_%28draft_May_6%29.pdf Link:]
Note: I am still working on my conclusions and I need to clean up endnotes, references etc.. I'll appreciate any comments. Thanks TGIF! --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting closer. [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/The_Transition_to_Next_Generation_9-1-1_in_North_America_%28draft_May_7%29.pdf Click here for May 7] version of my paper.
Good Luck everybody. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 20:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

-- Guy: Of negligable importance, I know, but don't you find the roman numerals to be a bit unwieldy? - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 23:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

--Brandon. Thank you. Yes. A friend of mine likes to say that, “if you want to seem smart, use Latin in your presentations.” ;- ) Not so in footnote numbering, they are just a pain. I've switched to regular numerals and improved my paper. Thanks! --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 19:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I found the use of visuals very helpful, but the detail about the survey responses to individual questions made the paper long. I know it helps support your point, but I did find it distracting. Very interesting information which I felt motivated to share with my family. Also great in class presentation. <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 01:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)>>

Final Projects

2011-05-09T00:46:41Z

Sjennings: /* Submissions */

File:Paper.doc

2011-05-09T00:38:52Z

Sjennings: Annuity Companies' Social Media Communications

Annuity Companies' Social Media Communications

Assignment 4 Peer Review

2011-05-05T16:39:43Z

Sjennings:

Internet and Democracy: The Sequel

2011-04-21T18:22:22Z

Sjennings: /* Links */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''April 26'''

A decade ago, the Internet was widely seen as a means to diminish the power of countries to regulate the flow of ideas and information. However, we have witnessed the resurgence of national sovereignty in cyberspace, with many countries now resorting to a combination of technology, law and intimidation to reign in the spread of free speech via the Net. Often aided by the technological support of the private sector in the United States, for this class, we will debate the ethics, practicality and implications of Internet censorship.
<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* Read John Palfrey and Jonathan Zittrain: [http://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/files/Deibert_06_Ch05_103-122.pdf Reluctant Gatekeepers: Corporate Ethics on a Filtered Internet]
* Take a look at the [http://opennet.net/blog ONI blog]
* And the [http://opennet.net/map ONI global filtering map]
* Explore the Global Network Initiative website [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/ GNI], with particular attention to the [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/principles/index.php Principles], [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/implementationguidelines/index.php Implementation Guidelines], and [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/governanceframework/index.php Governance Framework]

== Additional Resources ==

</onlyinclude>
== Class Discussion ==

== Links ==

Here is a link to the link to the extensive Freedom House "Freedom on the Net 2011" report. (Honestly, at 410 pages I haven't really had time to read and evaulate this, but I thought I would throw it up on the wiki for those who might be interested.)
http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/FotN/FOTN2011.pdf
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 17:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

On the Today show this morning, one of the lead headlines was about your location can be followed thru your IPhone and IPad which is something we have been chatting about for the last two classes in the chat room. Also, there was an interesting article for corporate counsel on law.com regarding the idea that the government is watching corporations on the internet:
http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202484184534
[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)}}

Assignment 4 Submissions

2011-04-11T22:34:23Z

Sjennings: /* Submissions */

Assignment 4 Submissions

2011-04-11T22:29:06Z

Sjennings: /* Submissions */

File:Annnuity Companies' s Social Media paper.doc

2011-04-11T22:16:22Z

Sjennings: draft of final project

draft of final project

Control and Code: Privacy Online

2011-04-06T20:03:10Z

Sjennings: /* Links */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''April 12'''

Code is law; the architecture of the Internet and the software that runs on it will determine to a large extent how the Net is regulated in a way that goes far deeper than legal means could ever achieve (or at least ever achieve alone). Technological advances have also produced many tempting options for regulation and surveillance that may severely alter the balance of privacy, access to information and sharing of intellectual property. By regulating behavior, technological architectures or codes embed different values and political choices. Yet code is often treated as a technocratic affair, or something best left to private economic actors pursuing their own interests. If code is law, then control of code is power. If important questions of social ordering are at stake, shouldn't the design and development of code be brought within the political process? In this class we delve into the technological alternatives that will shape interactions over the Internet, as well as the implications of each on personal freedom, privacy and combating cyber-crime.
<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/download Jonathan Zittrain, Future of the Internet, Chapter 9: Privacy 2.0]
* [http://www.bitsbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chapter2.pdf Abelson, Ledeen, Lewis, Blown to Bits, Chapter 2: Naked in the Sunlight: Privacy Lost, Privacy Abandoned]
* [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html Solveig Singleton, Privacy as Censorship (CATO)]

==Optional Readings==

* [http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2010/04/02/segments/152890 NPR On the Media Story "Anonymous Justice"]
* [http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/SXSW2010.html "Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity." Transcript of talk given by Danah Boyd at SXSW. Austin, Texas, March 13, 2010]
* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/privacy Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0: Privacy]
* http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flesh_search_engine
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

== Links ==
[http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/get-ring-us-europe-vow-bash-out-internet-pers Get in the ring: US, Europe vow to bash out Internet personal privacy protection] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 21:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

New York Times op-ed on new privacy legislation being considered by Sen. Kerry: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/opinion/19sat2.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=privacy%20on%20the%20internet&st=cse --[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 20:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)]]

Copyright in Cyberspace

2011-04-06T19:32:35Z

Sjennings: /* Links */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''April 5'''

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to "recut, reframe, and recycle" previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain.

Digital and file-sharing technologies also spawned the proliferation of sharing of media and music, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies. The "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") allow Internet service providers to limit their liability for the copyright infringements of their users if the ISPs expeditiously remove material in response to complaints from copyright owners. The DMCA provides for counter-notice and "put-back" of removed material, but some argue that the statutory mechanism can chill innovative, constitutionally-protected speech.

This class provides an overview of some major copyright law concepts and takes up some of the issues swirling around copyright in cyberspace.

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-4.5.11-Copyright.pdf Slides: Copyright in Cyberspace]'''

==Assignments==

== Required Readings ==
* [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Basics]
* [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 17 U.S.C. § 107 ("Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use")]
* [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) ("Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users")]
* [http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/ Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture] (pp. 1-20)
* Viacom v. YouTube: [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/technology/19youtube.html?pagewanted=1&sq=viacom&st=cse&scp=2 "Viacom Says YouTube Ignored Copyrights" (M. Helft, NY Times, 3/18/2010)], [http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/07/what-the-viacom-vs-youtube-verdict-means-for-copyright-law183.html What the Viacom vs. YouTube Verdict Means for Copyright Law]
* Righthaven Copyright Lawsuits: [http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/29/righthaven-wins-round-litigation-campaign/ Las Vegas Sun, Righthaven wins round in litigation campaign], [http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/business-notebook/2011/mar/19/righthaven-lawsuits-backfire-reduce-protections-ne/ Las Vegas Sun, Righthaven lawsuits backfire, reduce protections for newspapers], and skim [http://www.righthavenlawsuits.com/ this].
* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/news%20aggregation%20white%20paper.pdf The Rise of the News Aggregator: Legal Implications and Best Practices]

== Optional Readings ==
* [http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/02/02/super-bust-due-process-and-domain-name-seizure.html Super Bust: Due Process and Domain Name Seizure]
* [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/comics1 Creative Commons: A Spectrum of Rights (comic)]
* [http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/recut_reframe_recycle/ Center for Social Media, Recut, Reframe, Recyle] (full report optional)
* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8647956476676426155&q=545+U.S.+913&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005)] (Sec. II, pp. 928 - 937)
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/nyregion/09potter.html?_r=1 "Rowling Wins Lawsuit Against Potter Lexicon" (J. Eligon, NY Times, 9/8/08)]
* [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/830/index.html New York Times Bits Blog: Mixing It Up Over Remixes and Fair Use]
* [http://www.eff.org/files/20030926_unsafe_harbors.pdf EFF, Unsafe Harbors: Abusive DMCA Subpoenas and Takedown Demands]
* [http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/15/concrete-steps-congress-can-take-protect-americas-intellectual-property The White House Blog: Concrete Steps Congress Can Take to Protect America's Intellectual Property]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

For the mind map software, I found [http://vue.tufts.edu/ VUE] easy to use. I was especially impressed by the rendering in PDF. Everything fit neatly on the page. This was a big surprise after being a Microsoft Office User ;-). Also, PC Users, if you need to print to PDF, [http://www.pdfforge.org/ PDF Creator] is wonderful. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 22:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The story of Edwin Howard Armstrong in Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, is especially disturbing due in part to his unfortunate demise. FM radio was systematically repressed by RCA and the government (FCC); for the benefit of RCA (to keep it's market share with AM radio).The fight between RCA and Edwin Armstrong ultimately broke him down, but this story has repeated itself in many forms throughout history. RCA benefited from AM radio at the expense of millions of radio listeners who would have been able to enjoy clear FM transmissions. In this particular case, it lead to the direct death of the inventor and the short changing of the radio listening public. What happens in other cases where lives are at stake? Would a pharmaceutical company react the same way to protect their financial interests in the event of an important cure being developed? What if the cure was developed using prior pharmaceutical patents? Would “common sense revolt at the idea?”1 [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 23:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
1 Lawrence Lessig, ( New York: Penguin Press, 1994) Free Culture, 2

The Righthaven case cites some factors working against the plaintiffs, one of which is the fact that they sought copyright protection with the specific intent to file suit. While I certainly don't think their actions are on the whole noble, it does seem a bit challenging that copyright protection does not require registration. If registration is mere legal formality, but is also required in order to file a suit, it seems unfair to subject Righthaven to scrutiny on that particular basis. If a judge is going to deem such actions as dubious, why not require registration at the outset? [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 19:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to discern the common sense in today’s copyright law. It certainly makes sense that some expressions have value, and the author or assignee of copyright should have the ability to control the use of their valuable intellectual property. There’s a difference, however, between the deliberate misappropriation of copyrighted material for commercial gain (or infliction of harm), and the casual innocent use of copyrighted material by an individual. If I buy a newspaper and share it with several people on the train there’s no harm to the publisher. If I read an article on their web site and email a copy to my friends, that action should be fine too. While a blog has the potential for more viewers, it seems like a simple extension of social interaction. I think it’s a travesty that Righthaven was able to prosecute these kinds of claims. In contrast, the big commercial cases like Viacom v. YouTube, AFP v. Google, AP v. All Headline News and Gatehouse Media v. NYT all had a substantial monetary stake in the creation and dissemination of intellectual property. Those seem to me to be the more suitable parties for questions of copyright infringement. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 21:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Classmates,

Thank you for another thoughtful, engaging and energetic discussion both in class an online last evening. The topics discussed are today hyper relevant to all of us and as [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/User:Earboleda Earboleda] points out in the case of Armstrong and FM radio have been the source of commerce, intrigue and even tragedy for time uncertain. From the business tactics of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst William Randolph Hearst] to [http://www.ascap.com/ ASCAP] suing the Girl Scouts for singing "[http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html God Bless America]" and far beyond none of us are immune to the ramifications. Not to dwell on it, but as I said last evening even the dead.

In a strange coincidence last night when I got home, I sat down to grab a bite and flipped on CNBC. The show "[http://www.cnbc.com/id/40795923/ 60 Minutes on CNBC]" was rerunning the segment “[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/19/60minutes/main6598800.shtml How Celebs Make A Living After Death]”. It told how Attorney Mark Roesler, who wished to become a famous entertainment agent but because he lived in Indiana couldn’t find that many big named clients, latched upon the idea of representing notable figures who have passed away. For almost the past thirty years he has turned that idea into an industry.

Although I didn’t articulate this as well as I had hoped in class, I am conflicted over this. First it seems creepy to me that someone should take the life’s work of transformative figures from Einstein to Michael Jackson and use that for profit. I’m all for profit from one’s contribution, but affixing the face of Einstein, crossed eyed and sticking out his tongue to a tee shirt, doesn’t seem to me to be that much of a contribution to society and more so something that someone should be able to appropriate. As [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/edit/User:ChrisSura?redlink=1 Chris] points out, even more so, prevent the rest of us from also doing so without paying a royalty (if the tee shirt maker also had written above the image their correction of a mistake in one of Einstein's theorems, perhaps).

On the other hand, Mr. Roesler has created an industry from which many people today make a living, feed their families and send their kids to great institutions like Harvard where they are able to have engaging conversations dissecting the subject. There’s also the point that if someone is going to make money of the dead, shouldn’t some of that money go to their heirs. Well maybe yes and maybe no. Who knows what the dearly departed would have wished for their post mortem profits. I suspect that today there are a lot of people getting rich in part due to the legacies of people like Mother Teresa and other who never spent a night knee deep in filth caring for the sick and dying. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 11:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

So sorry we did not get to spend more time discussing the Viacom v.YouTube case last night. When a company is abusing the legal process to further their own interests (as in Viacom wanting to buy YouTube) by their own employees posting copyrighted videos on the site, the focus should not be on YouTube but on Viacom. There is an old legal saying, bad cases make bad law. When new legal precedents are being established, one would hope for better facts.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 19:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)]]

== Links ==
Interesting question: [http://paidcontent.org/article/419-have-media-companies-destroyed-their-copyrights-with-the-share-button/# Have Media Companies Destroyed Their Copyrights With The ‘Share’ Button?] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Not our topic this week, but AFLAC used crowdsourcing to create their advertising commercial. Very cool idea in a closely regulated industry - http://www.youtube.com/user/aflac#p/a/f/0/FfusU_MB1ew [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 19:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)]]

Copyright in Cyberspace

2011-04-06T19:28:32Z

Sjennings: /* Class Discussion */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''April 5'''

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to "recut, reframe, and recycle" previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain.

Digital and file-sharing technologies also spawned the proliferation of sharing of media and music, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies. The "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") allow Internet service providers to limit their liability for the copyright infringements of their users if the ISPs expeditiously remove material in response to complaints from copyright owners. The DMCA provides for counter-notice and "put-back" of removed material, but some argue that the statutory mechanism can chill innovative, constitutionally-protected speech.

This class provides an overview of some major copyright law concepts and takes up some of the issues swirling around copyright in cyberspace.

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-4.5.11-Copyright.pdf Slides: Copyright in Cyberspace]'''

==Assignments==

== Required Readings ==
* [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Basics]
* [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 17 U.S.C. § 107 ("Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use")]
* [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) ("Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users")]
* [http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/ Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture] (pp. 1-20)
* Viacom v. YouTube: [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/technology/19youtube.html?pagewanted=1&sq=viacom&st=cse&scp=2 "Viacom Says YouTube Ignored Copyrights" (M. Helft, NY Times, 3/18/2010)], [http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/07/what-the-viacom-vs-youtube-verdict-means-for-copyright-law183.html What the Viacom vs. YouTube Verdict Means for Copyright Law]
* Righthaven Copyright Lawsuits: [http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/29/righthaven-wins-round-litigation-campaign/ Las Vegas Sun, Righthaven wins round in litigation campaign], [http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/business-notebook/2011/mar/19/righthaven-lawsuits-backfire-reduce-protections-ne/ Las Vegas Sun, Righthaven lawsuits backfire, reduce protections for newspapers], and skim [http://www.righthavenlawsuits.com/ this].
* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/news%20aggregation%20white%20paper.pdf The Rise of the News Aggregator: Legal Implications and Best Practices]

== Optional Readings ==
* [http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/02/02/super-bust-due-process-and-domain-name-seizure.html Super Bust: Due Process and Domain Name Seizure]
* [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/comics1 Creative Commons: A Spectrum of Rights (comic)]
* [http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/recut_reframe_recycle/ Center for Social Media, Recut, Reframe, Recyle] (full report optional)
* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8647956476676426155&q=545+U.S.+913&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005)] (Sec. II, pp. 928 - 937)
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/nyregion/09potter.html?_r=1 "Rowling Wins Lawsuit Against Potter Lexicon" (J. Eligon, NY Times, 9/8/08)]
* [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/830/index.html New York Times Bits Blog: Mixing It Up Over Remixes and Fair Use]
* [http://www.eff.org/files/20030926_unsafe_harbors.pdf EFF, Unsafe Harbors: Abusive DMCA Subpoenas and Takedown Demands]
* [http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/15/concrete-steps-congress-can-take-protect-americas-intellectual-property The White House Blog: Concrete Steps Congress Can Take to Protect America's Intellectual Property]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

For the mind map software, I found [http://vue.tufts.edu/ VUE] easy to use. I was especially impressed by the rendering in PDF. Everything fit neatly on the page. This was a big surprise after being a Microsoft Office User ;-). Also, PC Users, if you need to print to PDF, [http://www.pdfforge.org/ PDF Creator] is wonderful. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 22:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The story of Edwin Howard Armstrong in Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, is especially disturbing due in part to his unfortunate demise. FM radio was systematically repressed by RCA and the government (FCC); for the benefit of RCA (to keep it's market share with AM radio).The fight between RCA and Edwin Armstrong ultimately broke him down, but this story has repeated itself in many forms throughout history. RCA benefited from AM radio at the expense of millions of radio listeners who would have been able to enjoy clear FM transmissions. In this particular case, it lead to the direct death of the inventor and the short changing of the radio listening public. What happens in other cases where lives are at stake? Would a pharmaceutical company react the same way to protect their financial interests in the event of an important cure being developed? What if the cure was developed using prior pharmaceutical patents? Would “common sense revolt at the idea?”1 [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 23:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
1 Lawrence Lessig, ( New York: Penguin Press, 1994) Free Culture, 2

The Righthaven case cites some factors working against the plaintiffs, one of which is the fact that they sought copyright protection with the specific intent to file suit. While I certainly don't think their actions are on the whole noble, it does seem a bit challenging that copyright protection does not require registration. If registration is mere legal formality, but is also required in order to file a suit, it seems unfair to subject Righthaven to scrutiny on that particular basis. If a judge is going to deem such actions as dubious, why not require registration at the outset? [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 19:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to discern the common sense in today’s copyright law. It certainly makes sense that some expressions have value, and the author or assignee of copyright should have the ability to control the use of their valuable intellectual property. There’s a difference, however, between the deliberate misappropriation of copyrighted material for commercial gain (or infliction of harm), and the casual innocent use of copyrighted material by an individual. If I buy a newspaper and share it with several people on the train there’s no harm to the publisher. If I read an article on their web site and email a copy to my friends, that action should be fine too. While a blog has the potential for more viewers, it seems like a simple extension of social interaction. I think it’s a travesty that Righthaven was able to prosecute these kinds of claims. In contrast, the big commercial cases like Viacom v. YouTube, AFP v. Google, AP v. All Headline News and Gatehouse Media v. NYT all had a substantial monetary stake in the creation and dissemination of intellectual property. Those seem to me to be the more suitable parties for questions of copyright infringement. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 21:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Classmates,

Thank you for another thoughtful, engaging and energetic discussion both in class an online last evening. The topics discussed are today hyper relevant to all of us and as [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/User:Earboleda Earboleda] points out in the case of Armstrong and FM radio have been the source of commerce, intrigue and even tragedy for time uncertain. From the business tactics of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst William Randolph Hearst] to [http://www.ascap.com/ ASCAP] suing the Girl Scouts for singing "[http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html God Bless America]" and far beyond none of us are immune to the ramifications. Not to dwell on it, but as I said last evening even the dead.

In a strange coincidence last night when I got home, I sat down to grab a bite and flipped on CNBC. The show "[http://www.cnbc.com/id/40795923/ 60 Minutes on CNBC]" was rerunning the segment “[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/19/60minutes/main6598800.shtml How Celebs Make A Living After Death]”. It told how Attorney Mark Roesler, who wished to become a famous entertainment agent but because he lived in Indiana couldn’t find that many big named clients, latched upon the idea of representing notable figures who have passed away. For almost the past thirty years he has turned that idea into an industry.

Although I didn’t articulate this as well as I had hoped in class, I am conflicted over this. First it seems creepy to me that someone should take the life’s work of transformative figures from Einstein to Michael Jackson and use that for profit. I’m all for profit from one’s contribution, but affixing the face of Einstein, crossed eyed and sticking out his tongue to a tee shirt, doesn’t seem to me to be that much of a contribution to society and more so something that someone should be able to appropriate. As [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/edit/User:ChrisSura?redlink=1 Chris] points out, even more so, prevent the rest of us from also doing so without paying a royalty (if the tee shirt maker also had written above the image their correction of a mistake in one of Einstein's theorems, perhaps).

On the other hand, Mr. Roesler has created an industry from which many people today make a living, feed their families and send their kids to great institutions like Harvard where they are able to have engaging conversations dissecting the subject. There’s also the point that if someone is going to make money of the dead, shouldn’t some of that money go to their heirs. Well maybe yes and maybe no. Who knows what the dearly departed would have wished for their post mortem profits. I suspect that today there are a lot of people getting rich in part due to the legacies of people like Mother Teresa and other who never spent a night knee deep in filth caring for the sick and dying. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 11:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

So sorry we did not get to spend more time discussing the Viacom v.YouTube case last night. When a company is abusing the legal process to further their own interests (as in Viacom wanting to buy YouTube) by their own employees posting copyrighted videos on the site, the focus should not be on YouTube but on Viacom. There is an old legal saying, bad cases make bad law. When new legal precedents are being established, one would hope for better facts.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 19:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)]]

== Links ==
Interesting question: [http://paidcontent.org/article/419-have-media-companies-destroyed-their-copyrights-with-the-share-button/# Have Media Companies Destroyed Their Copyrights With The ‘Share’ Button?] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Assignment 3 Submissions

2011-03-22T17:07:56Z

Sjennings: /* Submissions */

File:Outline of annuity social media.doc

2011-03-22T16:56:06Z

Sjennings: Assignment number three

Assignment number three

Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech

2011-03-08T14:55:57Z

Sjennings: /* Class Discussion */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''March 8'''

What is law's role in regulating online conduct and speech? At this point in the course you should be ready to tackle this question from a number of different perspectives. In this class we will begin to explore what role law is ''capable'' of playing as well as what role it ''should'' play. Remember John Perry Barlow's [http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace] which you read earlier in the course? Has his view of law's limited role been borne out? The sources of law impacting online conduct and speech are many, from intellectual property to tort to the First Amendment. Throughout today's class, we’ll tie the legal doctrines together with three themes:

* How regulation changes when it’s carried out by computers, rather than by people.
* Whether going online increases or decreases government control.
* The new kinds of power possessed by online intermediaries.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/JohnsonPost.pdf David Johnson & David Post, Law and Borders] (excerpts)

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Kerr.pdf Orin Kerr, The Problem of Perspective in Internet Law] (excerpts)

* [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/haven_pr.html Simson Garfinkel, Welcome to Sealand, Now Bugger Off, Wired (July 2000)]

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Yahoo.pdf Yahoo! Inc v. La Ligue Contra Le Racisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006)]

== Optional Readings ==
* [http://www.ejiltalk.org/in-the-dock-in-paris/ Prof. Joseph Weiler: In the Dock, in Paris]
* [http://www.salon.com/technology/dan_gillmor/2010/12/03/the_net_s_soft_underbelly/index.html Salon: Online, the censors are scoring big wins]
* [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/amazon-and-wikileaks-first-amendment-only-strong EFF: Amazon and WikiLeaks - Online Speech is Only as Strong as the Weakest Intermediary]
* David Ardia, [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1689865 Reputation in a Networked World: Revisiting the Social Foundations of Defamation Law] (Part IV)
* James Grimmelmann, [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1760151 Sealand, HavenCo, and the Rule of Law]
</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==
Perhaps I am missing some of the complex nuances of the arguments, but to me the resolution seems straightforward. Laws exist to govern people not machines. The legal entities are citizens, companies and governments, not routers and servers. Every Internet web service is a transaction between two legal entities at each endpoint with subcontractors facilitating the transport. The Internet or, more precisely, the collection of independent service providers that comprise the Internet, should be regulated in the same manner that all domestic and foreign commerce is managed today. Germany, for example, requires every German web site to include an "impressum" page listing the legal owner of the site and contact information. Just as it is more complex to import and export goods across national boundaries, we should expect similar complexities with transnational web services. Whether or not we agree with the laws of a particular sovereign nation, it seems prudent that international law should preside in cyberspace as surely as anywhere else on the planet. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 03:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I just want to encourage anyone who hasn't yet read the optional reading by Grimmelmann on the fate of HavenCo to do so; it's a terrific read. I find the central irony of the piece - essentially that HavenCo, ostensibly an organization devoted avoidance of the law, was actually heavily dependent on the rule of law to operate, and that lack of law, not the opposite, is what ultimately destroyed HavenCo - to be fascinating. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 04:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Like any good reader of mystery novels who once hooked into the plot flips to the back of the book to discover the ending, my curiosity forced me to google what happened to HavenCo and Sealand. Found http://www.theconstitutional.org/2011/02/15/sealand-and-havenco-part-ii-the-rise-and-fall-of-havenco/. Will take Brandon's suggestion and read the optional reading on the subject, but for the quick answer here it is. [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 14:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)]]

== Links ==

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-03T15:53:12Z

Sjennings: /* Submissions */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; padding: 5px; text-align: left;">
<big>'''Assignments'''</big>

'''[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting]]''' | [[Assignment 1 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due February 8''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus| Assignment 2]]''' | [[Assignment 2 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due February 22''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline| Assignment 3]]''' | [[Assignment 3 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due March 22''

'''[[Assignment 4 Details and Links]]''' | [[Assignment 4 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due April 12''

'''[[Final Project]]''' | [[Final Projects|Submissions]]<br />
''Due May 10''

</div>
This assignment is due on February 22. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment2.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. ''The '''upload file''' link is to the left, under '''toolbox'''.'' Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Comments===
Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 6 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. ('''Remember to sign your comments!''')

===Submissions===
*Name: Gagan Panjhazari --[[User:Gpanjhazari|Gpanjhazari]] 07:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: The Role of Censorship Of the Internet in the Egypt and Libya
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/GaganPanjhazari-Assignment2.txt
*Comment: You might want to check the article I posted on the Feb 22 assignment page that appeared in the New York Times. Might be helpful on your first topic. <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
*Comment: Gagan, I find both of your topic choices interesting. I think the second one, regarding the ability to hold website creators responsible for their content, especially when said content could be considered treasonous, would be the best topic of the two. It is such an important question, the answer to the question will frame our national security for the future. With either topic, I look forward to reading your findings. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Saam Batmanghelidj --[[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: The Effect of Synthetic World Communities on Real World Societies, Economies, and Copyright law
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Batmanghelidj_Final_Project_Prospectus.doc

*Name: Kimberly Nevas --[[User:KimberlyNevas|KimberlyNevas]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Can the U.S. Prosecute Julian Assange?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Nevas_Kimberly_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2.pdf
*Comment: It might also be interesting to see if any other sites purporting to disclose sensitive information whether government or corporate have become more aggressive considering all the confusion about what to do with Julian Assange. Does his legal situation make these sites feel more confident regarding avoiding prosecution? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
*Comment: Your statement, "In this respect, Assange cannot be considered any more liable than the New York Times." is a bold one, which some might strongly disagree with, given Assange's postings and his refusal to censor, along with his use or threatened use of yet unreleased information as leverage to keep himself free. I look foward to reading your arguments regarding Assange, freedom of speech and the case law which supports your position. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Jamil Buie
*Prospectus Title: Profiteering via "Public Privacy" The use/misuse of your data
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JBProject_Prospectus.pdf

*Name: Uduak Patricia Okon
*Prospectus Title: Web Pages/Blog Sites: Rights and Limitations-How free are you?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Uduak_Patricia_Okon_Assign_2.pdf
Comment
Hi Uduak,

Your prospectus is very interesting. I look forward to seeing how your project comes together. But I have some comments that I would like to share, I hope my feedback is helpful.

Re:
- In general, people are entitled to share facts if they don’t breach confidentiality or depict a real situation. This would depend on how citizen bloggers support their argument about their political commentary, whether it’s positive or negative. You need to remember that politicians are public figures, so the first amendment applies differently to them. Therefore the confidential circumstances that apply to the general population do not apply to politicians since they are not entitled to the same level of privacy. And citizen bloggers don’t have to adhere to the same circumstances as journalists to the best of my knowledge (I major in journalism and work in media in NYC) (i.e. it’s considered unethical for journalists to be bias if they’re not commentary writers. Also most journalists are not allowed to put political figure signs on their lawn, bumper sticker on their car, etc they need to push their feelings aside to accurately report the truth). I think the bigger issue is whether or not non-citizen bloggers can face defamatory lawsuits if there is proof they intentionally acted with malice? Or will future non-citizens bloggers have to abide by the same guidelines as employed journalists in the blogosphere working for CNN?
- Corporate law is an entirely different world. Because many corporations lie to promote their brand among many other issues on the internet, which is unethical to their consumers.
- I don’t think you should look into news websites like CNN, NY Times, etc because those are explicitly run by paid journalists (whom must adhere to strict guidelines about what they report) and comments are very restricted so the same type of freedom doesn’t apply to citizen journalists because official journalists also have code of ethics and have much more at stake.
- It's important to note that some citizen bloggers sell advertising on their blogs which might impede with how they portray a public figure on the net because they're getting paid. Formally employed journalists can't bias their stories based on relationships with advertisers because the editorial and advertising departments are seperate at news organizations.
- You, first need to narrow your focus because there is a huge difference between local mayors and congressional candidates, and citizen and non-citizen bloggers. (i.e. I think it would be interesting if you looked at how political figures use blogging as a form of position taking in Congress and compare cases of democratic and republican candidates on an issue like healthcare reform, education, etc. And the implications blogging has on Senators or Representatives relationships with their constituents).

*Name: Yaerin Kim [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: OpenCourseWare(OCW) and its Impact: Case Study of MIT’s OCW
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Kim.doc

*Name: William Bauser -- [[User:Wnb|Wnb]] 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Modern Web Design and Civic Engagement: Access to Information and Community Development
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Wnb_assignment2.pdf
*Comment: This is an interesting topic -- you have a lot of avenues to explore! Among the sites you list, some are clearly partisan while others seem more altruistic. I would be interested to learn the contrast of methods used by each type. For example, what are the membership requirements? Does the site encourage a particular philosophy? Does a certain amount of selective cocooning take place? On the other side, how can an Internet based civic community be both neutral and vital? If it is only fact based then it won't be interesting. How does is promote community discussions without advocating a position? I'm sure you'll have to narrow the focus of your chosen topic and I thought this might be an interesting distinction you could use. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Brian Smith [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Location-Based Services: Implications and Awareness of Effects on Consumer Privacy
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Brian_Smith_-_Assignment_2.pdf

Greetings Brian! I found your research idea very creative and the methodology you are planning to utilize seems realistically achievable, although some instruments used by government and private marketing agencies are very difficult to trace and require special software and equipment. I have a topic idea that may coincide with a notion of privacy you are investigating, so I may cite your work in my project. What I found to be inconsistent is that your methods seem to be distant on the instrumental level from your hypothetical statements, that is, it is undetermined how your method will help to prove or reject either of your hypotheses. In fact, even doctorate dissertations attempting to either reject or accept only one hypothesis. It is in quantitative sciences we test several hypothesis in order to corroborate the validity of the expression or formula, etc., but not in the research as far as academic papers suggest. In terms of your definition of location, it is unclear whether your are talking about the IP address based location or mobile device based location, if it is about mobile device only (most hosts like schools and bosses may hunt for both mobile and the laptop IP to trace their employee or a student) then you need to state so in your research and in the proposal as well. I know one thing for sure that with arrival of the wireless technology it became much more harder for Federal agents to trace hackers: it is technologically more convenient to retain privacy through the public wireless router. I think you will benefit from setting up a singular and more definite hypothetic statement that will encapsulate the entire topic. In addition, you would make the research more productive and to the point if you will add the limitations to your research so that your process will have its bottom line. Check out this research, it could be helpful or at least you can retrieve some more sources from in-context citations: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~adillon/Journals/Expertise-JASIS.htm Good Luck! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Yu Ri Jeong --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: How manifestations of collective intelligence vary in different cultures and societies: Study on Naver Knowledge iN of South Korea in comparison with Wikipedia.
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Yu_Ri_Jeong_Internet_and_Society_Assignment_2_Prospectus.doc

*Name: La Keisha Landrum [[User:llandrum|llandrum]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Building a Sustainable News Org
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LNLAssignment2.doc

*Name: Jillian York[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Understanding "Lesbanon": Lebanon's Online Lesbian Community
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Understanding_Lesbanon.doc

*Name: Caroline McLoughlin[[User:Camcloughlin|Camcloughlin]] 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Privacy and Society
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment-2.pdf
*Comments: Caroline, I, too, was interested in writing a paper more inclined to policy arguments and Rebekah counseled me against it. I got the impression we are supposed to be more observant of communities and how they interact and work. If this is true, you might lean your paper more towards observing whether privacy policies are adequately disclosed on sites in the US and how they are different on Canadian sites. Is this difference due to the contrasting privacy legal frameworks in the two countries? Do participants react differently?This might also help narrow your topic which seems like alot of material to cover. All this being said, I find your topic very interesting and think it might be great to present it in something like a PowerPoint format. Would be the great beginnings of a law review article if you are a lawyer.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 21:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)]]

*Name:Anthony Crowe [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]]
*Prospectus title: Tagging and Metadata on the Internet and in New Media
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Crowe_LSTUE120_2.doc

*Name: Vladimir Kruglyak --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 21:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: A Transparency of the U.S. Government in the Socio-Cyber Environment
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.doc

Vladimir, thank you for your resources. I have been reading your prospectus and found your approach as interesting as ambitious. To investigate wether the U.S. Government maintains Constitutional transparency and accountability for the tax money expenditures using e-government resources, that is a very well focused research and I can tell you are passionate about the topic, which makes the reading even more interesting. However, when you talk about conspiracy relating it with the internet resources, I have to disagree. I think power and conspiracy are long-time friends, governments have faced every kind of suspicions since they exist, but the importance of digital resources when it comes to spreading these suspicions cannot be denied, and that is why I think your research will face very interesting issues to deal with, as investigating the origin of "conspiracies" from a social point of view. Do you think the Internet is a cause or a consequence? I think about WikiLeaks, for example. The Internet had nothing to do with the origin of the cables, but made them become a "popular" topic, blurring the "secret" component of International Politics. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? We are talking about serious crimes becoming nearly gossip (we could talk further about a Spanish journalist murdered in Iraq and how Spanish and American Governments made a deal to make it look like an accident: that's on WikiLeaks). But now it looks like nothing happened. Amazon was selling the cables for Kindle, Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden in a week and I highly doubt any of the "accused" by, or thanks to, WikiLeaks, is to face trial. When you say that I am adressing a brave category of people ready to risk their lives for the "right cause", that is exactly the interesting thing about this. Why would someone get into trouble for nothing? However, it calls my attention that you take for granted that their cause is the right one. I see in your statement that you look pretty convinced about conspiracies when it comes to very sensitive and historic topics. You assume the defense of one group, don't you doubt that the cause may not always be the right one? I find your statement so determined that it becomes intriguing to me (it is really hard to me to be sure about something), I will be following your work with interest to get a better understanding of your point of view. In the meantime, I hope to receive more suggestions or resources you may find interesting to check out about this topic. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I see a potential flaw in your methodology, and find it potentially invasive of a web surfer's privacy. Collecting data by sniffing packets is rather dubious for your uses and can be construed as an abuse of networking tools. Trying to parse the IP addresses into geographical locations through a Whois database may be difficult to and inaccurate if users are using proxy based anonymizers such as Tor or i2p. It is for this reason, among others, that many people chose to use anonymizers when they surf. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 04:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

*Name:Corey MacDonald [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Fringe Forums for the Under-represented
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_Assignment_2_MacDonald.doc

*Name: Richard (Rick) Kundiger --[[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: The Role of Bittorrent in the Internet Society
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Kundiger_Assignment_2_Research_Prospectus.pdf
*Comment: This is a great example of "code is law." You have a very powerful tool (the bittorrent protocol) which can be used for both good an illicit purposes. Your investigation of the different interests for and against its deployment should provide an excellent case study. Does a company or government have more of a right than an individual to control the protocols in use? Are those opposed to the protocol trying to protect the greater good of the Internet or their own financial interests? [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Mary Van Gils
*Prospectus title: Yelp Case Study - Freedom of Expression
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_-_Yelp_Study_Case.doc
*Comment: Wanted to make you aware as you investigate the external restriciton on freedom of expression regarding the Yelp site that there are also types of businesses which are regulated by state law as to how they may respond to reviews/complaints on sites like Yelp. If you look at my prospectus, you will note insurance companies are one of those types of businesses.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)]]

*Name: Susan Jennings [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)]]
*Prospectus title: Annuity Companies' Social Media Communities
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Annuity_Companies%27_Social_Media_Communities.doc

*Name: Alan Davies-Gavin & Alex Solomon
*Prospectus title: Architecture of Sites eHarmony and Match.com: contributions of membership data and effects on security and privacy.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment2ProjectProspectus.pdf

Alan and Alex, I think your topic is fascinating and I wanted to chip in my 2 cents which might help your research. Considering the different natures of sites that ultimately sell the same product, I would consider looking at how the two compete in response to one another. By this I mean, is Match doing something that eHarmony isn, and therefore, is eHarmony a bit jealous and trying to get into their market? I know that eHarmony lauched their more casual spinoff "Jazzed.com" which is meant to steal people away from Match. Is Jazzed a suggestion that privacy isn't all that important to frustrated singles? I think that there are also rather large differences in target audience between the two competitors, with eHarmony focusing on a bit older, more conservative crowd while Match goes for the "single and ready to mingle."Also, perhaps look at each companies approach to user profile creation over time, have they changed at all and in what ways? This looks like it'll be an exciting project, I'm looking forward to what you find! ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

*Name: Kristina Meshkova
*Prospectus title: A music sharing site - Grooveshark, Soundcloud, MySpace.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignement_2_%28Kristina_Meshkova%29.pdf
*Comment: Hey Kristina, I think we have some similar ambitions in regards to our final project. Let's chat tonight if you have any interest in potentially working together [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 14:31, 1 March 2011.

*Name:Vladimir Trojak--[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 20:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Are different language groups consistent in what topics are permitted and what is removed?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.pdf
*Comments: Hello Vladimir, Your proposal is intriguing and I am looking forward to see how it evolves. I did have a question about why do you think that all the Wikipedia policies should be the same in all the language communities? Thanks. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 03:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I hope it will turn in the way I expect:)I believe that in general they shoudl be the same, such as 'neutral point of view', 'verifiability'. Although there may be differences in other policies because of different laws, such as topics you can speak about. You have any suggestions?Thanks.[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 18:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Faye Ryding [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 23:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Trolls and vandals on Epinions.com
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Faye_Ryding_Assignment_2.doc

*Name: [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 16:59, 21 February 2011
*Prospectus title: Groooveshark music application
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.pdf
*Comments:

*Name: Robert Cunningham
*Prospectus title: The Archive Team
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Proposed_Paper_TopicCunningham.pdf

*Name: [[Joshuasurillo]]
*Prospectus title: The effect of government transparency websites- Wikileaks
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Harvard_assignment_2.doc
*Comment: Joshua, I am very much looking forward to your final product. Your position (or what I am assuming your postion to be) comes across very loud and clear in your prospectus. I wonder if you will reach an opinion as to where to draw the line on "free speech," or if no line should be drawn? My reading of your position if you were to define it today is that free speech must be protected at all costs and no limits are appropriate, at least that is the feeling I am left with from your prospectus. If wikileaks posted the location or identity of our undercover operatives in Iraq or elsewhere, would you support that? If not, what else would you feel would be "going to far?" I look forward to reading more from you. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Susan Lemont
*Prospectus title: Why do people cultivate large online networks?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Lemont_Prospectus.doc

*Name: Chris Sura [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 03:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: The Java Community Process: How Does It Really Work?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Chris_Sura_Assignment_2.pdf

* Name: Ed Arboleda [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 04:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Are there collective benefits for copyright owners, copyright infringers, and the general community; if copyright infringement is not enforced under specific circumstances on social media sites?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Ed_Arboleda_Prospectus.pdf

* Name: Elisha Surillo
* Prospectus title: The Tea Party and Internet Freedom
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.doc

* Name: Brandon A. Ceranowicz - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 08:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: A Comparative Study of Open Source Licenses
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2_-_Prospectus_BAC.doc

* Name: Lorena Abuín
* Prospectus title: Contribution to prosecuted online activities (Anonymous, BitTorrent, WikiLeaks)
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2_-_Lorena_Abu%C3%ADn.pdf

I noticed that there is a lot of crossover between our topics. We are both addressing hacker communities, but from differing angles. I have acquired quite a bit of information about Anonymous and have listed the resources on my tentative reference page located just below here. Feel free to look and use anything from that list that may help you in your project. Also, the Anonymous page found in Wikipedia is quite good in understanding what the Anonymous phenomenon is. They are free agents often acting independently of each other and unaffiliated with one another under the umbrella name Anonymous. In other words, Anonymous is a concept more than an identifiable specific group. I also noticed you have listed pastebin as a resource. It is my suggestion to be careful with that, and try to find where that document was published. It could simply be the rantings of teenager enamored with the publicity of their antics and activity. The questionable authenticity of that write pad entry to me is found in the signature at the bottom. It should read: We are Anonymous/We are legion/We do not forgive/We do not forget/Expect us-always. Lastly, keep in mind that not all Anonymous hacktivity is criminal, that is just the part that gets sensationalized. There are many other cyber-activism efforts that take place under the name of Anonymous that are not criminal. Good luck, and I look forward to watching your project develope! -----=:) [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 23:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC) for the #datalove

I found that some of your research objectives coincide with mine. I can assure you that people do use what is called "hacktivism" to oppose the lies and conspiracies of the U.S. Government. If you take a http://www.nogw.com/ alone you would be surprised how some of the secret documents happen to be available on line. For instance, the loan by the Wall Street Banks to finance Adolf Hitler's Army is not a secret nowadays because of the "hacktivism", although the fact and the document has been kept in secret from the Government of Soviet Union for decades. The role of the Jews in the mass murder of millions is proven with facts on the Holocaust denial web sites. I guess the major drive that motivates people to use their skill in the "wrong way" is to oppose the lie that is bigger in size and thus controls the legacy tools such as Media and Congress. Even children in New York City know that the twin towers were demolished by the "uniformed criminals" employed as the federal agents. Check out the list of literature on my prospectus and http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=46 is just one out of dozens web sites. The U.S Government had no reason to deploy troops anywhere at the cost of the taxpayers' dollars. Do you think other citizens do not realize this? They do, but they join others in this giant lie and say that it is a war on terror, and they say this at Law Schools, through the public media, and post it online. These people are indifferent and coward because they lie to themselves and the so called prosecuted activities is the only way to reveal the truth. In your research you are therefore addressing a brave category of people who are ready to risk their lives for the simple yet amazingly right cause - to reveal the corrupted syndicate of greedy liars who oppresses people with their tyrannic power and ability to prosecute. If you are not afraid to cooperate on this project in front of the university staff, then take a look at my proposal and let me know what do you think. I may give you a couple of additional sources and suggestions, but if you do not want to be involved in this type of a project, I will totally understand. Best! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 10:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hai. Thanks for your response. I just thought that I would add that it is very important make the distinction between hackers and crackers. Unfortunately the media has not made this distinction clear and has tainted the meaning of the term hacker. In a nutshell, hackers create things and crackers break things. Most hackers look down upon crackers and dismiss them as technological bugs. Most hackers I know are not pleased with the criminal antics done in the name of Anonymous. It is true that collaborative write pads are in common use because of the ease to collaborate live together at once. Pastebin happens to not be one used for documents all that much though. It is mainly used to send larger pieces of text into chat protocols such as IRC without flooding the channel. Write pads such as typewith.me and piratepad.net are more common to use for group documents since the url is not made public and searchable, and is kept private among the group working on it. Also, an interesting comment about hacktivism made to me by a French hacker with whom I am in contact with simply and broadly described hacktivism as using technology to impact society. I think we must be careful, myself included, when we talk about cracker v. hackers. A classic document among hackers written and maintained by Eric Raymond, "[http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html How to Become a Hacker]" describes the difference quite well. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

* Name: Margaret Tolerton [[User: deinous|deinous]]
* Prospectus title: Hackers, hacking groups, and Hacktivism: Anonymous v. Telecomix as a case study
* Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Anonymous_v_Telecomix_with_References.doc

Margaret, thanks a lot for your offering. I could really use some inside information about this topic. About your suggestion, I chose pastebin as a reference looking for a way to begin my research. You are right when you say that accuracy is not guaranteed when it comes to this source, but my main objective is to test the general perception of internet community about "hacktivism", I want to read about it in forums, press articles comments... See what normal people think about this. Of course, not every "hacktivist" action is a ciber-crime, but I am particularly interested in motivations that lead people to engage in certain projects that could be prosecuted depending on the country, as uploading copyrighted contents. I am sure we could find a lot of profit-driven actions, but I want to get deeper in personal motivations, since there are many so-called "cyber-crimes" that have nothing to do with obtaining a profit, at least a tangible one. When reading your prospectus, I came up with something very interesting: "Happy to help others who are not as advanced?". I think solidarity plays a huge role of hacktivism communities, empowered by the feeling of being passionate about some topic. I guess the desire to share sprouts from passion, but I think that the need of feeling part of a community is also very important, especially when it comes to very well defined criminals such as sex offenders and very sensitive content uploaders, communities widely persecuted but, however, still huge. While my prospectus adopts a more anthropological point of view, I see yours as an inside work with very valuable information about hacktivism running. I look forward to see how your research evolves and to learn more about these communities from a privileged point of view. Please don't hesitate to make any suggestion you may consider, I am sure it will be very helpful for my research. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I don't know how privileged my point of view is. I am more or less just another nerd with a computer on Friday and Saturday nights. In recent weeks I have come to feel as though the people of Telecomix have accepted me as one of their own though, as I have done a little public relations, fact checking, and some translations. Telecomix is very open about their work, and does not engage in illegal actions. Being mostly European, they lobby against, or for, various cyber laws to their respective Parliaments. What I meant though by my comment "happy too help others who are not as advanced" is that it is common for someone to ask a question of a technological nature and usually others jump in and help to solve the problem. For example, my switch over to Linux, I have been having quite a time configuring a few of my drivers, and getting used to working from a command line with unix syntax, and several people who know how to fix the problems will jump in and start coaching with many lulz along the way.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Greetings Margaret! I am delighted and in part surprised to see a topic of this type. By type I mean it is heavily technological mission to retrieve a piece of real information from the community of real hackers. Not all software engineers employed by the government are able to intervene communication among the community of real hackers. You may however, catch a few portals where "I can do this, I can do that" type of conversations take place, but whether they really have done something interesting and indeed reveal their ideology is a big speculation. For this course, I believe, you need to change your frequency, sort of speak, and listen not for the hacking communities themselves, but for the actions they have already done. Actions speak lauder than words, as you may know. You you need to listen to the anti-thesis, that is, the counter part of the hacking group. In this country, among various subsequent agencies that keep control of all networks, the NSA sources will probably be the most beneficial to you, although I am not 100 percent sure about this. It is difficult to find something that is available to the public. Recall the scandal with pornographic downloads by the employees of the Trade Commission; this is just one out of million examples of the internet traffic control by the Feds. It is therefore the Feds who are on the opposite side of the argument with the hackers. By considering both ideology of the hackers and a counter-premise by the Feds you will have a full and comprehensive picture for your project. In short, I am proposing to search not only within the hackers community, which may only seem as community of hackers and give you a bogus information, but also find reports, chronicles, and cases exposed by the Feds. It may ultimately appear that it is the Feds who are vandals and trolls and who violate privacy and steal the tax money of the citizens. At least this is what my prospectus's sources can prove, but take a look at National Security Agency [http://www.nsa.gov/] web site. In the meantime, I will keep checking on your project and will try to give you more clues because your topic coincides with mine in many regards. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 06:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

* Name: Guy Clinch --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: An Examination of Internet and Society Coursework through the Metaphor of web.alive
* Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_and_Society_Assingment_2%28gclinch%29.pdf

* Name: Syed Yasir Shirazi [User: syedshirazi]
* Prospectus title: Online Group Buying - Newly Emerging Business Model or Fad?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Syed_Yasir_Shirazi-Assignment_2.pdf

* Name: Jessica Sanfilippo - [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Transparency and Participation in Crowd Funding
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JSanfilippo_Assignment_2.doc

Hi Jessica,I think crowd funding is a fascinating topic, and there seem to be various types of crowd funding as you point out. Micro Loans and sites such as Kiva.com are also wonderful examples of crowd funding. I am probably over reaching, but I noticed that Syed Yasir A. Shirazi has a prospectus on Group Buying, and wonder if the two can be connected somehow? What if materials needed for a funded project on kickstarter.com for instance, could be purchased through groupon.com or a similar site? Regardless, I am looking forward to your findings around Crowd Funding (especially in the creative space).

*Name: Adriana Faria Torii [drifaria] and Anna Christiana Marinho C. Machado [([[User:Anna|Anna]] 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC))]
*Prospectus title: Analysis of E-Government Practices in Brazil
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Faria_Marinho_Prospectus.pdf

* Name: Laura Connell [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 18:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Does providing a legal alternative act as a deterrent to internet piracy?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Laura_Connell_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf

Laura, here is a link to a recent study that you may find of use:
[http://documents.envisional.com/docs/Envisional-Internet_Usage-Jan2011.pdf Envisional - Technical report: An Estimate of Infringing Use of the Internet]

Hope you find this helpful --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Alokika Singh [[User:Singh singh|Singh singh]] 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[[User:Singhsingh]]
*Prospectus title: Online Political Activism in India
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_II_22_feb..pdf

Hi Alokika: I think your topic is very interesting. You can also draw a comparative line between roles of leading social/political leaders in India versus the role of ordinary internet users when it comes to acting as the leading force behind online social/political debate in India? A lot of times, it has been seen that individuals who don’t follow any hierarchy kick-off such bold campaigns. (Take the example of what happened in Egypt over the last six months. The online movement was sparked by ordinary folks and not any leading social or political figure).
I am curious to know whether the online ‘Pink Chaddi’ campaign was initiated by general users or spearheaded by a leading social organization in India. I suspect the former. So it will be interesting to see how the online debate has evolved in India.
Looking forward to reading your final analysis.~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 20:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

* Name: Don Hussey [[User:Donaldphussey|Donaldphussey]] 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Online Crowd-Sourcing of Starbucks Product Development
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_--Hussey_-_Asmt2.doc
* Comments:

Don, this is a really ambitious project. I think it's a great idea for you to use your professional position to get your foot in the door with some of the people at Starbucks; I hope it works! My only concern with this project is that you are only focusing on the corporate side of this venture. Is there any way you can include information from participants or contributors to this site? Is there any way on this site that users can interact with each other, or is it a one-way interaction between contributors and Starbucks? ~~[[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

* Name: Tym Lewtak [[User:lewtak|lewtak]] 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: User Generated Sites: Defining Superusers and Their Monetization
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment_2.pdf

Tymoteusz, I find you topic very interesting.

I am wondering as a product of your research if you will study the proportion of individuals who are super users compared to commercial organizations using these tools. That is, in respect to commercial organizations using the various tools, how important is the individual? Over time, is the place of the individual becoming more or less important? I would suspect that part of this equation depends upon the rate at which people are able to monetize their involvement as much as how commercial organizations are co-opting the modalities. Is there a constant influx of new blood or will the ability of individuals to monetize their involvement decrease over time?

It may be fascinating to see is this is an indication of a generative system over the long run or something that may peak and decline. Good luck! --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Gclinch, Thanks for all of your input! I initially didn't think to so much as include corporations, but taking a second glance at the subject you're right. I would be foolish to not look at motivations for companies and individuals alike to join sites as super-users. If I can find historical data on users from these sites, I'd like to especially take a look at whether it was individuals who joined first and became super-users, or if corporations jumped onto the "ball game" with individuals following. I suspect the latter isn't true, but I will try to distinguish between companies that joined these sites early on versus already popular companies that grew their earlier existent popularity. ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

* Name: Denise Reed--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: A comparative study of user behavior on Chinese social networking sites with that of United States social networkers
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/REED_LSTU_E120_Assignment_2.doc

* Name: Michelle Forelle [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 21:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Online Video-Making Groups: Community, Copyright, Collaboration and Commercialism
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Vimeo.pdf

*Name: Myra Garza [[User:Myra|Myra]]
*Prospectus title: Preparing and Accommodating Millenials in the Workforce: Use of Social Media in Two Career Coaching Businesses
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Garza.M.Prospectus.doc
* Comments:

Myra, this is a really interesting topic! I feel like this is exactly as narrow a case study as the professors were asking for. I'm jealous that you were able to identify such an relevant topic, lol! I look forward especially to reading the background research for this paper, as it is my understanding that minority youth are disproportionally represented on sites like Twitter; I'm eager to find out whether that rumor is true, and if so, what it means for the way these youth interact with and influence the hiring process. I'm also interested in hearing how these companies help steer the social use of the social media into the practical, career-building use. I'm curious to see if you find that the conclusions you are specific to urban youth or whether such tactics in career counseling are also applicable to suburban and rural kids too. Great prospectus, I really look forward to reading your paper! [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I, too, think this is going to be a very interesting paper. There is such a need in the corporate community for young people who can help older executives use social media both within the organization for employees and outside the organization for the public and consumers. I would be interested in what the career objectives are for the clients of these two organizations. Are they interested in using their social media skills as part of their job requirements or are they looking for careers in various non-related fields? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>

Great topic, as I am sure many of us see on a daily basis the generational differences at work, and the need to involve and "catch" the millenial generation. I wonder if the two organizations will provide you with data on their success, and outreach numbers in the community? I look forward to seeing how this plays out. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Jose Uscanga
*Prospectus Title: Cummunity reporting or social activism? The New Age of media reporting in Mexico.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Jose_Uscanga_Assignment_-2.doc

Jose, you have identified a truly compelling topic.

When you ask, “Is free press necessary for democracy?” many of us would say, obviously yes. Reading your prospectus though makes me wonder, “what do we mean today by a free press.” Does phenomenon such as Mexican citizens taking, “on the civic responsibility of alerting other citizens by providing detailed and unfiltered information,” redefine what we mean when we use the term press? I’ll be looking forward to reading your conclusions.

I’d also be interested to learn if you think there is something unique about Mexican culture that compels people to get involved. It seems to me that these citizen journalists are taking huge risks. Even less than the professional journalists, there would seem to be no safety net. After all isn’t it easy for the drug cartels to find out who is issuing the alerts. Is it a demographic trend, is it youth driven or does it span the population? Is it something unique about the way Mexican people relate to one another that makes people get involved? Thanks for taking on such an interesting and challenging topic. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 02:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-01T01:05:58Z

Sjennings: /* Submissions */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-01T00:56:04Z

Sjennings: /* Submissions */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-01T00:48:29Z

Sjennings: /* Submissions */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-02-27T21:18:20Z

Sjennings: /* Submissions */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-02-22T15:46:26Z

Sjennings: /* Submissions */

File:Annuity Companies' Social Media Communities.doc

2011-02-22T15:24:21Z

Sjennings: Prospectus for Assignment #2

Prospectus for Assignment #2

Collective Action and Decision-making

2011-02-16T15:53:23Z

Sjennings: /* Class Discussion */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''February 22'''

Mass collaboration and the aggregation of information enable potentially profound changes in business and politics. In this class, we will compare and contrast the transformations in economic life and collective decision-making processes brought on the information revolution. The discussions will also explore the role of open information systems on business and the scope for greater transparency and participation in government, politics and public life.

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|Assignment 2]] due

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
* James Surowiecki, [http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/excerpt.html Wisdom of Crowds (excerpt)]
**[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/22/books/review/0523books-mclemee.html?ex=1400644800&en=43bc95eb638bfed2&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND NYT Review]

* [http://ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=1125 Ethan Zuckerman's blog review of Infotopia] Great summary of the issues in the book.

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers Federalist Papers] published under the pseudonym Publius.
* [http://www.blogpulse.com/papers/2005/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf Divided They Blog] - a paper showing trackbacks between political blogs, mentioned by Ethan Zuckerman in his review of Cass Sunstein's Infotopia
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
Link to article in today's NY Times regarding Egypt's shut down during the revolution of internet within its borders:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/technology/16internet.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp
<<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)>>

== Links ==
* [http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html/ Clay Shirky TED Talk]
* [http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/feb2007/id20070201_774736.htm goldcorp story] (worth reading)

Peer Production and Collaboration

2011-02-15T16:01:37Z

Sjennings: /* Class Discussion */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''February 15'''
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Note: To make up for the snow day on February 1, tonight's class will run an extra hour, until 8:30pm.'''</div>
The free software movement is one example of a trend towards distributed volunteer networks of individuals collaborating on collective projects that were formerly the domain of the for-profit private sector. In this session, we explore how far such peer production can go in redefining the economic and social structures of modern society.

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==
* Yochai Benkler, [http://mitworld.mit.edu/play/394/ News, Information and the Wealth of Networks] (watch from 8:32 to 26:07)
* Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13 Chapter 4: The Generative Pattern]
* Joseph Reagle, [http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/06/reagle-nrhm-special-collab-norms.html ”Be Nice”: Wikipedia Norms for Supportive Communication]

== Additional Resources==
The following audio streams from NPR may be interesting:
* [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4986453 Wikipedia, Open Source and the Future of the Web]
* [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6051103 Wikipedia Wins Users and Critics by Jenny Lawton]
* [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4506421 Wikipedia's Growth Comes with Concerns by Laura Sydell]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

Listening to, and reading, various pieces on Wikipedia I am struck by the amount of effort that Jimmy Wales seems to put into promoting the idea of Wikipedia as, to paraphrase, "a close-knit community of dedicated users" with emphasis on user reputation and his role as "benevolent dictator", and distancing himself from the more "democratic" (read: anonymous contributors) aspects of the site which (I assume) are generally the first things that come to most peoples' minds when Wikipedia is mentioned. I wonder if this attitude was always a core part of the site's conception, or whether it was developed in response to outside criticism of the encyclopedia’s (lack of) credibility. Or if it is merely an accurate description of how the site has evolved... I would hazard to guess that Wikipedia, despite what Mr. Wales may say, is *both* a close-knit community *and* a conglomeration of faceless, unorganized (naturally organizing?) "ants"; I doubt the site could survive without both aspects. I am also struck by the parallel between this view and the criticism of Wikipedia skeptics: they see "peer review" being essential, where a "peer" is a responsible member of the academic community, while Mr. Wales sees "peer review" as equally essential, only with "peer" defined as a responsible member of the Wikipedia community. I wonder that seems to occur to no one that the "Wikipedia community" (let alone the "faceless ants") might very well contain those self-same learned academics who compose and edit articles for Britanica. And if companies are hiring PR agents to "protect" their image on Wikipedia, then I wonder why University faculties have not taken it upon themselves to jointly, publicly venture into Wikipedia to improve the quality of the articles found there in. Surely, after 10 years we should have started to take this thing seriously.
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What has struck me most about the readings from this week has been the innate desire of most people to help and be helpful. "Be Nice" was particularly interesting because of how thorough the author was in examining these behaviors; I've never read social theory like that before and it's great to get a good foundation to start working from. However, beyond the obvious example of the Wikipedia community, there are dozens of other communities and companies that I did not realize were taking advantage of people's urge to contribute constructively, including the importance of peer reviews for sites like Amazon and Yelp, and the adoption of consumer-generated innovations by companies like LEGO. The article from Business Week, "The Power of Us," contained one quote, from Yochai Benkler, natch, that really caught my attention: "The economic role of social behavior is increasing." Today, consumer input is not just useful, it's almost mandatory in order for a company to be successful. This made me consider what Hollywood and the record and publishing industries are doing with themselves. They have been referenced in nearly ever reading we've had so far as the industry most affected by the easy sharing of information via the Internet, and yet not one article has discussed what that industry is doing to counter that damage. Is this a simple omission by these authors, or has the industry not responded at all? [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 3:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

McKensey has conducted annual surveys the past several years on companies' use of web 2.0 in various ways. This year's report is on its web page at http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/The_rise_of_the_networked_enterprise_Web_20_finds_its_payday_2716. Interesting to see the number of companies reporting increased number of successful innovations and decreased product development costs when fully utilizing the web. After reading this week's assignments, I went back to re-read this article and wondered why it had not impressed me as much on my first read-through. [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 16:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)]]

== Links ==
Chris Anderson: [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/people.html People Power]

Business Week: [http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_25/b3938601.htm The Power of Us]

Nasa: [http://clickworkers.arc.nasa.gov/top Clickworkers Study]
* the link to the NASA Clickworkers Study seems to be broken. Here is a link to the [http://www.nasa.gov/open/plan/peo.html program's home page] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 13:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yochai Benkler's Seminal Work on Peer Production: [http://www.benkler.org/CoasesPenguin.html Coase's Penguin]

Jimbo Wales: [http://webcast.oii.ox.ac.uk/?view=Webcast&ID=20050711_76 Talk on the Wikipedia Community]

Assignment 1 Submissions

2011-02-08T14:50:52Z

Sjennings: /* Submissions */

User talk:Coreymacd

2011-02-07T23:46:27Z

Sjennings: New page: Enjoyed your paper especially your statement about intentionally leaving a non-neutral comment and getting so much response. <~~~~>

Enjoyed your paper especially your statement about intentionally leaving a non-neutral comment and getting so much response. <[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 23:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)>

File:Assignment No. 1.doc

2011-02-07T21:43:22Z

Sjennings: Wikipedia Indexed Annuities

Wikipedia Indexed Annuities

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2011-01-31T20:59:51Z

Sjennings: /* Class Discussion */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''February 1'''

Before we can even begin exploring the who's, what's, and why's -- we need to answer the critical question of '''how.''' Indeed, the phrase "studying the web" could embrace a staggering world of possible routes to explore, even before beginning to examine its relationship with society and culture. We need something to guide us through this massive field of (very interesting!) foxholes, and link the ideas we encounter into a consistent piece. We need some kind of structure to allow us to ''understand'' what we are looking at, the same way a chemist thinks of things in terms of atoms and molecules, or a philosopher can think about things in terms of schools of thought.

This class will propose and develop one framework for the web, which will structure both the discussion and topic matter covered in the course, as well as the methodology that you should apply to your assignments.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks] (Read pages 379-396. The rest of this chapter expands the discussions of each layer in more detail, if you want to read more about them)

* [http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace]

* [http://www.cluetrain.com Chris Locke, Doc Searls & David Weinberger, Cluetrain Manifesto] (just the manifesto)

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Jack Goldsmith & Tim Wu, Digital Borders]

* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/ Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet - Chapters 1 & 2]
</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

For people interested in a more technical primer on the architecture of the web, how email works, etc. check out ethan zuckerman and andrew mclaughlin's [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]

Some fred turner resources: [http://blip.tv/file/125930 video presentation], [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2006/12/01/from-counterculture-to-cyberculture-the-rise-of-digital-utopianism/ audio presentation], and [http://www.stanford.edu/group/fredturner/cgi-bin/drupal/ homepage]

[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium Citizendium]

Jason Scott on [http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/808 The Great Failure of Wikipedia] (2004)

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:RebekahHeacock|RebekahHeacock]] 14:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)'''</div>

While reading this Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace i can not shake a thought of Technological Singularity which is supposed to come by the earliest estimates around the year 2020... Science fiction or a true possibility? --[[User:Jastify|Jastify]] 22:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia offers knowledge on extensive topics, holding the better model, is there not a huge concern that there is no longer postings of validated facts versus mere opinion?

Here is a link to the BBC World Service documentary Wikipedia at 10 - a 22.5 minute retrospective on the occasion of Wikipedia’s 10th anniversary. It covers a number of topics, some of which may be relevant to the upcoming Wikipedia editing assignment. ''(Reposted from the January 25th discussion page, as it seems more appropriate here. - BrandonAndrzej)''

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2011/01/110111_wikipedia_at_10.shtml

The rhetorical use of the euphemistic concept of the monolithic corporation in the [http://www.cluetrain.com/ Cluetrain Manifesto] undermines the effectiveness its message. Theses number two states, “Markets consist of human beings...” Last time I looked, so do corporations.

In fact corporations are highly organized social creatures with diverse internal cultures, rules, mores and recognized standards of behavior. They respond to a broad spectrum of internal and external influence. If only solving today’s problems were so easy as to point our finger and say “off with their heads.” The real challenge, however, is much more complicated and a matter of personal responsibility.

Corporations come in all flavors. Some are highly democratic. As requirements of participating in the public capital markets all have democratic institutions: a constitution (articles of incorporation), boards of directors, shareholders, external advocates and most importantly customers. The Manifesto takes the all too easy out of blaming the generic “them.” The truth is that the reason corporations are as they are today is because the majority of corporate stakeholders abdicate their responsibility to guide the direction of the organization through exercise of their enfranchisement as shareholders and customers.

The behavior of corporations is a function of ''our'' collective actions and inactions. We have cheap goods made by slave labor because in the exercise of our conspicuous consumption we don’t want to - or without sacrificing our consumption volume can’t afford to - pay the price of having the same goods manufactured by the un-oppressed. The result is that we send our dollars to evil places rather than fund the social infrastructure that improves the standard of living of more humane societies.

Further we have out-of-control executive salaries, unrestrained executive actions, boards of directors driven by motivations other than the interests of the shareholders and other unsavory corporate behaviors because we fail to fulfill our responsibilities. Too few read the prospectus, attend shareholder meetings, or even vote shares beyond granting proxy to the someone else. I am guilty as charged because like so many, I seek to maximize my ability to profit by pooling my finances in investment cartels and leaving decision making to fund managers, investment advisors and other members of the vested interest.

Many say we need more regulations. I say we have the regulations that we desire. This is true because through our collective actions we drive corporate investment decisions. If we did not want corporations to spend scarce investment dollars to employ the more than 45,000 lobbyists in Washington who water down and fight against regulation, the corporations would find other places to invest. If instead we used our purchasing power and shareholder votes to direct investment elsewhere, there it would flow.

The Icelandic version of Microsoft Windows mentioned in [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Digital Borders] proves the point. On the other hand our abdication of this power as Digital Borders expresses results in the fact that the, “[http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 technologies of control in China are essentially the same technologies designed to satisfy consumer demand for geographically tailored Internet products.]” Due in part to our marketplace behaviors, oppressors are given the tools they so effectively use as an unintended consequence of our desire for applications to tell us how many of our friends are in close proximity who might be interested in a game of beer pong.

Chasing our dollars and with our benign assent, corporations have followed the instruction we have given them. Let’s stop blaming “them;” for we are them and start taking responsibility for the results of our actions. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 00:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Enjoyed watching the BBC anniversay documentary on Wikipedia. As businesses start to utilize this media, I wonder how the controls put in place by Wikipedia for neutral content can possibly be effective. I compared an entry for the holding company for which the company where I am employed is a subsidiary and compared it to one of our competitors. The difference was substantial. The competitor's had a distinct advertising (promotion) flavor along with company's graphics on the right hand border of the page. My company's was a four sentence historical overview providing little relevant information to any potential customer or employee. After checking with our PR Department, I was told no one in the company had written the posting. They assume it was done by a third party contributor. Just by comparing these two companies, the lack of uniformity is readily apparent.--[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 20:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC) sjennings

User talk:Sjennings

2011-01-31T20:51:03Z

Sjennings: Wikipedia corporate posings

Enjoyed watching the BBC anniversay documentary on Wikipedia. As businesses start to utilize this media, I wonder how the controls put in place by Wikipedia for neutral content can possibly be effective. I compared an entry for the holding company for which the company where I am employed is a subsidiary and compared it to one of our competitors. The difference was substantial. The competitor's had a distinct advertising (promotion) flavor along with company's graphics on the right hand border of the page. My company's was a four sentence historical overview providing little relevant information to any potential customer or employee. After checking with our PR Department, I was told no one in the company had written the posting. They assume it was done by a third party contributor. Just by comparing these two companies, the lack of uniformity is readily apparent.--[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 20:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2011-01-25T16:03:01Z

Sjennings: /* Class Discussion */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''January 25'''

The Net has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. Is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about easier access to pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change, and cyber-terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

== Preparation (Assignment "Zero") ==

Part I

To frame the issues we will be talking about in this class and to get the discussion going, we'll start with the recent controversy involving [http://wikileaks.ch Wikileaks]. Take some time to read through the articles below. Come to class prepared to answer the following questions and to pose some questions of your own.

* What is Wikileaks? Is it a journalism organization? A terrorist organization? A criminal syndicate?
* Do we need an organization like Wikileaks?
* What kind of arguments would you make to support your position one way or the other?
* What was the U.S.'s (and the world's) response to Wikileaks' disclosure of diplomatic cables?
* What are the legal and/or free speech implications involved in the decision by Amazon to stop hosting the Wikileaks site?
* What do you think the debate concerning Wikileaks shows about the nature of the Internet?

Part II

* What are the most significant changes associated with the spread of digital technologies?
In a few sentences, please offer 2-3 examples in the Class Discussion section below.

== Readings ==
* [http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/26875/ MIT Technology Review: Everything You Need to Know About Wikileaks]
* [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703785704575643431883607708.html# Wall Street Journal: To Publish Leaks Or Not to Publish?]
* [http://www.salon.com/technology/dan_gillmor/2010/12/03/the_net_s_soft_underbelly/index.html Salon: Online, the censors are scoring big wins]
* [http://gigaom.com/2010/12/04/like-it-or-not-wikileaks-is-a-media-entity/ GigaOm: Like It or Not, WikiLeaks is a Media Entity]
* [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks Guardian: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice]

== Optional Readings ==
* [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/amazon-and-wikileaks-first-amendment-only-strong EFF: Amazon and WikiLeaks - Online Speech is Only as Strong as the Weakest Intermediary]
* [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/shield/ Wired: Lieberman Introduces Anti-WikiLeaks Legislation]
* [http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/30/wikileaks Salon: WikiLeaks reveals more than just government secrets]
* [http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/12/wikileaks-and-the-long-haul/ Clay Shirky: Wikileaks and the Long Haul]
* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/julius-baer-bank-and-trust-v-wikileaks Citizen Media Law Project: Julius Baer Bank and Trust v. Wikileaks]
* [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2010/12/08/radio-berkman-171/ MediaBerkman: Wikileaks and the Information Wars]
* Coverage of the cables themselves by the NYT [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/statessecrets.html/], Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables], Der Spiegel [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables]

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==
''The most significant changes and challenges brought on by digital technologies.''

- Your ideas here...

Digital technology not only changes how we get information, but how we relate as individuals, how companies do business and communicate with customers, employees, and investors, and how citizens relate and interact with their governments. Other have commented on privacy and censorship concerns, but the effect on business and the challenges a business faces with this communication and information boom has left many corporations scrambling. If incorrect information is disseminated on the web, a business is not as free as an individual to respond (if it can even do so quickly enough). Outdated government regulation enacted before the digital world was created can work to restrict how a company responds or has dialogue with the misinformed disseminators.

“Today we can influence each other more easily than ever before because our media is digital, it can reach anything that has a screen. And nearly anything with a screen can also be published from — we have a two way media.” [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/foremski/will-a-fragmented-media-lead-to-a-flowering-of-culture/971]

In thinking about the Internet as a medium, I believe the most profound changes derived from the shift to digital media is the introduction of a communication stream that is now (1) highly fragmented, (2) immediate, and (3) conversational in nature.

# We’ve evolved from a finite and more easy to regulate roster of tens/hundreds of traditional news media sources, to billions of websites. Today, the average citizen has a public voice, forcing us to challenge our notions of what is considered “journalism.” There are both opportunities (i.e., innovative thought and talent can emerge) and challenges (i.e., inundation, how to regulate, varied levels of credibility, etc.) inherent in this kind of landscape.
# Additionally, the pace of media consumption has become extremely rapid. We’ve become a culture that is accustomed to the instant accessibility of information.
# Finally, media is now social. The concept of “wiki”-based information sources means that we can interact with the information we consume, and the viral nature of the Internet lends to an ease of content ‘shareability’. Media communication is no longer a one-way stream. -- [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 15:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think one of the most significant challenges we face moving forward with regard to digital technology is the security. Not just private citizens but governments and corporations around the world are becoming more heavily dependent on it. Consequences of any major digital disaster (i.e. caused by cyber-terrorism or any unexpected failure) could be severe to an unimaginable level as the digital world gets more complex and interdependent within. --[[User:Edwardshinp|Edwardshinp]] 13:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the most significant challenges is defining what constitutes privacy of users. Facebook continually redefines the concept of what information is private for its users. As we get more social and increases in attempts by online organizations to bring a more personal experience to the user, this will continue to be a challenge. --[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 03:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As dreed07 said, I think the same. PRIVACY. I would say lack of privacy. --[[User:Trojsy|-Trojsy]] )07:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

* [http://www.google.org/flutrends/ Google Flu Trends]

Google has stuck into out lives quite firmly. I mean, than Google predict something better than government entities (CDC) just by running an algorithm and analyzing few searches... On some level that is the best example of how dependent on the Internet we became. I am not saying that's a bad thing, people before me told the same thing about electricity. Times are changing and that is a progress none the less. But shouldn't we be a little more careful, stop for a second and have a look on what we were actually doing for the last 20 years? Can the Internet be our own Frankenstein monster? :) --[[User:Jastify|Jastify]] 00:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

''Please use this space for comments/discussion you would like to share with the rest of the class.''

* [http://pressthink.org/2010/07/the-afghanistan-war-logs-released-by-wikileaks-the-worlds-first-stateless-news-organization/ The World's First Stateless News Organization]
* [http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-own-wikileaks-takes-off/429370.html Russia's Own WikiLeaks Takes Off]
The idea of "Stateless News Organizations" seems to be getting around... In my country though it's a little less sophisticated... --[[User:Jastify|Jastify]] 15:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, Rosen’s prediction of the public’s reaction to the release of the Afghanistan War logs was spot on. These logs, in my opinion, did not receive enough attention or create the amount of outrage they deserved. Because they exposed a distasteful problem, an uncomfortable public chose to turn a blind eye. --[[User:Jedmonds|Jedmonds]] 20:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

--------

“Is Wikileaks a journalism organization? A terrorist organization? A criminal syndicate?” IMO Wikileaks is none of the above. What Wikileaks can be described as is one of several recent examples of the ways in which communications technologies are fundamentally changing the nature of life on the planet. It’s part of an incomplete definition that will be building in complexity for some time into the future.

We live in an environment today in which the sum total of human experience virtually floats in the air around us. Need directions, google it. Want to see what it will look like when you turn the corner at the next intersection, click to a 360 degree view. Wish to know what historical figure may have lived in that ancient building by the park, if there isn’t today, sometime in the near future there will be a website, wiki, webcam, historical archive, building plans, public utility schematics, images of deeds, mortgage documents, tax information, holographic immersive experiences …

Piece by piece we are collectively constructing a virtual copy of the world. More than a copy, it contains layers from this moment stretching into the past and other contextual information impossible to obtain a mere few years ago.

I worry when it is said that Assange is not "about letting sunlight into the room so much as about throwing grit in the machine." [http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/26875/?a=f]. With that kind of philosophy it seems the opportunity to cause harm is far greater than that for good.

If on the other hand Wikileaks becomes or spawns places of free and open communications where transparency reigns and people of conviction can become free to disclose information that brings light into what today are dark crevices, we’ll all be better off. If not, we need to worry.

We need also worry about as Brandon Palmen says, “an incomplete and skewed portrayal of fact.” [http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2010/12/05/truth-is-not-enough/] Actions that result from reliance on the incomplete picture will have unintended consequences. This is true whether a skewed view is intentional or as a function of where we are with respect to construction of the new virtual copy of our world.

Do we need an organization like Wikileaks? The truth is that there will soon be many versions of Wikileaks with many different degrees of completeness ranging along a spectrum from purely altruistic to undeniably evil. It will be up to the individual and the establishment to decide on which version of reality we each choose to believe and act upon. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 02:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I would contribute to what my classmates have alredy said about “Is Wikileaks a journalism organization? A terrorist organization? A criminal syndicate?”.

I am sure there are number of people who would go for first, second and third option. It depends from which point of view we are looking at wikileaks. Sometimes term whistleblower or some intermediary is enough. I am sure that sometimes it is very questionable and wikileaks might be regarded as a journalist. I am sure that some politicians would also use terms like terrorist or criminal.

Do we need an organization like Wikileaks?
I would answer with the question. Shoul we know about wrongdoing, killing, torture, corruption and tax evasion? Should we know what is really going on like in 'Collateral murder video'?

Those are arguments for wikileaks, however to put one argument why we could be afraid sometimes is following:
“Everybody will be leaking dirt on everybody,” Rassudov [http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-own-wikileaks-takes-off/429370.html]
This is what concerns me a bit. --[[User:Trojsy|-Trojsy]] )07:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wikileaks controversy is one of many examples how much the Internet has changed the entire world. I am sure I will develop more ideas about regulating or not regulating what is out there in the Internet as this class progresses, but in terms of Wikileaks, I am still fundamentally puzzled as to how those confidential information has eventually gotten into the hands of Assange or Wikileaks from the first place. My point is if the government wants to protect certain information, it is the government's own responsibility to do so via strict prevention measures. And I suspect that this fundamentally has nothing to do with the control of the Internet or digital media. You can't just blame and impose everything on Wikileaks because it was simply living up to its whole purpose of establishment--exposing certain types of political information to the public as a new digital medium (in this respect, I don't see any difference among Wikileaks, WSJ or NYT). I definitely do think that some of the information released through Wikileaks were inappropriate and damaging to the national security, which ultimately is not in the best interest of the American people. I support the government's non-disclosure of certain information for national interest and safety. One should not assume that government transparency is always desirable and healthy (as Assange does seem to believe so), even in a democratic society. However, imposing anything on Wikileaks, whether constitutionally legal or illegal (i.e. Lieberman's actions), is just not the right way to handle the "mess." Take out the roots of the problem whatever they are--not Wikileaks. --[[User:Edwardshinp|Edwardshinp]] 15:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

== Other Useful Links ==